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

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve cardiovascular outcomes in a variety of settings. This study aimed to assess whether cardioprotective effects of MRAs are modified by heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) status and to study their impact on AF events.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched to 24 March 2023 for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of MRAs as compared with placebo or usual care in reducing cardiovascular outcomes and AF events in patients with or at risk for cardiovascular diseases. Random-effects models and interaction analyses were used to test for effect modification.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of seven trials (20 741 participants, mean age: 65.6 years, 32% women) showed that the efficacy of MRAs, as compared with placebo, in reducing a composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization remains consistent across patients with HF [risk ratio = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.98] and without HF (risk ratio = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75-0.93; interaction P = .77). Among patients with HF, MRAs reduced cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization in patients with AF (hazard ratio = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.54-1.66) to a similar extent as in those without AF (hazard ratio = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.63-1.07; interaction P = .65). Pooled data from 20 trials (21 791 participants, mean age: 65.2 years, 31.3% women) showed that MRAs reduce AF events (risk ratio = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67-0.87) in both patients with and without prior AF.

CONCLUSIONS

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists are similarly effective in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with and without HF and most likely retain their efficacy regardless of AF status. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists may also be moderately effective in preventing incident or recurrent AF events.

Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Technique Principles, Current Evidence, and Future Perspectives

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multifactorial clinical syndrome involving a rather complex pathophysiologic substrate and quite a challenging diagnosis. Exercise intolerance is a major feature of HFpEF, and in many cases, diagnosis is suspected in subjects presenting with exertional dyspnea. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a noninvasive, dynamic technique that provides an integrative evaluation of cardiovascular, pulmonary, hematopoietic, neuropsychological, and metabolic functions during maximal or submaximal exercise. The assessment is based on the principle that system failure typically occurs when the system is under stress, and thus, CPET is currently considered to be the gold standard for identifying exercise intolerance, allowing the differential diagnosis of underlying causes. CPET is used in observational studies and clinical trials in HFpEF; however, in most cases, only a few from a wide variety of CPET parameters are examined, while the technique is largely underused in everyday cardiology practice. This article discusses the basic principles and methodology of CPET and studies that utilized CPET in patients with HFpEF, in an effort to increase awareness of CPET capabilities among practicing cardiologists.

A review of the impact, pathophysiology, and management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have increased mortality and increased risk of stroke. Due to the heterogeneous nature of both disease processes, it is difficult to ascertain whether the diagnosis and progression of AF is the cause of deterioration or if it is a symptom of worsening heart failure. This presents physicians with a clinical conundrum of whether optimizing their heart failure will decrease the overall AF burden or if restoration of sinus rhythm is necessary to optimize patients with HFpEF. In this paper, we will review the impact of AF in patients with HFpEF, the pathophysiology and heterogeneity of HFpEF and AF, and the management of these patients. As HFpEF and AF become more prevalent, managing these disease processes needs standardization to improve outcomes. Further research is needed to understand the complex interplay between AF and HFpEF to help determine the best management strategy.

Advances in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Management - The Role of Sacubitril-Valsartan, Pirfenidone, Spironolactone and Empagliflozin: Is Success a Series of Small Victories?

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a syndrome characterized by marked heterogeneity in comorbidities and etiopathology substrates, leading to a diverse range of clinical manifestations and courses. Treatment options have been extremely limited and up to this day, there are virtually no pharmaceutical agents proven to reduce mortality in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this narrative review is to critically summarize existing evidence regarding the use of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI), spironolactone, pirfenidone and empagliflozin in HFpEF.

METHODS

Medline (via PubMed) and Scopus were searched - from inception up to May 2022- using adequately selected keywords. Additional hand-search was also performed using the references of the articles identified as relevant (snowball strategy).

RESULTS

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) and spironolactone, despite being very successful in HFrEF, did not do well in clinical trials of HFpEF, although there appear to be certain subsets of patients who may derive benefit. Data regarding pirfenidone are limited and come from small trials; as a result, it would be premature to draw firm conclusions, although it seems improbable that this agent will ever become a mainstay in the general population of HPpEF patients, while there may be a niche for the drug in individuals with comorbidities associated with an intense fibrotic activity. Finally, empagliflozin, largely welcomed as the first agent to have a "positive" randomized clinical trial in HFpEF, does not seem to evade the general pattern of reduced hospitalizations for HF with no substantial effect on mortality, seen in ARNI and spironolactone HFpEF trials.

CONCLUSION

Recent research in drug treatment for HFpEF has resulted in an overall mixed picture, with trials showing potential benefits from certain classes of drugs, such as sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, and no benefit from other drugs, which have shown to be effective in patient with reduced ejection fraction. However, small steps may be the way to go in HFpEF, and success is sometimes just a series of small victories.

Breaking the Cycle of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Atrial Fibrillation

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and AF are two common cardiovascular conditions that are inextricably linked to each other's development and progression, often in multimorbid patients. Current management is often directed to specific components of each disease without considering their joint impact on diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. The result for patients is suboptimal on all three levels, restricting clinicians from preventing major adverse events, including death, which occurs in 20% of patients at 2 years and in 45% at 4 years. New trial evidence and reanalysis of prior trials are providing a glimmer of hope that adverse outcomes can be reduced in those with concurrent HFpEF and AF. This will require a restructuring of care to integrate heart failure and AF teams, alongside those that manage comorbidities. Parallel commencement and non-sequential uptitration of therapeutics across different domains will be vital to ensure that all patients benefit at a personal level, based on their own needs and priorities.

