Clinical profiles and outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an efficacy and safety analysis of SHIFT study

International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024

The "International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024" updates and replaces the "Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2006" and the "2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: A 10-year Update." The document aims to provide tools to help integrate the numerous variables involved in evaluating patients for transplantation, emphasizing updating the collaborative treatment while waiting for a transplant. There have been significant practice-changing developments in the care of heart transplant recipients since the publication of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines in 2006 and the 10-year update in 2016. The changes pertain to 3 aspects of heart transplantation: (1) patient selection criteria, (2) care of selected patient populations, and (3) durable mechanical support. To address these issues, 3 task forces were assembled. Each task force was cochaired by a pediatric heart transplant physician with the specific mandate to highlight issues unique to the pediatric heart transplant population and ensure their adequate representation. This guideline was harmonized with other ISHLT guidelines published through November 2023. The 2024 ISHLT guidelines for the evaluation and care of cardiac transplant candidates provide recommendations based on contemporary scientific evidence and patient management flow diagrams. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association modular knowledge chunk format has been implemented, allowing guideline information to be grouped into discrete packages (or modules) of information on a disease-specific topic or management issue. Aiming to improve the quality of care for heart transplant candidates, the recommendations present an evidence-based approach.

Physiological effects of ivabradine in heart failure and beyond

Ivabradine is a pharmacologic agent that inhibits the funny current responsible for determining heart rate in the sinoatrial node. Ivabradine's clinical potential has been investigated in the context of heart failure since it is associated with reduced myocardial oxygen demand, enhanced diastolic filling, stroke volume, and coronary perfusion time; however, it is yet to demonstrate definitive mortality benefit. Alternative effects of ivabradine include modulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, sympathetic activation, and endothelial function. Here, we review key clinical trials informing the clinical use of ivabradine and explore opportunities for leveraging its potential pleiotropic effects in other diseases, including treatment of hyperadrenergic states and mitigating complications of COVID-19 infection.

Ivabradine in patients with heart failure: a systematic literature review

Background: Heart failure is a chronic disease linked with significant morbidity and mortality, and uncontrolled resting heart rate is a risk factor for adverse outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ivabradine in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception to July 2021 to include studies that reported on efficacy, safety, or PROs of ivabradine in patients with HFrEF. Results: Of 1947 records screened, 51 RCTs and 6 observational studies were identified. Ivabradine on top of background therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in composite outcomes including hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. In addition, observational studies suggested that ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Across all studies, ivabradine use on top of background therapy was associated with greater reductions in heart rate, improved EF, and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) and comparable risk of total adverse events compared to those treated with background therapy alone. Conclusions: Ivabradine on top of background therapy is beneficial for heart rate, hospitalization risk for HF, mortality, EF, and patients' QoL. Moreover, these benefits were achieved with no significant increase in the overall risk of total adverse events.

Optimal Management of Heart Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Clinical Challenges

Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common causes of breathlessness which frequently co-exist; one potentially exacerbating the other. Distinguishing between the two can be challenging due to their similar symptomatology and overlapping risk factors, but a timely and correct diagnosis is potentially lifesaving. Modern treatment for HF can substantially improve symptoms and prognosis for many patients and may have beneficial effects for patients with COPD. Conversely, while many inhaled treatments for COPD can improve symptoms and reduce exacerbations, there is conflicting evidence regarding the safety of some inhaled treatments for COPD in patients with HF. Here we explore the overlap between HF and COPD, examine the effect of one condition on the other, and address the challenges of managing patients with both conditions.

Effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in EMPHASIS-HF and RALES

AIMS

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) individually cause significant morbidity and mortality. Their coexistence is associated with even worse outcomes, partly due to suboptimal heart failure therapy, especially underutilisation of beta-blockers. Our aim was to investigate outcomes in HFrEF patients with and without COPD, and the effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) on outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied the effect of MRA therapy in a post-hoc pooled analysis of 4397 HFrEF patients in the RALES and EMPHASIS-HF trials. The primary endpoint was the composite of heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular death. A total of 625 (14.2%) of the 4397 patients had COPD. Patients with COPD were older, more often male, and smokers, but less frequently treated with a beta-blocker. In patients with COPD, event rates (per 100 person-years) for the primary endpoint and for all-cause mortality were 25.2 (95% confidence interval 22.1-28.7) and 17.2 (14.9-19.9), respectively, compared with 19.9 (18.8-21.1) and 12.8 (12.0-13.7) in participants without COPD. The risks of all-cause hospitalisation and sudden death were also higher in patients with COPD. The benefit of MRA, compared with placebo, was consistent in patients with or without COPD for all outcomes, e.g. hazard ratio for the primary outcome 0.66 (0.50-0.85) for COPD and 0.65 (0.58-0.73) for no COPD (interaction p = 0.93). MRA-induced hyperkalaemia was less frequent in patients with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

In RALES and EMPHASIS-HF, one-in-seven patients with HFrEF had coexisting COPD. HFrEF patients with COPD had worse outcomes than those without. The benefits of MRAs were consistent, regardless of COPD status.

Cardiac biomarkers retain prognostic significance in patients with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

AIMS

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a frequent comorbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). We assessed the influence of COPD on circulating levels and prognostic value of three HF biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT), and soluble suppression of tumorigenesis-2 (sST2).

METHODS

Individual data from patients with chronic HF, known COPD status, NT-proBNP and hs-TnT values (n = 8088) were analysed. A subgroup (n = 3414) had also sST2 values.

RESULTS

Patients had a median age of 66 years (interquartile interval 57-74), 77% were men and 82% had HF with reduced ejection fraction. NT-proBNP, hs-TnT and sST2 were 1207 ng/l (487-2725), 17 ng/l (9-31) and 30 ng/ml (22-44), respectively. Patients with COPD (n = 1249, 15%) had higher NT-proBNP (P = 0.042) and hs-TnT (P < 0.001), but not sST2 (P = 0.165). Over a median 2.0-year follow-up (1.5-2.5), 1717 patients (21%) died, and 1298 (16%) died from cardiovascular causes; 2255 patients (28%) were hospitalized for HF over 1.8 years (0.9-2.1). NT-proBNP, hs-TnT and sST2 predicted the three end points regardless of COPD status. The best cut-offs from receiver-operating characteristics analysis were higher in patients with COPD than in those without. Patients with all three biomarkers higher than or equal to end-point- and COPD-status-specific cut-offs were also those with the worst prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HF, those with COPD have higher NT-proBNP and hs-TnT, but not sST2. All these biomarkers yield prognostic significance regardless of the COPD status.

