Sex differences in cardiac structure and function following acute myocardial infarction: Insights from the PARADISE-MI echocardiographic substudy.

AIMS: The incidence of heart failure hospitalization is higher in women than in men after myocardial infarction (MI). Sex-related differences in left ventricular (LV) remodelling may contribute to the differences in post-MI outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess sex differences in echocardiographic parameters post-MI, and whether the relationship between echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes differs by sex. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the PARADISE-MI trial, patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril within 0.5 to 7 days of high-risk MI. In the pre-specified echocardiographic substudy, 544 patients underwent echocardiography at the time of randomization and after 8 months. We compared key echocardiographic parameters in men and women and their association with primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or incident heart failure). At baseline, women had higher LV ejection fraction (LVEF), lower LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) index, LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) index, and LV mass index. After adjusting for baseline clinical differences, changes in these echocardiographic parameters from baseline to 8 months were not significantly different in women versus men. Lower LVEF, higher LVEDV, LVESV, left atrial volume index, and average E/e' were associated with a higher risk of the primary composite outcome. Sex did not modify the relationship between echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline differences in measures of cardiac function between men and women following acute high-risk MI, there were no significant sex-related changes in chamber size or LV function. Sex did not modify the association between echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcome.

Finerenone Improves Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction Irrespective of Age: A Prespecified Analysis of FINEARTS-HF.

Background: Finerenone improves outcomes in patients with HF and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrHF/HFpEF). It is important to understand the efficacy and safety of finerenone in these patients according to age. Methods: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the interaction between age and the efficacy and safety of finerenone in the FINEARTS-HF trial (Finerenone trial to investigate efficacy and safety compared to placebo in patients with heart failure). A total of 6,001 patients aged 40-97 years were stratified by quartile (Q 1-4) of baseline age: Q1 40-66 years (n=1,581), Q2 67-73 years (n=1,587), Q 3 74-79 years (n=1,421), and Q4 ≧ 80 years (n=1,412). FINEARTS-HF evaluated the impact of age on the efficacy of finerenone with respect to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death and total (first and recurrent) HF events, including HF hospitalization or urgent HF event, along with secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: The incidence of primary outcome increased with age. Finerenone reduced the risk of the primary outcome consistently across all age categories: RR (95% CI) Q1 0.70 (0.53- 0.92), Q2 0.83 (0.64-1.07), Q3 0.98 (0.76-1.26), and Q4 0.85 (0.67-1.07); p for interaction =0.27. Similarly, a consistent effect was observed for the components of the primary outcome. The mean increase in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-total symptom score from baseline to 12 months was greater with finerenone than placebo, with a consistent effect across all age categories: mean placebo-corrected change (95% CI) Q1 2.87 (1.09-4.66), Q2 1.24 (-0.59-3.07), Q3 0.94 (-0.98-2.86), and Q4 1.24 (-0.90-3.38); P-interaction=0.50. Adverse events were similar across all age categories. The odds of experiencing hypotension, elevated creatinine, or hyperkalemia (increased) or hypokalemia (decreased) related to finerenone did not differ by age. Conclusions: In the FINEARTS-HF trial, finerenone reduced the primary outcome and components of the primary outcome, and improved symptoms across a wide age spectrum. In addition, finerenone was safe and well-tolerated, irrespective of age. Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifiers: NCT04435626 and EudraCT 2020-000306-29.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in heart failure: an individual patient level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) reduce hospitalisations and death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the benefit in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unclear. We evaluated the effect of MRAs in four trials that enrolled patients with heart failure across the range of ejection fraction. METHODS: This is a prespecified, individual patient level meta-analysis of the RALES (spironolactone) and EMPHASIS-HF (eplerenone) trials, which enrolled patients with HFrEF, and of the TOPCAT (spironolactone) and FINEARTS-HF (finerenone) trials, which enrolled patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was a composite of time to first hospitalisation for heart failure or cardiovascular death. We also estimated the effect of MRAs on components of this composite, total (first or repeat) heart failure hospitalisations (with and without cardiovascular deaths), and all-cause death. Safety outcomes were also assessed, including serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum potassium, and systolic blood pressure. An interaction between trials and treatment was tested to examine the heterogeneity of effect in these populations. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024541487. FINDINGS: 13 846 patients were included in the four trials. MRAs reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation (hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·72-0·83]). There was a statistically significant interaction by trials and treatment (p for interaction=0·0012) due to the greater efficacy in HFrEF (0·66 [0·59-0·73]) compared with HFmrEF or HFpEF (0·87 [0·79-0·95]). We observed significant reductions in heart failure hospitalisation in the HFrEF trials (0·63 [0·55-0·72]) and the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·82 [0·74-0·91]). The same pattern was observed for total heart failure hospitalisations with or without cardiovascular death. Cardiovascular death was reduced in the HFrEF trials (0·72 [0·63-0·82]) but not in the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·92 [0·80-1·05]). All-cause death was also reduced in the HFrEF trials (0·73 [0·65-0·83]) but not in the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·94 [0·85-1·03]). With an MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia was doubled compared with placebo (odds ratio 2·27 [95% CI 2·02-2·56]), but the incidence of serious hyperkalaemia (serum potassium >6·0 mmol/L) was low (2·9% vs 1·4%); the risk of hypokalaemia (potassium <3·5 mmol/L) was halved (0·51 [0·45-0·57]; 7% vs 14%). INTERPRETATION: Steroidal MRAs reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation in patients with HFrEF and non-steroidal MRAs reduce this risk in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. FUNDING: None.

Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension.

Effects of the Non-Steroidal MRA Finerenone with and without Concomitant SGLT2 Inhibitor Use in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction face heightened long-term risks of morbidity and mortality. The sodium glucose-co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone have both been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in this population, but the effects of their combined use are not known. METHODS: FINEARTS-HF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of finerenone in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40%. Baseline SGLT2i use was a prespecified subgroup. The primary outcome was a composite of total (first and recurrent) worsening HF events and cardiovascular death. We first assessed for evidence of treatment heterogeneity based on baseline SGLT2i use. We further examined SGLT2i uptake during the trial and evaluated the treatment effects of finerenone accounting for baseline and during trial use of SGLT2i in time-varying analyses. RESULTS: Among 6,001 participants, 817 (13.6%) were treated with an SGLT2i at baseline. During 2.6-years median follow-up, treatment with finerenone similarly reduced the risk of the primary outcome in participants treated with an SGLT2i (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.16) and without an SGLT2i at baseline (rate ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.98); Pinteraction=0.76. In follow-up, 980 participants initiated SGLT2i, which was less frequent in the finerenone arm compared with placebo (17.7% vs. 20.1%; hazard ratio 0.86; confidence interval 0.76 to 0.97). Time-updated analyses accounting for baseline and subsequent use of SGLT2i did not meaningfully alter the treatment effects of finerenone on the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment benefits of the non-steroidal MRA finerenone were observed irrespective of concomitant use of an SGLT2i. These data suggest that the combined use of SGLT2i and a non-steroidal MRA may provide additive protection against cardiovascular events in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

In-hospital course of patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction in the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) may face residual risks of clinical events that are comparable to those experienced by patients with HF whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has consistently been above 40%. However, little is known about the clinical course of patients with HFimpEF during hospitalization for HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: DELIVER randomized patients with HF and LVEF >40% to dapagliflozin or placebo, including HFimpEF (LVEF previously ≤40%). We evaluated all HF hospitalizations adjudicated by the clinical endpoints committee with available data for determination of in-hospital course. Complicated hospitalization was defined as any hospitalization requiring intensive care unit stay, intravenous vasopressors/inotropes/vasodilators, invasive or non-invasive ventilation, mechanical fluid removal, ultrafiltration, or mechanical circulatory support. LVEF changes were extracted using a validated GPT-3.5, a large language model, via a secure private endpoint. Of the 6263 patients enrolled in DELIVER, 1151 (18%) had HFimpEF. During a median follow-up of 2.3 years, there were 224 total HF hospitalizations in 144 patients with HFimpEF and 985 in 603 patients with LVEF consistently >40%. Patients with HFimpEF experienced higher rates of complicated HF hospitalization as compared with patients with LVEF consistently >40% (39% vs. 27%; p < 0.001). Among those who experienced a first HF hospitalization, there was no significant difference in length of stay or in-hospital mortality between patients with HFimpEF versus LVEF consistently >40%. In a subset of participants who had at least one LVEF measurement available during HF hospitalization, 66% of those with HFimpEF and 29% of patients with LVEF consistently >40% experienced a reduction in their LVEF to ≤40% from the time of enrolment (p < 0.001). In the entire DELIVER cohort, dapagliflozin reduced total uncomplicated and complicated HF hospitalizations, irrespective of HFimpEF status (pinteraction ≥0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for HF in DELIVER, those with HFimpEF experienced a more adverse in-hospital clinical course, necessitating higher resource utilization beyond standard diuretic therapy compared with patients with HF and LVEF consistently >40%, but had similar in-hospital mortality. Treatment benefits of dapagliflozin were not modified by hospitalization type.

