Influence of heart rate, blood pressure, and beta-blocker dose on outcome and the differences in outcome between carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the COMET trial

Comparative Analysis of ECG and Holter Monitoring in the Assessment of Heart Rate in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and Sinus Rhythm

BACKGROUND

Heart rate (HR) has shown prognostic value in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and sinus rhythm. However, the method of measurement is debated in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

To compare HR on Holter with 3 resting electrocardiograms (ECG1, ECG2, and ECG3) in patients with HFrEF and sinus rhythm.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study with 135 patients with heart failure with ejection fraction ≤ 40% and sinus rhythm. HR was assessed by ECG and Holter. Analyses included intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), robust regression, root mean squared error, Bland-Altman, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. A significance level of 0.05 and Bonferroni-Holm adjustment were adopted to minimize type I errors.

RESULTS

The median [interquartile range] age and ejection fraction were 65 years [16] and 30% [11], respectively. The ICC of the 3 ECGs was 0.922 (95% confidence interval: 0.892; 0.942). The robust regression coefficients for ECG1 and ECG3 were 0.20 (95% confidence interval: 0.12; 0.29) and 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.06; 0.36). The robust R2 was 0.711 (95% confidence interval: 0.628; 0.76). In the Bland-Altman agreement analysis, the limits of agreement were -17.0 (95% confidence interval: -19.0; -15.0) and 32.0 (95% confidence interval: 30.0; 34.0). The area under the ROC curve was 0.896 (95% confidence interval: 0.865; 0.923).

CONCLUSION

The HR on ECG showed high agreement with the HR on Holter, validating its clinical use in patients with HFrEF and sinus rhythm. However, agreement was suboptimal in one third of patients with HR below 70 bpm on ECG; thus, 24-hour Holter monitoring should be considered in this context.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Safety Indicators in Patients Receiving High-intensity Care After Hospital Admission for Acute Heart Failure: The STRONG-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by NT-proBNP Testing, of Heart Failure Therapies (STRONG-HF) demonstrated the safety and efficacy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with high-intensity care (HIC) compared with usual care in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF). In the HIC group, the following safety indicators were used to guide up-titration: estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, serum potassium of >5.0 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure (SBP) of <95 mmHg, heart rate of <55 bpm, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration of >10% higher than predischarge values.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined the impact of protocol-specified safety indicators on achieved dose of GDMT and clinical outcomes. Three hundred thirteen of the 542 patients in the HIC arm (57.7%) met ≥1 safety indicator at any follow-up visit 1-6 weeks after discharge. As compared with those without, patients meeting ≥1 safety indicator had more severe HF symptoms, lower SBP, and higher heart rate at baseline and achieved a lower average percentage of GDMT optimal doses (mean difference vs the HIC arm patients not reaching any safety indicator, -11.0% [95% confidence interval [CI] -13.6 to -8.4%], P < .001). The primary end point of 180-day all-cause death or HF readmission occurred in 15.0% of patients with any safety indicator vs 14.2% of those without (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.48-1.46, P = .540). None of each of the safety indicators, considered alone, was significantly associated with the primary end point, but an SBP of <95 mm Hg was associated with a trend toward increased 180-day all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.68, 95% CI 0.94-7.64, P = .065) and estimated glomerular filtration rate decreased to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 with more HF readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio 3.60, 95% CI 1.22-10.60, P = .0203). The occurrence of a safety indicator was associated with a smaller 90-day improvement in the EURO-QoL 5-Dimension visual analog scale (adjusted mean difference -3.32 points, 95% CI -5.97 to -0.66, P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with acute HF enrolled in STRONG-HF in the HIC arm, the occurrence of any safety indicator was associated with the administration of slightly lower GDMT doses and less improvement in quality of life, but with no significant increase in the primary outcome of 180-day HF readmission or death when appropriately addressed according to the study protocol.

Guideline-directed medical therapy in severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An analysis from the HELP-HF registry

AIM

Persistent symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and poor tolerance of GDMT are hallmarks of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, real-world data on GDMT use, dose, and prognostic implications are lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 699 consecutive patients with HFrEF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF enrolled in a multicentre registry. Beta-blockers (BB) were administered to 574 (82%) patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ACEi/ARB/ARNI) were administered to 381 (55%) patients and 416 (60%) received mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA). Overall, ≥50% of target doses were reached in 41%, 22%, and 56% of the patients on BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively. Hypotension, bradycardia, kidney dysfunction and hyperkalaemia were the main causes of underprescription and/or underdosing, but up to a half of the patients did not receive target doses for unknown causes (51%, 41%, and 55% for BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively). The proportions of patients receiving BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were lower among those fulfilling the 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were associated with a lower risk of death or HF hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.84, and HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, real-world, contemporary cohort of patients with severe HFrEF, with at least one marker for advanced HF, prescription and uptitration of GDMT remained limited. A significant proportion of patients were undertreated due to unknown reasons suggesting a potential role of clinical inertia either by the prescribing healthcare professional or by the patient. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI was associated with lower mortality/morbidity.

