Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains unsettled. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) and medical therapy compared to medical therapy alone in patients with AF and HFrEF. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CA with guideline-directed medical therapy for AF in patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤ 40%). We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for eligible trials. A random effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Six RCTs comprising 1055 patients were included, of whom 530 (50.2%) were randomized to CA. Compared with medical therapy, CA was associated with a significant reduction in heart failure (HF) hospitalization (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.45-0.72; P < .01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.31-0.70; P < .01), all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36-0.78; P < .01), and AF burden (MD -29.8%; 95% CI -43.73% to -15.90%; P < .01). Also, there was a significant improvement in LVEF (MD 3.8%; 95% CI 1.6%-6.0%; P < .01) and quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; MD -4.92 points; 95% CI -8.61 to -1.22 points; P < .01) in the ablation group. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with AF and HFrEF, CA was associated with a reduction in HF hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality as well as a significant improvement in LVEF and quality of life.

Multifaceted Strategy Based on Automated Text Messaging After a Recent Heart Failure Admission: The MESSAGE-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Readmissions after an index heart failure (HF) hospitalization are a major contemporary health care problem. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of an intensive telemonitoring strategy in the vulnerable period after an HF hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted in 30 HF clinics in Brazil. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% and access to mobile phones were enrolled up to 30 days after an HF admission. Data were collected from July 2019 to July 2022. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to a telemonitoring strategy or standard care. The telemonitoring group received 4 daily short message service text messages to optimize self-care, active engagement, and early intervention. Red flags based on feedback messages triggered automatic diuretic adjustment and/or a telephone call from the health care team. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline to 180 days. A hierarchical win-ratio analysis incorporating blindly adjudicated clinical events (cardiovascular deaths and HF hospitalization) and variation in NT-proBNP was also performed. Results: Of 699 included patients, 460 (65.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 61.2 (14.5) years. A total of 352 patients were randomly assigned to the telemonitoring strategy and 347 to standard care. Satisfaction with the telemonitoring strategy was excellent (net promoting score at 180 days, 78.5). HF self-care increased significantly in the telemonitoring group compared with the standard care group (score difference at 30 days, -2.21; 95% CI, -3.67 to -0.74; P = .001; score difference at 180 days, -2.08; 95% CI, -3.59 to -0.57; P = .004). Variation of NT-proBNP was similar in the telemonitoring group compared with the standard care group (telemonitoring: baseline, 2593 pg/mL; 95% CI, 2314-2923; 180 days, 1313 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1117-1543; standard care: baseline, 2396 pg/mL; 95% CI, 2122-2721; 180 days, 1319 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1114-1564; ratio of change, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77-1.11; P = .39). Hierarchical analysis of the composite outcome demonstrated a similar number of wins in both groups (telemonitoring, 49 883 of 122 144 comparisons [40.8%]; standard care, 48 034 of 122 144 comparisons [39.3%]; win ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86-1.26). Conclusions and Relevance: An intensive telemonitoring strategy applied in the vulnerable period after an HF admission was feasible, well-accepted, and increased scores of HF self-care but did not translate to reductions in NT-proBNP levels nor improvement in a composite hierarchical clinical outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04062461.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials.

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias and mortality in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Few reports have examined the incidence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) or their relationship with mortality in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the PARAGON-HF, TOPCAT, I-Preserve, and CHARM-Preserved trials were merged. VT/VF, reported as adverse events, were identified. Patients who experienced VT/VF were compared with patients who did not. The relationship between VT/VF and mortality was examined in time-updated Cox proportional hazard regression models. Variables associated with VT/VF were examined in Cox proportional hazard regression models. The rate of VT/VF in patients with HFmrEF compared with patients with HFpEF was examined in a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Of 13 609 patients, over a median follow-up of 1170 days (interquartile range: 966-1451), 146 (1.1%) experienced an investigator-reported VT/VF (incidence rate 0.3 per 100 person-years). Patients who experienced VT/VF were more likely to be male, have had a myocardial infarction, poorer renal function, more adverse left ventricular remodelling, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) than patients who did not. Occurrence of VT/VF was associated with NT-proBNP, history of atrial fibrillation/flutter, male sex, lower ejection fraction, and history of hypertension. VT/VF was associated with all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 3.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.80-5.57; P < 0.001] and cardiovascular death, driven by death from heart failure and not sudden death. Patients with HFmrEF had a higher rate of VT/VF than patients with HFpEF (adjusted HR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.77-2.71). CONCLUSION: VT/VF was uncommon in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. However, such events were strongly associated with mortality and appear to be a marker of disease severity rather than risk of sudden death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier: NCT01920711(PARAGON-HF); NCT00094302 (TOPCAT); NCT00095238 (I-Preserve); NCT00634712 (CHARM-Preserved).

