Natriuretic peptide plasma concentrations and risk of cardiovascular versus non-cardiovascular events in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Insights from the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials

Predicting stroke in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction without atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are at significant risk of stroke. Anticoagulation reduces this risk in patients with and without atrial fibrillation (AF), but the risk-to-benefit balance in the latter group, overall, is not favourable. Identification of patients with HFrEF, without AF, at the highest risk of stroke may allow targeted and safer use of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a pooled patient-level cohort of the PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE, and DAPA-HF trials, a previously derived simple risk model for stroke, consisting of three variables (history of prior stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level), was validated. Of the 20 159 patients included, 12 751 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 346 (2.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow up of 2.0 years (rate 11.7 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: fourth quintile hazard ratio (HR) 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-3.45]; fifth quintile HR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58-5.38), with the first quintile as reference. For patients in the top quintile, the rate of stroke was 21.2 per 1000 patient-years, similar to participants with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.1 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C-index of 0.84 (0.75-0.91).

CONCLUSION

It is possible to identify a subset of HFrEF patients without AF with a stroke-risk equivalent to that of patients with AF who are not anticoagulated. In these patients, the risk-to-benefit balance might justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be tested prospectively.

Increasing home-time after a first diagnosis of heart failure in Sweden, 20 years trends

AIMS

This study was performed to compare trends in home-time for patients with heart failure (HF) between those of working age and those of retirement age in Sweden from 1992 to 2012.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The National Inpatient Register (IPR) was used to identify all patients aged 18 to 84 years with a first hospitalization for HF in Sweden from 1992 to 2012. Information on date of death, comorbidities, and sociodemographic factors were collected from the Swedish National Register on Cause of Death, the IPR, and the longitudinal integration database for health insurance and labour market studies, respectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to their age: working age (<65 years) and retirement age (≥65 years). Follow-up was 4 years. In total, following exclusions, 388 775 patients aged 18 to 84 years who were alive 1 day after discharge from a first hospitalization for HF were included in the study. The working age group comprised 62 428 (16%) patients with a median age of 58 (interquartile range, 53-62) years and 31.2% women, and the retirement age group comprised 326 347 (84%) patients with a median age of 77 (interquartile range, 73-81) years and 47.4% women. Patients of working age had more home-time than patients of retirement age (83.8% vs. 68.2%, respectively), mainly because of their lower 4 year mortality rate (14.2% vs. 29.7%, respectively). Home-time increased over the study period for both age groups, but the increase levelled off for older women after 2007, most likely because of less reduction in mortality in older women than in the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide study showed increasing home-time over the study period except for women of retirement age and older for whom the increase stalled after 2007, mainly because of a lower mortality reduction in this group. Efforts to improve patient-related outcome measures specifically targeted to this group may be warranted.

NT-proBNP as a marker for atrial fibrillation and heart failure in four observational outpatient trials

Aims

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist and are both associated with increased levels of N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP). It is known that AF impairs the diagnostic accuracy of NT‐proBNP for HF. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic and predictive accuracy of NT‐proBNP for HF and AF in stable outpatients with cardiovascular risk factors.

Methods and results

Data were obtained from the DIAST‐CHF trial, a prospective cohort study that recruited individuals with cardiovascular risk factors and followed them up for 12 years. Data were validated in three independent population‐based cohorts using the same inclusion/exclusion criteria: LIFE‐Adult (n = 2869), SHIP (n = 2013), and SHIP‐TREND (n = 2408). Serum levels of NT‐proBNP were taken once at baseline. The DIAST‐CHF study enrolled 1727 study participants (47.7% female, mean age 66.9 ± 8.1 years). At baseline, patients without AF or HF (n = 1375) had a median NT‐proBNP of 94 pg/mL (interquartile range 51;181). In patients with AF (n = 93), NT‐proBNP amounted to 667 (215;1130) pg/mL. It was significantly higher than in the first group (P < 0.001) and compared with those with only HF [n = 201; 158 (66;363) pg/mL; P < 0.001]. The highest levels of NT‐proBNP [868 (213;1397) pg/mL] were measured in patients with concomitant HF and AF (n = 58; P < 0.001 vs. control and vs. HF, P = 1.0 vs. AF). In patients with AF, NT‐proBNP levels did not differ between those with HF and preserved ejection fraction (EF) > 50% [n = 38; 603 (175;1070) pg/mL] and those without HF (P = 1.0). Receiver‐operating characteristic curves of NT‐proBNP showed a similar area under the curve (AUC) for the detection of AF at baseline (0.84, 95% CI [0.79–0.88]) and for HF with EF < 50% (0.78 [0.72–0.85]; P = 0.18). The AUC for HF with EF > 50% was significantly lower (0.61 [0.56–0.65]) than for AF (P = 0.001). During follow‐up, AF was newly diagnosed in 157 (9.1%) and HF in 141 (9.6%) study participants. NT‐proBNP was a better predictor of incident AF during the first 2 years (AUC: 0.79 [0.75–0.83]) than of newly diagnosed HF (0.59 [0.55–0.63]; P < 0.001). Data were validated in three independent population‐based cohorts (LIFE‐Adult, n = 2869; SHIP, n = 2013; and SHIP‐TREND, n = 2408).

Conclusions

In stable outpatients, NT‐proBNP is a better marker for prevalent and incident AF than for HF. In AF patients, the diagnostic value of NT‐proBNP for HF with EF > 50% is very limited.