Heart failure in Europe: Guideline-directed medical therapy use and decision making in chronic and acute, pre-existing and de novo, heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction - the ESC EORP Heart Failure III Registry.

AIMS: We analysed baseline characteristics and guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) use and decisions in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Heart Failure (HF) III Registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 1 November 2018 and 31 December 2020, 10 162 patients with acute HF (AHF, 39%, age 70 [62-79], 36% women) or outpatient visit for HF (61%, age 66 [58-75], 33% women), with HF with reduced (HFrEF, 57%), mildly reduced (HFmrEF, 17%) or preserved (HFpEF, 26%) ejection fraction were enrolled from 220 centres in 41 European or ESC-affiliated countries. With AHF, 97% were hospitalized, 2.2% received intravenous treatment in the emergency department, and 0.9% received intravenous treatment in an outpatient clinic. AHF was seen by most by a general cardiologist (51%) and outpatient HF most by a HF specialist (48%). A majority had been hospitalized for HF before, but 26% of AHF and 6.1% of outpatient HF had de novo HF. Baseline use, initiation and discontinuation of GDMT varied according to AHF versus outpatient HF, de novo versus pre-existing HF, and by ejection fraction. After the AHF event or outpatient HF visit, use of any renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and loop diuretics was 89%, 29%, 92%, 78%, and 85% in HFrEF; 89%, 9.7%, 90%, 64%, and 81% in HFmrEF; and 77%, 3.1%, 80%, 48%, and 80% in HFpEF. CONCLUSION: Use and initiation of GDMT was high in cardiology centres in Europe, compared to previous reports from cohorts and registries including more primary care and general medicine and regions more local or outside of Europe and ESC-affiliated countries.

The Economic Burden of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases remain the primary cause of mortality in Italy. Individuals with a history of acute coronary syndrome, peripheral arterial disease, and ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack face an elevated risk of recurrent major adverse cardiovascular events, including mortality. The population aging, coupled with increasing risk factors such as diabetes mellitus and obesity, exacerbates the disease's economic impact. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to comprehensively assess the economic burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases in Italy, specifically focusing on direct healthcare costs. METHODS: We analyzed real-world data from administrative databases in the Marche region and Local Health Unit Umbria 2. The economic burden of patients discharged with acute coronary syndrome, peripheral arterial disease, and ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack was evaluated, with a focus on direct costs associated with hospitalizations, drugs, and outpatient visits. Results were stratified by age, sex, comorbidities at baseline, and adherence to lipid-lowering therapy and antihypertensive agents. RESULTS: Annually, nearly 350,000 patients were hospitalized for peripheral arterial disease, acute coronary syndrome, or ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack. Direct health costs averaged €7190 per patient over a 2-year follow-up, with hospitalizations accounting for nearly 70% of the total. Male patients incurred significantly higher costs (€7467) than female patients (€6625). Costs correlated positively with age and with the number of baseline comorbidities, with a range from €5259 (0-1 comorbidities) to €17,095 (4+ comorbidities). Costs were significantly lower in adherent subjects (€6813) compared with non-adherent subjects (€7757). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable insights into the economic implications of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases in Italy, emphasizing the necessity of a comprehensive approach to preventive measures, optimal medication adherence, and lifestyle modifications to mitigate its impact.

Hospitalization of Symptomatic Patients With Heart Failure and Moderate to Severe Functional Mitral Regurgitation Treated With MitraClip: Insights From RESHAPE-HF2.

