Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Eligibility After Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Chronic Heart Failure: Insights From PROVE-HF

Therapy duration and improvement of ventricular function in de novo heart failure: the Heart Failure Optimization study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In patients with de novo heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is expected to occur when started on guideline-recommended medical therapy. However, improvement may not be completed within 90 days.

METHODS

Patients with HFrEF and LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator between 2017 and 2022 from 68 sites were enrolled, starting with a registry phase for 3 months and followed by a study phase up to 1 year. The primary endpoints were LVEF improvement > 35% between Days 90 and 180 following guideline-recommended medical therapy initiation and the percentage of target dose reached at Days 90 and 180.

RESULTS

A total of 598 patients with de novo HFrEF [59 years (interquartile range 51-68), 27% female] entered the study phase. During the first 180 days, a significant increase in dosage of beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was observed (P < .001). At Day 90, 46% [95% confidence interval (CI) 41%-50%] of study phase patients had LVEF improvement > 35%; 46% (95% CI 40%-52%) of those with persistently low LVEF at Day 90 had LVEF improvement > 35% by Day 180, increasing the total rate of improvement > 35% to 68% (95% CI 63%-72%). In 392 patients followed for 360 days, improvement > 35% was observed in 77% (95% CI 72%-81%) of the patients. Until Day 90, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias were observed in 24 wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers (1.8%). After 90 days, no sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia occurred in wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous optimization of guideline-recommended medical therapy for at least 180 days in HFrEF is associated with additional LVEF improvement > 35%, allowing for better decision-making regarding preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

Eligibility and Projected Benefits of Rapid Initiation of Quadruple Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

U.S. nationwide estimates of the proportion of patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) eligible for quadruple medical therapy, and the associated benefits of rapid implementation, are not well characterized.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to characterize the degree to which patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF are eligible for quadruple medical therapy, and the projected benefits of in-hospital initiation.

METHODS

Among patients hospitalized for newly diagnosed HFrEF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from 2016 to 2023, eligibility criteria based on regulatory labeling, guidelines, and expert consensus documents were applied for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor therapies. Of those eligible, the projected effect of quadruple therapy on 12-month mortality was modeled using treatment effects from pivotal clinical trials utilized by the AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure, and compared with observed outcomes among patients treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and beta-blockers.

RESULTS

Of 33,036 patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF, 27,158 (82%) were eligible for quadruple therapy, and 30,613 (93%) were eligible for ≥3 components. From 2021 to 2023, of patients eligible for quadruple therapy, 15.3% were prescribed quadruple therapy and 41.5% were prescribed triple therapy. Among Medicare beneficiaries eligible for quadruple therapy, 12-month incidence of mortality was 24.7% and HF hospitalization was 22.2%. Applying the relative risk reductions in clinical trials, complete implementation of quadruple therapy by time of discharge was projected to yield absolute risk reductions in 12-month mortality of 10.4% (number needed to treat = 10) compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and beta-blocker, and 24.8% (number needed to treat = 4) compared with no GDMT.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide U.S. cohort of patients hospitalized for newly diagnosed HFrEF, >4 of 5 patients were projected as eligible for quadruple therapy at discharge; yet, <1 in 6 were prescribed it. If clinical trial benefits can be fully realized, in-hospital initiation of quadruple medical therapy for newly diagnosed HFrEF would yield large absolute reductions in mortality.

Improved heart function and cardiac remodelling following sacubitril/valsartan in acute coronary syndrome with HF

