Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement from the Heart Failure Society of America.

Iron deficiency is present in approximately 50% of patients with symptomatic heart failure and is independently associated with worse functional capacity, lower quality of, life and increased mortality. The purpose of this document is to summarize current knowledge of how iron deficiency is defined in heart failure and its epidemiology and pathophysiology, as well as pharmacological considerations for repletion strategies. This document also summarizes the rapidly expanding array of clinical trial evidence informing when, how, and in whom to consider iron repletion.

Polypharmacy and Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure: The GUIDE-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, its impact on the use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is not well established. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association between polypharmacy and odds of receiving optimal GDMT over time among patients with HFrEF. METHODS: The authors conducted a post hoc analysis of the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial. Polypharmacy was defined as receiving ≥5 medications (excluding HFrEF GDMT) at baseline. The outcome of interest was optimal triple therapy GDMT (concurrent administration of a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blocker and beta-blocker at 50% of the target dose and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist at any dose) achieved over the 12-month follow-up. Multivariable adjusted mixed-effect logistic regression models with multiplicative interaction terms (time × polypharmacy) were constructed to evaluate how polypharmacy at baseline modified the odds of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up. RESULTS: The study included 891 participants with HFrEF. The median number of non-GDMT medications at baseline was 4 (IQR: 3-6), with 414 (46.5%) prescribed ≥5 and identified as being on polypharmacy. The proportion of participants who achieved optimal GDMT at the end of the 12-month follow-up was lower with vs without polypharmacy at baseline (15% vs 19%, respectively). In adjusted mixed models, the odds of achieving optimal GDMT over time were modified by baseline polypharmacy status (P for interaction < 0.001). Patients without polypharmacy at baseline had increased odds of achieving GDMT (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.12-1.21] per 1-month increase; P < 0.001) but not patients with polypharmacy (OR: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.96-1.06)] per 1-month increase). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF who are on non-GDMT polypharmacy have lower odds of achieving optimal GDMT on follow-up.

Intravenous iron infusion in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and study-level meta-analysis.

AIMS: There is considerable variability in the effect of intravenous iron on hard cardiovascular (CV)-related outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We use a meta-analytic approach to analyse data from existing RCTs to derive a more robust estimate of the effect size of intravenous iron infusion on CV-related outcomes in patients with HF. METHOD AND RESULTS: PubMed/Medline was searched using the following terms: ('intravenous' and 'iron' and 'heart failure') from inception till 6 November 2022 for RCTs comparing intravenous iron infusion with placebo or standard of care in patients with HF and iron deficiency. Outcomes were the composite of CV mortality and first hospitalization for HF; all-cause mortality; CV mortality; first hospitalization for HF; and total hospitalizations for HF. Random effects risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Ten RCTs with a total of 3438 patients were included. Intravenous iron resulted in a significant reduction in the composite of CV mortality and first hospitalization for HF [RR 0.0.85; 95% CI (0.77, 0.95)], first hospitalization for HF [RR 0.82; 95% CI (0.67, 0.99)], and total hospitalizations for HF [RR 0.74; 95% CI (0.60, 0.91)] but no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality [RR 0.95; 95% CI. (0.83, 1.09)] or CV mortality [OR 0.89; 95% CI (0.75, 1.05)]. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous iron infusion in patients with HF reduces the composite risk of first hospitalization for HF and CV mortality as well as the risks of first and recurrent hospitalizations for HF, with no effect on all-cause mortality or CV mortality alone.

Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Ferric Derisomaltose Compared to Iron Sucrose for Iron Deficiency Anemia in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease With and Without Heart Failure.

