Hospitalization and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril: A Real-World, Population-Based Study

Efficacy of guideline-directed medical treatment in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has received increasing attention following the publication of the latest ESC guidelines in 2021. However, it remains unclear whether patients with HFmrEF could benefit from guideline-directed medical treatment (GDMT), referring the combination of ACEI/ARB/ARNI, β-blockers, and MRAs, which are recommended for those with reduced ejection fraction. This study explored the efficacy of GDMT in HFmrEF patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of HFmrEF patients admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between 1 September 2015 and 30 November 2019. Propensity score matching (1:2) between patients receiving triple-drug therapy (TT) and non-triple therapy (NTT) based on age and sex was performed. The primary outcome was all cause death, cardiac death, rehospitalization from any cause, and rehospitalization due to worsening heart failure.

RESULTS

Of the 906 patients enrolled in the matched cohort (TT group, n = 302; NTT group, N = 604), 653 (72.08%) were male, and mean age was 61.1 ± 11.92. Survival analysis suggested that TT group experienced a significantly lower incidence of prespecified primary endpoints than NTT group. Multivariable Cox regression showed that TT group had a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.447-0.961, P = 0.030), cardiac death (HR 0.599, 95% CI 0.380-0.946, P = 0.028), any-cause rehospitalization (HR 0.687, 95% CI 0.541-0.872, P = 0.002), and heart failure rehospitalization (HR 0.732, 95% CI 0.565-0.948, P = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFmrEF, combined use of neurohormonal antagonists produces remarkable effects in reducing the occurrence of the primary outcome of rehospitalization and death. Thus, the treatment of HFmrEF should be categorized as HFrEF due to the similar benefit of neurohormonal blocking therapy in HFrEF and HFmrEF.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure Hospitalization: Two Pills a Day to Keep Hospitalizations Away?

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with signs and symptoms that result from any structural or functional deterioration of ventricular filling or ejection of blood. It is the final stage of various cardiovascular diseases (e.g., coronary artery disease, hypertension, previous myocardial infarction) and remains one of the leading causes of hospitalization. It poses severe health and economic burden worldwide. Patients usually present with shortness of breath due to impaired cardiac ventricular filling and decreased cardiac output. Cardiac remodeling due to the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system overactivation is the final pathological mechanism leading to these changes. The natriuretic peptide system is also activated to stop the remodeling. Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor, has prompted a substantial conceptual change in HF treatment. Its primary mechanism is the inhibition of cardiac remodeling and the prevention of natriuretic peptide degradation by inhibiting the enzyme neprilysin. It is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective therapy that improves the quality of life and survival rate in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction. It has been demonstrated to significantly reduce hospitalization rates and rehospitalization for HF when compared to enalapril. In this review, we have discussed the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in treating patients with HFrEF, particularly in reducing hospitalizations and readmissions. We have also compiled studies to examine the drug's effect on adverse cardiac events. Finally, the cost benefits of the drug and optimal dosing strategies are also reviewed. Our review article, combined with the recommendations of the 2022 American Heart Association guidelines for heart failure, strongly suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective strategy that reduces hospitalizations for HFrEF patients when started early with optimal doses. There is still much uncertainty regarding the optimal usage of this drug, its use in HFrEF, and the cost benefits when used alone compared with enalapril.

Trends in contemporary advanced heart failure management: an in-depth review over 30 years of heart transplant service in Hong Kong

Background

The year 2022 marks the 30th anniversary of heart transplant service in Hong Kong (HK). In this study, we describe prevailing trends and outcomes of advanced heart failure (AHF), including heart transplantations (HTx), in HK over the past 30 years.

Methods

Trends in heart failure prevalence in HK from 1993 to 2021 were analyzed based on data from the Hospital Authority Clinical Data and Reporting System. All AHF patients referred for HTx consideration between 1992 and 2021 were reviewed. The bridge-to-transplant (BTT) utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support (ST-MCS) devices, including venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), from 2010 to 2021 was reviewed.

