Cardiovascular phenotype of long-term anabolic-androgenic steroid abusers compared with strength-trained athletes.

INTRODUCTION: Abuse of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) has been linked to a variety of different cardiovascular (CV) side effects, but still the clinical effects of AAS abuse on CV risk are not clear. The aim of this study was to assess the CV phenotype of a large cohort of men with long-term AAS use compared with strength-trained athletes without AAS use. METHODS: Fifty one strength-trained men with ≥3 years of AAS use was compared with twenty one strength-trained competing athletes. We verified substance abuse and non-abuse by blood and urine analyses. The participants underwent comprehensive CV evaluation including laboratory analyses, 12-lead ECG with measurement of QT dispersion, exercise ECG, 24 h ECG with analyses of heart rate variability, signal averaged ECG, basic transthoracic echocardiography, and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). RESULTS: Hemoglobin levels and hematocrit were higher among the AAS users compared with non-users (16.8 vs. 15.0 g/dl, and 0.50% vs. 0.44%, respectively, both p < 0.01) and HDL cholesterol significantly lower (0.69 vs. 1.25 mmol/L, p < 0.01). Maximal exercise capacity was 270 and 280 W in the AAS and the non-user group, respectively (p = 0.04). Echocardiography showed thicker intraventricular septum and left ventricular (LV) posterior wall among AAS users (p < 0.01 for both), while LV ejection fraction was lower (50 vs. 54%, p = 0.02). Seven AAS users (17%) had evidence of coronary artery disease on CCTA. There were no differences in ECG measures between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: A divergent CV phenotype dominated by increased CV risk, accelerated coronary artery disease, and concentric myocardial hypertrophy was revealed among the AAS users.

Hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: position paper by the European Society of Hypertension.

Hypertension constitutes a major risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF is a prevalent clinical syndrome with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Specific guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFpEF is not established due to lack of positive outcome data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limitations of available studies. Although available evidence is limited, control of blood pressure (BP) is widely regarded as central to the prevention and clinical care in HFpEF. Thus, in current guidelines including the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Guidelines, blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers provides the backbone of BP-lowering therapy in hypertensive patients. Although superiority of RAS blockers has not been clearly shown in dedicated RCTs designed for HFpEF, we propose that this core drug treatment strategy is also applicable for hypertensive patients with HFpEF with the addition of some modifications. The latter apply to the use of spironolactone apart from the treatment of resistant hypertension and the use of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor. In addition, novel agents such as sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, currently already indicated for high-risk patients with diabetes to reduce heart failure hospitalizations, and finerenone represent promising therapies and results from ongoing RCTs are eagerly awaited. The development of an effective and practical classification of HFpEF phenotypes and GDMT through dedicated high-quality RCTs are major unmet needs in hypertension research and calls for action.

Case report: a patient with thyroid storm, refractory cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest treated with Lugol's iodine solution and veno-arterial extra corporal membrane oxygenation support.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid storm is a life-threatening condition. Refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest are rare complications of thyroid storm and the treatment options are limited. CASE SUMMARY: A 35-year- old woman treated for Grave's disease was admitted with thyrotoxicosis complicated by infection and neutropenia caused by thionamide treatment. After treatment including beta-blockers, steroids, and Lugol's iodine solution, she went into cardiac arrest. Echocardiography after resuscitation demonstrated severe biventricular heart failure. The patient was in refractory cardiogenic shock with recurrent cardiac arrest and mechanical circulatory support with a veno-arterial extra corporal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) circuit was established. After 2 days on V-A ECMO and supportive treatment with iodine solution, glucocorticosteroids, and levosimendan, her myocardial function recovered and thyroid hormone levels were normalized. Veno-arterial extra corporal membrane oxygenation was discontinued, and the patient was treated with early total thyroidectomy. The patient made a full recovery with no neurological/cognitive impairment, as assessed after 4 weeks. DISCUSSION: Adverse reactions to standard treatment of hyperthyroidism contributed to this patient's development of thyroid storm and the following refractory cardiogenic shock. When she was critically unstable, levosimendan improved myocardial function while inotropic support with dobutamine was ineffective, likely due to prolonged beta-antagonist administration. Temporary support with V-A ECMO, until effective lowering of thyroid hormone levels and improvement in myocardial function were obtained, was life-saving in this young patient and may be considered in refractory cardiogenic shock caused by thyroid storm.

