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

Point-of-care AI-enhanced novice echocardiography for screening heart failure (PANES-HF)

The increasing prevalence of heart failure (HF) in ageing populations drives demand for echocardiography (echo). There is a worldwide shortage of trained sonographers and long waiting times for expert echo. We hypothesised that artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced point-of-care echo can enable HF screening by novices. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of AI-enhanced novice pathway in detecting reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%. Symptomatic patients with suspected HF (N = 100, mean age 61 ± 15 years, 56% men) were prospectively recruited. Novices with no prior echo experience underwent 2-weeks' training to acquire echo images with AI guidance using the EchoNous Kosmos handheld echo, with AI-automated reporting by Us2.ai (AI-enhanced novice pathway). All patients also had standard echo by trained sonographers interpreted by cardiologists (reference standard). LVEF < 50% by reference standard was present in 27 patients. AI-enhanced novice pathway yielded interpretable results in 96 patients and took a mean of 12 min 51 s per study. The area under the curve (AUC) of the AI novice pathway was 0.880 (95% CI 0.802, 0.958). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values of the AI-enhanced novice pathway in detecting LVEF < 50% were 84.6%, 91.4%, 78.5% and 94.1% respectively. The median absolute deviation of the AI-novice pathway LVEF from the reference standard LVEF was 6.03%. AI-enhanced novice pathway holds potential to task shift echo beyond tertiary centres and improve the HF diagnostic workflow.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) nonresponders in the contemporary era: A state-of-the-art review

In the 2000s, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) became a revolutionary treatment for heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and wide QRS. However, about one-third of CRT recipients do not show a favorable response. This review of the current literature aims to better define the concept of CRT response/nonresponse. The diagnosis of CRT nonresponder should be viewed as a continuum, and it cannot rely solely on a single parameter. Moreover, baseline features of some patients might predict an unfavorable response. A strong collaboration between heart failure specialists and electrophysiologists is key to overcoming this challenge with multiple strategies. In the contemporary era, new pacing modalities, such as His-bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, represent a promising alternative to CRT. Observational studies have demonstrated their potential; however, several limitations should be addressed. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to prove their efficacy in HFrEF with electromechanical dyssynchrony.

Myocardial Recovery and Relapse in Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction

Purpose of review

The purpose of this review is to discuss myocardial recovery in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to summarize the contemporary insights regarding heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF).

Recent findings

Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 40%) with improved prognosis can be achieved in one out of three (10-40%) patients with HFrEF treated with guideline-directed medical therapy. Clinical predictors include non-ischemic etiology of HFrEF, less abnormal blood or imaging biomarkers, and lack of specific pathogenic genetic variants. However, a subset of patients may ultimately relapse, suggesting that many patients are merely in remission rather than having fully recovered.

Summary

Patients with HFimpEF have improved prognosis but nonetheless remain at risk of relapse and long-term adverse events. Future studies will hopefully chart the natural history of HFimpEF and identify clinical predictors such as blood or novel imaging biomarkers that distinguish subgroups of patients based on differential trajectory and prognosis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Formative Perceptions of a Digital Pill System to Measure Adherence to Heart Failure Pharmacotherapy: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) affects 6.2 million Americans and is a leading cause of hospitalization. The mainstay of the management of HF is adherence to pharmacotherapy. Despite the effectiveness of HF pharmacotherapy, effectiveness is closely linked to adherence. Measuring adherence to HF pharmacotherapy is difficult; most clinical measures use indirect strategies such as calculating pharmacy refill data or using self-report. While helpful in guiding treatment adjustments, indirect measures of adherence may miss the detection of suboptimal adherence and co-occurring structural barriers associated with nonadherence. Digital pill systems (DPSs), which use an ingestible radiofrequency emitter to directly measure medication ingestions in real-time, represent a strategy for measuring and responding to nonadherence in the context of HF pharmacotherapy. Previous work has demonstrated the feasibility of using DPSs to measure adherence in other chronic diseases, but this strategy has yet to be leveraged for individuals with HF.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to explore through qualitative interviews the facilitators and barriers to using DPS technology to monitor pharmacotherapy adherence among patients with HF.