Impact of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF

Background Little is known about the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and Results We examined outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. Of 4791 patients, 670 (14%) had COPD. Patients with COPD were more likely to be men (58% versus 47%; P<0.001) and had worse New York Heart Association functional class (class III/IV 24% versus 19%), worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores (69 versus 76; P<0.001) and more frequent history of heart failure hospitalization (54% versus 47%; P<0.001). The decrement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores with COPD was greater than for other common comorbidities. Patients with COPD had echocardiographic right ventricular enlargement, higher serum creatinine (100 μmol/L versus 96 μmol/L) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (2.7 versus 2.5), than those without COPD. After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with worse outcomes: adjusted rate ratio for the primary outcome 1.51 (95% CI, 1.25-1.83), total heart failure hospitalization 1.54 (95% CI, 1.24-1.90), cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.82), and all-cause death (adjusted HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.84). COPD was associated with worse outcomes than other comorbidities and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores declined more in patients with COPD than in those without. Conclusions Approximately 1 in 7 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction had concomitant COPD, which was associated with greater functional limitation and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization and death. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

The association between ivabradine and adverse cardiovascular events in acute decompensated HFrEF patients

AIMS

Ivabradine has been used in patients who have chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant sinus heart rate ≥70 bpm. This administration for acute HFrEF remains a concern. This study used a real-world multicentre database to investigate the effects of ivabradine among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF before discharge.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study retrospectively identified patients with acute decompensated HFrEF who were administered ivabradine at discharge from two multicentre HF databases. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and recurrent HF rehospitalization risks were then compared between those with and without ivabradine treatment. After 1:2 propensity score matching, 876 patients (age, 60.7 ± 14.6 years; female, 23.2%; left ventricular ejection fraction, 28.2% ± 7.8%; and heart rate at discharge, 84.3 ± 13.8 bpm) were included in the final analysis, including 292 and 584 patients with and without ivabradine treatment at discharge, respectively. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. At 1 year follow-up, patients in the ivabradine group had significantly lower heart rates (77.6 ± 14.7 vs. 81.1 ± 16.3 bpm; P = 0.005) and lower HF severity symptoms (New York Heart Association Functional class, 2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9; P < 0.001) than those from the non-ivabradine group. Ivabradine users had significantly lower risks of 1 year cardiovascular mortality (5.8 vs. 12.2 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), all-cause mortality (7.2 vs. 14.0 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), and total HF rehospitalization (42.3 vs. 72.6 per 100-person year; P < 0.001) than non-ivabradine users. Following multivariate analysis, the predischarge prescription of ivabradine remained independently associated with lower 1 year all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.74; P = 0.002) and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.72; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study findings suggest that ivabradine treatment is associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF rehospitalization within 1 year among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF in real-world populations.

The Coexistence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic illness that is widely prevalent within the United States and has been frequently associated with heart failure (HF). COPD is associated with progressive damage and inflammation of the airways leading to airflow obstruction and inadequate gas exchange. HF represents a decline in the normal functioning of the heart resulting in insufficient pumping of blood through the circulatory system. COPD and HF present with similar signs and symptoms with some variation.

There are many specific diagnostic tests and treatment modalities which we use to diagnose COPD and HF, but it becomes an issue when you come across a patient who has both conditions simultaneously. For example, attempting to use an X-ray to diagnose HF in a COPD patient is next to impossible because the results are manipulated by the COPD disease process. This is the case with many other diagnostic tests such as an electrocardiogram (ECG), chest radiography (X-ray), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), echocardiogram, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), pulmonary function test (PFT), arterial blood gas (ABG), and exercise stress testing.

When a patient has both COPD and HF, it becomes more difficult to treat. Many treatments for HF have negative impacts on COPD patients and vice-versa, whereas some have also shown positive clinical outcomes in both diseases. It is agreeable that treatment has to be patient-centered and it can vary from case to case depending on the severity of the disease. Ultimately, in this review, we discuss COPD and HF and how they interplay in their diagnostic and treatment modalities to gain a better understanding of how to effectively manage patients who have been diagnosed with both conditions.

Tailored or adapted interventions for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and at least one other long-term condition: a mixed methods review

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by shortness of breath, cough and recurrent exacerbations. People with COPD often live with one or more co-existing long-term health conditions (comorbidities). People with more severe COPD often have a higher number of comorbidities, putting them at greater risk of morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of any single intervention for COPD adapted or tailored to their comorbidity(s) compared to any other intervention for people with COPD and one or more common comorbidities (quantitative data, RCTs) in terms of the following outcomes: Quality of life, exacerbations, functional status, all-cause and respiratory-related hospital admissions, mortality, pain, and depression and anxiety. To assess the effectiveness of an adapted or tailored single COPD intervention (simple or complex) that is aimed at changing the management of people with COPD and one or more common comorbidities (quantitative data, RCTs) compared to usual care in terms of the following outcomes: Quality of life, exacerbations, functional status, all-cause and respiratory-related hospital admissions, mortality, pain, and depression and anxiety. To identify emerging themes that describe the views and experiences of patients, carers and healthcare professionals when receiving or providing care to manage multimorbidities (qualitative data).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases including the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, to identify relevant randomised and qualitative studies. We also searched trial registries and conducted citation searches. The latest search was conducted in January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) compared a) any single intervention for COPD adapted or tailored to their comorbidity(s) compared to any other intervention, or b) any adapted or tailored single COPD intervention (simple or complex) that is aimed at changing the management of people with COPD and one or more comorbidities, compared to usual care. We included qualitative studies or mixed-methods studies to identify themes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for analysis of the RCTs. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool for the RCTs and the CASP checklist for the qualitative studies. We planned to use the Mixed Methods Appraisal tool (MMAT) to assess the risk of bias in mixed-methods studies, but we found none. We used GRADE and CERQual to assess the quality of the quantitative and qualitative evidence respectively. The primary outcome measures for this review were quality of life and exacerbations.

