Influence of pretreatment systolic blood pressure on the effect of carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure: the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) study

Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF

BACKGROUND

Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure).

METHODS

In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension.

Systolic blood pressure, a predictor of mortality and life expectancy following heart failure hospitalization, 2010-2023

BACKGROUND

Optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) targets for the treatment of hospitalized acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients are not known.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between SBP <130 mmHg at discharge or within 30 days and all-cause mortality or years of life lost (YLL) after ADHF hospitalization.

METHODS

We analyzed medical records of 14,611 adults who survived ADHF hospitalization at 17 hospitals (2010-2022) with follow-up until May 2023. Sensitivity analysis included 10,515 patients with post-discharge SBP measured within 30 days.

RESULTS

Mortality rates at 30 days, 180 days, 1 year, and 3 years were higher in patients with discharge SBP <130 mmHg (6.9 %, 21.1 %, 29.1 %, and 45.1 %) vs. SBP ≥130 mmHg (4.8 %, 16.0 %, 23.6 %, and 40.3 %). Hazard ratios (HR) for mortality were consistently higher in patients with discharge SBP <130 at 1.30 (95 % CI, 1.11-1.52), 1.45 (95 % CI, 1.33-1.58), 1.40 (95 % CI, 1.30-1.51), 1.31 (95 % CI, 1.23-1.38) at these intervals. The average YLL per deceased individual was 1-2 years greater in the discharge SBP <130 group (incidence rate ratios, 1.004 to 1.230). Restricted cubic spline analysis showed that HR for mortality shifted toward better outcomes at discharge SBP ≥130 Sensitivity analysis supported these findings.

CONCLUSION

In hospitalized ADHF patients, SBP <130 mmHg at discharge or within 30 days post-discharge was linked to higher mortality and YLL, while SBP ≥130 mmHg or improvement to ≥130 mmHg post-discharge led to better short and long-term outcomes. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms and benefits of SBP optimization.

Sequencing Quadruple Therapy for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Does It Really Matter?

The conventional sequence of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) initiation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) assumes that the effectiveness and tolerability of GDMT agents mirror their order of discovery, which is not true. In this review, the authors discuss flexible GDMT sequencing that should be permitted in special populations, such as patients with bradycardia, chronic kidney disease, or atrial fibrillation. Moreover, the initiation of certain GDMT medications may enable tolerance of other GDMT medications. Most importantly, the achievement of partial doses of all four pillars of GDMT is better than achievement of target dosing of only a couple.

Early Initiation of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Heart Failure After Cardiac Surgery

There is an evolving role for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after cardiac surgery. GDMT is based on the use of pharmacologic agents from each of 4 distinct drug classes, also known as the 4 pillars of heart failure therapy: β-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, often paired with neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Despite the demonstrated benefits of GDMT in reducing mortality and hospitalization rates in the nonsurgical literature, there is conspicuous underuse of GDMT after cardiac surgery. The lack of published literature and practical challenges surrounding the timing for initiation of GDMT in the immediate postoperative period has limited standardized implementation strategies. A multidisciplinary approach will be necessary to assist in initiating, titrating, and monitoring the response to these therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after cardiac surgery.

Impact of guideline-directed medical therapy on systolic blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure and low blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Existing research indicates that patients with heart failure (HF) may have restricted access to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) when their blood pressure (BP) is comparatively low. However, recent clinical trials suggest that HF patients with low BP could still benefit from certain HF medications, which have a minimal impact on BP. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether this applies to all GDMT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted for studies published from inception to 10 January 2024. Randomized controlled trials were selected if they reported on the longitudinal change of systolic BP (SBP) due to GDMT, or the risks of cardiovascular events in HF patients based on SBP categories. Weighted mean difference (WMD), hazard ratio or relative risk, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled for meta-analysis where possible. Data from 20 studies, encompassing information on 84 782 individuals, were analysed. Overall, GDMT is associated with lower SBP (WMD, -2.16; 95% CI -2.86 to -1.46), with no significant difference between baseline low and non-low BP subgroups (interaction p = 0.810). However, SBP of the treatment group increased by 5.8 mmHg from baseline in the low SBP subgroup during follow-up, while it decreased by 4.0 mmHg in the baseline non-low SBP subgroup. GDMT demonstrated similar cardiovascular benefits and risk of hypotension between low and non-low SBP subgroups (interaction p = 0.318 and 0.903, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline-directed medical therapy is associated with a negligible decrease in SBP, but can provide similar cardiovascular benefits in both low and non-low SBP HF patients, with no significant interaction with SBP as to hypotension. Therefore, GDMT should be initiated and maintained in HF patients with low BP.

Blood pressure and heart failure: focused on treatment

Heart failure (HF) remains a significant global health burden, and hypertension is known to be the primary contributor to its development. Although aggressive hypertension treatment can prevent heart changes in at-risk patients, determining the optimal blood pressure (BP) targets in cases diagnosed with HF is challenging owing to insufficient evidence. Notably, hypertension is more strongly associated with HF with preserved ejection fraction than with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Patients with acute hypertensive HF exhibit sudden symptoms of acute HF, especially those manifested with severely high BP; however, no specific vasodilator therapy has proven beneficial for this type of acute HF. Since the majority of medications used to treat HF contribute to lowering BP, and BP remains one of the most important hemodynamic markers, targeted BP management is very concerned in treatment strategies. However, no concrete guidelines exist, prompting a trend towards optimizing therapies to within tolerable ranges, rather than setting explicit BP goals. This review discusses the connection between BP and HF, explores its pathophysiology through clinical studies, and addresses its clinical significance and treatment targets.

Efficacy of Sacubitril-Valsartan on Survival and Cardiac Remodeling in Hypotensive Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether hypotensive patients diagnosed with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) might benefit from angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNis) in real-world practice because patients with baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) of less than 100 mm Hg have been excluded from landmark trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter study conducted between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2021, a total of 7562 symptomatic patients with HFrEF were enrolled and grouped by SBP (hypotension was defined as an SBP of less than 100 mm Hg) and ARNi use as follows: group 1, hypotensive/non-ARNi users (n=484); group 2, hypotensive/ARNi users (n=308); group 3, nonhypotensive/non-ARNi users (n=4560); and group 4, nonhypotensive/ARNi users (n=2210). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics for survival analysis.

