Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Geographical variation in patient characteristics and outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Compared to heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) are increasing in prevalence, yet little is known about the geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes among these two HF phenotypes. The aim of this study was to investigate geographic differences in HFpEF and HFmrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted an individual patient analysis of five clinical trials enrolling patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF from North America (NA), Latin America (LA), Western Europe (WE), Central/Eastern Europe and Russia (CEER), and Asia-Pacific (AP). We compared regions using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models. Among the 19 959 patients included, 4066 (23.1%) had HFmrEF and 15 353 (76.9%) HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, patients from WE were oldest, and those in CEER youngest. LA had the largest portion of females and NA most black patients. Obesity and diabetes were most prevalent in NA and hypertension and coronary heart disease most common in CEER. Self-reported health status varied strikingly and was the worst in NA and best in AP. Among patients with HFmrEF, rates of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) were: NA 12.56 per 100 patient-years (/100py), AP 11.67/100py, CEER 10.12/100py, LA 8.90/100py, and WE 8.43/100py, driven by differences in the rate of HF hospitalization. The corresponding values in HFpEF were 11.47/100py, 7.80/100py, 5.47/100py, 5.92/100py, and 7.80/100py, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes among patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These findings have implications for interpretation and generalizability of trial results, design and conduct of future trials, and optimization of care for these patients.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic overlap in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and response to sacubitril/valsartan in PARAGON-HF

AIMS

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) multimorbidity is prevalent among individuals with heart failure (HF), but whether cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan vary in relation to CKM status is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this PARAGON-HF post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of CKM multimorbidity (atherosclerotic cardiovascular [CV] disease, chronic kidney disease, and type 2 diabetes) on cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. The primary outcome was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and CV death. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and a composite kidney outcome (sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction of ≥50%, end-stage kidney disease, or kidney-related death). At baseline, 35.2% had one CKM condition, 33.3% had two, 15.9% had three, and only 15.6% had HF alone. CKM multimorbidity was associated with higher septal and posterior wall thickness, lower global longitudinal strain, higher E/e', and worse right ventricular function. Total HF hospitalizations or CV death increased with greater CKM multimorbidity, with the highest relative risk observed with three CKM conditions (rate ratio 3.06, 95% confidence interval 2.33-4.03), compared with HF alone. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of the number of CKM conditions for the primary endpoint (pinteraction = 0.75), CV death (pinteraction = 0.82), total HF hospitalizations (pinteraction = 0.67), and the composite kidney endpoint (pinteraction = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic multimorbidity was common in PARAGON-HF and associated with adverse changes in cardiac structure and function and with a stepwise increase in risk of clinical outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of CKM burden.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF

BACKGROUND

A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-β peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction).

METHODS

In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Proteomic Substudy

BACKGROUND

Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline circulating protein concentrations significantly associated with the primary end point and the timing and occurrence of total heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared with published analyses in 2515 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Efficacy and Safety of Aliskiren and Aliskiren/Enalapril Combination on Morbidity-Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) clinical trials. We identified 288 proteins that were robustly associated with the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with HFpEF. The baseline proteins most strongly related to outcomes included B2M (β-2 microglobulin), TIMP1 (tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1), SERPINA4 (serpin family A member 4), and SVEP1 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type A, EGF, and pentraxin domain containing 1). Overall, the protein-outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ as compared with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A proteomic risk score derived in patients with HFpEF was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction nor to clinical risk factors, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis in the PARAGON-HF proteomic substudy. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities among serum proteomic risk markers for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death when comparing clinical trial participants with heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifiers: NCT01920711, NCT01035255, NCT00853658.

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial.

METHODS

PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to polypharmacy status in PARAGON-HF

AIMS

Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON-HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non-polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5-9 medications), and 1360 hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper-polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non-adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all-cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76-1.85), 0.94 (0.77-1.15), and 0.77 (0.61-0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment-related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category.

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non-fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline.

Prognostic Models for Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Importance

Accurate risk prediction of morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) may help clinicians risk stratify and inform care decisions.

Objective

To develop and validate a novel prediction model for clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF using routinely collected variables and to compare it with a biomarker-driven approach.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Data were used from the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial to derive the prediction model, and data from the Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON-HF) and the Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Study (I-PRESERVE) trials were used to validate it. The outcomes were the composite of HF hospitalization (HFH) or cardiovascular death, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death. A total of 30 baseline candidate variables were selected in a stepwise fashion using multivariable analyses to create the models. Data were analyzed from January 2023 to June 2023.

Exposures

Models to estimate the 1-year and 2-year risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death.

Results

Data from 6263 individuals in the DELIVER trial were used to derive the prediction model and data from 4796 individuals in the PARAGON-HF trial and 4128 individuals in the I-PRESERVE trial were used to validate it. The final prediction model for the composite outcome included 11 variables: N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, HFH within the past 6 months, creatinine level, diabetes, geographic region, HF duration, treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, transient ischemic attack/stroke, any previous HFH, and heart rate. This model showed good discrimination (C statistic at 1 year, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.71-0.75) in both validation cohorts (C statistic at 1 year, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74 in PARAGON-HF and 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.78 in I-PRESERVE) and calibration. The model showed similar discrimination to a biomarker-driven model including high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T and significantly better discrimination than the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic (MAGGIC) risk score (C statistic at 1 year, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.63; delta C statistic, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.10-0.15; P < .001) and NT-proBNP level alone (C statistic at 1 year, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.64-0.68; delta C statistic, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08; P < .001). Models derived for the prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular death also performed well. An online calculator was created to allow calculation of an individual's risk.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this prognostic study, a robust prediction model for clinical outcomes in HFpEF was developed and validated using routinely collected variables. The model performed better than NT-proBNP level alone. The model may help clinicians to identify high-risk patients and guide treatment decisions in HFpEF.

Selecting the appropriate patients for coronary artery bypass grafting in ischemic cardiomyopathy-importance of myocardial viability

Patients who undergo coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in ischemic cardiomyopathy have a survival advantage over medical therapy at 10 years. The survival advantage of CABG over medical therapy is due to its ability to reduce future myocardial infarction, and by conferring electrical stability. The presence of myocardial viability does not provide a differential survival advantage for CABG over medical therapy. Presence of angina and inducible ischemia are also less predictive of outcome. Moreover, CABG is associated with significant early mortality. Hence, careful patient selection is more important for reducing the early mortality and improving the long-term outcome than relying on results of myocardial viability. Younger patients with good exercise tolerance benefit the most, while patients who are frail and patients with renal dysfunction and dysfunctional right ventricle seem to have very high operative mortality. Elderly patients, because of poor life expectancy, do not benefit from CABG, but the age cutoff is not clear. Patients also need to have revascularizable targets, but this decision is often based on experience of the surgical team and heart team discussion. These recommendations are irrespective of the myocardial viability tests. Optimal medical treatment remains the cornerstone for management of ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Clinical implications of subclinical left ventricular dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: The PARAGON-HF study

AIMS

Left ventricular (LV) subclinical impairment has been described in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We assessed the relationship between LV myocardial deformation by strain imaging and recurrent hospitalization for heart failure (HF) or cardiovascular death in a large international HFpEF population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed two-dimensional speckle-tracking based global longitudinal strain (GLS) in 790 patients (mean age 74 ± 8 years, 54% female) with adequate image quality enrolled in the PARAGON-HF echocardiography study. We examined the relationship of GLS with total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (the primary composite outcome) after accounting for clinical confounders. Approximately 47% of the population had evidence of LV subclinical dysfunction, defined as absolute GLS <16%. Impaired GLS was significantly associated with higher values of circulating baseline N-terminal pro-B-type-natriuretic peptide. After a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there were 407 total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. After multivariable adjustment, worse GLS was associated with a greater risk for the primary composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio per 1% decrease: 1.06; 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.11; p = 0.008). GLS did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan for the composite outcome (p for interaction >0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large HFpEF population, impaired LV function was observed even among patients with preserved ejection fraction, and was associated with an increased risk of total HF hospitalizations or cardiovascular death, accounting for clinical confounders. These findings highlight the key role of subtle LV systolic impairment in the pathophysiology of HFpEF.

