Association Between Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation and Health Status Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Contemporary pharmacological treatment and management of heart failure

The prevention and treatment strategies for heart failure (HF) have evolved in the past two decades. The stages of HF have been redefined, with recognition of the pre-HF state, which encompasses asymptomatic patients who have developed either structural or functional cardiac abnormalities or have elevated plasma levels of natriuretic peptides or cardiac troponin. The first-line treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction includes foundational therapies with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and diuretics. The first-line treatment of patients with HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction or with HF with preserved ejection fraction includes SGLT2 inhibitors and diuretics. The timely initiation of these disease-modifying therapies and the optimization of treatment are crucial in all patients with HF. Reassessment after initiation of these therapies is recommended to evaluate patient symptoms, health status and left ventricular function, and timely referral to a HF specialist is necessary if a patient has persistent advanced HF symptoms or worsening HF. Lifestyle modification and treatment of comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation are crucial through each stage of HF. This Review provides an overview of the management strategies for HF according to disease stages that are derived from the recommendations in the latest US and European HF guidelines.

The Combination of Beta-Blockers and ACE Inhibitors Across the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Diseases

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, affecting a wide range of patients at different stages across the cardiovascular continuum. Hypertension is one of the earliest risk factors in this continuum and can be controlled in most patients with currently available antihypertensive agents. However, goals are often not met because treatments are not optimized in terms of tailoring therapy to individual patients based on their hypertension subclass and cardiovascular risk profile and initiating early use of adapted-dose, single-pill combinations. In this context, beta-blockers in combination with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are of special interest as a result of their complementary actions on the sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, two interlinked pathways that influence cardiovascular risk and disease outcomes. In addition to their antihypertensive actions, beta-blockers are used to manage arrhythmias and treat angina pectoris and heart failure, while ACE inhibitors provide cardioprotection in patients with acute coronary syndromes and treat congestive heart failure. A broad range of patients may therefore receive the combination in routine clinical practice. This paper examines the supporting evidence for beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors in each of the above indications and considers the rationale for combining these agents into a single pill, using data from bisoprolol and perindopril randomized controlled trials as supporting evidence. Combining these established antihypertensive agents into a single pill continues to provide effective blood pressure lowering and improved cardiovascular outcomes while allowing a greater proportion of patients to rapidly achieve treatment targets.

Adapting and usability testing of the Kansas city cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ) in a heart failure clinic in Tanzania: the Swahili KCCQ

BACKGROUND

The integration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) into health care delivery systems is being increasingly recognized as an important component of quality, person-centered care, especially for chronic illnesses like congestive heart failure (CHF). However, while PROMS are increasingly being used to follow up CHF patients in high income countries, their use in sub-Saharan Africa is still limited. We adapted the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-23), an internationally validated, CHF-specific PROM and tested its use in measuring outcomes in an outpatient CHF clinic at a cardiac referral hospital in Tanzania.

METHODS

Adaptation of the KCCQ-23 included translation into Swahili by linguistic experts, in-depth cognitive debriefing in native Swahili-speaking CHF patients, and input from Tanzanian Cardiologists, PROMS experts, and the tool developer. Using a cross-sectional design, we tested the usability and observed the results of the translated KCCQ-23 in a convenience sample of 60 CHF patients attending outpatient clinic at the Jakaya Kikwete Cardiac Institute (JKCI) in Dar es Salaam.

RESULTS

The survey was successfully completed by 59 (98.3%) of 60 enrolled participants. The mean (SD) age of participants was 54.9 (14.8) years (range 22-83), 30.5% were women and 72.2% had class 3 or 4 New York Heart Association (NYHA) symptoms at enrollment. The overall KCCQ-23 score was low, with a mean (SD) score of 21.7 (20.4) indicating generally very poor to poor patient reported outcomes in this population. The mean (SD) scores for the specific KCCQ-23 domains were 15.25 (24.2) for social limitation, 23.8 (27.4) for physical limitation, 27.1 (24.1) for quality of life and 40.7 (17.0) for self-efficacy. No socio-demographic or clinical characteristics were associated with their overall KCCQ-23 scores. Comparing the short version (KCCQ-12) with the full KCCQ-23 revealed excellent correlation between the two (r = 0.95; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully translated a validated tool, the Swahili KCCQ, for use in improving the care of patients with CHF in Tanzania and a broader population of Swahili-speaking patients. Both the Swahili KCCQ-12 and KCCQ-23 can be used, with similar outcomes. Work to expand the use of the tool in the clinic and other settings is planned.