BACKGROUND: For patients with functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) and symptomatic heart failure (HF), randomized trials of mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) have produced conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the impact of M-TEER on hospitalization rates, and explore the effects of M-TEER on patients who did or did not have a history of recent HF hospitalizations before undergoing M-TEER. METHODS: RESHAPE-HF2 (Randomized Investigation of the MitraClip Device in Heart Failure: 2nd Trial in Patients with Clinically Significant Functional Mitral Regurgitation) included patients with symptomatic HF and moderate to severe FMR (mean effective regurgitant orifice area 0.25 cm2; 14% >0.40 cm2, 23% <0.20 cm2) and showed that M-TEER reduced recurrent HF hospitalizations with and without the addition of cardiovascular (CV) death and improved quality of life. We now report the results of prespecified analyses on hospitalization rates and for the subgroup of patients (n = 333) with a HF hospitalization in the 12 months before randomization. RESULTS: At 24 months, the time to first event of CV death or HF hospitalization (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.49-0.85; P = 0.002), the rate of recurrent CV hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.99; P = 0.046), the composite rate of recurrent CV hospitalizations and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57-0.95; P = 0.017), and of recurrent CV death and CV hospitalizations (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.58-0.99; P = 0.040), were all lower in the M-TEER group. The RR of recurrent hospitalizations for any cause was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.63-1.07; P = 0.15) for patients in the M-TEER group vs control group patients. Patients randomized to M-TEER lost fewer days due to death or HF hospitalization (13.9% [95% CI: 13.0%-14.8%] vs 17.4% [95% CI: 16.4%-18.4%] of follow-up time; P < 0.0001, and 1,067 vs 1,776 total days lost; P < 0.0001). Patients randomized to M-TEER also had better NYHA functional class at 30 days and at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up (P < 0.0001). A history of HF hospitalizations before randomization was associated with worse outcomes and greater benefit with M-TEER on the rate of the composite of recurrent HF hospitalizations and CV death (Pinteraction = 0.03) and of recurrent HF hospitalizations within 24 months (Pinteraction = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that a broader application of M-TEER in addition to optimal guideline-directed medical therapy should be considered among patients with symptomatic HF and moderate to severe FMR, particularly in those with a history of a recent hospitalization for HF.

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.

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.

A randomized comparison of the treatment sequence of percutaneous coronary intervention and transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Rationale and design of the TAVI PCI trial.

BACKGROUND: About half of patients with severe aortic stenosis present with concomitant coronary artery disease. The optimal timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The TAVI PCI trial is a prospective, international, multicenter, randomized, 2-arm, open-label study planning to enroll a total of 986 patients. It is designed to investigate whether the strategy "angiography-guided complete revascularization after (within 1-45 days) TAVI" is noninferior to the strategy "angiography-guided complete revascularization before (within 1-45 days) TAVI" using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 or 3 Ultra Transcatheter Heart Valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the 2 treatment strategies. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, rehospitalization (valve- or procedure-related including heart failure), or life-threatening/disabling or major bleeding at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The TAVI PCI trial tests the hypothesis that the strategy "PCI after TAVI" is noninferior to the strategy "PCI before TAVI" in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease.

Sex-related differences in severe native valvular heart disease: the ESC-EORP Valvular Heart Disease II survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess sex differences in disease characteristics and treatment of patients with severe native valvular heart disease (VHD) included in the VHD II EURObservational Research Programme. METHODS: A total of 5219 patients were enrolled in 208 European and North African centres and followed for 6 months [41.2% aortic stenosis (AS), 5.3% aortic regurgitation (AR), 4.5% mitral stenosis (MS), 21.3% mitral regurgitation (MR), 2.7% isolated right-sided VHD, 24.9% multiple left-sided VHD]. Indications for intervention were considered concordant if corresponding to class I recommendations specified in the 2012 ESC or 2014 AHA/ACC VHD guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, women were older, more symptomatic, and presented with a higher EuroSCORE II. Bicuspid aortic valve and AR were more prevalent among men while mitral disease, concomitant tricuspid regurgitation (TR), and AS above age 65 were more prevalent among women. On multivariable regression analysis, concordance with recommended treatment was significantly poorer in women with MS and primary MR (both P < .001). Age, patient refusal, and decline of symptoms after conservative treatment were reported significantly more often as reasons to withhold the intervention in females. Concomitant tricuspid intervention was performed at a similar rate in both sexes although prevalence of significant TR was significantly higher in women. In-hospital and 6-month survival did not differ between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Valvular heart disease subtype varied between sexes; (ii) concordance with recommended intervention for MS and primary MR was significantly lower for women; and (iii) survival of men and women was similar at 6 months.

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.