Gender Effect on Clinical Profiles, Pharmacological Treatments and Prognosis in Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is a significant disease affecting 1-2% of the general population. Despite its general aspects, HF, like other cardiovascular diseases, presents various gender-specific aspects in terms of etiology, hemodynamics, clinical characteristics, therapy, and outcomes. As is well known, HF with preserved ejection fraction more frequently affects females, with diabetes and arterial hypertension representing the most critical determinants of HF. On the other hand, women are traditionally underrepresented in clinical trials and are often considered undertreated. However, it is not clear whether such differences reflect cultural behaviors and clinical inertia or if they indicate different clinical profiles and the impact of sex on hard clinical outcomes. We aimed to review the sex-related differences in patients affected by HF.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, red cell distribution width, and sacubitril/valsartan

AIMS

Red cell distribution width (RDW) is a strong prognostic marker in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction and other conditions. However, very little is known about its prognostic significance in HF with preserved ejection fraction. We examined the relationship between RDW and outcomes and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, on RDW and clinical outcomes in PARAGON-HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PARAGON-HF enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45%, structural heart disease, and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The primary endpoint was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Median RDW at randomization was 14.1% (interquartile range 13.5-15.0%). Patients with higher RDW levels were more often men and had more comorbidity, a higher heart rate and NT-proBNP concentration, more advanced New York Heart Association class, and worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores. There was a graded relationship between quartiles of RDW at randomization and the primary endpoint, with a significantly higher risk associated with increasing RDW, even after adjustment for NT-proBNP and other prognostic variables {Quartile 1, reference; Quartile 2, rate ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.28]; Quartile 3, 1.25 [1.01 to 1.54]; Quartile 4, 1.70 [1.39 to 2.08]}. This association was seen for each of the secondary outcomes, including cardiovascular and all-cause death. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced RDW at 48 weeks [mean change -0.09 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.02)]. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan was not significantly modified by RDW levels at randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

RDW, a routinely available and inexpensive biomarker, provides incremental prognostic information when added to established predictors. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan led to a small reduction in RDW.

Proteomic Associations of NT-proBNP (N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide) in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels are variably elevated in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), even in the presence of increased left ventricular filling pressures. NT-proBNP levels are prognostic in HFpEF and have been used as an inclusion criterion for several recent randomized clinical trials. However, the underlying biologic differences between HFpEF participants with high and low NT-proBNP levels remain to be fully understood.

METHODS

We measured 4928 proteins using an aptamer-based proteomic assay (SOMAScan) in available plasma samples from 2 cohorts: (1) Participants with HFpEF enrolled in the PHFS (Penn Heart Failure Study; n=253); (2) TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial) participants in the Americas (n=218). We assessed the relationship between SOMAScan-derived plasma NT-proBNP and levels of other proteins available in the SOMAScan assay version 4 using robust linear regression, with correction for multiple comparisons, followed by pathway analysis.

RESULTS

NT-proBNP levels exhibited prominent proteome-wide associations in PHFS and TOPCAT cohorts. Proteins most strongly associated with NT-proBNP in both cohorts included SVEP1 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type-A, epidermal growth factor, and pentraxin domain containing 1; βTOPCAT=0.539; P<0.0001; βPHFS=0.516; P<0.0001) and ANGPT2 (angiopoietin 2; βTOPCAT=0.571; P<0.0001; βPHFS=0.459; P<0.0001). Canonical pathway analysis demonstrated consistent associations with multiple pathways related to fibrosis and inflammation. These included hepatic fibrosis and inhibition of matrix metalloproteases. Analyses using cut points corresponding to estimated quantitative concentrations of 360 pg/mL (and 480 pg/mL in atrial fibrillation) revealed similar proteomic associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Circulating NT-proBNP levels exhibit prominent proteomic associations in HFpEF. Our findings suggest that higher NT-proBNP levels in HFpEF are a marker of fibrosis and inflammation. These findings will aid the interpretation of NT-proBNP levels in HFpEF and may guide the selection of participants in future HFpEF clinical trials.

Independent prognostic importance of blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio in heart failure

AIM

Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to creatinine ratio is associated with worse outcomes in acute heart failure (HF) but little is known about its importance in chronic HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We combined individual patient data from clinical trials (HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]: PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE and DAPA-HF, and HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]: PARAGON-HF and I-PRESERVE). The primary outcome examined was a composite time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death; its components and all-cause death were also examined. Each HF phenotype was categorized according to median BUN/creatinine ratio, generating four groups that is, HFpEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio and HFrEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio. The association between BUN/creatinine ratio and outcomes was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models. Overall, 28 820 patients were analysed. The median (IQR) BUN/creatinine ratio was 20.1 (Q1-Q3 16.7-24.7) in HFpEF and 18.7 (15.2-22.8) in HFrEF. In both HFpEF and HFrEF, higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with older age, female sex, and diabetes, but similar estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The risk of each outcome examined was significantly higher in patients with BUN/creatinine ratio ≥median, compared to

CONCLUSION

Higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with worse outcomes in patients with chronic HF across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction, independently of eGFR and NT-proBNP. BUN/creatinine ratio may reflect neurohumoral activation (especially increased arginine vasopressin), altered renal blood flow or other pathophysiologic mechanisms not incorporated in conventional prognostic variables.

Collapse

Key Words

• Blood urea nitrogen
• Creatinine
• Heart failure

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Female
• Heart Failure
• Prognosis
• Blood Urea Nitrogen
• Creatinine
• Stroke Volume/physiology
• Ventricular Function, Left
• Natriuretic Peptide, Brain
• Peptide Fragments

Collapse

Grants

• RE/18/6/34217 British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Paolo Tolomeo British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Italy
Jawad H Butt British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
Toru Kondo British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
Gianluca Campo Cardiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Ferrara, Cona, Italy
Akshay S Desai Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
Pardeep S Jhund British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Lars Køber Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
Martin P Lefkowitz Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA
Jean L Rouleau Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
Scott D Solomon Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
Karl Swedberg Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
Muthiah Vaduganathan Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
Michael R Zile Medical University of South Carolina and Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Administration Medical Center, Charleston, SC, USA
Milton Packer Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
John J V McMurray British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Collapse

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on sinus rhythm maintenance after catheter ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation without reduced ejection fraction heart failure: a study protocol for a multi-center, open-label, randomized, controlled, superiority clinical trial

Introduction

A high recurrence rate of atrial fibrillation was monitored after catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. Sacubitril/valsartan can improve outcomes for patients with heart failure and ventricular tachycardia, but few studies examined whether it can reduce recurrence or improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation. In this study, we will assess the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on sinus rhythm maintenance and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation through a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

This is a multi-center, randomized, controlled, open-label, superiority clinical trial involving 462 patients without reduced ejection fraction heart failure after catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation. Patients will be randomized to (1) receive the standard treatment strategy plus sacubitril/valsartan titration, or (2) receive the standard treatment strategy without taking sacubitril/valsartan. The primary outcome will be sinus rhythm maintenance rate over 12 months, monitored by random electrocardiogram and 24-h Holter electrocardiogram.