Associations Between New York Heart Association Classification, Objective Measures, and Long-term Prognosis in Mild Heart Failure: A Secondary Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial.

Importance: Heart failure (HF) treatment recommendations are centered on New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, such that most apparently asymptomatic patients are not eligible for disease-modifying therapies. Objectives: To assess within-patient variation in NYHA classification over time, the association between NYHA class and an objective measure of HF severity (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level), and their association with long-term prognosis in the PARADIGM-HF trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients in PARADIGM-HF were in NYHA class II or higher at baseline and were treated with sacubitril-valsartan during a 6- to 10-week run-in period before randomization. Patients classified as NYHA class I, II, and III in PARADIGM-HF were compared at randomization. Exposures: NYHA class at randomization after 6 to 10 weeks of the run-in period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was cardiovascular death or first HF hospitalization. Logistic regression models, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), kernel density estimation overlaps, and Cox proportional hazards models were used. Results: The analysis included 8326 patients with known NYHA classification at randomization. Of 389 patients in NYHA class I, 228 (58%) changed functional class during the first year after randomization. Level of NT-proBNP was a poor discriminator of NYHA classification: for NYHA class I vs II, the AUC was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.48-0.54). For NT-proBNP level, estimated kernel density overlap was 93% between NYHA class I vs II, 79% between NYHA I vs III, and 83% between NYHA II vs III. Patients classified as NYHA III displayed a distinctively higher rate of cardiovascular events (NYHA III vs I, hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.44-2.37; NYHA III vs II, HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.35-1.64). Patients in NYHA class I and II revealed lower event rates (NYHA II vs I, HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.97-1.58). Stratification by NT-proBNP level (<1600 pg/mL or ≥1600 pg/mL) identified subgroups with distinctive risk, such that NYHA class I patients with high NT-proBNP levels (n = 175) had a numerically higher event rate than patients with low NT-proBNP levels from any NYHA class (vs I, HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.03-5.87; vs II, HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.58-2.86; vs III, HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.00-1.88). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients in NYHA class I and II overlapped substantially in objective measures and long-term prognosis. Physician-defined "asymptomatic" functional class concealed patients who were at substantial risk for adverse outcomes. NYHA classification might be limited to differentiate mild forms of HF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035255.

Are the recommendation of sodium and fluid restriction in heart failure patients changing over the past years? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a growing problem for healthcare systems worldwide. Sodium and fluid restriction are non-pharmacological treatments recommended for patients with HF by several guidelines over the years, even without consensus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of sodium and fluid restriction in patients with HF. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to June 2020 and screened the reference lists of relevant articles. We included randomized controlled trials evaluating sodium and/or fluid restriction in patients with HF. We assessed three independent comparisons: (a) sodium restriction versus control; (b) fluid restriction versus control; and (c) sodium and fluid restriction versus control. Main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and hospitalization. Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. We pooled the results using random-effects meta-analysis. We used the RoB 2.0 and the GRADE framework to assess risk of bias and quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 16 studies totaling 3545 patients in our meta-analysis. Daily sodium intake was 1.5-2.4 g for the intervention group and >2.7 g for the control group, and daily fluid intake was 0.8-1.5 L for the intervention group and free oral fluid intake for the control group. Sodium restriction increased mortality (relative risk 1.92, 95% confidence interval 1.51 to 2.45, moderate quality of evidence) and hospitalization (relative risk 1.63, 1.11 to 2.40, low quality of evidence). Fluid restriction reduced mortality (relative risk 0.32, 0.13 to 0.82, low quality of evidence) and hospitalization (relative risk 0.46, 0.27 to 0.77, n = 331, low quality of evidence). The combination of sodium and fluid restriction did not significantly affect the risk of mortality (relative risk 0.92, 0.49 to 1.73, low quality of evidence) or the risk of hospitalization (relative risk 0.94, 0.75 to 1.19, low quality of evidence). CONCLUSION: The combination of sodium and fluid restriction in clinical trials resulted in a null effect although results in the opposite direction were observed for each intervention independently. Combined sodium and fluid restriction are usually recommended for patients with HF. Our findings of sodium restriction harm, risk of mortality and hospitalization are consistent with publications from several clinical trial and physiologic explanations. A well-designed clinical trial nested by an implementation study is urgent for definitive sodium range recommendation, specially considering the change of currently guidelines, pushing up the cut-off of sodium restriction range.

