Aficamten for Symptomatic Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: One of the major determinants of exercise intolerance and limiting symptoms among patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is an elevated intracardiac pressure resulting from left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Aficamten is an oral selective cardiac myosin inhibitor that reduces left ventricular outflow tract gradients by mitigating cardiac hypercontractility. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with symptomatic obstructive HCM to receive aficamten (starting dose, 5 mg; maximum dose, 20 mg) or placebo for 24 weeks, with dose adjustment based on echocardiography results. The primary end point was the change from baseline to week 24 in the peak oxygen uptake as assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The 10 prespecified secondary end points (tested hierarchically) were change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS), improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, change in the pressure gradient after the Valsalva maneuver, occurrence of a gradient of less than 30 mm Hg after the Valsalva maneuver, and duration of eligibility for septal reduction therapy (all assessed at week 24); change in the KCCQ-CSS, improvement in the NYHA functional class, change in the pressure gradient after the Valsalva maneuver, and occurrence of a gradient of less than 30 mm Hg after the Valsalva maneuver (all assessed at week 12); and change in the total workload as assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients underwent randomization: 142 to the aficamten group and 140 to the placebo group. The mean age was 59.1 years, 59.2% were men, the baseline mean resting left ventricular outflow tract gradient was 55.1 mm Hg, and the baseline mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 74.8%. At 24 weeks, the mean change in the peak oxygen uptake was 1.8 ml per kilogram per minute (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 2.3) in the aficamten group and 0.0 ml per kilogram per minute (95% CI, -0.5 to 0.5) in the placebo group (least-squares mean between-group difference, 1.7 ml per kilogram per minute; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.4; P<0.001). The results for all 10 secondary end points were significantly improved with aficamten as compared with placebo. The incidence of adverse events appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, treatment with aficamten resulted in a significantly greater improvement in peak oxygen uptake than placebo. (Funded by Cytokinetics; SEQUOIA-HCM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05186818.).

Appetite and its Regulation: Are there Palatable Interventions for Heart Failure?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obesity is a major driver of heart failure (HF) incidence, and aggravates its pathophysiology. We summarized key reported and ongoing randomized clinical trials of appetite regulation and/or dietary energy restriction in individuals with HF. RECENT FINDINGS: Weight loss can be achieved by structured supervised diet programs with behavioural change, medications, or surgery. The new glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists alone or in combination with other agents (e.g., glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon receptor agonists or amylin analogues) potently and sustainably reduce appetite, and, taken together with dietary advice, can produce substantial, life-changing, weight loss approaching that achieved by surgery. To date, data from the STEP-HFpEF trial show meaningful improvements in health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire). Effective weight management could relieve several drivers of HF, to complement the existing treatments for HF with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Further trials of weight loss interventions will provide more definitive evidence to understand their effects on clinical events in patients with HF.

Dapagliflozin vs. metolazone in heart failure resistant to loop diuretics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To examine the decongestive effect of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin compared to the thiazide-like diuretic metolazone in patients hospitalized for heart failure and resistant to treatment with intravenous furosemide. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multi-centre, open-label, randomized, and active-comparator trial. Patients were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5-10 mg once daily for a 3-day treatment period, with follow-up for primary and secondary endpoints until day 5 (96 h). The primary endpoint was a diuretic effect, assessed by change in weight (kg). Secondary endpoints included a change in pulmonary congestion (lung ultrasound), loop diuretic efficiency (weight change per 40 mg of furosemide), and a volume assessment score. 61 patients were randomized. The mean (±standard deviation) cumulative dose of furosemide at 96 h was 977 (±492) mg in the dapagliflozin group and 704 (±428) mg in patients assigned to metolazone. The mean (±standard deviation) decrease in weight at 96 h was 3.0 (2.5) kg with dapagliflozin compared to 3.6 (2.0) kg with metolazone [mean difference 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12,1.41 kg; P = 0.11]. Loop diuretic efficiency was less with dapagliflozin than with metolazone [mean 0.15 (0.12) vs. 0.25 (0.19); difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.17,0.01 kg; P = 0.10]. Changes in pulmonary congestion and volume assessment score were similar between treatments. Decreases in plasma sodium and potassium and increases in urea and creatinine were smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone. Serious adverse events were similar between treatments. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure and loop diuretic resistance, dapagliflozin was not more effective at relieving congestion than metolazone. Patients assigned to dapagliflozin received a larger cumulative dose of furosemide but experienced less biochemical upset than those assigned to metolazone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04860011.