Optimal Heart Rate Control Improves Long-Term Prognosis of Decompensated Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background and Objectives: An elevated heart rate is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease; however, the relationship between heart rate control and the long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains unclear. This study explored the long-term prognostic importance of heart rate control in patients hospitalized with HFrEF. Materials and Methods: We retrieved the records of patients admitted for decompensated heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤40%, from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) during follow-up. We analyzed the outcomes using Cox proportional hazard ratios calculated using the patients' heart rates, as measured at baseline and approximately 3 months later. The mean follow-up duration was 49.0 ± 38.1 months. Results: We identified 5236 eligible patients, and divided them into five groups on the basis of changes in their heart rates. The mean LVEFs of the groups ranged from 29.1% to 30.6%. After adjustment for all covariates, the results demonstrated that lesser heart rate reductions at the 3-month screening period were associated with long-term cardiovascular death, HHF, and all-cause mortality (p for linear trend = 0.033, 0.042, and 0.003, respectively). The restricted cubic spline model revealed a linear relationship between reduction in heart rate and risk of outcomes (p for nonlinearity > 0.2). Conclusions: Greater reductions in heart rate were associated with a lower risk of long-term cardiovascular death, HHF, and all-cause mortality among patients discharged after hospitalization for decompensated HFrEF.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Short-term outcomes by chronic betablocker treatment in patients presenting to emergency departments with acute heart failure: BB-EAHFE

AIMS

To evaluate the association between chronic treatment with betablockers (BB) and the severity of decompensation and short-term outcomes of patients with acute heart failure (AHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We consecutively included all patients presenting with AHF to 45 Spanish emergency departments (ED) during six different time-periods between 2007 and 2018. Patients were stratified according to whether they were on chronic treatment with BB at the time of ED consultation. Those receiving BB were compared (adjusted odds ratio-OR-with 95% confidence interval-CI-) with those not receiving BB group in terms of in-hospital and 7-day all-cause mortality, need for hospitalization, and prolonged length of stay (≥7 days). Among the 17 923 recruited patients (median age: 80 years; 56% women), 7795 (43%) were on chronic treatment with BB. Based on the MEESSI-AHF risk score, those on BB were at lower risk. In-hospital mortality was observed in 1310 patients (7.4%), 7-day mortality in 765 (4.3%), need for hospitalization in 13 428 (75.0%), and prolonged length of stay (43.3%). After adjustment for confounding, those on chronic BB were at lower risk for in-hospital all-cause mortality (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.79-0.92, P < 0.001); 7-day all-cause mortality (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.70-0.85, P < 0.001); need for hospitalization (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.85-0.94, P < 0.001); prolonged length of stay (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.86-0.94, P < 0.001). A propensity matching approach yielded consistent findings.

CONCLUSION

In patients presenting to ED with AHF, those on BB had better short-term outcomes than those not receiving BB.

Genetic polymorphisms in ADRB2 and ADRB1 are associated with differential survival in heart failure patients taking β-blockers

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been associated with differential beta-blocker (BB) effects on heart rate, blood pressure, and left ventricular ejection fraction in various patient populations. This study aimed to determine if SNPs previously associated with BB response are also associated with differential survival in heart failure (HF) patients receiving BBs. HF patient data were derived from electronic health records and the Social Security Death Index. Associations and interactions between BB dose, SNP genotype, and the outcome of death were assessed using a Cox proportional-hazard model adjusting for covariates known to be associated with differential survival in HF patients. Two SNPs, ADRB1 Arg389Gly and ADRB2 Glu27Gln, displayed significant interactions (P_int = 0.043 and P_int = 0.017, respectively) with BB dose and their association with mortality. Our study suggests that ADRB2 27Glu and ADRB1 389Arg may confer a larger survival benefit with higher BB doses in patients with HF.

Prognostic value of beta-blocker doses in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias

The study investigates the prognostic significance of beta-blocker (BB) dose in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Limited data regarding the prognostic impact of BB dose in ventricular tachyarrhythmias is available. A large retrospective registry was used including consecutive patients on BB treatment with episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF) from 2002 to 2015. Discharge BB doses were grouped as > 0–12.5%, > 12.5–25%, > 25–50%, and > 50% according to doses used in randomized trials. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at three years. Secondary endpoints comprised of a composite arrhythmic endpoint (i.e., recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and appropriate ICD therapies) and cardiac rehospitalization. Kaplan–Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox regression analyses were applied for statistics. A total of 1313 patients with BB were included; most patients were discharged with > 25–50% of BB target dose (59%). At three years, > 12.5–25% of BB target dose was associated with improved long-term mortality as compared to the > 0–12.5% group (HR = 0.489; 95% CI 0.297–0.806; p = 0.005), whereas higher BB doses did not improve survival (> 25–50%: HR = 0.849; p = 0.434; > 50%: HR = 0.735; p = 0.285). In contrast, the composite endpoint and risk of rehospitalization were not affected by BB target dose. In conclusion, > 12.5–25% of BB target dose is associated with best long-term survival among patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In contrast, risk of the composite arrhythmic endpoint and risk of cardiac rehospitalization were not affected by BB dose.

β-Blockade for Patients with Hypertension, Ischemic Heart Disease or Heart Failure: Where are We Now?

β-blockers are a heterogeneous class of drugs, with varying selectivity/specificity for β1 vs β2 receptors, intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA), and vasodilatory properties (through β2 stimulation, α receptor blockade or nitric oxide release). These drugs are indicated for the management of arterial hypertension, heart failure or ischemic heart disease (IHD; eg angina pectoris or prior myocardial infarction). Most of the benefit of β-blockade in these conditions arises from blockade of the β1 receptor, and, in practice, the addition of ISA appears to reduce the potential for improved clinical outcomes in people with heart failure or IHD. Aspects of the benefit/risk balance of β-blockers remain controversial, and recent meta-analyses have shed new light on this issue. We have reviewed the current place of cardioselective β-blockade in hypertension, IHD and heart failure, with special reference to the therapeutic profile of a highly selective β1-adrenoceptor blocker, bisoprolol.

Perceived risk profile and treatment optimization in heart failure: an analysis from BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in chronic heart failure

Background

Achieving target doses of angiotensin‐converting‐enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin‐receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) and beta‐blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is often underperformed. In BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in chronic heart failure (BIOSTAT‐CHF) study, many patients were not up‐titrated for which no clear reason was reported. Therefore, we hypothesized that perceived‐risk profile might influence treatment optimization.

