Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in De Novo vs Acute on Chronic HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Background: Decompensated heart failure (HF) can be categorized as de novo or worsening of chronic HF. In PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF), among patients with an ejection fraction >40% that stabilized after worsening HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan. Objectives: This prespecified analysis characterized patients with de novo vs worsening chronic HF in PARAGLIDE-HF and assessed the interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Patients were classified as de novo (first diagnosis of HF) or chronic (known HF prior to the index event). Time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. A win ratio consisting of time to cardiovascular death, number and times of HF hospitalizations during follow-up, number and times of urgent HF visits during follow-up, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP was assessed for each group. Results: Of the 466 participants, 153 (33%) had de novo HF and 313 (67%) had chronic HF. De novo patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and lower creatinine. There was a nonsignificant reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan for de novo (0.82; 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) and chronic HF (0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07), interaction P = 0.66. The win ratio was nominally in favor of sacubitril/valsartan for both de novo (1.12; 95% CI: 0.70-1.58) and chronic HF (1.24; 95% CI: 0.89-1.71). Conclusions: There is no interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril-valsartan.

Precision Cardiology: Phenotype-targeted Therapies for HFmrEF and HFpEF.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represent over half of heart failure cases but lack proven effective therapies beyond sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and diuretics. HFmrEF and HFpEF are heterogeneous conditions requiring precision phenotyping to enable tailored therapies. This review covers concepts on precision medicine approaches for HFmrEF and HFpEF. Areas discussed include HFmrEF mechanisms, anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic treatments for obesity-related HFpEF, If inhibition for HFpEF with atrial fibrillation, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism for chronic kidney disease-HFpEF. Incorporating precision phenotyping and matched interventions in HFmrEF and HFpEF trials will further advance therapy compared to blanket approaches.

The impact of empagliflozin and metformin on cardiac parameters in patients with mid-range ejection fraction heart failure without diabetes.

Heart failure (HF) remains a significant problem for healthcare systems, requiring the use of intervention and multimodal management strategies. We aimed to assess the short-term effect of empagliflozin (EMPA) and metformin on cardiac function parameters, including ventricular dimension-hypertrophy, septal thickness, ejection fraction (EF), and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels in patients with HF and mildly reduced EF. A case-control study included 60 newly diagnosed patients with HF. Patients were divided into two groups: Group E received standard HF treatment (carvedilol, bumetanide, sacubitril-valsartan, spironolactone) plus EMPA 10 mg daily, and Group M received standard HF treatment plus metformin 500 mg daily. After three months of treatment, Group E had a significantly higher EF than Group M compared to initial measurements (a change of 9.2% versus 6.1%, respectively). We found similar results in the left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD), with mean reductions of 0.72 mm for Group E and 0.23 mm for Group M. Regarding cardiac indicators, the level of NT-proBNP was considerably decreased in both groups. However, the reduction was significantly greater in group E than in group M compared to the initial level (mean reduction: 719.9 vs. 973.6, respectively). When combined with quadruple anti-heart failure therapy, metformin enhanced several echocardiographic parameters, showing effects similar to those of EMPA when used in the same treatment regimen. However, the benefits of EMPA were more pronounced, particularly regarding improvements in EF and LVESD.

Prognostic value of growth differentiation factor-15 in heart failure among whole ejection fraction phenotypes.