Revisiting Race and the Benefit of RAS Blockade in Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Concerns have arisen that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers are less effective in Black patients than non-Black patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: To determine whether the effects of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes differ between Black patients and non-Black patients with HFrEF. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase databases through December 31, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized trials investigating the effect of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with HFrEF that enrolled Black and non-Black patients. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual-participant data were extracted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Independent Personal Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Effects were estimated using a mixed-effects model using a 1-stage approach. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. Results: The primary analysis, based on the 3 placebo-controlled RAS inhibitor monotherapy trials, included 8825 patients (9.9% Black). Rates of death and hospitalization for HF were substantially higher in Black than non-Black patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for RAS blockade vs placebo for the primary composite was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69-1.03) in Black patients and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.79) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .14). The HR for first HF hospitalization was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.13) in Black patients and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .006). Conversely, the corresponding HRs for cardiovascular death were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.65-1.07) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.93), respectively (P for interaction = .99). For total hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular deaths, the corresponding rate ratios were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.02) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80), respectively (P for interaction = .27). The supportive analyses including the 2 trials adding an angiotensin receptor blocker to background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment (n = 16 383) gave consistent findings. Conclusions and Relevance: The mortality benefit from RAS blockade was similar in Black and non-Black patients. Despite the smaller relative risk reduction in hospitalization for HF with RAS blockade in Black patients, the absolute benefit in Black patients was comparable with non-Black patients because of the greater incidence of this outcome in Black patients.

A review of current key guidelines for managing high-risk patients with diabetes and heart failure and future prospects.

We reviewed recent guidelines on the management of heart failure (HF) in patients with diabetes. Major recommendations in European and US society guidelines were scrutinized. First, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors are now recommended treatments for all patients with symptomatic HF (stage C and D; New York Heart Association class II-IV), irrespective of the presence of type 2 diabetes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Second, patients with HF and reduced EF (LVEF ≤40%) should have foundational therapies from four drug classes (sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist). Third, patients with HF with mildly reduced (41%-49%) and preserved (≥50%) LVEF may also benefit from angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy, although evidence for these is less robust. Fourth, selected patients should be considered for other therapies such as diuretics (if congestion), anticoagulation (if atrial fibrillation) and cardiac device therapy. Fifth, glucose-lowering therapies such as thiazolidinediones and certain dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (such as saxagliptin and alogliptin) should be avoided in patients with HF. Sixth, guidelines recommend enrolment of patients with HF into exercise rehabilitation and multidisciplinary HF management programmes. Particular attention should be paid to important comorbidities such as obesity, alongside pharmacological therapies. As diabetes and obesity are major risk factors for HF, earlier consideration of, and diagnosis of HF, followed by guideline-directed medical therapy can meaningfully improve patients' lives. Diabetes doctors would do well to understand the basics of such guidelines to help improve all aspects of HF diagnosis and care.

Differentiating Cardiac Troponin Levels During Cardiac Myosin Inhibition or Cardiac Myosin Activation Treatments: Drug Effect or the Canary in the Coal Mine?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac myosin inhibitors (CMIs) and activators are emerging therapies for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), respectively. However, their effects on cardiac troponin levels, a biomarker of myocardial injury, are incompletely understood. RECENT FINDINGS: In patients with HCM, CMIs cause substantial reductions in cardiac troponin levels which are reversible after stopping treatment. In patients with HFrEF, cardiac myosin activator (omecamtiv mecarbil) therapy cause modest increases in cardiac troponin levels which are reversible following treatment cessation and not associated with myocardial ischaemia or infarction. Transient changes in cardiac troponin levels might reflect alterations in cardiac contractility and mechanical stress. Such transient changes might not indicate cardiac injury and do not appear to be associated with adverse outcomes in the short to intermediate term. Longitudinal changes in troponin levels vary depending on the population and treatment. Further research is needed to elucidate mechanisms underlying changes in troponin levels.

