Comparative Effectiveness of Dosing of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure: From the CHAMP-HF Registry

Is Sacubitril/Valsartan a Superior Agent in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction? A Review of Randomized Comparative Trials

Background: The PARADIGM HF trial showed sacubitril/valsartan (SV) to be superior to enalapril in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since its publication, several other randomized trials have compared SV to either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in HFrEF which showed conflicting results regarding mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life scoring. Objective: To review randomized comparative trials of SV to either ACEI or ARB in patients with HFrEF. Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were used to identify randomized comparative trials. The text terms sacubitril, angiotensin neprilysin, and LCZ696 were used for both searches. Meta-analysis, retrospective, adhoc, and cohort studies were excluded. Results: 1476 and 3983 citations were reviewed on PubMed and Embase, respectively. Of these, 11 randomized comparative trials to either ACEI or ARB were included for analysis. The mortality/quality of life benefits of SV over enalapril in the PARADIGM HF were not corroborated in any of the other trials. The effect of hospitalizations for heart failure was inconsistent among trials. Exercise tolerance was not improved with SV versus enalapril. Conclusion: The results of the PARADIGM HF trial have largely not been confirmed in subsequent randomized comparative trials.

Safety Indicators in Patients Receiving High-intensity Care After Hospital Admission for Acute Heart Failure: The STRONG-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by NT-proBNP Testing, of Heart Failure Therapies (STRONG-HF) demonstrated the safety and efficacy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with high-intensity care (HIC) compared with usual care in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF). In the HIC group, the following safety indicators were used to guide up-titration: estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, serum potassium of >5.0 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure (SBP) of <95 mmHg, heart rate of <55 bpm, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration of >10% higher than predischarge values.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined the impact of protocol-specified safety indicators on achieved dose of GDMT and clinical outcomes. Three hundred thirteen of the 542 patients in the HIC arm (57.7%) met ≥1 safety indicator at any follow-up visit 1-6 weeks after discharge. As compared with those without, patients meeting ≥1 safety indicator had more severe HF symptoms, lower SBP, and higher heart rate at baseline and achieved a lower average percentage of GDMT optimal doses (mean difference vs the HIC arm patients not reaching any safety indicator, -11.0% [95% confidence interval [CI] -13.6 to -8.4%], P < .001). The primary end point of 180-day all-cause death or HF readmission occurred in 15.0% of patients with any safety indicator vs 14.2% of those without (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.48-1.46, P = .540). None of each of the safety indicators, considered alone, was significantly associated with the primary end point, but an SBP of <95 mm Hg was associated with a trend toward increased 180-day all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.68, 95% CI 0.94-7.64, P = .065) and estimated glomerular filtration rate decreased to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 with more HF readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio 3.60, 95% CI 1.22-10.60, P = .0203). The occurrence of a safety indicator was associated with a smaller 90-day improvement in the EURO-QoL 5-Dimension visual analog scale (adjusted mean difference -3.32 points, 95% CI -5.97 to -0.66, P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with acute HF enrolled in STRONG-HF in the HIC arm, the occurrence of any safety indicator was associated with the administration of slightly lower GDMT doses and less improvement in quality of life, but with no significant increase in the primary outcome of 180-day HF readmission or death when appropriately addressed according to the study protocol.

Effect of Heart Failure Pharmacotherapies in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

OBJECTIVE

The study sought to comprehensively investigate the effect of heart failure (HF) pharmacotherapies in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

BACKGROUND

In the absence of randomized controlled trials, guideline recommendations concerning HF-related therapies in patients with HFmrEF are limited.

METHODS

Consecutive patients hospitalized with HFmrEF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. The prognostic value of treatment with beta-blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, receptor blockers or receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ACEi/ARB/ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) was investigated for all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up) and HF-related rehospitalization.