Medical Therapies for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Current cardiovascular pharmacotherapy targets maladaptive overactivation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), which occurs throughout the continuum of cardiovascular disease spanning from hypertension to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Over the past 16 years, 4 prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials using candesartan, perindopril, irbesartan, and spironolactone in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) failed to demonstrate increased efficacy of RAAS blockade added to guideline-directed medical therapy. We reappraise these trials and their weaknesses, which precluded statistically significant findings. Recently, dual-acting RAAS blockade with sacubitril-valsartan relative to stand-alone valsartan failed to improve outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared with Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction). The majority of patients with HFpEF experience hypertension, frequently with subclinical left ventricular dysfunction, contributed to by comorbidities such as coronary disease, diabetes mellitus, overweight, and atrial fibrillation. Contrasting the findings in HFpEF, trials evaluating RAAS blockade on either side of HFpEF on the cardiovascular continuum in patients with high-risk hypertension and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, respectively, showed positive outcomes. We do not have a biologically plausible explanation for such divergent efficacy of RAAS blockade. Based on considerations of well-established clinical efficacy in hypertension and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and the shortcomings of aforementioned clinical trials in HFpEF, we argue that RAAS blockers including MRAs (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; aldosterone antagonists) should be used in the treatment of patients with HFpEF.

Impact of Renal Impairment on Beta-Blocker Efficacy in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Moderate and moderately severe renal impairment are common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but whether beta-blockers are effective is unclear, leading to underuse of life-saving therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate patient prognosis and the efficacy of beta-blockers according to renal function using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS: Analysis of 16,740 individual patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% from 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials was performed. The authors report all-cause mortality on an intention-to-treat basis, adjusted for baseline covariates and stratified by heart rhythm. RESULTS: Median eGFR at baseline was 63 (interquartile range: 50 to 77) ml/min/1.73 m2; 4,584 patients (27.4%) had eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 2,286 (13.7%) 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2. Over a median follow-up of 1.3 years, eGFR was independently associated with mortality, with a 12% higher risk of death for every 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 lower eGFR (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10% to 15%; p < 0.001). In 13,861 patients in sinus rhythm, beta-blockers reduced mortality versus placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.73 for eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86; p < 0.001) and 0.71 for eGFR 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.87; p = 0.001). The authors observed no deterioration in renal function over time in patients with moderate or moderately severe renal impairment, no difference in adverse events comparing beta-blockers with placebo, and higher mortality in patients with worsening renal function on follow-up. Due to exclusion criteria, there were insufficient patients with severe renal dysfunction (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2) to draw conclusions. In 2,879 patients with atrial fibrillation, there was no reduction in mortality with beta-blockers at any level of eGFR. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and sinus rhythm should receive beta-blocker therapy even with moderate or moderately severe renal dysfunction.

Left ventricular ejection fraction and adjudicated, cause-specific hospitalizations after myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after acute myocardial infarction (MI) increases risk of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations, but evidence regarding its association with non-CV outcome is scarce. We investigated the association between LVEF and adjudicated cause-specific hospitalizations following MI complicated with low LVEF or overt heart failure (HF). METHODS: In an individual patient data meta-analysis of 19,740 patients from 3 large randomized trials, Fine and Gray competing risk modeling was performed to study the association between LVEF and hospitalization types. RESULTS: The most common cause of hospitalization was non-CV (n = 2,368 for HF, n = 1,554 for MI, and n = 3,703 for non-CV). All types of hospitalizations significantly increased with decreasing LVEF. The absolute risk increase associated with LVEF ≪25% (vs LVEF ≫35%) was 15.5% (95% CI 13.4-17.5) for HF, 4.7% (95% CI 3.0-6.4) for MI, and 10.4% (95% CI 8.0-12.8) for non-CV hospitalization. On a relative scale, after adjusting for confounders, each 5-point decrease in LVEF was associated with an increased risk of HF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.18), MI (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10), and non-CV hospitalization (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-risk population with complicated acute MI, the absolute risk increase in non-CV hospitalizations associated with LVEF ≪25% was two thirds of the absolute risk increase in HF hospitalizations and twice the absolute risk increase in MI hospitalizations. LVEF was an independent predictor of all types of hospitalization and appears as an integrative marker of sicker patient status.