Korean Society of Heart Failure Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure: Treatment

The Korean Society of Heart Failure (KSHF) guidelines aim to provide physicians with evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with heart failure (HF). After the first introduction of the KSHF guidelines in 2016, newer therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with preserved ejection fraction have since emerged. The current version has been updated based on international guidelines and research data on Korean patients with HF. Herein, we present Part II of these guidelines, which comprises treatment strategies to improve the outcomes of patients with HF.

Korean Society of Heart Failure Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure: Treatment

The Korean Society of Heart Failure (KSHF) guidelines aim to provide physicians with evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients with heart failure (HF). After the first introduction of the KSHF guidelines in 2016, newer therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with preserved ejection fraction have since emerged. The current version has been updated based on international guidelines and research data on Korean patients with HF. Herein, we present Part II of these guidelines, which comprises treatment strategies to improve the outcomes of patients with HF.

The Effect of Angiotensin Receptor and Neprilysin Inhibitors on Quality of Life in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and Functional Mitral Regurgitation

Aim. To compare the change in quality of life indicators and the main clinical and instrumental parameters in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) under the influence of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in an outpatient practice.

Material and Methods. The study included 90 patients with chronic FMR, who were observed for 12 months. They received sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Efficiency criteria were: the difference between groups in scores according to the Kansas questionnaire for patients with cardiomyopathy; MR degree parameters (change in effective regurgitation orifice area, vena contracta width, MR volume and MR fraction); indicators of the severity of myocardial remodeling (left ventricular EF; the level of N-terminal brain natriuretic propeptide), exercise tolerance based on a 6-minute walk test, a change in the functional class of heart failure according to NYHA.

Results. In a treatment efficacy analysis, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–Overall Summary Score improved by 22.1 points in the sacubitril/valsartan group and by 4.5 points in the valsartan group (p<0.001). EF, exercise tolerance, and the number of patients transitioning from NYHA functional class III to II increased in the sacubitril/valsartan group (p<0.05). Also, in this group, the effective area of the regurgitation opening, the width of the vena contracta, the volume of regurgitation, the fraction of regurgitation, and the level of N-terminal brain natriuretic propeptide (p<0.05) decreased more pronouncedly (p<0.05).

Conclusion. Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan leads to a significant improvement in the quality of life in patients with FMR and HF with reduced EF, which is largely associated with a change in NT-proBNP, echocardiographic characteristics of the severity of MR and the degree of myocardial remodeling.

Impact of frailty on disease-specific health status in cardiovascular disease

Frailty is a syndrome of older age that reflects an impaired physiological reserve and decreased ability to recover from medical stressors. While the impact of frailty on mortality in cardiovascular disease has been well described, its impact on cardiovascular disease-specific health status-cardiac symptoms, physical functioning and quality of life-has been less well studied. In this review, we summarise the impact of frailty on health status outcomes across different cardiovascular conditions. In heart failure, frail patients have markedly impaired disease-specific health status and are at risk for subsequent health status deteriorations. However, frail patients have similar or even greater health status improvements with interventions for heart failure, such as cardiac rehabilitation or guideline-directed medical therapy. In valvular heart disease, the impact of frailty on disease-specific health status is of even greater concern since management involves physiologically taxing procedures that can worsen health status. Frailty increases the risk of poor health status outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve intervention or surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, but there is no evidence that frail patients benefit more from one procedure versus another. In both heart failure and valvular heart disease, health status improvements may reverse frailty, highlighting the overlap between cardiovascular disease and frailty and emphasising that treatment should typically not be withheld based on the presence of frailty alone. Meanwhile, data are limited on the impact of frailty on health status outcomes in the treatment of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease and atrial fibrillation, and requires further research.

