Beta-blockade with nebivolol in elderly heart failure patients with impaired and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: Data From SENIORS (Study of Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalization in Seniors With Heart Failure)

Prognostic impact of beta-blocker use by N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide level in acute heart failure patients

AIMS

Both patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) present with elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and have multiple comorbidities; consequently, the prognostic effect of NT-proBNP according to beta-blocker (BB) use is unknown.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated patients admitted for acute HF between January 2012 and December 2017 at Ulsan University Hospital. Clinical, echocardiographic, laboratory and drug prescription data, including BB data, were collected from the hospital database. Information on mortality was collected by reviewing medical records or using national death data.

RESULTS

Of the 472 patients evaluated, 216 (45.8%) and 256 (54.2%) patients were and were not prescribed BB at discharge, respectively. A total of 224 (47.5%) patients died within a median follow-up duration of 44 months. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed reduced all-cause mortality with BB in HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤ 40%) but not in HFpEF (ejection fraction > 40%). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, transmitral to tissue Doppler imaging, early diastolic velocity ratio (E/E'), NT-proBNP and BB use were independent predictors of all-cause mortality in HFrEF. Meanwhile, haemoglobin and NT-proBNP levels were independent predictors of HFpEF. The NT-proBNP cut-off value for determining all-cause mortality was set to 4800 pg/mL. Among HFrEF patients with NT-proBNP < 4800 pg/mL, the survival rate was higher for patients with BB use than those with no BB use (log-rank P < 0.001). However, in the HFpEF group, the survival rate associated with BB use did not differ according to the NT-proBNP levels. Both HFrEF and HFpEF patients with NT-proBNP levels of ≥4800 pg/mL presented with multiple comorbidities, including lower body mass index and haemoglobin levels and higher creatinine levels, NT-proBNP levels and E/E'.

CONCLUSION

In patients with acute HF, BB use is associated with reduced all-cause mortality in those with HFrEF but not in those with HFpEF. HFrEF patients with NT-proBNP levels of <4800 pg/mL treated with BB have a higher survival rate than those not treated with BB. However, this benefit is not seen in HFrEF patients with NT-proBNP levels of ≥4800 pg/mL or in all HFpEF patients, regardless of the NT-proBNP level. NT-proBNP levels are elevated in multiple comorbid conditions, and these comorbidities may contribute to the attenuated effects of BB on all-cause mortality.

Comparison of clinical characteristics and prognostic factors in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with and without renal dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with renal dysfunction (RD) is considered to be a specific phenotype of HFpEF. This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality between HFpEF-diagnosed patients with and without RD.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 5867 consecutive patients with acute HFpEF. RD was defined by an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were used to compare the in-hospital mortality between the groups. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify significant prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Across the study cohort, 68% of patients had RD. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in HFpEF patients with RD than in those without RD. The comorbidities and laboratory data differed significantly between the groups. Independent prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality in the HFpEF patients with RD were age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.039), systolic blood pressure (HR, 0.991), eGFR (HR, 0.981), C-reactive protein (CRP; HR, 1.028), diuretics (HR, 0.374), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACE-I/ARBs; HR, 0.680), and beta-blockers (HR, 0.662). In HFpEF patients without RD, age (HR, 1.039), systolic blood pressure (HR, 0.979), and ACE-I/ARBs (HR, 0.373) were independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors, such as CRP and beta-blockers, were observed between the HFpEF patients with and without RD. These results have implications for future research and may help guide individualized patient management strategies.

Contemporary Use of β-Blockers in Heart Failure Patients With and Without Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Database Analysis

Evidence of the effectiveness of β-blockers in heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) in a contemporary cohort is controversial. This study investigated the association between the use of β-blockers and prognosis in hospitalized HF patients with and without AF in Japan. Patients hospitalized with the first episode of acute HF were identified from the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan between April 2014 and March 2021. Associations of β-blocker use and prognosis were compared by propensity score matching among the AF or non-AF group. A mixed-effects survival model was used, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Among 428,650 patients discharged with HF in 4,433 hospitals, 175,174 (40.9%) were ≥ 85 years old, 151,873 (35.4%) had complicated AF, and 236,457 (55.2%) were β-blocker users. In a matched AF group, β-blocker use was associated with a lower composite outcome of all-cause mortality or HF rehospitalization (HR [95% CI], 0.95 [0.93-0.97]). A similar result was obtained in a matched non-AF group (0.95 [0.94-0.96]). In addition, the HRs in patients aged ≥ 85 years and female patients were 1.00 [0.98-1.02] and 1.01 [0.98-1.03] in the AF group and 1.03 [1.01-1.05] and 0.98 [0.97-1.00] in the non-AF group, respectively. The favorable prognostic associations of β-blocker use were observed regardless of AF in patients across a broad spectrum of HF in a superaged society.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: The role of inflammation

Heart failure (HF) is a debilitating clinical syndrome affecting 64.3 million patients worldwide. More than 50% of HF cases are attributed to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), an entity growing in prevalence and mortality. Although recent breakthroughs reveal the prognostic benefits of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in HFpEF, there is still a lack of effective pharmacological therapy available. This highlights a major gap in medical knowledge that must be addressed. Current evidence attributes HFpEF pathogenesis to an interplay between cardiometabolic comorbidities, inflammation, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) activation, leading to cardiac remodelling and diastolic dysfunction. However, conventional RAAS blockade has demonstrated limited benefits in HFpEF, which emphasises that alternative therapeutic targets should be explored. Presently, there is limited literature examining the use of anti-inflammatory HFpEF therapies despite growing evidence supporting its importance in disease progression. Hence, this review aims to explore current perspectives on HFpEF pathogenesis, including the importance of inflammation-driven cardiac remodelling and the therapeutic potential of anti-inflammatory therapies.

Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in the Elderly Population: Basic Mechanisms and Clinical Considerations

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) refers to a clinical condition in which the signs of heart failure, such as pulmonary congestion, peripheral edema, and increased natriuretic peptide levels, are present despite normal ejection fractions and the absence of other causes (eg, pericardial disease). The ejection fraction cutoff for the definition of HFpEF has varied in the past, but recent society guidelines have settled on a consensus of 50%. HFpEF is particularly common in the elderly population. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the available literature regarding HFpEF in elderly patients in terms of evidence for the age dependence, specific clinical features, and underlying mechanisms. In the clinical arena, we review the epidemiology, discuss distinct clinical phenotypes typically seen in elderly patients, the importance of frailty, the role of biomarkers, and the role of medical therapies (including sodium-glucose cotransport protein 2 inhibitors, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers, angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, diuretics, and β-adrenergic receptor blockers). We then go on to discuss the basic mechanisms implicated in HFpEF, including cellular senescence, fibrosis, inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, enhanced production of reactive oxygen species, abnormal cellular calcium handling, changes in microRNA signalling, insulin resistance, and sex hormone changes. Finally, we review knowledge gaps and promising areas of future investigation. Improved understanding of the specific clinical manifestations of HFpEF in elderly individuals and of the fundamental mechanisms that contribute to the age-related risk of HFpEF promises to lead to novel diagnostic and treatment approaches that will improve outcomes for this common cardiac disorder in a vulnerable population.

Targeting G protein-coupled receptors for heart failure treatment

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Current treatment for patients with heart failure include drugs targeting G protein-coupled receptors such as β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers) and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (or angiotensin II receptor blockers). However, many patients progress to advanced heart failure with persistent symptoms, despite treatment with available therapeutics that have been shown to reduce mortality and mortality. GPCR targets currently being explored for the development of novel heart failure therapeutics include adenosine receptor, formyl peptide receptor, relaxin/insulin-like family peptide receptor, vasopressin receptor, endothelin receptor and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor. Many GPCR drug candidates are limited by insufficient efficacy and/or dose-limiting unwanted effects. Understanding the current challenges hindering successful clinical translation and the potential to overcome existing limitations will facilitate the future development of novel heart failure therapeutics. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue Therapeutic Targeting of G Protein-Coupled Receptors: hot topics from the Australasian Society of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacologists and Toxicologists 2021 Virtual Annual Scientific Meeting. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v181.14/issuetoc.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Heart Failure With Reduced vs Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Catheter ablation is associated with reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death in select patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the benefit in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain.

Objective

To investigate whether catheter ablation for AF is associated with reduced HF-related outcomes according to HF phenotype.

Data Source

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted among studies published from inception to September 2023.

Study Selection

Parallel-group randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation with conventional rate or rhythm control therapies in patients with HF, New York Heart Association functional class II or greater, and a history of paroxysmal or persistent AF were included. Pairs of independent reviewers screened 7531 titles and abstracts, of which 12 RCTs and 4 substudies met selection criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were abstracted in duplicate according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random-effects Mantel-Haenszel models. Interaction P values were used to test for subgroup differences.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was HF events, defined as HF hospitalization, clinically significant worsening of HF, or unscheduled visits to a clinician for treatment intensification. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 12 RCTs with 2465 participants (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [9.7] years; 658 females [26.7%]) were included; there were 1552 participants with HFrEF and 913 participants with HFpEF. Compared with conventional rate or rhythm control, catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of HF events in HFrEF (risk ratio [RR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72), while there was no benefit in patients with HFpEF (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.32) (P for interaction = .03). Catheter ablation was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared with conventional therapies in HFrEF (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70) but a differential association was not detected in HFpEF (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.46-1.79) (P for interaction = .12). Similarly, no difference in the association of catheter ablation with all-cause mortality was found between HFrEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.86) and HFpEF (RR vs conventional therapies, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.39-2.30) groups (P for interaction = .39).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that catheter ablation for AF was associated with reduced risk of HF events in patients with HFrEF but had limited or no benefit in HFpEF. Results from ongoing trials may further elucidate the role of catheter ablation for AF in HFpEF.

Beta blockers are associated with lower all-cause mortality among HFpEF patients

BACKGROUND

The evidence regarding beta blocker (BB) benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains inconclusive, leading to consideration of BB withdrawal in this population.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the association of BB on all-cause mortality in HFpEF patients.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of 20,206 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% who were hospitalized with decompensated HF between January 2011 and March 2020. Survival is reported at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years. A secondary analysis comparing mortality for patients on BB with additional indications including hypertension (HTN), coronary artery disease (CAD), and atrial fibrillation (AF) was completed. Mortality was compared between patients on BB and additional therapies of spironolactone or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs).

RESULTS

BB showed lower all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years (p < 0.0001). This association with lower all-cause mortality was validated by a supplementary propensity score-matched analysis. At 3 years, there was significant mortality reduction with addition of BB to either spironolactone (p = 0.0359) or ACEi/ARBs (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In a large single-center retrospective registry, BB use was associated with lower mortality in HFpEF patients with a recent decompensated HF hospitalization. The mortality benefit persisted in those treated with spironolactone or ACEi/ARBs, and in those with AF. This provocative data further highlights the uncertainty of the benefit of BB use in this cohort and calls for re-consideration of BB withdrawal, especially in those tolerating it well, without conclusive, large, and randomized trials showing lack of benefit or harm.

