Lower In-Hospital Mortality With Beta-Blocker Use at Admission in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Cardiogenic pulmonary edema - is it lone cardiogenic? "Missing link" between hemodynamic and other existing mechanisms

The current traditional pathophysiologic concept of pulmonary edema of cardiogenic origin explains its development by a hydrostatic effect due to increased pulmonary capillary pressure resulting in fluid flux to alveolar and interstitial areas from capillaries. However, several experimental studies and clinical data of poor response to hemodynamic and diuretic treatment in many scenarios provide further evidence of the involvement of several other contributing factors to the development of cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Several experimental and clinical studies have found that sympathetic overactivity with elevated plasma catecholamine concentrations may play an important role in the development of cardiovascular-associated pulmonary edema. Catecholamine-induced pulmonary injury may be one of the key mechanisms in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema triggering proinflammatory cytokine overactivation, oxidative stress and myocardial injury. In the everyday treatment of acute heart failure, physicians should consider the possibility of other noncardiogenic mechanisms involved in the progression of acute pulmonary edema, particularly catecholamine overactivity, lymphatic drainage, inflammatory and oxidative stress, high surfactant protein. The classic, hemodynamic treatment approach in pulmonary edema with the coexistence of other contributing factors may not provide adequate clinical benefit during treatment.

Heart failure management with β-blockers: can we do better?

Heart failure (HF) is associated with disabling symptoms, poor quality of life, and a poor prognosis with substantial excess mortality in the years following diagnosis. Overactivation of the sympathetic nervous system is a key feature of the pathophysiology of HF and is an important driver of the process of adverse remodelling of the left ventricular wall that contributes to cardiac failure. Drugs which suppress the activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, including β-blockers, are foundation therapies for the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and despite a lack of specific outcomes trials, are also widely used by cardiologist in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Today, expert opinion has moved away from recommending that treatment for HF should be guided solely by the LVEF and interventions should rather address signs and symptoms of HF (e.g. oedema and tachycardia), the severity of HF, and concomitant conditions. β-blockers improve HF symptoms and functional status in HF and these agents have demonstrated improved survival, as well as a reduced risk of other important clinical outcomes such as hospitalisation for heart failure, in randomised, placebo-controlled outcomes trials. In HFpEF, β-blockers are anti-ischemic and lower blood pressure and heart rate. Moreover, β-blockers also reduce mortality in the setting of HF occurring alongside common comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, CKD (of any severity), and COPD. Higher doses of β-blockers are associated with better clinical outcomes in populations with HF, so that ensuring adequate titration of therapy to their maximal (or maximally tolerated) doses is important for ensuring optimal outcomes for people with HF. In principle, a patient with HF could have combined treatment with a β-blocker, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor/neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and a SGLT2 inhibitor, according to tolerability.

Beta Blockers Improve Prognosis When Used Early in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: An Analysis of the FRENSHOCK Multicenter Prospective Registry

BACKGROUND

Beta blockers (BBs) are a cornerstone for patients with heart failure (HF) and ventricular dysfunction. However, their use in patients recovering from a cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a bone of contention, especially regarding whether and when to reintroduce this class of drugs.

METHODS

FRENSHOCK is a prospective multicenter registry including 772 CS patients from 49 centers. Our aim was to compare outcomes (1-month and 1-year all-cause mortality) between CS patients taking and those not taking BBs in three scenarios: (1) at 24 h after CS; (2) patients who did or did not discontinue BBs within 24 h; and (3) patients who did or did not undergo the early introduction of BBs.

RESULTS

Among the 693 CS included, at 24 h after the CS event, 95 patients (13.7%) were taking BB, while 598 (86.3%) were not. Between the groups, there were no differences in terms of major comorbidities or initial CS triggers. Patients receiving BBs at 24 h presented a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality both at 1 month (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.1, p = 0.10) and 1 year, which was, in both cases, not significant. Compared with patients who discontinued BBs at 24 h, patients who did not discontinue BBs showed lower 1-month mortality (aHR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.92, p = 0.03) and a trend to lower 1-year mortality. No reduction in outcomes was observed in patients who underwent an early introduction of BB therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

BBs are drugs of first choice in patients with HF and should also be considered early in patients with CS. In contrast, the discontinuation of BB therapy resulted in increased 1-month all-cause mortality and a trend toward increased 1-year all-cause mortality.

Optimal use of intravenous landiolol in acute cardiac care

INTRODUCTION

B-blockers are regarded as beneficial pharmacologic agents in cardiac care, but their role in the acute setting remains ambiguous. Increasing evidence supports the important role of landiolol in critical care, a highly cardioselective intravenous b-blocker with rapid onset of action and short elimination time. Among its most valuable properties, which may aid to overcome special reservations related to b-blocker therapy in the acute setting, landiolol has a potent negative chronotropic effect while at the same time it exhibits a mild negative inotropic effect.

AREAS COVERED

This expert opinion review aims to present basic pharmacologic aspects of landiolol and provide current clinical research focused on its efficacy and safety.

EXPERT OPINION

Landiolol is a valuable and safe pharmacologic agent in acute cardiac care. Japanese and European guidelines have incorporated its use for the management of atrial tachyarrhythmia in patients with cardiac dysfunction. Although emerging clinical trials have experimented its use in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous intervention and in patients with septic cardiomyopathy, more studies are needed in order to establish its value in such cardiac conditions.

Association of intravenous heparin administration with in-hospital clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with acute heart failure

BACKGROUNDS

Patients with acute heart failure (AHF) possess a high risk for thromboembolism, and thromboembolism prophylaxis using heparin has been recommended by the guidelines.