MAIN RESULTS

Quantitative studies We included seven studies (1197 participants) in the quantitative analyses, with interventions including telemonitoring, pulmonary rehabilitation, treatment optimisation, water-based exercise training and case management. Interventions were either compared with usual care or with an active comparator (such as land-based exercise training). Duration of trials ranged from 4 to 52 weeks. Mean age of participants ranged from 64 to 72 years and COPD severity ranged from mild to very severe. Trials included either people with COPD and a specific comorbidity (including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, lung cancer, head or neck cancer, and musculoskeletal conditions), or with one or more comorbidities of any type. Overall, we judged the evidence presented to be of moderate to very low certainty (GRADE), mainly due to the methodological quality of included trials and imprecision of effect estimates. Intervention versus usual care Quality of life as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score may improve with tailored pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care at 52 weeks (mean difference (MD) -10.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.66 to -9.04; 1 study, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tailored pulmonary rehabilitation is likely to improve COPD assessment test (CAT) scores compared with usual care at 52 weeks (MD -8.02, 95% CI -9.44 to -6.60; 1 study, 70 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and with a multicomponent telehealth intervention at 52 weeks (MD -6.90, 95% CI -9.56 to -4.24; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence is uncertain about effects of pharmacotherapy optimisation or telemonitoring interventions on CAT improvement compared with usual care. There may be little to no difference in the number of people experiencing exacerbations, or mean exacerbations with case management compared with usual care (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.57; 1 study, 470 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For secondary outcomes, six-minute walk distance (6MWD) may improve with pulmonary rehabilitation, water-based exercise or multicomponent interventions at 38 to 52 weeks (low-certainty evidence). A multicomponent intervention may result in fewer people being admitted to hospital at 17 weeks, although there may be little to no difference in a telemonitoring intervention. There may be little to no difference between intervention and usual care for mortality. Intervention versus active comparator We included one study comparing water-based and land-based exercise (30 participants). We found no evidence for quality of life or exacerbations. There may be little to no difference between water- and land-based exercise for 6MWD (MD 5 metres, 95% CI -22 to 32; 38 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Qualitative studies One nested qualitative study (21 participants) explored perceptions and experiences of people with COPD and long-term conditions, and of researchers and health professionals who were involved in an RCT of telemonitoring equipment. Several themes were identified, including health status, beliefs and concerns, reliability of equipment, self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, factors affecting usefulness and perceived usefulness, attitudes and intention, self-management and changes in healthcare use. We judged the qualitative evidence presented as of very low certainty overall.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Owing to a paucity of eligible trials, as well as diversity in the intervention type, comorbidities and the outcome measures reported, we were unable to provide a robust synthesis of data. Pulmonary rehabilitation or multicomponent interventions may improve quality of life and functional status (6MWD), but the evidence is too limited to draw a robust conclusion. The key take-home message from this review is the lack of data from RCTs on treatments for people living with COPD and comorbidities. Given the variation in number and type of comorbidity(s) an individual may have, and severity of COPD, larger studies reporting individual patient data are required to determine these effects.

Clinical phenogroups are more effective than left ventricular ejection fraction categories in stratifying heart failure outcomes

Aims

Heart failure (HF) guidelines place patients into 3 discrete groups according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): reduced (<40%), mid‐range (40–49%), and preserved LVEF (≥50%). We assessed whether clinical phenogroups offer better prognostication than LVEF.

Methods and results

This was a sub‐study of the Patient‐Centered Care Transitions in HF trial. We analysed baseline characteristics of hospitalized patients in whom LVEF was recorded. We used unsupervised machine learning to identify clinical phenogroups and, thereafter, determined associations between phenogroups and outcomes. Primary outcome was the composite of all‐cause death or rehospitalization at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome was the composite cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization at 6 and 12 months. Cluster analysis of 1693 patients revealed six discrete phenogroups, each characterized by a predominant comorbidity: coronary heart disease, valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AF), sleep apnoea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or few comorbidities. Phenogroups were LVEF independent, with each phenogroup encompassing a wide range of LVEFs. For the primary composite outcome at 6 months, the hazard ratios (HRs) for phenogroups ranged from 1.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.58 for AF] to 2.04 (95% CI 1.62–2.57 for COPD) (log‐rank P < 0.001); and at 12 months, the HRs for phenogroups ranged from 1.15 (95% CI 0.94–1.41 for AF) to 1.87 (95% 1.52–3.20 for COPD) (P < 0.002). LVEF‐based classifications did not separate patients into different risk categories for the primary outcomes at 6 months (P = 0.69) and 12 months (P = 0.30). Phenogroups also stratified risk of the secondary composite outcome at 6 and 12 months more effectively than LVEF.

Conclusion

Among patients hospitalized for HF, clinical phenotypes generated by unsupervised machine learning provided greater prognostic information for a composite of clinical endpoints at 6 and 12 months compared with LVEF‐based categories.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02112227

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights From PARADIGM-HF

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, associated with undertreatment and worse outcomes. New treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be particularly important in patients with concomitant COPD.

Methods and Results

We examined outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker–Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. Cox regression models were used to compare COPD versus non‐COPD subgroups and the effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril. Patients with COPD (n=1080, 12.9%) were older than patients without COPD (mean 67 versus 63 years; P<0.001), with similar left ventricular ejection fraction (29.9% versus 29.4%), but higher NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide; median, 1741 pg/mL versus 1591 pg/mL; P=0.01), worse functional class (New York Heart Association III/IV 37% versus 23%; P<0.001) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–Clinical Summary Score (73 versus 81; P<0.001), and more congestion and comorbidity. Medical therapy was similar in patients with and without COPD except for beta‐blockade (87% versus 94%; P<0.001) and diuretics (85% versus 80%; P<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with higher risks of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13–1.54), and the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.34), but not cardiovascular death (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94–1.30), or all‐cause mortality (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99–1.31). COPD was also associated with higher risk of all cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05–1.31) and noncardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29–1.64). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent in patients with and without COPD for all end points.

Conclusions

In PARADIGM‐HF, COPD was associated with lower use of beta‐blockers and worse health status and was an independent predictor of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan was beneficial in this high‐risk subgroup.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Effects of dapagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an analysis of DAPA-HF

Aims

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an important comorbidity in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), associated with worse outcomes and often suboptimal treatment because of under‐prescription of beta‐blockers. Consequently, additional effective therapies are especially relevant in patients with COPD. The aim of this study was to examine outcomes related to COPD in a post hoc analysis of the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse‐outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA‐HF) trial.