AIMS

This study sought to assess the effect of treatment of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) on improving cardiac function and reversing cardiac remodelling in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) complicated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled 275 ACS patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after PCI. The patients were divided into the routine and S/V groups according to the treatment drugs. The symptoms, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations, echocardiographic parameters [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI)], major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and adverse reactions were recorded at baseline and 6 months after treatment when a clinical follow-up was performed. The S/V group was further divided into prespecified subgroups including unstable angina (UA) group, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) group, and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) group according to the type of ACS. We analysed the changes in LVEF, LVMI, LVEDVI, LVESVI, and NT-proBNP in both groups and evaluated the correlation between the changes in the above variables (ΔLVEF, ΔLVMI, ΔLVEDVI, ΔLVESVI, and ΔNT-proBNP). Cox regression model was used to assess the independent risk factors of MACE. Prespecified subgroup analyses were also conducted. Compared with baseline, LVEF increased significantly (P < 0.05), NT-proBNP, LVMI, and LVESVI decreased significantly in both groups after 6 months (P < 0.05), and LVEDVI decreased significantly in the S/V group (P = 0.001). In the S/V group, ΔLVEF (t = -2.745, P = 0.006), ΔNT-proBNP (P = 0.009), ΔLVEDVI (t = 4.203, P = 0.001), and ΔLVESVI (t = 3.907, P = 0.001) were significantly improved than those in the routine group. In the S/V group, ΔLVEF was negatively correlated with ΔNT-proBNP (r = -0.244, P = 0.004), ΔLVMI (r = -0.190, P = 0.028), ΔLVEDVI (r = -0.173, P = 0.045), and ΔLVESVI (r = -0.261, P = 0.002). In Cox regression model analysis, ΔLVEF {hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.95], P = 0.003}, ΔLVEDVI [HR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.06), P = 0.013], and ΔLVESVI [HR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.08), P = 0.026] were independent risk factors for MACE. Subgroup analysis showed that ΔLVEF (t = 6.290, P = 0.001), ΔLVEDVI (t = 2.581, P = 0.011), and ΔNT-proBNP (P = 0.019) in the NSTEMI group were significantly improved than those in the UA group, ΔLVEDVI in the NSTEMI group was significantly better than that in the STEMI group (t = -3.365, P = 0.001), and ΔLVEF in the STEMI group was significantly better than that in the UA group (t = -3.928, P = 0.001). There was a significant difference in the survival probability without MACE among the three groups in the analysis of the Kaplan-Meier curve (P = 0.042). The incidence of MACE in the UA group was significantly higher than that in the NSTEMI group (32.4% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The cardiac function is improved and cardiac remodelling is reversed significantly after treatment of S/V in ACS patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after PCI, and the improvement is more obvious than the routine group. There is a significant negative correlation between the change in LVEF and the changes in NT-proBNP, LVMI, LVEDVI, and LVESVI. The increase of LVEF and the decrease of LVEDVI and LVESVI are protective factors to improve the prognosis. Patients with myocardial infarction and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction might benefit more from the initiation of S/V as first-line heart failure treatment after PCI.

Anti-Arrhythmic Effects of Heart Failure Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and Their Role in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: From Beta-Blockers to Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Beyond

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for a substantial proportion of mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), frequently triggered by ventricular arrhythmias (VA). This review aims to analyze the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying VA and SCD in HFrEF and evaluate the effectiveness of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in reducing SCD. Beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have shown significant efficacy in reducing SCD risk. While angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers exert beneficial impacts on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, their direct role in SCD prevention remains less clear. Emerging treatments like sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors show promise but necessitate further research for conclusive evidence. The favorable outcomes of those molecules on VA are notably attributable to sympathetic nervous system modulation, structural remodeling attenuation, and ion channel stabilization. A multidimensional pharmacological approach targeting those pathophysiological mechanisms offers a complete and synergy approach to reducing SCD risk, thereby highlighting the importance of optimizing GDMT for HFrEF. The current landscape of HFrEF pharmacotherapy is evolving, with ongoing research needed to clarify the full extent of the anti-arrhythmic benefits offered by both existing and new treatments.

Left ventricular ejection fraction: clinical, pathophysiological, and technical limitations

Risk stratification of cardiovascular death and treatment strategies in patients with heart failure (HF), the optimal timing for valve replacement, and the selection of patients for implantable cardioverter defibrillators are based on an echocardiographic calculation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in most guidelines. As a marker of systolic function, LVEF has important limitations being affected by loading conditions and cavity geometry, as well as image quality, thus impacting inter- and intra-observer measurement variability. LVEF is a product of shortening of the three components of myocardial fibres: longitudinal, circumferential, and oblique. It is therefore a marker of global ejection performance based on cavity volume changes, rather than directly reflecting myocardial contractile function, hence may be normal even when myofibril's systolic function is impaired. Sub-endocardial longitudinal fibers are the most sensitive layers to ischemia, so when dysfunctional, the circumferential fibers may compensate for it and maintain the overall LVEF. Likewise, in patients with HF, LVEF is used to stratify subgroups, an approach that has prognostic implications but without a direct relationship. HF is a dynamic disease that may worsen or improve over time according to the underlying pathology. Such dynamicity impacts LVEF and its use to guide treatment. The same applies to changes in LVEF following interventional procedures. In this review, we analyze the clinical, pathophysiological, and technical limitations of LVEF across a wide range of cardiovascular pathologies.