Effect of Neprilysin Inhibition on Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients With Asymptomatic Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Late After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction are at a high risk of developing heart failure. The addition of neprilysin inhibition to renin angiotensin system inhibition may result in greater attenuation of adverse LV remodeling as a result of increased levels of substrates for neprilysin with vasodilatory, antihypertrophic, antifibrotic, and sympatholytic effects. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily with valsartan 160 mg twice daily in patients ≥3 months after myocardial infarction with a LV ejection fraction ≤40% who were taking a renin angiotensin system inhibitor (equivalent dose of ramipril ≥2.5 mg twice daily) and a ß-blocker unless contraindicated or intolerant. Patients in New York Heart Association class ≥II or with signs and symptoms of heart failure were excluded. The primary outcome was change from baseline to 52 weeks in LV end-systolic volume index measured using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary outcomes included other magnetic resonance imaging measurements of LV remodeling, change in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, and a patient global assessment of change questionnaire. RESULTS: From July 2018 to June 2019, we randomized 93 patients with the following characteristics: mean age, 60.7±10.4 years; median time from myocardial infarction, 3.6 years (interquartile range, 1.2-7.2); mean LV ejection fraction, 36.8%±7.1%; and median NT-proBNP, 230 pg/mL (interquartile range, 124-404). Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, did not significantly reduce LV end-systolic volume index; adjusted between-group difference, -1.9 mL/m2 (95% CI, -4.9 to 1.0); P=0.19. There were no significant between-group differences in NT-proBNP, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, LV end-diastolic volume index, left atrial volume index, LV ejection fraction, LV mass index, or patient global assessment of change. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with asymptomatic LV systolic dysfunction late after myocardial infarction, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant reverse remodeling effect compared with valsartan. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03552575.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Left Ventricular Volumes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes, or Prediabetes, and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (SUGAR-DM-HF).

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, their effects on cardiac structure and function in HFrEF are uncertain. METHODS: We designed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (the SUGAR-DM-HF trial [Studies of Empagliflozin and Its Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolic Effects in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus, or Prediabetes, and Heart Failure]) to investigate the cardiac effects of empagliflozin in patients in New York Heart Association functional class II to IV with a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ≤40% and type 2 diabetes or prediabetes. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo, stratified by age (<65 and ≥65 years) and glycemic status (diabetes or prediabetes). The coprimary outcomes were change from baseline to 36 weeks in LV end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area and LV global longitudinal strain both measured using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Secondary efficacy outcomes included other cardiovascular magnetic resonance measures (LV end-diastolic volume index, LV ejection fraction), diuretic intensification, symptoms (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score, 6-minute walk distance, B-lines on lung ultrasound, and biomarkers (including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). RESULTS: From April 2018 to August 2019, 105 patients were randomly assigned: mean age 68.7 (SD, 11.1) years, 77 (73.3%) male, 82 (78.1%) diabetes and 23 (21.9%) prediabetes, mean LV ejection fraction 32.5% (9.8%), and 81 (77.1%) New York Heart Association II and 24 (22.9%) New York Heart Association III. Patients received standard treatment for HFrEF. In comparison with placebo, empagliflozin reduced LV end-systolic volume index by 6.0 (95% CI, -10.8 to -1.2) mL/m2 (P=0.015). There was no difference in LV global longitudinal strain. Empagliflozin reduced LV end-diastolic volume index by 8.2 (95% CI, -13.7 to -2.6) mL/m2 (P=0.0042) and reduced N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide by 28% (2%-47%), P=0.038. There were no between-group differences in other cardiovascular magnetic resonance measures, diuretic intensification, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score, 6-minute walk distance, or B-lines. CONCLUSIONS: The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin reduced LV volumes in patients with HFrEF and type 2 diabetes or prediabetes. Favorable reverse LV remodeling may be a mechanism by which sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalization and mortality in HFrEF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03485092.