Discussion

This study is designed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on sinus rhythm maintenance and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation. The results will evaluate sacubitril/valsartan as a novel treatment for improving prognosis and a complement to conventional drug therapy.

Trial Registration

Registered with Chinese Clinical Trials Registry on 27 August 2022, identifier: ChiCTR2200062995.

Sacubitril/valsartan compared to ramipril in high-risk post-myocardial infarction patients stratified according to use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists: Insight from the PARADISE MI trial

AIM

It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high-risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.19 and HRMRA- 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator-reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post-MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion.

Proteomic prediction of incident heart failure and its main subtypes

AIM

To examine the ability of serum proteins in predicting future heart failure (HF) events, including HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF or HFpEF), in relation to event time, and with or without considering established HF-associated clinical variables.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the prospective population-based Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility Reykjavik Study (AGES-RS), 440 individuals developed HF after their first visit with a median follow-up of 5.45 years. Among them, 167 were diagnosed with HFrEF and 188 with HFpEF. A least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model with non-parametric bootstrap were used to select predictors from an analysis of 4782 serum proteins, and several pre-established clinical parameters linked to HF. A subset of 8-10 distinct or overlapping serum proteins predicted different future HF outcomes, and C-statistics were used to assess discrimination, revealing proteins combined with a C-index of 0.80 for all incident HF, 0.78 and 0.80 for incident HFpEF or HFrEF, respectively. In the AGES-RS, protein panels alone encompassed the risk contained in the clinical information and improved the performance characteristics of prediction models based on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and clinical risk factors. Finally, the protein predictors performed particularly well close to the time of an HF event, an outcome that was replicated in the Cardiovascular Health Study.

CONCLUSION

A small number of circulating proteins accurately predicted future HF in the AGES-RS cohort of older adults, and they alone encompass the risk information found in a collection of clinical data. Incident HF events were predicted up to 8 years, with predictor performance significantly improving for events occurring less than 1 year ahead, a finding replicated in an external cohort study.

Health and Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure Management

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5% EF increments up to 60% and applied to an EF distribution of US patients with HF from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The base case included a lifetime horizon from a health care sector perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at EFs of 60% or less (base case) and at various upper-level EF cutoffs.

Results

Among 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental lifetime cost of $40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95% of the values of the ICER occurred between $71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of economic intermediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <$60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of $338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY, $59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55% or less, 50% or less, and 45% or less, respectively. Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in only those with EFs of 45% or greater (up to ≤60%) yielded an ICER of $127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-55%; ICER of $84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Cost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.

Duration of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Outcomes With Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From the PARAGON-HF Trial

OBJECTIVE

In this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, we evaluated clinical outcomes and responses to sacubitril/valsartan by duration of heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45% at initial diagnosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations due to HF and cardiovascular deaths, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. Among 4784 (99.7%) randomized participants in the PARAGON-HF trial for whom baseline HF duration was captured, 1359 (28%) had durations of HF of < 6 months, 1295 (27%) of 6 months-2 years, and 2130 (45%) of > 2 years. Longer HF duration was associated with higher comorbidity burdens, worse health status and lower rates of prior hospitalization due to HF. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, longer HF duration was associated with a higher risk of first and recurrent primary events (per 100 patient-years): < 6 months, 12.0 (95% CI, 10.4-14.0); 6 months-2 years, 12.2 (10.6-14.2); > 2 years, 15.8 (14.2-17.5). Relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration on the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.112). Clinically meaningful (≥ 5 point) improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores were also similarly observed, irrespective of HF duration; (Pinteraction = 0.112). Adverse events were similar between treatment arms across HF duration categories.

CONCLUSIONS

In PARAGON-HF, longer HF duration was independently predictive of adverse HF outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration, suggesting that even ambulatory patients with longstanding HFpEF and predominantly mild symptoms stand to benefit from treatment optimization.

Impact of comorbidities on health status measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIM

Patients with heart failure (HF) often suffer from a range of comorbidities, which may affect their health status. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different comorbidities on health status in patients with HF and reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using individual patient data from HFrEF (ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM-HF, DAPA-HF) and HFpEF (TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF) trials, we examined the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) domain scores and overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) across a range of cardiorespiratory (angina, atrial fibrillation [AF], stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]) and other comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease [CKD], anaemia). Of patients with HFrEF (n = 20 159), 36.2% had AF, 33.9% CKD, 33.9% diabetes, 31.4% obesity, 25.5% angina, 12.2% COPD, 8.4% stroke, and 4.4% anaemia; the corresponding proportions in HFpEF (n = 6563) were: 54.0% AF, 48.7% CKD, 43.4% diabetes, 53.3% obesity, 28.6% angina, 14.7% COPD, 10.2% stroke, and 6.5% anaemia. HFpEF patients had lower KCCQ domain scores and KCCQ-OSS (67.8 vs. 71.3) than HFrEF patients. Physical limitations, social limitations and quality of life domains were reduced more than symptom frequency and symptom burden domains. In both HFrEF and HFpEF, COPD, angina, anaemia, and obesity were associated with the lowest scores. An increasing number of comorbidities was associated with decreasing scores (e.g. KCCQ-OSS 0 vs. ≥4 comorbidities: HFrEF 76.8 vs. 66.4; HFpEF 73.7 vs. 65.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities are common in both HFrEF and HFpEF patients and most are associated with reductions in health status although the impact varied among comorbidities, by the number of comorbidities, and by HF phenotype. Treating/correcting comorbidity is a therapeutic approach that may improve the health status of patients with HF.

Sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF

AIMS

The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting.

Stroke in patients with heart failure and reduced or preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Stroke is an important problem in patients with heart failure (HF), but the intersection between the two conditions is poorly studied across the range of ejection fraction. The prevalence of history of stroke and related outcomes were investigated in patients with HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Individual patient meta-analysis of seven clinical trials enrolling patients with HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Of the 20 159 patients with HFrEF, 1683 (8.3%) had a history of stroke, and of the 13 252 patients with HFpEF, 1287 (9.7%) had a history of stroke. Regardless of ejection fraction, patients with a history of stroke had more vascular comorbidity and worse HF. Among those with HFrEF, the incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 18.23 (16.81-19.77) per 100 person-years in those with prior stroke vs. 13.12 (12.77-13.48) in those without [hazard ratio 1.37 (1.26-1.49), P < 0.001]. The corresponding rates in patients with HFpEF were 14.16 (12.96-15.48) and 9.37 (9.06-9.70) [hazard ratio 1.49 (1.36-1.64), P < 0.001]. Each component of the composite was more frequent in patients with stroke history, and the risk of future stroke was doubled in patients with prior stroke. Among patients with prior stroke, 30% with concomitant atrial fibrillation were not anticoagulated, and 29% with arterial disease were not taking statins; 17% with HFrEF and 38% with HFpEF had uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (≥140 mmHg).

