IMproved exercise tolerance in patients with PReserved Ejection fraction by Spironolactone on myocardial fibrosiS in Atrial Fibrillation rationale and design of the IMPRESS-AF randomised controlled trial

Most UK cardiovascular disease trial protocols feature criteria that exclude ethnic minority participants: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed UK cardiovascular disease (CVD) randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols to identify the proportion featuring eligibility criteria that may disproportionately exclude ethnic minority (EM) participants.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, January 2014-June 2022, to identify UK CVD RCT protocols. We extracted nonclinical eligibility criteria from trial protocols and inductively categorized the trials by their language, consent, and broad (ambiguous) criteria. Findings are narratively reported.

RESULTS

Of the seventy included RCT protocols, most (87.1%; 61/70) mentioned consent within the eligibility criteria, with more than two-thirds (68.9%; 42/61) indicating a requirement for 'written' consent. Alternative consent pathways that can aid EM participation were absent. English language requirement was present in 22.9% (16/70) of the studies and 37.1% (26/70) featured broad criteria that are open to interpretation and subject to recruiter bias. Only 4.3% (3/70) protocols mentioned the provision of translation services.

CONCLUSION

Most UK CVD trial protocols feature eligibility criteria that potentially exclude EM groups. Trial eligibility criteria must be situated within a larger inclusive recruitment framework, where ethnicity is considered alongside other intersecting and disadvantaging identities.

Phenomapping Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Using Machine Learning Cluster Analysis: Prognostic and Therapeutic Implications

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by a high rate of hospitalization and mortality (up to 84% at 5 years), which are similar to those observed for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These epidemiologic data claim for the development of specific and innovative therapies to reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality associated with this disease. Compared with HFrEF, which is due to a primary myocardial damage (eg ischemia, cardiomyopathies, toxicity), a heterogeneous etiologic background characterizes HFpEF. The authors discuss these phenotypes and specificities for defining therapeutic strategies that could be proposed according to phenotypes.

Spironolactone in Atrial Fibrillation With Preserved Cardiac Fraction: The IMPRESS-AF Trial

Background Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation have poor outcomes, exercise capacity, and quality of life even on optimal anticoagulation. Based on mechanistic and observational data, we tested whether the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone can improve exercise capacity, E/e' ratio, and quality of life in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and preserved ejection fraction. Methods and Results The double-masked, placebo-controlled IMPRESS-AF (Improved Exercise Tolerance in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction by Spironolactone on Myocardial Fibrosis in Atrial Fibrillation) trial (NCT02673463) randomized 250 stable patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction to spironolactone 25 mg daily or placebo. Patients were followed for 2 years. The primary efficacy outcome was peak oxygen consumption on cardiopulmonary exercise testing at 2 years. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk distance, E/e' ratio, quality of life, and hospital admissions. Spironolactone therapy did not improve peak oxygen consumption at 2 years (14.0 mL/min per kg [SD, 5.4]) compared with placebo (14.5 [5.1], adjusted treatment effect, -0.28; 95% CI, -1.27 to 0.71]; P=0.58). The findings were consistent across all sensitivity analyses. There were no differences in the 6-minute walking distance (adjusted treatment effect, -8.47 m; -31.9 to 14.9; P=0.48), E/e' ratio (adjusted treatment effect, -0.68; -1.52 to 0.17, P=0.12), or quality of life (P=0.74 for EuroQol-5 Dimensions, 5-level version quality of life questionnaire and P=0.84 for Minnesota Living with Heart Failure). At least 1 hospitalization occurred in 15% of patients in the spironolactone group and 23% in the placebo group (P=0.15). Estimated glomerular filtration rate was reduced by 6 mL/min in the spironolactone group with <1-unit reduction in controls (P<0.001). Systolic blood pressure was reduced by 7.2 mm Hg (95% CI, 2.2-12.3) in the spironolactone group versus placebo (P=0.005). Conclusions Spironolactone therapy does not improve exercise capacity, E/e' ratio, or quality of life in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation and preserved ejection fraction. Registration UTL: https://www.clini​caltr​ial.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02673463. EudraCT number 2014-003702-33.

Nitrite circumvents platelet resistance to nitric oxide in patients with heart failure preserved ejection fraction and chronic atrial fibrillation

Aims

Heart failure (HF) is a pro-thrombotic state. Both platelet and vascular responses to nitric oxide (NO) donors are impaired in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with healthy volunteers (HVs) due to scavenging of NO, and possibly also reduced activity of the principal NO sensor, soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC), limiting the therapeutic potential of NO donors as anti-aggregatory agents. Previous studies have shown that nitrite inhibits platelet activation presumptively after its reduction to NO, but the mechanism(s) involved remain poorly characterized. Our aim was to compare the effects of nitrite on platelet function in HV vs. HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and chronic atrial fibrillation (HFpEF–AF), vs. patients with chronic AF without HF, and to assess whether these effects occur independent of the interaction with other formed elements of blood.

Methods and results

Platelet responses to nitrite and the NO donor sodium nitroprusside (SNP) were compared in age-matched HV controls (n = 12), HFpEF–AF patients (n = 29), and chronic AF patients (n = 8). Anti-aggregatory effects of nitrite in the presence of NO scavengers/sGC inhibitor were determined and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) phosphorylation was assessed using western blotting. In HV and chronic AF, both nitrite and SNP inhibited platelet aggregation in a concentration-dependent manner. Inhibition of platelet aggregation by the NO donor SNP was impaired in HFpEF-AF patients compared with healthy and chronic AF individuals, but there was no impairment of the anti-aggregatory effects of nitrite. Nitrite circumvented platelet NO resistance independently of other blood cells by directly activating sGC and phosphorylating VASP.