RESULTS

Diverse baseline characteristics and lower rates of medication use were found among non-ARNi users compared with ARNi users. Hypotensive/ARNi users had lower ARNi initiation doses than nonhypotensive/ARNi users. We observed significantly lower mortality, composite heart failure hospitalization, and CV death for hypotensive/ARNi and the other 2 nonhypotensive groups (groups 3 and 4) during a median follow-up of 3.43 years (all P<.05), with a similar effect on reverse remodeling for the hypotensive/ARNi group compared with the hypotensive/non-ARNi group. The event-free survival benefits of ARNi vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were consistent with the lower boundary of SBP for clinical benefits found until 88 mm Hg (spline curves) after inverse probability of treatment weighting.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HFrEF and hypotension may still benefit from ARNi treatment. Patients with hypotensive HFrEF should not be routinely excluded from ARNi use in a real-world setting.

How to tackle therapeutic inertia in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) reduces morbidity and mortality, but its implementation is often poor in daily clinical practice. Barriers to implementation include clinical and organizational factors that might contribute to clinical inertia, i.e. avoidance/delay of recommended treatment initiation/optimization. The spectrum of strategies that might be applied to foster GDMT implementation is wide, and involves the organizational set-up of heart failure care pathways, tailored drug initiation/optimization strategies increasing the chance of successful implementation, digital tools/telehealth interventions, educational activities and strategies targeting patient/physician awareness, and use of quality registries. This scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC provides an overview of the current state of GDMT implementation in HFrEF, clinical and organizational barriers to implementation, and aims at suggesting a comprehensive framework on how to overcome clinical inertia and ultimately improve implementation of GDMT in HFrEF based on up-to-date evidence.

Advancing Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure: Overcoming Challenges and Maximizing Benefits

The delayed titration of guideline-directed drug therapy (GDMT) is a complex event influenced by multiple factors that often result in poor prognosis for patients with heart failure (HF). Individualized adjustments in GDMT titration may be necessary based on patient characteristics, and every clinician is responsible for promptly initiating GDMT and titrating it appropriately within the patient's tolerance range. This review examines the current challenges in GDMT implementation and scrutinizes titration considerations within distinct subsets of HF patients, with the overarching goal of enhancing the adoption and effectiveness of GDMT. The authors also underscore the significance of establishing a novel management strategy that integrates cardiologists, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and patients as a unified team that can contribute to the improved promotion and implementation of GDMT.

How to Manage Beta-Blockade in Older Heart Failure Patients: A Scoping Review

Beta blockers (BBs) play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of life and extending the survival of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Initiating the therapy at low doses and gradually titrating the dose upwards is recommended to ensure therapeutic efficacy while mitigating potential adverse effects. Vigilant monitoring for signs of drug intolerance is necessary, with dose adjustments as required. The management of older HF patients requires a case-centered approach, taking into account individual comorbidities, functional status, and frailty. Older adults, however, are often underrepresented in randomized clinical trials, leading to some uncertainty in management strategies as patients with HF in clinical practice are older than those enrolled in trials. The present article performs a scoping review of the past 25 years of published literature on BBs in older HF patients, focusing on age, outcomes, and tolerability. Twelve studies (eight randomized-controlled and four observational) encompassing 26,426 patients were reviewed. The results indicate that BBs represent a viable treatment for older HFrEF patients, offering benefits in symptom management, cardiac function, and overall outcomes. Their role in HF with preserved EF, however, remains uncertain. Further research is warranted to refine treatment strategies and address specific aspects in older adults, including proper dosing, therapeutic adherence, and tolerability.

Initiation and Up-titration of Guideline-directed Medical Therapy for Patients with Heart Failure: Better, Faster, Stronger!

Treatment for heart failure has experienced a major revolution in recent years, and current evidence shows that a combination of four medications (angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors + β-blockers + mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists + sodium.glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) offer the greatest benefit to our patients with significant reductions in cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalisations and all-cause mortality. Unfortunately, despite their proven benefits, the implementation of these therapies is still low. Clinical inertia, and unfounded fear of using these drugs might contribute to this. Recently, evidence from randomised clinical trials has shown that intensive implementation of these therapies in patients with heart failure is safe and effective. In this review, we attempt to tackle some of these misconceptions/fears regarding medical therapy for heart failure and discuss the available evidence showing the best strategies for implementation of these therapies.

Initiation and Up-Titration of Guideline-Based Medications in Hospitalized Acute Heart Failure Patients - A Report From the West Tokyo Heart Failure Registry

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines to initiate and titrate guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) during their hospitalization, patients with acute heart failure (AHF) are frequently undertreated. In this study we aimed to clarify GDMT implementation and titration rates, as well as the long-term outcomes, in hospitalized AHF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 3,164 consecutive hospitalized AHF patients included in a Japanese multicenter registry, 1,400 (44.2%) with ejection fraction ≤40% were analyzed. We assessed GDMT dosage (β-blockers, renin-angiotensin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists) at admission and discharge, examined the contributing factors for up-titration, and evaluated associations between drug initiation/up-titration and 1-year post-discharge all-cause death and rehospitalization for HF via propensity score matching. The mean age of the patients was 71.5 years and 30.7% were female. Overall, 1,051 patients (75.0%) were deemed eligible for GDMT, based on their baseline vital signs, renal function, and electrolyte values. At discharge, only 180 patients (17.1%) received GDMT agents up-titrated to >50% of the maximum titrated dose. Up-titration was associated with a lower risk of 1-year clinical outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.96). Younger age and higher body mass index were significant predictors of drug up-titration.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant evidence-practice gaps in the use and dose of GDMT remain. Considering the associated favorable outcomes, further efforts to improve its implementation seem crucial.