Ferric derisomaltose (FDI) is an intravenous (IV) high-dose iron formulation approved in the US for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults who are intolerant of/have had an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, or who have non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD). FERWON-NEPHRO was a randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of a single infusion of FDI 1,000 mg versus up to 5 doses of iron sucrose (IS) 200 mg (recommended cumulative dose, 1,000 mg) over 8 weeks in patients with NDD-CKD and iron deficiency anemia. Of 1,525 patients included in the safety analysis, 244 (16%) had a history of heart failure (HF). Overall, the rate of serious or severe hypersensitivity reactions was low and did not differ between treatment groups. Cardiovascular adverse events (AEs) were reported for 9.4% of patients who had HF and 4.2% who did not. Time to first cardiovascular AE was longer following administration of FDI compared with IS (hazard ratio: 0.59 [95% CI: 0.37, 0.92]; p=0.0185), a difference that was similar in patients with or without HF (p=0.908 for interaction). Patients achieved a faster hematological response (assessed by changes in hemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and increase in transferrin saturation) with FDI versus IS. In conclusion, in patients with NDD-CKD, a single infusion of FDI was safe, well tolerated, and was associated with fewer cardiovascular AEs and a faster hematological response, compared to multiple doses of IS. These effects were similar for patients with and without HF.

Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Heart Failure With Iron Deficiency: Rationale and Design.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency (ID) has a prevalence of ≈40% to 50% among patients in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with worse prognosis. Several trials demonstrated that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose leads to early and sustained improvement in patient-reported outcomes and functional capacity in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction with ID, yet morbidity and mortality data are limited. METHODS: The objective of the HEART-FID trial (Ferric Carboxymaltose in Heart Failure With Iron Deficiency) is to assess efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose compared with placebo as treatment for symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction with ID. HEART-FID is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolling ≈3014 patients at ≈300 international centers. Eligible patients are aged ≥18 years in stable chronic HF with New York Heart Association functional class II to IV symptoms, ejection fraction ≤40%, ID (ferritin <100 ng/mL or ferritin 100-300 ng/mL with a transferrin saturation <20%), and documented HF hospitalization or elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Consented patients are assigned to ferric carboxymaltose or placebo at baseline, with repeated visits/assessments every 6 months for additional study drug based on hemoglobin and iron indices for the trial duration. The primary end point is a hierarchical composite of death and HF hospitalization at 12 months and change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk test distance. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART-FID trial will inform clinical practice by clarifying the role of long-term treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose, added to usual care, in ambulatory patients with symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction with ID. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03037931.

Implications of peripheral oedema in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a heart failure network analysis.

AIMS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous condition, and tissue congestion manifested by oedema is not present in all patients. We compared clinical characteristics, exercise capacity, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF with and without oedema. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a post hoc analysis of pooled data of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50% enrolled in the DOSE, CARRESS-HF, RELAX, ATHENA, ROSE, INDIE, and NEAT trials. Patients were dichotomized by the severity of oedema. Cox proportional hazard regression and generalized linear regression models were used to assess associations between oedema, symptoms, and clinical outcomes. The ambulatory cohort included 393 patients (228 with and 165 without oedema), and the hospitalized cohort included 338 patients (249 with ≥moderate oedema and 89 with mild or none). Among ambulatory patients, patients with oedema had a higher body mass index (35.2 kg/m2 [inter-quartile range, IQR 30.5, 41.6] vs. 31.6 kg/m2 [IQR 27.9, 36.3], P < 0.001), greater burden of co-morbidities, higher intravascular pressures estimated on physical examination (elevated jugular venous pressure: 50% vs. 24.7%, P < 0.001), poorer renal function (creatinine: 1.2 mg/dL [IQR 0.9, 1.5] vs. 1 mg/dL [IQR 0.8, 1.3], P = 0.003), and lower peak VO2 (adjusted mean difference -1.04 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [-1.71, -0.37], P < 0.003). Among hospitalized patients, despite greater in-hospital fluid/weight loss in the ≥moderate oedema group, there was no difference in the improvement in dyspnoea by the visual analogue scale or well-being visual analogue scale from baseline to 3-4 days and no statistically significant difference in the rate of 60 day rehospitalization/death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval [0.87, 2.39], P = 0.156). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFpEF and oedema display higher body mass, greater burden of co-morbidities, and more severe exercise intolerance, but clinical responses to treatment appear similar. Further research is required to better understand the nature of volume distribution in different HFpEF phenotypes.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Black Americans: Data From the PIONEER-HF Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril in Black and non-Black Americans with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). BACKGROUND: Black patients have a different response to treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with other racial and ethnic groups. How Black patients with ADHF respond to sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, is unclear. PIONEER-HF was a double-blind randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in hospitalized patients with ADHF following hemodynamic stabilization. METHODS: In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, we examined changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, clinical outcomes, and safety according to race. RESULTS: The study population, all enrolled in the United States, included 316 (36%) Black participants, 515 (58%) White participants, and 50 (5.7%) participants of other racial groups. The reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration at weeks 4 and 8 was significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril in both Black (ratio of change with sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.88) and non-Black patients (ratio of change: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.83; interaction p = 1.00). Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan also reduced the pre-specified exploratory composite of cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization in both Black (hazard ratio: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.93) and non-Black patients (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.06; interaction p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Among Black patients admitted with ADHF in the United States, the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was more effective than enalapril in reducing natriuretic peptide levels and the composite of cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan did not differ by race. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890).