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan on Clinical, Echocardiographic, and Polygraphic Parameters in Patients Affected by Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Sleep Apnea

Background

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a clinical condition frequently diagnosed in clinical practice. In patients affected by HFrEF, sleep apnea (SA) can be detected among the most frequent comorbidities. Sacubitril–valsartan (sac/val) association has been proven to be effective in reducing disease progression and all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients. Sac/val treatment can potentially attenuate SA development via several pathophysiologic mechanisms, including improvement of global hemodynamics, reduction of extracellular fluid overload, and decrease of sympathetic neural activity.

Methods

We recruited 132 patients affected by HFrEF and SA, already under treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which was discontinued 24 h before the scheduled study timepoints. Physical examination, echocardiography, nocturnal cardio-respiratory monitoring, and laboratory tests were performed in each patient at baseline and after a 6-month treatment with sac/val.

Results

After 6 months, sac/val induced statistically significant changes in clinical, hemodynamic, biohumoral (NT-proBNP, serum electrolytes, creatinine, and uric acid), and echocardiographic parameters. In particular, cardiac index (CI), both atrial and ventricular volumes and global longitudinal strain (GLS) improved. Moreover, polysomnography, carried out during a temporary CPAP interruption, revealed a significant reduction in global apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) value (p < 0.0001), central AHI (p < 0.0001), obstructive AHI (p < 0.0001), oxygen desaturation index (ODI) (p < 0.0001), and percentage time of saturation below 90% (TC90) (p < 0.0001). The changes of CI, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), NT-proBNP, and tricuspid annular plane excursion (TAPSE) contributed to 23.6, 7.6, 7.3, and 4.8% of AHI variability, respectively, and the whole model accounted for a 43.3% of AHI variation.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that treatment with sac/val is able to significantly improve the cardiorespiratory performance of patients with HFrEF and SA, integrating the positive impact of CPAP. Thus, both CPAP and sac/val therapy may synergistically contribute to lower the risks of both cardiac and pulmonary complications in HFrEF patients with SA.

The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure Patients: A Review

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of HF. At present, there have been few systematic and detailed reviews discussing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in HF. In this review, we first introduced the pharmacological mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan, including the reduction in the degradation of natriuretic peptides in the natriuretic peptide system and inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system. Then, we summarized the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) including the reduction in risks of mortality and hospitalization, reversal of cardiac remodeling, regulation of biomarkers of HF, improvement of the quality of life, antiarrhythmia, improving renal dysfunction and regulation of metabolism. Finally, we discussed the safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of HFrEF or HFpEF. Compared with ACEIs/ARBs or placebo, sacubitril/valsartan showed good safety and tolerability, although the risk of hypotension might be high. In conclusion, the overwhelming majority of studies show that sacubitril/valsartan is effective and safe in the treatment of HFrEF patients but that it has little benefit in HFpEF patients. Sacubitril/valsartan will probably be a promising anti-HF drug in the near future.

The Gap to Fill: Rationale for Rapid Initiation and Optimal Titration of Comprehensive Disease-modifying Medical Therapy for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

There are gaps in the use of therapies that save lives and improve quality of life for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, both in the US and abroad. The evidence is clear that initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and comprehensive disease-modifying medical therapy (CDMMT) to maximally tolerated doses improves patient-focused outcomes, yet observational data suggest this does not happen. The purpose of this review is to describe the gap in the use of optimal treatment worldwide and discuss the benefits of newer heart failure therapies including angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. It will also cover the efficacy and safety of such treatments and provide potential pathways for the initiation and rapid titration of GDMT/CDMMT.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Ischemic versus Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy after Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition Therapy