Estimated Long-Term Benefits of Finerenone in Heart Failure: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the FINEARTS-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: People living with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction have substantially curtailed life expectancy free from clinical events compared with their peers of comparable age. The nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, finerenone, was recently shown to reduce risks of cardiovascular events in this population over a median follow-up of 2.6 years; as patients with HF typically continue treatment beyond this time frame, estimating the potential long-term benefits of finerenone could inform shared clinical decision-making. Objective: To estimate the projected long-term treatment effects of finerenone in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction if treated over a patient's lifetime. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified analyses were conducted of the FINEARTS-HF trial, a phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted across 653 sites in 37 countries. Adults 40 years and older with symptomatic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater were randomized from September 2020 to January 2023. Median (IQR) follow-up was 2.6 (1.9-3.0) years. Interventions: Finerenone (titrated to either 20 mg or 40 mg) or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary composite outcome was time to cardiovascular death or worsening HF event. The long-term gains in survival free from a primary end point with finerenone were iteratively estimated with age-based Kaplan-Meier curves using age at randomization rather than time from randomization. Differences in areas under the survival curves between the finerenone and placebo arms represented event-free survival gains. Results: Among 6001 participants (median [IQR] age, 73 [66-79] years; 3269 male [54.5%]), mean survival free from the primary end point for a 55-year-old participant was 13.6 years (95% CI, 11.9-15.2 years) with finerenone and 10.5 years (95% CI, 6.8-11.3 years) with placebo, representing a gain in event-free survival of 3.1 years (95% CI, 0.8-5.4 years; P = .007). Mean event-free survival for a 65-year-old participant was 11.0 years (95% CI, 10.1-11.9 years) with finerenone and 8.9 years (95% CI, 8.1-9.8 years) with placebo, representing a gain of 2.0 years (95% CI, 0.8-3.3 years; P = .001). Projected mean event-free survival was numerically greater with finerenone than with placebo for every starting age between 50 to 80 years. Lifetime gains in event-free survival were observed even among individuals already treated with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (65-year-old participant: 3.1 years; 95% CI, 0.1-6.0 years; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prespecified secondary analysis of the FINEARTS-HF randomized clinical trial, long-term treatment with finerenone was estimated to extend event-free survival by up to 3 years among people with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04435626.

Why Have We Not Been Able to Demonstrate Reduced Mortality in Patients With HFmrEF/HFpEF?

No randomized controlled trial has yet demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in mortality in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection (HFmrEF) or heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in contrast to the benefits observed in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, this probably reflects the statistical power of trials to date to show an effect on mortality rather than mechanistic differences between HFmEF/HFpEF and HFrEF or differences in treatment efficacy. Compared to patients with HFrEF, those with HFmrEF/HFpEF have lower mortality rates and a smaller proportion of potentially modifiable cardiovascular deaths (as opposed to unmodifiable noncardiovascular deaths). In addition, some causes of cardiovascular deaths may not be reduced by treatments for HF. Therefore, the low rate of potentially modifiable deaths in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, compared with HFrEF, has made it challenging to demonstrate a reduction in death (or cardiovascular death) in trials to date.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces incident anaemia and iron therapy utilization in heart failure: The PARAGON-HF trial.

AIMS: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to lower haemoglobin levels, potentially related to reductions in erythropoietin levels and haematopoiesis. We examined whether sacubitril/valsartan might attenuate this effect of RASi alone on incident anaemia in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: PARAGON-HF was a global, multicentre randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus the RASi valsartan in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%. We evaluated haemoglobin trajectory and risks of incident anaemia and new iron therapy initiation during follow-up. Among 4795 participants, 1111 (23.2%) had anaemia at randomization and 5.6% were treated with iron at baseline. Over a median follow-up of 2.9 years, patients with anaemia were at significantly higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, compared with those without anaemia (21.6 vs. 11.5 per 100 patient-years; adjusted rate ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.54; p = 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan slightly slowed the decline in haemoglobin levels by 0.1 g/dl (95% CI 0.0-0.2 g/dl; p = 0.005). Participants treated with sacubitril/valsartan were at significantly lower risk of developing anaemia (30.3% vs. 37.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.85; p < 0.001) and starting iron therapy (8.1% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67-0.97; p = 0.026). Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were consistent among patients across the haemoglobin spectrum (pinteraction = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in modestly smaller declines in haemoglobin, lower rates of incident anaemia, and fewer new initiations of iron therapy compared with RASi. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01920711.

