A trial of the beta-blocker bucindolol in patients with advanced chronic heart failure

Heart Failure Drug Development Over the Eras: From the Heart Failure Collaboratory

Over the past decade, the field of heart failure (HF) has witnessed remarkable progress in drug development, resulting in the approval of numerous groundbreaking drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. To address some of these challenges, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued guidance documents that have been critical in contemporary HF drug development; however, there are still many challenges in need of investigation. This article leverages efforts of the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the scientific community to discuss the critical need for innovative trial designs, important concepts in clinical trials in the modern era, and the utilization of big data to accelerate HF drug development. At this inflection point in HF drug development, it is imperative that, as a global scientific community, we foster increased collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and regulatory bodies. Only through such unified efforts can we navigate the complexities of HF, accelerate the development process, and ultimately deliver effective therapies that transform patient outcomes.

Non-cardiac comorbidities in heart failure: an update on diagnostic and management strategies

Managing non-cardiac comorbidities in heart failure (HF) requires a tailored approach that addresses each patient's specific conditions and needs. Regular communication and coordination among healthcare providers is crucial to providing the best possible care for these patients. Poorly controlled hypertension contributes to left ventricular remodeling and diastolic dysfunction, emphasizing the importance of optimal blood pressure control while avoiding adverse effects. Among HF patients with diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have shown promise in reducing HF-related morbidity and mortality. Chronic kidney disease exacerbates HF and vice versa, forming the vicious cardiorenal syndrome, so disease-modifying therapies should be maintained in HF patients with comorbid CKD, even with transient changes in kidney function. Anemia in HF patients may be multifactorial, and there is growing evidence for the benefit of intravenous iron supplementation in HF patients with iron deficiency with or without anemia. Obesity, although a risk factor for HF, paradoxically offers a better prognosis once HF is established, though developing treatment strategies may improve symptoms and cardiac performance. In HF patients with stroke and atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation therapy is recommended. Among HF patients with sleep-disordered breathing, continuous positive airway pressure may improve sleep quality. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease often coexists with HF, and many patients can tolerate cardioselective beta-blockers. Cancer patients with comorbid HF require careful consideration of cardiotoxicity risks associated with cancer therapies. Depression is underdiagnosed in HF patients and significantly impacts prognosis. Cognitive impairment is prevalent in HF patients and impacts their self-care and overall quality of life.

Shen'ge Formula Protects Cardiac Function in Rats with Pressure Overload-Induced Heart Failure

Background

In China, Shen'ge formula (SGF), a Traditional Chinese Medicine blend crafted from ginseng and gecko, holds a revered place in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. However, despite its prevalent use, the precise cardioprotective mechanisms of SGF remain largely uncharted. This study aims to fill this gap by delving deeper into SGF's therapeutic potential and underlying action mechanism, thus giving its traditional use a solid scientific grounding.

Methods

In this study, rats were subjected to abdominal aortic constriction (AAC) to generate pressure overload. Following AAC, we administered SGF and bisoprolol intragastrically at specified doses for two distinct durations: 8 and 24 weeks. The cardiac function post-treatment was thoroughly analyzed using echocardiography and histological examinations, offering insights into SGF's influence on vital cardiovascular metrics, and signaling pathways central to cardiac health.

Results

SGF exhibited promising results, significantly enhanced cardiac functions over both 8 and 24-week periods, evidenced by improved ejection fraction and fractional shortening while moderating left ventricular parameters. Noteworthy was SGF's role in the significant mitigation of myocardial hypertrophy and in fostering the expression of vital proteins essential for heart health by the 24-week mark. This intervention markedly altered the dynamics of the Akt/HIF-1α/p53 pathway, inhibiting detrimental processes while promoting protective mechanisms.

Conclusion

Our research casts SGF in a promising light as a cardioprotective agent in heart failure conditions induced by pressure overload in rats. Central to this protective shield is the modulation of the Akt/HIF-1α/p53 pathway, pointing to a therapeutic trajectory that leverages HIF-1α promotion and p53 nuclear transport inhibition.

Characterizing advanced heart failure risk and hemodynamic phenotypes using interpretable machine learning

BACKGROUND

Although previous risk models exist for advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), few integrate invasive hemodynamics or support missing data. This study developed and validated a heart failure (HF) hemodynamic risk and phenotyping score for HFrEF, using Machine Learning (ML).

METHODS

Prior to modeling, patients in training and validation HF cohorts were assigned to 1 of 5 risk categories based on the composite endpoint of death, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation or transplantation (DeLvTx), and rehospitalization in 6 months of follow-up using unsupervised clustering. The goal of our novel interpretable ML modeling approach, which is robust to missing data, was to predict this risk category (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) using either invasive hemodynamics alone or a rich and inclusive feature set that included noninvasive hemodynamics (all features). The models were trained using the ESCAPE trial and validated using 4 advanced HF patient cohorts collected from previous trials, then compared with traditional ML models. Prediction accuracy for each of these 5 categories was determined separately for each risk category to generate 5 areas under the curve (AUCs, or C-statistics) for belonging to risk category 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, respectively.

RESULTS

Across all outcomes, our models performed well for predicting the risk category for each patient. Accuracies of 5 separate models predicting a patient's risk category ranged from 0.896 +/- 0.074 to 0.969 +/- 0.081 for the invasive hemodynamics feature set and 0.858 +/- 0.067 to 0.997 +/- 0.070 for the all features feature set.

CONCLUSION

Novel interpretable ML models predicted risk categories with a high degree of accuracy. This approach offers a new paradigm for risk stratification that differs from prediction of a binary outcome. Prospective clinical evaluation of this approach is indicated to determine utility for selecting the best treatment approach for patients based on risk and prognosis.

Better Respiratory Function in Heart Failure Patients With Use of Central-Acting Therapeutics

Background

Diaphragm atrophy can contribute to dyspnea in patients with heart failure (HF) with its link to central neurohormonal overactivation. HF medications that cross the blood-brain barrier could act centrally and improve respiratory function, potentially alleviating diaphragmatic atrophy. Therefore, we compared the benefit of central- vs peripheral-acting HF drugs on respiratory function, as assessed by a single cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) and outcomes in HF patients.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted of 624 ambulatory adult HF patients (80% male) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% and a complete CPET, followed at a single institution between 2001 and 2017. CPET parameters, and the outcomes all-cause death, a composite endpoint (all-cause death, need for left ventricular assist device, heart transplantation), and all-cause and/or HF hospitalizations, were compared in patients receiving central-acting (n = 550) vs peripheral-acting (n = 74) drugs.

Results

Compared to patients who receive peripheral-acting drugs, patients who receive central-acting drugs had better respiratory function (peak breath-by breath oxygen uptake [VO2], P = 0.020; forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1], P = 0.007), and ventilatory efficiency (minute ventilation / carbon dioxide production [VE/VCO2], P < 0.001; end-tidal carbon dioxide tension [PETCO2], P = 0.015; and trend for forced vital capacity [FVC], P = 0.056). Many of the associations between the CPET parameters and drug type remained significant after multivariate adjustment. Moreover, patients receiving central-acting drugs had fewer composite events (P = 0.023), and HF hospitalizations (P = 0.044), although significance after multivariant correction was not achieved, despite the hazard ratio being 0.664 and 0.757, respectively.