AIMS: The utility of growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) in predicting long-term adverse outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients is not well established. This study explored the relationship between GDF-15 levels and adverse outcomes in HF patients across various ejection fraction (EF) phenotypes associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) and evaluated the added prognostic value of incorporating GDF-15 into the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) risk score-based model. METHODS AND RESULTS: This single-centre cohort study included 823 HF patients, categorized into 230 (27.9%) reduced EF (HFrEF), 271 (32.9%) mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and 322 (39.1%) preserved EF (HFpEF) groups. The median age was 68.0 years (range: 56.0-77.0), and 245 (29.8%) were females. Compared with the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups, the HFpEF group had a higher GDF-15 concentration (P = 0.002) and a higher MAGGIC risk score (P < 0.001). We examined the associations between GDF-15 levels and the risks of all-cause mortality and HF rehospitalization using Cox regression models. The C-index, integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and net reclassification improvement (NRI) metrics were employed to assess the incremental prognostic value. During the 9.4 year follow-up period, 425 patients died, and 484 were rehospitalized due to HF. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that elevated GDF-15 levels were significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-1.54; P < 0.001] and HF rehospitalization (HR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.57-1.95; P < 0.001) across all HF phenotypes. This association remained significant when GDF-15 was treated as a categorical variable (high GDF-15 group: all-cause death: HR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.40-2.14; P < 0.001; HF rehospitalization: HR = 3.37, 95% CI: 2.73-4.15; P < 0.001). Inclusion of GDF-15 in the MAGGIC risk score-based model provided additional prognostic value for all HF patients (Δ C-index = 0.021, 95% CI: 0.002-0.041; IDI = 0.011, 95% CI: 0.001-0.025; continuous NRI = 0.489, 95% CI: 0.174-0.629) and HF rehospitalization (Δ C-index = 0.034, 95% CI: 0.005-0.063; IDI = 0.021, 95% CI: 0.007-0.032; continuous NRI = 0.307, 95% CI: 0.147-0.548), particularly in the HFpEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: GDF-15 is identified as an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes in HF patients across the entire EF spectrum in the context of CHD. Integrating GDF-15 into the MAGGIC risk score-based model enhances its prognostic capability for adverse outcomes in the general HF population. This incremental prognostic effect was observed specifically in the HFpEF subgroup and not in other subgroups.

Effect of sacubitril valsartan on heart failure with mid-range or preserved ejection fraction in patients on maintenance hemodialysis: real-world experience in a single-center, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril valsartan (SV) on heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients on hemodialysis with HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF; HFpEF). METHODS: This single-center, prospective study enrolled 155 stable hemodialysis patients with EF > 40% who were followed up for 12 months. Fifty-nine patients were treated with SV; the others were matched for EF (57.89 ± 9.35 vs. 58.00 ± 11.82, P = 0.9) at a ratio of 1:1 and included as controls. The target dosage of SV was 200 mg/day. RESULTS: Twenty-three (23/155; 14.84%) had HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), while 132 (85.16%) had HFpEF. After SV treatment, the peak early diastolic transmitral flow velocity/peak early diastolic mitral annular tissue velocity(E/e') improved from 17.19 ± 8.74 to 12.80 ± 5.52 (P = 0.006), the left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter decreased from 53.14 ± 7.67 mm to 51.56 ± 7.44 mm (P = 0.03), and the LV mass index decreased from 165.7 ± 44.6 g/m2 to 154.8 ± 24.0 g/m2 (P = 0.02). LVEF (P = 0.08) and LV global longitudinal strain (P = 0.7) did not change significantly. The composite outcome of first and recurrent HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death showed no difference between group. However, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Workgroup (ADQI) HF class improved in 39 and 15 patients and worsened in 1 and 11 patients in the SV and control groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Age, diabetes mellitus, and pulmonary arterial pressure were independent risk factors for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: SV improved LV hypertrophy, diastolic function, and the ADQI class for HF; however, it failed to reduce the composite endpoints of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular disease-related mortality over 12 months of follow-up in patients on maintenance hemodialysis with EF of > 40%.

Metformin effects on cardiac parameters in non-diabetic Iraqi patients with heart failure and mid-range ejection fraction - a comparative two-arm parallel clinical study.

Heart failure (HF) remains a difficult challenge to the healthcare system, necessitating promoting interventions and multidrug management. Metformin, typically used to manage diabetes, has emerged as a promising intervention in the treatment of HF. This study aimed to assess the effect of adding metformin to the standard treatment of HF on cardiac parameters. This clinical study comprised 60 newly diagnosed HF patients randomly assigned to two groups: Group C received standard HF treatment, while Group M received standard HF treatment in addition to daily metformin (500 mg). After 3 months of treatment, group M showed a significantly higher ejection fraction (EF) compared to Group C (6.1% and 3.2%, respectively; p-value=0.023) and a reduction in the left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDD) (0.28, and 0.21 mm respectively; p-value=0.029). No significant differences were observed in the interventricular septal thickness (IVST) or left ventricular end-systolic pressure (LVESD). For cardiac markers, N-Terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) showed the highest reduction in Group M compared to Group C (719.9 pg/ml and 271.9 pg/ml respectively; p-value=0.009). No significant changes were reported for soluble ST2. Metformin demonstrated cardiac protective effects by increasing EF and reducing NT-proBNP. Given its affordability and accessibility, metformin offers a valuable addition to the current HF treatment options. This positive effect may be attributed to mechanisms that enhance the impact of conventional HF treatments or vice versa.