Methods and results

We examined whether the effects of dapagliflozin in DAPA‐HF were modified by COPD status. The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Overall, 585 (12.3%) of the 4744 patients randomized had a history of COPD. Patients with COPD were more likely to be older men with a history of smoking, worse renal function, and higher baseline N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide, and less likely to be treated with a beta‐blocker or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The incidence of the primary outcome was higher in patients with COPD than in those without [18.9 (95% confidence interval 16.0–22.2) vs. 13.0 (12.1–14.0) per 100 person‐years; hazard ratio (HR) for COPD vs. no COPD 1.44 (1.21–1.72); P < 0.001]. The effect of dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, on the primary outcome, was consistent in patients with [HR 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.48–0.93)] and without COPD [0.76 (0.65–0.87); interaction P‐value 0.47].

Conclusions

In DAPA‐HF, one in eight patients with HFrEF had concomitant COPD. Participants with COPD had a higher risk of the primary outcome. The benefit of dapagliflozin on all pre‐specified outcomes was consistent in patients with and without COPD.

Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03036124.

The impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on hospitalization and mortality in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) could be predictive of the prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF), but yield conflicting findings. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to examine the impact of COPD on adverse outcomes in patients with HF.

METHODS

We systematically searched the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane library from inception to August 2020 for the relevant studies. Adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were collected and then pooled by the Review Manager version 5.30 software with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies (6 post hoc analyses of trials and 12 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. COPD was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (hospitalized HF: RR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.20-1.70; chronic HF: RR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.16-1.33), but not cardiovascular mortality, in patients with hospitalized HF or chronic HF. In addition, COPD was associated with increased risks of all-cause hospitalization (RR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.21-1.42) and HF hospitalization (RR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.21-1.42) in the chronic HF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

COPD comorbidity could increase the risk of all-cause mortality of HF patients. Future research should confirm the findings on hospitalization because of the limited studies included for this outcome.

Never-smokers with occupational COPD have better exercise capacities and ventilatory efficiency than matched smokers with COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in never-smokers exposed to organic dusts is still poorly characterized. Therapeutic strategies in COPD are only evaluated in smoking-related COPD. Understanding how never-smokers with COPD behave during exercise is an important prerequisite for optimal management. The objective of this study was to compare physiological parameters measured during exercise between never-smokers with COPD exposed to organic dusts and patients with smoking-related COPD matched for age, sex, and severity of airway obstruction. Healthy control subjects were also studied. Dyspnea (Borg scale), exercise tolerance, and ventilatory constraints were assessed during incremental cycle cardiopulmonary exercise testing in COPD patients at mild to moderate stages [22 exposed to organic dusts: postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (FVC) z score -2.44 ± 0.72 and FEV₁ z score -1.45 ± 0.78; 22 with smoking-related COPD: FEV₁/FVC z score -2.45 ± 0.61 and FEV₁ z score -1.43 ± 0.69] and 44 healthy control subjects (including 22 never-smokers). Despite the occurrence of similar significant dynamic hyperinflation, never-smoker COPD patients exposed to organic dusts had lower dyspnea ratings than those with smoking-related COPD. They also had better ventilatory efficiency, higher peak oxygen consumption and peak power output than smoking-related COPD patients, all these parameters being similar to control subjects. Differences in exercise capacity between the two COPD groups were mainly driven by better ventilatory efficiency stemming from preserved diffusion capacity. Never-smokers exposed to organic dusts with mild to moderate COPD have better exercise capacities, better ventilatory efficiency, and better diffusion capacity than matched patients with smoking-related COPD.NEW & NOTEWORTHY It is unknown whether or not never-smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) behave like their smoking counterparts during exercise. This is the first study showing that never-smokers with mild to moderate COPD [defined by a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (FVC) < lower limit of normal] have preserved exercise capacities. They also have lower exertional dyspnea than patients with smoking-related COPD. This suggests that the two COPD groups should not be managed in the same way.

Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure is one of the most common medical conditions, affecting more than 23 million people worldwide. Despite established guideline-based, multidrug pharmacotherapy, chronic heart failure is still the cause of frequent hospitalisation, and about 50% die within five years of diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in individuals with chronic heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in March 2020. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any time or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in which adult participants diagnosed with chronic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either ivabradine or placebo/usual care/no treatment. We distinguished between type of heart failure (heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction) as well as between duration of ivabradine treatment (short term (< 6 months) or long term (≥ 6 months)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and checked data for accuracy. We calculated risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We completed a comprehensive 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were: mortality from cardiovascular causes; quality of life; time to first hospitalisation for heart failure during follow-up; and number of days spent in hospital due to heart failure during follow-up. Our secondary endpoints were: rate of serious adverse events; exercise capacity; and economic costs (narrative report). We assessed the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies (76 reports) involving a total of 19,628 participants (mean age 60.76 years, 69% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in trial design (type of heart failure) and outcome reporting and measurement. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high across the included studies, with insufficient detail provided to inform judgement in several cases. We were able to perform two meta-analyses focusing on participants with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and long-term ivabradine treatment. There was evidence of no difference between ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment for mortality from cardiovascular causes (RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.11; 3 studies; 17,676 participants; I2 = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found evidence of no difference in rate of serious adverse events amongst HFrEF participants randomised to receive long-term ivabradine compared with those randomised to placebo, usual care, or no treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00; 2 studies; 17,399 participants; I2 = 12%; moderate-certainty evidence). We were not able to perform meta-analysis for all other outcomes, and have low confidence in the findings based on the individual studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of no difference in cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events between long-term treatment with ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment in participants with heart failure with HFrEF. Nevertheless, due to indirectness (male predominance), the certainty of the available evidence is rated as moderate.

Management of the COPD Patient with Comorbidities: An Experts Recommendation Document

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with multiple comorbidities, which impact negatively on patients and are often underdiagnosed, thus lacking a proper management due to the absence of clear guidelines.

Purpose

To elaborate expert recommendations aimed to help healthcare professionals to provide the right care for treating COPD patients with comorbidities.

Methods

A modified RAND-UCLA appropriateness method consisting of nominal groups to draw up consensus recommendations (6 Spanish experts) and 2-Delphi rounds to validate them (23 Spanish experts) was performed.

Results

A panel of Spanish internal medicine experts reached consensus on 73 recommendations and 81 conclusions on the clinical consequences of the presence of comorbidities. In general, the experts reached consensus on the issues raised with regard to cardiovascular comorbidity and metabolic disorders. Consensus was reached on the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in cases of depression and the usefulness of referring patients with anxiety to respiratory rehabilitation programmes. The results also showed consensus on the usefulness of investigating the quality of sleep, the treatment of pain with opioids and the evaluation of osteoporosis by lateral chest radiography.