Pathophysiological Link and Treatment Implication of Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) results from a complex interplay of age, genetic, cardiac remodeling, and concomitant comorbidities including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Renal failure is an important comorbidity of HFpEF, as well as a major pathophysiological mechanism for those patients at risk of developing HFpEF. Heart failure (HF) and CKD are intertwined conditions sharing common disease pathways; the so-called "kidney tamponade", explained by an increase in intracapsular pressure caused by fluid retention, is only the latest model to explain renal injury in HF. Recognizing the different phenotypes of HFpEF remains a real challenge; the pathophysiological mechanisms of renal dysfunction may differ across the HF spectrum, as well as the prognostic role. A better understanding of the role of cardiorenal interactions in patients with HF in terms of symptom status, disease progression, and prognosis remains essential in HF management. Historically, patients with HF and CKD have been scarcely represented in clinical trial populations. Current concerns affect the practical approach to HF treatment, and, in this context, physicians are frequently hesitant to prescribe and titrate both new and old treatments. Therefore, the extensive application of HF drugs in diverse HF subtypes with numerous comorbidities and different renal dysfunction etiologies remains a controversial matter of discussion. Numerous recently introduced drugs, such as sodium-glucose-linked transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), constitute a new therapeutic option for patients with HF and CKD. Because of their protective vascular and hormonal actions, the use of these agents may be safely extended to patients with renal dysfunction in the long term. The present review delves into the phenotype of patients with HFpEF and CKD from a pathophysiological perspective, proposing a treatment approach that suggests a practical stepwise algorithm for the proper application of life-saving therapies in clinical practice.

The effect of sustained-release CARvedilol in patients with hypErtension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial (CARE-preserved HF)

Background

Although beta-blockers improve clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the benefit of beta-blockers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a robust predictor of heart failure outcomes, and recent studies have shown that beta-blockers are associated with improved survival in those with low GLS (GLS <14%) but not in those with GLS ≥14% among patients with LVEF ≥40%. Therefore, the objective of this trial is to evaluate the effect of sustained-release carvedilol (carvedilol-SR) on the outcome [N-terminal pro-B-natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration] in patients with hypertension and HFpEF and will assess the differential effects of these drugs on the outcome, according to the GLS categories.

Methods

This prospective randomized double-blind multicenter trial (CARE-preserved HF) will include 100 patients with HFpEF from three tertiary hospitals in South Korea. Patients with HFpEF and hypertension aged ≥20 years who have evidence of functional and structural heart disease on echocardiography and elevated natriuretic peptide will be enrolled. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to either the carvedilol-SR group (n = 50) or the placebo group (n = 50). Patients in the carvedilol-SR group will receive 8, 16, 32, or 64 mg carvedilol-SR once daily for 6 months, and the dose of carvedilol will be up-titrated at the discretion of the treating physicians. The primary efficacy outcome was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-natriuretic peptide concentration from baseline to months 3 and 6. We will also evaluate the differential effects of carvedilol-SR on primary outcomes according to GLS, using a cut-off of 14% or the median value.

Discussion

This randomized controlled trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of carvedilol-SR in patients with HFpEF and hypertension.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrial.gov, identifier NCT05553314.

Heart failure management with β-blockers: can we do better?

Heart failure (HF) is associated with disabling symptoms, poor quality of life, and a poor prognosis with substantial excess mortality in the years following diagnosis. Overactivation of the sympathetic nervous system is a key feature of the pathophysiology of HF and is an important driver of the process of adverse remodelling of the left ventricular wall that contributes to cardiac failure. Drugs which suppress the activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, including β-blockers, are foundation therapies for the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and despite a lack of specific outcomes trials, are also widely used by cardiologist in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Today, expert opinion has moved away from recommending that treatment for HF should be guided solely by the LVEF and interventions should rather address signs and symptoms of HF (e.g. oedema and tachycardia), the severity of HF, and concomitant conditions. β-blockers improve HF symptoms and functional status in HF and these agents have demonstrated improved survival, as well as a reduced risk of other important clinical outcomes such as hospitalisation for heart failure, in randomised, placebo-controlled outcomes trials. In HFpEF, β-blockers are anti-ischemic and lower blood pressure and heart rate. Moreover, β-blockers also reduce mortality in the setting of HF occurring alongside common comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, CKD (of any severity), and COPD. Higher doses of β-blockers are associated with better clinical outcomes in populations with HF, so that ensuring adequate titration of therapy to their maximal (or maximally tolerated) doses is important for ensuring optimal outcomes for people with HF. In principle, a patient with HF could have combined treatment with a β-blocker, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor/neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and a SGLT2 inhibitor, according to tolerability.

The Therapy and Management of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: New Insights on Treatment

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a clinical syndrome characterised by the presence of diastolic dysfunction and elevated left ventricular filling pressure, in the setting of a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. Despite the epidemiological prevalence of HFpEF, a prompt diagnosis is challenging and many uncertainties exist. HFpEF is characterised by different phenotypes driven by various cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. This is probably the reason why several HFpEF clinical trials in the past did not reach strong outcomes to recommend a single therapy for this syndrome; however, this paradigm has recently changed, and the unmet clinical need for HFpEF treatment found a proper response as a result of a new class of drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, which beneficially act through the whole spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. The aim of this review was to focus on the therapeutic target of HFpEF, the role of new drugs and the potential role of new devices to manage the syndrome.

Does Heterogeneity Exist in Treatment Associations With Renin-Angiotensin-System Inhibitors or Beta-blockers According to Phenotype Clusters in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction?