Starting Neurohormonal Antagonists in Patients With Acute Heart Failure With Mid-Range and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefits of neurohormonal antagonists for patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF and HFpEF) are uncertain.Methods and Results: This study analyzed 858 consecutive patients with HFmrEF (EF: 40-49%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%), who were hospitalized for acute HF, and who were discharged alive, and were not taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE)-I/ angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) or ß-blockers at admission. The study population was classified into 4 groups according to the status of prescription of ACE-I/ARB and ß-blocker at discharge: no neurohormonal antagonist (n=342, 39.9%), ACE-I/ARB only (n=128, 14.9%), ß-blocker only (n=189, 22.0%), and both ACE-I/ARB and ß-blocker (n=199, 23.2%) groups. The primary outcome measure was a composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization. The cumulative 1-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was 41.2% in the no neurohormonal antagonist group, 34.0% in the ACE-I/ARB only group, 28.6% in the ß-blocker only group, and 16.4% in the both ACE-I/ARB and ß-blocker group (P<0.001). Compared with the no neurohormonal antagonist group, both the ACE-I/ARB and ß-blocker groups were associated with a significantly lower risk for a composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28-0.76, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, starting both ACE-I/ARB and a ß-blocker was associated with a reduced risk of the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization compared with patients not starting on an ACE-I/ARB or ß-blocker.

Diagnosis and Management of Cirrhotic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy refers to the structural and functional changes in the heart leading to either impaired systolic, diastolic, electrocardiographic, and neurohormonal changes associated with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy is present in 50% of patients with cirrhosis and is clinically seen as impaired contractility, diastolic dysfunction, hyperdynamic circulation, and electromechanical desynchrony such as QT prolongation. In this review, we will discuss the cardiac physiology principles underlying cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, imaging techniques such as cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and scintigraphy, cardiac biomarkers, and newer echocardiographic techniques such as tissue Doppler imaging and speckle tracking, and emerging treatments to improve outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed available literature from MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and real-world outcomes using the search terms "cirrhotic cardiomyopathy," "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction," "heart failure in cirrhosis," "liver transplantation," and "coronary artery disease". RESULTS: Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy is associated with increased risk of complications such as hepatorenal syndrome, refractory ascites, impaired response to stressors including sepsis, bleeding or transplantation, poor health-related quality of life and increased morbidity and mortality. The evaluation of cirrhotic cardiomyopathy should also guide the feasibility of procedures such as transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, dose titration protocol of betablockers, and liver transplantation. The use of targeted heart rate reduction is of interest to improve cardiac filling and improve the cardiac output using repurposed heart failure drugs such as ivabradine. Liver transplantation may also reverse the cirrhotic cardiomyopathy; however, careful cardiac evaluation is necessary to rule out coronary artery disease and improve cardiac outcomes in the perioperative period. CONCLUSION: More data are needed on the new diagnostic criteria, molecular and biochemical changes, and repurposed drugs in cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. The use of advanced imaging techniques should be incorporated in clinical practice.

Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) have a poor prognosis and are categorized by ejection fraction. We performed a meta-analysis to compare baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure with reduced (HFrEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 27 prospective studies were included. Patients with HFpEF were older and had a higher proportion of females, hypertension, diabetes, and insufficient neuroendocrine antagonist treatments, while patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF had a higher prevalence of coronary heart disease and chronic kidney disease. After more than 1-year of follow-up, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with HFmrEF 9388/25 042 (37.49%) than those with HFrEF 39 333/90 023 (43.69%) and HFpEF 24 828/52 492 (47.30%) (p < .001). Cardiovascular mortality was lowest in patients with HFpEF 1130/9904 (11.41%), highest in patients with HFrEF 3419/16 277 (21.07%) mainly coming from HF death and sudden cardiac death, and middle in patients with HFmrEF 699/5171 (13.52%) and the non-cardiovascular mortality was on the contrary. Subgroup analysis showed that in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, the all-cause mortality of HFpEF was significantly higher than both HFrEF and HFmrEF (p < .001). HF hospitalization was lowest in patients with HFmrEF 1822/5285 (34.47%), highest in patients with HFrEF 12 607/28 590 (44.10%) and middle in patients with HFpEF 8686/22 763 (38.16%) and the composite of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization was also observed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, patients with HFmrEF had the lowest incidence of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization, while the highest all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization rates were HFpEF and HFrEF patients, respectively.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in the non-diabetic heart failure patient.

Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a global cause of morbidity and mortality with over 60 million estimated cases worldwide. The burden of HF care is expected to increase with an ageing population as evidenced by the fact that 80% of HF-related hospitalizations occur in those aged above 65. Given the significant morbidity and mortality associated with HFrEF, there is a need for new prognostic therapies that have an impact on morbidity and mortality. In February of 2021, the National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) released new guidance on the utility of Dapagliflozin for the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). NICE advocated that dapagliflozin is a viable treatment option in symptomatic HFrEF patients on optimal medical management. The current list price of dapagliflozin is around £36.59 per 28-tablet pack with an estimated annual cost of £476.98 equating to £6939 per quality-adjusted life year. The guidance was mainly based on evidence produced from the 2019 DAPA-HF trial. This demonstrated that in HFrEF population, the use of dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in worsening HF events, cardiovascular, and all-cause death. In this article, we summarize the evidence base for sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in the non-diabetic heart failure patient.

Exercise hemodynamics in heart failure patients with preserved and mid-range ejection fraction: key role of the right heart.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore whether classification of patients with heart failure and mid-range (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) identifies differences in their exercise hemodynamic profile, and whether classification according to an index of right ventricular (RV) function improves differentiation. BACKGROUND: Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF have hemodynamic compromise on exertion. The classification according to LVEF implies a key role of the left ventricle. However, RV involvement in exercise limitation is increasingly recognized. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion/systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (TAPSE/PASP) ratio is an index of RV and pulmonary vascular function. Whether exercise hemodynamics differ more between HFmrEF and HFpEF than between TAPSE/PASP tertiles is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed 166 patients with HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%) or HFmrEF (LVEF 40-49%) who underwent basic diagnostics (laboratory testing, echocardiography at rest, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPET]) and exercise with right heart catheterization. Hemodynamics were compared according to echocardiographic left ventricular or RV function. RESULTS: Exercise hemodynamics (e.g. pulmonary arterial wedge pressure/cardiac output [CO] slope, CO increase during exercise, and maximum total pulmonary resistance) showed no difference between HFpEF and HFmrEF, but significantly differed across TAPSE/PASP tertiles and were associated with CPET results. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide concentration also differed significantly across TAPSE/PASP tertiles but not between HFpEF and HFmrEF. CONCLUSION: In patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF, TAPSE/PASP emerged as a more appropriate stratification parameter than LVEF to predict clinically relevant impairment of exercise hemodynamics. Stratification of exercise hemodynamics in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF according to LVEF or TAPSE/PASP, showing significant distinctions only with the RV-based strategy. All data are shown as median [upper limit of interquartile range] and were calculated using the independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis test. PVR pulmonary vascular resistance; max maximum level during exercise.