Methods

We studied 2100 patients with HFrEF (LVEF≤40%) to compare the clinical characteristics and adverse events associated with treatment up‐titration (after a 3‐month titration protocol) between; a) patients not reaching target doses for unclear reason; b) patients not reaching target doses due to symptoms and/or side effects; c) patients reaching target doses.

Results

For ACEi/ARB, (a), (b) and (c) was observed in 51.3%, 25.9% and 22.7% of patients, respectively. For beta‐blockers, (a), (b) and (c) was observed in 67.5%, 20.2% and 12.3% of patients, respectively. By multinomial logistic regression analysis for ACEi/ARB, patients in group (a) and (b) had lower blood pressure and poorer renal function, and patients in group (a) were older and had lower ejection fraction. For beta‐blockers, patients in group (a) and (b) had more severe congestion and lower heart rate. At 9 months, adverse events (i.e., hypotension, bradycardia, renal impairment, and hyperkalemia) occurred similarly among the three groups.

Conclusions

Patients in whom clinicians did not give a reason why up‐titration was missed were older and had more co‐morbidities. Patients in whom up‐titration was achieved did not have excess adverse events. However, from these observational findings, the pattern of subsequent adverse events among patients in whom up‐titration was missed cannot be determined.

CCS/CHFS Heart Failure Guidelines Update: Defining a New Pharmacologic Standard of Care for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

In this update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure (HF) guidelines, we provide comprehensive recommendations and practical tips for the pharmacologic management of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since the 2017 comprehensive update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of HF, substantial new evidence has emerged that has informed the care of these patients. In particular, we focus on the role of novel pharmacologic therapies for HFrEF including angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitors, and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in conjunction with other long established HFrEF therapies. Updated recommendations are also provided in the context of the clinical setting for which each of these agents might be prescribed; the potential value of each therapy is reviewed, where relevant, for chronic HF, new onset HF, and for HF hospitalization. We define a new standard of pharmacologic care for HFrEF that incorporates 4 key therapeutic drug classes as standard therapy for most patients: an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (as first-line therapy or after angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker titration); a β-blocker; a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; and a sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitor. Additionally, many patients with HFrEF will have clinical characteristics for which we recommended other key therapies to improve HF outcomes, including sinus node inhibitors, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, hydralazine/nitrates in combination, and/or digoxin. Finally, an approach to management that integrates prioritized pharmacologic with nonpharmacologic and invasive therapies after a diagnosis of HFrEF is highlighted.

A Novel Approach to Medical Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

The advent of newly available medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has resulted in many potential therapeutic combinations, increasing treatment complexity. Publication of expert consensus guidelines and initiatives aimed to improve implementation of treatment has emphasized sequential stepwise initiation and titration of medical therapy, which is labour intensive. Data taken from heart failure registries show suboptimal use of medications, prolonged titration times, and consequently little change in dose intensity, all of which indicate therapeutic inertia. Recently published evidence indicates that 4 medication classes-renin-angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors-which we refer to as Foundational Therapy, confer rapid and robust reduction in both morbidity and mortality in most patients with HFrEF and that they work in additive fashion. Additional morbidity and mortality may be observed following addition of several personalized therapies in specific subgroups of patients. In this review, we discuss mechanisms of action of these therapies and propose a framework for their implementation, based on several principles. These include the critical importance of rapid initiation of all 4 Foundational Therapies followed by their titration to target doses, emphasis on multiple simultaneous drug changes with each patient encounter, attention to patient-specific factors in choice of medication class, leveraging inpatient care, use of the entire health care team, and alternative (ie, virtual visits) modes of care. We have incorporated these principles into a Cluster Scheme designed to facilitate timely and optimal medical treatment for patients with HFrEF.

β-Blocker Doses and Heart Rate in Patients with Heart Failure: Results from the National Norwegian Heart Failure Registry

BACKGROUND

Use of β-blockers and titration to the highest tolerated dose are highly recommended by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for treatment of chronic heart failure (HF) with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but little attention has been paid to the achieved heart rate (HR) during this treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to examine the achieved HR in relation to the use of β-blockers in these patients.

METHODS

All of the patients (n = 2,689) in the National Norwegian Heart Failure Registry as part of the Norwegian Cardiovascular Disease Registry with a sinus rhythm and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% at stable follow-up visiting specialised hospital outpatient HF clinics in Norway were included. The β-blocker doses were calculated as a percent of the target dose according to ESC HF guidelines. Differences between baseline variables according to the achieved HR were analysed by the Student's t test for continuous variables and Pearson's χ2 test for categorical variables. Linear regression was used to determine the predictors of HR ≥70 beats/min (bpm) in the multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

One third of the patients had a resting HR ≥70 bpm. Of the patients with an HR ≥70 bpm, 72.3% used less than the target dose of β-blocker; they were younger and had a higher NYHA class, more diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and higher N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and estimated glomerular filtration rates compared to the patients with an HR <70 bpm. The 1-year mortality was 3.1, 3.7, 5.8, and 9.1% among the patients with an HR <70, 70-79, 80-89, and >89 bpm, respectively. Only 2 patients used ivabradine.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFrEF and sinus rhythm, an HR ≥70 bpm was associated with worse clinical variables and outcomes. A high proportion of the patients who had an HR ≥70 bpm was not treated with or/did not tolerate the target dose of a β-blocker, although the β-blocker dose was higher than in patients with an HR <70 bpm. This may suggest that increased efforts should be made to further increase the β-blocker dose, and treatment with ivabradine could be considered among patients with an HR ≥70 bpm.