Background: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) decreases cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Data regarding the impact of ARNI on the outcome in HFrEF patients according to heart failure etiology are limited. Methods and results: One hundred twenty-one consecutive patients with HFrEF from the years 2016 to 2017 were included at the Medical Centre Mannheim Heidelberg University and treated with ARNI according to the current guidelines. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was numerically improved during the treatment with ARNI in both patient groups, that with ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 61) (ICMP), and that with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 60) (NICMP); p = 0.25. Consistent with this data, the NT-proBNP decreased in both groups, more commonly in the NICMP patient group. In addition, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and creatinine changed before and after the treatment with ARNI in both groups. In a one-year follow-up, the rate of ventricular tachyarrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation) tended to be higher in the ICMP group compared with the NICMP group (ICMP 38.71% vs. NICMP 17.24%; p = 0.07). The rate of one-year all-cause mortality was similar in both groups (ICMP 6.5% vs. NICMP 6.6%; log-rank = 0.9947). Conclusions: This study shows that, although the treatment with ARNI improves the LVEF in ICMP and NICMP patients, the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias remains higher in ICMP patients in comparison with NICMP patients. Renal function is improved in the NICMP group after the treatment. Long-term mortality is similar over a one-year follow-up.

Comparative Effectiveness of Dosing of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure: From the CHAMP-HF Registry

BACKGROUND

The comparative effectiveness of differing doses of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in US clinical practice is unknown. This study sought to characterize associations between dosing of GDMT and outcomes for patients with HFrEF in U.S. clinical practice METHODS: : This analysis included 4,832 US outpatients with chronic HFrEF across 150 practices in the CHAMP-HF registry with no contraindication and available dosing data for at least 1 GDMT at baseline. Baseline dosing of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACEI)/ angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB)/ angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapies were examined. For each medication class, multivariable models assessed associations between medication dosing and clinical outcomes over 24 months (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization) and patient-reported outcomes at 12 months (change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score [KCCQ-OS]).

RESULTS

After adjustment, compared with target dosing, lower dosing was associated with higher all-cause mortality for ACEI/ARB/ARNI (50% to <100% target dose, HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.87-1.55]; <50% target dose, HR 1.37 [95% CI 1.05-1.79]; none, HR 1.75 [95% CI 1.32-2.34; overall p<0.001) and beta-blocker (50% to <100% target dose, HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.00-1.69]; <50% target dose, HR 1.41 [95% CI 1.11-1.79; none, HR 1.24 [95% CI 0.92-1.67]; overall p=0.042). Lower dosing of ACEI/ARB/ARNI was independently associated with higher risk of HF hospitalization (50% to <100% target dose, HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.90-1.30]; <50% target dose, HR 1.23 [1.04-1.47]; none, HR 1.29 [1.04-1.60]; overall p=0.046), but beta-blocker dosing was not (overall p=0.085). Target dosing of MRA was not associated with risk of mortality or HF hospitalization. For each GDMT, compared with target dosing, lower dosing was not associated with change in KCCQ-OS at 12 months, with potential exception of worsening KCCQ-OS with lower dosing of ACEI/ARB/ARNI.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary US outpatient HFrEF registry, target dosing of ACEI/ARB/ARNI and beta-blocker therapy was associated with reduced mortality, and variably associated with HF hospitalization and patient-reported outcomes. MRA dosing was not associated with outcomes. The totality of these findings support the benefits of target dosing of GDMT in routine practice, as tolerated, with unmeasured differences between patients receiving differing dosages potentially explaining differing results seen here compared with randomized clinical trials.

Use of Actigraphy (Wearable Digital Sensors to Monitor Activity) in Heart Failure Randomized Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Actigraphy-based measurements of physiologic parameters may enable design of patient-centric heart failure (HF) clinical trials. Recently, the Heart Failure Collaboratory focused on recommendations for meaningful change and use of actigraphy as an end point in HF clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have quantified the impact of HF interventions using actigraphy.

METHODS

Using a scoping review strategy, we evaluated the use of actigraphy in HF RCTs. Studies were identified through electronic searches of Embase, OVID Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Review. Data on trial characteristics and results were collected.