METHODS

We conducted individual, semistructured qualitative interviews and quantitative assessments between April and August 2022. A total of 20 patients with HF who were admitted to the general medical or cardiology service at an urban quaternary care hospital participated in this study. Participants completed a qualitative interview exploring the overall acceptability of and willingness to use DPS technology for adherence monitoring and perceived barriers to DPS use. Quantitative assessments evaluated HF history, existing medication adherence strategies, and attitudes toward technology. We analyzed qualitative data using applied thematic analysis and NVivo software (QSR International).

RESULTS

Most participants (12/20, 60%) in qualitative interviews reported a willingness to use the DPS to measure HF medication adherence. Overall, the DPS was viewed as useful for increasing accountability and reinforcing adherence behaviors. Perceived barriers included technological issues, a lack of need, additional costs, and privacy concerns. Most were open to sharing adherence data with providers to bolster clinical care and decision-making. Reminder messages following detected nonadherence were perceived as a key feature, and customization was desired. Suggested improvements are primarily related to the design and usability of the Reader (a wearable device).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, individuals with HF perceived the DPS to be an acceptable and useful tool for measuring medication adherence. Accurate, real-time ingestion data can guide adherence counseling to optimize adherence management and inform tailored behavioral interventions to support adherence among patients with HF.

The Effectiveness of Eplerenone vs Spironolactone on Left Ventricular Systolic Function, Hospitalization and Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure-HFrEF

Background

Heart failure remains one of the most prevalent clinical syndromes associated with significant morbidity and mortality. According to current guidelines, the prescription of a MRA is recommended to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and death in all patients with symptomatic heart failure and no contraindications for this therapy.

Objective

The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of eplerenone vs. spironolactone on left ventricular systolic function by measuring left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with chronic heart failure, especially their effect on preventing hospitalization, reducing mortality, and improving clinical status among patients with chronic HF.

Methods

From June 2021 to June 2022, the study was a randomized, prospective clinical trial single blind study. A total of 142 patients of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were selected by random sampling. Each patient was randomly allocated into either of the two groups and was continued receiving treatment with either spironolactone (Spiron-HF group) or eplerenone (Epler-HF group). Patients in Epler-HF group were compared with an arm of the same size and matched by age and gender patients in Spiron-HF group for management of chronic HFrEF. Each patient was evaluated clinically, biochemically, and echocardiographically at the beginning of treatment (baseline) after 6 months and at the end of 12th month. Echocardiography was performed to find out change in left ventricular systolic function.

Results

After 12 months of treatment, significant improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction was observed in eplerenone treated arm (37.9 ± 3.8 ± 4.6 in Spiron-HF group versus 40.1 ± 5.7 in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05). A significant reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (6.3 ± 2.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 17.8± 4.4ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05) and left ventricular systolic diameter volume (2.7 ± 0.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 6.7 ± 0.2ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05), occurred after 12 months of treatment. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) was significantly improved in Epler-HF group compared with Spiron-HF group (0.6 ± 0.4 versus 3.4 ± 0.9; P < 0.05). There were no significant differences observed in reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (2.2 ± 0.5 ml versus 4.7 ± 1.1ml; P =0.103) and left ventricular diastolic diameter (1.2 ± 0.6 versus 1.7 ± 0.3; P=0.082) in both arms. The effects of both MRA agents spironolactone and eplerenone on the primary composite outcome, each of the individual mortality and hospital admission outcomes are shown in Figure 1 and 2. Patients of the Epler-HF group showed statistically significant lower cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.34-0.82; p= 0.007) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p= 0.022) than patients of the Spiron-HF group. The statistical analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between Epler -HF and Spiron-HF study groups regarding the risk of the primary composite outcome; cardiovascular death or hospitalization due to HF (Hazard Ratio (HR) eplerenone vs. spironolactone = 0.95; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.73- 1.27; p= 0.675).

Conclusion

Our study has demonstrated favorable effects of eplerenone on cardiac remodeling parameters and reduction of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality compared with spironolactone in the treatment of HFrEF. The ability of eplerenone to effectively block the mineralocorticoid receptor while minimizing side effects and a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization and cardiovascular death confirms its key role in the treatment of patients with chronic HFrEF.