Conclusion

This study provides conclusions and recommendations that are intended to improve the management of the complexity of patients with COPD and important comorbidities, usually excluded from clinical trials.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure: A Breathless Conspiracy

Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are both common causes of breathlessness and often conspire to confound accurate diagnosis and optimal therapy. Risk factors (such as aging, smoking, and obesity) and clinical presentation (eg, cough and breathlessness on exertion) can be very similar, but the treatment and prognostic implications are very different. This review discusses the diagnostic challenges in individuals with exertional dyspnea. Also highlighted are the prevalence, clinical relevance, and therapeutic implications of a concurrent diagnosis of COPD and HF.

Comorbidities in chronic heart failure: An update from Italian Society of Cardiology (SIC) Working Group on Heart Failure

The increasing number of patients with heart failure HF and comorbidities is due to aging population and increase of life expectancy of patients with cardiovascular disease. Encouraging results derived by recent trials may suggest some comorbidities as new targets for new drugs, highlighting the need for a better understanding of the comorbidities' effects in HF patients and the need of a multidisciplinary approach for the management of chronic HF with comorbidities. We report a brief review about main cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities in HF patients in order to update physicians and researchers engaged in the HF research or in "fight against heart failure."

Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment by Heart Rate Reduction

Heart failure (HF) treatment should be optimized in addition to guideline-directed and recommended drugs to achieve an appropriate heart rate (i.e. 50−60 bpm) by ivabradine in patients with a heart rate >70 bpm in sinus rhythm and with an ejection fraction ≤35%. Heart rate reduction was to reduce cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization dependent on baseline resting heart rate. In particular in patients at a heart rate >75 bpm, a reduction in cardiovascular death, all-cause death, HF death, HF hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization has been observed. The optimal heart rate achieved appears to be between 50−60 bpm, if well tolerated as in these patients the lowest event rate is observed on treatment. Heart rate reduction is, therefore, a treatable risk factor in chronic HF. Observational studies support the concept that it is a risk indicator in other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular conditions. Whether heart rate reduction is also modifying risk in other conditions than chronic HF should be explored in prospective clinical trials.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Gaps in Patients With Heart Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) coincide in a significant number of patients. Recent population-based registries suggest that spirometry is largely underused in patients with HF to diagnose comorbid COPD and that patients with COPD frequently do not receive the recommended beta-blocker (BB) treatment. This state-of-the-art review summarizes: 1) current challenges in the implementation of recommended spirometry for COPD diagnosis in patients with HF; and 2) current underuse and underdosing of BBs in patients with HF and COPD despite guideline recommendations. Open issues in the therapeutic management of patients with HF and COPD are discussed in the third section, including the use of the nonselective BB carvedilol, target BB doses in patients with HF and COPD, BB and bronchodilator management during HF hospitalization with and without COPD exacerbation, and the use of BBs in patients with COPD with right HF or free from cardiovascular disease. The whole scenario described herein advocates for a bipartisan initiative to drive immediate attention to the translation of guideline recommendations into clinical practice for patients with HF with co-occurring COPD.

Angina and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: facing the perfect storm

The association of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is challenging both in terms of prognosis and of pharmacological treatment. An 83-year-old Caucasian male patient has chronic kidney disease, COPD, previous myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft with left internal mammary artery (LIMA) on left anterior descending (LAD), saphenous vein graft (SVG) on obtuse marginal (OM)1 and on right coronary artery, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on LAD (occlusion of LIMA) and on SVG for OM1 (SVG critical stenosis). Recently, the patient complained worsening angina [Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) III] and had residual ischaemia in the anterior wall after an unsuccessful attempt of PCI was performed on LAD for in-stent occlusion due to restenosis. Bisoprolol uptitration failed due to worsening of pulmonary function at spirometry. For this reason, ivabradine 5 mg b.i.d. was added to bisoprolol. Afterwards, the patient referred amelioration of symptoms and he is actually in CCS Class I. The control spirometry showed moderate obstruction comparable to his chronic situation. Patients with IHD and COPD often do not receive β-blockers due to the fear of adverse effects. However, cardioselective β-blockers do not worsen pulmonary function while they reduce mortality in COPD patients. In this setting, ivabradine could be extremely helpful in order to control symptoms since it is effective in patients with asthma and COPD, with no alteration in respiratory function or symptoms and improves exercise capacity and functional class in COPD patients.

Ivabradine for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases

Higher heart rate (HR) is independently related to worse outcomes in various cardiac diseases, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, and heart failure (HF). HR is determined by the pacemaker activity of cells within the sinoatrial node. The hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) 4 channel, one of 4 HCN isoforms, generates the I_f current and plays an important role in the regulation of pacemaker activity in the sinoatrial node. Ivabradine is a novel and only available HCN inhibitor, which can reduce HR and has been approved for stable angina and chronic HF in many countries other than Japan. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of the HCN4 channel and ivabradine, including the function of HCN4 in cardiac pacemaking, the mechanism of action of I_f inhibition by ivabradine, and the pharmacological and clinical effects of ivabradine in cardiac diseases as HF, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation.

Cardiovascular disease and COPD: dangerous liaisons?

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) frequently occur together and their coexistence is associated with worse outcomes than either condition alone. Pathophysiological links between COPD and CVD include lung hyperinflation, systemic inflammation and COPD exacerbations. COPD treatments may produce beneficial cardiovascular (CV) effects, such as long-acting bronchodilators, which are associated with improvements in arterial stiffness, pulmonary vasoconstriction, and cardiac function. However, data are limited regarding whether these translate into benefits in CV outcomes. Some studies have suggested that treatment with long-acting β₂-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists leads to an increase in the risk of CV events, particularly at treatment initiation, although the safety profile of these agents with prolonged use appears reassuring. Some CV medications may have a beneficial impact on COPD outcomes, but there have been concerns about β-blocker use leading to bronchospasm in COPD, which may result in patients not receiving guideline-recommended treatment. However, there are few data suggesting harm with these agents and patients should not be denied β-blockers if required. Clearer recommendations are necessary regarding the identification and management of comorbid CVD in patients with COPD in order to facilitate early intervention and appropriate treatment.