Finerenone in Heart Failure and Chronic Kidney Disease with Type 2 Diabetes: the FINE-HEART pooled analysis of cardiovascular, kidney, and mortality outcomes.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome is an emerging entity that connects cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes. The non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, finerenone, has been studied in three prospective randomized clinical trials of patients with cardio-kidney-metabolic syndrome: FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FINEARTS-HF. In light of the strong epidemiological overlap and shared mechanistic drivers of clinical outcomes across cardio-kidney-metabolic syndrome, we summarize the efficacy and safety of finerenone on cardiovascular, kidney, and mortality outcomes in this prespecified participant-level pooled analysis. The three trials included 18,991 participants (mean age 67 ± 10 years; 35% women). During 2.9 years median follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death occurred in 421 (4.4%) assigned to finerenone and 471 (5.0%) assigned to placebo (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78-1.01; P = 0.076). Death from any cause occurred in 1,042 (11.0%) participants in the finerenone arm and 1,136 (12.0%) in the placebo arm (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84-0.99; P = 0.027). Finerenone further reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.75-0.92; P < 0.001) and the composite kidney outcome (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.90; P < 0.001). While this pooled analysis failed to demonstrate significant reductions in cardiovascular death, finerenone was associated with significantly lower deaths of any cause, cardiovascular events, and kidney outcomes. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42024570467.

Finerenone in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists reduce morbidity and mortality among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but their efficacy in those with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction has not been established. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction are needed. METHODS: In this international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive finerenone (at a maximum dose of 20 mg or 40 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of total worsening heart failure events (with an event defined as a first or recurrent unplanned hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) and death from cardiovascular causes. The components of the primary outcome and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 32 months, 1083 primary-outcome events occurred in 624 of 3003 patients in the finerenone group, and 1283 primary-outcome events occurred in 719 of 2998 patients in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.95; P = 0.007). The total number of worsening heart failure events was 842 in the finerenone group and 1024 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P = 0.006). The percentage of patients who died from cardiovascular causes was 8.1% and 8.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11). Finerenone was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia and a reduced risk of hypokalemia. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, finerenone resulted in a significantly lower rate of a composite of total worsening heart failure events and death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Bayer; FINEARTS-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04435626.).

Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril in Chronic Chagas Cardiomyopathy: Rationale and Design of the PARACHUTE-HF Trial.

Chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy (CCC) has unique pathogenic and clinical features with worse prognosis than other causes of heart failure (HF), despite the fact that patients with CCC are often younger and have fewer comorbidities. Patients with CCC were not adequately represented in any of the landmark HF studies that support current treatment guidelines. PARACHUTE-HF (Prevention And Reduction of Adverse outcomes in Chagasic Heart failUre Trial Evaluation) is an active-controlled, randomized, phase IV trial designed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily vs enalapril 10 mg twice daily added to standard of care treatment for HF. The study aims to enroll approximately 900 patients with CCC and reduced ejection fraction at around 100 sites in Latin America. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of time from randomization to cardiovascular death, first HF hospitalization, or relative change from baseline to week 12 in NT-proBNP levels. PARACHUTE-HF will provide new data on the treatment of this high-risk population. (Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Enalapril on Morbidity, Mortality, and NT-proBNP Change in Patients With CCC [PARACHUTE-HF]; NCT04023227).

Rates of Sudden Death After Myocardial Infarction-Insights From the VALIANT and PARADISE-MI Trials.

