Prognostic impact of prior LVEF in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

As there is limited evidence regarding the prognostic impact of prior left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), this study investigates the prognostic impact of longitudinal changes in LVEF in patients with HFmrEF.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (i.e. LVEF 41-49% with signs and/or symptoms of HF) were included retrospectively in a monocentric registry from 2016 to 2022. Based on prior LVEF, patients were categorized into three groups: stable LVEF, improved LVEF, and deteriorated LVEF. The primary endpoint was 30-months all-cause mortality (median follow-up). Secondary endpoints included in-hospital and 12-months all-cause mortality, as well as HF-related rehospitalization at 12 and 30 months. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional regression analyses were applied for statistics.

RESULTS

Six hundred eighty-nine patients with HFmrEF were included. Compared to their prior LVEF, 24%, 12%, and 64% had stable, improved, and deteriorated LVEF, respectively. None of the three LVEF groups was associated with all-cause mortality at 12 (p ≥ 0.583) and 30 months (31% vs. 37% vs. 34%; log rank p ≥ 0.376). In addition, similar rates of 12- (p ≥ 0.533) and 30-months HF-related rehospitalization (21% vs. 23% vs. 21%; log rank p ≥ 0.749) were observed. These findings were confirmed in multivariable regression analyses in the entire study cohort.

CONCLUSION

The transition from HFrEF and HFpEF towards HFmrEF is very common. However, prior LVEF was not associated with prognosis, likely due to the persistently high dynamic nature of LVEF in the follow-up period.

Predictors and prognostic implications of left ventricular ejection fraction trajectory improvement in the spectrum of heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The latest guidelines emphasize the significance of evaluating the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory in patients with heart failure (HF). Because patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) have reduction in systolic function, they might be in a trajectory of LVEF improvement after medical and device-based therapies. While previous studies have primarily focused on LVEF improvement in HFrEF, there is limited research on LVEF trajectory improvement across the spectrum of HFrEF and HFmrEF. This study aimed to assess the determinants and prognostic implications of LVEF trajectory improvement in HFrEF and HFmrEF patients.

METHODS

The cohort was classified into the improved group (HFrEF-to-HF with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) and HFmrEF-to-HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)) and the unimproved group (lack of improved group criteria). The primary endpoints were the composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalization. Predictors of LVEF trajectory improvement were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total 1303 patients were included in the study (improved/unimproved group: n = 497/806). Cox regression analysis showed that the improved group experienced lower risks of prespecified end points than the unimproved group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that atrial flutter, use of spironolactone, and treatment with catheter ablation were associated with LVEF trajectory improvement, while myocardial infarction, prior percutaneous catheter intervention or coronary artery bypass graft, E/e', and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter were identified as negative predictors of LVEF trajectory improvement. In the improved subgroup, the prognosis for the HFrEF-to-HFimpEF and HFmrEF-to-HFpEF was comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

LVEF trajectory improvement patients had improved clinical outcomes and it was associated with important clinical, baseline cardiac structure and function, and treatment factors. Outcomes were similar in both HFrEF-to-HFimpEF and HFmrEF-to-HFpEF subgroups. These results suggest that emphasis should be placed on LVEF trajectory improvement to improve the outcomes of this population.

Prognostic impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The aging population has led to a significant increase in heart failure (HF) patients. Related to demographic changes, the burden with comorbidities was shown to increase in patients with HF. Whereas chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was yet demonstrated to be associated with adverse outcomes in patients with HF, the prognostic impact of COPD in HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has not yet been clarified.

OBJECTIVE

The study investigates the prognostic impact of COPD in patients hospitalized with HFmrEF.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with HFmrEF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Patients with COPD were compared to patients without with regard to the primary endpoint all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up). Secondary endpoints comprised in-hospital mortality, HF-related re-hospitalization, cardiac re-hospitalization and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 months.

RESULTS

A total of 2184 patients with HFmrEF were included with a prevalence of COPD of 12.0 %. Patients with COPD were older (median 77 vs. 75 years; p = 0.025), had increased burden of cardiovascular comorbidities and more advanced HF symptoms. At 30 months, patients with COPD had an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients without (45 % vs. 30 %; HR = 1.667; 95 % CI 1.366-2.034; p = 0.001), alongside with a higher risk of re-hospitalization for worsening HF (20 % vs. 12 %; HR = 1.658; 95 % CI 1.218-2.257; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

COPD is independently associated with adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized with HFmrEF.