Conclusions

Central-acting drugs were associated with better respiratory function as measured by CPET parameters in HF patients. This could extend to clinically meaningful composite outcomes and hospitalizations but required more power to be definitive in linking to drug effect. Central-acting HF drugs show a role in mitigating diaphragm weakness.

β-blockers are not all the same: pharmacologic similarities and differences, potential combinations and clinical implications

β-blockers are a heterogeneous class, with individual agents distinguished by selectivity for β1- vs. β2- and α-adrenoceptors, presence or absence of partial agonist activity at one of more β-receptor subtype, presence or absence of additional vasodilatory properties, and lipophilicity, which determines the ease of entry the drug into the central nervous system. Cardioselectivity (β1-adrenoceptor selectivity) helps to reduce the potential for adverse effects mediated by blockade of β2-adrenoceptors outside the myocardium, such as cold extremities, erectile dysfunction, or exacerbation of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. According to recently updated guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension, β-blockers are included within the five major drug classes recommended as the basis of antihypertensive treatment strategies. Adding a β-blocker to another agent with a complementary mechanism may provide a rational antihypertensive combination that minimizes the adverse impact of induced sympathetic overactivity for optimal blood pressure-lowering efficacy and clinical outcomes benefit.

Roles of β-adrenoceptor Subtypes and Therapeutics in Human Cardiovascular Disease: Heart Failure, Tachyarrhythmias and Other Cardiovascular Disorders

β-Adrenoceptors (β-ARs) provide an important therapeutic target for the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Three β-ARs, β1-AR, β2-AR, β3-AR are localized to the human heart. Activation of β1-AR and β2-ARs increases heart rate, force of contraction (inotropy) and consequently cardiac output to meet physiological demand. However, in disease, chronic over-activation of β1-AR is responsible for the progression of disease (e.g. heart failure) mediated by pathological hypertrophy, adverse remodelling and premature cell death. Furthermore, activation of β1-AR is critical in the pathogenesis of cardiac arrhythmias while activation of β2-AR directly influences blood pressure haemostasis. There is an increasing awareness of the contribution of β2-AR in cardiovascular disease, particularly arrhythmia generation. All β-blockers used therapeutically to treat cardiovascular disease block β1-AR with variable blockade of β2-AR depending on relative affinity for β1-AR vs β2-AR. Since the introduction of β-blockers into clinical practice in 1965, β-blockers with different properties have been trialled, used and evaluated, leading to better understanding of their therapeutic effects and tolerability in various cardiovascular conditions. β-Blockers with the property of intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA), i.e. β-blockers that also activate the receptor, were used in the past for post-treatment of myocardial infarction and had limited use in heart failure. The β-blocker carvedilol continues to intrigue due to numerous properties that differentiate it from other β-blockers and is used successfully in the treatment of heart failure. The discovery of β3-AR in human heart created interest in the role of β3-AR in heart failure but has not resulted in therapeutics at this stage.

β1-adrenergic receptor polymorphisms: a possible genetic predictor of bisoprolol response in acute coronary syndrome

Aim

To investigate the association between beta1-adrenergic receptor (ADRB1) polymorphisms and response to bisoprolol treatment in beta-blocker naive patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Patients & methods

Seventy-seven patients received bisoprolol for four weeks. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured at baseline and during treatment. TaqMan allelic discrimination method was utilized for ADRB1 Ser49Gly and Arg389Gly genotyping.

Results

Arg389Arg carriers showed greater reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (-8.5% ± 7.8% vs -0.76% ± 8.7%, p = 0.000218), and (-9.5% ± 9.7% vs -0.80% ± 11.5%, p = 0.000149), respectively, compared with Gly389 carriers. No statistical difference was found for study's outcomes based on codon 49.

Conclusion

Arg389Gly polymorphism is a promising bisoprolol response predictor in ACS patients.

Importance of resting heart rate

Resting heart rate is a determinant of cardiac output and physiological homeostasis. Although a simple, but critical, parameter, this vital sign predicts adverse outcomes, including mortality, and development of diseases in otherwise normal and healthy individuals. Temporal changes in heart rate can have valuable predictive capabilities. Heart rate can reflect disease severity in patients with various medical conditions. While heart rate represents a compilation of physiological inputs, including sympathetic and parasympathetic tone, aside from the underlying intrinsic sinus rate, how resting heart rate affects outcomes is uncertain. Mechanisms relating resting heart rate to outcomes may be disease-dependent but why resting heart rate in otherwise healthy, normal individuals affects outcomes remains obscure. For specific conditions, physiologically appropriate heart rate reductions may improve outcomes. However, to date, in the normal population, evidence that interventions aimed at reducing heart rate improves outcomes remains undefined. Emerging data suggest that reduction in heart rate via vagal activation and/or sympathetic inhibition is propitious.

Comparative cardiovascular outcomes of novel drugs as an addition to conventional triple therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no head-to-head comparison of novel pharmacological treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A network meta-analysis aimed to compare effects of both conventional and alternative drug combinations on time to develop primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation (PCO).

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from Medline, Scopus up to June 2021. The RCTs were included if comparing any single or combination of drugs, that is, ACE inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), ivabradine (IVA), angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), soluble guanylyl cyclase and omecamtiv mecarbil and reporting PCO. Data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves, individual patient data were generated. A mixed-effect Weibull regression was applied. Median time to PCO, HRs with 95% CI were estimated accordingly. Our findings suggested that ACEI+BB+MRA+SGLT2i, BB+MRA+ARNI, and ACEI+BB+MRA+IVA had lower probability of PCOs than the conventional triple therapy (ACEI+BB+MRA).

RESULTS

Median time to PCOs of ACEI+BB+MRA was 57.7 months whereas median times to those new combinations were longer than 57.7 months. In addition, the three new regimens had a significantly lower PCO risks than ACEI+BB+MRA, with the HRs (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.43 to 0.61), 0.55 (0.46 to 0.65) and 0.56 (0.47 to 0.67), accordingly.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that SGLT2i, ARNI and IVA in addition to ACEI+BB+MRA may be better in prolonging time to develop PCO in HFrEF patients.

Validating an approach to overcome the immeasurable time bias in cohort studies: a real-world example and Monte Carlo simulation study

BACKGROUND

Immeasurable time bias arises from the lack of in-hospital medication information. It has been suggested that time-varying adjustment for hospitalization may minimize this potential bias. However, whereas we examined this issue in one case study, there remains a need to assess the validity of this approach in other settings.

METHODS

Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we generated synthetic immeasurable time-varying hospitalization-related factors of duration, frequency and timing. Nine scenarios were created by combining three frequency scenarios and three duration scenarios, where the empirical cohort distribution of hospitalization was used to simulate the 'timing'. We used Korea's healthcare database and a case example of β-blocker use and mortality among patients with heart failure. We estimated the gold-standard hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI using inpatient and outpatient drug data, and that of the pseudo-outpatient setting using outpatient data only. We assessed the validity of adjusting for time-varying hospitalization in nine different scenarios, using relative bias, confidence limit ratio (CLR) and mean squared error (MSE) compared with the empirical gold-standard estimate across bootstrap resamples.