Mean arterial pressure and mortality in patients with heart failure: a retrospective analysis of Zigong heart failure database

BACKGROUND

It is commonly observed that a higher target of mean arterial pressure (MAP) is in previous studies. This study assessed the association of MAP with short-term mortality in heart failure (HF) patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted by using data from Hospitalized patients with heart failure: integrating electronic healthcare records and external outcome database (v1.2 ). The characteristic of patients was described by 3 groups of MAP: below 80 mmHg, 80-100 mmHg, and above 100 mmHg. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess the relevance between MAP and all-cause mortality within 28 days and 6 months. For assessing the effect of multiple variables on patient survival time, 28-day and 6-month, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Forest plot were performed.

RESULTS

The overall cohort comprised 2008 patients divided by MAP into 3 groups, each group had 344 (17.1%), 938 (46.7%), and 726 (36.2%) patients. Patients in MAP < 80 mmHg group had higher mortality than MAP 80-100 mmHg and MAP ≥ 100 mmHg in 28 days(3.8% versus 1.6% versus 1.2%) and in 6 months (4.9% versus 2.5% versus 2.3%). Univariate analysis showed that MAP as a continuous variate was associated with 28-day (OR was 0.98, 95% CIs: 0.96-0.99, P  = 0.011) and 6-month mortality (OR was 0.98, 95% CIs: 0.97-1, P  = 0.021) in HF patients. Model 4 put into multivariate logistic regression analyses showed MAP 80-100 mmHg (OR was 0.13, 95% CIs: 0.02-0.8, P  = 0.027) stably associated with 28-day and 6-month mortality after adjusted covariable. Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed a higher survival rate in the MAP ≥ 80 mmHg group than in the MAP < 80 mmHg group. The forest plot showed the stable effect of MAP ≥ 80 mmHg compared with MAP < 80 mmHg, the interaction analysis had no statistical significance effect between the two groups of MAP and multi-variable.

CONCLUSION

It is indicated that MAP was independently associated with 28-day, 6-month all-cause mortality of HF patients, and compared with MAP < 80 mmHg, MAP ≥ 80 mmHg had a lower risk of 28-day, 6-month all-cause mortality of patients with HF.

Sequencing Quadruple Therapy for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Does It Really Matter?

The conventional sequence of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) initiation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) assumes that the effectiveness and tolerability of GDMT agents mirror their order of discovery, which is not true. In this review, the authors discuss flexible GDMT sequencing that should be permitted in special populations, such as patients with bradycardia, chronic kidney disease, or atrial fibrillation. Moreover, the initiation of certain GDMT medications may enable tolerance of other GDMT medications. Most importantly, the achievement of partial doses of all four pillars of GDMT is better than achievement of target dosing of only a couple.

Novel Treatments of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy in GDMT for Heart Failure: A State-of-art Review

This state-of-the-art review discuss the available evidence on the use of novel treatments of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy such as omecamtiv mecarbil, EMD-57033, levosimendan, pimobendan, and mavacamten for the treatment of heart failure (HF) in the context of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The paper provides a detailed overview of these agents' mechanisms of action, potential benefits and limitations, and their effects on clinical outcomes. The review also evaluates the efficacy of the novel treatments in comparison to traditional medications such as digoxin. Finally, we seek to provide insight and guidance to clinicians and researchers in the management of HF patients.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Tolerability in Patients With Heart Failure and Mitral Regurgitation: The COAPT Trial

BACKGROUND

In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, a central committee of heart failure (HF) specialists optimized guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) and documented medication and goal dose intolerances before patient enrollment.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to assess the rates, reasons, and predictors of GDMT intolerance in the COAPT trial.

METHODS

Baseline use, dose, and intolerances of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were analyzed in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, in whom maximally tolerated doses of these agents as assessed by an independent HF specialist were required before enrollment.

RESULTS

A total of 464 patients had LVEF ≤40% and complete medication information. At baseline, 38.8%, 39.4%, and 19.8% of patients tolerated 3, 2, and 1 GDMT classes, respectively (any dose); only 1.9% could not tolerate any GDMT. Beta-blockers were the most frequently tolerated GDMT (93.1%), followed by ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (68.5%), and then MRAs (55.0%). Intolerances differed by GDMT class, but hypotension and kidney dysfunction were most common. Goal doses were uncommonly achieved for beta-blockers (32.3%) and ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (10.2%) due to intolerances limiting titration. Only 2.2% of patients tolerated goal doses of all 3 GDMT classes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary trial population with HF, severe mitral regurgitation, and systematic HF specialist-directed GDMT optimization, most patients had medical intolerances prohibiting 1 or more GDMT classes and achieving goal doses. The specific intolerances noted and methods used for GDMT optimization provide important lessons for the implementation of GDMT optimization in future clinical trials. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079).

Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a complex and progressive clinical condition characterized by dyspnea and functional impairment. HFrEF has a high burden of mortality and readmission rate making it one of the most significant public health challenges. Basic treatment strategies include diuretics for symptom relief and use of quadruple therapy (Angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitors, evidence-based beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors) for reduction in hospitalizations, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Despite compelling evidence of clinical benefit, guideline directed medical therapy is vastly underutilized in the real-world clinical practice. Other medications such as intravenous iron, ivabradine, hydralazine/nitrates and vericiguat may also have a role in certain subgroup of HFrEF patients. Specific groups of patients with HFrEF may also be candidates for various device therapies such as implanted cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy and trans catheter mitral valve repair. This review provides a comprehensive overview of drug and device management approaches for patients with HFrEF, recommendations for initiation and titrations of therapies, and challenges associated with guideline directed medical therapy in the management of patients with HFrEF (Graphical abstract).

Blood pressure in heart failure management and prevention

Hypertension is a leading cause of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases. Its role in the pathogenesis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) differs from that in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Moreover, rigorous blood pressure control may reduce the incidence of heart failure. However, once heart failure develops, prognosis is affected by blood pressure, which may differ between patients with and without heart failure. Therefore, the association between guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure and its uptitration must be considered for blood pressure management and should not be overlooked. Heart failure medications affect the blood pressure and efficacy per baseline blood pressure value. This review discusses the potential mechanisms by which hypertension leads to HFrEF or HFpEF, the impact of hypertension on incident heart failure, and the recommended approaches for blood pressure management in patients with heart failure. Comparison between patients with and without heart failure regarding blood pressure The association between CV events and SBP is linear in patients without heart failure; however, it becomes J-shaped or inverse linear in those with heart failure. The management of BP, including optimal BP or pharmacotherapy, differs between the two populations. ACEi angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ARB angiotensin II receptor blockers; ARNi angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, BB beta-blockers, BP blood pressure, CV cardiovascular, DASH Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, GDMT guideline-directed medical therapy, HF heart failure, HFrEF heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, MRA mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, SBP systolic blood pressure, SGLT2i sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Low blood pressure and guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) presenting with low blood pressure (BP) have been underrepresented in large-scale clinical trials. We investigated the characteristics and implementation of conventional guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT; renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and β-blockers) in patients with low BP hospitalized for HF with systolic dysfunction.