RESULTS

2,109 patients with HFmrEF were included. Treatment with BB (27.0% vs. 35%; HR = 0.737; 95% CI 0.617-0.881; p = 0.001), ACEi/ARB/ARNI (25.9% vs. 37.6%; HR = 0.612; 95% CI 0.517-0.725; p = 0.001) and SGLT2i (11.9% vs. 29.5%; HR = 0.441; 95% CI 0.236-0.824; p = 0.010) was associated with lower risk of 30-months all-cause mortality, which was still demonstrated after multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching. In contrast, MRA treatment was not associated with long-term prognosis. The risk of HF-related rehospitalization was not affected by HF pharmacotherapies. Finally, the lowest risk of long-term all-cause mortality was observed in patients with combined use of BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and SGLT2i (HR = 0.456; 95% CI 0.227-0.916; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and SGLT2i were independently associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HFmrEF, specifically when applied as combined "HF triple therapy". Randomized studies are needed to investigate the effect of HF-related pharmacotherapies in patients with HFmrEF.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF

BACKGROUND

The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups.

METHODS

We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score.

RESULTS

Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Guideline-directed medical therapy in severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An analysis from the HELP-HF registry

AIM

Persistent symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and poor tolerance of GDMT are hallmarks of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, real-world data on GDMT use, dose, and prognostic implications are lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 699 consecutive patients with HFrEF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF enrolled in a multicentre registry. Beta-blockers (BB) were administered to 574 (82%) patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ACEi/ARB/ARNI) were administered to 381 (55%) patients and 416 (60%) received mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA). Overall, ≥50% of target doses were reached in 41%, 22%, and 56% of the patients on BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively. Hypotension, bradycardia, kidney dysfunction and hyperkalaemia were the main causes of underprescription and/or underdosing, but up to a half of the patients did not receive target doses for unknown causes (51%, 41%, and 55% for BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively). The proportions of patients receiving BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were lower among those fulfilling the 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were associated with a lower risk of death or HF hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.84, and HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, real-world, contemporary cohort of patients with severe HFrEF, with at least one marker for advanced HF, prescription and uptitration of GDMT remained limited. A significant proportion of patients were undertreated due to unknown reasons suggesting a potential role of clinical inertia either by the prescribing healthcare professional or by the patient. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI was associated with lower mortality/morbidity.

Prognostic significance of medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

The use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) among patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains suboptimal. The SMYRNA study aims to identify the clinical factors for the non-use of GDMT and to determine the prognostic significance of GDMT in patients with HFrEF in a real-life setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SMYRNA study is a prospective, multicentre, and observational study that included outpatients with HFrEF. Patients were divided into three groups according to the status of GDMT at the time of enrolment: (i) patients receiving all classes of HF medications including renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs); (ii) patients receiving any two classes of HF medications (RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers, or RAS inhibitors and MRAs, or beta-blockers and MRAs); and (iii) either patients receiving class of HF medications (only one therapy) or patients not receiving any class of HF medications. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. The study population consisted of 1062 patients with HFrEF, predominantly men (69.1%), with a median age of 68 (range: 20-96) years. RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs were prescribed in 76.0%, 89.4%, and 55.1% of the patients, respectively. The proportions of patients receiving target doses of guideline-directed medications were 24.4% for RAS inhibitors, 11.0% for beta-blockers, and 11.1% for MRAs. Overall, 491 patients (46.2%) were treated with triple therapy, 353 patients (33.2%) were treated with any two classes of HF medications, and 218 patients (20.6%) were receiving only one class of HF medication or not receiving any HF medication. Patient-related factors comprising older age, New York Heart Association functional class, rural living, presence of hypertension, and history of myocardial infarction were independently associated with the use or non-use of GDMT. During the median 24-month period, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 362 patients (34.1%), and 177 of 1062 (16.7%) patients died. Patients treated with two or three classes of HF medications had a decreased risk of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death compared with those patients receiving ≤1 class of HF medication [hazard ratio (HR): 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.85; P = 0.002, and HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47-0.79; P < 0.001, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

The real-life SMYRNA study provided comprehensive data about the clinical factors associated with the non-use of GDMT and showed that suboptimal GDMT is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF.

Relationship between BMI and prognosis of chronic heart failure outpatients in Vietnam: a single-center study

Background

Insufficient data exists regarding the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and the prognosis of chronic heart failure (CHF) specifically within low- and middle-income Asian countries. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of BMI on adverse outcomes of ambulatory patients with CHF in Vietnam.

Methods

Between 2018 and 2020, we prospectively enrolled consecutive outpatients with clinically stable CHF in an observational cohort, single-center study. The participants were stratified according to Asian-specific BMI thresholds. The relationships between BMI and adverse outcomes (all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional-hazards model.

Results

Among 320 participants (age 63.5 ± 13.3 years, 57.9% male), the median BMI was 21.4 kg/m2 (IQR 19.5-23.6), and 10.9% were underweight (BMI <18.50 kg/m2). Over a median follow-up time of 32 months, the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality and hospitalization were 5.6% and 19.1%, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, underweight patients had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality than patients with normal BMI (adjusted hazard ratios = 3.03 [95% CI: 1.07-8.55]). Lower BMI remained significantly associated with a worse prognosis when analyzed as a continuous variable (adjusted hazard ratios = 1.27 [95% CI: 1.03-1.55] per 1 kg/m2 decrease for all-cause mortality). However, BMI was not found to be significantly associated with the risk of all-cause hospitalization (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

In ambulatory patients with CHF in Vietnam, lower BMI, especially underweight status (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality. These findings suggest that BMI should be considered for use in risk classification, and underweight patients should be managed by a team consisting of cardiologists, nutritionists, and geriatricians.

Optimization of GDMT for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: can physiological and biological barriers explain the gaps in adherence to heart failure guidelines?

Heart failure is a growing epidemic with high mortality rates and recurrent hospital admissions that creates a burden on affected individuals, their caregivers and the whole healthcare system. Throughout the years, many randomized trials have established the effectiveness of several pharmacological therapies and electrophysiological devices to reduce hospitalizations and improve quality of life and survival, mostly for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These studies led to the publication of national societies' recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of HFrEF. Yet, many reports have shown significant care gaps in adherence to these recommendations in clinical practice, highlighting suboptimal use and/or dosing of evidence-based therapies. Adherence to guidelines has been shown to be associated with the best prognosis in HFrEF, with patients presenting with intolerances or contraindications having the highest risk of events; however, it remains unclear whether this association is causal or merely a marker of more advanced disease. Furthermore, individual characteristics may limit the possibility of reaching the targeted dosage of specific agents. Herein, we provide a comprehensive overview of clinicians' adherence to heart failure guidelines in a specialized real-life setting, particularly regarding use and optimization of guideline-derived medical therapies, as well as the implementation of more recent agents such as sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors. We seek potential explanations for suboptimal treatment and its impact on patient outcomes.

Prevalence of heart failure phenotypes and current use of therapies in primary care: results from a nationwide study

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is an increasing concern worldwide. A rising HF burden is expected due to the prospected future demographic changes with aging populations. Consequently, the long-term follow-up and treatment will be performed increasingly by primary care physicians in the future. Contemporary data on HF patients in primary care are needed to plan and ensure an effective and safe follow-up of future patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The electronic patient journals of 148 primary care clinics in Denmark were searched in a standardized manner to identify patients with HF [code K77 of the International Classification of Primary Care, Second Edition]. Prespecified variables including demographic information, clinical variables, co-morbidities, prescribed medications, and setting of follow-up were recorded. In total, 1111 patients were included in the study. The mean timepoint for the HF diagnosis was August 2018. In 95% of cases, the diagnosis of HF was made in a specialized setting. The echocardiogram data used for phenotyping were available in 1042 (94%) of the 1111 patients. HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was present in 43%, recovered HFrEF in 31%, and HF with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in 26%. In patients with HFrEF or recovered HFrEF, fundamental treatments were prescribed in 86% for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in 82% for beta-blocker, in 38% for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and in 12% for sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i). Older patients were treated to a significantly lesser extent than young patients for all drug classes [odds ratio (OR) point estimates 0.50 to 0.69, all P-values < 0.05]. In patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF, an ACEI, ARB, or ARNI was prescribed in 67%, beta-blocker in 67%, MRA in 22%, and SGLT2i in 7.4% with significantly lower probability of treatment compared to patients with HFrEF or recovered HFrEF [OR point estimates 0.33 to 0.57, all P-values < 0.05]. The setting of follow-up was available in 96% of patients. Irrespective of HF phenotype, follow-up was performed solely in primary care in 64%. These patients were generally treated to a lesser extent with HF therapies compared with patients where follow-up included specialized care, yet differences were generally small.

CONCLUSIONS

HFrEF is the most common phenotype of HF in primary care followed by recovered HFrEF and fundamental therapies are markedly underutilized. Initiatives to increase the use of recommended therapies are needed to improve the future care of patients with HF.

A Computable Algorithm for Medication Optimization in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization can improve outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to determine if a novel computable algorithm appropriately recommended GDMT.

Methods

Clinical trial data from the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) and HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training) trials were evaluated with a computable medication optimization algorithm that outputs GDMT recommendations and a medication optimization score (MOS). Algorithm-based recommendations were compared to medication changes. A Cox proportional-hazards model was used to estimate the associations between MOS and the composite primary end point for both trials.

Results

The algorithm recommended initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 52.8%, 34.9%, and 68.1% of GUIDE-IT visits, respectively, when not prescribed the drug. Initiation only occurred in 20.8%, 56.9%, and 15.8% of subsequent visits. The algorithm also identified dose titration in 48.8% of visits for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers and 39.4% of visits for beta-blockers. Those increases only occurred in 24.3% and 36.8% of subsequent visits. A higher baseline MOS was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.21-0.80; P = 0.009) in GUIDE-IT and all-cause death and hospitalization (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44-0.84; P = 0.003) in HF-ACTION.

Conclusions

The algorithm accurately identified patients for GDMT optimization. Even in a clinical trial with robust protocols, GDMT could have been further optimized in a meaningful number of visits. The algorithm-generated MOS was associated with a lower risk of clinical outcomes. Implementation into clinical care may identify and address suboptimal GDMT in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Heart failure treatment in patients with and without obesity with an ejection fraction below 50

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess heart failure (HF) treatment in patients with and without obesity in a large contemporary real-world Western European cohort.

METHODS

Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% and available information on body mass index (BMI) were selected from the CHECK-HF registry. The CHECK-HF registry included chronic HF patients in the period between 2013 and 2016 in 34 Dutch outpatient clinics. Patients were divided into BMI categories. Differences in HF medical treatment were analysed, and multivariable logistic regression analysis (dichotomized as BMI <30 kg/m² and ≥30 kg/m² ) was performed.

RESULTS

Seven thousand six hundred seventy-one patients were included, 1284 (16.7%) had a BMI ≥30 kg/m² , and 618 (8.1%) had a BMI ≥35 kg/m² . Median BMI was 26.4 kg/m² . Patients with obesity were younger and had a higher rate of comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSAS). Prescription rates of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) increased significantly with BMI. The differences were most pronounced for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and diuretics. Patients with obesity more often received the guideline-recommended target dose. In multivariable logistic regression, obesity was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of receiving ≥100% of the guideline-recommended target dose of beta-blockers (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.62), renin-angiotensin system (RAS)-inhibitors (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.15-1.57) and MRAs (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline-recommended HF drugs are more frequently prescribed and at a higher dose in patients with obesity as compared to HF patients without obesity.

Outcomes after implementing a heart failure diuretic pathway in an emergency department setting

BACKGROUND

Among patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF), national and international loop diuretic therapy recommendations may not be followed in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVES

To examine if loop diuretic treatment and patient disposition from the ED differed after implementing a clinical pathway based on national HF guidelines.