CONCLUSION

Heart failure patients with a history of stroke are at high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events, and targeting underutilization of guideline-recommended treatments might be a way to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors: Harms or Unexpected Benefits?

There is a need for innovative pharmaceutical intervention in light of the increasing prevalence of metabolic disease and cardiovascular disease. The kidneys' sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) receptors are targeted to reduce glucose reabsorption by SGLT2. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) benefit the most from reduced blood glucose levels, although this is just one of the numerous physiological consequences. To establish existing understanding and possible advantages and risks for SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice, this article will explore the influence of SGLT2 inhibitors on six major organ systems. In addition, this literature review will discuss the benefits and potential drawbacks of SGLT2 inhibitors on various organ systems and their potential application in therapeutic settings.

Does the Measurement of Ejection Fraction Still Make Sense in the HFpEF Framework? What Recent Trials Suggest

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is universally accepted as a cardiac systolic function index and it provides intuitive interpretation of cardiac performance. Over the last two decades, it has erroneously become the leading feature used by clinicians to characterize the left ventricular function in heart failure (HF). Notably, LVEF sets the basis for structural and functional HF phenotype classification in current guidelines. However, its diagnostic and prognostic role in patients with preserved or mildly reduced contractile function is less clear. This is related to several concerns due to intrinsic technical, methodological and hemodynamic limitations entailed in LVEF measurement that do not describe the chamber's real contractile performance as expressed by pressure volume loop relationship. In patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it does not reflect the effective systolic function because it is prone to preload and afterload variability and it does not account for both longitudinal and torsional contraction. Moreover, a repetitive measurement could be assessed over time to better identify HF progression related to natural evolution of disease and to the treatment response. Current gaps may partially explain the causes of negative or neutral effects of traditional medical agents observed in HFpEF. Nevertheless, recent pooled analysis has evidenced the positive effects of new therapies across the LVEF range, suggesting a potential role irrespective of functional status. Additionally, a more detailed analysis of randomized trials suggests that patients with higher LVEF show a risk reduction strictly related to overall cardiovascular (CV) events; on the other hand, patients experiencing lower LVEF values have a decrease in HF-related events. The current paper reports the main limitations and shortcomings in LVEF assessment, with specific focus on patients affected by HFpEF, and it suggests alternative measurements better reflecting the real hemodynamic status. Future investigations may elucidate whether the development of non-invasive stroke volume and longitudinal function measurements could be extensively applied in clinical trials for better phenotyping and screening of HFpEF patients.

Effectiveness and safety evaluation of sacubitril/valsartan in blood pressure control and clinical outcomes for elderly patients with heart failure and hypertension: A prospective cohort study

AIM

This study was conducted to investigate the safety and effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) for elderly patients with hypertension and heart failure in the real-world setting.

METHODS

Patients with established hypertension complicated with structural or functional impairment of ventricular fillings [New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV)] were enrolled. The effectiveness of sac/val in terms of BP reduction and improvement in frailty and echocardiographic evaluation of cardiac function were examined from baseline to 6-month administration.

RESULTS

Overall, 241 patients were treated with sac/val and 227 with renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) for hypertension control. There were significant difference in the degree of systolic blood pressure reduction between two groups. Echocardiography showed that sac/val significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction [4.0% (95% CI: 2.0-7.5) vs -1.0 (95% CI: -4.0-2.0), P = 0.001] during the follow-up visits. Significant improvements in NYHA function class and FRAIL scores post sac/val were observed after 3 and 6 month treatment. The rate of primary cardiovascular composite outcome was higher in patients in the RAASi group (26.9%; 95% CI: 19.6-34.0) than in the sac/val group (22.0%; 95% CI: 16.7-27.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Sac/val may be useful not only for reducing BP, but also for improving the structural and functional parameters of echocardiography, eventually resulting in a significant improvement of the overall symptomatic status, a significant reduction in NYHA class, and functional improvement.

Gliflozins: From Antidiabetic Drugs to Cornerstone in Heart Failure Therapy-A Boost to Their Utilization and Multidisciplinary Approach in the Management of Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is a complex, multifactorial, progressive clinical condition affecting 64.3 million people worldwide, with a strong impact in terms of morbidity, mortality and public health costs. In the last 50 years, along with a better understanding of HF physiopathology and in agreement with the four main models of HF, many therapeutic options have been developed. Recently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HF guidelines enthusiastically introduced inhibitors of the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT2i) as first line therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in order to reduce hospitalizations and mortality. Despite drugs developed as hypoglycemic agents, data from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial encouraged the evaluation of the possible cardiovascular effects, showing SGLT2i beneficial effects on loading conditions, neurohormonal axes, heart cells' biochemistry and vascular stiffness, determining an improvement of each HF model. We want to give a boost to their use by increasing the knowledge of SGLT2-I and understanding the probable mechanisms of this new class of drugs, highlighting strengths and weaknesses, and providing a brief comment on major trials that made Gliflozins a cornerstone in HF therapy. Finally, aspects that may hinder SGLT2-i widespread utilization among different types of specialists, despite the guidelines' indications, will be discussed.

Can mechanical circulatory support be an effective treatment for HFpEF patients?

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasing in prevalence and represents approximately 50% of all heart failure (HF) patients. Patients with this complex clinical scenario, characterized by high filling pressures, and reduced cardiac output (CO) associated with progressive multi-organ involvement, have so far not experienced any significant improvement in quality of life or survival with traditional HF treatment. Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have offered a new treatment alternative in terminal heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), providing a unique combination of significant pressure and volume unloading together with an increase in CO. The small left ventricular cavity in HFpEF patients challenges left-sided pressure unloading, and new anatomical entry points need to be explored for mechanical pressure and volume unloading. Optimized and pressure/volume-adjusted mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for HFrEF patients may conceivably be customized for HFpEF anatomy and hemodynamics. We have developed a long-term MCS device for HFpEF patients with atrial unloading in a pulsed algorithm, leading to a significant reduction of filling pressure, maintenance of pulse pressure, and increase in CO demonstrated in animal testing. In this article, we will discuss HFpEF pathology, hemodynamics, and the principles behind our novel MCS device that may improve symptoms and prognosis in HFpEF patients. Data from mock-loop hemolysis studies, acute, and chronic animal studies will be presented.