METHODS

Conventional GDMT was evaluated by discharge BP among 2043 consecutive patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% in the WET-HF registry. Among the 708 (34.7%) patients with lower discharge BP (≤ 100 mmHg; the lower tertiles), exploratory subgroups included patients with previous HF hospitalization, inotrope use, New York Heart Association (NYHA) III-IV class, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and LVEF (lower than median value). We evaluated the risk-adjusted association between GDMT implementation and 2-year adverse events (all-cause mortality or HF rehospitalization).

RESULTS

Among the 2043 patients (age 74 [63-82] years), the median systolic BP was 108 (98-120) mmHg. Among patients with lower BP, GDMT prescription rate was 62.7%, and GDMT use was associated with decreased adverse events (HR:0.74, 95%CI:0.58-0.94). GDMT prescription rates were lower among higher-NYHA class and lower-eGFR subgroups compared with their reference subgroups, and directionally similar outcomes were noted in all subgroups (favoring GDMT use); however, this association was somewhat attenuated in the lower-eGFR group (HR:0.87, 95%CI:0.64-1.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional GDMT use was associated with decreased adverse outcomes in most patients with HF compounded by systolic dysfunction and low BP, albeit caution is warranted in patients with renal dysfunction.

Obesity Paradox among Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and Objectives: There is consensus on the negative effects of obesity on the development of heart failure. However, several studies have suggested that obesity may have paradoxical survival benefits in heart failure patients. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether the obesity paradox exists in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients in Jordan. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, data were retrieved from electronic hospital records of heart failure patients admitted to King Abdullah University Hospital between January 2010 and January 2020. Patients were divided into five BMI (kg/m2) subgroups: (1) Less than 25.0, (2) Overweight 25.0−29.9, (3) Obese Class I 30.0−34.9, (4) Obese Class II 35.0−39.9, and (5) Obese Class III ≥40.0. Changes in patients’ clinical and echocardiographic parameters over one year were analyzed. Results: Data of a total of 297 patients were analyzed to determine the effect of obesity on heart failure. The mean age was 64.6 ± 12.4 years, and most patients (65.7%) were male. Among several co-morbidities, diabetes mellitus and hypertension were the most common and were present in 81.8% and 81.1% of patients, respectively. Over all patients, there was no significant change in EF after 1 year compared to baseline. However, only patients in the Obese Class I group had a statistically significant improvement in EF of 38.0 ± 9.81% vs. 34.8 ± 6.35% (p = 0.004) after 1 year. Importantly, among non-diabetic individuals, only Obese Class I patients had a significant (p < 0.001) increase in EF after 1 year compared to other BMI subgroups, a feature that was not observed among patients with diabetes. On the other hand, only Obese Class I patients with hypertension had a significant improvement (p < 0.05) in EF after 1 year compared to other BMI subgroups, a feature that was not observed among patients without hypertension. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates an inverted U-shaped relationship between BMI and EF such that patients with mild obesity (i.e., Obese Class I) had significant improvement in EF compared to those having a lower and higher BMI. We, therefore, suggest the existence of the obesity paradox among HFrEF patients in Jordan.

Targets and management of hypertension in heart failure: focusing on the stages of heart failure

Hypertension is highly prevalent worldwide and is the major risk factor for heart failure (HF). More than half of the patients with HF in Asia suffer from hypertension. According to the 2022 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America HF guideline, there are four stages of HF, including at risk for HF (stage A), pre-HF (stage B), symptomatic HF (stage C), and advanced HF (stage D). Given the high prevalence of hypertension as well as HF and the stronger association between hypertension and cardiovascular diseases in Asians compared to the west, measures to prevent and alleviate the progression to clinical HF, especially controlling the blood pressure (BP), are of priority for Asian populations. After reviewing evidence-based studies, we propose a BP target of less than 130/80 mmHg for patients at stages A, B, and C. However, relatively higher BP may represent an opportunity to maximize guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), which could potentially result in a better prognosis for patients at stage D. Traditional antihypertensive drugs are the cornerstones for the management of hypertension at stages A and B. Notably, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are inferior to other drug classes for the preventing of HF, whereas diuretics are superior to others. For patients at stage C, GDMT is essential which also helps the control of BP. In particular, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are newer therapies recommended for the treatment of HF and presumably even in hypertension to prevent HF. Regarding patients at stage D, GDMT is also recommended if tolerable and measures should be taken to improve hemodynamics.

Positionspapier Herzinsuffizienz und Diabetes

Diabetes mellitus (DM) stellt eine wichtige Komorbidität bei Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz dar, die maßgeblich die Prognose der Patienten determiniert. Von entscheidender Bedeutung zur Verbesserung der Prognose dieser Hochrisiko-Patienten ist daher eine frühzeitige Diagnostik und differenzierte medikamentöse Therapie mit Ausschöpfung aller möglichen Therapieoptionen und Absetzen potenziell schädlicher Substanzen. Das gemeinsame Positionspapier der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK) und der Deutschen Diabetes Gesellschaft (DDG) fasst die vorhandene wissenschaftliche Evidenz zusammen und gibt Empfehlungen, was bei der Diagnose und Therapie der Herzinsuffizienz und des DM zu beachten ist, um die Prognose zu verbessern.