All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes With Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Heart Failure in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with heart failure (HF) are treated with warfarin or non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Randomized outcome-driven comparisons of different anticoagulant strategies in HF are lacking. Data from international, government-mandated registries may be useful in understanding the real-life use of various anticoagulants and how they are linked to outcomes. STUDY QUESTION: To assess 2015 annual all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke rates co-reported for warfarin and NOACs in subjects with and without HF in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. STUDY DESIGN: We extracted and examined outcome cases in subjects with HF and on warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban and stratified these according to anticoagulants. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: Annual all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke in FAERS. ANALYSIS METHOD: Odds ratio (OR) and χ(Equation is included in full-text article.)for oral anticoagulants from FAERS with and without HF among complete primary reports issued in 2015. RESULTS: FAERS reported 137,026 HF cases, with death co-reported in 42,942 (31.3%). In total, 11,278 (8.2%) HF patients were treated with anticoagulants, with more prescribed warfarin (n = 8260) than all NOACs combined (n = 3018). Very few reports for edoxaban were available. Warfarin consistently displayed a signal for excess adverse events compared to NOACs: OR (95% confidence interval) for the composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were 1.91 (1.76-2.07) versus apixaban, 1.92 (1.81-2.03) versus dabigatran, 4.09 (3.38-4.37) versus rivaroxaban, and 2.64 (2.53-2.76) versus all NOACs combined (all P < 0.001). Warfarin, compared to all NOACs combined, demonstrated higher rates of all-cause mortality [OR = 2.69 (95% confidence interval, 2.49-2.90)], myocardial infarction [5.30 (4.17-6.74)], stroke [OR = 8.85 (6.61-11.84)], and ischemic stroke [OR = 12.73 (8.87-18.27); all P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Annual 2015 FAERS profiles in HF patients reveal that warfarin was numerically dominant. Warfarin was associated with higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared to NOACs. These observational data provide real-world insight into a potential safety benefit of NOACs over warfarin in the setting of HF.

Potential mechanisms underlying the cardiovascular benefits of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors: a systematic review of data from preclinical studies.

There is growing evidence from Phase III randomized clinical trials of the cardiovascular benefits of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with diabetes mellitus. It is hypothesized that these benefits are mediated by mechanisms other than glucose control. To address this, we performed a systematic review of data from preclinical studies examining the direct cardioprotective effects of SGLT2 inhibitors. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases were searched for preclinical studies that examined the potential cardioprotective effects of SGLT2 inhibitors. Submission documents to the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency for the registration of SGLT2 inhibitors were also reviewed. A total of 36 reports were included in the final analysis. The potential direct cardiovascular benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors include: augmentation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3; inhibition of sodium hydrogen exchange; reduction of atherosclerosis; modulation of natriuretic peptides; vasodilation; modulation of sympathetic tone; and reduction of inflammation, oxidative stress, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and cardiac glucose uptake via down-regulation of SGLT1 expression. There are a number of mechanisms by which SGLT2 inhibitors may exert cardiovascular benefits beyond glycaemic control.

Relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction and mortality after myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors for specific modes of death in patients with heart failure (HF) or left ventricular (LV) dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction (MI) may help to avert events. We sought to evaluate LV ejection fraction (LVEF) as a prognosticator of specific death modes. METHODS AND RESULTS: In an individual patient data meta-analysis of four merged trials (CAPRICORN, EPHESUS, OPTIMAAL, and VALIANT), Cox modelling was performed to study the association between baseline LVEF from 19,740 patients and types of death during follow-up. Over a median follow-up of 707 days 3419 deaths occurred. The distribution pattern for mode of death was similar across categories (LVEF < 25%, LVEF 25-35%, and LVEF > 35%). In multivariable models, the risk of all types of death increased with decreasing LVEF. If compared to LVEF > 35%, LVEF < 25% was associated with a 113% increased risk of sudden death (hazard ratio (HR) 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53-2.98), a 170% increased risk of HF death (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.83-3.98), a 66% increased risk of other cardiovascular (CV) death (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.14-2.42), and a 90% increased risk of non CV death (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.15-3.14). CONCLUSION: In patients with HF or LV dysfunction after acute MI, low LVEF is a ubiquitous risk marker associated with death regardless of type. The different modes of death are fairly equally represented throughout the categories of LVEF and sudden death remains a significant mode of death also in patients with LVEF > 35%.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition provides superior cardioprotection compared to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition after experimental myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) enhances beneficial natriuretic peptides by inhibiting their breakdown through neprilysin. Although the first-in-class ARNi sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduced mortality and morbidity in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) compared to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), mechanistic data on ARNi are scarce. ARNi may be superior to ACEi in attenuating adverse cardiac remodeling and dysfunction post-myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: Rats randomized at 1 week post-MI were administered LCZ696 (60 mg/kg, N = 12), the ACEi perindopril (2 mg/kg, N = 11) or vehicle (corn oil, N = 13), orally for 4 weeks. Sham rats received vehicle (corn oil, N = 9). Echocardiography was assessed before and after treatment, prior to invasive hemodynamics using pressure-volume analysis. Hypertrophy and fibrosis was evaluated by histochemical staining, and analysis of myocardial gene and protein expression using real-time quantitative PCR and Western blot. RESULTS: Compared to Sham, MI groups had large infarcts (>40%) and reduced left ventricular (LV) EF. LCZ696 improved LVEF and end systolic pressure-volume relationship compared to perindopril (P < 0.05). LCZ696 but not perindopril reduced lung weight and LV filling pressures post-MI. Reductions in cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis were similar, however gene expression of hypertrophic markers, ANP and ßMHC were reduced with LCZ696 versus perindopril. LCZ696 versus perindopril reduced myocardial TIMP2 gene expression with a trend (P = 0.067) to lowering collagen I. CONCLUSION: LCZ696 attenuated adverse cardiac remodeling and dysfunction and reduced pulmonary congestion and hypertrophic markers after MI compared to perindopril. This study supports clinical evaluation of ARNi versus ACEi in targeting post-MI cardiac dysfunction and remodeling.

Beta-blockers for heart failure with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: an individual patient-level analysis of double-blind randomized trials.

Aims: Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods and results: Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 ≥ 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF ≥ 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF ≥50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis. Conclusion: Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.

Heart rate prediction of outcome in heart failure following myocardial infarction depend on heart rhythm status an analysis from the high-risk myocardial infarction database initiative.

BACKGROUND: Heart rate has been reported to be associated with adverse outcome in heart failure (HF) and myocardial infarction (MI), but conflicting evidence exists regarding its impact in patients with associated atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: We investigated the differential impact of heart rate on clinical outcomes according to the presence or absence of AF in patients with reduced systolic function and/or HF after MI. METHODS: We studied the association of heart rate with outcome using Cox-models in a merged dataset (n=28,771) of four randomized trials (CAPRICORN, EPHESUS, OPTIMAAL, and VALIANT). RESULTS: At baseline, 3736 (13%) patients had AF. We identified a significant interaction between AF and heart rate, and a decreasing effect of heart rate with time, heart rate being less associated with outcome after 1year of follow-up (both p for interaction <0.001). We report associations with outcome separately in patients with and without AF. In addition, as neutral associations with outcome after 1year were estimated after adjustment on confounding factors, only association for the first year follow-up were provided. 10-bpm increase in heart rate conferred increased risk for all-cause mortality (1.27 [1.21 to 1.33], p<0.0001), CV-mortality (1.28 [1.22 to 1.34], p<0.0001), and HF-hospitalisation (1.25 [1.19 to 1.31], p<0.0001) in patients without AF. In contrast, in patients with AF, the incremental risk for 10-bpm increase in heart rate was attenuated for all-cause (1.14 [1.06 to 1.23], p=0.0007), CV-mortality (1.12 [1.03 to 1.22], p=0.006), and HF-hospitalisation (1.16 [1.07 to 1.26], p=0.0006, p for interaction with AF <0.001 for all outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with reduced systolic function and/or HF post-MI, higher heart rate predicts increased major cardiovascular events during the first year following MI in patients without AF. This association is markedly attenuated in subjects with AF.

Neurohormonal Blockade in Heart Failure.

A key feature of chronic heart failure (HF) is the sustained activation of endogenous neurohormonal systems in response to impaired cardiac pumping and/or filling properties. The clinical use of neurohormonal blockers has revolutionised the care of HF patients over the past three decades. Drug therapy that is active against imbalance in both the autonomic and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone systems consistently reduces morbidity and mortality in chronic HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and in sinus rhythm. This article provides an assessment of the major neurohormonal systems and their therapeutic blockade in patients with chronic HF.

Heart Rate and Rhythm and the Benefit of Beta-Blockers in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between mortality and heart rate remains unclear for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in either sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: This analysis explored the prognostic importance of heart rate in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in randomized controlled trials comparing beta-blockers and placebo. METHODS: The Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group performed a meta-analysis of harmonized individual patient data from 11 double-blind randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, analyzed with Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR) modeling heart rate measured at baseline and approximately 6 months post-randomization. RESULTS: A higher heart rate at baseline was associated with greater all-cause mortality for patients in sinus rhythm (n = 14,166; adjusted HR: 1.11 per 10 beats/min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 1.15; p < 0.0001) but not in AF (n = 3,034; HR: 1.03 per 10 beats/min; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.08; p = 0.38). Beta-blockers reduced ventricular rate by 12 beats/min in both sinus rhythm and AF. Mortality was lower for patients in sinus rhythm randomized to beta-blockers (HR: 0.73 vs. placebo; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.79; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline heart rate (interaction p = 0.35). Beta-blockers had no effect on mortality in patients with AF (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.12; p = 0.58) at any heart rate (interaction p = 0.48). A lower achieved resting heart rate, irrespective of treatment, was associated with better prognosis only for patients in sinus rhythm (HR: 1.16 per 10 beats/min increase, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.22; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of pre-treatment heart rate, beta-blockers reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. Achieving a lower heart rate is associated with better prognosis, but only for those in sinus rhythm.

Effect of age and sex on efficacy and tolerability of ß blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: individual patient data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of ß blockers in a broad age range of women and men with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by pooling individual patient data from placebo controlled randomised trials. DESIGN: Prospectively designed meta-analysis of individual patient data from patients aged 40-85 in sinus rhythm at baseline, with left ventricular ejection fraction <0.45. PARTICIPANTS: 13,833 patients from 11 trials; median age 64; 24% women. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was all cause mortality; the major secondary outcome was admission to hospital for heart failure. Analysis was by intention to treat with an adjusted one stage Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, ß blockers were effective in reducing mortality across all ages: hazard ratios were 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.83) for the first quarter of age distribution (median age 50); 0.71 (0.58 to 0.87) for the second quarter (median age 60); 0.65 (0.53 to 0.78) for the third quarter (median age 68); and 0.77 (0.64 to 0.92) for the fourth quarter (median age 75). There was no significant interaction when age was modelled continuously (P=0.1), and the absolute reduction in mortality was 4.3% over a median follow-up of 1.3 years (number needed to treat 23). Admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly reduced by ß blockers, although this effect was attenuated at older ages (interaction P=0.05). There was no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and sex in any age group. Drug discontinuation was similar regardless of treatment allocation, age, or sex (14.4% in those give ß blockers, 15.6% in those receiving placebo). CONCLUSION: Irrespective of age or sex, patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm should receive ß blockers to reduce the risk of death and admission to hospital.Registration PROSPERO CRD42014010012; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00832442.

Comorbidities in Heart Failure: Are There Gender Differences?

Compared to men, women with heart failure (HF) are often older, smoke less, and have more preserved ejection fraction (EF) and hypertensive HF rather than HF of ischemic etiology. Gender-stratified outcomes on comorbidities data in HF are scarce. Women have traditionally been underrepresented in HF trials. Although data suggest that overall prognosis may be better in women, they experience lower quality of life with greater functional impairment from HF compared to men. Gender differences have been reported for comorbid diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal dysfunction, anemia, and depression and may explain gender disparity in outcomes. However, possible confounding of comorbidities with known prognostic determinants in HF (such as EF) as well as gender differences in the utilization of medical therapies obscures interpretation. In this review, we will explore the evidence for gender differences in non-cardiovascular comorbidities in HF. Our findings may guide clinicians to individualize HF care, according to best practice, in the hope of improving prognosis for this chronic and debilitating condition.