Extracellular vesicles in heart failure

Physiologically, extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been implicated as crucial mediators of immune response, cell homeostasis, angiogenesis, cell differentiation and growth, and tissue repair. In heart failure (HF) they may act as regulators of cardiac remodeling, microvascular inflammation, micro environmental changes, tissue fibrosis, atherosclerosis, neovascularization of plaques, endothelial dysfunction, thrombosis, and reciprocal heart-remote organ interaction. The chapter summaries the nomenclature, isolation, detection of EVs, their biologic role and function physiologically as well as in the pathogenesis of HF. Current challenges to the utilization of EVs as diagnostic and predictive biomarkers in HF are also discussed.

Prognostic impact of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

This study sought to determine the prognostic impact of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). ADHF is a major complication in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the prognostic impact of ADHF in patients with HFmrEF has not yet been clarified.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients hospitalized with HFmrEF (i.e. left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. The prognosis of patients with ADHF was compared with those without (i.e. non-ADHF). The primary endpoint was long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital all-cause mortality and long-term HF-related re-hospitalization. Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox proportional regression, and propensity score matched analyses were performed for statistics. Long-term follow-up was set at 30 months. A total of 2184 patients with HFmrEF were included, ADHF was present in 22%. The primary endpoint was higher in ADHF compared to non-ADHF patients with HFmrEF [50% vs. 26%; hazard ratio (HR) = 2.269; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.939-2.656; P = 0.001]. Accordingly, the secondary endpoint of long-term HF-related re-hospitalization was significantly higher (27% vs. 10%; HR = 3.250; 95% CI 2.565-4.118; P = 0.001). A history of previous ADHF before the index hospitalization was associated with higher rates of long-term HF-related re-hospitalization (42% vs. 23%; HR = 2.073; 95% CI 1.420-3.027; P = 0.001), but not with long-term all-cause mortality (P = 0.264).

CONCLUSION

ADHF is a common finding in patients with HFmrEF associated with an adverse impact on long-term prognosis.

Non-eligibility for pivotal HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials and mortality in a contemporary heart failure cohort

Pivotal outcome trials targeting heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and mildly-reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) may have excluded patients at highest risk of poor outcomes. We aimed to assess eligibility for HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials in an unselected heart failure cohort and its association with all-cause mortality. Among 32.028 patients presenting to a tertiary care center emergency unit for any reason between August 2018 and July 2019, we identified 407 admissions with evident HFpEF and HFmrEF. Eligibility criteria for pivotal trials CHARM-Preserved, I-PRESERVE, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER were assessed by chart review. The proportions of admissions fulfilling HFpEF/HFmrEF trial eligibility criteria were 88% for CHARM-Preserved, 40% for I-PRESERVE, 35% for TOPCAT, 28% for PARAGON-HF, 51% for EMPEROR-Preserved, and 49% for DELIVER. During a median follow-up of 1.9 years, death-from-any-cause occurred in 121 cases (30%). Twenty-four-month overall survival estimates for non-eligible and eligible admissions were 53% vs. 76% for CHARM-Preserved (HR=2.32, 95% CI: 1.47-3.67, p<0.001), 62% vs. 87% for I-PRESERVE (HR=2.97, 1.85-4.77, p<0.001), 67% vs. 84% for TOPCAT (HR=2.04, 1.29-3.24, p = 0.002), 68% vs. 85% for PARAGONHF (HR=2.28, 1.33-3.90, p = 0.003), 64% vs. 81% for EMPEROR-Preserved (HR=1.90, 1.27-2.84, p = 0.002), and 65% vs. 80% for DELIVER (HR=1.71, 1.14-2.57, p = 0.010). Exclusion criteria independently predicting death were eGFR <20 ml/min/1.73 m2, COPD with home oxygen therapy, and severe valvular heart disease. Conclusively, in a contemporary HFpEF/HFmrEF cohort, non-eligibility for outcome trials predicted for strongly increased mortality. HFpEF/HFmrEF patients at highest mortality risk were likely underrepresented in previous outcome trials and their treatment remains an unmet medical need.

Sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF

AIMS

The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting.