Beneficial effects of ivabradine in patients with heart failure, low ejection fraction, and heart rate above 77 b.p.m

AIMS

Ivabradine has been approved in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and elevated heart rate despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to reduce cardiovascular (CV) death and hospitalization for worsening HF. The median value of 77 b.p.m. is the lower bound selected for the regulatory approval in Canada, South Africa, and Australia. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment are considered of major interest in the global plan of care of patients with HF. However, the specific impact of GDMT, and specifically ivabradine, on PRO remains poorly studied. In the subgroup of patients from the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) who had heart rate above the median of 77 b.p.m. (pre-specified analysis) and for whom the potential for improvement was expected to be larger, we aimed (i) to evaluate the effects of ivabradine on PRO (symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment); (ii) to consolidate the effects of ivabradine on the primary composite endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF; and (iii) to reassess the effects of ivabradine on left ventricular (LV) remodelling.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Comparisons were made according to therapy, and proportional hazards models (adjusted for baseline beta-blocker therapy) were used to estimate the association between ivabradine and various outcomes. In SHIFT, n = 3357 (51.6%) patients had a baseline heart rate > 77 b.p.m. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months (inter-quartile range 18-28 months), ivabradine on top of GDMT improved symptoms (28% vs. 23% improvement in New York Heart Association functional class, P = 0.0003), quality of life (5.3 vs. 2.2 improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, P = 0.005), and global assessment [from both patient (improved in 72.3%) and physician (improved in 61.0%) perspectives] significantly more than did placebo (both P < 0.0001). Ivabradine induced a 25% reduction in the combined endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF (hazard ratio 0.75; P < 0.0001), which translates into a number of patients needed to be treated for 1 year of 17. Patients under ivabradine treatment demonstrated a significant reduction in LV dimensions when reassessed at 8 months (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic HFrEF, sinus rhythm, and a heart rate > 77 b.p.m. while on GDMT, the present analysis brings novel insights into the role of ivabradine in improving the management of HFrEF, particularly with regard to PRO (ISRCTN70429960).

The Importance of Heart Rate in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a progressive, chronic, and burdensome cardiovascular condition. It is associated with limiting symptoms, such as dyspnea and fatigue; a decline in functional capacity; and premature mortality and hospitalization. In heart failure (HF) management, heart rate is commonly assessed yet frequently overlooked as a modifiable risk factor and a predictor of mortality. An elevated heart rate increases myocardial demand and decreases diastolic filling time. Hospitalized patients with HFrEF who have a heart rate greater than 70 beats per minute at discharge were found to have lower survival rates.

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to review the association between heart rate and clinical outcome in patients with HF and discuss the contribution of heart rate to HFrEF pathophysiology. Medications currently used to modulate heart rate in patients with HF are also reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFrEF, an elevated heart rate contributes to HF progression, and it is both a prognostic and modifiable risk factor. Medications such as an evidence-based β-blockers, digoxin, and ivabradine are recommended for modulation of heart rate in patients with HFrEF.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Nurses play a pivotal role in managing HFrEF and must understand current evidence of the pathophysiology of elevated heart rate, risks, and management strategies. Early recognition of elevated heart rate and application of guideline-directed pharmacologic treatment for patients with HFrEF and an elevated heart rate remains key to improving patient outcomes.

Prognostic significance of changes in heart rate following uptitration of beta-blockers in patients with sub-optimally treated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm versus atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on sub-optimal doses of beta-blockers, it is conceivable that changes in heart rate following treatment intensification might be important regardless of underlying heart rhythm. We aimed to compare the prognostic significance of both achieved heart rate and change in heart rate following beta-blocker uptitration in patients with HFrEF either in sinus rhythm (SR) or atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of the BIOSTAT-CHF study. We evaluated 1548 patients with HFrEF (mean age 67 years, 35% AF). Median follow-up was 21 months. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 9 months. The combined primary outcome was all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalisation stratified by heart rhythm and heart rate at baseline.

RESULTS

Despite similar changes in heart rate and beta-blocker dose, a decrease in heart rate at 9 months was associated with reduced incidence of the primary outcome in both SR and AF patients [HR per 10 bpm decrease-SR: 0.83 (0.75-0.91), p < 0.001; AF: 0.89 (0.81-0.98), p = 0.018], whereas the relationship was less strong for achieved heart rate in AF [HR per 10 bpm higher-SR: 1.26 (1.10-1.46), p = 0.001; AF: 1.08 (0.94-1.23), p = 0.18]. Achieved heart rate at 9 months was only prognostically significant in AF patients with high baseline heart rates (p for interaction 0.017 vs. low).

CONCLUSIONS

Following beta-blocker uptitration, both achieved and change in heart rate were prognostically significant regardless of starting heart rate in SR, however, they were only significant in AF patients with high baseline heart rate.

Acute effects of intravenous carvedilol versus metoprolol on baroreflex-mediated sympathetic circulatory regulation in rats

AIMS

To compare the effects of metoprolol and carvedilol on baroreflex-mediated sympathetic circulatory regulation.

METHODS

In anesthetized Wistar-Kyoto rats, carotid sinus baroreceptor regions were isolated. Changes in sympathetic nerve activity (SNA), arterial pressure (AP), heart rate (HR), and aortic flow (AoF) in response to a staircase-wise pressure input were examined before (control) and after intravenous injection of low-dose metoprolol (2 mg/kg), high-dose metoprolol (10 mg/kg), or carvedilol (0.67 mg/kg) (n = 6 each). Peripheral vascular resistance (PVR) was calculated from mean AP divided by mean AoF.

RESULTS

Low-dose metoprolol had limited effect on sympathetic AP regulation compared to control [operating-point AP (drug vs. control): 88.7 ± 7.1 vs. 98.3 ± 3.3 mm Hg, not significant] despite a significant bradycardic effect. Although high-dose metoprolol showed central sympathoinhibition, it increased PVR at a given SNA as a peripheral effect. Consequently, high-dose metoprolol decreased the operating-point AP slightly (96.1 ± 2.7 vs. 101.9 ± 2.7 mm Hg, P < 0.01). Carvedilol showed no significant central sympathoinhibition at the dose examined in this study, but significantly reduced PVR at a given SNA, leading to a marked reduction in the operating-point AP (71.9 ± 8.2 vs. 112.6 ± 7.6 mm Hg, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Low-dose metoprolol has limited hypotensive effect despite blockade of sympathetic HR regulation. Although high-dose metoprolol induces central sympathoinhibition, it also induces peripheral vasoconstriction that antagonizes the hypotensive effect. In contrast, carvedilol exhibits hypotensive effect mainly through peripheral vasodilation. Although carvedilol is frequently classified as a β-blocker, its vasodilatory effect via α₁-adrenergic blockade plays an important role in AP reduction or heart failure treatment.

The effects of heart rate control in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Elevated heart rate has been associated with worse prognosis both in the general population and in patients with heart failure. Heart rate is finely modulated by neurohormonal signals and it reflects the balance between the sympathetic and the parasympathetic limbs of the autonomic nervous system. For this reason, elevated heart rate in heart failure has been considered an epiphenomenon of the sympathetic hyperactivation during heart failure. However, experimental and clinical evidence suggests that high heart rate could have a direct pathogenetic role. Consequently, heart rate might act as a pathophysiological mediator of heart failure as well as a marker of adverse outcome. This hypothesis has been supported by the observation that the positive effect of beta-blockade could be linked to the degree of heart rate reduction. In addition, the selective heart rate control with ivabradine has recently been demonstrated to be beneficial in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The objective of this review is to examine the pathophysiological implications of elevated heart rate in chronic heart failure and explore the mechanisms underlying the effects of pharmacological heart rate control.

β-Blockers and 1-Year Postdischarge Mortality for Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction and Slow Discharge Heart Rate

Background Many hospitalized patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction ( HF r EF ) have a slow heart rate at discharge, and the effect of β-blockers may be reduced in those patients. We sought to examine the variable effect of β-blockers on clinical outcomes according to the discharge heart rate of hospitalized HF r EF patients. Methods and Results The KorAHF (Korean Acute Heart Failure) registry consecutively enrolled 5625 patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. In this analysis, we included patients with HF r EF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%). Slow heart rate was defined as <70 beats per minute regardless of the use of β-blockers. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause postdischarge death according to heart rate. Among 2932 patients with HF r EF , 840 (29%) had a slow heart rate and 56% received β-blockers at discharge. Patients with slow heart rates were older and had lower 1-year mortality than those with high heart rates ( P<0.001). A significant interaction between discharge heart rate and β-blocker use was observed ( P<0.001 for interaction). When stratified, only patients without a β-blocker prescription and with a high heart rate showed higher 1-year mortality. In a Cox-proportional hazards regression analysis, β-blocker prescription at discharge was associated with 24% reduced risk for 1-year mortality in patients with high heart rates (hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95) but not in those with slow heart rates (hazard ratio: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68-1.55). Conclusions Many patients with acute heart failure have slow discharge heart rates, and β-blockers may have a limited effect on HF r EF and slow discharge heart rate. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrial.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01389843.

Target Doses of Heart Failure Medical Therapy and Blood Pressure: Insights From the CHAMP-HF Registry

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the rate of use of target doses of foundational guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in a contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) across systolic blood pressure (SBP) categories.

BACKGROUND

Patients with HFrEF are infrequently titrated to recommended doses of GDMT. The relationship between SBP and achieving GDMT target doses is not well studied.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry without documented intolerance to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and beta blockers (BBs) were assessed at enrollment. We estimated the proportion receiving target doses (% of target dose [95% confidence interval (CI)]) based on the most recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America heart failure guidelines at baseline in all patients, and by SBP category (≥110 vs. <110 mm Hg).

RESULTS

Of the 3,095 patients eligible for analysis, 2,421 (78.2%) had SBP ≥110 mm Hg. The proportion of patients receiving target doses were 18.7% (95% CI: 17.3% to 20.0%; BB), 10.8% (95% CI: 9.7% to 11.9%; ACEI/ARB), and 2.0% (95% CI: 1.5% to 2.5%; ARNI). Among those with SBP <110 mm Hg (n = 674), 17.5% (95% CI: 14.6% to 20.4%; BB), 6.2% (95% CI: 4.4% to 8.1%; ACEI/ARB), and 1.8% (95% CI: 0.8% to 2.8%; ARNI) were receiving target doses. Among those with SBP ≥110 mm Hg (n = 2,421), 19.0% (95% CI: 17.4% to 20.6%; BB), 12.1% (95% CI: 10.8% to 13.4%; ACEI/ARB), and 2.0% (95% CI: 1.5% to 2.6%; ARNI) were receiving target doses.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, contemporary registry of outpatients with chronic HFrEF eligible for treatment with BBs and ACEI/ARB/ARNI, <20% of patients were receiving target doses, even among those with SBP ≥110 mm Hg.

Effect on Mortality of Higher Versus Lower β-Blocker (Metoprolol Succinate or Carvedilol) Dose in Patients With Heart Failure

This study aimed to compare the effect of β-blocker dose and heart rate (HR) on mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The Veteran Affairs databases were queried to identify all patients diagnosed with HFrEF based on International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision codes from 2007 to 2015 and β-blocker (carvedilol or metoprolol succinate) use. 36,168 patients on low dose β blocker were then matched with 36,168 patients on high dose β-blocker using propensity score matching. The impact of β-blocker dose and HR was assessed on overall mortality using Cox proportional hazard model. After dividing average HR into separate quartiles and adjusting for patient characteristics, high β-blocker dose was associated with lower overall mortality as compared with a low dose of β blocker (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.77, p <0.01) independent of the HR achieved. The results held for all 4 quartiles of average HR. A higher β-blocker dose or a lower HR were independently and jointly associated with lower mortality for all quartiles of HR. In conclusion, higher dose of β-blocker therapy and a lower achieved HR were independently associated with a reduction in mortality in HFrEF patients.

[Update on heart failure]

Heart failure is one of the leading diseases in internal medicine worldwide. Because of the increase in population aging, the incidence and prevalence of heart insufficiency is rising annually and is now the most frequent individual diagnosis among hospitalized patients in Germany. The mortality rate has recently been reduced, since new pharmacological options, especially the inhibition of neprilysin, have been developed; however, heart failure is still associated with a high mortality and morbidity rate. Thus, guideline-conform treatment is of crucial importance. This review highlights and summarizes the current scientific knowledge on heart failure from 2017 and 2018 based on the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. New aspects about heart failure with middle grade limitations of ejection fraction are firstly presented. Subsequently, innovative diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, new pharmacological developments and handling of frequent comorbidities in patients with heart failure are discussed.

Genome-Wide Association Approach Identified Novel Genetic Predictors of Heart Rate Response to β-Blockers

Background

For many indications, the negative chronotropic effect of β‐blockers is important to their efficacy, yet the heart rate (HR) response to β‐blockers varies. Herein, we sought to use a genome‐wide association approach to identify novel single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with HR response to β‐blockers.

Methods and Results

We first performed 4 genome‐wide association analyses for HR response to atenolol (a β1‐adrenergic receptor blocker) as: (1) monotherapy or (2) add‐on therapy, in 426 whites and 273 blacks separately from the PEAR (Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses) study. A meta‐analysis was then performed between the genome‐wide association analysis performed in PEAR atenolol monotherapy and add‐on therapy, in each race separately, using the inverse variance method assuming fixed effects. From this analysis, SNPs associated with HR response to atenolol at a P<1E‐05 were tested for replication in whites (n=200) and blacks (n=168) treated with metoprolol (a β1‐adrenergic receptor blocker). From the genome‐wide association meta‐analyses, SNP rs17117817 near olfactory receptor family10 subfamily‐p‐member1 (OR10P1), and SNP rs2364349 in sorting nexin‐9 (SNX9) replicated in blacks. The combined studies meta‐analysis P values for the rs17117817 and rs2364349 reached genome‐wide significance (rs17117817G‐allele; Meta‐β=5.53 beats per minute, Meta‐P=2E‐09 and rs2364349 A‐allele; Meta‐β=3.5 beats per minute, Meta‐P=1E‐08). Additionally, SNPs in the OR10P1 and SNX9 gene regions were also associated with HR response in whites.

Conclusions

This study highlights OR10P1 and SNX9 as novel genes associated with changes in HR in response to β‐blockers.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00246519.

Heart rate at first postdischarge visit and outcomes in patients with heart failure

Objective

Heart rate control is important to prevent adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). However, postdischarge activity may worsen heart rate control, resulting in readmission. This study aimed to explore the implications of the heart rate differences between discharge and the first outpatient visit (D-O diff).

Methods

We retrospectively identified 458 patients (male: 46%; mean age: 72 years) discharged after HF. The heart rates at admission, discharge and first outpatient visit were analysed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and readmission of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke or non-fatal HF over a mean follow-up of 16 months.

Results

During follow-up, the clinical outcomes were noted in 223 patients (49%): HF, 199; stroke, 9; MI, 6; CV death, 9. The heart rate at the first outpatient visit (r=−0.311, P<0.001) and D-O diff (r=0.416, P<0.001) showed a better correlation with the time-to-clinical event than the heart rate at admission or discharge. The events group displayed a pronounced heart rate increase (13 beats/min) from discharge to the first outpatient visit compared with the event-free group (a decrease of 2 beats/min). A decrease less than −15 in the D-O diff showed a 4.5-fold risk of clinical outcomes during follow-up (P<0.001).

Conclusions

A decreased D-O diff was related to the adverse outcomes of HF. The failure of heart rate control within more than 15 beats/min at the first outpatient visit was an independent factor for CV events.

Ivabradine in Heart Failure: The Representativeness of SHIFT (Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the IF Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial) in a Broad Population of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The sinus node inhibitor ivabradine was approved for patients with heart failure (HF) after the ivabradine and outcomes in chronic HF (SHIFT [Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the IF Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial]) trial. Our objective was to characterize the proportion of patients with HF eligible for ivabradine and the representativeness of the SHIFT trial enrollees compared with those in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined 26 404 patients with clinical HF from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry and divided them into SHIFT type (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, New York Heart Association class II-IV, sinus rhythm, and heart rate ≥70 beats per minute) and non-SHIFT type. Baseline characteristics and medication use were compared and change in eligibility over time was reported at 6 months and 1 year in a subset of patients. Overall, 14.2% (n=3741) of patients were SHIFT type. These patients were more likely to be younger, men, have diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and more recent onset HF (<6 months; all, P<0.001). Although 88.9% of SHIFT type and 88.5% of non-SHIFT type (P=0.421) were receiving selected β-blockers, only 58.8% and 67.3% (P<0.001) were on >50% of target dose. From those patients who had repeated visits within 6 months (n=5420) and 1 year (n=6840), respectively, 10.2% (n=555) and 10.6% (n=724) of SHIFT-type patients became ineligible, 77.3% (n=4188) and 77.3% (n=5287) remained ineligible, and 4.6% (n=252) and 4.9% (n=335) of non-SHIFT-type patients became eligible for initiation of ivabradine.

CONCLUSIONS

From the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, 14.2% of patients with HF were eligible for ivabradine. These patients more commonly were not receiving target β-blocker dose. Over time, a minority of patients became ineligible and an even smaller minority became eligible.

Achieving a Maximally Tolerated β-Blocker Dose in Heart Failure Patients: Is There Room for Improvement?

Heart failure (HF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although initially thought to be harmful in HF, beta-adrenergic blockers (β-blockers) have consistently been shown to reduce mortality and HF hospitalization in chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. Proposed mechanisms include neurohormonal blockade and heart rate reduction. A new therapeutic agent now exists to target further heart rate lowering in patients who have been stable on a "maximally tolerated β-blocker dose," but this definition and how to achieve it are incompletely understood. In this review, the authors summarize published reports on the mechanisms by which β-blockers improve clinical outcomes. The authors describe differences in doses achieved in landmark clinical trials and those observed in routine clinical practice. They further discuss reasons for intolerance and the evidence behind using β-blocker dose and heart rate as therapeutic targets. Finally, the authors offer recommendations for clinicians actively initiating and up-titrating β-blockers that may aid in achieving maximally tolerated doses.

Ivabradine in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Preliminary Randomized Prospective Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

An elevated heart rate (HR) is an independent risk factor for mortality and morbidity in patients with acute heart failure (HF). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of ivabradine, a selective HR-lowering agent, in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS

Patients with post-AMI CS were randomized to standard treatment (SDT, 28 patients) or to standard treatment plus ivabradine (I + SDT, 30 patients). In the presence of orotracheal intubation (OTI), ivabradine was administered by nasogastric intubation. HR, BP, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, NT-proBNP, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and diastolic function (LVDF) were monitored at specific times after the onset of AMI. The primary (surrogate) end-point was the in-hospital halving of plasma NT-proBNP levels. The secondary end-points were cardiovascular death, hospital re-admission for worsening HF, and clinical and haemodynamic improvement.

RESULTS

Treatment groups were statistically similar with regard to age, gender distribution, cardiovascular risk factors, number of diseased vessels and overall treated lesions, AMI site and occurrence of OTI. In-hospital mortality was double in the SDT group in comparison with the I + SDT group (14.3 vs. 6.7 %), but the difference was not statistically significant. HR, BP, NT-proBNP and LVEF favorably changed in both groups, but the change was more relevant in the I + SDT group. LVDF significantly changed only in the I + SDT group (p < 0.01). Patients in the I + SDT group did not experience adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Ivabradine in CS complicating AMI is safe, is associated with a short-term favourable outcome and can be effectively administered by nasogastric intubation.

New Management Strategies in Heart Failure

Despite >100 clinical trials, only 2 new drugs had been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic heart failure in more than a decade: the aldosterone antagonist eplerenone in 2003 and a fixed dose combination of hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate in 2005. In contrast, 2015 has witnessed the Food and Drug Administration approval of 2 new drugs, both for the treatment of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: ivabradine and another combination drug, sacubitril/valsartan or LCZ696. Seemingly overnight, a range of therapeutic possibilities, evoking new physiological mechanisms, promise great hope for a disease that often carries a prognosis worse than many forms of cancer. Importantly, the newly available therapies represent a culmination of basic and translational research that actually spans many decades. This review will summarize newer drugs currently being used in the treatment of heart failure, as well as newer strategies increasingly explored for their utility during the stages of the heart failure syndrome.

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril at lower than target doses in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PARADIGM-HF trial

Aims

In this analysis, we utilized data from PARADIGM‐HF to test the hypothesis that participants who exhibited any dose reduction during the trial would have similar benefits from lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to lower doses of enalapril.

Methods and results

In a post‐hoc analysis from PARADIGM‐HF, we characterized patients by whether they received the maximal dose (200 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 10 mg enalapril twice daily) throughout the trial or had any dose reduction to lower doses (100/50/0 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 5/2.5/0 mg enalapril twice daily). The treatment effect for the primary outcome was estimated, stratified by dose level using time‐updated Cox regression models. In the two treatment arms, participants with a dose reduction (43% of those randomized to enalapril and 42% of those randomized to sacubitril/valsartan) had similar baseline characteristics and similar baseline predictors of the need for dose reduction. In a time‐updated analysis, any dose reduction was associated with a higher subsequent risk of the primary event [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2–2.7]. However, the treatment benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril following a dose reduction was similar (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.93, P < 0.001) to that observed in patients who had not experienced any dose reduction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71–0.88, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In PARADIGM‐HF, study medication dose reduction identified patients at higher risk of a major cardiovascular event. The magnitude of benefit for patients on lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to those on lower doses of enalapril was similar to that of patients who remained on target doses of both drugs.

Ivabradine in Management of Heart Failure: a Critical Appraisal

Elevated resting heart rate has been linked to poor outcomes in patients with chronic systolic heart failure. Blockade of funny current channel with ivabradine reduces heart rate without inotropic effects. Ivabradine was recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration for patients with stable, symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35 %, who are in sinus rhythm with resting heart rate (HR) ≥ 70 bpm and either are on maximally tolerated doses of beta-blockers, or have a contraindication to beta-blockers. This article will review and evaluate the data supporting the use of ivabradine in patients with HF and explore its mechanisms and physiologic effects.

Effect of Beta-Blocker Dose on Survival After Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction (MI) improves survival. Beta-blocker doses used in clinical practice are often substantially lower than those used in the randomized trials establishing their efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the association of beta-blocker dose with survival after acute MI, hypothesizing that higher dose beta-blocker therapy will be associated with increased survival.