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition Based on History of Heart Failure and Use of Renin-Angiotensin System Antagonists.

BACKGROUND: The PIONEER-HF (comParIson Of sacubitril/valsartaN versus Enalapril on Effect on nt-pRo-bnp in patients stabilized from an acute Heart Failure episode) trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: The study sought to determine whether and how prior HF history and treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) affected the results. METHODS: The PIONEER-HF trial was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling 881 patients with an ejection fraction ≤40%. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to in-hospital initiation of S/V (n = 440) versus enalapril (n = 441). Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on prior HF history (i.e., de novo HF vs. worsening chronic HF) and treatment with an ACE inhibitor or ARB (i.e., ACE inhibitor or ARB-yes vs. ACE inhibitor or ARB-no) at admission. RESULTS: At enrollment, 303 (34%) patients presented with de novo HF and 576 (66%) patients with worsening chronic HF. A total of 421 (48%) patients had been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB, while 458 (52%) had not been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide declined significantly in all 4 subgroups (p < 0.001), with greater decreases in the S/V versus the enalapril arm (p < 0.001). There was no interaction between prior HF history (p = 0.350) or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment (p = 0.880) and the effect of S/V versus enalapril on cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF. The incidences of adverse events were comparable between S/V and enalapril across all 4 subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients admitted for acute decompensated HF, S/V was safe and well tolerated, led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and improved clinical outcomes compared with enalapril irrespective of previous HF history or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890).

Effects of Liraglutide on Worsening Renal Function Among Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From the FIGHT Trial.

BACKGROUND: The FIGHT (Functional Impact of GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] for Heart Failure Treatment) trial randomized 300 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a recent hospitalization for heart failure to liraglutide versus placebo. While there was no difference in the primary outcome (rank score of time to death, time to rehospitalization for heart failure, and change in NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide]), there was a significant increase in cystatin C among patients randomized to liraglutide raising concern of adverse renal outcomes. We performed a post hoc analysis of FIGHT to investigate whether liraglutide was associated with worsening renal function (WRF). METHODS: The relationship between randomization to liraglutide and WRF was evaluated using logistic regression models. Two hundred seventy-four patients (91%) had complete data to assess for WRF defined as: increase in SCr ≥0.3 mg/dL, or ≥25% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, or an increase in cystatin C ≥0.3 mg/L from baseline to 180-days. RESULTS: Patients with WRF (n=113, 41%), compared with those without, were older, had more comorbidities, and lower utilization of guideline-directed medical treatment. Logistic regression models showed that age and baseline cystatin C levels were associated with WRF. In adjusted models, liraglutide was not associated with excess risk of WRF compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.62-1.67]). There was also no difference in the rank score when WRF was added as a fourth-tier outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide was not associated with WRF among patients with HFrEF and a recent hospitalization for heart failure. These data support the relative renal safety profile of liraglutide among patients with HFrEF. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01800968.

The burden of non-cardiac comorbidities and association with clinical outcomes in an acute heart failure trial - insights from ASCEND-HF.