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

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

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

AIMS: In the heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) PARAGON-HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan improved mortality/morbidity in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below median (57%). We assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on four scenarios. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eligibility was assessed in the Karolinska-Rennes study (acute HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 45%, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥300 pg/mL subsequently assessed as outpatients including echocardiography) in (i) a trial scenario (all trial criteria); (ii) a pragmatic scenario (selected trial criteria); (iii) LVEF below lower limit of normal range (<54% in women and <52% in men); and (iv) LVEF below mean of normal range (<64% in women and <62% in men). Among 425 patients [age 78 (72-83) years, 57% women, 28% LVEF ≤ 57% (median in PARAGON-HF), the trial scenario, identified 34% as eligible. Left atrial enlargement and/or left ventricular hypertrophy were present in 99%. Inclusion criteria not met were diuretic treatment and New York Heart Association class. Important exclusion criteria were estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 , haemoglobin <10 g/day, and cancer. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible. In LVEF below lower limit of normal range, 5.4% were eligible, and in LVEF below mean of normal range, 41% were eligible. In patients with LVEF ≤ 57%, eligibility was 42%, 69%, 21%, and 91% according to the trial scenario, pragmatic scenario, LVEF below lower limit of normal range, and LVEF below mean of normal range, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 45%) with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and cardiac structure/function assessed, eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan was according to PARAGON-HF complete criteria 34%, pragmatic criteria 63%, LVEF below lower limit of normal range 5.4%, and LVEF below mean of normal range 41%. Cardiac structural impairment was almost ubiquitous. Ineligibility was more due to exclusion criteria than failing to meet inclusion criteria.

ß-blocker and 1-year outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction.

AIMS: The beneficial effect of ß-blocker on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is well established. However, its effect on the 1-year outcome of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the data of the patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 40% and 49% in China Patient-centred Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events Prospective Heart Failure Study (China PEACE 5p-HF Study), in which patients hospitalized for heart failure from 52 Chinese hospitals were recruited from 2016 to 2018. Two primary outcomes were all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization. The associations between ß-blocker use at discharge and outcomes were assessed by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-weighted Cox regression analyses. To assess consistency, IPTW adjusting medications analyses, multivariable analyses and dose-effect analyses were performed. A total of 1035 HFmrEF patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 65.5 ± 12.7 years and 377 (36.4%) were female. The median (interquartile range) of LVEF was 44% (42-47%). Six hundred and sixty-one (63.8%) were treated with ß-blocker. Patients using ß-blocker were younger with better cardiac function, and more likely to use renin-angiotensin system inhibitor and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. During the 1-year follow-up, death occurred in 84 (12.7%) treated and 85 (22.7%) untreated patients (P < 0.0001); all-cause hospitalization occurred in 298 (45.1%) treated and 188 (50.3%) untreated patients (P = 0.04). After IPTW-weighted adjustment, ß-blocker use was significantly associated with lower risk of all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR): 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.96, P = 0.03], but not with lower all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.76-1.10, P = 0.36). Consistency analyses showed consistent favourable effect of ß-blocker on all-cause death, but not on all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF, ß-blocker use was associated with lower risk of all-cause death, but not with lower risk of all-cause hospitalization.

Device-Based Solutions to Improve Cardiac Physiology and Hemodynamics in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Characterized by a rapidly increasing prevalence, elevated mortality and rehospitalization rates, and inadequacy of pharmaceutical therapies, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has motivated the widespread development of device-based solutions. HFpEF is a multifactorial disease of various etiologies and phenotypes, distinguished by diminished ventricular compliance, diastolic dysfunction, and symptoms of heart failure despite a normal ejection performance; these symptoms include pulmonary hypertension, limited cardiac reserve, autonomic imbalance, and exercise intolerance. Several types of atrial shunts, left ventricular expanders, stimulation-based therapies, and mechanical circulatory support devices are currently under development aiming to target one or more of these symptoms by addressing the associated mechanical or hemodynamic hallmarks. Although the majority of these solutions have shown promising results in clinical or preclinical studies, no device-based therapy has yet been approved for the treatment of patients with HFpEF. The purpose of this review is to discuss the rationale behind each of these devices and the findings from the initial testing phases, as well as the limitations and challenges associated with their clinical translation.

Similarities and Differences Between HFmrEF and HFpEF.

The new guidelines classify heart failure (HF) into three subgroups based on the ejection fraction (EF): HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). The new guidelines regarding the declaration of HFmrEF as a unique phenotype have achieved the goal of stimulating research on the basic characteristics, pathophysiology, and treatment of HF patients with a left ventricular EF of 40-49%. Patients with HFmrEF have more often been described as an intermediate population between HFrEF and HFpEF patients; however, with regard to etiology and clinical indicators, they are more similar to the HFrEF population. Concerning clinical prognosis, they are closer to HFpEF because both populations have a good prognosis and quality of life. Meanwhile, growing evidence indicates that HFmrEF and HFpEF show heterogeneity in presentation and pathophysiology, and the emergence of this heterogeneity often plays a crucial role in the prognosis and treatment of the disease. To date, the exact mechanisms and effective treatment strategies of HFmrEF and HFpEF are still poorly understood, but some of the current evidence, from observational studies and post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials, have shown that patients with HFmrEF may benefit more from HFrEF treatment strategies, such as beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sacubitril/valsartan. This review summarizes available data from current clinical practice and mechanistic studies in terms of epidemiology, etiology, clinical indicators, mechanisms, and treatments to discuss the potential association between HFmrEF and HFpEF patients.