Growth/differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) as a predictor of serious arrhythmic events in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac biomarkers have been proposed as a new tool to improve risk stratification of serious arrhythmic events in patients with heart failure (HF) beyond estimates of left ventricular ejection fraction. Growth differentiation factor (GDF)-15, a stress-induced cytokine, has been found to correlate with markers of myocardial fibrosis and adverse clinical outcomes, but its role as a predictor of arrhythmic events in patients with nonischemic HF is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective observational study was conducted in 148 nonischemic patients with HF who underwent comprehensive clinical and laboratory evaluation, including measurement of serum GDF-15. The study endpoints were serious arrhythmic events (which included appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy and sudden cardiac death) and all-cause mortality. Mean age of the cohort was 54.8 ± 12.7 years, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 27.4% ± 7.5%. During a mean follow-up time of 42 months, arrhythmic events occurred in 28 patients (19%), and 40 patients (27%) died. An increase in serum GDF-15 (log-transformed) correlated linearly with a higher risk of serious arrhythmic events (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28, p = 0.03) even after adjustment for other potential clinical predictors (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.32, p = 0.02). GDF-15 was also strongly and independently associated with all-cause mortality (HR 1.17, 1.05-1.31, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of nonischemic HF patients on optimized medical treatment, serum GDF-15 levels were independently associated with major arrhythmic events and overall mortality. This biomarker may add prognostic information to better stratify the risk of sudden death in this particular population.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias in PARADIGM-HF.

AIMS: Sudden death is a leading cause of mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of sudden death. The purpose of this post hoc study was to analyse the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared to enalapril, on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adverse event reports related to ventricular arrhythmias were examined in PARADIGM-HF. The effect of randomized treatment on two arrhythmia outcomes was analysed: ventricular arrhythmias and the composite of a ventricular arrhythmia, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The risk of death related to a ventricular arrhythmia was examined in time-updated models. The interaction between heart failure aetiology, or baseline ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) use, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan was analysed. Of the 8399 participants, 333 (4.0%) reported a ventricular arrhythmia and 372 (4.4%) the composite arrhythmia outcome. Ventricular arrhythmias were associated with higher mortality. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of a ventricular arrhythmia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.95; p = 0.015) and the composite arrhythmia outcome (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p = 0.025). The treatment effect was maintained after adjustment and accounting for the competing risk of death. Baseline ICD/CRT-D use did not modify the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but aetiology did: HR in patients with an ischaemic aetiology 0.93 (95% CI 0.71-1.21) versus 0.53 (95% CI 0.37-0.78) in those without an ischaemic aetiology (p for interaction = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias in patients with HFrEF. This effect may have been greater in patients with a non-ischaemic aetiology.

Design of a multifaceted strategy based on automated text messaging in patients with recent heart failure admission.

AIMS: To evaluate a telemonitoring strategy based on automated text messaging and telephone support after heart failure (HF) hospitalization. METHODS AND RESULTS: The MESSAGE-HF study is a prospective multicentre, randomized, nationwide trial enrolling patients from 30 clinics in all regions of Brazil. HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<40%) and access to mobile phones are eligible after an acute decompensated HF hospitalization. Patients meeting eligibility criteria undergo an initial feasibility text messaging assessment and are randomized to usual care or telemonitoring intervention. All patients receive a HF booklet with basic information and recommendations about self-care. Patients in the intervention group receive four daily short text messages (educational and feedback) during the first 30 days of the protocol to optimize self-care; the feedback text messages from patients could trigger diuretic adjustments or a telephone call from the healthcare team. After 30 days, the frequency of text messages can be adjusted. Patients are followed up after 30, 90, and 180 days, with final status ascertained at 365 days by telephone. Our primary endpoint is the change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels after 180 days. Secondary endpoints include changes in NT-proBNP after 30 days; health-related quality of life, HF self-care, and knowledge scales after 30 and 180 days; and a composite outcome of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death, adjudicated by a blinded and independent committee. CONCLUSIONS: The MESSAGE-HF trial is evaluating an educational and self-care promotion strategy involving a simple, intensive, and tailored telemonitoring system. If proven effective, it could be applied to a broader population worldwide.

