Cohort profile: FACE, prospective follow-up of chronic heart failure patients with sleep-disordered breathing indicated for adaptive servo ventilation

Heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction: A review of disease burden and remaining unmet medical needs within a new treatment landscape

This review provides a comprehensive overview of heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF), including its definition, diagnosis, and epidemiology; clinical, humanistic, and economic burdens; current pharmacologic landscape in key pharmaceutical markets; and unmet needs to identify key knowledge gaps. We conducted a targeted literature review in electronic databases and prioritized articles with valuable insights into HFmrEF/HFpEF. Overall, 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 66 real-world evidence studies, 18 clinical practice guidelines, and 25 additional publications were included. Although recent heart failure (HF) guidelines set left ventricular ejection fraction thresholds to differentiate categories, characterization and diagnosis criteria vary because of the incomplete disease understanding. Recent epidemiological data are limited and diverse. Approximately 50% of symptomatic HF patients have HFpEF, more common than HFmrEF. Prevalence varies with country because of differing definitions and study characteristics, making prevalence interpretation challenging. HFmrEF/HFpEF has considerable mortality risk, and the mortality rate varies with study and patient characteristics and treatments. HFmrEF/HFpEF is associated with considerable morbidity, poor patient outcomes, and common comorbidities. Patients require frequent hospitalizations; therefore, early intervention is crucial to prevent disease burden. Recent RCTs show promising results like risk reduction of composite cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Costs data are scarce, but the economic burden is increasing. Despite new drugs, unmet medical needs requiring new treatments remain. Thus, HFmrEF/HFpEF is a growing global healthcare concern. With improving yet incomplete understanding of this disease and its promising treatments, further research is required for better patient outcomes.

Effects of Adaptive Servo-Ventilation on Quality of Life: The READ-ASV Registry

Rationale: Adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) effectively treats sleep-disordered breathing, including central sleep apnea (CSA) and coexisting obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).Objectives: The prospective, multicenter European READ-ASV (Registry on the Treatment of Central and Complex Sleep-Disordered Breathing with Adaptive Servo-Ventilation) registry investigated the effects of first-time ASV therapy on disease-specific quality of life (QoL).Methods: The registry enrolled adults with CSA with or without OSA who had ASV therapy prescribed between September 2017 and March 2021. The primary endpoint was change in disease-specific QoL (Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire [FOSQ]) score between baseline and 12-month follow-up. Sleepiness determined using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score was a key secondary outcome. For subgroup analysis, participants were classified as symptomatic (FOSQ score < 17.9 and/or ESS score > 10) or asymptomatic (FOSQ score ⩾ 17.9 and/or ESS score ⩽ 10).Results: A total of 801 individuals (age, 67 ± 12 yr; 14% female; body mass index, 31 ± 5 kg/m2; apnea-hypopnea index, 48 ± 22/h) were enrolled; analyses include those with paired baseline and follow-up data. After 12 ± 3 months on ASV, median (interquartile range) FOSQ score had increased significantly from baseline (+0.8 [-0.2 to 2.2]; P < 0.001; n = 499). This was due to a significantly increased FOSQ score in symptomatic participants (+1.69 [0.38 to 3.05]), with little change in asymptomatic individuals (+0.11 [-0.39 to 0.54]). The median ESS score also improved significantly from baseline during ASV (-2.0 [-5.0 to 0.0]; P < 0.001).Conclusions: ASV treatment of CSA with or without coexisting OSA was associated with improvements in disease-specific QoL and daytime sleepiness, especially in individuals with sleep-disordered breathing symptoms before therapy initiation. These improvements in patient-reported outcomes support the use of ASV in this population.

FACE study: 2-year follow-up of adaptive servo-ventilation for sleep-disordered breathing in a chronic heart failure cohort

BACKGROUND

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is a common comorbidity in patients with heart failure (HF) and is associated with worse prognosis.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the effects of adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) on morbidity and mortality in a large heterogeneous population of HF patients with different etiologies/phenotypes.

METHODS

Consecutive HF patients with predominant central sleep apnea (± obstructive sleep apnea) indicated for ASV were included; the control group included patients who refused or stopped ASV before three months follow-up. Six homogenous clusters were determined using the latent class analysis (LCA) method. The primary endpoint was time to composite first event (all-cause death, lifesaving cardiovascular intervention, or unplanned hospitalization for worsening of chronic HF).

RESULTS

Of 503 patients at baseline, 324 underwent 2-year follow-up. Compared to control group, 2-year primary endpoint event-free survival was significantly greater in patients in ASV group only in univariable analysis (1.67, 95% [1.12-2.49]; p = 0.01). Secondary endpoints, event-free of cardiovascular death or heart failure-related hospitalization and all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization were positively impacted by ASV (univariate and multivariable analysis). LCA identified two groups, with preserved and mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and severe hypoxia, in whom ASV increase prognosis benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HF and SDB are a highly heterogeneous group identified using LCA. Systematic deep phenotyping is essential to ensure that ASV is prescribed to those benefit from therapy, as ASV use in patients with severe hypoxic burden and those with HFpEF was associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01831128.

Sleep Apnoea and Heart Failure

Heart Failure (HF) and Sleep-Disordered-Breathing (SDB) are two common conditions that frequently overlap and have been studied extensively in the past three decades. Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) may result in myocardial damage, due to intermittent hypoxia increased sympathetic activity and transmural pressures, low-grade vascular inflammation and oxidative stress. On the other hand, central sleep apnoea and Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSA-CSR) occurs in HF, irrespective of ejection fraction either reduced (HFrEF), preserved (HFpEF) or mildly reduced (HFmrEF). The pathophysiology of CSA-CSR relies on several mechanisms leading to hyperventilation, breathing cessation and periodic breathing. Pharyngeal collapse may result at least in part from fluid accumulation in the neck, owing to daytime fluid retention and overnight rostral fluid shift from the legs. Although both OSA and CSA-CSR occur in HF, the symptoms are less suggestive than in typical (non-HF related) OSA. Overnight monitoring is mandatory for a proper diagnosis, with accurate measurement and scoring of central and obstructive events, since the management will be different depending on whether the sleep apnea in HF is predominantly OSA or CSA-CSR. SDB in HF are associated with worse prognosis, including higher mortality than in patients with HF but without SDB. However, there is currently no evidence that treating SDB improves clinically important outcomes in patients with HF, such as cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Adaptive servo ventilation for sleep apnoea in heart failure: the FACE study 3-month data

Rationale

Adaptive servo ventilation (ASV) is contraindicated in patients with systolic heart failure (HF) who have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 45% and predominant central sleep apnoea (CSA). However, the effects of ASV in other HF subgroups have not been clearly defined.

Objective

The European, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort trial, FACE, evaluated the effects of ASV therapy on morbidity and mortality in patients with HF with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB); 3-month outcomes in patient subgroups defined using latent class analysis (LCA) are presented.

Methods

Consecutive patients with HF with predominant CSA (±obstructive sleep apnoea) indicated for ASV were included from 2009 to 2018; the non-ASV group included patients who refused/were noncompliant with ASV. The primary endpoint was time to composite first event (all-cause death, lifesaving cardiovascular intervention or unplanned hospitalisation for worsening of chronic HF).

Measurements and main results

Baseline assessments were performed in 503 patients, and 482 underwent 3-month follow-up. LCA identified six discrete patient clusters characterised by variations in LVEF, SDB type, age, comorbidities and ASV acceptance. The 3- month rate of primary outcome events was significantly higher in cluster 1 patients (predominantly men, low LVEF, severe HF, CSA; 13.9% vs 1.5%–5% in other clusters, p<0.01).

Conclusion

For the first time, our data identified homogeneous patient clusters representing clinically relevant subgroups relating to SDB management in patients with HF with different ASV usage, each with a different prognosis. This may improve patient phenotyping in clinical practice and allow individualisation of therapy.