Current challenges in managing comorbid heart failure and COPD

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) frequently coexist, particularly in the elderly. Given their rising prevalence and the contemporary trend to longer life expectancy, overlapping HF-COPD will become a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the next decade. Areas covered: Drawing on current clinical and physiological constructs, the consequences of negative cardiopulmonary interactions on the interpretation of pulmonary function and cardiopulmonary exercise tests in HF-COPD are discussed. Although those interactions may create challenges for the diagnosis and assessment of disease stability, they provide a valuable conceptual framework to rationalize HF-COPD treatment. The impact of COPD or HF on the pharmacological treatment of HF or COPD, respectively, is then comprehensively discussed. Authors finalize by outlining how the non-pharmacological treatment (i.e. rehabilitation and exercise reconditioning) can be tailored to the specific needs of patients with HF-COPD. Expert commentary: Randomized clinical trials testing the efficacy and safety of new medications for HF or COPD should include a sizeable fraction of patients with these coexistent pathologies. Multidisciplinary clinics involving cardiologists and respirologists trained in both diseases (with access to unified cardiorespiratory rehabilitation programs) are paramount to decrease the humanitarian and social burden of HF-COPD.

Ivabradine: Evidence and current role in cardiovascular diseases and other emerging indications

Increased heart rate (HR) is associated with deleterious effects on several disease conditions. Chronic heart failure (CHF) is one of the cardiovascular diseases with recurrent hospitalization burden and an ongoing drain on health-care expenditure. Despite advancement in medicine, management of CHF remains a challenge to health-care providers. Ivabradine selectively and specifically inhibits the pacemaker I(f) ionic current which reduces the cardiac pacemaker activity. The main effect of ivabradine therapy is the substantial lowering of HR. It does not influence intracardiac conduction, contractility, or ventricular repolarization. As shown in numerous clinical studies, ivabradine improves clinical outcomes and quality of life and reduces the risk of death from heart failure (HF) or other cardiovascular causes. Recently updated HF guidelines recommend ivabradine as a class II indication for reduction of HF hospitalizations. Based on the principle of benefits of reduced HR, the ivabradine in patients with ischemic heart disease, sepsis, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome has also been studied. It can also be a useful agent for HR reduction in patients with contraindications to use beta-blockers or those who cannot tolerate them. In this review, we provide an overview of efficacy and safety of ivabradine and its combination with currently recommended pharmacological therapy in different conditions.

The impact of heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on mortality in patients presenting with breathlessness

BACKGROUND

Differentiating heart failure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a patient presenting with breathlessness is difficult but may have implications for outcome. We investigated the prognostic impact of diagnoses of COPD and/or heart failure in consecutive patients presenting to a secondary care clinic with breathlessness.

METHODS

In patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) by visual estimation, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) levels and spirometry were evaluated (N = 4986). Heart failure was defined as either LVSD worse than mild (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) or LVSD mild or better and raised NTproBNP levels (> 400 ng/L) (heart failure with normal ejection fraction). COPD was defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio < 0.7. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

1764 (35%) patients had heart failure alone, 585 (12%) had COPD alone, 1751 (35%) had heart failure and COPD, and 886 (18%) had neither. Compared to patients with neither diagnosis, those with COPD alone [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.84 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-2.43], heart failure alone [HR = 4.40 (95% CI 3.54-5.46)] or heart failure and COPD [HR = 5.44 (95% CI 4.39-6.75)] had a greater risk of death. COPD was not associated with increased risk of death in patients with heart failure on a multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

While COPD is associated with increased risk of death compared to patients with neither heart failure nor COPD, it has a negligible impact on prognosis amongst patients with heart failure.

Duration of chronic heart failure affects outcomes with preserved effects of heart rate reduction with ivabradine: findings from SHIFT

AIMS

In heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm, heart rate reduction with ivabradine reduces the composite incidence of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

It is unclear whether the duration of HF prior to therapy independently affects outcomes and whether it modifies the effect of heart rate reduction. In SHIFT, 6505 patients with chronic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤35%), in sinus rhythm, heart rate of ≥70 b.p.m., treated with guideline-recommended therapies, were randomized to placebo or ivabradine. Outcomes and the treatment effect of ivabradine in patients with different durations of HF were examined. Prior to randomization, 1416 ivabradine and 1459 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 weeks and <1.5 years; 836 ivabradine and 806 placebo patients had HF duration of 1.5 years to <4 years, and 989 ivabradine and 999 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 years. Patients with longer duration of HF were older (62.5 years vs. 59.0 years; P < 0.0001), had more severe disease (New York Heart Association classes III/IV in 56% vs. 44.9%; P < 0.0001) and greater incidences of co-morbidities [myocardial infarction: 62.9% vs. 49.4% (P < 0.0001); renal dysfunction: 31.5% vs. 21.5% (P < 0.0001); peripheral artery disease: 7.0% vs. 4.8% (P < 0.0001)] compared with patients with a more recent diagnosis. After adjustments, longer HF duration was independently associated with poorer outcome. Effects of ivabradine were independent of HF duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of HF predicts outcome independently of risk indicators such as higher age, greater severity and more co-morbidities. Heart rate reduction with ivabradine improved outcomes independently of HF duration. Thus, HF treatments should be initiated early and it is important to characterize HF populations according to the chronicity of HF in future trials.

The Clinical Use of Ivabradine

The clinical use of ivabradine has and continues to evolve along channels that are predicated on its mechanism of action. It selectively inhibits the funny current (I_f) in sinoatrial nodal tissue, resulting in a decrease in the rate of diastolic depolarization and, consequently, the heart rate, a mechanism that is distinct from those of other negative chronotropic agents. Thus, it has been evaluated and is used in select patients with systolic heart failure and chronic stable angina without clinically significant adverse effects. Although not approved for other indications, ivabradine has also shown promise in the management of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Here, the authors review the mechanism of action of ivabradine and salient studies that have led to its current clinical indications and use.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a risk factor for ventricular arrhythmias independent of left ventricular function

BACKGROUND

The association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and sudden cardiac death has not been fully elucidated.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can explain the increased rate of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in COPD.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive adult patients who underwent pulmonary function testing (PFT), Holter monitoring, and transthoracic echocardiography. COPD was correlated with the frequency of VT in a multivariate analysis that adjusted for known confounders including LVEF. Long-term all-cause mortality of patients with COPD and VT was examined.

RESULTS

Of the 6351 patients included in this study (age 66 ± 15 years; 48% woman; 92% Caucasian, LVEF 59% ± 12%), 2800 (44%) had PFT indicative of COPD. VT was nearly twice as likely to occur during Holter monitoring in COPD patients (13% vs 23%; P <.001), and the severity of COPD correlated with the risk of VT (21% vs 28% vs 37% for mild-moderate, severe, and very severe COPD; P <.001). COPD and VT remained independently associated (P <.001) even after adjusting for LVEF, demographics, and comorbidities (age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, cancer history, diabetes mellitus). COPD was associated with all-cause mortality independently of LVEF (P <.001).