BACKGROUND

We explored the association between use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and beta-blockers, with mortality/morbidity in 5 previously identified clusters of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed 20,980 patients with HFpEF from the Swedish HF registry, phenotyped into young-low comorbidity burden (12%), atrial fibrillation-hypertensive (32%), older-atrial fibrillation (24%), obese-diabetic (15%), and a cardiorenal cluster (17%). In Cox proportional hazard models with inverse probability weighting, there was no heterogeneity in the association between renin-angiotensin system inhibitor use and cluster membership for any of the outcomes: cardiovascular (CV) mortality, all-cause mortality, HF hospitalisation, CV hospitalisation, or non-CV hospitalisation. In contrast, we found a statistical interaction between beta-blocker use and cluster membership for all-cause mortality (P = .03) and non-CV hospitalisation (P = .001). In the young-low comorbidity burden and atrial fibrillation-hypertensive cluster, beta-blocker use was associated with statistically significant lower all-cause mortality and non-CV hospitalisation and in the obese-diabetic cluster beta-blocker use was only associated with a statistically significant lower non-CV hospitalisation. The interaction between beta-blocker use and cluster membership for all-cause mortality could potentially be driven by patients with improved EF. However, patient numbers were diminished when excluding those with improved EF and the direction of the associations remained similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFpEF, the association with all-cause mortality and non-CV hospitalisation was heterogeneous across clusters for beta-blockers. It remains to be elucidated how heterogeneity in HFpEF could influence personalized medicine and future clinical trial design.

Pharmacological Treatments in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with reduced ejection fraction, despite recent trials with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is).

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to estimate the aggregate therapeutic benefit of drugs for HFmrEF and HFpEF.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomized trials including patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%, treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (analyzed together as renin-angiotensin system inhibitors [RASi]), beta-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, ARNI, and SGLT2i. An additive component network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and first hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); secondary outcomes were CV death, total HHF, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The authors identified 13 studies with a total of 29,875 patients and a mean LVEF of 56.3% ± 8.7%. ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i separately, but not RASi, BB, or digoxin, reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo. The combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was the most effective (HR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.70]); this was largely explained by the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i (HR: 0.56 [95% CI 0.43-0.71]). Results were similar for CV death (HR: 0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.91] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) or total HHF (HR: 0.49 [95% CI 0.33-0.71] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) alone. In a subgroup analysis, only SGLT2i had a consistent benefit among all LVEF subgroups, whereas the triple combination had the greatest benefit in HFmrEF, robust benefit in patients with LVEF 50% to 59%, and a statistically marginal benefit in patients with LVEF ≥60%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF and LVEF>40%, the quadruple combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i provides the largest reduction in the risk of CV death and HHF; driven by the robust effect of the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i. The benefit was more pronounced in HFmrEF patients.

Beta-blocker therapy in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (B-HFpEF): A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

While beta-blockers are considered the cornerstone of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the same may not apply to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). To date, the benefit of beta-blockers remains uncertain, and there is no current consensus on their effectiveness. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of beta-blockers on mortality and rehospitalization among patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized or observational cohort studies examined the efficacy of beta-blocker therapy in comparison with placebo, control, or standard medical care in patients with HFpEF, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50 %. The main endpoints were mortality (i.e., all-cause and cardiovascular), rehospitalization (i.e., all-cause and for heart failure) and a composite of the two.

RESULTS

Out of the 13,189 records initially identified, 16 full-text records met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed recruiting a total of 27,188 patients. The mean age range was 62-84 years old, predominantly female, with HFpEF in which 63.4 % of patients received a beta-blocker and 36.6 % did not. The pooled analysis of included cohort studies, of variable follow-up durations, showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality by 19 % (odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.99, p = 0.044) whereas rehospitalization for heart failure (OR 1.13; 95 % CI: 0.91-1.41, p = 0.27) or its composite with all-cause mortality (OR 1.01; 95 % CI: 0.78-1.32, p = 0.92) were similar between the beta-blocker and control groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that beta-blocker therapy has the potential to reduce all-cause mortality in patients with HFpEF based on observational studies. Nevertheless, it did not affect rehospitalization for heart failure or its composite with all-cause mortality. Large scale randomized trials are needed to clarify this uncertainty.

Pharmacotherapies in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Various pharmacotherapies exist for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but with unclear comparative efficacy. We searched EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library from inception through August 2021 for all randomized clinical trials in HFpEF (EF >40%) that evaluated beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). Outcomes assessed were cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalization. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model. We included 22 randomized clinical trials (30,673 participants; mean age = 71.7 ± 4.2 years; females = 49.3 ± 7.7%; median follow-up = 24.4 ± 11.1 months). Compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular mortality [beta-blockers; odds ratio (OR) 0.79 (0.46-1.34), MRA; OR 0.90 (0.70-1.14), ACE OR 0.95 (0.59-1.53), ARB; OR 1.02 (0.87-1.19), ARNI; OR 0.97 (0.74-1.26) and SGLT2i; OR 1.00 (0.84-1.18)] or all-cause mortality [beta blockers; OR 0.75 (0.54-1.04), MRA; OR 0.90 (0.75-1.08) ACE; OR 1.05 (0.71-1.54), ARB; OR 1.03 (0.91-1.15), ARNI; OR 0.99 (0.82-1.20) and SGLT2i; OR 1.00 (0.89-1.13)]. The certainty in these estimates was low or very low. There was a significantly reduction in HF hospitalization with the use of SGLT2i [OR 0.71 (0.62-0.82), moderate certainty], ARNI [OR 0.77 (0.63-0.94), low certainty], and MRA [OR 0.81 (0.66-0.98), moderate certainty]; with corresponding P scores of 0.84, 0.68, and 0.58, respectively. In HFpEF, the use of beta-blockers, MRA, ACE/ARB/ARNI, or SGLT2i was not associated with improved cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. SGLT2i, ARNI, and MRA reduced the risk of HF hospitalizations.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: How to Deal with This Chameleon

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by a notable heterogeneity in both phenotypic and pathophysiological features, with a growing incidence due to the increase in median age and comorbidities such as obesity, arterial hypertension, and cardiometabolic disease. In recent decades, the development of new pharmacological and non-pharmacological options has significantly impacted outcomes, improving clinical status and reducing mortality. Moreover, a more personalized and accurate therapeutic management has been demonstrated to enhance the quality of life, diminish hospitalizations, and improve overall survival. Therefore, assessing the peculiarities of patients with HFpEF is crucial in order to obtain a better understanding of this disorder. Importantly, comorbidities have been shown to influence symptoms and prognosis, and, consequently, they should be carefully addressed. In this sense, it is mandatory to join forces with a multidisciplinary team in order to achieve high-quality care. However, HFpEF remains largely under-recognized and under-treated in clinical practice, and the diagnostic and therapeutic management of these patients remains challenging. The aim of this paper is to articulate a pragmatic approach for patients with HFpEF focusing on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of HFpEF.