Transcatheter Valve Repair in Heart Failure with Moderate to Severe Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Whether transcatheter mitral-valve repair improves outcomes in patients with heart failure and functional mitral regurgitation is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial involving patients with heart failure and moderate to severe functional mitral regurgitation from 30 sites in nine countries. The patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either transcatheter mitral-valve repair and guideline-recommended medical therapy (device group) or medical therapy alone (control group). The three primary end points were the rate of the composite of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death during 24 months; the rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure during 24 months; and the change from baseline to 12 months in the score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary (KCCQ-OS; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). RESULTS: A total of 505 patients underwent randomization: 250 were assigned to the device group and 255 to the control group. At 24 months, the rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death was 37.0 events per 100 patient-years in the device group and 58.9 events per 100 patient-years in the control group (rate ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.85; P = 0.002). The rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure was 26.9 events per 100 patient-years in the device group and 46.6 events per 100 patient-years in the control group (rate ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.82; P = 0.002). The KCCQ-OS score increased by a mean (±SD) of 21.6±26.9 points in the device group and 8.0±24.5 points in the control group (mean difference, 10.9 points; 95% CI, 6.8 to 15.0; P<0.001). Device-specific safety events occurred in 4 patients (1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure with moderate to severe functional mitral regurgitation who received medical therapy, the addition of transcatheter mitral-valve repair led to a lower rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death and a lower rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure at 24 months and better health status at 12 months than medical therapy alone. (Funded by Abbott Laboratories; RESHAPE-HF2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02444338.).

Frailty, multimorbidity and polypharmacy: exploratory analyses of the effects of empagliflozin from the EMPA-KIDNEY trial.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are recommended treatment for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but uncertainty exists regarding their use in patients with frailty and/or multimorbidity, among whom polypharmacy is common. We derived a multivariable logistic regression model to predict hospitalization (reflecting frailty) and assessed empagliflozin's risk-benefit profile in a post-hoc analysis of the double-blind, placebo-controlled EMPA-KIDNEY trial. METHODS: The EMPA-KIDNEY trial randomized 6609 patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥20<45 mL/min/1.73m2, or ≥45<90 mL/min/1.73m2 with urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥200 mg/g) to receive either empagliflozin 10 mg daily or matching placebo and followed for two years (median). Additional characteristics analysed in subgroups were multimorbidity, polypharmacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at baseline. Cox regression analyses were performed with subgroups defined by approximate thirds of each variable. RESULTS: The strongest predictors of hospitalization were N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, poor mobility and diabetes; then eGFR and other comorbidities. Empagliflozin was generally well-tolerated independent of predicted risk of hospitalization. In relative terms, allocation to empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome of kidney disease progression or cardiovascular death by 28% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.82); and all-cause hospitalization by 14% (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95); with broadly consistent effects across subgroups of predicted risk of hospitalization, multimorbidity, polypharmacy or HRQoL. In absolute terms, the estimated benefits of empagliflozin were greater in those at highest predicted risk of hospitalization (reflecting frailty) and outweighed potential serious harms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD, irrespective of frailty, multimorbidity or polypharmacy.

Chronic Kidney Disease Eligible for SGLT2 Inhibitors Through the Integration of Italian Administrative and Primary Care Data.

Background. Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) can be successfully treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-Is), regardless of diabetes. Fondazione Ricerca e Salute's (ReSD) administrative and Health Search's (HSD) primary care databases were combined in the Database Consortium ReS-HS to quantify and describe patients with CKD potentially eligible for SGLT2-Is and assess costs charged to the Italian National Health Service (SSN). Methods. Patients aged ≥18 with CKD and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min in 2018, without dialysis and/or renal transplantation, were included. HSD was used to develop and validate algorithms for estimating eGFR, based on covariates, within the ReSD. Comorbidities, dispensed drugs, and direct healthcare costs were assessed. Results. In 2018, 66,297 (5.0% of HSD population) and 211,494 (4.4% of ReSD population) patients with CKD potentially eligible for SGLT2-Is were identified (females ≥58%). Prevalence increased with age with a peak at 75-84 years. Within HSD and ReSD cohorts, respectively: 31.0% and 41.5% had diabetes; in the observation periods, >82% and >96% received ≥1 pharmacological treatment, of which ≥50% and ≥25% received cardiovascular/blood agents and antidiabetics, respectively. From ReSD, mean per capita direct SSN cost was € 3,825 (CI 95%, € 3,655-€ 4,000): 50.1% due to hospitalizations, and 40.2% to pharmaceuticals (31.6% to cardiovascular drugs and 10.1% to antidiabetics). Conclusion. The Database Consortium ReS-HS methodology found 5% of adult SSN beneficiaries with CKD potentially eligible for SGLT2-Is bringing with them a high cardio-metabolic burden which increases the risk of CKD progression.