Effects of omecamtiv mecarbil in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction according to blood pressure: the GALACTIC-HF trial

AIM

Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) have high mortality, hospitalizations, and poorly tolerate evidence-based medical treatment. Omecamtiv mecarbil may be particularly helpful in such patients. This study examined its efficacy and tolerability in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The GALACTIC-HF enrolled patients with baseline SBP ≥85 mmHg with a primary outcome of time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure event. In this analysis, patients were divided according to their baseline SBP (≤100 vs. >100 mmHg). Among the 8232 analysed patients, 1473 (17.9%) had baseline SBP ≤100 mmHg and 6759 (82.1%) had SBP >100 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 715 (48.5%) and 2415 (35.7%) patients with SBP ≤100 and >100 mmHg, respectively. Patients with lower SBP were at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, appeared to be more effective in reducing the primary composite endpoint in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.94] compared with those with SBP >100 mmHg (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; P-value for interaction = 0.051). In both groups, omecamtiv mecarbil did not change SBP values over time and did not increase the risk of adverse events, when compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

In GALACTIC-HF, risk reduction of heart failure outcomes with omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo was large and significant in patients with low SBP. Omecamtiv mecarbil did not affect SBP and was well tolerated independent of SBP values.

Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction after pharmacological up-titration in new-onset heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Objective

Recent studies have reported suboptimal up-titration of heart failure (HF) therapies in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Here, we report on the achieved doses after nurse-led up-titration, reasons for not achieving the target dose, subsequent changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and mortality.

Methods

From 2012 to 2018, 378 HFrEF patients with a recent (< 3 months) diagnosis of HF were referred to a specialised HF-nurse led clinic for protocolised up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The achieved doses of GDMT at 9 months were recorded, as well as reasons for not achieving the optimal dose in all patients. Echocardiography was performed at baseline and after up-titration in 278 patients.

Results

Of 345 HFrEF patients with a follow-up visit after 9 months, 69% reached ≥ 50% of the recommended dose of renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitors, 73% reached ≥ 50% of the recommended dose of beta-blockers and 77% reached ≥ 50% of the recommended dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The main reasons for not reaching the target dose were hypotension (RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers), bradycardia (beta-blockers) and renal dysfunction (RAS inhibitors). During a median follow-up of 9 months, mean LVEF increased from 27.6% at baseline to 38.8% at follow-up. Each 5% increase in LVEF was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.84 (0.75–0.94, p = 0.002) for mortality and 0.85 (0.78–0.94, p = 0.001) for the combined endpoint of mortality and/or HF hospitalisation after a mean follow-up of 3.3 years.

Conclusions

This study shows that protocolised up-titration in a nurse-led HF clinic leads to high doses of GDMT and improvement of LVEF in patients with new-onset HFrEF.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01591-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient profiling in heart failure for tailoring medical therapy. A consensus document of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

Despite guideline recommendations and available evidence, implementation of treatment in heart failure (HF) is poor. The majority of patients are not prescribed drugs at target doses that have been proven to positively impact morbidity and mortality. Among others, tolerability issues related to low blood pressure, heart rate, impaired renal function or hyperkalaemia are responsible. Chronic kidney disease plays an important role as it affects up to 50% of patients with HF. Also, dynamic changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate may occur during the course of HF, resulting in inappropriate dose reduction or even discontinuation of decongestive or neurohormonal modulating therapy in clinical practice. As patients with HF are rarely naïve to pharmacologic therapies, the challenge is to adequately prioritize or select the most appropriate up-titration schedule according to patient profile. In this consensus document, we identified nine patient profiles that may be relevant for treatment implementation in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction. These profiles take into account heart rate (<60 bpm or >70 bpm), the presence of atrial fibrillation, symptomatic low blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (<30 or >30 mL/min/1.73 m² ) or hyperkalaemia. The pre-discharge patient, frequently still congestive, is also addressed. A personalized approach, adjusting guideline-directed medical therapy to patient profile, may allow to achieve a better and more comprehensive therapy for each individual patient than the more traditional, forced titration of each drug class before initiating treatment with the next.

Effect of dapagliflozin according to baseline systolic blood pressure in the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF)

AIMS

Concern about hypotension often leads to withholding of beneficial therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, which lowers systolic blood pressure (SBP),according to baseline SBP in Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Key inclusion criteria were: New York Heart Association Class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and SBP ≥95 mmHg. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were examined using SBP as both a categorical and continuous variable. A total of 1205 patients had a baseline SBP <110 mmHg; 981 ≥ 110 < 120; 1149 ≥ 120 < 130; and 1409 ≥ 130 mmHg. The placebo-corrected reduction in SBP from baseline to 2 weeks with dapagliflozin was -2.54 (-3.33 to -1.76) mmHg (P < 0.001), with a smaller between-treatment difference in patients in the lowest compared to highest SBP category. Patients in the lowest SBP category had a much higher rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome [20.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.6-24.2] than those in the highest SBP category (13.8, 11.7-16.4). The benefit and safety of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of SBP; hazard ratio (95% CI) in each SBP group, lowest to highest: 0.76 (0.60-0.97), 0.76 (0.57-1.02), 0.81 (0.61-1.08), and 0.67 (0.51-0.87), P interaction = 0.78. Study drug discontinuation did not differ between dapagliflozin and placebo across the SBP categories examined.

CONCLUSION

Dapagliflozin had a small effect on SBP in patients with HFrEF and was superior to placebo in improving outcomes, and well tolerated, across the range of SBP included in DAPA-HF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03036124.

Management of low blood pressure in ambulatory heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients

Low blood pressure is common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). While spontaneous hypotension predicts risk in HFrEF, there is only limited evidence regarding the relationship between hypotension observed during heart failure (HF) drug titration and outcome. Nevertheless, hypotension (especially orthostatic hypotension) is an important factor limiting the titration of HFrEF treatments in routine practice. In patients with signs of shock and/or severe congestion, hospitalization is advised. However, in the very frequent cases of non-severe and asymptomatic hypotension observed while taking drugs with a class I indication in HFrEF, European and US guidelines recommend maintaining the same drug dosage. In instances of symptomatic or severe persistent hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), it is recommended to first decrease blood pressure reducing drugs not indicated in HFrEF as well as the loop diuretic dose in the absence of associated signs of congestion. Unless the management of hypotension appears urgent, a HF specialist should then be sought rather than stopping or decreasing drugs with a class I indication in HFrEF. If symptoms or severe hypotension persist, no recommendations exist. Our HF group reviewed available evidence and proposes certain steps to follow in such situations in order to improve the pharmacological management of these patients.

The effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy on arterial stiffness and central hemodynamic parameters

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a device-based method of treatment which decreases morbidity and mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study was aimed to investigate the effects of CRT on hemodynamic and arterial stiffness parameters evaluated by noninvasive method, and determine whether there is a correlation between the changes after CRT in these parameters and the clinical response to CRT or not.

METHODS

The study included 46 patients with HFrEF who were planned to undergo CRT implantation. Before the CRT implantation, clinical and demographic data were recorded from all patients. Hemodynamic and arterial stiffness parameters were measured oscillometrically by an arteriograph before CRT implantation. The patients were re-evaluated minimum three months after CRT; the above-mentioned parameters were measured again and compared to the pre-CRT period.

RESULTS

Compared to the period before CRT, mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) (116.8 ± 19.1 mm Hg vs 127.7 ± 20.9 mm Hg, P = .005), central SBP (cSBP) (106.2 ± 17.3 mm Hg vs 116.8 ± 18.7 mm Hg, P = .015), cardiac output (CO) (4.6 ± 0.8 lt/min vs 5.1 ± 0.8 lt/min, P = .002), stroke volume (65.6 ± 16.3 mL vs 72.0 ± 14.9 mL), and pulse wave velocity (PWV) (10 ± 1.6 m/sec vs 10.4 ± 1.8 m/sec, P = .004) increased significantly in post-CRT period. In addition, the same parameters were significantly increased post-CRT period in patients with clinical response. However, there was not any similar increase in nonresponder patients.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that SBP, CO, and PWV increased significantly after CRT. The modest increases in these parameters were observed to be associated with positive clinical outcomes.

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.

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists, Blood Pressure, and Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and outcomes according to baseline SBP in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Background

MRAs are greatly underused in patients with HFrEF, often because of fear of adverse events. Concern about hypotension has been raised by the demonstration that MRAs are particularly effective treatment for resistant hypertension.

Methods

The effect of MRA therapy was studied in 4,396 patients with HFrEF randomized in the RALES (Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study) and EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) trials.

Results

Mean SBP change from baseline to 6 months was +1.4 ± 18.1 mm Hg in the placebo group and −1.2 ± 17.9 mm Hg in the MRA group. The between-treatment difference was 2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5 to 3.6; p < 0.001). All outcomes were reduced by MRA therapy overall, with consistent effects across SBP categories (e.g., all-cause mortality, overall hazard ratio [HR] of 0.72; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.82; p < 0.001; SBP ≤105 mm Hg; HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.94; SBP >105 to ≤115 mm Hg; HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.02; SBP >115 to ≤125 mm Hg; HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.94; SBP >125 to ≤135 mm Hg; HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.10; and SBP > 135 mm Hg; HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.90; p for interaction = 0.95). Hypotension was infrequent and not more common with MRA therapy than with placebo, overall (4.6% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.25) or in any SBP category.

Conclusions

MRA treatment had little effect on SBP in patients with HFrEF, and the clinical benefits were not modified by baseline SBP. MRA treatment infrequently caused hypotension, even when the baseline SBP was low. The treatment discontinuation rates between MRA and placebo therapy were similar. Low SBP is not a reason to withhold MRA therapy in patients with HFrEF.

Blood pressure and heart failure

Background

Hypertension is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death. It affects a substantial proportion of the population worldwide, and remains underdiagnosed and undertreated.

Body

Long-standing high blood pressure leads to left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction that cause an increase in myocardial rigidity, which renders the myocardium less compliant to changes in the preload, afterload, and sympathetic tone. Adequate blood pressure control must be achieved in patients with hypertension to prevent progression to overt heart failure. Controlling blood pressure is also important in patients with established heart failure, especially among those with preserved ejection fractions. However, aggressive blood pressure lowering can cause adverse outcomes, because a reverse J-curve association may exist between the blood pressure and the outcomes of patients with heart failure. Little robust evidence exists regarding the optimal blood pressure target for patients with heart failure, but a value near 130/80 mmHg seems to be adequate according to the current guidelines.

Conclusion

Prospective studies are required to further investigate the optimal blood pressure target for patients with heart failure.

Österreichischer Blutdruckkonsens 2019

Erhöhter Blutdruck bleibt eine Hauptursache von kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen, Behinderung und frühzeitiger Sterblichkeit in Österreich, wobei die Raten an Diagnose, Behandlung und Kontrolle auch in rezenten Studien suboptimal sind. Das Management von Bluthochdruck ist eine häufige Herausforderung für Ärztinnen und Ärzte vieler Fachrichtungen. In einem Versuch, diagnostische und therapeutische Strategien zu standardisieren und letztendlich die Rate an gut kontrollierten Hypertoniker/innen zu erhöhen und dadurch kardiovaskuläre Erkrankungen zu verhindern, haben 13 österreichische medizinische Fachgesellschaften die vorhandene Evidenz zur Prävention, Diagnose, Abklärung, Therapie und Konsequenzen erhöhten Blutdrucks gesichtet. Das hier vorgestellte Ergebnis ist der erste Österreichische Blutdruckkonsens. Die Autoren und die beteiligten Fachgesellschaften sind davon überzeugt, daß es einer gemeinsamen nationalen Anstrengung bedarf, die Blutdruck-assoziierte Morbidität und Mortalität in unserem Land zu verringern.

Accuracy and inter-rater reliability of lung auscultation by bovine practitioners when compared with ultrasonographic findings

In practice, veterinary surgeons frequently rely on lung auscultation as a confirmation test for pneumonia. To what extent diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation varies between different practitioners is currently unknown. In this diagnostic test study, 49 Dutch veterinarians each auscultated between 8 and 10 calves, and communicated whether they would decide to treat the animal with antimicrobials or not. They were not allowed to perform any other aspect of the clinical examination. Their decisions were compared with lung ultrasonography findings. The average sensitivity and specificity of lung auscultation were 0.63 (sd=0.2; range=0.2-1.0) and 0.46 (sd=0.3; range=0.0-1.0), respectively. Of the participants, 8.2 per cent were 100 per cent sensitive, 16.3 per cent were 100 per cent specific, and only 4.0 per cent were perfect. The Krippendorff's alpha was 0.18 (95 per cent confidence interval: -0.01 to 0.38), signifying poor reliability between multiple raters. Regardless of the poor diagnostic accuracy in this study, especially the large variation in a confirmation test between different practitioners could potentially cause professional damage as well as misuse of antimicrobials. This study could be seen as a gentle stimulus to regularly evaluate one's diagnostic skills. Both complementary training and the use of more accurate techniques with less inter-rater variation could improve the situation.