An Updated Review on the Role of Non-dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers and Beta-blockers in Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Evidence and Gaps

PURPOSE

The 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on acute and chronic heart failure (HF) recommend that non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDCC) should be avoided in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. It also emphasizes that beta-blockers only be initiated in clinically stable, euvolemic patients. Despite these recommendations, NDCC and beta-blockers are often still employed in patients with AF with rapid ventricular response and acute decompensated HF. The relative safety and efficacy of these therapies in this setting is unclear.

METHODS

To address the question of the safety and efficacy of NDCC and beta-blockers for acute rate control in decompensated HF, we provide a perspective on the literature of NDCC and beta-blockers in chronic HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and AF, including trials on the management of AF with rapid ventricular response with and without HF.

RESULTS

Robust data demonstrates mortality benefits when beta-blockers are used in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. The data that inform the contraindication of NDCC in HF with reduced ejection fraction are outdated and were not primarily designed to address the efficacy and safety of rate control of AF in patients with HF. Several studies indicate that for acute rate control, NDCC and beta-blockers are both efficacious therapies, especially in the setting of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy.

CONCLUSION

Future studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers and NDCC in both acute and chronic AF with HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

Revisiting Beta-Blocker Therapy in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogenous disorder and tends to be predominant in elderly, female, and obese patients. HFpEF has been classified using various cut-offs of left ventricular ejection fraction in the published studies with a current cut-off of ≥50%. The evidence of beta-blocker therapy in HFpEF patients showed conflicting findings with variably reported efficacy. This review aims to examine the published studies on the use of beta blockers for the treatment of patients with HFpEF.

Comparative effects of nebivolol and carvedilol on left ventricular diastolic function in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

Background

Although many studies have compared carvedilol and nebivolol in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), such comparative studies for the elderly have not been reported yet. Nebivolol is known to be effective for improving diastolic function of elderly patients with HF. Thus, this study aimed to determine whether nebivolol could improve LV diastolic function to a greater extent than carvedilol in older patients aged over 70 years.

Methods

This trial was a prospective, randomized, open-label, single-center, active-controlled study that enrolled 62 patients with class II or III HF over 70 years of age with an LVEF ≥40%. Patients were randomized into a carvedilol group or a nebivolol group. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at baseline and 12 months by the same investigator who was blinded to clinical data. The primary endpoint was E/e' measured by echocardiographic evaluation 12 months after treatment.

Results

The median duration of follow-up was 24 months. Baseline clinical characteristics and echocardiographic parameters, such as LV diastolic function indices, did not differ significantly between carvedilol and nebivolol groups. Twelve-month follow-up echocardiography data showed no significant difference in E/e' or other LV diastolic function indices between the two groups. There were no significant changes in echocardiographic parameters over 12 months in either group.

Conclusions

There was no difference between carvedilol and nebivolol for improving diastolic function of elderly HF patients with LVEF ≥40%. This study showed no superiority of nebivolol over carvedilol in elderly patients with HF.

Patient phenotype profiling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to guide therapeutic decision making. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association, the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the European Society of Hypertension

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents a highly heterogeneous clinical syndrome affected in its development and progression by many comorbidities. The left ventricular diastolic dysfunction may be a manifestation of various combinations of cardiovascular, metabolic, pulmonary, renal, and geriatric conditions. Thus, in addition to treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in all patients, the most effective method of improving clinical outcomes may be therapy tailored to each patient's clinical profile. To better outline a phenotype-based approach for the treatment of HFpEF, in this joint position paper, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Hypertension Society, have developed an algorithm to identify the most common HFpEF phenotypes and identify the evidence-based treatment strategy for each, while taking into account the complexities of multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy.

Pathophysiological Rationale and Clinical Evidence for Neurohormonal Modulation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome resulting from the interaction between cardiac diseases, comorbidities and ageing. HFpEF is characterised by the activation of neurohormonal axes, namely of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the sympathetic nervous system, although to a lesser extent compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This provides a rationale for neurohormonal modulation as a therapeutic approach for HFpEF. Nonetheless, randomised clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a prognostic benefit from neurohormonal modulation therapies in HFpEF, with the sole exception of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction in the lower range of normality, for whom the American guidelines suggest that such therapies may be considered. In this review, the pathophysiological rationale for neurohormonal modulation in HFpEF is summarised and the clinical evidence on pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches backing current recommendations discussed.

Are arrhythmias the drivers of sudden cardiac death in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction? A review

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for approximately 25-30% of all-cause mortality and 40% of cardiovascular mortality in properly adjudicated large clinical trials. The mechanism of SCD in HFpEF remains unknown but thought to be driven by arrhythmic events. Apart from atrial fibrillation, which is prevalent in approximately 45% of HFpEF patients, the true burden of other cardiac arrhythmias in HFpEF remains undetermined. The incidence and risk of clinically significant advanced cardiac conduction disease with bradyarrhythmias and ventricular arrhythmias remain less known. Recommendations have been made for long-term cardiac rhythm monitoring to determine the incidence of arrhythmias and clarify mechanisms and mode of death in HFpEF patients. In animal studies, spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias and SCD are significantly elevated in HFpEF animals compared with controls without heart failure. In humans, these studies are scant, with a few published small-size studies suggesting an increased incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in HFpEF. Higher rates of clinically significant conduction disease and cardiac pacing are seen in HFpEF compared with the general population. Excepting atrial fibrillation, the predictive effect of other arrhythmias on heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and precisely SCD remains unknown. Given the high occurrence of SCD in the HFpEF population, it could potentially become a target for therapeutic interventions if driven by arrhythmias. Studies to address these knowledge gaps are urgently warranted. In this review, we have summarized data on arrhythmias and SCD in HFpEF while highlighting avenues for future research in this area.