RESULTS

We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 1,455 participants. The risk of bias across the included trials was high overall. All trials had the primary outcomes reflecting measures of either physical activity (n = 8), sleep (n = 2), or both (n = 1). Five trials evaluated response to pharmacologic therapies compared with placebo, 3 evaluated physical activity interventions, 2 evaluated group or cognitive therapy, and 1 evaluated sleep-ventilation strategy. Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 619 participants. There was significant heterogeneity relating to device type, body placement site, and handling of missing actigraphy data. Duration of monitoring ranged from 48 hours to 12 weeks. None of the studies evaluating pharmacologic therapies (n = 5) demonstrated a significant improvement of actigraphy-based primary end point measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant heterogeneity in the use, methodology, and results of actigraphy-based HF RCTs. Our results highlight the need to develop, standardize, and validate actigraphy-specific outcomes for use in HF clinical trials.

Sacubitril-valsartan initiation in chronic heart failure patients impacts sleep apnea: the ENTRESTO-SAS study

Aims

Optimizing medical cardiac treatment for sleep apnoea (SA) in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is an expert Grade C recommendation based on six studies encompassing a total of 67 patients only. Whether sacubitril–valsartan (SV), a cornerstone of HFrEF medical treatment, impacts SA is unknown and requires evaluation.

Methods and results

The ENTRESTO‐SAS trial is a six‐centre, prospective, open‐label real‐life cohort study (NCT02916160). Ambulatory patients eligible for SV (i.e. HFrEF adults who remain symptomatic despite optimal treatment) were evaluated before and after 3 months of SV (including nocturnal ventilatory polygraphy); 118 patients were final analysed [median age was 66 (IQ_25–75: 56–73) years, 81.4% male, 36.5% New York Heart Association III–IV, N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide level of 1564 (701–3376) ng/L, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30 (25–34)%, 60.7% ischaemic HFrEF, 97.5% initially treated with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 83.9% with beta‐blockers, 64.4% with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and 74.6% with diuretics]. Three groups were defined according to initial central/obstructive apnoea–hypopnoea indices (AHIs): G1 (n = 49, AHI_central ≥ 5/h and AHI_obstructive < 15/h); G2 (n = 27, AHI_obstructive ≥ 15/h); and G3 (n = 42, AHI_central < 5/h and AHI_obstructive < 15/h). At 3 months, the AHI (main predefined outcome) decreased significantly by −7.10/h (IQ_25–75: −16.10 to 0.40; P < 0.001) in G1 + G2 without positive airway pressure treatment (45 patients, median initial AHI of 24.20 (IQ_25–75: 16.40–43.50)/h). Of these, 24.4% presented an AHI decrease ≥50% and 37.78% had a final AHI < 15/h (tendency for improvement from an initial value of 20%: P = 0.0574). For G1 patients (n = 37), AHI significantly decreased from a median of 22.90 (16.00–43.50)/h to 19.20 (12.70–31.10)/h (P = 0.002). For G2 patients (n = 8), AHI decreased from a median of 30.10 (26.40–47.60)/h to 22.75 (14.60–36.90)/h (statistically non‐significant, P = 0.059).

Conclusions

In this real‐life population, SV treatment for 3 months in SA patients is associated with a significant decrease in AHI. These results support the current guidelines that recommend first an optimization of the HFrEF treatment in patients with HFrEF and central SA. A potential positive airway pressure sparing effect merits further investigation.

Association between sacubitril/valsartan initiation and real-world health status trajectories over 18 months in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aims

Improving the health status (symptoms, function, and quality of life) of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a primary treatment goal. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) improve short‐term health status in clinical practice, but the sustainability of these improvements is unknown.

Methods and results

In CHAMP‐HF, a multicentre observational study of outpatients with HFrEF, patients initiated on ARNI were propensity score matched 1:2 to patients not using ARNI with Cox regression modelling time to ARNI initiation, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables, medical history, medications, and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. Repeated measures models for the overall KCCQ score and each domain compared the health status trajectories of patients initiated on ARNI vs. not. Among 3930 participants, 746 (19.0%) began ARNI, of whom 576 were matched to 1152 non‐ARNI patients. Prior to matching, participants initiated on ARNI were younger, non‐Hispanic, had lower EFs, more commonly had a history of ventricular arrhythmia, were less likely to be taking an ACEI/ARB, and more likely to be treated with beta‐blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. There were no differences after matching. In the matched cohort, participants initiated on ARNI experienced improved health status by 3 months that persisted through 12 months [KCCQ Overall Summary Score (OSS) = 73.4 vs. 70.8; P < 0.001], with the largest benefit observed in the KCCQ Quality of Life domain (68.7 vs. 64.7; P < 0.001). Similar health status benefits were noted through 18 months (KCCQ‐OSS = 73.9 vs. 71.3; P < 0.001). A responder analysis showed that 12 patients would need to be initiated on ARNI for one to experience at least a large improvement (≥10 points) in health status benefit at 12 months.