Hypertension management in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities

Arterial hypertension is a leading cause of death globally. Due to ageing, the rising incidence of obesity, and socioeconomic and environmental changes, its incidence increases worldwide. Hypertension commonly coexists with Type 2 diabetes, obesity, dyslipidaemia, sedentary lifestyle, and smoking leading to risk amplification. Blood pressure lowering by lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive drugs reduce cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Guidelines recommend dual- and triple-combination therapies using renin–angiotensin system blockers, calcium channel blockers, and/or a diuretic. Comorbidities often complicate management. New drugs such as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists improve CV and renal outcomes. Catheter-based renal denervation could offer an alternative treatment option in comorbid hypertension associated with increased sympathetic nerve activity. This review summarises the latest clinical evidence for managing hypertension with CV comorbidities.

An overview of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists as a treatment option for patients with heart failure: the current state-of-the-art and future outlook

INTRODUCTION

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure. These benefits of MRAs vary in different heart failure populations based on left ventricular ejection fraction and associated comorbidities.

AREAS COVERED

We define the pharmacologic properties of MRAs and the pathophysiological rationale for their utility in heart failure. We outline the current literature on the use of MRAs in different heart failure populations, including reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF/ HFpEF), and acute heart failure decompensation. Finally, we describe the limitations of currently available data and propose future directions of study.

EXPERT OPINION

While there is strong evidence supporting the use of MRAs in HFrEF, evidence in patients with HFpEF or acute heart failure is less definitive. Comorbidities such as obesity or atrial fibrillation could be clinical modifiers of the response to MRAs and potentially alter the risk/benefit ratio in these subpopulations. Emerging evidence for new non-steroidal MRAs reveal promising preliminary results that, if confirmed in large randomized clinical trials, could favor a change in clinical practice.

Characteristics, prognosis, and treatment response in HFpEF patients with high vs. normal ejection fraction

Background

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients varied by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have different clinical characteristics, prognosis, and treatment response. With data from our prospective HFpEF cohort, we assessed the possible relationship between clinical characteristics, outcome as well as treatment response and LVEF.

Methods

We compared differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes across LVEF categories (50%≤LVEF <60% vs. LVEF≥60%) in 1,502 HFpEF patients, and determined whether LVEF modified the treatment response. During 5-year follow-up, all-cause mortality was used as the primary endpoints, and composite endpoints (all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization) were set as the secondary endpoint.

Results

Patients with higher LVEF were statistically older, more likely to be women and have a history of atrial fibrillation. Patients with lower LVEF category were more likely to have a history of coronary artery disease. The incidences of all-cause mortality and composite endpoints were higher in patients with higher LVEF. Also, LVEF modified the spironolactone treatment effect for the primary outcome and secondary endpoint with stronger estimated benefits at the lower LVEF category with respect to all-cause mortality (HR 0.734, 95% CI 0.541–0.997, P = 0.048) and all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (HR 0.767, 95% CI 0.604–0.972, P = 0.029).

Conclusion

The characteristics and outcomes of HFpEF patients varied substantially by LVEF. Patients with higher LVEF encountered more adverse events than those with lower LVEF. The potential efficacy of spironolactone was greatest at the lower category of LVEF spectrum in HFpEF.

Roles of Mineralocorticoid Receptors in Cardiovascular and Cardiorenal Diseases

Mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) activation in the heart and vessels leads to pathological effects, such as excessive extracellular matrix accumulation, oxidative stress, and sustained inflammation. In these organs, the MR is expressed in cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, and inflammatory cells. We review the accumulating experimental and clinical evidence that pharmacological MR antagonism has a positive impact on a battery of cardiac and vascular pathological states, including heart failure, myocardial infarction, arrhythmic diseases, atherosclerosis, vascular stiffness, and cardiac and vascular injury linked to metabolic comorbidities and chronic kidney disease. Moreover, we present perspectives on optimization of the use of MR antagonists in patients more likely to respond to such therapy and review the evidence suggesting that novel nonsteroidal MR antagonists offer an improved safety profile while retaining their cardiovascular protective effects. Finally, we highlight future therapeutic applications of MR antagonists in cardiovascular injury.

Efficacy and safety of diuretics in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Diuretics reduce congestion in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, comparison of clinical effects across diuretic classes or combinations of diuretics in patients with HFpEF are not well described. Therefore, we sought to conduct a scoping review to map trial data of diuretic efficacy and safety in patients with HFpEF.

REVIEW METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched multiple bibliometric databases for published literature and ClinicalTrials.gov, and hand searched unpublished studies comparing different classes of diuretics to usual care or placebo in patients with HFpEF. We included randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies. Two authors independently screened and extracted key data using a structured form. We identified 13 published studies on diuretics in HFpEF, with 1 evaluating thiazide use, 7 on mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and 5 on sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). There remain 17 ongoing trials evaluating loop diuretics (n=1), MRAs (n=5), SGLT2i (n=10) and a polydiuretic (n=1), including 2 well-powered trials of SGLT2i that will be completed in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited number of published trials evaluating different classes of diuretics in patients with HFpEF have been generally small and short term. Ongoing and emerging trials of single or combination diuretics with greater power will be useful to better define their safety and efficacy. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: doi:10.18131/g3-dejv-tm77.

Left Atrial Myopathy in Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Clinical Implications, Mechanisms, and Therapeutic Targets

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the mechanisms, clinical implications, and treatments of left atrial (LA) myopathy in comorbid atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of ejection fraction.

RECENT FINDINGS

AF and HF are highly comorbid conditions. Left atrial (LA) myopathy, characterized by impairments in LA structure, function, or electrical conduction, plays a fundamental role in the development of both AF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (AF-HFpEF) along with AF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (AF-HFrEF). While the nature of LA myopathy in AF-HFpEF is unique from that of AF-HFrEF, LA myopathy also leads to progression of both of these conditions. There may be a vulnerable cohort of AF-HF patients who have a disproportionate degree of LA myopathy compared with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Further investigations are required to identify therapies to improve LA function in this cohort.

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.