Development of hypotension in patients newly diagnosed with heart failure in UK general practice: retrospective cohort and nested case-control analyses

OBJECTIVES

Hypotension is of particular relevance for patients with heart failure (HF), since almost all HF drugs cause lowering of blood pressure (BP) and it is associated with a poor prognosis. We aimed to investigate hypotension incidence and risk factors in patients with incident HF in the UK.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study including nested case-control analyses.

SETTING

The Health Improvement Network UK primary care database.

PARTICIPANTS

18 677 adult patients with incident HF during 2000-2005 were followed and cases of hypotension (systolic BP ≤90 mm Hg) were identified. Controls were age-matched, sex-matched and date-matched to cases (1:2).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We estimated hypotension incidence in the full study population and relevant subgroups (eg, sex and age). Potential risk factors for hypotension overall and for multiple versus single hypotensive episodes were evaluated using conditional logistic regression and unconditional regression models, respectively.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 3.31 years, 2565 patients (13.7%) developed hypotension. The incidence of hypotension was 3.17 cases per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.05-3.30), and was markedly increased in women aged 18-39 years (n=32; 17.72 cases per 100 patient-years; 95% CI: 9.69-29.73). Hypotension risk factors included high healthcare utilisation (proxy measure for HF severity and general comorbidity; eg, ≥10 primary care physician visits versus none, odds ratio (OR): 2.29; 95% CI: 1.34-3.90), previous hypotensive episodes (OR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.84-2.92), renal failure and use of aldosterone antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Risk factors identified for hypotension generally overlapped with those for multiple versus single hypotensive episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypotension occurs frequently in patients with incident HF. Our findings may help identify patients most likely to benefit from close BP monitoring. The increased incidence of hypotension in young women with HF requires investigation.

Systolic Blood Pressure and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

National guidelines recommend that systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and hypertension be maintained below 130 mm Hg.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine associations of SBP <130 mm Hg with outcomes in patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

Of the 25,345 patients in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF registry, 10,535 had an ejection fraction (EF) ≤40%. Of these, 5,615 had stable SBP (≤20 mm Hg admission to discharge variation), and 3,805 (68%) had a discharge SBP <130 mm Hg. Propensity scores for SBP <130 mm Hg, estimated for each of the 5,615 patients, were used to assemble a matched cohort of 1,189 pairs of patients with SBP <130 versus ≥130 mm Hg, balanced on 58 baseline characteristics (mean age 76 years; mean EF 28%, 45% women, 13% African American). This process was repeated in 3,946 patients, after excluding 1,669 patients (30% of 5,615) with a discharge SBP <110 mm Hg and assembled a second matched balanced cohort of 1,099 pairs of patients with SBP 110 to 129 mm Hg versus ≥130 mm Hg.

RESULTS

Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 7% and 4% of matched patients with SBP <130 mm Hg versus ≥130 mm Hg, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24 to 2.48; p = 0.001). HRs (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and HF readmission at 1 year, associated with SBP <130 mm Hg, were 1.32 (1.15 to 1.53; p < 0.001), 1.11 (1.01 to 1.23; p = 0.030), and 1.24 (1.09 to 1.42; p = 0.001), respectively. HRs (95% CIs) for 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality associated with SBP 110 to 129 mm Hg (vs. ≥130 mm Hg) were 1.50 (1.03 to 2.19; p = 0.035), and 1.19 (1.02 to 1.39; p = 0.029), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Among hospitalized older patients with HFrEF, SBP <130 mm Hg is associated with poor outcomes. This association persisted when the analyses were repeated after excluding patients with SBP <110 mm Hg. There is an urgent need for randomized controlled trials to evaluate optimal SBP reduction goals in patients with HFrEF.

Reverse J-Curve Relationship Between On-Treatment Blood Pressure and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the relationship between on-treatment blood pressure (BP) and clinical outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF).

BACKGROUND

Lower BP has been reported to be related to increased mortality in various cardiovascular diseases. The optimal BP level for patients already experiencing HF is contentious.

METHODS

The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry prospectively enrolled a total of 5,625 consecutive patients hospitalized for acute HF in 10 tertiary university hospitals in Korea between March 2011 and February 2014. Clinical profiles including BP were collected at admission, discharge, and during outpatient follow-up. Mean on-treatment BP was calculated from BP at discharge and at each follow-up visit. We evaluated the effects of mean on-treatment BP on the clinical outcomes of patients.

RESULTS

Patients were followed up for a median 2.2 years. One-year mortality after discharge was 18.2%. The relationship between on-treatment BP and all-cause mortality followed a reversed J-curve relationship. A nonlinear, multivariable Cox proportional hazard model identified a nadir of systolic and diastolic BPs of 132.4/74.2 mm Hg in patients, for whom the mortality rate was lowest (p < 0.0001). The relationship with increased mortality above and below the reference BP was more definitive for diastolic BP and for HF with a preserved ejection fraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Systolic and diastolic BPs <130/70 mm Hg at discharge and during follow-up was associated with worse survival in HF patients. These data suggest that the lowest BP possible might not be an optimal target for HF patients. Further studies should establish a proper BP goal in HF patients. (Registry [Prospective Cohort] for Heart Failure in Korea [KorAHF]; NCT01389843).