CONCLUSION

COPD patients are at higher risk for VT and mortality. This may not be fully attributed to the confounding effect of systolic heart failure measured by LVEF. Further studies are needed to explore the mechanistic interactions between VT and COPD in order to determine whether antiarrhythmic strategies would apply especially to patients with severe COPD.

Characteristics, treatments and 1-year prognosis of hospitalized and ambulatory heart failure patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

AIMS

To describe the characteristics and assess the 1-year outcomes of hospitalized (HHF) and chronic (CHF) heart failure patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) enrolled in a large European registry between May 2011 and April 2013.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 1334/6920 (19.3%) HHF patients and 1322/9409 (14.1%) CHF patients were diagnosed with COPD. In both groups, patients with COPD were older, more frequently men, had a worse clinical presentation and a higher prevalence of co-morbidities. In HHF, the increase in the use of heart failure (HF) medications at hospital discharge was greater in non-COPD than in COPD for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (+13.7% vs. +7.2%), beta-blockers (+20.6% vs. +11.8%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (+20.9% vs. +17.3%), thus widening the gap in HF treatment already existing between the two groups at admission. In CHF patients, there was a similar increase in the use of these medications after enrollment visit in the two groups, leaving a significant difference of 8.2% for beta-blockers in favour of non-COPD patients (89.8% vs. 81.6%, P < 0.001). At 1-year follow-up, the hazard ratios for COPD in multivariable analysis confirmed its independent association with hospitalizations both in HHF [all-cause: 1.16 (1.04-1.29), for HF: 1.22 (1.05-1.42)] and CHF patients [all-cause: 1.26 (1.13-1.41), for HF: 1.37 (1.17-1.60)]. The association between COPD and all-cause mortality was not confirmed in both groups after adjustments.

CONCLUSIONS

COPD frequently coexists in HHF and CHF, worsens the clinical course of the disease, and significantly impacts its therapeutic management and prognosis. The matter should deserve greater attention from the cardiology community.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Cardiac Diseases. An Urgent Need for Integrated Care

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a global health issue with high social and economic costs. Concomitant chronic cardiac disorders are frequent in patients with COPD, likely owing to shared risk factors (e.g., aging, cigarette smoke, inactivity, persistent low-grade pulmonary and systemic inflammation) and add to the overall morbidity and mortality of patients with COPD. The prevalence and incidence of cardiac comorbidities are higher in patients with COPD than in matched control subjects, although estimates of prevalence vary widely. Furthermore, cardiac diseases contribute to disease severity in patients with COPD, being a common cause of hospitalization and a frequent cause of death. The differential diagnosis may be challenging, especially in older and smoking subjects complaining of unspecific symptoms, such as dyspnea and fatigue. The therapeutic management of patients with cardiac and pulmonary comorbidities may be similarly challenging: bronchodilators may have cardiac side effects, and, vice versa, some cardiac medications should be used with caution in patients with lung disease. The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence of the relationship between COPD and the three most frequent and important cardiac comorbidities in patients with COPD: ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. We have chosen a practical approach, first summarizing relevant epidemiological and clinical data, then discussing the diagnostic and screening procedures, and finally evaluating the impact of lung-heart comorbidities on the therapeutic management of patients with COPD and heart diseases.

Total management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease

Patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) often have multiple comorbid conditions that may interact with each other, confound the choice of treatments, and reduce mortality. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most important comorbidities of CVD, which causes serious consequences in patients with ischemic heart disease, stroke, arrhythmia, and heart failure. COPD shares common risk factors such as tobacco smoking and aging with CVD, is associated with less physical activity, and produces systemic inflammation and oxidative stress. Overall, patients with COPD have a 2-3-fold increased risk of CVD as compared to age-matched controls when adjusted for tobacco smoking. Chronic heart failure (HF) is a frequent and important comorbidity which has a significant impact on prognosis in COPD, and vice versa. HF overlaps in symptoms and signs and has a common comorbidity with COPD, so that diagnosis of COPD is difficult in patients with HF. The combination of HF and COPD presents many therapeutic challenges including beta-blockers (BBs) and beta-agonists. Inhaled long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists and anticholinergics for COPD would not worsen HF. Diuretics are relatively safe, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are preferred to treat HF accompanied with COPD. BBs are only relatively contraindicated in asthma, but not in COPD. Low doses of cardioselective BBs should be aggressively initiated in clinically stable patients with HF accompanied with COPD combined with close monitoring for signs of airway obstruction and gradually up-titrated to the maximum tolerated dose. Encouraging appropriate and aggressive treatment for both HF and COPD should be recommended to improve quality of life and mortality in HF patients with COPD.

Frequent coexistence of chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in respiratory and cardiac outpatients: Evidence from SUSPIRIUM, a multicentre Italian survey

Background Chronic heart failure (CHF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) frequently coexist but concurrent COPD + CHF has been little investigated. Design This multicentre survey (SUSPIRIUM) was designed to evaluate: the prevalence of COPD in stable CHF and CHF in stable COPD; diagnostic/therapeutic work-up for concurrent COPD + CHF; clinical profile of patients with COPD + CHF; predictors of COPD in CHF and CHF in COPD. Methods A 5-month-long cross-sectional prospective observational survey was conducted in 10 cardiac and 10 respiratory connected outpatient units. Results The prevalence of CHF in the 378 surveyed COPD patients was 11.9% (95% confidence interval 8.8-16.6) and the prevalence of COPD in 375 CHF patients was 31.5% (95% confidence interval 26.8-36.4). Diagnostic tests for suspected comorbidity were prescribed in 21.6% and 22.9% of COPD and CHF patients, respectively. Patients with coexisting CHF + COPD had a higher incidence of hypertension, physical inactivity and more frequently a GOLD score of 3 or greater. Compared to CHF only, CHF + COPD patients were significantly older, more frequently smokers, at worse respiratory risk and in a higher New York Heart Association class. Conversely, hypercholesterolaemia, a family history of ischaemic heart disease, fluid retention and comorbidities were more frequent in COPD + CHF than COPD-only patients. At multivariate analysis, a GOLD score of 3 or greater in CHF strongly predicted coexistent COPD (odds ratio 8.985, P < 0.0001) as did a history of other respiratory diseases (5.184, P < 0.0001). A history of ischaemic heart disease (4.868, P < 0.0001), atrial fibrillation (3.302, P < 0.0001) and sedentary lifestyle (2.814, P < 0.004) predicted coexistent CHF in COPD. Conclusion The high prevalence of COPD + CHF calls for integrated disease management between cardiologists and pulmonologists. SUSPIRIUM identifies which cardiac/pulmonary outpatients should be screened for the respective comorbidity.