Sacubitril/valsartan and loop diuretic requirement in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial

AIMS

As sacubitril/valsartan may potentiate early natriuresis, expert consensus documents recommend diuretic dose reduction on first initiation. However, there are limited data on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the background of varying diuretic regimens or on diuretic requirements over time in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON-HF, of the 4796 patients, background diuretic therapy was distributed as follows: 341 (7%) on no diuretic, 698 (15%) on non-loop diuretic, and 3757 (78%) were on loop diuretics (1255, 1589, and 913 were on <40, 40 and >40 mg furosemide equivalent doses, respectively). The primary composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was analysed using semiparametric proportional rates methods. The cumulative incidence of the primary composite outcome (first events) was lowest in patients on no diuretic and highest in those on >40 mg of loop diuretic (p < 0.001). The effects of sacubitril/valsartan (vs. valsartan) on the primary composite outcome (recurrent events) did not significantly vary by baseline diuretic use (p_interaction  = 0.65). Treatment effects on safety outcomes were similar across diuretic categories. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced new loop diuretic initiations over the course of the trial (hazard ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.00, p = 0.055), with similar mean loop diuretic dose and rates of diuretic discontinuation between treatment groups in follow-up. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan experienced a slight early reduction in diuretic initiation or dose escalation at 30 days after initiation (net reduction 1.7%, p = 0.02), but these differences were not sustained beyond this timepoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFpEF on higher baseline diuretic doses were at heightened risk of HF events, but similarly benefited from sacubitril/valsartan with a consistent safety profile across a range of diuretic doses. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with modestly lower new loop diuretic requirement in follow-up.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Cannot Improve Cardiac Function Compared with Valsartan in Patients Suffering Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation without Systolic Heart Failure

This study investigates the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) in patients diagnosed with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) without systolic heart failure (SHF).Nonvalvular AF patients without SHF admitted to the People's Hospital of Bortala Mongol Autonomous Prefecture from December 2020 to December 2021 were enrolled and randomly divided into Sac/Val treatment group (group T) and valsartan treatment group (group C, control). For subgroup analysis, patients were divided into subgroups with and without diastolic heart failure (DHF). After 1-month adaptive phase and subsequent 3-month treatment period, patients were followed up in the cardiology clinic. Plasma levels of biochemical markers and echocardiographic parameters before and after treatment were evaluated, and DHF scores were computed to assess diastolic function.Of 61 enrolled patients, 46 patients completed follow-up. Sac/Val treatment did not increase the percentage of sinus rhythm. Although N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) expression tended to be reduced in both groups after 3 months of treatment, the differences compared with respective baseline levels and between groups were not significant. According to subgroup analysis, although NT-proBNP expression in the subgroup with DHF was lower at follow-up compared to baseline, the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, no marked differences in echocardiographic parameters or tissue Doppler parameters related to DHF were detected between the groups (P > 0.05). Additionally, a subgroup analysis found no significant variations in the echocardiographic measures (P > 0.05).Sac/Val is not superior to valsartan for the short-term treatment of patients suffering with AF without SHF in improving NT-proBNP level and cardiac function.

Health-related quality of life outcomes in PARAGON-HF

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQL). Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have similar HRQL impairment as those with reduced ejection fraction. This study describes the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on HRQL in patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and EuroQol (EQ-5D) at randomization, 4, 8 months, and annually thereafter. Changes in HRQL scores were evaluated using repeated measures models adjusted for treatment, baseline values and region. The pre-specified principal efficacy assessment was at 8 months at which time patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had borderline higher KCCQ clinical summary score (CSS) with least squares mean (LSM) adjusted difference of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0, 2.1; p = 0.051). Including all visits up to 36 months, the LSM difference in KCCQ-CSS favoured sacubitril/valsartan with average adjusted difference of 1.1 (95% CI 0.1, 2.0; p = 0.034). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan had greater odds of clinically meaningful improvement (≥5-point increase) in KCCQ-CSS (odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.06, 1.61) at 8 months. At 8 months, there was no significant difference in the EQ visual analogue scale between the treatment arms, but sacubitril/valsartan was associated with higher EQ-5D utility score (US-based) with LSM adjusted difference of 0.01 (95% CI 0.00, 0.02; p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan had a borderline benefit on KCCQ-CSS at 8 months in patients with HFpEF. This benefit became more significant when data from all visits up to 36 months were included. This modest overall benefit was also supported by greater odds of patients reporting a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL with sacubitril/valsartan.

Protein biomarkers of cardiac remodeling and inflammation associated with HFpEF and incident events

There is increasing evidence that HFpEF is a heterogeneous clinical entity and distinct molecular pathways may contribute to pathophysiology. Leveraging unbiased proteomics to identify novel biomarkers, this study seeks to understand the underlying molecular mechanisms of HFpEF. The discovery cohort consisted of HFpEF cases and non-HF controls from the CATHGEN study (N = 176); the validation cohort consisted of participants from the TECOS trial of patients with diabetes (N = 109). Proteins associated with HFpEF were included in a LASSO model to create a discriminative multi-protein model and assessed in the validation cohort. Survival models and meta-analysis were used to test the association of proteins with incident clinical outcomes, including HF hospitalization, mortality and HFpEF hospitalization in CATHGEN, TECOS and the Jackson Heart Study. In the derivation set, 190 proteins were associated with HFpEF in univariate analysis, of which 65 remained significant in the multivariate model. Twenty (30.8%) of these proteins validated in TECOS, including LCN2, U-PAR, IL-1ra, KIM1, CSTB and Gal-9 (OR 1.93-2.77, p < 0.01). LASSO regression yielded a 13-protein model which, when added to a clinical model inclusive of NT-proBNP, improved the AUC from 0.82 to 0.92 (p = 1.5 × 10-4). Five proteins were associated with incident HF hospitalization, four with HFpEF hospitalization and eleven with mortality (p < 0.05). We identified and validated multiple circulating biomarkers associated with HFpEF as well as HF outcomes. These biomarkers added incremental discriminative capabilities beyond clinical factors and NT-proBNP.

Progress and prospects of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Based on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is present in nearly half of patients with heart failure. The prevalence of heart failure with normal or near-normal ejection fractions increases more rapidly than in patients with reduced ejection fractions. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), aldosterone antagonist, β-blocker, and calcium channel blocker have not shown significant efficacy in HFpEF clinical trials. Sacubitril/Valsartan, combined angiotensin receptor blocker (Valsartan) with neprilysin inhibitor (Sacubitril), was the first-of-its-kind angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to be developed. It has shown significant efficacy on HFpEF in recent studies. It is considered that most of the current Sacubitril/Valsartan studies are still concentrated in the field of heart failure, especially heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This review discusses the latest advances in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic aspects of Sacubitril/Valsartan, mainly in HFpEF, providing more evidence for further future research on Sacubitril/Valsartan and raising issues that should be paid attention. At the same time, this review will introduce the academic consensus on Sacubitril/Valsartan in treating HFpEF in China.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are controversial. Hence, the primary objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan treatment for patients with HFpEF.

Methods and results

We used the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to search for randomized controlled trials of sacubitril–valsartan in patients with HFpEF. Three studies, involving a total of 7,663 patients, were eligible for inclusion. Sacubitril–valsartan reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) [odds ratio (OR): 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70–0.88; p &lt; 0.0001] and the incidence of worsening renal function [risk ratio (RR): 0.79, p = 0.002] among patients with HFpEF in the three trials, but there was no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (0.99, 95% CI: 0.84–1.15; p = 0.86) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95, 95% CI: 0.78–1.15; p = 0.16). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an increased risk of symptomatic hypotension (RR: 1.44; p &lt; 0.00001) and angioedema (RR: 2.66; p &lt; 0.04); there was no difference for decreasing the incidence of hyperkalemia (RR: 0.89; p = 0.11).