Results

Overall, 237 heart transplants were performed in HK, with 10-year posttransplant and median survival of 68.1% and 18.7 years, respectively. An increase in AHF clinic referrals was correlated with increasing heart failure prevalence (R²=0.635, P<0.001). In total, 146 referrals were made for ST-MCS, and an observed increase in ST-MCS referrals was correlated with increasing VA-ECMO utilization (R²=0.849, P<0.001). Among 62 patients accepted for AHF therapy, those with durable LVAD implementation had better 1-year survival (71.5%) than those receiving an extracorporeal CentriMag (Levitronix) device as BTT (40%, P=0.008). In total, 143 LVADs were implanted, with 130 as BTT or bridge-to-candidacy (BTC) methods. The survival rate among the 130 BTT/BTC LVAD patients resembled that of HTx recipients (73.8% vs. 69.8% at 9 years, P=0.296).

Conclusions

The burden of AHF management has increased and gained complexity over the past 30 years in Hong Kong.

Development and Validation of a Nomogram Model for Predicting the Risk of Readmission in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction within 1 Year

The high incidence of readmission for patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF) can seriously affect the prognosis. In this study, we aimed to build a simple predictive model to predict the risk of heart failure (HF) readmission in patients with HFrEF within one year of discharge from the hospital. This retrospective study enrolled patients with HFrEF evaluated in the Heart Failure Center of the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University from January 2018 to December 2020. The patients were allocated into the readmission or nonreadmission group, according to whether HF readmission occurred within 1 year of hospital discharge. Subsequently, all patients were randomly divided into training and validation sets in a 7 : 3 ratio. A nomogram was established according to the results of univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Finally, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), calibration plot, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to validate the nomogram. Independent risk factors for HF readmission of patients with HFrEF within 1 year of hospital discharge were as follows: age, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular ejection fraction, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors. The AUC-ROC of the training and validation sets were 0.833 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.793-0.866) and 0.794 (95% CI: 0.727-0.852), respectively, which have an excellent distinguishing ability. The predicted and observed values of the calibration curve also showed good consistency. DCA also confirmed that the nomogram had good clinical value. In conclusion, we constructed an accurate and straightforward nomogram model for predicting the 1-year HF readmission risk in patients with HFrEF. This nomogram can guide early clinical intervention and improve patient prognosis.

Effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors on left atrial remodeling and prognosis in heart failure

Aims

The angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril/valsartan, confers additional protective effects compared with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) in terms of reversed left ventricular (LV) remodelling and improves the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). However, few studies have examined the effects of ARNI on the left atrium. Accordingly, this study compared the effects of ARNI and ACEI/ARB on left atrial (LA) remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods and results

This was a single‐centre retrospective study of patients with HFrEF hospitalized at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between 26 February 2016 and 8 July 2020. Patients were classified into ARNI and ACEI/ARB groups and further subgroups based on the left atrial volume index (LAVI): mildly abnormal (29 mL/m² ≤ LAVI < 34 mL/m²), moderately abnormal (34 mL/m² ≤ LAVI < 40 mL/m²), and severely abnormal (LAVI ≥ 40 mL/m²). The primary endpoint was changes in LA parameters by echocardiography. The secondary endpoint was all‐cause mortality. A total of 336 patients (mean age: 64.11 ± 12.86, 30.06% female) were included. Except those lost to follow‐up, 274 HFrEF patients remained, with 144 cases in the ARNI group and 130 cases in the ACEI/ARB group. Greater reductions from baseline were seen with ARNI in LA diameter (LAD) (P = 0.013, t‐test), superior and LA superior–inferior diameter (LASID) (P < 0.0001), LA transverse diameter (LATD) (P < 0.0001), LA volume (LAV) (P < 0.0001), LAVI (P < 0.0001), and LA sphericity index (LASI) (P < 0.0001). Over a mean follow‐up of 19.40 months, 97 patients (67.3%) in the ARNI group and 29 patients (22.3%) in the ACEI/ARB group showed LA reverse remodelling (LARR). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed significantly lower overall mortality in the ARNI group compared with the ACEI/ARB group (P = 0.048, log‐rank test). The mildly abnormal LAVI group of ARNI patients showed a reduction in mortality compared with ACEI/ARB patients (P = 0.044). However, no significant difference was observed for the moderately abnormal (P = 0.571) or severely abnormal LAVI groups (P = 0.609), suggesting that early initiation of ARNI was associated with a better prognosis.