Association between a hospitalization for heart failure and the initiation/discontinuation of guideline-recommended treatments: An analysis from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

To investigate whether a heart failure (HF) hospitalization is associated with initiation/discontinuation of guideline-directed medical HF therapy (GDMT) and consequent outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among patients in the Swedish HF registry with an ejection fraction <50% enrolled in 2009-2018, initiation/discontinuation of GDMT was investigated by assessing dispensations of GDMT in those with versus without a HF hospitalization. Of 14 737 patients, 6893 (47%) were enrolled when hospitalized for HF. Initiation of GDMT was more likely than discontinuation following a HF hospitalization compared to a control group of patients without a HF hospitalization (odds ratio range 2.1-4.0 vs. 1.4-1.6 for the individual medications), although the proportion of patients not on GDMT was still high (8.1-44.0%). Key patient characteristics triggering less use of GDMT (i.e. less initiation or more discontinuation) were older age and worse renal function. Following a HF hospitalization, initiation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors or beta-blockers was associated with lower and their discontinuation with higher mortality risk, but no association with mortality was observed for initiation/discontinuation of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a HF hospitalization, initiation of GDMT was more likely than discontinuation, although still limited. Perceived or actual low tolerance were barriers to GDMT implementation. Early re-/initiation of GDMT was associated with better survival. Our findings represent a call for further implementing the current guideline recommendation for an early re-/initiation of GDMT following a HF hospitalization.

Identifying distinct clinical clusters in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous syndrome, and the specific sub-category HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF) range (HFmrEF; 41-49% EF) is only recently recognized as a distinct entity. Cluster analysis can characterize heterogeneous patient populations and could serve as a stratification tool in clinical trials and for prognostication. The aim of this study was to identify clusters in HFmrEF and compare cluster prognosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Latent class analysis to cluster HFmrEF patients based on their characteristics was performed in the Swedish HF registry (n = 7316). Identified clusters were validated in a Dutch cross-sectional HF registry-based dataset CHECK-HF (n = 1536). In Sweden, mortality and hospitalisation across the clusters were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model, with a Fine-Gray sub-distribution for competing risks and adjustment for age and sex. Six clusters were discovered with the following prevalence and hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals (HR [95%CI]) vs. cluster 1: 1) low-comorbidity (17%, reference), 2) ischaemic-male (13%, HR 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1]), 3) atrial fibrillation (20%, HR 1.5 [95% CI 1.2-1.9]), 4) device/wide QRS (9%, HR 2.7 [95% CI 2.2-3.4]), 5) metabolic (19%, HR 3.1 [95% CI 2.5-3.7]) and 6) cardio-renal phenotype (22%, HR 2.8 [95% CI 2.2-3.6]). The cluster model was robust between both datasets.

CONCLUSION

We found robust clusters with potential clinical meaning and differences in mortality and hospitalisation. Our clustering model could be valuable as a clinical differentiation support and prognostic tool in clinical trial design.

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.

Plasma levels of bone morphogenic protein-4 are downregulated in elderly hypertensive patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the association between plasma bone morphogenic protein-4 (BMP-4) levels and heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) in elderly hypertensive patients.

METHODS

A total of 222 hypertensive individuals meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled from October 2021 to July 2022. Data were collected including clinical characteristics, laboratory tests and echocardiogram measurements. Plasma BMP-4 levels were tested using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay analysis.

RESULTS

Among 222 elderly hypertensive patients, 149 were without HF, 59 had HFpEF, and 14 had HFmrEF. Plasma BMP-4 levels were strikingly downregulated in hypertensive patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF [median (25th, 75th percentile): 15.89 (7.69, 23.12) pg/mL vs. 19.67 (10.60, 33.04) pg/mL; P = 0.002]. After univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, the risk of HFpEF/HFmrEF was declined in the 4th quartile BMP-4 group when compared with the 1st quartile BMP-4 group (odds ratio, 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.04 to 1.00; P = 0.050, P for trend = 0.025). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that BMP-4 ≤ 28.5 pg/mL exhibited a sensitivity of 95.9% and a specificity of 28.2% in HFpEF/HFmrEF diagnosis. Furthermore, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.619 (95% CI:0.540-0.698, P < 0.001). The corresponding AUC for brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was 0.781 (95% CI: 0.710-0.852), P < 0.001. Adding BMP-4 to BNP increased the AUC to 0.790 (95% CI: 0.724-0.856), vs. BMP-4, P < 0.001; vs. BNP, P = 0.730, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Plasma BMP-4 levels are downregulated in elderly hypertensive patients with HFpEF. BMP-4 is a promising biomarker for diagnosing HFpEF/HFmrEF during hypertension.

Effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in elderly people with severe aortic stenosis with different types of heart failure

BACKGROUND

Impaired left ventricular function is an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-term changes of echocardiographic parameters, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level and adverse events amongst patients with heart failure (HF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University between September 2017 and September 2022. TAVR cases were stratified into three groups [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)] by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Baseline characteristics, changes in echocardiographic parameters (1 week and 1 month), BNP (1 month), and NYHA class (6 months) post-TAVR were compared across the three groups. Meanwhile, we observed the adverse events of the patients after TAVR.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients were included, of whom 15 (15.6%) had HFrEF, 15 (15.6%) had HFmrEF, and 66 (68.8%) had HFpEF. Compared to the HFpEF subgroup, patients in the HFrEF subgroup were younger (p < 0.05), and with a higher BNP (p < 0.05). The left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) in HFrEF group decreased significantly after TAVR. HFmrEF and HFrEF patients showed significant improvements in LVEF after TAVR. The pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP), aortic valve peak gradient (AVPG) and aortic valve peak gradient (V_max) decreased significantly 1 month after TAVR in all three groups compared to the baseline (all p < 0.05). BNP significantly reduced in HFrEF group compared to HFpEF patients after TAVR (p < 0.05). The majority of patients experienced an improvement at least one NYHA class in all three groups 6 months post-TAVR. There is no significant increase in the risk of adverse events in the HFrEF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent TAVR achieved significant improvements in BNP, NYHA class, LVEDD, LVEF, and PASP across the three HF classes, with a more rapid and pronounced improvement in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups. Complication rates were low in the different HF groups. There is no significant increase in the risk of periprocedural complications in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups.

Diabetic microvascular complications predicts non-heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in type 2 diabetes

AIMS

The relationship between diabetic microvascular complications and the incidence of two types of heart failure-heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] < 40%) and non-HFrEF (LVEF ≥ 40%)-in patients without prior heart failure has not been clarified. We herein examined the association between diabetic microvascular complications and HFrEF or non-HFrEF in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without prior heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective cohort study, we assessed the relationship between the presence of diabetic microvascular complications or severity of diabetic retinopathy (no apparent, non-proliferative and proliferative retinopathy) and nephropathy (normoalbuminuria, microalbuminuria, and macroalbuminuria) at baseline, with the primary outcome of first heart failure hospitalization classified as HFrEF or non-HFrEF in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus without prior heart failure. Among 568 patients (69.2% males, mean age 66.2 ± 9.6 years), 70 experienced heart failure hospitalization (HFrEF: 24 and non-HFrEF: 46). Non-HFrEF hospitalization but not HFrEF hospitalization was significantly associated with the presence of diabetic microvascular complications. The incidence of non-HFrEF hospitalization was significantly higher in the proliferative retinopathy group than that in the no apparent retinopathy group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-6.83, P = 0.035) and in those with macroalbuminuria than in those with normoalbuminuria (adjusted HR 4.23, 95% CI: 2.24-7.85, P < 0.001) even after adjustment for age and sex. When non-HFrEF was classified into heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) (40% ≤ LVEF < 50%) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (50% ≤ LVEF), HFmrEF and HFpEF hospitalizations were also found to be associated with the progression of retinopathy and nephropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2DM without prior heart failure, non-HFrEF hospitalization was more closely associated with the progression of diabetic microangiopathy than HFrEF. The development of non-HFrEF may be mediated through a mechanism similar to that of microvascular complications in these patients.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of ARNI versus ACEi/ARB in HF with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with a class-1 guideline recommendation. We assessed the real-world effectiveness of ARNI versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) on all-cause and cardiovascular (CV)-related mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF).

METHODS

Patient-level clinical, laboratory, drug dispensation, hospitalization, and mortality data were derived from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) and interlinked databases (1 April 2016-31 December 2020). Eligible ARNI:ACEi/ARB patients (n = 7275:24,604) had a left ventricular EF < 50%. Mortality and hospitalizations with ARNI (≤ 3 months pre-/post-1 April 2016 index [SwedeHF]; n = 1506) versus ACEi/ARB (≤ 3 months post-index; n = 17,108) were assessed using propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) with clinical variables, and sensitivity analysis (1:2/1:3 with, and 1:2 without clinical variables).