How to Manage Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Practical Guidance for Clinicians

Although patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%) comprise nearly half of those with chronic heart failure, evidence-based treatment options for this population have historically been limited. Recently, however, emerging data from prospective, randomized trials enrolling patients with HFpEF have greatly altered the range of pharmacologic options to modify disease progression in selected patients with HFpEF. In the context of this evolving landscape, clinicians are increasingly in need of practical guidance regarding the best approach to management of this growing population. In this review, we build on the recently published heart failure guidelines by integrating contemporary data from recent randomized trials to provide a contemporary framework for diagnosis and evidence-based treatment of patients with HFpEF. Where gaps in knowledge persist, we provide "best available" data from post hoc analyses of clinical trials or data from observational studies to guide management until more definitive studies are available.

Physician Perspectives on the Use of Beta Blockers in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

β-blockers are commonly used in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), even in the absence of a compelling indication and despite the potential to cause harm. Identifying reasons for β-blocker prescription in HFpEF could permit the development of strategies to reduce unnecessary use and potentially improve medication prescribing patterns in this vulnerable population. We administered an online survey regarding β-blocker prescribing behavior to physicians trained in internal medicine or geriatrics (noncardiology physicians) and to cardiologists at 2 large academic medical centers. The survey assessed the reasons for β-blocker initiation, agreement regarding initiation and/or continuation of β-blockers by another clinician, and deprescribing behavior. The response rate was 28.2% (n = 231). Among respondents, 68.2% reported initiating β-blockers in patients with HFpEF. The most common reason for initiating a β-blocker was for treatment of an atrial arrhythmia. Notably, 23.7% of physicians reported initiating a β-blocker without an evidence-based indication. When a β-blocker was considered not necessary, 40.1% of physicians reported they were rarely or never willing to deprescribe. The most common reason for not deprescribing a β-blocker when the physician felt that a β-blocker was unnecessary was the concern about interfering with another physicians' treatment plan (76.6%). In conclusion, a significant proportion of noncardiology physicians and cardiologists report prescribing β-blockers to patients with HFpEF, even when evidence-based indications are absent, and rarely deprescribe β-blockers in these scenarios.

Device-based percutaneous treatments to decompress the left atrium in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for more than half of heart failure hospital admissions in the last years and is burdened by high mortality and poor quality of life. Providing effective management for HFpEF patients is a major unmet clinical need. Increase in left atrial pressure is the key determinant of pulmonary congestion, with consequent dyspnoea and exercise limitation. Evidence on benefits of medical treatment in HFpEF patients is limited. Thus, alternative strategies, including devices able to reduce left atrial pressure, through an interatrial communication determining a left-right shunt, were developed. This review aims to summarize evidence regarding the use of percutaneous interatrial shunting devices. These devices are safe and effective in improving hemodynamic and clinical parameters, including pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, 6-min walking distance, and New York Heart Association functional class. Data on cardiovascular mortality and re-hospitalization for heart failure are still scarce.

The controversial role of beta-blockers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Beta-blocker (BB) therapy is a main pillar in treating patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and has shown a prognostic benefit. However, evidence for application of BB in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), especially in the absence of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation or arterial hypertension, is scarce. HFpEF is characterized by elevations in left atrial pressure and reduced compliance of the left ventricle leading to a hampered increase of cardiac output (CO) during exercise, which results in exertional dyspnea. This may be due to either a limited increase in stroke volume or reduced chronotropy during physical activity. We critically discuss the pathophysiological background of HFpEF, current data on BB in heart failure therapy, as well as the potential benefits and harms of BB therapy in HFpEF. Furthermore, we argue that non-cardio selective BB with peripheral activity to reduce afterload may be more suitable in this population than cardio-selective BB. Although preliminary data on BB in HFpEF are available, multicenter prospective trials to assess a reduction of cardiovascular morbidity are warranted. Future trials need to focus on phenotyping HFpEF patients and assess who may benefit most from tailored BB therapy.

Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Elderly Patients: Effectiveness and Safety

The proportion of the elderly population continues to increase due to the global increase in longevity. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common in the elderly due to cellular aging, myocardial stiffness, and multiple comorbidities. This age group is often under-represented in clinical trials. In this narrative review, we looked into the latest evidence-based lines of management of HFpEF in this vulnerable cohort. In this narrative review, we brought the latest evidence on the treatment of HFpEf in the elderly. We searched the largest three scientific databases (Pubmed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE) using the search words (elderly, HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, guidelines, treatment, and management) in different combinations. To date, screening for and treatment of the causes of HFpEF (such as hypertension, coronary artery disease [CAD], valvular heart disease, and cardiac amyloidosis) and associated comorbidities (such as diabetes mellitus [DM], iron deficiency, obesity, and thyroid dysfunction) are the main line of management of HFpEF. A multidisciplinary team, including an HF specialist cardiologist, an HF nurse, a geriatrician, a dietician, a psychologist, a physiotherapist, and an occupational therapist, should manage HFpEF elderly patients. Other specialist input may be needed according to the patient's requirements. The evidence on the effective management of HFpEF in the elderly age group is scarce and controversial. Some studied non-pharmacological approaches include supervised exercise training, pulmonary artery pressure monitoring, and the interatrial shunt device (an emerging modality that includes a small percutaneously inserted interatrial left to right valve aiming to reduce the left atrial and pulmonary wedge pressures). These modalities can only improve the symptoms and HF hospitalizations without robustly impacting cardiovascular (CV) death. Among the pharmacological approaches to treat HFpEF, only the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors proved efficacy in reducing the hard outcomes of CV death, HF hospitalizations, and urgent visits for HF when used in elderly HFpEF patients, irrespective of the presence of diabetes mellitus. Diuretics are only beneficial to alleviate the symptoms of fluid overload, with a risk of renal impairment in volume-depleted patients. The evidence on the effectiveness of other HF-specific disease-modifying agents in elderly HFpEF patients is controversial. Elderly patients have a higher risk of having side effects from HF medications due to the higher prevalence of polypharmacy, cognitive decline, and impairment of kidney and liver functions. Therefore, cautious initiation of HF treatment with a close follow-up of the blood pressure, liver functions, kidney functions, and electrolytes are of utmost importance.