Conclusions

In this proof‐of‐concept study, ARNI use showed greater effects on LARR and was associated with a better prognosis compared with ACEI/ARB use in HFrEF. Early initiation of ARNI in the HF disease process may produce greater benefit, but this needs to be confirmed in future studies.

Characteristics and outcomes of heart failure with recovered left ventricular ejection fraction

Aims

There is an emerging interest in elucidating the natural history and prognosis for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in whom left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) subsequently improves. The characteristics and outcomes were compared between heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and persistent HFrEF.

Methods and results

This is a retrospective study of adults who underwent at least two echocardiograms 3 months apart between 1 November 2015 and 31 October 2019 with an initial diagnosis of HFrEF. The subjects were divided into HFrecEF group (second LVEF > 40%, ≥10% absolute improvement in LVEF) and persistent HFrEF group (<10% absolute improvement in LVEF) according to the second LVEF. To further study the characteristics of HFrecEF patients, the cohort was further divided into LVEF improvement of 10–20% and >20% subgroups. The primary outcomes were all‐cause mortality and rehospitalization. A total of 1160 HFrEF patients were included [70.2% male, mean (standard deviation) age: 62 ± 13 years]. On the second echocardiogram, 284 patients (24.5%) showed HFrecEF and 876 patients (75.5%) showed persistent HFrEF. All‐cause mortality was identified in 23 (8.10%) HFrecEF and 165 (18.84%) persistent HFrEF, whilst 76 (26.76%) and 426 (48.63%) showed rehospitalizations, respectively. Survival analysis showed that the persistent HFrEF subgroup experienced a significantly higher mortality at 12 and 24 months and a higher hospitalization at 12, 24, 48, and more than 48 months following discharge. Multivariate Cox regression showed that persistent HFrEF had a higher risk of all‐cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49–3.56, P = 0.000] and rehospitalization (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.45–2.36, P = 0.000) than the HFrecEF group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LVEF ≥ 20% improvement subgroup had lower rates of adverse outcomes compared with those with less improvement of 10–20%.

Conclusions

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction is a distinct HF phenotype with better clinical outcomes compared with those with persistent HFrEF. HFrecEF patients have a relatively better short‐term mortality at 24 months but not thereafter.

Risk stratification of cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients receiving insulin therapy: A population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Metabolic abnormalities may exacerbate the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The present study aims to assess the predictive value of HbA1c and lipid variability on the risks of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and incident atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

The retrospective observational study consists of type 2 diabetic patients prescribed with insulin, who went to publicly funded clinics and hospitals in Hong Kong between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009. Variability in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), triglyceride, and HbA1c were assessed through their SD and coefficient of variation. The primary outcomes were incident (1) ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, actual or aborted SCD and (2) AF.

RESULTS

A total of 23 329 patients (mean ± SD age: 64 ± 14 years old; 51% male; mean HbA1c 8.6 ± 1.3%) were included. On multivariable analysis, HbA1c, total cholesterol, LDL-C and triglyceride variability were found to be predictors of SCD (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

HbA1c and lipid variability were predictive of SCD. Therefore, poor glucose control and variability in lipid parameters in diabetic patients are associated with aborted or actual SCD. These observations suggest the need to re-evaluate the extent of glycemic control required for outcome optimization.

Angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome that results from a structural or functional cardiac disorder that reduces the ability of the ventricle of the heart to fill with, or eject, blood. It is a multifaceted clinical condition that affects up to 2% of the population in the developed world, and is linked to significant morbidity and mortality; it is therefore considered a major concern for public health. Regarding the mechanism of HF, three neurohumoral factors - the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, the sympathetic nervous system, and natriuretic peptides - are related to the pathology of chronic HF (CHF), and the targets of treatment. Angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor (angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor), namely sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL), has been introduced as a treatment for CHF. SAC/VAL is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective therapy that improves quality of life and longevity in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and reduces hospital admissions. An in-hospital initiation strategy offers a potential new avenue to improve the clinical uptake of SAC/VAL. In the last five years, SAC/VAL has been established as a cornerstone component of comprehensive disease-modifying medical therapy in the management of chronic HFrEF. On the other hand, further work, with carefully designed and controlled preclinical studies, is necessary for understanding the molecular mechanisms, effects, and confirmation of issues such as long-term safety in both human and animal models.

Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction: Prior Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Prognosis

Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes.

Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization.

Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064–2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335–2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096–1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247–2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020–1.718, P = 0.035).

Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.

Sacubitril/valsartan in real-life European patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

We systematically reviewed the European real-world evidence (RWE) about sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-one articles, including 16 952 subjects, were identified until 31 October 2020. Taking as reference the PARADIGM-HF cohort, few baseline characteristics were presented in >80% of these studies, most often with high heterogeneity. In random-effects model meta-analysis, age was higher (mean difference +3.84, 95% CI 1.92-5.76), ischaemic aetiology (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91), hypertension (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.82), and diabetes (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92) were less common, and the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was more frequent (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.27-5.53) in real-life than in PARADIGM-HF. Other clinical and medical features were presented in 19-76% of the selected publications and suggested more severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril-valsartan was titrated to 97/103 mg b.i.d. in 35% (95% CI 23-47) and discontinued in 12.8% (95% CI 7.4-18.3) patients. When reported, the incidence of hyperkalaemia (six studies, no. 1076), all-cause mortality (five studies, no. 684), and any hospitalization (three studies, no. 390) was 12 (95% CI 5-19)/100 person-year, 8 (95% CI 4-12)/100 person-year, and 24 (95% CI 5-42)/100 person-year, respectively. Knowledge contribution, a metric measuring the proportion of RWE provided by each article based on the number of reported variables and the sample size, was 58.8% and 13.6% for the two biggest investigations (12 082 and 2037 patients), and <5% for all others (most with <100 subjects).

CONCLUSIONS

Limited-quality RWE indicates that there are important differences between European patients prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and the PARADIGM-HF population, including the frequency of target dose achievement.

Derivation of an electronic frailty index for predicting short-term mortality in heart failure: a machine learning approach

Aims

Frailty may be found in heart failure patients especially in the elderly and is associated with a poor prognosis. However, assessment of frailty status is time‐consuming, and the electronic frailty indices developed using health records have served as useful surrogates. We hypothesized that an electronic frailty index developed using machine learning can improve short‐term mortality prediction in patients with heart failure.

Methods and results

This was a retrospective observational study that included patients admitted to nine public hospitals for heart failure from Hong Kong between 2013 and 2017. Age, sex, variables in the modified frailty index, Deyo's Charlson co‐morbidity index (≥2), neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and prognostic nutritional index at baseline were analysed. Gradient boosting, which is a supervised sequential ensemble learning algorithm with weak prediction submodels (typically decision trees), was applied to predict mortality. Variables were ranked in the order of importance with a total score of 100 and used to build the frailty models. Comparisons were made with decision tree and multivariable logistic regression. A total of 8893 patients (median: age 81, Q1–Q3: 71–87 years old) were included, in whom 9% had 30 day mortality and 17% had 90 day mortality. Prognostic nutritional index, age, and NLR were the most important variables predicting 30 day mortality (importance score: 37.4, 32.1, and 20.5, respectively) and 90 day mortality (importance score: 35.3, 36.3, and 14.6, respectively). Gradient boosting significantly outperformed decision tree and multivariable logistic regression. The area under the curve from a five‐fold cross validation was 0.90 for gradient boosting and 0.87 and 0.86 for decision tree and logistic regression in predicting 30 day mortality. For the prediction of 90 day mortality, the area under the curve was 0.92, 0.89, and 0.86 for gradient boosting, decision tree, and logistic regression, respectively.

Conclusions

The electronic frailty index based on co‐morbidities, inflammation, and nutrition information can readily predict mortality outcomes. Their predictive performances were significantly improved by gradient boosting techniques.