Importance: Sudden death is a leading cause of death after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The Prospective ARNi vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI (PARADISE-MI) and Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction (VALIANT) trials enrolled patients with pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular dysfunction after AMI. Whether the prognosis in such patients has changed over time has not been examined. Objective: To compare the rate of sudden death/resuscitated cardiac arrest (RCA) after AMI in the PARADISE-MI and VALIANT trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of multicenter randomized clinical trials enrolling patients after AMI. In the primary analysis, the VALIANT cohort was restricted to patients with "PARADISE-MI-like" characteristics (eg, at least 1 augmenting risk factor and no history of heart failure). The baseline characteristics of people in both trials were compared. The VALIANT trial enrolled from December 1998 to June 2001, and the PARADISE-MI trial enrolled between December 2016, and March 2020. The median follow-up in the VALIANT and PARADISE-MI trials was 24.7 and 22 months, respectively. People with AMI, complicated by pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular dysfunction, were included in the analysis. Exposure: Sudden death after AMI. Results: A total of 5661 patients were included in the PARADISE-MI cohort (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [11.5] years; 4298 male [75.9%]), 9617 were included in the VALIANT (PARADISE-MI-like) cohort (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.5] years; 6504 male [67.6%]), and 14 703 patients were included in the VALIANT (total) cohort (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [11.8] years; 10 133 male [68.9%]). In the PARADISE-MI-like cohort of the VALIANT trial, 707 of 9617 participants (7.4%) experienced sudden death/RCA. A total of 148 of 5661 people (2.6%) in the PARADISE-MI trial experienced sudden death/RCA. Sudden death rates were highest in the first month after infarction in both trials: 19.3 (95% CI, 16.4-22.6) per 100 person-years in the VALIANT trial and 9.5 (95% CI, 7.0-12.7) per 100 person-years in the PARADISE-MI trial, and these rates declined steadily thereafter. Compared with the VALIANT cohort, people in the PARADISE-MI trial were more often treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for their qualifying AMI and received a ß-blocker, statin, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist more frequently. Conclusions and Relevance: After AMI, the risk of sudden death/RCA was highest in the first month, declining rapidly thereafter. Results revealed that compared with counterparts from 20 years ago, the rate of sudden death/RCA in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and/or pulmonary congestion was 2- to 3-fold lower in people receiving contemporary management. Interventions to further protect people in the highest risk first month after infarction are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02924727.

Anthropometric measures and long-term mortality in non-ischaemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Questioning the obesity paradox.

AIMS: Although body mass index (BMI) is the most commonly used anthropometric measure to assess adiposity, alternative indices such as the waist-to-height ratio may better reflect the location and amount of ectopic fat as well as the weight of the skeleton. METHODS AND RESULTS: The prognostic value of several alternative anthropometric measures was compared with that of BMI in 1116 patients with non-ischaemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) enrolled in DANISH. The association between anthropometric measures and all-cause death was adjusted for prognostic variables, including natriuretic peptides. Median follow-up was 9.5 years (25th-75th percentile, 7.9-10.9). Compared to patients with a BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 (n = 363), those with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 had a higher risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death, although this association was only statistically significant for a BMI ≥35 kg/m2 (n = 91) (all-cause death: hazard ratio [HR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.48; cardiovascular death: HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.69-3.58). Compared to a BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2, a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (n = 24) was associated with a numerically, but not a significantly, higher risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death. Greater waist-to-height ratio (as an exemplar of indices not incorporating weight) was also associated with a higher risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death (HR for the highest vs. the lowest quintile: all-cause death: HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.53-2.92; cardiovascular death: HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.49-3.15). CONCLUSION: In patients with non-ischaemic HFrEF, there was a clear association between greater adiposity and higher long-term mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00542945.

The Effect of Dapagliflozin on Accelerometer-Based Measures of Physical Activity in Patients with Heart Failure: An Analysis of the DETERMINE Trials.

Background: Wearable accelerometers can quantify the frequency and intensity of physical activity during everyday life and may provide complementary data to established functional outcome measures on the effect of heart failure therapies on functional limitations. Methods: In a voluntary substudy of the DETERMINE (Dapagliflozin EffecT on ExeRcise capacity using a 6-MINutE walk test in patients with HF) trials, patients wore a waist-worn tri-axial accelerometer for as long as possible (ideally for 24 hours/day for 7 days) at 3 points during the trial; between the screening visit and randomization (baseline data), and during weeks 8 and 14-16. Accelerometer outcomes included the change from baseline to week 16 in the total number of steps, time spent in light-to-vigorous physical activity (LVPA), time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), movement intensity during walking, number of vector magnitude units (VMUs)' and total activity counts. Results: Adequate baseline and week 16 accelerometer data were available for 211 of 817 (26%) randomized patients (defined as ≥10 hours of wear-time for ≥3 days). Dapagliflozin had a favorable effect on the mean change from baseline at 16 weeks in the number of steps (between-group difference 778 [95%CI 240, 1315]), time spent in MVPA (0.16 hours [95%CI 0.03, 0.29]) and in the mean VMUs (25 counts per minute [95%CI 0.1, 49]). There were no between-group differences in the other accelerometer outcomes of interest. Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis of the DETERMINE trials, dapagliflozin had a beneficial effect on selected accelerometer-based measures of physical activity in patients with HF across the entire left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum, yet did not improve 6MWD, as previously reported. These data suggest that accelerometer-based measurements of everyday activity may provide complementary information to 6MWD and identify beneficial effects of treatment not detected by 6MWD. Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT03877237 and NCT03877224.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 80 years and over with heart failure: Need for better treatment.