Seattle proportional risk model in GISSI-HF: Estimated benefit of ICD in patients with EF less than 50.

BACKGROUND: The Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM) estimates the proportion of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure (HF) patients, identifying those most likely to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy (those with ≥50% estimated proportion of SCD). The GISSI-HF trial tested fish oil and rosuvastatin in HF patients. We used the SPRM to evaluate its accuracy in this cohort in predicting potential ICD benefit in patients with EF ≤50% and an SPRM-predicted proportion of SCD either ≥50% or <50%. METHODS: The SPRM was estimated in patients with EF ≤50% and in a logistic regression model comparing SCD with non-SCD. RESULTS: We evaluated 6,750 patients with EF ≤50%. There were 1,892 all-cause deaths, including 610 SCDs. Fifty percent of EF ≤35% patients and 43% with EF 36% to 50% had an SPRM of ≥50%. The SPRM (OR: 1.92, P < 0.0001) accurately predicted the risk of SCD vs non-SCD with an estimated proportion of SCD of 44% vs the observed proportion of 41% at 1 year. By traditional criteria for ICD implantation (EF ≤35%, NYHA class II or III), 64.5% of GISSI-HF patients would be eligible, with an estimated ICD benefit of 0.81. By SPRM >50%, 47.8% may be eligible, including 30.2% with EF >35%. GISSI-HF participants with EF ≤35% with SPRM ≥50% had an estimated ICD HR of 0.64, comparable to patients with EF 36% to 50% with SPRM ≥50% (HR: 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The SPRM discriminated SCD vs non-SCD in GISSI-HF, both in patients with EF ≤35% and with EF 36% to 50%. The comparable estimated ICD benefit in patients with EF ≤35% and EF 36% to 50% supports the use of a proportional risk model for shared decision making with patients being considered for primary prevention ICD therapy.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Percutaneous repair of moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation in patients with symptomatic heart failure: Baseline characteristics of patients in the RESHAPE-HF2 trial and comparison to COAPT and MITRA-FR trials.

AIM: The RESHAPE-HF2 trial is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MitraClip device system for the treatment of clinically important functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) in patients with heart failure (HF). This report describes the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the RESHAPE-HF2 trial compared to those enrolled in the COAPT and MITRA-FR trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: The RESHAPE-HF2 study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, multicentre trial including patients with symptomatic HF, a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 20% and 50% with moderate-to-severe or severe FMR, for whom isolated mitral valve surgery was not recommended. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a strategy of delivering or withholding MitraClip. Of 506 patients randomized, the mean age of the patients was 70 ± 10 years, and 99 of them (20%) were women. The median EuroSCORE II was 5.3 (2.8-9.0) and median plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was 2745 (1407-5385) pg/ml. Most patients were prescribed beta-blockers (96%), diuretics (96%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (82%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (82%). The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors was rare (7%). Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices had been previously implanted in 29% of patients. Mean LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic volume and effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) were 31 ± 8%, 211 ± 76 ml and 0.25 ± 0.08 cm2, respectively, whereas 44% of patients had mitral regurgitation severity of grade 4+. Compared to patients enrolled in COAPT and MITRA-FR, those enrolled in RESHAPE-HF2 were less likely to have mitral regurgitation grade 4+ and, on average, HAD lower EROA, and plasma NT-proBNP and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate, but otherwise had similar age, comorbidities, CRT therapy and LVEF. CONCLUSION: Patients enrolled in RESHAPE-HF2 represent a third distinct population where MitraClip was tested in, that is one mainly comprising of patients with moderate-to-severe FMR instead of only severe FMR, as enrolled in the COAPT and MITRA-FR trials. The results of RESHAPE-HF2 will provide crucial insights regarding broader application of the transcatheter edge-to-edge repair procedure in clinical practice.