METHODS

A multicenter registry enrolled 7,057 consecutive patients with acute MI. Discharge beta-blocker dose was indexed to the target beta-blocker doses used in randomized clinical trials, grouped as >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, >25% to 50%, and >50% of target dose. Follow-up vital status was assessed, with the primary endpoint of time-to-death right-censored at 2 years. Multivariable and propensity score analyses were used to account for group differences.

RESULTS

Of 6,682 patients with follow-up (median 2.1 years), 91.5% were discharged on a beta-blocker (mean dose 38.1% of the target dose). Lower mortality was observed with all beta-blocker doses (p < 0.0002) versus no beta-blocker therapy. After multivariable adjustment, hazard ratios for 2-year mortality compared with the >50% dose were 0.862 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 1.098), 0.799 (95% CI: 0.635 to 1.005), and 0.963 (95% CI: 0.765 to 1.213) for the >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, and >25% to 50% of target dose groups, respectively. Multivariable analysis with an extended set of covariates and propensity score analysis also demonstrated that higher doses were not associated with better outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

These data do not demonstrate increased survival in patients treated with beta-blocker doses approximating those used in previous randomized clinical trials compared with lower doses. These findings provide the rationale to re-engage in research to establish appropriate beta-blocker dosing after MI to derive optimal benefit from this therapy. (The PACE-MI Registry Study-Outcomes of Beta-blocker Therapy After Myocardial Infarction [OBTAIN]: NCT00430612).

Recent advances in treatment of heart failure

With the total cases and economic burden of heart failure continuing to rise, there is an overwhelming need for novel therapies. Several drugs for heart failure have succeeded in preclinical and early-phase clinical trials, but most of them failed to show the real benefit in pivotal clinical trials. Meanwhile, the US Food and Drug Administration recently approved two promising new drugs to treat heart failure: ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan. Furthermore, some of the newer agents in testing offer the potential for significant progress in addition to these drugs. Patiromer and zirconium cyclosilicate are attractive agents that are expected to prevent hyperkalemia during renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition, and serelaxin and urodilatin are promising drugs in the treatment of acute heart failure. Future clinical trials with more appropriate study designs, optimal clinical endpoints, and proper patient selection are mandatory to assess the true efficacy of these attractive compounds in clinical practice.

Heart Rate or Beta-Blocker Dose? Association With Outcomes in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients With Systolic Dysfunction: Results From the HF-ACTION Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare whether reduced heart rate (HR) or higher beta-blocker (BB) dose affected outcomes to a greater extent in the HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training) trial population.

BACKGROUND

Recent data have shown that HR is an important modifiable factor in reducing mortality in heart failure (HF) patients. It has also been shown that titration of doses of BBs improves outcomes of morbidity and mortality in chronic HF patients with reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to compare whether reduced HR or higher BB dose affected outcomes to a greater extent in the HF-ACTION trial population.

METHODS

HF-ACTION was a randomized, multicenter trial enrolling 2,331 ambulatory HF patients with systolic dysfunction (New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35) randomized to exercise training versus usual care, with median follow-up of 2.5 years. BB dose at baseline was standardized by use of carvedilol equivalents. BB dose and HR were analyzed by discrete groups (higher/lower dose; higher/lower HR). The relationship of BB dose, HR, and the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and other cardiovascular secondary endpoints were determined before and after adjustment for variables found to be significantly associated with outcome in the HF-ACTION cohort.

RESULTS

There was a significant inverse relationship between either BB dose (higher was better) or HR (lower was better) and all-cause death or hospitalization in unadjusted analysis; however, only BB dose was significant for improved mortality outcomes. After adjustment for other predictors of outcome, only BB dose remained significant for improving all-cause death or hospitalization. BB dose, but not HR, was associated with improved outcomes of other cardiovascular endpoints in unadjusted analysis but did not remain significant when adjusted for other predictors of outcome in this cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

There were more associated improvements in outcomes with higher BB dose than with reduced HR in this well-treated HF cohort with systolic dysfunction, which suggests that titration of BB doses may confer a greater benefit than reduction of HR in such patients. (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training [HF-ACTION]; NCT00047437).

Prognostic Significance of Resting Heart Rate and Use of β-Blockers in Atrial Fibrillation and Sinus Rhythm in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background—

In heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, the prognostic role of heart rate (HR) in atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown and the effectiveness of β-blockers has recently been questioned in AF.

Methods and Results—

A total of 18 858 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction registered with Swedish Heart Failure Registry were included in this study: patients with sinus rhythm (SR; n=11 466) and patients with AF (n=7392). The outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Compared with HR ≤60 beats per minute, the adjusted hazard ratios for mortality in SR were 1.26 for HR=61 to 70 beats per minute, 1.37 for HR=71 to 80 beats per minute, 1.52 for HR=81 to 90 beats per minute, 1.63 for HR=91 to 100 beats per minute, and 2.69 for HR >100 beats per minute. However, in AF, the hazard ratio increased only for HR >100 beats per minute (1.30; P =0.001). β-blocker use was associated with reduced mortality in SR (hazard ratio, 0.77; P =0.011) and in AF (hazard ratio, 0·71; P <0.001). For β-blocker use in SR, the hazard ratio gradually increased with HR increment, whereas in AF, the hazard ratio significantly increased only for HR >100 beats per minute (1.29; P =0.003) compared with HR ≤60 beats per minute.

Conclusions—

In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, a higher HR was associated with increased mortality in SR, but in AF, this is true only for HR >100 beats per minute. β-blocker use was associated with reduced mortality both in SR and in AF.