How Do SGLT2 (Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2) Inhibitors and GLP-1 (Glucagon-Like Peptide-1) Receptor Agonists Reduce Cardiovascular Outcomes?: Completed and Ongoing Mechanistic Trials.

OBJECTIVE: There is substantial interest in how GLP-1RA (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) and SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors reduce cardiovascular and renal events; yet, robust mechanistic data in humans remain sparse. We conducted a narrative review of published and ongoing mechanistic clinical trials investigating the actions of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1RAs to help the community appreciate the extent of ongoing work and the variety and design of such trials. Approach and Results: To date, trials investigating the mechanisms of action of SGLT2 inhibitors have focused on pathways linked to glucose metabolism and toxicity, hemodynamic/volume, vascular and renal actions, and cardiac effects, including those on myocardial energetics. The participants studied have included those with established cardiovascular disease (including coronary artery disease and heart failure), liver disease, renal impairment, obesity, and hypertension; some of these trials have enrolled patients both with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus. GLP-1RA mechanistic trials have focused on glucose-lowering, insulin-sparing, weight reduction, and blood pressure-lowering effects, as well as possible direct vascular, cardiac, and renal effects of these agents. Very few mechanisms of action of SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1RAs have so far been convincingly demonstrated. One small trial (n=97) of SGLT2 inhibitors has investigated the cardiac effects of these drugs, where a small reduction in left ventricular mass was found. Data on vascular effects are limited to one trial in type 1 diabetes mellitus, which suggests some beneficial actions. SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce liver fat. We highlight the near absence of mechanistic data to explain the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients without diabetes mellitus. GLP-1RAs have not been found to have major cardiovascular mechanisms of action in the limited, completed trials. Conflicting data around the impact on infarct size have been reported. No effect on left ventricular ejection fraction has been demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: We have tabulated the extensive ongoing mechanistic trials that will report over the coming years. We report 2 exemplar ongoing mechanistic trials in detail to give examples of the designs and techniques employed. The results of these many ongoing trials should help us understand how SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1RAs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes and may also identify unexpected mechanisms suggesting novel therapeutic applications.

Comparing the interobserver reproducibility of different regions of interest on multi-parametric renal magnetic resonance imaging in healthy volunteers, patients with heart failure and renal transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess interobserver reproducibility of different regions of interest (ROIs) on multi-parametric renal MRI using commercially available software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthy volunteers (HV), patients with heart failure (HF) and renal transplant recipients (Tx) were recruited. Localiser scans, T1 mapping and pseudo-continuous arterial spin labelling (pCASL) were performed. HV and Tx also underwent diffusion-weighted imaging to allow calculation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). For T1, pCASL and ADC, ROIs were drawn for whole kidney (WK), cortex (Cx), user-defined representative cortex (rep-Cx) and medulla. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CoV) were assessed. RESULTS: Forty participants were included (10 HV, 10 HF and 20 Tx). The ICC for renal volume was 0.97 and CoV 6.5%. For T1 and ADC, WK, Cx, and rep-Cx were highly reproducible with ICC ≥ 0.76 and CoV < 5%. However, cortical pCASL results were more variable (ICC > 0.86, but CoV up to 14.2%). While reproducible, WK values were derived from a wide spread of data (ROI standard deviation 17% to 55% of the mean value for ADC and pCASL, respectively). Renal volume differed between groups (p < 0.001), while mean cortical T1 values were greater in Tx compared to HV (p = 0.009) and HF (p = 0.02). Medullary T1 values were also higher in Tx than HV (p = 0.03), while medullary pCASL values were significantly lower in Tx compared to HV and HF (p = 0.03 for both). DISCUSSION: Kidney volume calculated by manually contouring a localiser scan was highly reproducible between observers and detected significant differences across patient groups. For T1, pCASL and ADC, Cx and rep-Cx ROIs are generally reproducible with advantages over WK values.