Different Impact of Beta-Blockers on Long-Term Mortality in Heart Failure Patients with and without Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

The administration of beta-blockers is challenging and their efficacy is unclear in heart failure (HF) patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to investigate the association of beta-blockers with mortality in such patients. This multicenter observational cohort study included hospitalized HF patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and evaluated them retrospectively. COPD was diagnosed based on medical records and/or the clinical judgment of each investigator. The study endpoints were two-year all-cause, cardiac, and non-cardiac mortality. This study included 83 patients with COPD and 1760 patients without. Two-year all-cause, cardiac, and non-cardiac mortality were observed in 315 (17%), 149 (8%), and 166 (9%) patients, respectively. Beta-blockers were associated with lower all-cause mortality regardless of COPD (COPD: hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.98, p = 0.044; non-COPD: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.83, p = 0.001). This association in HF patients with COPD persisted after multivariate analysis and inverse probability weighting and was due to lower non-cardiac mortality (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.14-1.18. p = 0.098), not cardiac mortality (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07-2.01, p = 0.248). Beta-blockers were associated with lower all-cause mortality in HF patients with COPD due to lower non-cardiac mortality. This may reflect selection biases in beta-blocker prescription.

Association Between Arterial Stiffness and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of mortality in the world. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for about half of all heart failure. Unfortunately, the mechanisms of HFpEF are still unclear, leading to little progress of effective treatment of HFpEF. Arterial stiffness is the decrement of arterial compliance. The media of large arteries degenerate in both physiological and pathological conditions. Many studies have proven that arterial stiffness is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disorders including diastolic dysfunction. In this perspective, we discussed if arterial stiffness is related to HFpEF, and how does arterial stiffness contribute to HFpEF. Finally, we briefly summarized current treatment strategies on arterial stiffness and HFpEF. Though some new drugs were developed, the safety and effectiveness were not adequately assessed. New pharmacologic treatment for arterial stiffness and HFpEF are urgently needed.

Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: Every Coin Has Two Sides.

This review summarizes current knowledge regarding clinical epidemiology, pathophysiology, and prognosis for patients with HFmrEF in comparison to HFrEF and HFpEF. Although recommended treatments currently focus on aggressive management of comorbidities, we summarize potentially beneficial therapies that can delay the process of heart failure by blocking the pathophysiology mechanism. More studies are needed to further characterize HFmrEF and identify effective management strategies that can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of patients with HFmrEF.

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Predicted Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, ejection fraction (EF) data were not collected. In the subpopulation with heart failure (HF), we applied a new predictive model for EF to determine the effects of empagliflozin in HF with predicted reduced (HFrEF) vs preserved (HFpEF) EF vs no HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We applied a validated EF predictive model based on patient baseline characteristics and treatments to categorize patients with HF as being likely to have HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF)/HFrEF (EF <50%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%). Cox regression was used to assess the effect of empagliflozin vs placebo on cardiovascular death/HF hospitalization (HHF), cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and HHF in patients with predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no HF. Of 7001 EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients with data available for this analysis, 6314 (90%) had no history of HF. Of the 687 with history of HF, 479 (69.7%) were predicted to have HFmrEF/HFrEF and 208 (30.3%) to have HFpEF. Empagliflozin's treatment effect was consistent in predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no-HF for each outcome (HR [95% CI] for the primary outcome 0.60 [0.31-1.17], 0.79 [0.51-1.23], and 0.63 [0.50-0.78], respectively; P interaction = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, one-third of the patients with HF had predicted HFpEF. The benefits of empagliflozin on HF and mortality outcomes were consistent in nonHF, predicted HFpEF and HFmrEF/HFrEF.