Conclusion

Compared with valsartan or individualized medical therapy (IMT), sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased the risk of hospitalization for HF and reduced the incidence of renal dysfunction.

Current Management of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) encompasses nearly half of heart failure (HF) worldwide, and still remains a poor prognostic indicator. It commonly coexists in patients with vascular disease and needs to be recognized and managed appropriately to reduce morbidity and mortality. Due to the heterogeneity of HFpEF as a disease process, targeted pharmacotherapy to this date has not shown a survival benefit among this population. This article serves as a comprehensive historical review focusing on the management of HFpEF by reviewing past, present, and future randomized controlled trials that attempt to uncover a therapeutic value. With a paradigm shift in the pathophysiology of HFpEF as an inflammatory, neurohormonal, and interstitial process, a phenotypic approach has increased in popularity focusing on the treatment of HFpEF as a systemic disease. This article also addresses common comorbidities associated with HFpEF as well as current and ongoing clinical trials looking to further elucidate such links.

Longitudinal Trajectories in Renal Function Before and After Heart Failure Hospitalization Among Patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF Trial

AIMS

Worsening renal function may impact long-term outcomes in heart failure (HF). However, little is known about the longitudinal trajectories in renal function in relation to the HF hospitalization or how this high-risk clinical event impacts renal outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In PARAGON-HF, we evaluated the association between recency of prior HF hospitalization (occurring pre-randomization) and subsequent first renal composite outcome: (1) time to ≥50% decline in eGFR ; (2) development of end stage renal disease (ESRD); or (3) death attributable to renal causes. 2,306 (48.1%) patients had a history of prior HF hospitalization. Incident rates of the renal outcome were highest in those most recently hospitalized and decreased with longer time from last hospitalization. Treatment effect on the renal outcome of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan was similar between patients with (HR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.75) and without (HR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.18; P_interaction = 0.39) a prior history of HF hospitalization and appeared consistent regardless of timing of prior hospitalization for HF (P_interaction =0.39). Serial eGFR measurements leading up to and after a HF hospitalization (occurring during the study period) and estimated eGFR trajectories using repeated measures regression models with restricted cubic splines were also examined. Patients experiencing a post-randomization HF hospitalization had a significant decline in eGFR prior to hospitalization while patients without HF hospitalization experienced a relatively stable eGFR trajectory (p<0.001). A change in the rate of decline of eGFR trajectory was observed 12-months preceding a HF hospitalization, and continued in the post-discharge window to 12 months following hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

HF hospitalization denotes increased risk for kidney disease progression which continues following recovery from HF decompensation in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction.

Asymptomatic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Is a Potent Risk Factor for the Development of HFpEF but Not HFrEF: Results of a Retrospective Cohort Study

(1) Background: The structural and functional features of the natural history of asymptomatic hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) are not clearly defined. (2) Objective: To determine structural and functional changes in asymptomatic hypertensive LVH, as well as the incidence and predictors of the transition to different phenotypes of heart failure (HF) after a long-term follow-up. (3) Methods: Based on the assessment of chart reviews, we retrospectively selected 350 asymptomatic patients with hypertensive concentric LVH and LV ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50%. After a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 223 patients had a re-assessment. The final diagnosis (HF with reduced EF [HFrEF], or HF with preserved EF [HFpEF]) was established according to current recommendations. (4) Results: After a follow-up, only 13% of patients remained asymptomatic, 72% developed HFpEF, and 15% developed HFrEF. The transition to HFpEF was associated with an increase in LV diastolic dysfunction grade in 62% of patients. Multivariable analysis identified age, duration of hypertension, interval changes in LV mass, and a lack of statin treatment as independent predictors of HFpEF. Among 34 patients who developed HFrEF, 16 patients (7% of the whole group) had no interval myocardial infarction, corresponding to an internal mechanism of systolic dysfunction. All these 16 patients had mild systolic dysfunction (LVEF > 40%). Baseline LVEF and LV end-diastolic dimension, and interval atrial fibrillation were identified as predictors of internal HFrEF. (5) Conclusions: The majority of patients with asymptomatic LVH developed HFpEF after long-term follow-up, which was associated with the deterioration of LV diastolic dysfunction and a lack of statin treatment. In contrast, the transition to HFrEF was infrequent and characterized by mild LV systolic dysfunction.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on glycemia in patients with diabetes and heart failure: the PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials

BACKGROUND

Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan lowered HbA1c and reduced new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and diabetes in the PARADIGM-HF trial. We sought to assess the glycemic effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and diabetes, and across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure and diabetes.

METHODS

We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, relative to valsartan, on HbA1c, new insulin therapy and hypoglycemia in the randomized controlled trial PARAGON-HF, and performed pooled analyses of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF.

RESULTS

Among 2395 patients with HFpEF and diabetes in PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan reduced HbA1c (baseline-adjusted between-group difference in HbA1c change at 48 weeks: - 0.24%, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.16%, P < 0.001). Numerically, new insulin treatment was initiated less often in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the valsartan group, but the difference was not statistically significant (12.8% vs. 16.1%; HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.02, P = 0.07). Hypoglycemia adverse event reports were low, but more frequent in those receiving sacubitril/valsartan than in the valsartan group (4.2% vs. 2.6%; HR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.05-2.56, P = 0.030). In a pooled analysis of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on change in HbA1c was not significantly modified by LVEF (Pinteraction = 0.56). Across the spectrum of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced new insulin therapy (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), compared with enalapril or valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced HbA1c and new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure and diabetes across the spectrum of LVEF but may be associated with a slightly higher risk for hypoglycemia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Rivaroxaban Monotherapy vs Combination Therapy With Antiplatelets on Total Thrombotic and Bleeding Events in Atrial Fibrillation With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Post Hoc Secondary Analysis of the AFIRE Trial

Importance

Appropriate regimens of antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease (CAD) have not yet been established.

Objective

To compare the total number of thrombotic and/or bleeding events between rivaroxaban monotherapy and combined rivaroxaban and antiplatelet therapy in such patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a post hoc secondary analysis of the Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Events With Rivaroxaban in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease (AFIRE) open-label, randomized clinical trial. This multicenter analysis was conducted from February 23, 2015, to July 31, 2018. Patients with AF and stable CAD who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting 1 or more years earlier or who had angiographically confirmed CAD not requiring revascularization were enrolled. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2020, to March 26, 2021.

Interventions

Rivaroxaban monotherapy or combined rivaroxaban and antiplatelet therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The total incidence of thrombotic, bleeding, and fatal events was compared between the groups. Cox regression analyses were used to estimate the risk of subsequent events in the 2 groups, with the status of thrombotic or bleeding events that had occurred by the time of death used as a time-dependent variable.

Results

A total of 2215 patients (mean [SD] age, 74 [8.2] years; 1751 men [79.1%]) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The total event rates for the rivaroxaban monotherapy group (1107 [50.0%]) and the combination-therapy group (1108 [50.0%]) were 12.2% (135 of 1107) and 19.2% (213 of 1108), respectively, during a median follow-up of 24.1 (IQR, 17.3-31.5) months. The mortality rate was 3.7% (41 of 1107) in the monotherapy group and 6.6% (73 of 1108) in the combination-therapy group. Rivaroxaban monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of total events compared with combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80; P < .001). Monotherapy was an independent factor associated with a lower risk of subsequent events compared with combination therapy. The mortality risk after a bleeding event (monotherapy, 75% [6 of 8]; combination therapy, 62.1% [18 of 29]) was higher than that after a thrombotic event (monotherapy, 25% [2 of 8]; combination therapy, 37.9% [11 of 29]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Rivaroxaban monotherapy was associated with lower risks of total thrombotic and/or bleeding events than combination therapy in patients with AF and stable CAD. Tapered antithrombotic therapy with a sole anticoagulant should be considered in these patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02642419.