Effects of a diuretic adjustment algorithm protocol on heart failure admissions: A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a diuretic adjustment algorithm (DAA) in maintaining clinical stability and reducing HF readmissions using telemonitoring technologies. METHODS: Randomized clinical trial of patients with an indication for furosemide dose adjustment during routine outpatient visits. In the intervention group (IG), the diuretic dose was adjusted according to the DAA and the patients received telephone calls for 30 days. In the control group (CG), the diuretic dose was adjusted by a physician at baseline only. Co-primary outcomes were hospital readmission and/or emergency department visits due to decompensated HF within 90 days, and a 2-point change in the Clinical Congestion Score and/or a deterioration in New York Heart Association functional class within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients were included. Most patients were male (n=119; 58%), with a mean age of 62 (SD 13) years. Four patients (2%) in the IG and 14 (7%) in the CG were hospitalized for HF (odds ratio (OR) 0.31 (0.10-0.91); p=0.04). Multivariate analysis showed a reduction of 67% in readmissions and/or emergency department visits due to decompensated HF in the IG compared with the CG (95% CI 0.13-0.88; p=0.027). Regarding the combined outcome of HF readmission and/or emergency department visits or clinical instability, the IG had 20% fewer events than the CG within 30 days (IG: n=48 (23%), CG: n=70 (34%); OR 0.80 (0.63-0.93); p=0.03). DISCUSSION: Using DAA improved the combined outcome in these outpatients, with favorable and significant results that included a reduction in HF admissions and in clinical instability. (NCT02068937).

Cardiac and Noncardiac Disease Burden and Treatment Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From a Combined PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The net clinical benefit of cardiac disease-modifying drugs might be influenced by the interaction of different domains of disease burden. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac, comorbid, and demographic factors in heart failure (HF) and how their interplay might influence HF prognosis and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: We combined data from 2 global trials that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with a renin-angiotensin antagonist in symptomatic HF patients (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure; n=8399] and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptors Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; n=4796]). We decomposed the previously validated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score into cardiac (left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medications), noncardiac comorbid (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking), and demographic (age, gender) categories. Based on these domains, an index representing the balance of cardiac to noncardiac comorbid burden was created (cardiac-comorbid index). Clinical outcomes were time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Higher scores of the cardiac domain were observed in PARADIGM-HF (10 [7-13] versus 5 [3-6], P<0.001) and higher scores of the demographic domain in PARAGON-HF (10 [8-13] versus 5 [2-9], P<0.001). In PARADIGM-HF, the contribution of the cardiac domain to clinical outcomes was greater than the noncardiac domain (P<0.001), while in PARAGON-HF the attributable risk of the comorbid and demographic categories predominated. Individual scores from each sub-domain were linearly associated with the risk of clinical outcomes (P<0.001). Beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan were observed in patients with preponderance of cardiac over noncardiac comorbid burden (cardiac-comorbid index >5 points), suggesting a significant treatment effect modification (interaction P<0.05 for both outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Domains of disease burden are clinically relevant features that influence the prognosis and treatment of patients with HF. The therapeutic benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vary according to the balance of components of disease burden, across different ranges of left ventricular ejection fraction.

Dynamic changes in cardiovascular and systemic parameters prior to sudden cardiac death in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a PARADIGM-HF analysis.