Non-pharmacologic autonomic neuromodulation for treatment of heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Treatment strategies that modulate autonomic tone through interventional and device-based therapies have been studied as an adjunct to pharmacological treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The main objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials which evaluated the efficacy of device-based autonomic modulation for treatment of HFrEF. All randomized-controlled trials testing autonomic neuromodulation device therapy in HFrEF were included in this trial-level analysis. Autonomic neuromodulation techniques included vagal nerve stimulation (VNS), baroreflex activation (BRA), spinal cord stimulator (SCS), and renal denervation (RD). The prespecified primary endpoints included mean change and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), NT pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and quality of life (QOL) measures including 6-minute hall walk distance (6-MHWD), and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ). New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improvement was reported as odds ratios and 95% CI of improvement by at least 1 functional class. Eight studies were identified that included 1037 participants (2 VNS, 2 BRA, 1 SCS, and 3 RD trials). This included 6 open-label, 1 single-blind, and 1 sham-controlled, double-blind study. The mean age (±SD) was 61 (±9.3) years. The mean follow-up time was 7.9 months. Twenty percent of the total patients were female, and the mean BMI (±SD) was 29.86 (±4.12). Autonomic neuromodulation device therapy showed a statistically significant improvement in LVEF (4.02%; 95% CI 0.24,7.79), NT-proBNP (-219.80 pg/ml; 95% CI -386.56, -53.03), NYHA functional class (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.76, 3.07), 6-MHWD (48.39 m; 95% CI 35.49, 61.30), and MLHFQ (-12.20; 95% CI -19.24, -5.16) compared to control. In patients with HFrEF, the use of autonomic neuromodulation device therapy is associated with improvement in LVEF, reduction in NT-proBNP, and improvement in patient-centered QOL outcomes in mostly small open-label trials. Large, double-blind, sham-controlled trials designed to detect differences in hard cardiovascular outcomes are needed before widespread use and adoption of autonomic neuromodulation device therapies in HFrEF.

Sacubitril/valsartan and arrhythmic burden in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to assess whether angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) decreases ventricular arrhythmic burden compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonist (ACE-I/ARB) treatment in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. Further, we assessed if ARNI influenced the percentage of biventricular pacing. A systematic review of studies (both RCTs and observational studies) including HFrEF patients and those receiving ARNI after ACE-I/ARB treatment was conducted using Medline and Embase up to February 2023. Initial search found 617 articles. After duplicate removal and text check, 1 RCT and 3 non-RCTs with a total of 8837 patients were included in the final analysis. ARNI was associated with a significative reduction of ventricular arrhythmias both in RCT (RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.63-0.96); p = 0.02) and observational studies (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.53-0.72; p < 0.001). Furthermore, in non-RCTs, ARNI also reduced sustained (RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.2-0.63); p < 0.001), non-sustained VT (RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.57-0.80; p = 0.007), ICD shock (RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.12-0.48; p < 0.001), and increased biventricular pacing (2.96% (95% CI 2.25-3.67), p < 0.001). In patients with chronic HFrEF, switching from ACE-I/ARB to ARNI treatment was associated with a consistent reduction of ventricular arrhythmic burden. This association could be related to a direct pharmacological effect of ARNI on cardiac remodeling.Trial registration: CRD42021257977.

Recent successes in heart failure treatment

Remarkable recent advances have revolutionized the field of heart failure. Survival has improved among individuals with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and for the first time, new therapies have been shown to improve outcomes across the entire ejection fraction spectrum of heart failure. Great strides have been taken in the treatment of specific cardiomyopathies such as cardiac amyloidosis and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whereby conditions once considered incurable can now be effectively managed with novel genetic and molecular approaches. Yet there remain substantial residual unmet needs in heart failure. The translation of successful clinical trials to improved patient outcomes is limited by large gaps in implementation of care, widespread lack of disease awareness and poor understanding of the socioeconomic determinants of outcomes and how to address disparities. Ongoing clinical trials, advances in phenotype segmentation for precision medicine and the rise in technology solutions all offer hope for the future.

