Time to Triple Therapy in Patients With de Novo Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: a Population-Based Study

Iron Deficiency, Anemia, and Iron Supplementation in Patients With Heart Failure: A Population-Level Study

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown an association between iron deficiency (ID) and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), irrespective of the presence of ID anemia (IDA). The current study used population-level data from a large, single-payer health care system in Canada to investigate the epidemiology of ID and IDA in patients with acute HF and those with chronic HF, and the iron supplementation practices in these settings.

METHODS

All adult patients with HF in Alberta between 2012 and 2019 were identified and categorized as acute or chronic HF. HF subtypes were determined through echocardiography data, and ID (serum ferritin concentration <100 μg/L, or ferritin concentration between 100 and 300 μg/L along with transferrin saturation <20%), and IDA through laboratory data. Broad eligibility for 3 clinical trials (AFFIRM-AHF [Study to Compare Ferric Carboxymaltose With Placebo in Patients With Acute HF and ID], IRONMAN [Intravenous Iron Treatment in Patients With Heart Failure and Iron Deficiency], and HEART-FID [Randomized Placebocontrolled Trial of Ferric Carboxymaltose as Treatment for HF With ID]) was determined.

RESULTS

Among the 17 463 patients with acute HF, 38.5% had iron studies tested within 30 days post-index-HF episode (and 34.2% of the 11 320 patients with chronic HF). Among tested patients, 72.6% of the acute HF and 73.9% of the chronic HF were iron-deficient, and 51.4% and 49.0% had IDA, respectively. Iron therapy was provided to 41.8% and 40.5% of patients with IDA and acute or chronic HF, respectively. Of ID patients without anemia, 19.9% and 21.7% were prescribed iron therapy. The most common type of iron therapy was oral (28.1% of patients). Approximately half of the cohort was eligible for each of the AFFIRM-AHF, intravenous iron treatment in patients with HF and ID, and HEART-FID trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Current practices for investigating and treating ID in patients with HF do not align with existing guideline recommendations. Considering the gap in care, innovative strategies to optimize iron therapy in patients with HF are required.

Outcomes with guideline-directed medical therapy and cardiac implantable electronic device therapies for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Background

Limited real-world evidence exists for outcomes with contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%.

Objective

The present study aimed to assess survival associated with GDMT or GDMT with ICD/CRT-D therapy.

Methods

This retrospective observational study included real-world de-identified data from January 1, 2016, to December 19, 2023, from 24 U.S. institutions per participating institutional agreements (egnite Database; egnite, Inc.). Patients with a diagnosis of HFrEF and an echocardiographic study documenting LVEF ≤35% were included for analysis.

Results

Of 43,591 patients with eligible index event of LVEF ≤35%, prescription history through ≥1 year preindex, and no ICD/CRT-D therapy preindex, mean ± standard deviation age at index was 71.2 ± 13.2 years; 14,805 (34.0%) patients were female. At 24 months, an estimated 99.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 99.0%-99.2%), 89.9% (95% CI 89.7%-90.1%), 54.8% (95% CI 54.4%-55.2%), and 17.2% (95% CI 16.9%-17.5%), had ≥1, 2, 3, or all 4 GDMT classes prescribed, respectively; an estimated 15.7% (95% CI 15.3%-16.1%) had device placement. Of those without a device, by 24 months, an estimated 45.1% (95% CI 44.4%-45.7%) had a documented LVEF >35%. Counts of GDMT classes prescribed as well as ICD/CRT-D device therapy were associated with lower mortality risk in this population, even after adjustment for patient age, sex, and comorbidities.

Conclusion

Both GDMT classes prescribed and device therapy were independently associated with lower mortality risk, even in the presence of more GDMT options for this more contemporary population.

Heart failure with improved ejection fraction: Beyond diagnosis to trajectory analysis

Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction represents a highly treatable cause of heart failure (HF). A substantial proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF;HFrEF) demonstrate improvement in LV systolic function (termed HF with improved EF [HFimpEF]), either spontaneously or when treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Although it is a relatively new HF classification, HFimpEF has emerged in recent years as an important and distinct clinical entity. Improvement in LVEF leads to decreased rates of mortality and adverse HF-related outcomes compared to patients with sustained LV systolic dysfunction (HFrEF). While numerous clinical and imaging factors have been associated with HFimpEF, identification of which patients do and do not improve requires further investigation. In addition, patients improve at different rates, and what determines the trajectory of HFimpEF patients after improvement is incompletely characterized. A proportion of patients maintain improvement in LV systolic function, while others experience a recrudescence of systolic dysfunction, especially with GDMT discontinuation. In this review we discuss the contemporary guideline-recommended classification definition of HFimpEF, the epidemiology of improvement in LV systolic function, and the clinical course of this unique patient population. We also offer evidence-based recommendations for the clinical management of HFimpEF and provide a roadmap for future directions in understanding and improving outcomes in the care of patients with HFimpEF.