AIMS: Non-cardiac comorbidities are highly prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF). Our objective was to define the association between non-cardiac comorbidity burden and clinical outcomes, costs of care, and length of stay within a large randomized trial of acute HF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with complete medical history for the following comorbidities were included: diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic liver disease, history of cancer within the last 5 years, chronic renal disease (baseline serum creatinine >3.0 mg/mL), current smoking, alcohol abuse, depression, anaemia, peripheral arterial disease, and cerebrovascular disease. Patients were classified by overall burden of non-cardiac comorbidities (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4+). Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to assess associations between comorbidity burden and 30-day all-cause death or HF hospitalization and 180-day all-cause death in addition to costs of care and length of stay. A total of 6945 patients were included in the final analysis. Mean comorbidity number was 2.2 (± 1.34). Patients with 4+ comorbidities had higher rates of 30-day all-cause death/HF hospitalization as compared with patients with no comorbidities [odds ratio (OR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61-6.84; P < 0.01]. Similar results were seen with respect to 180-day death (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.33-3.43; P < 0.01). Higher comorbidity burden was associated with higher 180-day costs of care and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Higher comorbidity burden is associated with poor clinical outcomes, higher costs of care, and extended length of stay. Further studies are needed to define the impact of comorbidity management programmes on outcomes for HF patients.

Are existing and emerging biomarkers associated with cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with chronic heart failure?

BACKGROUND: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is closely linked to health status and clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients. We aimed to test whether biomarkers can reflect CRF and its change over time. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from ambulatory cohorts of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (IRONOUT) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (RELAX). Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and serum biomarkers were measured at baseline and 16- or 24-week follow-up (for IRONOUT and RELAX respectively). Biomarkers included N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), soluble ST2, growth differentiation factor-15, and Galectin-3. RESULTS: Analysis included 225 patients with HFrEF and 216 with HFpEF. Baseline peak VO2, VE/VCO2 slope, and 6MWD showed a mild correlation with the doubling of all 4 tested biomarkers in HFrEF and HFpEF. Following multivariable adjustment (including all biomarkers), the only significant association between change in biomarker and functional parameter in HFrEF was change in NT-proBNP and change in VE/VCO2 slope (3.596% increase per doubling, 95% CI 0.779-6.492, P = .012). In HFpEF, a decrease in peak VO2 was associated with an increase in NT-proBNP (-0.726 mL/min/kg per doubling, 95% CI -1.100 to -0.353, P < .001), and a decrease in 6MWD was associated with an increase in growth differentiation factor-15 (-31.606 m per doubling, 95% CI -61.404 to -1.809, P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: In these ambulatory trial cohorts, NT-proBNP was associated with baseline and change in CRF in HFrEF and HFpEF. In contrast, novel biomarkers do not appear suitable as a reliable surrogate for serial assessment of exercise capacity in HF patients given lack of consistent independent association with CRF beyond traditional risk factors and NT-proBNP.

Initiation of Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition After Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Secondary Analysis of the Open-label Extension of the PIONEER-HF Trial.

Importance: In PIONEER-HF, among stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated and led to improved outcomes compared with enalapril. However, there are limited data comparing the strategies of in-hospital vs postdischarge initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. Objective: To describe changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels in patients recently hospitalized for ADHF and switching from taking enalapril to taking sacubitril/valsartan after discharge and compare clinical outcomes for patients randomized to receive in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs in-hospital initiation of enalapril who later switched to taking sacubitril/valsartan during an open-label extension phase. Interventions: Sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 97/103 mg twice daily. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PIONEER-HF trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted at 129 US sites between May 2016 and May 2018 that compared the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril (titrated to target dose, 10 mg twice daily) for 8 weeks among patients admitted for ADHF with reduced ejection fraction and hemodynamic stability. All patients were to continue in a 4-week, open-label study of sacubitril/valsartan; of 881 patients enrolled in PIONEER-HF, 832 (94%) continued in the open-label study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in NT-proBNP levels from week 8 to 12 as well as the exploratory composite of heart failure rehospitalization or cardiovascular death from randomization through week 12. Results: Of 881 participants, 226 (27.7%) were women, 487 (58.5%) were white, 297 (35.7%) were black, 15 (1.8%) were Asian, and 73 (8.8%) were of Hispanic ethnicity; the mean (SD) age was 61 (14) years. For patients who continued to take sacubitril/valsartan, NT-proBNP levels declined -17.2% (95% CI, -3.2 to -29.1) from week 8 to 12. The NT-proBNP levels declined to a greater extent for those switching from taking enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan after the week 8 visit (-37.4%; 95% CI, -28.1 to -45.6; P < .001; comparing changes in 2 groups). Over the entire 12 weeks of follow-up, patients that began taking sacubitril/valsartan in the hospital had a lower hazard for the composite outcome compared with patients that initiated enalapril in the hospital and then had a delayed initiation of sacubitril/valsartan 8 weeks later (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97). Conclusions and Relevance: Switching patients' treatment from enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan at 8 weeks after randomization led to a further 37% reduction in NT-proBNP levels in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a recent hospitalization for ADHF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02554890.