Conclusion

We here show for the first time that HFpEF-AF (but not chronic AF without HF) is associated with marked impairment of platelet NO responses due to sGC dysfunction and nitrite circumvents the ‘platelet NO resistance’ phenomenon in human HFpEF, at least partly, by acting as a direct sGC activator independent of NO.

Outcomes of spironolactone treatment in patients in Northeast China suffering from heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction

AIM

The treatment effects of spironolactone on heart failure with reduced (HFrEF LVEF <40%) and preserved (HFpEF LVEF ≥50%) ejection fraction are well characterized. It is not clear whether heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF, LVEF 40-49%) benefit from spironolactone. The present study aims to evaluate the efficacy of spironolactone in HFmrEF patients.

METHOD

This study compared a high dosage of spironolactone (50 mg daily), a low dosage of spironolactone (25 mg daily), and an untreated group for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in 279 patients admitted to hospital diagnosed with HFmrEF.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up duration of 1 year, the death and HF-rehospitalization rate demonstrated significantly lower incidence in those taking spironolactone, compared with the untreated group (21.3% vs 34.5%, p = .014, respectively). Further analysis showed no difference between two spironolactone groups (21.8% vs 20.7%, p = .861). Kaplan-Meier analysis of outcome-free survival illustrated a significant difference in survival rate among three groups (log-rank testing, p = .045). Compared with the baseline level, patients receiving 25 mg spironolactone had a lower physical score (p < .05) at 1-year follow-up. MLHFQ total scores in the two spironolactone groups markedly improved compared with the untreated group (p < .001); similar results were observed in the MLHFQ physical scores (p = .025, .001, respectively) and emotional sub-scale (p = .023, .011, respectively); however, paired comparison between the two spironolactone groups showed no difference.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFmrEF, treatment with spironolactone significantly reduced the incidence of the primary composite outcomes of all-cause death, and rehospitalization for the management of heart failure compared with placebo, and a high dosage of spironolactone did not show trends of reduction in MACE.

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. There is uncertainty whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and a comprehensive review of the evidence is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trial registries on 25 July 2017 to identify eligible studies. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional studies. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design enrolling adult participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40 percent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. The outcomes assessed included cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, all-cause mortality and quality of life. Risk ratios (RR) and, where possible, hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous data, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) were calculated. We contacted trialists where neccessary to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

37 randomised controlled trials (207 reports) were included across all comparisons with a total of 18,311 participants.Ten studies (3087 participants) investigating beta-blockers (BB) were included. A pooled analysis indicated a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (15% of participants in the intervention arm versus 19% in the control arm; RR 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; 3 studies). However, the quality of evidence was low and no effect on cardiovascular mortality was observed when the analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; 643 participants; 1 study). There was no effect on all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation or quality of life measures, however there is uncertainty about these effects given the limited evidence available.12 studies (4408 participants) investigating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) were included with the quality of evidence assessed as moderate. MRA treatment reduced heart failure hospitalisation (11% of participants in the intervention arm versus 14% in the control arm; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB 41; 3714 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence) however, little or no effect on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and quality of life measures was observed. MRA treatment was associated with a greater risk of hyperkalaemia (16% of participants in the intervention group versus 8% in the control group; RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; 4291 participants; 6 studies; high-quality evidence).Eight studies (2061 participants) investigating angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as moderate. The evidence suggested that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, or quality of life. Data for the effect of ACEI on hyperkalaemia were only available from one of the included studies.Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as high. The evidence suggested that treatment with ARB has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, or quality of life. ARB was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalaemia (0.9% of participants in the intervention group versus 0.5% in the control group; RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; 2 studies; high-quality evidence).We identified a single ongoing placebo-controlled study investigating the effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that MRA treatment reduces heart failure hospitalisation in heart failure with preserverd ejection fraction, however the effects on mortality related outcomes and quality of life remain unclear. The available evidence for beta-blockers, ACEI, ARB and ARNI is limited and it remains uncertain whether these treatments have a role in the treatment of HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication for their use. This comprehensive review highlights a persistent gap in the evidence that is currently being addressed through several large ongoing clinical trials.

Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: what should we do?

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are two conditions that are likely to dominate the next 50 years of cardiovascular (CV) care. Both are increasingly prevalent and associated with high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare cost. They are closely inter-related with similar risk factors and shared pathophysiology. Patients with concomitant HF and AF suffer from even worse symptoms and poorer prognosis, yet evidence-based evaluation and management of this group of patients is lacking. In this review, we evaluate the common mechanisms for the development of AF in HF patients and vice versa, focusing on the evidence for potential treatment strategies. Recent data have suggested that these patients may respond differently than those with HF or AF alone. These results highlight the clear clinical need to identify and treat according to best evidence, in order to prevent adverse outcomes and reduce the huge burden that HF and AF are expected to have on global healthcare systems in the future. We propose an easy-to-use clinical mnemonic to aid the initial management of newly discovered concomitant HF and AF, the CAN-TREAT HFrEF + AF algorithm (Cardioversion if compromised; Anticoagulation unless contraindication; Normalize fluid balance; Target initial heart rate <110 b.p.m.; Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone modification; Early consideration of rhythm control; Advanced HF therapies; Treatment of other CV disease).