Vascular dysfunction in HFpEF: Potential role in the development, maintenance, and progression of the disease

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex, heterogeneous disease characterized by autonomic imbalance, cardiac remodeling, and diastolic dysfunction. One feature that has recently been linked to the pathology is the presence of macrovascular and microvascular dysfunction. Indeed, vascular dysfunction directly affects the functionality of cardiomyocytes, leading to decreased dilatation capacity and increased cell rigidity, which are the outcomes of the progressive decline in myocardial function. The presence of an inflammatory condition in HFpEF produced by an increase in proinflammatory molecules and activation of immune cells (i.e., chronic low-grade inflammation) has been proposed to play a pivotal role in vascular remodeling and endothelial cell death, which may ultimately lead to increased arterial elastance, decreased myocardium perfusion, and decreased oxygen supply to the tissue. Despite this, the precise mechanism linking low-grade inflammation to vascular alterations in the setting of HFpEF is not completely known. However, the enhanced sympathetic vasomotor tone in HFpEF, which may result from inflammatory activation of the sympathetic nervous system, could contribute to orchestrate vascular dysfunction in the setting of HFpEF due to the exquisite sympathetic innervation of both the macro and microvasculature. Accordingly, the present brief review aims to discuss the main mechanisms that may be involved in the macro- and microvascular function impairment in HFpEF and the potential role of the sympathetic nervous system in vascular dysfunction.

The four pillars of HFrEF therapy: is it time to treat heart failure regardless of ejection fraction?

The syndrome of heart failure (HF) has historically been dichotomized based on clinical trial inclusion criteria into patients with a reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) using a cut-off of above or below 40%. The majority of trial evidence for the benefits of disease-modifying pharmacological therapy has been in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), i.e. those with an LVEF ≤40%. Recently, the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors empagliflozin and dapagliflozin have been shown to be the first drugs to improve outcomes in HF across the full spectrum of LVEF. There is, however, growing evidence that the benefits of many of the neurohumoral modulators shown to be beneficial in patients with HFrEF may extend to those with a higher LVEF above 40% but still below the normal range, i.e. HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Whether the benefits of some of these medications also extend to patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an area of ongoing debate. This article will review the evidence for HF treatments across the full spectrum of LVEF, provide an overview of recently updated clinical practice guidelines, and address the question whether it may now be time to treat HF with some therapies regardless of ejection fraction.

Atrial fibrillation and risk of progressive heart failure in patients with preserved ejection fraction heart failure

AIMS

Understanding of the pathophysiology of progressive heart failure (HF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is incomplete. We sought to identify factors differentially associated with risk of progressive HF death and hospitalization in patients with HFpEF compared with patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective cohort study of patients newly referred to secondary care with suspicion of HF, based on symptoms and signs of HF and elevated natriuretic peptides (NP), followed up for a minimum of 6 years. HFpEF and HFrEF were diagnosed according to the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Of 960 patients referred, 467 had HFpEF (49%), 311 had HFrEF (32%), and 182 (19%) had neither. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was found in 37% of patients with HFpEF and 34% with HFrEF. During 6 years follow-up, 19% of HFrEF and 14% of HFpEF patients were hospitalized or died due to progressive HF, hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 (95% CI: 0.47-0.96; P = 0.028). AF was the only marker that was differentially associated with progressive HF death or hospitalization in patients with HFpEF HR 2.58 (95% CI: 1.59-4.21; P < 0.001) versus HFrEF HR 1.11 (95% CI: 0.65-1.89; P = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

De novo patients diagnosed with HFrEF have greater risk of death or hospitalization due to progressive HF than patients with HFpEF. AF is associated with increased risk of progressive HF death or hospitalization in HFpEF but not HFrEF, raising the intriguing possibility that this may be a novel therapeutic target in this growing population.

Starting Neurohormonal Antagonists in Patients With Acute Heart Failure With Mid-Range and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of neurohormonal antagonists for patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF and HFpEF) are uncertain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study analyzed 858 consecutive patients with HFmrEF (EF: 40-49%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%), who were hospitalized for acute HF, and who were discharged alive, and were not taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE)-I/ angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) or β-blockers at admission. The study population was classified into 4 groups according to the status of prescription of ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker at discharge: no neurohormonal antagonist (n=342, 39.9%), ACE-I/ARB only (n=128, 14.9%), β-blocker only (n=189, 22.0%), and both ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker (n=199, 23.2%) groups. The primary outcome measure was a composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization. The cumulative 1-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was 41.2% in the no neurohormonal antagonist group, 34.0% in the ACE-I/ARB only group, 28.6% in the β-blocker only group, and 16.4% in the both ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker group (P<0.001). Compared with the no neurohormonal antagonist group, both the ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker groups were associated with a significantly lower risk for a composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28-0.76, P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, starting both ACE-I/ARB and a β-blocker was associated with a reduced risk of the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization compared with patients not starting on an ACE-I/ARB or β-blocker.