Burden of medical co-morbidities and benefit from surgical revascularization in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

AIMS: The landmark STICH trial found that surgical revascularization compared to medical therapy alone improved survival in patients with heart failure (HF) of ischaemic aetiology and an ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 35%. However, the interaction between the burden of medical co-morbidities and the benefit from surgical revascularization has not been previously described in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The STICH trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00023595) enrolled patients ≥ 18 years of age with coronary artery disease amenable to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and an EF ≤ 35%. Eligible participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive medical therapy (MED) (n = 602) or MED/CABG (n = 610). A modified Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI) based on the availability of data and study definitions was calculated by summing the weighted points for all co-morbid conditions. Patients were divided into mild/moderate (CCI 1-4) and severe (CCI ≥ 5) co-morbidity. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between CCI and outcomes and the interaction between severity of co-morbidity and treatment effect. The study population included 349 patients (29%) with a mild/moderate CCI score and 863 patients (71%) with a severe CCI score. Patients with a severe CCI score had greater functional limitations based on 6-min walk test and impairments in health-related quality of life as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. A total of 161 patients (Kaplan-Meier rate = 50%) with a mild/moderate CCI score and 579 patients (Kaplan-Meier rate = 69%) with a severe CCI score died over a median follow-up of 9.8 years. After adjusting for baseline confounders, patients with a severe CCI score were at higher risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.74; P < 0.001). There was no interaction between CCI score and treatment effect on survival (P = 0.756). CONCLUSIONS: More than 70% of patients had a severe burden of medical co-morbidities at baseline, which was independently associated with increased risk of death. There was not a differential benefit of surgical revascularization with respect to survival based on severity of co-morbidity.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Acute decompensated heart failure accounts for more than 1 million hospitalizations in the United States annually. Whether the initiation of sacubitril-valsartan therapy is safe and effective among patients who are hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure is unknown. METHODS: We enrolled patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure at 129 sites in the United States. After hemodynamic stabilization, patients were randomly assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or enalapril (target dose, 10 mg twice daily). The primary efficacy outcome was the time-averaged proportional change in the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Key safety outcomes were the rates of worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, and angioedema. RESULTS: Of the 881 patients who underwent randomization, 440 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 441 to receive enalapril. The time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP concentration was significantly greater in the sacubitril-valsartan group than in the enalapril group; the ratio of the geometric mean of values obtained at weeks 4 and 8 to the baseline value was 0.53 in the sacubitril-valsartan group as compared with 0.75 in the enalapril group (percent change, -46.7% vs. -25.3%; ratio of change with sacubitril-valsartan vs. enalapril, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.81; P<0.001). The greater reduction in the NT-proBNP concentration with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril was evident as early as week 1 (ratio of change, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.85). The rates of worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, and angioedema did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure, the initiation of sacubitril-valsartan therapy led to a greater reduction in the NT-proBNP concentration than enalapril therapy. Rates of worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, and angioedema did not differ significantly between the two groups. (Funded by Novartis; PIONEER-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02554890 .).