METHODS

Using an observational, pre- and post-intervention design, after clinical pathway implementation, loop diuretic medications and clinical outcomes were retrieved from medical records. Analyses included Pearson's Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, 2-sample T-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS

Of 182 pre- and 122 post-intervention patients, mean (SD) patient age was 67.9 (13.4) years and 44.2% were Caucasian. There were no between-group differences in pre-ED visit loop diuretic prescription or dosages. More post-intervention ED patients received at least one dose of loop diuretic (94.3% vs. 81.9%, p = 0.010); however, the overall dose (mg) across groups was lower than the home dose and was not based on national guideline expectations. Doses from home to ED decreased less in the post-intervention group for patients who received doses at both time points and for all patients: p = 0.047 and p = 0.048, respectively. There was no between-group differences in short-stay unit (SSU) admissions, p = 0.33. Post-intervention patients were hospitalized from the ED (p = 0.050) and SSU (p = 0.005) less often than pre-intervention patients. Discharge to home from the ED or SSU increased in the post-intervention period; 16.4% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.009.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ED patients treated for HF, diuretic dosing was non-optimized. New interventions are needed to enhance adherence to national guidelines.

Optimization of pharmacotherapies for ambulatory patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction is associated with improved outcomes

BACKGROUND

In heart failure, specific target doses for each drug are recommended, but some patients receive suboptimal dosing, others are undertreated or remain chronically in a titration phase, despite having no apparent contraindication or intolerance. We assessed the association of different levels of adherence to guidelines with outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

Medical records of patients with HFrEF followed at our heart failure (HF) clinic for at least 6 months (n = 511) were reviewed and patients categorized as: 1) optimized (25.4%); 2) in-titration (29.0%); 3) undertreated (32.7%); and 4) intolerant/contraindicated (12.9%). Risk of mortality or HF events (hospitalization, emergency visit or ambulatory administration of intravenous diuretics) within one year was assessed using Cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Compared to optimized patients, those intolerant (HR: 4.60 [95%CI: 2.23-9.48]; p < 0.0001) had the highest risk of outcomes, followed by those undertreated (3.45 [1.78-6.67]; p = 0.0002) and in-titration (1.99 [0.97-4.06]; p = 0.0588). Overall predictors of outcomes included loop diuretics' use (4.54 [2.39-8.60]), undertreatment (2.38 [1.22-4.67]), intolerance/ contraindication to triple therapy (3.08 [1.47-6.42]), peripheral vascular disease (2.13 [1.29-3.50]) and NYHA class III-IV (1.89 [1.25-2.85]); all p < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Level of adherence to guidelines is associated with outcomes, with intolerant/contraindicated patients having the worst prognosis and those undertreated and in-titration at intermediate risk compared to those optimized. Up-titration of therapy should be attempted whenever possible, considering patients' limitations, to potentially improve outcomes.

Guideline-directed medical therapy in patients undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for secondary mitral regurgitation

AIMS

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), based on the combination of beta-blockers (BB), renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASI), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), is known to have a major impact on the outcome of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Although GDMT is recommended prior to mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER), not all patients tolerate it. We studied the association of GDMT prescription with survival in HFrEF patients undergoing M-TEER for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

EuroSMR, a European multicentre registry, included SMR patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <50%. The outcome was 2-year all-cause mortality. Of 1344 patients, BB, RASI, and MRA were prescribed in 1169 (87%), 1012 (75%), and 765 (57%) patients at the time of M-TEER, respectively. Triple GDMT prescription was associated with a lower 2-year all-cause mortality compared to non-triple GDMT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.91). The association persisted in patients with glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min, ischaemic aetiology, or right ventricular dysfunction. Further, a positive impact of triple GDMT prescription on survival was observed in patients with residual mitral regurgitation of ≥2+ (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44-0.86), but not in patients with residual mitral regurgitation of ≤1+ (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.64-1.08).

CONCLUSION

Triple GDMT prescription is associated with higher 2-year survival after M-TEER in HFrEF patients with SMR. This association was consistent also in patients with major comorbidities or non-optimal results after M-TEER.