Non-Invasive Assessment of Congestion by Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Ultrasound and Biomarkers in Heart Failure

Worsening chronic heart failure (HF) is responsible for recurrent hospitalization and increased mortality risk after discharge, irrespective to the ejection fraction. Symptoms and signs of pulmonary and systemic congestion are the most common cause for hospitalization of acute decompensated HF, as a consequence of increased cardiac filling pressures. The elevated cardiac filling pressures, also called hemodynamic congestion, may precede the occurrence of clinical congestion by days or weeks. Since HF patients often have comorbidities, dyspnoea, the main symptom of HF, may be also caused by respiratory or other illnesses. Recent studies underline the importance of the diagnosis and treatment of hemodynamic congestion before HF symptoms worsen, reducing hospitalization and improving prognosis. In this paper we review the role of integrated evaluation of biomarkers and imaging technics, i.e., echocardiography and pulmonary ultrasound, for the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of congestion in HF patients.

Predictors and Mortality for Worsening Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients With HFpEF

Background

Definitions of declined left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) vary across studies and research results concerning the association of mortality with declined LVEF are inconsistent. Thus, this study aimed to assess the impact of early worsening LVEF on mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and to establish independent predictors of early worsening LVEF.

Methods and Results

A total of 1,418 consecutive patients with HFpEF with LVEF remeasurement from the Cardiorenal Improvement registry were included in this study. Worsening LVEF was defined as an absolute decline ≥ 5% from baseline LVEF within 3 to 12 months after discharge. The Cox and logistic regression analyses were performed to assess prognostic effects and predictors for worsening LVEF, respectively. Among 1,418 patients with HFpEF, 457 (32.2%) patients exhibited worsening LVEF. During a median follow-up of 3.2 years (interquartile range: 2.3–4.0 years), 92 (6.5%) patients died. Patients with HFpEF with worsening LVEF had higher mortality relative to those with nonworsening LVEF [9.2 vs. 5.2%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 2.18, 95% CI: 1.35–3.52]. In the multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, baseline left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD), LVEF, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), atrial fibrillation (AF), and diabetes mellitus (DM) emerged as predictive factors of worsening LVEF.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that about one out of three patients with HFpEF experiences worsening LVEF during follow-up, which is associated with 2.2-fold increased mortality. Increased LVEDD and LVEF, low HDL-C levels, AF, and DM were predictors of worsening LVEF. Further studies are needed to prospectively assess the efficacy of early active management on prognosis in patients with HF with worsening LVEF.

Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04407936.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Valsartan on Renal Function in Patients with and without Diabetes and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF

AIMS

Diabetes is associated with a faster rate of renal function decline in patients with heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan attenuates the deterioration of renal function to a greater extent in patients with diabetes and HF with reduced ejection fraction compared with renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors alone. We assessed whether the same may be true in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the PARAGON-HF trial in patients with HF and LVEF of 45% or greater (n=4,796), we characterized the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over a period of 192 weeks, and on the prespecified renal composite outcome (eGFR reduction of ≥50%, end-stage renal disease, or death attributable to renal causes) in patients with (n=2,388) and without diabetes (n=2,408). The decline in eGFR was greater in patients with diabetes than in those without (-2.6 vs. -1.7 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year, p<0.001), regardless of treatment assignment. Sacubitril/valsartan attenuated decline in eGFR similarly in patients with (-2.2 vs. -2.9 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year, p=0.001) and without diabetes (-1.5 vs. -2.0 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year, p=0.006) (P_interaction for difference in eGFR slopes = 0.40). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the renal composite outcome similarly in patients without diabetes (HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.19-0.91) and those with diabetes (HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.89); P_interaction =0.59), as well as across a range of baseline HbA1c (P_interaction =0.71).

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, attenuates the decline of eGFR and reduces clinically relevant kidney events similarly among patients with HFpEF with and without diabetes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

NT-proBNP as a marker for atrial fibrillation and heart failure in four observational outpatient trials

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist and are both associated with increased levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). It is known that AF impairs the diagnostic accuracy of NT-proBNP for HF. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic and predictive accuracy of NT-proBNP for HF and AF in stable outpatients with cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were obtained from the DIAST-CHF trial, a prospective cohort study that recruited individuals with cardiovascular risk factors and followed them up for 12 years. Data were validated in three independent population-based cohorts using the same inclusion/exclusion criteria: LIFE-Adult (n = 2869), SHIP (n = 2013), and SHIP-TREND (n = 2408). Serum levels of NT-proBNP were taken once at baseline. The DIAST-CHF study enrolled 1727 study participants (47.7% female, mean age 66.9 ± 8.1 years). At baseline, patients without AF or HF (n = 1375) had a median NT-proBNP of 94 pg/mL (interquartile range 51;181). In patients with AF (n = 93), NT-proBNP amounted to 667 (215;1130) pg/mL. It was significantly higher than in the first group (P < 0.001) and compared with those with only HF [n = 201; 158 (66;363) pg/mL; P < 0.001]. The highest levels of NT-proBNP [868 (213;1397) pg/mL] were measured in patients with concomitant HF and AF (n = 58; P < 0.001 vs. control and vs. HF, P = 1.0 vs. AF). In patients with AF, NT-proBNP levels did not differ between those with HF and preserved ejection fraction (EF) > 50% [n = 38; 603 (175;1070) pg/mL] and those without HF (P = 1.0). Receiver-operating characteristic curves of NT-proBNP showed a similar area under the curve (AUC) for the detection of AF at baseline (0.84, 95% CI [0.79-0.88]) and for HF with EF < 50% (0.78 [0.72-0.85]; P = 0.18). The AUC for HF with EF > 50% was significantly lower (0.61 [0.56-0.65]) than for AF (P = 0.001). During follow-up, AF was newly diagnosed in 157 (9.1%) and HF in 141 (9.6%) study participants. NT-proBNP was a better predictor of incident AF during the first 2 years (AUC: 0.79 [0.75-0.83]) than of newly diagnosed HF (0.59 [0.55-0.63]; P < 0.001). Data were validated in three independent population-based cohorts (LIFE-Adult, n = 2869; SHIP, n = 2013; and SHIP-TREND, n = 2408).

CONCLUSIONS

In stable outpatients, NT-proBNP is a better marker for prevalent and incident AF than for HF. In AF patients, the diagnostic value of NT-proBNP for HF with EF > 50% is very limited.