Conclusions

In outpatient practice, ARNI therapy was associated with improved health status by 3 months and continued to 18 months after initiating therapy.

Effect of a Self-care Intervention on 90-Day Outcomes in Patients With Acute Heart Failure Discharged From the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Up to 20% of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute heart failure (AHF) are discharged without hospitalization. Compared with rates in hospitalized patients, readmission and mortality are worse for ED patients.

Objective

To assess the impact of a self-care intervention on 90-day outcomes in patients with AHF who are discharged from the ED.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Get With the Guidelines in Emergency Department Patients With Heart Failure was an unblinded, parallel-group, multicenter randomized trial. Patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care vs a tailored self-care intervention. Patients with AHF discharged after ED-based management at 15 geographically diverse EDs were included. The trial was conducted from October 28, 2015, to September 5, 2019.

Interventions

Home visit within 7 days of discharge and twice-monthly telephone-based self-care coaching for 3 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a global rank of cardiovascular death, HF-related events (unscheduled clinic visit due to HF, ED revisit, or hospitalization), and changes in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) summary score (SS) at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included the global rank outcome at 30 days and changes in the KCCQ-12 SS score at 30 and 90 days. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed for the primary, secondary, and safety outcomes. Per-protocol analysis was conducted including patients who completed a home visit and had scheduled outpatient follow-up in the intervention arm.

Results

Owing to slow enrollment, 479 of a planned 700 patients were randomized: 235 to the intervention arm and 244 to the usual care arm. The median age was 63.0 years (interquartile range, 54.7-70.2), 302 patients (63%) were African American, 305 patients (64%) were men, and 178 patients (37%) had a previous ejection fraction greater than 50%. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between patients in the intervention vs usual care arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.10; P = .28). At day 30, patients in the intervention arm had significantly better global rank (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99; P = .04) and a 5.5-point higher KCCQ-12 SS (95% CI, 1.3-9.7; P = .01), while at day 90, the KCCQ-12 SS was 2.7 points higher (95% CI, -1.9 to 7.2; P = .25).

Conclusions and Relevance

The self-care intervention did not improve the primary global rank outcome at 90 days in this trial. However, benefit was observed in the global rank and KCCQ-12 SS at 30 days, suggesting that an early benefit of a tailored self-care program initiated at an ED visit for AHF was not sustained through 90 days.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02519283.

Expect the Unexpected in the Medical Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: between Scientific Evidence and Clinical Wisdom

Over the past three decades, pharmacological treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has witnessed a significant progress with the introduction of multiple disease-modifying therapies with a proven benefit on morbidity, mortality and quality of life. Recently, several novel medications (sacubitril/valsartan, sodium-glucose contransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors, vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil) have shown to provide further improvement in outcomes in patients already receiving standard therapy for HFrEF. Available evidence suggests that sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin) are beneficial and well-tolerated in the majority inpatients and could be the mainstay treatment of HFrEF. Another group of medications (vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil) has shown promising results in reducing the risk of the composite of HF hospitalisation or cardiovascular mortality in patients with the more severe or advanced HF requiring recent hospitalisation. Therefore, these medications may be considered for the treatment of select group of patients with HFrEF with persisting or worsening symptoms despite optimal treatment. In addition, advances in pharmacological management of comorbidities frequently seen in HFrEF patients (diabetes, iron deficiency/anaemia, hyperkalaemia) provide further opportunities to improve outcomes. Given the increasing complexity of evidence-based therapies for HFrEF, there is a growing need to provide a practical perspective to their use. The purpose of this review is to summarise scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of new and emerging medical therapies in HFrEF, with a focus on the clinical perspective of their use.