AIMS: Prognostic models of sudden cardiac death (SCD) typically incorporate data at only a single time-point. We investigated independent predictors of SCD addressing the impact of integrating time-varying covariates to improve prediction assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 8399 patients enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF trial and identified independent predictors of SCD (n = 561, 36% of total deaths) using time-updated multivariable-adjusted Cox models, classification and regression tree (CART), and logistic regression analysis. Compared with patients who were alive or died from non-sudden cardiovascular deaths, patients who suffered a SCD displayed a distinct temporal profile of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, heart rate and levels of three biomarkers (albumin, uric acid and total bilirubin), with significant differences observed more than 1 year prior to the event (Pinteraction < 0.001). In multivariable models adjusted for baseline covariates, seven time-updated variables independently contributed to SCD risk (incremental likelihood chi-square = 46.2). CART analysis identified that baseline variables (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use and N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide levels) and time-updated covariates (NYHA class, total bilirubin, and total cholesterol) improved risk stratification. CART-defined subgroup of highest risk had nearly an eightfold increment in SCD hazard (hazard ratio 7.7, 95% confidence interval 3.6-16.5; P < 0.001). Finally, changes over time in heart rate, NYHA class, blood urea nitrogen and albumin levels were associated with differential risk of sudden vs. non-sudden cardiovascular deaths (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond single time-point assessments, distinct changes in multiple cardiac-specific and systemic variables improved SCD risk prediction and were helpful in differentiating mode of death in chronic heart failure.

Revisiting heart failure assessment based on objective measures in NYHA functional classes I and II.

OBJECTIVE: New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class plays a central role in heart failure (HF) assessment but might be unreliable in mild presentations. We compared objective measures of HF functional evaluation between patients classified as NYHA I and II in the Rede Brasileira de Estudos em Insuficiência Cardíaca (ReBIC)-1 Trial. METHODS: The ReBIC-1 Trial included outpatients with stable HF with reduced ejection fraction. All patients had simultaneous protocol-defined assessment of NYHA class, 6 min walk test (6MWT), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and patient's self-perception of dyspnoea using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, range 0-100). RESULTS: Of 188 included patients with HF, 122 (65%) were classified as NYHA I and 66 (35%) as NYHA II at baseline. Although NYHA class I patients had lower dyspnoea VAS Scores (median 16 (IQR, 4-30) for class I vs 27.5 (11-49) for class II, p=0.001), overlap between classes was substantial (density overlap=60%). A similar profile was observed for NT-proBNP levels (620 pg/mL (248-1333) vs 778 (421-1737), p=0.015; overlap=78%) and for 6MWT distance (400 m (330-466) vs 351 m (286-408), p=0.028; overlap=64%). Among NYHA class I patients, 19%-34% had one marker of HF severity (VAS Score >30 points, 6MWT <300 m or NT-proBNP levels >1000 pg/mL) and 6%-10% had two of them. Temporal change in functional class was not accompanied by variation on dyspnoea VAS (p=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients classified as NYHA classes I and II had similar self-perception of their limitation, objective physical capabilities and levels of natriuretic peptides. These results suggest the NYHA classification poorly discriminates patients with mild HF.

Sacubitril/Valsartan and Sudden Cardiac Death According to Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Use and Heart Failure Cause: A PARADIGM-HF Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan therapy on sudden cardiac death (SCD) according to the use of and eligibility for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), stratified by heart failure cause. BACKGROUND: SCD still accounts for a significant proportion of overall mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial (n = 8,399) were evaluated to assess patterns of ICD implantation and eligibility according to clinical guidelines. The impact of ICD (adjusted for propensity of ICD implantation) and sacubitril/valsartan therapy on SCD was evaluated by using cause-specific Cox models and competing risk analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, of the 7,145 patients (85%) eligible for ICD implantation, only 1,243 (15%) had an ICD. Use of ICD varied by region with the highest rates in North America (56%) and lowest in Asia-Pacific (1.7%). In a propensity score-adjusted analysis, use of an ICD was associated with a 56% lower risk of SCD in ICD-eligible patients, in both patients with ischemic (p < 0.001) and nonischemic cardiomyopathy (p = 0.02). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SCD risk in patients with an ICD (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 0.99) and in those who were eligible for but did not receive an ICD (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98). This effect was particularly evident in nonischemic cardiomyopathy (p < 0.05), although interaction with the cause of HF was not significant (p = 0.11 in subjects using an ICD and p = 0.25 in eligible nonusers). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an ICD was associated with lower rates of SCD, regardless of HF cause but was underused in most regions of the world in the PARADIGM-HF study. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SCD risk regardless of use of an ICD or eligibility, particularly in ICD users and nonischemic cardiomyopathy.