Natriuretic Peptide-Based Inclusion Criteria in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Clinical Trials: Insights from PARAGON-HF

AIM

Natriuretic peptides (NPs) are now routinely incorporated as key inclusion criteria in clinical trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) as objective measures of risk. An early amendment in PARAGON-HF required all participants to have elevated NP concentrations, but some were enrolled pre-amendment, providing a unique opportunity to understand the influence of enrollment pathway in HFpEF clinical trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 4,796 participants in PARAGON-HF, 193 (4.0%) did not meet the final NP-based enrollment criteria (NT-proBNP >300 pg/ml for patients in sinus rhythm or >900 pg/ml for patients in atrial fibrillation/flutter). These patients had lower rates of the primary endpoint of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death as compared with patients meeting final enrollment criteria (8.6 [6.7-11.2] events per 100py vs. 14.0 [13.4-14.7] events per 100py P=0.01). The rate ratio for the treatment effect comparing sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan was 0.85 [95% CI 0.74-0.99]; P=0.035 in those who met final criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

NPs are an important tool in HFpEF clinical trials to objectively affirm diagnoses and enrich clinical event rates.

Diabetes and prediabetes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

Aim

There is an association between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and insulin resistance, but less is known about the diabetic continuum, and in particular about pre‐diabetes, in HFpEF. We examined characteristics and outcomes of participants with diabetes or pre‐diabetes in PARAGON‐HF.

Methods and results

Patients aged ≥50 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, structural heart disease and elevated N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) were eligible. Patients were classified according to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c): (i) normal HbA1c, <6.0%; (ii) pre‐diabetes, 6.0%–6.4%; (iii) diabetes, ≥6.5% or history of diabetes. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and total heart failure hospitalizations (HFH). Of 4796 patients, 50% had diabetes and 18% had pre‐diabetes. Compared to patients with normal HbA1c, patients with pre‐diabetes and diabetes more often were obese, had a history of myocardial infarction and had lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, while patients with diabetes had more clinical evidence of congestion, but similar NT‐proBNP concentrations. The risks of the primary composite outcome (rate ratio [RR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–1.88), total HFH (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39–2.02) and CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.07–1.71) were higher among patients with diabetes, compared to those with normal HbA1c. Patients with pre‐diabetes had a higher risk (which was intermediate between that of patients with diabetes and those with normal HbA1c) of the primary outcome (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00–1.60) and HFH (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03–1.77), but not of CV death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75–1.40). Patients with diabetes treated with insulin had worse outcomes than those not, and those with ‘lean diabetes’ had similar mortality rates to those with a higher body mass index, but lower rates of HFH.

Conclusion

Pre‐diabetes is common in patients with HFpEF and is associated with worse clinical status and greater risk of HFH. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

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

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

Mode of Death in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction comprise a heterogeneous group including some with mildly reduced EF. We hypothesized that mode of death differs by EF in ambulatory patients with HF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

METHODS

PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) compared clinical outcomes in 4796 patients with chronic HF and EF ≥45% randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. We examined the mode of death in relation to baseline EF in logistic regression models and the effect of randomized treatment on cause-specific death in Cox regression models. Nonlinear relationships with continuous EF were modelled using quadratic and cubic terms.

RESULTS

Of 691 deaths during the trial, 416 (60%) were ascribed to cardiovascular, 220 (32%) to noncardiovascular, and 55 (8%) to unknown causes. Of cardiovascular deaths, 154 (37%) were due to sudden death, 118 (28%) were due to HF, 35 (8%) to stroke, 27 (6%) to myocardial infarction, and 82 (20%) to other cardiovascular causes. Rates of all-cause, cardiovascular, and sudden death were higher in those with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (all P<0.001), while rates of non-cardiovascular death were greater in patients with higher EF. Sacubitril/valsartan did not reduce overall death, cardiovascular death, or sudden death compared with valsartan, irrespective of baseline EF (all P for interaction >0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in PARAGON-HF, the proportion of cardiovascular and sudden death were higher in those with lower left ventricular EF, and the proportion of noncardiovascular death rose with EF. Regardless of EF, sacubitril/valsartan did not reduce death from any cause compared with valsartan. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan Combined with Dapagliflozin on Long-Term Cardiac Mortality in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor dapagliflozin have been shown to reduce rehospitalization and cardiac mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to compare the long-term cardiac and all-cause mortality of ARNI and dapagliflozin combination therapy against ARNI monotherapy in patients with HFrEF. This retrospective study involved 244 patients with HF with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV symptoms and ejection fraction ≤40%. The patients were divided into 2 groups: ARNI monotherapy and ARNI+dapagliflozin. Median follow-up was 2.5 (.16-3.72) years. One hundred and seventy-five (71.7%) patients were male, and the mean age was 65.9 (SD, 10.2) years. Long-term cardiac mortality rates were significantly lower in the ARNI+dapagliflozin group (7.4%) than in the ARNI monotherapy group (19.5%) (P = .01). Dapagliflozin [Hazard Ratio (HR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] = .29 [.10-.77]; P = .014] and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [HR (95% CI) = .89 (.85-.93); P < .001] were found to be independent predictors of cardiac mortality. Our study showed a significant reduction in cardiac mortality with ARNI and dapagliflozin combination therapy compared with ARNI monotherapy.

Potential Implications of Expanded US Food and Drug Administration Labeling for Sacubitril/Valsartan in the US

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded labeling for sacubitril/valsartan for use in individuals with chronic heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) lower than normal. The population-level implications of implementation of sacubitril/valsartan at higher LVEF ranges is unknown. While the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON-HF) trial did not meet its primary end point, the trial may provide useful information in projecting expected clinical events among treated individuals.

Objective

To quantify newly eligible treatment candidates for sacubitril/valsartan under the expanded FDA labeling and to apply treatment effects and the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 worsening HF event derived from subgroups of the PARAGON-HF trial who fall under the revised FDA label.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Newly eligible treatment candidates were estimated by mapping the LVEF distribution from 559 520 adult patients hospitalized between 2014 and 2019 in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry to adults self-identifying with HF in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2015 to 2018). The NNT with 3 years of treatment for 3 end points of interest (total HF hospitalizations, total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, and total HF hospitalizations and urgent HF visits and cardiovascular death) were estimated from the PARAGON-HF trial. Data were analyzed from February to June 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Number of worsening HF events prevented or postponed if eligible patients were treated with sacubitril/valsartan for 3 years.

Results

Of an estimated 4 682 098 adults, the mean (SE) age was 66.3 (0.8) years, 1 995 037 (42.6%) were women, and 748 045 (16.0%) were Black. The potential number of adults projected to be newly eligible varied by the definition of FDA labeling of lower than normal LVEF from 643 161 (95% CI, 534 433-751 888; LVEF of 41% to 50%) to 1 838 756 (95% CI, 1 527 911-2 149 601; LVEF of 41% to 60%). In the PARAGON-HF trial, the NNT to prevent a worsening HF event (range, 7 to 12 patients) was consistent irrespective of specific LVEF range selected. Comprehensive implementation of sacubitril/valsartan among newly eligible patients was empirically estimated to prevent up to 69 268 (95% CI, 57 558-80 978) worsening HF events (LVEF of 41% to 50%) to 182 592 (95% CI, 151 725-213 460) worsening HF events (LVEF of 41% to 60%).

Conclusions and Relevance

The expanded FDA labeling is positioned to substantially increase the potential HF population eligible for sacubitril/valsartan by up to 1.8 million individuals and has the potential to prevent or postpone as many as 180 000 worsening HF events, depending on the definition of normal LVEF.