Importance of the 'area under the curve' from serial NT-proBNP measurements during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan

AIMS

Serial assessment of natriuretic peptides is widely utilized in heart failure clinics. Uncertainty exists regarding the value of multiple natriuretic peptide measurements and how they might be best interpreted.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Six hundred thirty-two patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (<40%) and complete biomarker data were enrolled to receive sacubitril/valsartan. Patients underwent periodic study visits during 1-year follow-ups. Echocardiographic data and cardiac biomarkers, including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were collected during study visits. Patients were categorized into three groups based on tertiles of baseline NT-proBNP levels. The area under the curve (AUC) of NT-proBNP measurements across study visits was calculated. Compared with patients with higher AUC (and thus higher concentrations over a longer period of time), those with lower AUC were younger, had a lower prevalence of chronic kidney disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft, atrial fibrillation, and higher body-mass index. A significant interaction existed between baseline NT-proBNP and subsequent AUC for predicting LVEF change across visits (P-value < 0.001): among those with lower baseline NT-proBNP, similar improvements in left ventricular (LV) volumes LV ejection fraction, and LV mass index were observed across subsequent AUC (P-value > 0.1). However, among those with higher baseline NT-proBNP, those with lower subsequent AUC had a greater improvement in cardiac remodelling indices (P-value < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Serial NT-proBNP monitoring (integrating the totality of measurements as an AUC) during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan informs unique information regarding the future changes in cardiac remodelling indices, especially among those with higher NT-proBNP levels at baseline.

Mitral Regurgitation in Female Patients: Sex Differences and Disparities

Mitral regurgitation is the most common valvular disease, particularly in older adults. Recent literature has consistently supported that there are significant differences in mitral regurgitation outcomes between male and female patients and that this is likely multifactorial. Numerous sex differences in anatomy and pathophysiology may play a role in delayed diagnoses, referrals, and treatments for female patients. Despite the recognition of these discrepancies in the literature, many guidelines that steer clinical care do not incorporate these factors into society recommendations. Identifying and validating sex-specific diagnostic parameters and increasing the representation of female patients in trials of new mitral regurgitation treatment modalities are key factors in improving outcomes for female patients.

Effectiveness of Timely Implementation of Palliative Care on the Well-Being of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: A Randomized Case-Control Study

Objectives: To date, there is a lack of consensus on the timely implementation of palliative care (PC) in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). We aimed to investigate the impact of primary PC intervention on chronic HF patients with different classes of cardiac function, and to determine a proper time point for the implementation of primary PC intervention. Methods: A consecutive series of 180 chronic HF patients with the New York Heart Association (NYHA) Cardiac function ranging from I to III were enrolled in this study. Patients with the same cardiac function class, they were randomized and equally assigned to the usual care (UC) group or to the PC intervention group. At the end of 24-week treatment, quality-of-life (QoL) measurements were evaluated. Left ventricular ejection fraction and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were measured for each group at baseline and the final follow-up, respectively. Results: Through the 6-month follow-up, patients randomized to the PC intervention group presented significantly better QoL and cardiac function as compared with patients randomized to the UC group alone. Subgroup analysis showed that for patients with NYHA class II or III, significantly improved cardiac function and QoL were observed in the PC intervention group as compared with the control group. As for patients with class I, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Palliative program can effectively improve the QoL and cardiac function of patients with chronic HF. Moreover, we provided evidence on timely referral of patients to PC intervention, which could be beneficial for patients with NYHA class II.

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive Quadruple Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is one of the most costly and deadly chronic disease states. The cost effectiveness of a comprehensive quadruple therapy regimen for HFrEF has not been studied.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of quadruple therapy comprised of beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors vs regimens composed of only beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (triple therapy), and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers (double therapy).

METHODS

Using a 2-state Markov model, the authors performed a cost-effectiveness study using simulated populations of 1,000 patients with HFrEF based on the participants in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial and compared them by treatment strategy (quadruple therapy vs triple and double therapy) from a United States health care system perspective. The authors also performed 10,000 probabilistic simulations.