METHODS

Among 4056 patients enrolled in the KCHF Registry, the current study population consisted of 2525 patients after excluding patients with acute coronary syndrome and oral anticoagulants on admission and those with mechanical circulatory supports. There were 789 patients (31%) with heparin administration within 24 h after admission, and 1736 patients (69%) without.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics included mean age: 78 ± 13 years, New York Heart Association class IV: 51%, ischemic etiology: 30%, atrial fibrillation: 31% and mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 45%. During median hospitalization length of 16 days, 161 patients had all-cause death, 34 patients developed ischemic stroke, and 48 patients developed major bleeding. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that heparin administration compared with no heparin administration was not associated with a lower risk for all-cause death (OR: 1.39, 95%CI: 0.90-2.15; P = 0.14), nor for ischemic stroke (OR: 1.14, 95%CI: 0.53-2.43; P = 0.74), but was associated with a higher risk for major bleeding (OR: 2.88, 95%CI: 1.54-5.41; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AHF, heparin administration within 24 h after admission was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause death and ischemic stroke, but was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding during hospitalization. Our study raises questions about the routine use of heparin for thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with AHF. Further studies are warranted to address the utility of anticoagulant therapy in these patients.

Short-term outcomes by chronic betablocker treatment in patients presenting to emergency departments with acute heart failure: BB-EAHFE

AIMS

To evaluate the association between chronic treatment with betablockers (BB) and the severity of decompensation and short-term outcomes of patients with acute heart failure (AHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We consecutively included all patients presenting with AHF to 45 Spanish emergency departments (ED) during six different time-periods between 2007 and 2018. Patients were stratified according to whether they were on chronic treatment with BB at the time of ED consultation. Those receiving BB were compared (adjusted odds ratio-OR-with 95% confidence interval-CI-) with those not receiving BB group in terms of in-hospital and 7-day all-cause mortality, need for hospitalization, and prolonged length of stay (≥7 days). Among the 17 923 recruited patients (median age: 80 years; 56% women), 7795 (43%) were on chronic treatment with BB. Based on the MEESSI-AHF risk score, those on BB were at lower risk. In-hospital mortality was observed in 1310 patients (7.4%), 7-day mortality in 765 (4.3%), need for hospitalization in 13 428 (75.0%), and prolonged length of stay (43.3%). After adjustment for confounding, those on chronic BB were at lower risk for in-hospital all-cause mortality (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.79-0.92, P < 0.001); 7-day all-cause mortality (OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.70-0.85, P < 0.001); need for hospitalization (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.85-0.94, P < 0.001); prolonged length of stay (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.86-0.94, P < 0.001). A propensity matching approach yielded consistent findings.

CONCLUSION

In patients presenting to ED with AHF, those on BB had better short-term outcomes than those not receiving BB.

Evolving therapeutic strategies for patients hospitalized with new or worsening heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic, progressive, and increasingly prevalent syndrome characterized by stepwise declines in health status and residual lifespan. Despite significant advancements in both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management approaches for chronic HF, the burden of HF hospitalization-whether attributable to new-onset (de novo) HF or worsening of established HF-remains high and contributes to excess HF-related morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditures. Owing to a paucity of evidence to guide tailored interventions in this heterogeneous group, management of acute HF events remains largely subject to clinician discretion, relying principally on alleviation of clinical congestion, as-needed correction of hemodynamic perturbations, and concomitant reversal of underlying trigger(s). Following acute stabilization, the subsequent phase of care primarily involves interventions known to improve long-term outcomes and rehospitalization risk, including initiation and optimization of disease-modifying pharmacotherapy, targeted use of adjunctive therapies, and attention to contributing comorbid conditions. However, even with current standards of care many patients experience recurrent HF hospitalization, or after admission incur worsening clinical trajectories. These patterns highlight a persistent unmet need for evidence-based approaches to inform in-hospital HF care and call for renewed focus on urgent implementation of interventions capable of ameliorating risk of worsening HF. In this review, we discuss key contemporary and emerging therapeutic strategies for patients hospitalized with de novo or worsening HF.

Association Between Early Oral β-Blocker Therapy and In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Mild-Moderate Heart Failure: Findings From the CCC-ACS Project

Background

There are limited data available on the impact of early (within 24 h of admission) β-blocker therapy on in-hospital outcomes of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and mild-moderate acute heart failure. This study aimed to explore the association between early oral β-blocker therapy and in-hospital outcomes.

Methods

Inpatients with STEMI and Killip class II or III heart failure from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China project (n = 10,239) were enrolled. The primary outcome was a combined endpoint composed of in-hospital all-cause mortality, successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation after cardiac arrest, and cardiogenic shock. Inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, multivariate Cox regression, and propensity score matching were performed.

Results

Early oral β-blocker therapy was administered to 56.5% of patients. The incidence of the combined endpoint events was significantly lower in patients with early therapy than in those without (2.7 vs. 5.1%, P < 0.001). Inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting analysis demonstrated that early β-blocker therapy was associated with a low risk of combined endpoint events (HR = 0.641, 95% CI: 0.486-0.844, P = 0.002). Similar results were shown in multivariate Cox regression (HR = 0.665, 95% CI: 0.496-0.894, P = 0.007) and propensity score matching (HR = 0.633, 95% CI: 0.453-0.884, P = 0.007) analyses. A dose-response trend between the first-day β-blocker dosages and adverse outcomes was observed in a subset of participants with available data. No factor could modify the association of early treatment and the primary outcomes among the subgroups analyses.

Conclusion

Based on nationwide Chinese data, early oral β-blocker therapy is independently associated with a lower risk of poor in-hospital outcome in patients with STEMI and Killip class II or III heart failure.