Optimal effectiveness of heart failure management - an umbrella review of meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce (re)hospitalizations in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a major health concern, which accounts for 1-2% of all hospital admissions. Nevertheless, there remains a knowledge gap concerning which interventions contribute to effective prevention of HF (re)hospitalization. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to systematically review meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, and Medline to identify eligible studies published in the English language in the past 10 years. Primarily, to synthesize the meta-analyzed data, a best-evidence synthesis was used in which meta-analyses were classified based on level of validity. Secondarily, all unique RCTS were extracted from the meta-analyses and examined. A total of 44 meta-analyses were included which encompassed 186 unique RCTs. Strong or moderate evidence suggested that catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy, cardiac rehabilitation, telemonitoring, and RAAS inhibitors could reduce (re)hospitalization. Additionally, limited evidence suggested that multidisciplinary clinic or self-management promotion programs, beta-blockers, statins, and mitral valve therapy could reduce HF hospitalization. No, or conflicting evidence was found for the effects of cell therapy or anticoagulation. This umbrella review highlights different levels of evidence regarding the effectiveness of several interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. It could guide future guideline development in optimizing care pathways for heart failure patients.

The Efficacy of Various Pharmacological Agents on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

The beneficial impacts of various drugs on long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have been a matter of controversy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review randomized control trials (RCTs) involving patients with heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and identify the effects of various treatment options [angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone receptor blockers] on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular reasons. The current meta-analysis has been conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed without any restrictions on language by using the electronic databases Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed up to July 20, 2022. The outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular reasons. Overall, 10 articles were included in the current meta-analysis with a pooled sample size of 13,336 patients with HFpEF. In comparison to the placebo, among all four pharmacological agents, beta-blockers were the only agent that decreased the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. On the other hand, a significant reduction in hospitalization due to cardiac-related reasons was reported in patients on ACE inhibitors as compared to placebo. No other pharmacological agent had an impact on hospitalization due to cardiac-related reasons. The current meta-analysis indicates the possible benefits of beta-blockers in HFpEF in terms of reducing cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality.

Heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: Has reasoning been lost?

Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), defined as LV stroke volume divided by end-diastolic volume, has been systematically used for the diagnosis, classification, and management of heart failure (HF) over the last three decades. HF is classified as HF with reduced LVEF, HF with midrange or mildly reduced LVEF, and HF with preserved LVEF using arbitrary, continuously changing LVEF cutoffs. A prerequisite for using this LVEF-based terminology is knowledge of the LVEF normal range, which is lacking and may lead to erroneous conclusions in HF, especially at the higher end of the LVEF spectrum.

Current Understanding of Molecular Pathophysiology of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart Failure (HF) is the most common cause of hospitalization in the Western societies. HF is a heterogeneous and complex syndrome that may result from any dysfunction of systolic or diastolic capacity. Abnormal diastolic left ventricular function with impaired relaxation and increased diastolic stiffness is characteristic of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF accounts for more than 50% of all cases of HF. The prevalence increases with age: from around 1% for those aged <55 years to >10% in those aged 70 years or over. Nearly 50% of HF patients have HFrEF and the other 50% have HFpEF/HFmrEF, mainly based on studies in hospitalized patients. The ESC Long-Term Registry, in the outpatient setting, reports that 60% have HFrEF, 24% have HFmrEF, and 16% have HFpEF. To some extent, more than 50% of HF patients are female. HFpEF is closely associated with co-morbidities, age, and gender. Epidemiological evidence suggests that HFpEF is highly represented in older obese women and proposed as 'obese female HFpEF phenotype'. While HFrEF phenotype is more a male phenotype. In addition, metabolic abnormalities and hemodynamic perturbations in obese HFpEF patients appear to have a greater impact in women then in men (Sorimachi et al., European J of Heart Fail, 2022, 22). To date, numerous clinical trials of HFpEF treatments have produced disappointing results. This outcome suggests that a "one size fits all" approach to HFpEF may be inappropriate and supports the use of tailored, personalized therapeutic strategies with specific treatments for distinct HFpEF phenotypes. The most important mediators of diastolic stiffness are the cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, and extracellular matrix (ECM). The complex physiological signal transduction networks that respond to the dual challenges of inflammatory and oxidative stress are major factors that promote the development of HFpEF pathologies. These signalling networks contribute to the development of the diseases. Inhibition and/or attenuation of these signalling networks also delays the onset of disease. In this review, we discuss the molecular mechanisms associated with the physiological responses to inflammation and oxidative stress and emphasize the nature of the contribution of most important cells to the development of HFpEF via increased inflammation and oxidative stress.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

Diabetic Heart Failure with Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Review of Current Pharmacotherapy

Diabetes is associated with several diabetic-related abnormalities which increase the risk of onset or worsening of heart failure. Recent studies showed that the majority of diabetic patients present with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the prevalence of HFpEF in diabetics is alarming. Moreover, outcomes in HFpEF are poor and could be compared to those of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with 1-year mortality ranging between 10 and 30%. In contrast to HFrEF, there is very limited evidence for pharmacologic therapy in symptomatic patients with preserved ejection fraction, and therefore, the optimal selection of treatment for diabetic HFpEF remains challenging. This narrative review article summarizes the currently available data on the pharmacological treatment of HFpEF in patients with diabetes.

[SEMERGEN positioning on approaching chronic heart failure in primary care]

Heart failure (HF) is a public health problem that generates a large healthcare burden both in hospitals and in Primary Care (PC). The publication of numerous studies about HF in recent years has led to a paradigm shift in the approach to this syndrome, in which the work of PC teams is gaining greater prominence. The recent guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology have fundamentally introduced changes in the management of patients with HF. The new proposed strategy, with drugs that reduce hospitalizations and slow the progression of the disease, should now be a priority for all professionals involved. This position document analyzes a proposal for an approach based on multidisciplinary teams with the leadership of family doctors, key to providing quality care throughout the entire process of the disease, from its prevention to the end of the life.