Identifying responders to oral iron supplementation in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction: a post-hoc analysis of the IRONOUT-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: The IRONOUT-HF trial previously demonstrated that oral iron supplementation minimally increased iron stores and did not improve exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and iron deficiency. METHODS: The IRONOUT-HF trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial designed to test the efficacy and safety of oral iron polysaccharide compared to matching placebo among patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency. Study participants received oral iron polysaccharide 150 mg twice daily or matching placebo for 16 weeks. Response to oral iron was defined as a ferritin level >300 ng/mL or a ferritin level 100-300 ng/mL with a transferrin saturation >20% at the end of the study. RESULTS: The final analytical cohort included 98 patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency at baseline. Study participants had a median (25, 75) age of 63 years (54 years, 71 years), included 40% women (N = 39). After 16 weeks of therapy, 24 patients (24%) responded to oral iron supplementation while 74 patients (76%) remained iron deficient despite treatment. There was no association between response to oral iron supplementation and improvement in functional status (i.e. peak VO2 or anaerobic threshold), myocardial stress (i.e. NT-proBNP levels), or HRQOL (i.e. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) at week 16. CONCLUSION: This study failed to identify a subset of responders more likely to derive a clinical benefit from oral iron therapy and does not support its routine use in patients with symptomatic HFrEF and iron deficiency.

Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score and EuroSCORE-2 Appropriately Assess 30-Day Postoperative Mortality in the STICH Trial and a Contemporary Cohort of Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Surgical Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The STICH trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated a survival benefit of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular dysfunction. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score and the EuroSCORE-2 (ES2) are used for risk assessment in cardiac surgery, with little information available about their accuracy in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. We assessed the ability of the STS score and ES2 to evaluate 30-day postoperative mortality risk in STICH and a contemporary cohort (CC) of patients with a left ventricle ejection fraction ≤35% undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting outside of a trial setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: The STS and ES2 scores were calculated for 814 STICH patients and 1246 consecutive patients in a CC. There were marked variations in 30-day postoperative mortality risk from 1 patient to another. The STS scores consistently calculated lower risk scores than ES2 (1.5 versus 2.9 for the CC and 0.9 versus 2.4 for the STICH cohort), and underestimated postoperative mortality risk. The STS and ES2 scores had moderately good C statistics: CC (0.727, 95% CI: 0.650-0.803 for STS, and 0.707, 95% CI: 0.620-0.795 for ES2); STICH (0.744, 95% CI: 0.677-0.812, for STS and 0.736, 95% CI: 0.665-0.808 for ES2). Despite the CC patients having higher STS and ES2 scores than STICH patients, mortality (3.5%) was lower than that of STICH (4.8%), suggesting a possible decrease in postoperative mortality over the past decade. CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day postoperative mortality risk of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left ventricular dysfunction varies markedly. Both the STS and ES2 score are effective in evaluating risk, although the STS score tend to underestimate risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

The role of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors in cardiovascular disease-existing evidence, knowledge gaps, and future directions.

Although traditional renin-angiotensin system antagonists including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have revolutionized the treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the pivotal PARADIGM-HF trial demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), was superior to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. However, despite international regulatory approval and strong recommendations in the guidelines, uptake of sacubitril/valsartan has been disappointing. Sacubitril/valsartan is now the focus of a large programme of clinical trials testing the hypothesis that ARNIs may supplant conventional renin-angiotensin system inhibitors across the spectrum of CVD, including hypertension, secondary prevention after myocardial infarction, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This review summarizes the existing evidence, knowledge gaps, and future directions of ARNIs in CVD based on discussions between clinical trialists, industry representatives, and regulatory authorities at the 2016 Global CardioVascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Washington, D.C.

Hospitalized Heart Failure in the United States: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trial Populations.

Hospitalized heart failure (HHF) patients carry a prognosis comparable to many cancers and constitute more than 1 million hospital admissions annually in the United States. To date, North Americans have comprised a minority of those included in prior hospitalized HF trials and have been repeatedly shown to differ from patients in other areas of the world in terms of clinical characteristics, length of hospital stay, therapy utilization, and post-discharge outcomes. Recognizing the varying patient profiles and outcomes of North Americans enrolled in prior HHF trial programs is critical to optimizing design of future drug development programs and maximizing chances of bringing a novel therapeutic agent to the bedside.