Statins in the Prevention and Treatment of Heart Failure: a Review of the Evidence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We summarize the best evidence for statins in the prevention and treatment of heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: In patients with cardiovascular risk factors or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (but without heart failure), statins reduce the risk of incident heart failure-mainly by preventing myocardial infarction although an additional benefit from reducing myocardial ischemia cannot be excluded. However, in patients with established heart failure, statins do not reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, which is mainly caused by pump failure and ventricular arrhythmias. Retrospective analyses, however, suggest that statins may reduce the rate of heart failure hospitalization and atherosclerotic events (which are proportionately much less common in these patients than heart failure hospitalization or death). Statin therapy should probably be continued in patients with coronary artery disease developing heart failure, although the weak evidence and small benefit may not justify the use of this treatment in very elderly patients with a short life expectancy and in which polypharmacy is a problem.

Prevalence of Prediabetes and Undiagnosed Diabetes in Patients with HFpEF and HFrEF and Associated Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: The prevalence and consequences of prediabetic dysglycemia and undiagnosed diabetes is unknown in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and has not been compared to heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: We examined the prevalence and outcomes associated with normoglycemia, prediabetic dysglycemia and diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) among individuals with a baseline glycated hemoglobin (hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c) measurement stratified by HFrEF or HFpEF in the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity programme (CHARM). We studied the primary outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death, and all-cause death, and estimated hazard ratios (HR) by use of multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: HbA1c was measured at baseline in CHARM patients enrolled in the USA and Canada and was available in 1072/3023 (35%) of patients with HFpEF and 1578/4576 (34%) patients with HFrEF. 18 and 16% had normoglycemia (HbA1c < 6.0), 20 and 22% had prediabetes (HbA1c 6.0-6.4), respectively. Finally among patients with HFpEF 22% had undiagnosed diabetes (HbA1c > 6.4), and 40% had known diabetes (any HbA1c), with corresponding prevalence among HFrEF patients being 26 and 35%. The rates of both clinical outcomes of interest were higher in patients with undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes, compared to normoglycemic patients, irrespective of HF subtype, and in general higher among HFrEF patients. For the primary composite outcome among HFpEF patients, the HRs were 1.02 (95% CI 0.63-1.65) for prediabetes, HR 1.18 (0.75-1.86) for undiagnosed diabetes and 2.75 (1.83-4.11) for known diabetes, respectively, p value for trend across groups < 0.001. Dysglycemia was also associated with worse outcomes in HFrEF. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the remarkably high prevalence of dysglycemia in heart failure irrespective of ejection fraction phenotype, and demonstrate that dysglycemia is associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, even before the diagnosis of diabetes and institution of glucose lowering therapy in patients with HFpEF as well as HFrEF.

Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial.

AIM: We assessed the management and outcomes of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients randomly assigned to fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided management or angiography-guided standard care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, parallel group, 1 : 1 randomized, controlled trial in 350 NSTEMI patients with ≥1 coronary stenosis ≥30% of the lumen diameter assessed visually (threshold for FFR measurement) (NCT01764334). Enrolment took place in six UK hospitals from October 2011 to May 2013. Fractional flow reserve was disclosed to the operator in the FFR-guided group (n = 176). Fractional flow reserve was measured but not disclosed in the angiography-guided group (n = 174). Fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 was an indication for revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The median (IQR) time from the index episode of myocardial ischaemia to angiography was 3 (2, 5) days. For the primary outcome, the proportion of patients treated initially by medical therapy was higher in the FFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group [40 (22.7%) vs. 23 (13.2%), difference 95% (95% CI: 1.4%, 17.7%), P = 0.022]. Fractional flow reserve disclosure resulted in a change in treatment between medical therapy, PCI or CABG in 38 (21.6%) patients. At 12 months, revascularization remained lower in the FFR-guided group [79.0 vs. 86.8%, difference 7.8% (-0.2%, 15.8%), P = 0.054]. There were no statistically significant differences in health outcomes and quality of life between the groups. CONCLUSION: In NSTEMI patients, angiography-guided management was associated with higher rates of coronary revascularization compared with FFR-guided management. A larger trial is necessary to assess health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Advances in Multi-Modality Imaging in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is characterized by abnormal growth of the myocardium with myofilament disarray and myocardial hyper-contractility, leading to left ventricular hypertrophy and fibrosis. Where culprit genes are identified, they typically relate to cardiomyocyte sarcomere structure and function. Multi-modality imaging plays a crucial role in the diagnosis, monitoring, and risk stratification of HCM, as well as in screening those at risk. Following the recent publication of the first European Society of Cardiology (ESC) cardiomyopathy guidelines, we build on previous reviews and explore the roles of electrocardiography, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), cardiac computed tomography (CT), and nuclear imaging. We examine each modality's strengths along with their limitations in turn, and discuss how they can be used in isolation, or in combination, to facilitate a personalized approach to patient care, as well as providing key information and robust safety and efficacy evidence within new areas of research.

Effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on outcomes from COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed the effects of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This meta-analysis provides estimates of the safety and efficacy of treatment with (vs. without) RAS blockers from these trials. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (1 March-12 April 2023). Event/patient numbers were extracted, comparing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) treatment with no treatment, for the outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, acute kidney injury (AKI), renal replacement therapy (RRT), acute myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, heart failure, thromboembolic events, and all-cause death. Fixed-effects meta-analysis estimates were pooled. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs including 3492 patients were analysed. Compared with discontinuation of RAS blockers, continuation was not associated with increased risk of ICU [risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 0.66-1.41], ventilation (RR 0.77, 0.55-1.09), vasopressors (RR 0.92, 0.58-1.44), AKI (RR 1.01, 0.40-2.56), RRT (RR 1.01, 0.46-2.21), or thromboembolic events (RR 1.07, 0.36-3.19). RAS blocker initiation was not associated with increased risk of ICU (RR 0.71, 0.47-1.08), ventilation (RR 1.12, 0.91-1.38), AKI (RR 1.28, 0.89-1.86), RRT (RR 1.66, 0.89-3.12), or thromboembolic events (RR 1.20, 0.06-23.70), although vasopressor use increased (RR 1.27, 1.02-1.57). The RR for all-cause death in the continuation/discontinuation trials was 1.24 (0.80-1.92), and 1.22 (0.96-1.55) in the initiation trials. In patients with severe/critical COVID-19, RAS blocker initiation increased the risk of all-cause death (RR 1.31, 1.01-1.72). CONCLUSION: ACE inhibitors and ARBs may be continued in non-severe COVID-19 infection, where indicated. Conversely, initiation of RAS blockers may be harmful in critically ill patients.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023408926.

Body mass index and cardiorenal outcomes in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial: Principal findings and meta-analysis with the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Both low and high body mass index (BMI) are associated with poor heart failure outcomes. Whether BMI modifies benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) requires further investigation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using EMPEROR-Preserved data, the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on the risks for the primary outcome (hospitalization for heart failure [HHF] or cardiovascular [CV] death), change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slopes, change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS), and secondary outcomes across baseline BMI categories (<25 kg/m2, 25 to <30 kg/m2, 30 to <35 kg/m2, 35 to <40 kg/m2 and ≥40 kg/m2) were examined, and a meta-analysis conducted with DELIVER. Forty-five percent had a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2. For the primary outcome, there was a consistent treatment effect of empagliflozin versus placebo across the BMI categories with no formal interaction (p trend = 0.19) by BMI categories. There was also no difference in the effects on secondary outcomes including total HHF (p trend = 0.19), CV death (p trend = 0.20), or eGFR slope with slower declines with empagliflozin regardless of BMI (range 1.12-1.71 ml/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo, p trend = 0.85 for interaction), though there was no overall impact on the composite renal endpoint. The difference in weight change between empagliflozin and placebo was -0.59, -1.48, -1.54, -0.87, and - 2.67 kg in the lowest to highest BMI categories (p trend = 0.016 for interaction). A meta-analysis of data from EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER showed a consistent effect of SGLT2i versus placebo across BMI categories for the outcome of HHF or CV death. There was a trend toward greater absolute KCCQ-CSS benefit at 32 weeks with empagliflozin at higher BMIs (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin treatment resulted in broadly consistent cardiac effects across the range of BMI in patients with HFpEF. SGLT2i treatment yields benefit in patients with HFpEF regardless of baseline BMI.