PROVIDE-HF primary results: Patient-Reported Outcomes inVestigation following Initiation of Drug therapy with Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) in heart failure

BACKGROUND

In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan improved quality of life (QOL) versus enalapril in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), yet limited data are available regarding QOL changes after sacubitril/valsartan initiation in routine practice.

METHODS

PROVIDE-HF was a prospective study within a national research network (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network) of HFrEF outpatients recently initiated on sacubitril/valsartan versus controls with recent angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker initiation/dose change. The primary end point was mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) change through 12 weeks. Other end points included responder analyses: ≥5-point and ≥20-point KCCQ increase. Adjusted QOL change was estimated after propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

Overall, 270 patients had both baseline and 12-week KCCQ data (151 sacubitril/valsartan; 119 control). The groups had similar demographics and HF details: median EF 28% and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide 1083 pg/mL. Sacubitril/valsartan patients had larger improvements in KCCQ (mean difference +4.76; P = .027) and were more likely to have a ≥5-point and ≥20-point response (all P < .05). Adjusted comparisons demonstrated similar numerical improvements in the change in KCCQ (+4.55; 95% CI -0.89 to 9.99; P = .101) and likelihood of ≥5-point increase (odds ratio 1.55; 95% CI: 0.84-2.86; P = .16); ≥20-point increase remained statistically significant (odds ratio 3.79; 95% CI 1.47-9.73; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective HFrEF study of sacubitril/valsartan initiation compared with recent angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker initiation/dose change, the between-group difference in the primary end point, mean KCCQ change at 12 weeks was not statistically significant following adjustment, but sacubitril/valsartan initiation was associated with early improvements in QOL and a higher likelihood of ≥20-point improvement in KCCQ at 12 weeks. These data add additional real-world evidence related to patient-reported outcomes following the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in routine clinical practice.

Heterogeneity of health status treatment response with sacubitril/valsartan: insights from the CHAMP-HF registry

AIMS

The aim of our study was to investigate heterogeneity of health status treatment response of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We leveraged data from CHAMP-HF, an observational registry of 140 US clinics and 5026 outpatients with chronic HFrEF, where health status was serially assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)-12 Overall Summary Scale (range from 0 to 100; ≥20-point improvement is a very large improvement). In 334 patients newly initiated on sacubitril/valsartan, we used hierarchical multivariable logistic regression (13 patient-level characteristics as well as baseline KCCQ-12 score) to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of any characteristic being associated with a very large health status improvement. A total of 104/334 (31.1%) of patients achieved the primary endpoint, where only worse baseline health status [KCCQ-12 score of 0-60 points had an OR = 0.86/5-point higher score (CI 0.79, 0.93)], and those with a KCCQ-12 score of 60-80 points had an OR = 0.61/5-point higher score (0.45-0.82), which was associated with a very large benefit. No other patient characteristic was associated with a very large health status improvement (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that, after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, only worse baseline health status was associated with very large health status improvement. Accordingly, a trial of therapy-particularly in those with worse symptoms, function, and quality of life-and assessing treatment response are likely to be the best prospective strategy.

Management of heart failure and type 2 diabetes mellitus: Maximizing complementary drug therapy

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and occurs in ~25% of patients with heart failure (HF). Patients with co-morbid HF and T2DM are at elevated risk of adverse outcomes, making optimization of complementary drug therapies essential. While research is ongoing, recent advances in drug therapy, including the introduction of sacubitril/valsartan for HF with reduced ejection fraction and the finding of positive cardiovascular effects of glucose-lowering agents (particularly sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors) have the potential to transform pharmacologic management of co-morbid HF and T2DM. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of cardiovascular clinical trials of therapies for HF and diabetes mellitus to date and identify areas requiring further investigation. We also discuss the pathophysiologic overlap of the two diseases and explore the complementary therapeutic effects of HF and T2DM drugs, with a particular focus on sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors.

Recommendations for Preoperative Assessment and Shared Decision-Making in Cardiac Surgery

Purpose of review

Recommendations about shared decision-making and guidelines on preoperative evaluation of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery are abundant, but respective recommendations for cardiac surgery are sparse. We provide an overview of available evidence.

Recent findings

While there currently is no consensus statement on the preoperative anesthetic evaluation and shared decision-making for the adult patient undergoing cardiac surgery, evidence pertaining to specific organ systems is available.

Summary

We provide a comprehensive review of available evidence pertaining to preoperative assessment and shared decision-making for patients undergoing cardiac surgery and recommend a thorough preoperative workup in this vulnerable population.

Neprilysin inhibition, endorphin dynamics, and early symptomatic improvement in heart failure: a pilot study

Aim

Sacubitril/valsartan is a first‐in‐class angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor developed for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Its benefits are achieved through the inhibition of neprilysin (NEP) and the specific blockade of the angiotensin receptor AT1. The many peptides metabolized by NEP suggest multifaceted potential consequences of its inhibition. We sought to evaluate the short‐term changes in serum endorphin (EP) values and their relation with patients' physical functioning after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Methods and results

A total of 105 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were candidates for sacubitril/valsartan treatment, were included in this prospective, observational, multicentre, and international study. In a first visit, and in agreement with current guidelines, treatment with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker was replaced by sacubitril/valsartan because of clinical indication by the responsible physician. By protocol, patients were reevaluated at 30 days after the start of sacubitril/valsartan. Serum levels of α‐ (α‐EP), γ‐Endorphin (γ‐EP), and soluble NEP (sNEP) were measured using enzyme‐linked immunoassays. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was used as an indicator of patient's functional status. Baseline median levels of circulating α‐EP, γ‐EP, and sNEP were 582 (160–772), 101 (37–287), and 222 pg/mL (124–820), respectively. There was not a significant increase in α‐EP nor γ‐EP serum values after sacubitril/valsartan treatment (P value = 0.194 and 0.102, respectively). There were no significant differences in sNEP values between 30 days and baseline (P value = 0.103). Medians (IQR) of Δα‐EP, Δγ‐EP, and ΔsNEP between 30 days and baseline were 9.3 (−34 − 44), −3.0 (−46.0 − 18.9), and 0 units (−16.4 − 157.0), respectively. In a pre–post sacubitril/valsartan treatment comparison, there was a significant improvement in NYHA class, with 36 (34.3%) patients experiencing improvement by at least one NYHA class category. Δα‐EP and ΔsNEP showed to be significantly associated with NYHA class after 30 days of treatment (P = 0.014 and P < 0.001, respectively). Δα‐EP was linear and significantly associated with NYHA class improvement after 30 days of sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Conclusions

These preliminary data suggest that beyond the haemodynamic benefits achieved with sacubitril/valsartan, the altered cleavage of endorphin peptides by NEP inhibition may participate in patients' symptoms improvement.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition (ARNI) in Heart Failure

Recognition that neurohormonal activation plays a central role in the pathogenesis of heart failure (HF) led to the development of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and beta blockers. While there has been substantial success with these neurohormonal blocking drugs in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), persistently high rates of morbidity and mortality in this population underscore the need for more effective therapies. As part of the systemic neurohormonal activation that takes place in patients with HF, systems that counteract the adverse effect of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) are also activated. Evidence that neprilysin metabolizes many of the effector molecules produced by these counter-regulatory systems raised the possibility that inhibition of this enzyme might be beneficial. However, since angiotensin II is a substrate of neprilysin, inhibition of the enzyme alone would increase levels of this peptide. Thus, treatment strategies that combine RAAS blockade with neprilysin inhibition were sought. Recent large scale randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have provided compelling evidence that sacubitril-valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is superior to an ACEI in reducing mortality and HF hospitalization and in improving quality of life in patients with stage C HFrEF. In these trials, sacubitril-valsartan was found to be safe and well tolerated. This review presents the rationale for using ARNIs, describes the RCTs showing their efficacy, summarizes updated recommendations from recent guidelines, and provides practical points about ARNI initiation and up-titration.