Benefits of Heart Rate Slowing With Ivabradine in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease

Heart rate (HR) is a risk factor in patients with chronic systolic heart failure (HF) that, when reduced, provides outcome benefits. It is also a target for angina pectoris prevention and a risk marker in chronic coronary artery disease without HF. HR can be reduced by drugs; however, among those used clinically, only ivabradine reduces HR directly in the sinoatrial nodal cells without other known effects on the cardiovascular system. This review provides current information regarding the safety and efficacy of HR reduction with ivabradine in clinical studies involving >36,000 patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease and >6,500 patients with systolic HF. The largest trials, Morbidity-Mortality Evaluation of the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients With Coronary Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease, showed no effect on outcomes. The Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial, a randomized controlled trial in >6,500 patients with HF, revealed marked and significant HR-mediated reduction in cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalizations while improving quality of life and left ventricular mechanical function after treatment with ivabradine. The adverse effects of ivabradine predominantly included bradycardia and atrial fibrillation (both uncommon) and ocular flashing scotomata (phosphenes) but otherwise were similar to placebo. In conclusion, ivabradine improves outcomes in patients with systolic HF; rates of overall adverse events are similar to placebo.

β-Blockers, heart disease and COPD: current controversies and uncertainties

Treating people with cardiovascular disease and COPD causes significant clinician anxiety. β-Blockers save lives in people with heart disease, specifically postinfarction and heart failure. COPD and heart disease frequently coexist and people with both disorders have particularly high cardiovascular mortality. There are concerns about giving β-blockers to people with concomitant COPD that include reduced basal lung function, diminished effectiveness of emergency β-agonist treatments, reduced benefit of long-acting β-agonist treatment and difficulty in discriminating between asthma and COPD. β-Blockers appear to reduce lung function in both the general population and those with COPD because they are poorly selective for cardiac β1-adrenoceptors over respiratory β2-adrenoceptors, and studies have shown that higher β-agonist doses are required to overcome the β-blockade. COPD and cardiovascular disease share similar environmental risks and both disease states have high adrenergic and inflammatory activation. β-Blockers may therefore be particularly helpful in reducing cardiovascular events in this high-risk group. They may reduce the background inflammatory state, and inhibit the tachycardia and hypertension associated with both the endogenous adrenaline and high-dose β-agonist treatment associated with acute exacerbations of COPD. Some studies have suggested no increased and, at times, reduced mortality in patients with COPD taking β-blockers for heart disease. However, these are all observational studies and there are no randomised controlled trials. Potential ways to improve this dilemma include the development of highly β1-selective β-blockers or the use of non-β-blocking heart rate reducing agents, such as ivabridine, if these are proven to be beneficial in randomised controlled trials.

Ivabradine

Ivabradine is a blocker of the funny current channels in the sinoatrial node cells. This results in pure heart rate reduction when elevated without direct effect on contractility or on the vessels. It was tested in a large outcome clinical trial in stable chronic heart failure (CHF) with low ejection fraction, in sinus rhythm, on a contemporary background therapy including betablockers (SHIFT: Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If inhibitor Trial).The primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization) was reduced by 18% whereas the first occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations was reduced by 26%. The effect was of greater magnitude in patients with baseline heart rate ≥75 beats per minute. Ivabradine improved also the quality of life and induced a reverse remodelling.The safety was overall good with an increase in (a)symptomatic bradycardia and visual side effects.The efficacy and tolerability were similar to those observed in the overall trial in subgroups with diabetes mellitus, low systolic blood pressure (SBP), renal dysfunction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Ivabradine is indicated in CHF with systolic dysfunction, in patients in sinus rhythm with a heart rate ≥75 bpm in combination with standard therapy including betablocker therapy or when betablocker therapy is contraindicated or not tolerated (European Medicine Agency).

Challenges in the Management of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) commonly coexist in clinical practice. The prevalence of COPD among HFrEF patients ranges from 20 to 32 %. On the other hand; HFrEF is prevalent in more than 20 % of COPD patients. With an aging population, the number of patients with coexisting COPD and HFrEF is on rise. Coexisting COPD and HFrEF presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic clinical conundrum. Common symptoms shared by both conditions mask the early referral and detection of the other. Beta blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and aldosterone antagonists have been shown to reduce hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality in HFrEF while long-acting inhaled bronchodilators (beta-2-agonists and anticholinergics) and corticosteroids have been endorsed for COPD treatment. The opposing pharmacotherapy of BBs and beta-2-agonists highlight the conflict in prescribing BBs in COPD and beta-2-agonists in HFrEF. This has resulted in underutilization of evidence-based therapy for HFrEF in COPD patients owing to fear of adverse effects. This review aims to provide an update and current perspective on diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with coexisting COPD and HFrEF.

Prevalence and Prognostic Impact of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure: Data from the GISSI-HF Trial

OBJECTIVES

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). We aimed to assess its prevalence, characterization and long-term prognostic impact in the GISSI-HF population.

METHODS

The study randomized 6,975 ambulatory HF patients to either n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids or placebo. We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and outcomes of the 1,533 patients diagnosed with COPD (22%).

RESULTS

COPD was associated with a worse clinical presentation and an increased burden of comorbidities. At a median follow-up of 3.9 years, COPD was found to be an independent predictor of both predefined primary study end points, including all-cause mortality (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.15-1.43, p < 0.0001) and all-cause mortality or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10-1.30, p < 0.0001). Both cardiovascular (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05-1.36, p = 0.007) and noncardiovascular mortality (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.26-1.94, p < 0.0001) were significantly increased in COPD-HF patients, as well as hospitalizations for any reason (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14-1.34, p < 0.0001), for cardiovascular reasons (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27, p = 0.002) and for HF (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.14-1.43, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

COPD is an independent predictor of mortality and hospitalizations in ambulatory HF patients. Increased awareness and improved management of COPD may reduce the burden of this morbidity to patients with HF.