RESULTS

ARNI induced a 23% reduction in all-cause mortality versus ACEi/ARB (1:1 hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.77 [0.63-0.95], p = 0.013), and a non-significant 23% relative risk reduction in CV-related mortality (0.77 [0.54-1.09], p = 0.13), but no difference in all-cause or CV-related hospitalization (1.02 [0.91-1.13]; p = 0.76; 1.01 [0.91-1.15]; p = 0.84, respectively). Sensitivity analyses confirmed all-cause mortality was reduced for ARNI versus ACEi/ARB (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.82-0.99], p = 0.026), but not CV-related mortality (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.89-1.22], p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide real-world study including a population of patients with HF with reduced or mildly reduced EF, ARNI as part of guideline-led Swedish clinical practice was associated with a statistically significant relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality compared with ACEi/ARB.

Cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Limited data are available on the outcomes of cryoballoon ablation (CBA)-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CBA in such patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with AF referred for CBA-based PVI from two highly experienced electrophysiology centres were included in this retrospective study. Of 651 patients undergoing CBA, 471 cases were divided into four groups: No HF (n = 255), HFpEF (n = 101), HFmrEF (n = 78), and HF with reduced ejection fraction (n = 37). Similar early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was found among groups (16.2% vs. 15.4% vs. 14.9% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.798), and no significant difference of long-term sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance was identified among the HFmrEF, HFpEF, and No HF groups (71.8% vs. 75.2% vs. 79.6%, P = 0.334). CBA is safe for patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF with similar complications compared with the No HF group (3.8% vs. 4.0% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.814). The reassessment of cardiac function after CBA showed that patients with HF indicated beneficial outcomes. Left atrial diameter (LAD) and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly improved in the HFmrEF group. There were 41.6% of patients in the HFpEF group who were completely relieved from HF. LAD and New York Heart Association (NYHA) were associated with recurrence in the HFpEF and HFmrEF groups, and the maintenance of SR was an independent predictor of NYHA improvement for all HF groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF could benefit from CBA with high SR maintenance and significant HF improvement.

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction: retrospective study of ejection fraction trajectory risk

AIMS

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Amongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.

A comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure with preserved versus mildly reduced versus reduced ejection fraction - insights from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

AIMS

To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17).

CONCLUSION

In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.

Eligibility of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction for sacubitril/valsartan according to the PARAGON-HF trial

Aims

In the heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) PARAGON‐HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan improved mortality/morbidity in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below median (57%). We assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on four scenarios.

Methods and results

Eligibility was assessed in the Karolinska‐Rennes study (acute HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 45%, and N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide ≥300 pg/mL subsequently assessed as outpatients including echocardiography) in (i) a trial scenario (all trial criteria); (ii) a pragmatic scenario (selected trial criteria); (iii) LVEF below lower limit of normal range (<54% in women and <52% in men); and (iv) LVEF below mean of normal range (<64% in women and <62% in men). Among 425 patients [age 78 (72–83) years, 57% women, 28% LVEF ≤ 57% (median in PARAGON‐HF), the trial scenario, identified 34% as eligible. Left atrial enlargement and/or left ventricular hypertrophy were present in 99%. Inclusion criteria not met were diuretic treatment and New York Heart Association class. Important exclusion criteria were estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m², haemoglobin <10 g/day, and cancer. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible. In LVEF below lower limit of normal range, 5.4% were eligible, and in LVEF below mean of normal range, 41% were eligible. In patients with LVEF ≤ 57%, eligibility was 42%, 69%, 21%, and 91% according to the trial scenario, pragmatic scenario, LVEF below lower limit of normal range, and LVEF below mean of normal range, respectively.

Conclusions

In real‐world HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 45%) with N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide and cardiac structure/function assessed, eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan was according to PARAGON‐HF complete criteria 34%, pragmatic criteria 63%, LVEF below lower limit of normal range 5.4%, and LVEF below mean of normal range 41%. Cardiac structural impairment was almost ubiquitous. Ineligibility was more due to exclusion criteria than failing to meet inclusion criteria.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Cardiac Contractility Modulation in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: How to Select the Right Candidate?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is a well-established treatment of heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and a wide QRS complex. Cardiac contractility modulation therapy is an emerging electrical treatment indicated for use in patients with symptomatic heart failure caused by moderate-to-severe systolic left ventricular dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction ranging from 25% to 45%), with no indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Cardiac contractility modulation therapy improves functional status, exercise capacity, quality of life, and possibly prevents hospital admissions in indicated patients. An algorithm for patient selection for these two forms of electrical therapy for heart failure is presented.