RESULTS

Treatment with quadruple therapy resulted in an increase of 1.73 and 2.87 life-years compared with triple therapy and double therapy, respectively, and an increase in quality-adjusted life-years of 1.12 and 1.85 years, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of quadruple therapy vs triple therapy and double therapy were $81,000 and $51,081, respectively. In 91.7% and 99.9% of probabilistic simulations quadruple therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$150,000 compared with triple therapy and double therapy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At current pricing, the use of quadruple therapy in patients with HFrEF was cost effective compared with triple therapy and double therapy. These findings highlight the need for improved access and optimal implementation of comprehensive quadruple therapy in eligible patients with HFrEF.

Prediction of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Change Following Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) improves left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction regardless of previous treatments. Improvements in LVEF may change eligibility for primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Awaiting LVEF improvement may expose patients to potential risks for arrhythmic complications.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to develop a model predicting LVEF change after Sac/Val therapy.

METHODS

A total of 416 persons with HF and LVEF of <35% were included in this analysis. Following initiation of Sac/Val, echocardiographic parameters were measured serially for 1 year. A machine learning algorithm was implemented to develop a risk model for predicting the persistence of LVEF of <35% after 1 year and was validated in a separate group of study participants.

RESULTS

Baseline LVEF, left ventricular mass index, HF duration, age, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration at baseline and change by day 14, and body mass index were the most significant factors for identifying lack of LVEF improvement to ≥35% after 1 year. In the training and validation cohorts, the areas under the model curve for predicting lack of LVEF improvement were 0.92 and 0.86, respectively. Three categories of likelihood for LVEF of <35% after 1 year of Sac/Val treatment were developed based on the model predictions: 3.8%, 30.1%, and 83.7%. During follow-up, arrhythmia event rates were 0.9%, 2.9%, and 6.7% in these groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Many persons with HF with reduced ejection fraction eligible for ICD insertion experience an increase in LVEF to ≥35% after treatment with Sac/Val. Early identification of those less likely to improve their LVEF might allow for more refined selection of primary ICD candidates. (Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy on biomarkers, Myocardial Remodeling, and Outcomes [PROVE-HF]; NCT02887183).

Heart Failure Duration and Mechanistic Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is indicated for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), gaps in care continue to exist for those with newer onset HFrEF vs those with longer durations of disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We categorized 794 persons with HFrEF (EF of ≤40%) according to a HF duration of less than 12 months, 12-24 months, 24-60 months, and more than> 60 months. After the initiation of Sac/Val, concentrations of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide, high sensitivity cardiac troponin T, and soluble ST2 were measured, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 23 scores were obtained serially from baseline to 12 months. The left ventricular ejection fraction was measured by echocardiography. Significant decreases in the concentrations of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide, high sensitivity cardiac troponin T, and soluble ST2 were observed regardless of HF duration (P < .001). Comparable gains in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 23 scores were achieved in all HF duration categories. Moreover, consistent reverse cardiac remodeling in all HF duration categories occurred, with the absolute left ventricular ejection fraction improvement by 12 months across HF duration groups of 12.2%, 6.9%, 8.5%, and 8.6% for HF duration of less than 12 months, 12-24 months, 24-60 months, and more than 60 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The initiation of Sac/Val decreases prognostic biomarkers, improves health status, and reverses cardiac remodeling processes, regardless of HF duration.

BRIEF LAY SUMMARY

We categorized 794 persons with heart failure owing to a low ejection fraction according to disease duration into 4 groups: less than 12 months, 12-24 months, 24-60 months, and more than 60 months. After the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), we found that regardless of the duration of heart failure significant improvements occurred in cardiac biomarkers, patients felt better with improved health status and on testing with cardiac ultrasound examination, improvement in heart size, and function occurred. These results suggest that, regardless of heart failure duration, patients with a reduced ejection fraction would benefit from use of sacubitril/valsartan for their care.