[How to interpret subgroup analyses in cardiovascular trials?] / Come leggere le analisi per sottogruppi nei trial cardiovascolari?

Clinical trials provide the best evidence on the effect of a treatment, but they evaluate this effect on the total population of the study as if the effect of the randomized treatment was identical in all possible subgroups of patients (young, elderly, male, female, etc.). Subgroup analyses are an important tool to evaluate the presence of any diversity of the treatment effect concerning specific patient characteristics, if there are practical questions about who to treat and when, or if there are doubts about the benefit/risk profile of a therapy in a specific subpopulation. Subgroup analyses should be defined a priori, biologically plausible, and limited to few clinically important questions. Subgroup analyses have greater relevance in the context of studies that have demonstrated an overall significant difference between treatments. In the case of neutral or negative studies, any significant analyses between subgroups should be considered as essentially exploratory. Post-hoc subgroup analyses should be treated with great caution and considered more credible as the results are consistent with other studies. If significant heterogeneity is expected in specific subgroups of patients when planning a trial, they should have sufficient statistical power to detect the difference in the effect. In this review, we propose a critical approach for interpreting subgroup analyses in cardiovascular trials.

Identification of hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism at high risk for death: external validation of different models.

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for identification of hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) at risk for death and clinical deterioration remains undefined. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the performances of currently available models/scores for identifying hemodynamically stable patients with acute, symptomatic PE at risk of death and clinical deterioration. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter cohort study including patients with acute PE (NCT03631810). Primary study outcome was in-hospital death within 30 days or clinical deterioration. Other outcomes were in-hospital death, death, and PE-related death, all at 30 days. We calculated positive and negative predictive values, c-statistics of European Society of Cardiology (ESC)-2014, ESC-2019, Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis (PEITHO), Bova, Thrombo-embolism lactate outcome study (TELOS), fatty acid binding protein, syncope and tachicardia (FAST), and National Early Warning Scale 2 (NEWS2) for the study outcomes. RESULTS: In 5036 hemodynamically stable patients with acute PE, positive predictive values for the evaluated models/scores were all below 10%, except for TELOS and NEWS2; negative predictive values were above 98% for all the models/scores, except for FAST and NEWS2. ESC-2014 and TELOS had good performances for in-hospital death or clinical deterioration (c-statistic of 0.700 and 0.722, respectively), in-hospital death (c-statistic of 0.713 and 0.723, respectively), and PE-related death (c-statistic of 0.712 and 0.777, respectively); PEITHO, Bova, and NEWS2 also had good performances for PE-related death (c-statistic of 0.738, 0.741, and 0.742, respectively). CONCLUSION: In hemodynamically stable patients with acute PE, the accuracy for identification of hemodynamically stable patients at risk for death and clinical deterioration varies across the available models/scores; TELOS seems to have the best performance. These data can inform management studies and clinical practice.

Perioperative management and outcomes in patients receiving low-dose rivaroxaban and/or aspirin: a subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial.

BACKGROUND: No study has investigated the perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients who are receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 81 to 100 mg daily. OBJECTIVE: To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. METHODS: Subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial was performed to assess perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease who were randomized to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day plus ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA 100 mg daily. Patients studied required a surgery/procedure during the trial. The study outcomes, which included myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, acute limb ischemia, bleeding, and death, were assessed according to treatment allocation. RESULTS: There were 2632 patients studied (mean age, 68 years; 80% male) who had a surgery/procedure, comprising percutaneous coronary interventions (∼43%), carotid or other arterial angioplasty (∼15%), pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation (∼9%), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (∼7%). Perioperative study drug management varied, with about one-third of patients not interrupting study drug and the remainder interrupting it between 1 and ≥10 days preprocedure. The incidences of adverse outcomes across treatment groups were 12.7% to 15.3% for myocardial ischemia, 0.8% to 1.2% for stroke, 0.1% to 0.2% for venous thromboembolism, and 3.1% to 4.2% for any bleeding. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome rates across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In patients in the COMPASS trial who required a surgery/procedure, there was no significant difference in perioperative adverse outcomes whether patients were receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA alone.