RESULTS

With the real-world gold standard (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.67-0.80) as the reference estimate, adjusting for time-varying hospitalization (0.71; 0.63-0.80) effectively reduced the immeasurable time bias and had the following performance metrics across the nine scenarios: relative bias (range: -7.08% to 0.61%), CLR (1.28 to 1.36) and MSE (0.0005 to 0.0031).

CONCLUSIONS

The approach of adjusting for time-varying hospitalization consistently reduced the immeasurable time bias in Monte Carlo simulated data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Risk of Arrhythmic Death in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) is common and patients are at significant risk for early mortality secondary to ventricular arrhythmias. Current guidelines recommend implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy to decrease sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. However, in randomized clinical trials comprised solely of patients with NICM, primary prevention ICDs did not confer significant mortality benefit. Moreover, left ventricular ejection fraction has limited sensitivity and specificity for predicting SCD. Therefore, precise risk stratification algorithms are needed to define those at the highest risk of SCD. This review examines mechanisms of sudden arrhythmic death in patients with NICM, discusses the role of ICD therapy and treatment of heart failure for prevention of SCD in patients with NICM, examines the role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and computational modeling for SCD risk stratification, and proposes new strategies to guide future clinical trials on SCD risk assessment in patients with NICM.

Beta-Blockers and Their Current Role in Maternal and Neonatal Health: A Narrative Review of the Literature

Beta-blockers are a class of medications that act on beta-adrenergic receptors and are categorized as cardio-selective and non-selective. They are principally used to treat cardiovascular conditions such as hypertension and arrhythmias. Beta-blockers have also been used to treat non-cardiogenic indications in non-pregnant individuals and the pediatric population. In pregnancy, labetalol is the mainstay treatment for hypertension and other cardiovascular indications. However, contraindications to certain sub-types of beta-blockers include bradycardia, heart failure, obstructive lung diseases, and hemodynamic instability. There is conflicting evidence of the adverse effects on fetal and neonatal health due to a scarce safety and efficacy profile, and further studies are necessary to understand the pharmacokinetics of the different classes of beta-blockers in pregnancy and fetal health. Understanding the hemodynamic changes during the stages of pregnancy is important to target a more beneficial therapy for both mother and fetus as well as better neonatal outcomes. Beta-blocker use in the pediatric population is less documented in studies but does have the potential to treat various cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic conditions. Future comprehensive studies would further benefit the direction of beta-blocker treatment during pregnancy in neonates and pediatrics.

Beta-Blocker Use and Heart Failure Outcomes in Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Although studies consistently show that beta-blockers reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF), data are inconsistent in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and suggest potential negative effects in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to examine the association of beta-blockers with heart failure (HF) hospitalization and death in patients with HF and EF ≥40% METHODS: Beta-blocker use was assessed at first encounter in outpatients ≥65 years of age with HFmrEF and HFpEF in the U.S. PINNACLE Registry (2013-2017). The associations of beta-blockers with HF hospitalization, death, and the composite of HF hospitalization/death were assessed using propensity-score adjusted multivariable Cox regression models, including interactions of EF × beta-blocker use.

RESULTS

Among 435,897 patients with HF and EF ≥40% (HFmrEF, n = 75,674; HFpEF = 360,223), 289,377 (66.4%) were using a beta-blocker at first encounter; more commonly in patients with HFmrEF vs HFpEF (77.7% vs 64.0%; P < 0.001). There were significant interactions between EF × beta-blocker use for HF hospitalization, death, and composite of HF hospitalization/death (P < 0.001 for all), with higher risk with beta-blocker use as EF increased. Beta-blockers were associated with decreased risk of HF hospitalization and death in patients with HFmrEF but a lack of survival benefit and a higher risk of HF hospitalization in patients with HFpEF, particularly when EF was >60%.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, real-world, propensity score-adjusted cohort of older outpatients with HF and EF ≥40%, beta-blocker use was associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization as EF increased, with potential benefit in patients with HFmrEF and potential risk in patients with higher EF (particularly >60%). Further studies are needed to understand the appropriateness of beta-blocker use in patients with HFpEF in the absence of compelling indications.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for the Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is the cornerstone of pharmacological therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and consists of the four main drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, evidence-based β-blockers, mineralocorticoid inhibitors and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. The recommendation for use of GDMT is based on the results of multiple major randomized controlled trials demonstrating improved clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF who are maintained on this therapy. The effect is most beneficial when medications from the four main drug classes are used in conjunction. Despite this, there is an underutilization of GDMT, partially due to lack of awareness of how to safely and effectively initiate and titrate these medications. In this review article, we describe the different drug classes included in GDMT and offer an approach to initiation and effective titration in both the inpatient as well as outpatient setting.

Exploring Sex Differences of Beta-Blockers in the Treatment of Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

In the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, early recognition and adequate treatment of hypertension are of leading importance. However, the efficacy of antihypertensives may be depending on sex disparities. Our objective was to evaluate and quantify the sex-diverse effects of beta-blockers (BB) on hypertension and cardiac function. We focussed on comparing hypertensive female versus male individuals.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search was performed for studies on BBs from inception to May 2020. A total of 66 studies were included that contained baseline and follow up measurements on blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and cardiac function. Data also had to be stratified for sex. Mean differences were calculated using a random-effects model. In females as compared to males, BB treatment decreased systolic BP 11.1 mmHg (95% CI, -14.5; -7.8) vs. 11.1 mmHg (95% CI, -14.0; -8.2), diastolic BP 8.0 mmHg (95% CI, -10.6; -5.3) vs. 8.0 mmHg (95% CI, -10.1; -6.0), and HR 10.8 beats per minute (bpm) (95% CI, -17.4; -4.2) vs. 9.8 bpm (95% CI, -11.1; -8.4)), respectively, in both sexes' absolute and relative changes comparably. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased only in males (3.7% (95% CI, 0.6; 6.9)). Changes in left ventricular mass and cardiac output (CO) were only reported in males and changed -20.6 g (95% CI, -56.3; 15.1) and -0.1 L (95% CI, -0.5; 0.2), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BBs comparably lowered BP and HR in both sexes. The lack of change in CO in males suggests that the reduction in BP is primarily due to a decrease in vascular resistance. Furthermore, females were underrepresented compared to males. We recommend that future research should include more females and sex-stratified data when researching the treatment effects of antihypertensives.

Randomised controlled trials of antihypertensive therapy: does exclusion of orthostatic hypotension alter treatment effect? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Management of antihypertensive therapy is challenging in patients with symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, a population often excluded from randomised controlled trials of antihypertensive therapy. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to determine whether the association of antihypertensive therapy and adverse events (e.g. falls, syncope), differed among trials that included or excluded patients with orthostatic hypotension.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing blood pressure lowering medications to placebo, or different blood pressure targets on falls or syncope outcomes and cardiovascular events. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate a pooled treatment-effect overall in subgroups of trials that excluded patients with orthostatic hypotension and trials that did not exclude patients with orthostatic hypotension, and tested P for interaction. The primary outcome was fall events.

RESULTS

46 trials were included, of which 18 trials excluded orthostatic hypotension and 28 trials did not. The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in trials that excluded participants with orthostatic hypotension (1.3% versus 6.2%, P < 0.001) but not incidences of falls (4.8% versus 8.8%; P = 0.40) or syncope (1.5% versus 1.8%; P = 0.67). Antihypertensive therapy was not associated with an increased risk of falls in trials that excluded (OR 1.00, 95% CI; 0.89-1.13) or included (OR 1.02, 95% CI; 0.88-1.18) participants with orthostatic hypotension (P for interaction = 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

The exclusion of patients with orthostatic hypotension does not appear to affect the relative risk estimates for falls and syncope in antihypertensive trials.

Intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan in advanced heart failure as destination therapy: The LEVO-D registry

AIM

Patients with advanced heart failure (AHF) who are not candidates to advanced therapies have poor prognosis. Some trials have shown that intermittent levosimendan can reduce HF hospitalizations in AHF in the short term. In this real-life registry, we describe the patterns of use, safety and factors related to the response to intermittent levosimendan infusions in AHF patients not candidates to advanced therapies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Multicentre retrospective study of patients diagnosed with advanced heart failure, not HT or LVAD candidates. Patients needed to be on the optimal medical therapy according to their treating physician. Patients with de novo heart failure or who underwent any procedure that could improve prognosis were not included in the registry. Four hundred three patients were included; 77.9% needed at least one admission the year before levosimendan was first administered because of heart failure. Death rate at 1 year was 26.8% and median survival was 24.7 [95% CI: 20.4-26.9] months, and 43.7% of patients fulfilled the criteria for being considered a responder lo levosimendan (no death, heart failure admission or unplanned HF visit at 1 year after first levosimendan administration). Compared with the year before there was a significant reduction in HF admissions (38.7% vs. 77.9%; P < 0.0001), unplanned HF visits (22.7% vs. 43.7%; P < 0.0001) or the combined event including deaths (56.3% vs. 81.4%; P < 0.0001) during the year after. We created a score that helps predicting the responder status at 1 year after levosimendan, resulting in a score summatory of five variables: TEER (+2), treatment with beta-blockers (+1.5), Haemoglobin >12 g/dL (+1.5), amiodarone use (-1.5) HF visit 1 year before levosimendan (-1.5) and heart rate >70 b.p.m. (-2). Patients with a score less than -1 had a very low probability of response (21.5% free of death or HF event at 1 year) meanwhile those with a score over 1.5 had the better chance of response (68.4% free of death or HF event at 1 year). LEVO-D score performed well in the ROC analysis.

CONCLUSION

In this large real-life series of AHF patients treated with levosimendan as destination therapy, we show a significant decrease of heart failure events during the year after the first administration. The simple LEVO-D Score could be of help when deciding about futile therapy in this population.

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation: a Sub-Saharan African perspective

Cardiovascular diseases are a well-established cause of death in high-income countries. In the last 20 years, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has seen one of the sharpest increases in cardiovascular disease-related mortality, superseding that of infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS, in South Africa. This increase is evidenced by a growing burden of heart failure and atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors. AF is a common comorbidity of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), which predisposes to an increased risk of stroke, rehospitalizations, and mortality compared with patients in sinus rhythm. AF had the largest relative increase in cardiovascular disease burden between 1990 and 2010 in SSA and the second highest (106.4%) increase in disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) between 1990 and 2017. Over the last decade, significant advancements in the management of both HFrEF and AF have emerged. However, managing HFrEF/AF remains a clinical challenge for physicians, compounded by the suboptimal efficacy of guideline-mandated pharmacotherapy in this group of patients. There may be an essential role for racial differences and genetic influence on therapeutic outcomes of HFrEF/AF patients, further complicating our overall understanding of the disease and its pathophysiology. In SSA, the lack of accurate and up-to-date epidemiological data on this subgroup of patients presents a challenge in our quest to prevent and reduce adverse outcomes. This narrative review provides a contemporary overview of the epidemiology of HFrEF/AF in SSA. We highlight important differences in the demographic and aetiological profile and the management of this subpopulation, emphasizing what is currently known and, more importantly, what is still unknown about HFrEF/AF in SSA.

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

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

Declining Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure: Fact or Myth?

The notion that the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with heart failure (HF) is declining seems to be gaining traction. Numerous editorials and commentaries have suggested that SCD, specifically arrhythmic SCD, is no longer a significant risk for patients with HF on guideline-directed medical therapy. In this review, we question whether the risk of SCD has indeed declined in HF trials and in the real world. We also explore whether, despite relative risk reductions, the residual SCD risk after guideline-directed medical therapy still suggests a need for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Among our arguments is that SCD has not decreased in HF trials, nor in the real world. Moreover, we argue that data from HF trials, which have not adhered to guideline-directed device therapy, do not obviate or justify delays to implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. In this context, we underline the challenges of translating the findings of HF randomized, controlled trials of guideline-directed medical therapy to the real world. We also make the case for HF trials that adhere to current guideline-directed device therapy so that we can better understand the role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in chronic HF.

Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Black Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From GALACTIC-HF

BACKGROUND

Omecamtiv mecarbil improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Consistency of drug benefit across race is a key public health topic.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of omecamtiv mecarbil among self-identified Black patients.

METHODS

In GALACTIC-HF (Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure) patients with symptomatic HF, elevated natriuretic peptides, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of time to first event of HF or cardiovascular death. The authors analyzed treatment effects in Black vs White patients in countries contributing at least 10 Black participants.

RESULTS

Black patients accounted for 6.8% (n = 562) of overall enrollment and 29% of U.S. enrollment. Most Black patients enrolled in the United States, South Africa, and Brazil (n = 535, 95%). Compared with White patients enrolled from these countries (n = 1,129), Black patients differed in demographics, comorbid conditions, received higher rates of medical therapy and lower rates of device therapies, and experienced higher overall event rates. The effect of omecamtiv mecarbil was consistent in Black vs White patients, with no difference in the primary endpoint (HR = 0.83 vs 0.88, P-interaction = 0.66), similar improvements in heart rate and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and no significant safety signals. Among endpoints, the only nominally significant treatment-by-race interaction was the placebo-corrected change in blood pressure from baseline in Black vs White patients (+3.4 vs -0.7 mm Hg, P-interaction = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

GALACTIC-HF enrolled more Black patients than other recent HF trials. Black patients treated with omecamtiv mecarbil had similar benefit and safety compared with White counterparts.

Dapagliflozin in Black and White Patients With Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum

BACKGROUND

Black people have a higher incidence and prevalence of heart failure (HF) than White people, and once HF has developed, they may have worse outcomes. There is also evidence that the response to several pharmacologic therapies may differ between Black and White patients.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to examine the outcomes and response to treatment with dapagliflozin according to Black or White race in a pooled analysis of 2 trials comparing dapagliflozin to placebo in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (DAPA-HF [Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure]) and heart failure with Mildly reduced ejection fraction/heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (DELIVER [Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure]).

METHODS

Because most self-identified Black patients were enrolled in the Americas, the comparator group was White patients randomized in the same regions. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

Of the 3,526 patients randomized in the Americas, 2,626 (74.5%) identified as White and 381 (10.8%) as Black. The primary outcome occurred at a rate of 16.8 (95% CI: 13.8-20.4) in Black patients compared with 11.6 (95% CI: 10.6-12.7) per 100 person-years in White patients (adjusted HR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.01-1.59). Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin decreased the risk of the primary endpoint to the same extent in Black (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.47-1.02) and White patients (HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.61-0.88]; P_interaction = 0.73). The number of patients needed to treat with dapagliflozin to prevent one event over the median follow-up was 17 in White and 12 in Black patients. The beneficial effects and favorable safety profile of dapagliflozin were consistent across the range of left ventricular ejection fractions in both Black and White patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative benefits of dapagliflozin were consistent in Black and White patients across the range of left ventricular ejection fraction, with greater absolute benefits in Black patients. (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure [DAPA-HF]; NCT03036124) (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

Association of change in QRS duration with chronic heart failure outcomes

QRS duration is an established risk factor among patients with heart failure. How change in QRS duration relates to heart failure outcomes has had limited study. In this post-hoc analysis of the Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial, we demonstrated that QRS duration change from baseline to 3 months is independently associated with long-term survival and left ventricle ejection fraction.

Identification of predictive factors interacting with heart rate reduction for potential beneficial clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

•

We used Bayesian statistics to illustrate factors that affect HR reduction therapy.

•

HR-reducing therapy was associated with significant reductions in risk.

•

Presence of comorbid T2DM significantly affected mortality risk.

Background

There is an absence of clinical evidence on what factors modify the effect of heart rate (HR)-reducing treatment on mortality and morbidity in symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis and meta-regression to identify predictive factors that interact with HR-reducing therapy.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials that enrolled symptomatic HFrEF patients. The primary objective was to evaluate how different predictive factors modify the efficacy of HR-reducing therapy on clinical outcomes. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of subgroups stratified by a HR reduction threshold of 10 bpm.

Results

Data from 20 studies were synthesized and HR-reducing therapy was responsible for 16.7 %, 16.4 %, and 21.1 % risk reductions in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV)-related mortality, and rehospitalization due to worsening HF (WHF), respectively. Empirical Bayes meta-regression showed that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) significantly modified the efficacy of HR-reducing therapy on all-cause mortality (slope = 0.012 in log risk ratio (RR) per 1 %-unit [95 % credible interval (CrI) 0.004, 0.021]) and CV-related mortality (0.01 in log RR per 1 %-unit [95 % CrI 0.0003, 0.0200]). There were insufficient studies to perform a meta-regression when stratifying by a HR reduction threshold of 10 bpm; however, when including all studies, we observed a significant effect modification for rehospitalization due to WHF (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis focused on the central tenet of HR-reducing therapy and revealed that T2DM is a predictor of HR-reducing treatment effect on all-cause mortality and CV-related mortality in HFrEF patients.

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

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

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.

Sympathetic activation in heart failure

Sympathetic activation has been long appreciated exclusively as a fundamental compensatory mechanism of the failing heart and, thus, welcome and to be supported. In the initial clinical phases of heart failure (HF), the sympathetic nervous system overdrive plays a compensatory function aimed at maintaining an adequate cardiac output despite the inotropic dysfunction affecting the myocardium. However, when the sympathetic reflex response is exaggerated it triggers a sequence of unfavourable remodelling processes causing a further contractile deterioration that unleashes major adverse cardiovascular consequences, favouring the HF progression and the occurrence of fatal events. Eventually, the sympathetic nervous system in HF was demonstrated to be a ‘lethality factor’ and thus became a prominent therapeutic target. The existence of an effective highly specialized intracardiac neuronal network immediately rules out the old concept that sympathetic activation in HF is merely the consequence of a drop in cardiac output. When a cardiac damage occurs, such as myocardial ischaemia or a primary myocardial disorder, the adaptive capability of the system may be overcame, leading to excessive sympatho-excitation coupled with attenuation till to abolishment of central parasympathetic drive. Myocardial infarction causes, within a very short time, both a functional and anatomical remodelling with a diffuse up-regulation of nerve growth factor (NGF). The subsequent nerve sprouting signal, facilitated by a rise in the levels of NGF in the left stellate ganglion and in the serum, triggers an increase in cardiac nerve density in both peri-infarct and non-infarcted areas. Finally, NFG production decreases over time, supposedly as an adaptative response to the prolonged exposure to sympathetic overactivity, leading in the end to a reduction in sympathetic nerve density. Accordingly, NGF levels were markedly reduced in patients with severe congestive heart failure. The kidney is the other key player of the sympathetic response to HF as it indeed reacts to under-perfusion and to loop diuretics to preserve filtration at the cost of many pathological consequences on its physiology. This vicious loop ultimately participates to the chronic and disruptive sympathetic overdrive.

In conclusion, sympathetic activation is the natural physiological consequence to life stressors but also to any condition that may harm our body. It is the first system of reaction to any potential life-threatening event. However, in any aspect of life over reaction is never effective but, in many instances, is, actually, life threatening. One for all is the case of ischaemia-related ventricular fibrillation which is, strongly facilitated by sympathetic hyperactivity. The take home message? When, in a condition of harm, everybody is yelling failure is just around the corner.

Role of sex on the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review

Background

Heart Failure (HF) is a growing epidemic with a similar prevalence in men and women. However, women have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to uneven evidence regarding the benefit of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). This review aims to outline the sex differences in the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods and results

We conducted a systematic review via Medline from inception to 31 January 2022, including all randomized clinical trials published in English including adult patients suffering HFrEF that reported data on the efficacy of each drug. Baseline clinical characteristics, primary outcomes, and sex-specific effects are summarized in tables. The systemic review has been conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. In total, 29 articles were included in the systematic review. We observed that the proportion of women enrolled in clinical trials was generally low, the absence of a prespecified analysis of efficacy by sex was frequent, and the level of quality of evidence on the efficacy of GDMT and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-) in women was relatively poor.

Conclusions

Sex influences the response to treatment of patients suffering from HFrEF. All the results from the landmark randomized clinical trials are based on study populations composed mainly of men. Further studies specifically designed considering sex differences are warranted to elucidate if GDMT and new devices are equally effective in both sexes.

Improving diversity in study participation: Patient perspectives on barriers, racial differences and the role of communities

INTRODUCTION

The lack of racial/ethnic diversity in research potentially limits the generalizability of findings to a broader population, highlighting the need for greater diversity and inclusion in clinical research. Qualitative research (i.e., focus groups) was conducted to identify (i) the potential motivators and barriers to study participation across different races and ethnicities; (ii) preferred delivery of education and information to support healthcare decision-making and the role of the community.

METHODS

Patient focus groups were conducted with 26 participants from the sponsor's Patient Engagement Research Councils selected through subjective sampling. Recruitment prioritized adequate representation across different race/ethnic groups. Participation was voluntary and participants underwent a confidential interview process before selection. Narrative analysis was used to identify themes and draw insights from interactions. Experienced research specialists identified emerging concepts, and these were tested against new observations. The frequency of each concept was examined to understand its importance.

RESULTS

Based on self-selected race/ethnicity, participants were divided into five focus groups (Groups: African American/Black: 2; Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, and white: 1 each) and were asked to share their experiences/opinions regarding the stated objectives. Barriers to study participation included: limited awareness of opportunities to participate in research, fears about changes in standard therapy, breaking cultural norms/stigma, religion-related concerns and mistrust of clinical research. Participants identified the importance of transparency by pharmaceutical companies and other entities to build trust and partnership and cited key roles that communities can play. The perceptions of the African American group regarding diversity/inclusion in research studies appeared to be different from other groups; a lack of trust in healthcare providers, concerns about historical instances of research abuse and the importance of prayer were cited.

CONCLUSION

This study provided insights into barriers to study participation, and also highlighted the need for pharmaceutical companies and other entities to authentically engage in strategies that build trust within communities to enhance recruitment among diverse populations.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The data collected in the present study was provided by the participants in the focus groups.

Prognostic Value of Time in Blood Pressure Target Range Among Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) is a continuous and dynamic measure. However, standard BP control metrics may not reflect the variability in BP over time.

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the prognostic value of time in BP target range among hypertensive patients with heart failure (HF).

METHODS

The authors performed a post hoc analysis of data from the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function HF with an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial and the BEST (Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial). Time in target range (TTR) for each patient was calculated using linear interpolation across the study period with the target range of systolic BP between 120 and 130 mm Hg.

RESULTS

A total of 4,789 hypertensive patients (n = 1,654 from BEST and n = 3,135 from TOPCAT) were included. The cumulative incidences of primary endpoint (ie, cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) were highest among the top quartile of TTR with a dose-dependent manner across quartiles (P_trend <0.005). The top quartile of TTR was significantly associated with a lower risk of primary outcome using adjusted Cox regression model (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.60-0.82), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.55-0.84), HF hospitalization (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.58-0.85), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.58-0.83), and any hospitalization (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67-0.85). Further analyses using restricted cubic spline indicated a linear relationship between TTR and primary outcome. Similar patterns were observed in the individual trial. Sensitivity analyses generated consistent results while redefining target range as 110 to 130 mm Hg for systolic BP or 70 to 80 mm Hg for diastolic BP.

CONCLUSIONS

TTR could independently predict major adverse cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with HF.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

Signaling cascades in the failing heart and emerging therapeutic strategies

Chronic heart failure is the end stage of cardiac diseases. With a high prevalence and a high mortality rate worldwide, chronic heart failure is one of the heaviest health-related burdens. In addition to the standard neurohormonal blockade therapy, several medications have been developed for chronic heart failure treatment, but the population-wide improvement in chronic heart failure prognosis over time has been modest, and novel therapies are still needed. Mechanistic discovery and technical innovation are powerful driving forces for therapeutic development. On the one hand, the past decades have witnessed great progress in understanding the mechanism of chronic heart failure. It is now known that chronic heart failure is not only a matter involving cardiomyocytes. Instead, chronic heart failure involves numerous signaling pathways in noncardiomyocytes, including fibroblasts, immune cells, vascular cells, and lymphatic endothelial cells, and crosstalk among these cells. The complex regulatory network includes protein-protein, protein-RNA, and RNA-RNA interactions. These achievements in mechanistic studies provide novel insights for future therapeutic targets. On the other hand, with the development of modern biological techniques, targeting a protein pharmacologically is no longer the sole option for treating chronic heart failure. Gene therapy can directly manipulate the expression level of genes; gene editing techniques provide hope for curing hereditary cardiomyopathy; cell therapy aims to replace dysfunctional cardiomyocytes; and xenotransplantation may solve the problem of donor heart shortages. In this paper, we reviewed these two aspects in the field of failing heart signaling cascades and emerging therapeutic strategies based on modern biological techniques.

The Treatment of Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: Doubts and New Developments from the Last ESC Guidelines

Patients with heart failure (HF) and associated chronic kidney disease (CKD) are a population less represented in clinical trials; additionally, subjects with more severe estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction are often excluded from large studies. In this setting, most of the data come from post hoc analyses and retrospective studies. Accordingly, in patients with advanced CKD, there are no specific studies evaluating the long-term effects of the traditional drugs commonly administered in HF. Current concerns may affect the practical approach to the traditional treatment, and in this setting, physicians are often reluctant to administer and titrate some agents acting on the renin angiotensin aldosterone system and the sympathetic activity. Therefore, the extensive application in different HF subtypes with wide associated conditions and different renal dysfunction etiologies remains a subject of debate. The role of novel drugs, such as angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors and sodium glucose linked transporters 2 inhibitors seems to offer a new perspective in patients with CKD. Due to its protective vascular and hormonal actions, the use of these agents may be safely extended to patients with renal dysfunction in the long term. In this review, we discussed the largest trials reporting data on subjects with HF and associated CKD, while suggesting a practical stepwise algorithm to avoid renal and cardiac complications.

Generalizability of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Prediction Models: 158 Independent External Validations of 104 Unique Models

Background:

While clinical prediction models (CPMs) are used increasingly commonly to guide patient care, the performance and clinical utility of these CPMs in new patient cohorts is poorly understood.

Methods:

We performed 158 external validations of 104 unique CPMs across 3 domains of cardiovascular disease (primary prevention, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure). Validations were performed in publicly available clinical trial cohorts and model performance was assessed using measures of discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. To explore potential reasons for poor model performance, CPM-clinical trial cohort pairs were stratified based on relatedness, a domain-specific set of characteristics to qualitatively grade the similarity of derivation and validation patient populations. We also examined the model-based C-statistic to assess whether changes in discrimination were because of differences in case-mix between the derivation and validation samples. The impact of model updating on model performance was also assessed.

Results:

Discrimination decreased significantly between model derivation (0.76 [interquartile range 0.73–0.78]) and validation (0.64 [interquartile range 0.60–0.67], P<0.001), but approximately half of this decrease was because of narrower case-mix in the validation samples. CPMs had better discrimination when tested in related compared with distantly related trial cohorts. Calibration slope was also significantly higher in related trial cohorts (0.77 [interquartile range, 0.59–0.90]) than distantly related cohorts (0.59 [interquartile range 0.43–0.73], P=0.001). When considering the full range of possible decision thresholds between half and twice the outcome incidence, 91% of models had a risk of harm (net benefit below default strategy) at some threshold; this risk could be reduced substantially via updating model intercept, calibration slope, or complete re-estimation.

Conclusions:

There are significant decreases in model performance when applying cardiovascular disease CPMs to new patient populations, resulting in substantial risk of harm. Model updating can mitigate these risks. Care should be taken when using CPMs to guide clinical decision-making.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

STRUCTURE

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

Evidence-Based Medical Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) as identified by a reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is a common comorbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The presence of CKD is associated with more severe heart failure, and CKD itself is a strong independent risk factor of poor cardiovascular outcome. Furthermore, the presence of CKD often influences the decision to start, uptitrate, or discontinue possible life-saving HFrEF therapies. Because pivotal HFrEF randomized clinical trials have historically excluded patients with stage 4 and 5 CKD (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2), information on the efficacy and tolerability of HFrEF therapies in these patients is limited. However, more recent HFrEF trials with novel classes of drugs included patients with more severe CKD. In this review on medical therapy in patients with HFrEF and CKD, we show that for both all-cause mortality and the combined end point of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, most drug classes are safe and effective up to CKD stage 3B (eGFR minimum 30 mL/min/1.73 m2). For more severe CKD (stage 4), there is evidence of safety and efficacy of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and to a lesser extent, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, vericiguat, digoxin and omecamtiv mecarbil, although this evidence is restricted to improvement of cardiovascular death/heart failure hospitalization. Data are lacking on the safety and efficacy for any HFrEF therapies in CKD stage 5 (eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 or dialysis) for either end point. Last, although an initial decline in eGFR is observed on initiation of several HFrEF drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers/mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists/angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors/sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors), renal function often stabilizes over time, and the drugs maintain their clinical efficacy. A decline in eGFR in the context of a stable or improving clinical condition should therefore not be cause for concern and should not lead to discontinuation of life-saving HFrEF therapies.

Prognostic value of postural hypotension in hospitalized patients with heart failure

Although postural hypotension (PH) is reportedly associated with mortality in the general population, the prognostic value for heart failure is unclear. This was a post-hoc analysis of FRAGILE-HF, a prospective multicenter observational study focusing on frailty in elderly patients with heart failure. Overall, 730 patients aged ≥ 65 years who were hospitalized with heart failure were enrolled. PH was defined by evaluating seated PH, and was defined as a fall of ≥ 20 mmHg in systolic and/or ≥ 10 mmHg in diastolic blood pressure within 3 min after transition from a supine to sitting position. The study endpoints were all-cause death and heart failure readmission at 1 year. Predictive variables for the presence of PH were also evaluated. PH was observed in 160 patients (21.9%). Patients with PH were more likely than those without PH to be male with a New York Heart Association classification of III/IV. Logistic regression analysis showed that male sex, severe heart failure symptoms, and lack of administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were independently associated with PH. PH was not associated with 1-year mortality, but was associated with a lower incidence of readmission after discharge after adjustment for other covariates. In conclusion, PH was associated with reduced risk of heart failure readmission but not with 1-year mortality in older patients with heart failure.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Immediate-Release Versus SLOW-Release Carvedilol in Heart Failure Patient (SLOW-HF): a Prospective Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

Carvedilol demonstrated therapeutic benefits in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, it had a short half-life time mandating twice a day administration. We investigated whether slow-release carvedilol (carvedilol-SR) is non-inferior to standard immediate-release carvedilol (carvedilol-IR) in terms of clinical efficacy in patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with HFrEF to receive carvedilol-SR once a day or carvedilol-IR twice a day. The primary endpoint was the change in N-terminal pro B-natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level from baseline to 6 months after randomization. The secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with NT-proBNP increment > 10% from baseline, mortality rate, readmission rate, changes in blood pressure, quality of life, and drug compliance.

RESULTS

A total of 272 patients were randomized and treated (median follow-up time, 173 days). In each group of patients taking carvedilol-SR and those taking carvedilol-IR, clinical characteristics were well balanced. No patient died during follow-up, and there was no significant difference in the change of NT-proBNP level between two groups (-107.4 [-440.2-70.3] pg/mL vs. -91.2 [-504.1-37.4] pg/mL, p = 0.101). Change of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, control rate and response rate of blood pressure, readmission rate, and drug compliance rate were also similar. For safety outcomes, the occurrence of adverse reactions did not differ between carvedilol-SR group and carvedilol-IR group.

CONCLUSION

Carvedilol-SR once a day was non-inferior to carvedilol-IR twice a day in patients with HFrEF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03209180 (registration date: July 6, 2017).

Efficacy of Dapagliflozin in Black Versus White Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in Black and White patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) enrolled in DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure).

BACKGROUND

Black patients may respond differently to certain treatments for HFrEF than White patients.

METHODS

Patients with New York Heart Association functional class II to IV with an ejection fraction of ≤40% and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were eligible for DAPA-HF. Because >99% of Black patients were randomized in the Americas, this post hoc analysis considered Black and White patients enrolled only in North and South America. The primary outcome was the composite of a worsening HF event (HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

Of the 4,744 patients randomized in DAPA-HF, 1,494 (31.5%) were enrolled in the Americas. Of these, 1,181 (79.0%) were White, and 225 (15.1%) were Black. Black patients had a higher rate of worsening HF events, but not mortality, compared with White patients. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary endpoint similarly in Black patients (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.37-1.03) and White patients (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.52-0.90; P-interaction = 0.70). Consistent benefits were observed for other prespecified outcomes, including the composite of total (first and repeat) HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (P-interaction = 0.43) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. Study drug discontinuation and serious adverse events were not more frequent in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group in either Black or White patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF and cardiovascular death, and it improved symptoms, similarly in Black and White patients without an increase in adverse events. (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [DAPA-HF]; NCT03036124).

Revisiting the clinical evidence of heart rate target in patients with heart failure treated with beta-blockers

Objective

On evaluating the guidelines from previous studies, we found no randomized controlled trials on the use of beta-blockers for heart failure (HF) that employed as evidence for heart rate targets of 60 or 70 beats/min. In this study, we aimed to assess the target heart rate in patients with HF treated with beta-blockers.

Methods

We used the keywords, “heart failure” and “beta-blocker” to search PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, and Cochrane from 1966 to June 2021. Two authors independently reviewed the results of the search strategy and selected all the studies that reported the effect of beta-blockers on all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF. We conducted analyses using Review Manager, version 5.0 and Stata version 12.0. Risk of bias was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and other biases. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to compare the results of fixed effect model with the results of random effect.

Results

No clinical trial supported the optimal heart rate of 60 beats/min. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were 0.77 (0.71, 0.83) and 0.86 (0.76, 0.97) in the subgroup with a baseline heart rate >80 beats/min and subgroup with baseline of ≤80 beats/min, respectively. RR and 95% CI were 0.92 (0.82, 1.02) and 0.77 (0.65, 0.92) in 2 subgroups with heart rate controlled ≥70 beats/min and 60–70 beats/min, respectively. Accumulated to MOCHA 1 trial (heart rate controlled 70 beats/min), there was no significant difference in mortality between the experimental group and the control group (RR=0.91, 95% CI 0.82–1.02). Accumulated to SENIORS trial (heart rate controlled 68.8 beats/min), there was a difference in mortality between the experimental and the control groups (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.82–0.99).

Conclusion

The main effect of beta-blockers in the treatment of HF is achieved by lowering heart rate. The use of beta-blockers did not benefit in people with HFrEF whose heart rate was 77 beats/min before they started the treatment regimen. In patients with HFrEF, the purpose of beta-blockers is to control the heart rate to 65–70 beats min.

Perspective on the role of four beta-blockers in heart failure

BACKGROUND

The current recommendations of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and a previous Bayesian analysis clearly show a mortality benefit with the use of β- blockers in chronic HF, especially for bisoprolol, carvedilol, and sustained-release metoprolol succinate.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective was to report the evidence on the use of the afore-mentioned β-blockers in subjects with heart failure and to characterize the stages of heart failure in response to the four different β-blockers. Furthermore, it shed light on the patient's satisfaction and improved quality of life using the afore-mentioned β-blockers in subjects with heart failure.

METHOD

The current perspective presented the clinical outcomes, including hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, patient's satisfaction, and quality of life, of four beta (β)-blockers, namely bisoprolol, carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, and nebivolol in different stages of heart failure.

RESULTS

The use of these three agents should be recommended for all stable subjects with current or previous symptoms of heart failure and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction unless there is any contraindication. The fore-mentioned β-blockers (bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol succinate) can be initiated early, even in stable and symptom-free (at rest) subjects with heart failure. β-blockers in heart failure should be commenced at small doses and then titrated upward as tolerated to achieve the desired clinical effects on heart rate and symptom control.

CONCLUSION

Cardiologists should weigh the benefit-risk in subjects with heart failure and other co-existing cardiovascular problems such as atrial fibrillation and diabetes.

Right Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Beta-Blocker Effect in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

A low right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) is a marker of poor outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Beta-blockers improve outcomes in HFrEF, but whether this effect is modified by RVEF is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of the 2798 patients in Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST), 2008 had data on baseline RVEF (mean 35%, median 34%). Patients were categorized into an RVEF of less than 35% (n = 1012) and an RVEF of 35% or greater (n = 996). We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within each RVEF subgroup and formally tested for interactions between bucindolol and RVEF. The effect of bucindolol on all-cause mortality in 2008 patients with baseline RVEF (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75-1.02) is consistent with that in 2798 patients in the main trial (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-1.02). Bucindolol use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality in patients with an RVEF of 35% or greater (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.89), but not in those with an RVEF of less than 35% (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83-1.24, P for interaction = .022). Similar variations were observed for cardiovascular mortality (P for interaction = .009) and sudden cardiac death (P for interaction = .018), but not for pump failure death (P for interaction = .371) or HF hospitalization (P for interaction = .251).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of bucindolol on mortality in patients with HFrEF was modified by the baseline RVEF. If these hypothesis-generating findings can be replicated using approved beta-blockers in contemporary patients with HFrEF, then RVEF may help to risk stratify patients with HFrEF for optimization of beta-blocker therapy.

Association Between Beta-Blockers and Mortality and Readmission in Older Patients with Heart Failure: an Instrumental Variable Analysis

BACKGROUND

The demographics of heart failure are changing. The rate of growth of the "older" heart failure population, specifically those ≥ 75, has outpaced that of any other age group. These older patients were underrepresented in the early beta-blocker trials. There are several reasons, including a decreased potential for mortality benefit and increased risk of side effects, why the risk/benefit tradeoff may be different in this population.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the association between receipt of a beta-blocker after heart failure discharge and early mortality and readmission rates among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), specifically patients aged 75+.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D to create a cohort of beneficiaries with ≥ 1 hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2016 to run an instrumental variable analysis.

MAIN MEASURE

The primary measure was 90-day, all-cause mortality; the secondary measure was 90-day, all-cause readmission.

KEY RESULTS

Using the two-stage least squared methodology, among all HFrEF patients, receipt of a beta-blocker within 30-day of discharge was associated with a - 4.35% (95% CI - 6.27 to - 2.42%, p < 0.001) decrease in 90-day mortality and a - 4.66% (95% CI - 7.40 to - 1.91%, p = 0.001) decrease in 90-day readmission rates. Even among patients ≥ 75 years old, receipt of a beta-blocker at discharge was also associated with a significant decrease in 90-day mortality, - 4.78% (95% CI - 7.19 to - 2.40%, p < 0.001) and 90-day readmissions, - 4.67% (95% CI - 7.89 to - 1.45%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients aged ≥ 75 years who receive a beta-blocker after HFrEF hospitalization have significantly lower 90-day mortality and readmission rates. The magnitude of benefit does not appear to wane with age. Absent a strong contraindication, all patients with HFrEF should attempt beta-blocker therapy at/after hospital discharge, regardless of age.

NT-proBNP Qualifies as a Surrogate for Clinical End Points in Heart Failure

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is a well-established biomarker in heart failure (HF) but controversially discussed as a potential surrogate marker in HF trials. We analyzed the NT-proBNP/mortality relationship in real-world data (RWD) of 108,330 HF patients from the IBM Watson Health Explorys database and compared it with the NT-proBNP / clinical event end-point relationship in 20 clinical HF studies. With a hierarchical statistical model, we quantified the functional relationship and interstudy variability. To independently qualify the model, we predicted outcome hazard ratios in five phase III HF studies solely based on NT-proBNP measured early in the respective study. In RWD and clinical studies, the relationship between NT-proBNP and clinical outcome is well described by an Emax model. The NT-proBNP independent baseline risk (R0 , RWD/studies median (interstudy interquartile range): 5.5%/3.0% (1.7-4.9%)) is very low compared with the potential NT-proBNP-associated maximum risk (Rmax : 55.2%/79.4% (61.5-89.0%)). The NT-proBNP concentration associated with the half-maximal risk is comparable in RWD and across clinical studies (EC50 : 3,880/2,414 pg/mL (1,460-4,355 pg/mL)). Model-based predictions of phase III outcomes, relying on short-term NT-proBNP data only, match final trial results with comparable confidence intervals. Our analysis qualifies NT-proBNP as a surrogate for clinical outcome in HF trials. NT-proBNP levels after short treatment durations of less than 10 weeks quantitatively predict hazard ratios with confidence levels comparable to final trial readout. Early NT-proBNP measurement can therefore enable shorter and smaller but still reliable HF trials.

Model-based meta-analysis of changes in circulatory system physiology in patients with chronic heart failure

To characterize and compare various medicines for chronic heart failure (CHF), changes in circulatory physiological parameter during pharmacotherapy were investigated by a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) of circulatory physiology. The clinical data from 61 studies mostly in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reporting changes in heart rate, blood pressure, or ventricular volumes after treatment with carvedilol, metoprolol, bisoprolol, bucindolol, enalapril, aliskiren, or felodipine, were analyzed. Seven cardiac and vasculature function indices were estimated without invasive measurements using models based on appropriate assumptions, and their correlations with the mortality were assessed. Estimated myocardial oxygen consumption, a cardiac load index, correlated excellently with the mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment initiation, and it explained differences in mortality across the different medications. The analysis based on the present models were reasonably consistent with the hypothesis that the treatment of HFrEF with various medications is due to effectively reducing the cardiac load. Assessment of circulatory physiological parameters by using MBMA would be insightful for quantitative understanding of CHF treatment.