Cardiac contractility modulation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treatment

Heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF) (HFrEF) is a significant issue of health care due to increasing indexes of morbidity and mortality. The emergence of a number of drugs and implantable devices for the treatment of HFrEF has allowed improvement of patients’ well-being and prognosis. However, high mortality and recurrent decompensated heart failure remain a substantial issue and stimulate the search for new methods of CHF treatment. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a method of managing patients with HFrEF. Available data from randomized clinical trials (RCT) indicate the efficacy of CCM in improvement of patients’ well-being and quality of life. The question remains open: what effect does CCM have on LV reverse remodeling? Experimental data and results of observational studies suggest a possibility of reverse remodeling by CCM; however, this has not been confirmed in RCT. Also, it remains unclear how CCM influences the frequency of hospitalizations for decompensated heart failure and the death rate of patients with HFrEF. Results of both RCTs and observational studies have shown a moderate improvement of quality of life associated with CCM. Furthermore, RCTs have not found any increase in LV EF due to the therapy, nor has a meta-analysis of RCTs revealed any improvement of the prognosis associated with CCM.  Further RCTs are needed to evaluate the effect of CCM on reverse remodeling, survival rate, and to determine the place of CCM in the treatment of patients with CHF.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sacubitril/valsartan for reducing the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and the risk of death in ICD-eligible heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

Although previous cost-effectiveness evaluations of sacubitril/valsartan have demonstrated cardiovascular and economic benefits in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), whether sacubitril/valsartan is cost-effective for reducing the need for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation and the risk of death in ICD-eligible patients has not been investigated in patients with HFrEF. Herein, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus standard of care in reducing the need for ICD implantation and the death rate in HFrEF. A Markov model was developed from the Qatari hospital perspective, comprised of 'survival' and 'death' health states, and was based on 1-monthly Markovian cycles, a 20-years follow-up horizon, and a 3% discount rate. The model inputs were obtained from the literature and local sources. Sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a relative increase of 0.04 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and 0.67 years of life lived (YLL)/person, with an incremental cost increase of QAR13,952 (USD3,832). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of QAR341,113 (USD93,687)/QALYs gained and QAR24,431 (USD6,710)/YLL. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness, with the cost effectiveness maintained in ≥96.5% of simulated cases. To conclude, sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective alternative to standard care against QALY gained and YLL in reducing the need for an ICD therapy and the rate of death among ICD-eligible HFrEF patients.

Role of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Heart Failure With Contemporary Medical Therapy

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy is indicated in a subset of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection as primary prevention for sudden cardiac death. The advent of novel medical therapies including mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor in the past 2 decades has revolutionized heart failure with reduced ejection management. Current guideline-directed medical therapy has reduced all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death and confers a considerable improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction over a short period of time. However, there is limited evidence at present to suggest whether implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy continues to have the same benefit in sudden cardiac death prevention at current left ventricular ejection fraction cutoff indications for patients on contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection. In this review, the authors propose in lieu of current evidence that it is reasonable to reevaluate indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients on contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection.

Cardiac remodelling - Part 2: Clinical, imaging and laboratory findings. A review from the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

In patients with heart failure, the beneficial effects of drug and device therapies counteract to some extent ongoing cardiac damage. According to the net balance between these two factors, cardiac geometry and function may improve (reverse remodelling, RR) and even completely normalize (remission), or vice versa progressively deteriorate (adverse remodelling, AR). RR or remission predict a better prognosis, while AR has been associated with worsening clinical status and outcomes. The remodelling process ultimately involves all cardiac chambers, but has been traditionally evaluated in terms of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. This is the second part of a review paper by the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology dedicated to ventricular remodelling. This document examines the proposed criteria to diagnose RR and AR, their prevalence and prognostic value, and the variables predicting remodelling in patients managed according to current guidelines. Much attention will be devoted to RR in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction because most studies on cardiac remodelling focused on this setting.

Effect of ICD/CRT-D Implantation on Adverse Events and Readmission Rate in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure (CHF)

Objective

To explore the effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (ICD/CRT-D) implantation on adverse events and the readmission rate in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).

Methods

Sixty patients with CHF treated in our hospital from April 2019 to July 2021 were enrolled. The patients were randomly assigned into the control group and study group. The control group received routine intervention, and the study group received remote management with ICD/CRT-D implantation.

Results

First of all, we compared the general data of the two groups. There was no significant difference in LVEF, NYHA grade, concomitant disease, and history of arrhythmia (P > 0.05). Secondly, we compared the end-point events. In the study group, 5 cases of heart failure were readmitted, 0 cases died, and 4 cases were admitted to hospital with arrhythmia and ICD events, with a total incidence of 30.0%, while in the control group, 12 cases were rehospitalized with heart failure, 3 cases died, 25 cases were admitted with arrhythmia and ICD events, and the total incidence rate was 56.67% (P < 0.05). In terms of the readmission rate of patients with heart failure in grade NYHAII and grade III, among the patients with grade NYHAII, the number of patients with heart failure less than once in the study group was higher compared to that in the control group and the number of patients with heart failure ≥ once in the study group was lower compared to that in the control group (P < 0.05). Among the patients with grade NYHAIII, the number of patients with heart failure less than once in the study group was higher compared to that in the control group and the number of patients with heart failure ≥ once in the study group was lower compared to that in the control group. There exhibited no significant difference in the data (P > 0.05). Considering the occurrence of VT and VF events, the study team reported that 14 patients recorded a total of 276 ventricular arrhythmias: 261 ventricular tachycardia and 15 ventricular fibrillations. Among them, 24 VT (9.2%) and 4 VF (26.7%) were determined to be misrecognition of the equipment. A total of 178 ventricular arrhythmias were recorded in 13 patients in the control group, including 152 ventricular tachycardia and 26 ventricular fibrillations. Among them, 10 VT (6.6%) and 8 VF (30.8%) were determined as misrecognition of the device. In regard to the treatment results of the two groups, after admission to the hospital for radio frequency, ablation, and adjustment of drug treatment to reprogram control, the patients did not reappear to have CRT-D misidentification and misdischarged. Finally, we compared the diagnosis time of VT/VE events. The time from VT/VE events to diagnosis in 14 patients in the study group was 2.55 ± 1.41 days, and that in 13 patients in the control group was 37.32 ± 15.31 days. The discovery of ICD events in the study group was significantly earlier compared to that in the routine follow-up group (P < 0.05). This gives doctors enough time to assess the patient's condition and determine a further diagnosis and treatment plan.

Conclusion

Using ICD/CRT-D implantation to remotely monitor patients with CHF, through remote monitoring of the 24-hour average heart rate and the heart rate at rest and patient activity and other parameters and early intervention, the readmission rate caused by the deterioration of heart failure can be reduced. Compared with routine follow-up, remote monitoring significantly reduced the diagnosis time of VT/VE events.

The year in cardiovascular medicine 2021: heart failure and cardiomyopathies

In the year 2021, the universal definition and classification of heart failure (HF) was published that defines HF as a clinical syndrome with symptoms and/or signs caused by a cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels or objective evidence of cardiogenic congestion. This definition and the classification of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mildly reduced, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is consistent with the 2021 ESC Guidelines on HF. Among several other new recommendations, these guidelines give a Class I indication for the use of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HFrEF patients. As the first evidence-based treatment for HFpEF, in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, empagliflozin reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations. Several reports in 2021 have provided novel and detailed analyses of device and medical therapy in HF, especially regarding sacubitril/valsartan, SGLT2 inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, ferric carboxymaltose, soluble guanylate cyclase activators, and cardiac myosin activators. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, acute HF and myocardial injury is quite frequent, whereas myocarditis and long-term damage to the heart are rather uncommon.

OUP accepted manuscript

More than 40 years after the first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, sudden cardiac death (SCD) still accounts for more than five million deaths worldwide every year. Huge efforts in the field notwithstanding, it is now increasingly evident that the current strategy of long-term prevention based on left ventricular ejection fraction as the key selection criterion is actually of very limited impact, also because the largest absolute numbers of SCD are encountered in the general population not known to be at risk. It has been recently reemphasized that SCD is often not so sudden, with almost half of the victims experiencing typical warning symptoms preceding the event. Importantly, heeded and prompt medical attention can dramatically improve survival. Essentially, such timely action increases the chances of the SCD event being witnessed by emergency medical services and provides the opportunity for early intervention. In addition, newer technologies incorporating digital data acquisition, transfer between interconnected devices, and artificial intelligence, should allow dynamic, real-time monitoring of diverse parameters and therefore better identification of subjects at short-term SCD risk. Along with warning symptoms, these developments allow a new approach of near-term prevention based on the hours and minutes preceding SCD. In the present review, we challenge the current paradigm of mid- and long-term prevention using ICD in patients at the highest risk of SCD, and introduce a complementary concept applicable to the entire population that would aim to pre-empt SCD by timely detection and intervention within the minutes or hours prior to the event.