Baroreflex activation therapy: a new approach to the management of advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Chronic heart failure is a common clinical condition characterized by persistent excessive sympathetic nervous system activation. The derangement of the sympathetic activity has relevant implications for disease progression and patient survival. Aiming to positively impact patient outcome, autonomic nervous system modulatory therapies have been developed and tested in animal and clinical studies. As a general gross assumption, direct vagal stimulation and baroreflex activation are considered equivalent. This assumption does not take into account the fact that direct cervical vagal nerve stimulation involves activation of both afferent and efferent fibers innervating not only the heart, but the entire visceral system, leading to undesired responses to and from this compartment. The different action of baroreflex activation is based on generating a centrally mediated reduction of sympathetic outflow and increasing parasympathetic activity to the heart via a physiological reflex pathway. Thus, baroreflex activation rebalances the unbalanced autonomic nervous system via a specific path. Independent and complementary investigations have shown that sympathetic nerve activity can be rebalanced via control of the arterial baroreflex in heart failure patients.

Results from recent pioneering research studies support the hypothesis that baroreflex activation can add significant therapeutic benefit on top of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure. In the present review, baroreflex activation therapy results are discussed, focusing on critical aspects like patient selection rationale to support clinician orientation in opting for baroreflex activation therapy when, on top of current guideline-directed medical treatment, other therapies are to be considered.

Prognostic Significance of Low Systolic Blood Pressure at Discharge in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

INTRODUCTION

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) is emerging as a predictor of outcome in chronic heart failure and low SBP has been shown to be related to higher mortality.

AIM

To investigate the relationship between low SBP and long-term outcome in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

We use prospectively collected data and recruited 297 patients with chronic HFpEF to investigate the relationship between low SBP at discharge and long-term outcome. SBP was recorded at discharge and analysed in a Cox regression model. The endpoint of interest was death from any cause.

RESULTS

In follow-up period, the mortality rates were 61.4% for SBP <100 mmHg, and the survival rates decreased in SBP <100 mmHg as compared with the other SBP strata by using Kaplan-Meier analysis (χ ² = 22.95, log rank P < 0.001). Compared to SBP 140-159 mmHg (reference category), the unadjusted hazard ratios for mortality were 3.29 (95% CI 1.45-7.47, P = 0.004) for SBP <100 mmHg. On multivariate analysis, adjustment for all variables, there still was an inverse relation between SBP and all cause mortality with a threshold at 100 mmHg (P = 0.002) and the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.16 (95% CI 1.15-8.68, P = 0.026) for SBP <100 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

SBP at discharge is an independent predictor of long-term outcome and affects all-cause mortality, and SBP <100 mmHg at discharge is associated with excess long-term mortality in HFpEF.

Discontinuation/Dose Reduction of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers during Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in African-American Patients with Reduced Left-Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Objectives: Patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) benefit from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy. While dose reduction/discontinuation (r/d) of β-blockers (BB) and furosemide in acute decompensated HF (ADHF) worsen outcomes, data on ACEI/ARB are lacking. Methods: To determine the frequency and reasons for ACEI/ARB therapy r/d in ADHF patients, we studied 174 patients with LVEF <40% on ACEI/ARB and BB therapy upon admission over 1 year. Results: ACEI/ARB doses were r/d in 17.2% because of acute kidney injury (56.7%), hypotension (23.3%), and hyperkalemia (10%). Clinical characteristics were similar between patients with r/d and continued therapy. Admission and discharge creatinine (Cr) levels were higher in the r/d group. On multivariate analysis, admission Cr and admission systolic blood pressures were independent predictors of r/d. Among patients with renal dysfunction cited as the r/d reason, Cr did not significantly rise in 23.5%. The r/d group had a longer length of stay (LOS). Conclusions: ACEI/ARB dose is reduced and/or discontinued in nearly one-fifth of all ADHF admissions, and LOS is longer in the ACEI/ARB r/d group. While impaired renal function is the most frequently cited reason, nearly one-fourth of the patients had stable renal function. ACEI/ARB r/d therapy in the setting of ADHF merits further study.

Beta-blockers for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).There was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.Total CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.

Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of blood pressure lowering treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, the extent to which these effects differ by baseline blood pressure, presence of comorbidities, or drug class is less clear. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify these differences.

METHOD

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE for large-scale blood pressure lowering trials, published between Jan 1, 1966, and July 7, 2015, and we searched the medical literature to identify trials up to Nov 9, 2015. All randomised controlled trials of blood pressure lowering treatment were eligible for inclusion if they included a minimum of 1000 patient-years of follow-up in each study arm. No trials were excluded because of presence of baseline comorbidities, and trials of antihypertensive drugs for indications other than hypertension were eligible. We extracted summary-level data about study characteristics and the outcomes of major cardiovascular disease events, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, renal failure, and all-cause mortality. We used inverse variance weighted fixed-effects meta-analyses to pool the estimates.

RESULTS

We identified 123 studies with 613,815 participants for the tabular meta-analysis. Meta-regression analyses showed relative risk reductions proportional to the magnitude of the blood pressure reductions achieved. Every 10 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular disease events (relative risk [RR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·77-0·83), coronary heart disease (0·83, 0·78-0·88), stroke (0·73, 0·68-0·77), and heart failure (0·72, 0·67-0·78), which, in the populations studied, led to a significant 13% reduction in all-cause mortality (0·87, 0·84-0·91). However, the effect on renal failure was not significant (0·95, 0·84-1·07). Similar proportional risk reductions (per 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure) were noted in trials with higher mean baseline systolic blood pressure and trials with lower mean baseline systolic blood pressure (all ptrend>0·05). There was no clear evidence that proportional risk reductions in major cardiovascular disease differed by baseline disease history, except for diabetes and chronic kidney disease, for which smaller, but significant, risk reductions were detected. β blockers were inferior to other drugs for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease events, stroke, and renal failure. Calcium channel blockers were superior to other drugs for the prevention of stroke. For the prevention of heart failure, calcium channel blockers were inferior and diuretics were superior to other drug classes. Risk of bias was judged to be low for 113 trials and unclear for 10 trials. Heterogeneity for outcomes was low to moderate; the I(2) statistic for heterogeneity for major cardiovascular disease events was 41%, for coronary heart disease 25%, for stroke 26%, for heart failure 37%, for renal failure 28%, and for all-cause mortality 35%.

INTERPRETATION

Blood pressure lowering significantly reduces vascular risk across various baseline blood pressure levels and comorbidities. Our results provide strong support for lowering blood pressure to systolic blood pressures less than 130 mm Hg and providing blood pressure lowering treatment to individuals with a history of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research and Oxford Martin School.