AIMS: Although the prevalence of heart failure (HF) increases markedly with advancing age, surprisingly little is known about HF in the very elderly. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of octogenarians with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual participant meta-analysis of patients with HF and reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively) enrolled in eight large randomized trials. Overall, the proportion of octogenarians was 1518 of 20 168 patients (7.5%) with HFrEF, 610 of 4609 (13.2%) with HFmrEF, and 3130 of 15 354 (20.4%) with HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, octogenarian patients were more often female and had more comorbidities, more symptoms and signs of congestion, and worse health status (but not quality of life), in comparison to patients aged <80 years. The incidence (per 100 person-years) of the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization was 13.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.7-14.0) in octogenarians versus 9.5 (95% CI 9.3-9.7) in non-octogenarians (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.32-1.48). Each component of the composite was more frequent in octogenarians with rates of cardiovascular mortality of 7.0 (95% CI 6.5-7.4) per 100 person-years versus 4.9 (95% CI 4.8-5.1) in non-octogenarians (aHR 1.60, 95% CI 1.48-1.72, p < 0.001). Octogenarians received less evidence-based therapy, especially mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, than younger patients. CONCLUSION: Despite worse health status and higher hospitalization and mortality rates, octogenarians were undertreated compared to younger patients.

Beta-blocker use and outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Among the 16 951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12 812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on All-Cause Hospitalizations in Heart Failure: Post Hoc Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Sacubitril/valsartan is indicated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with chronic HF. However, many of these patients are older and have multiple comorbidities that increase the risk of hospitalization for causes other than HF. Objective: To assess the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on hospitalizations of any cause across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc, participant-level, pooled analysis of the PARADIGM-HF (in patients with an LVEF ≤40%) and PARAGON-HF (in patients with an LVEF ≥45%) randomized clinical trials was conducted from February 5, 2024, to April 5, 2024. Participants with chronic HF, New York Heart Association classes II through IV symptoms, and elevated natriuretic peptides were randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan or a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi)-enalapril in the PARADIGM-HF trial or valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial. Intervention: Sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi (enalapril or valsartan). Main Outcomes and Measures: The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on time to first investigator-reported all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations were examined using Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by geographic region and trial. Effect modification by LVEF as a continuous function was examined. Results: Among 13 194 participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, mean (SD) patient age was 67 (11) years, 8883 patients (67.3%) were male, and mean (SD) LVEF was 40% (15%). Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of all-cause hospitalization (ACH) compared with RASi over a median (IQR) follow-up period of 2.5 (1.8-3.1) years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97; P = .002). The incidence rate of first ACH was 25 (95% CI, 24-26) per 100 patient-years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm and 27 (95% CI, 26-28) per 100 patient-years in the RASi arm. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 2.1 per 100 patient-years, corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 48 patient-years of treatment exposure to prevent 1 ACH. Reductions in overall hospitalizations seemed primarily driven by lower rates of cardiac and pulmonary hospitalizations with sacubitril/valsartan. Patients in the 2 treatment arms had similar rates of composite noncardiac hospitalizations. Treatment heterogeneity on ACH by LVEF was observed (P for interaction = .03), with benefits most apparent in patients with an LVEF less than 60% (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96), but not in patients with an LVEF of 60% or more (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.09). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc pooled analysis of 13 194 patients with chronic HF in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF randomized clinical trials, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced hospitalization for any reason, with benefits most apparent in patients with an LVEF below normal. This reduction appeared to be principally driven by lower rates of cardiac and pulmonary hospitalizations. Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF) and NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF).