Natriuretic Peptides, Kidney Function, and Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptides (NT-proBNPs) are guideline-recommended biomarkers for risk stratification in patients with heart failure. However, NT-proBNP levels are often elevated in chronic kidney disease, introducing uncertainty about their prognostic relevance in persons across a broad range of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the association of NT-proBNP with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, stratified by baseline kidney function. METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted of participants with NT-proBNP and eGFR measured at baseline in the I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction), TOPCAT (Americas region) (Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function), PARAGON (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction), and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients With PReserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. The relationship between NT-proBNP and eGFR was assessed using piecewise linear regression. Using multivariable Cox and Poisson regression models, the association of NT-proBNP with outcomes across a range of eGFR was evaluated. The primary outcome was hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Among 14,831 participants (mean age: 72.1 years; 50.3% female; mean eGFR: 63.3 mL/min/1.73 m2, and median NT-proBNP: 840 pg/mL) followed up for a median 33.5 months, there were 3,092 primary outcomes. NT-proBNP levels increased by 9%, 8%, and 23% per 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 lower eGFR in patients with baseline eGFR ≥60, 45-<60, and <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively (P for nonlinearity < 0.001). Each doubling in NT-proBNP was associated with a 37% relative increase in the primary outcome (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.34-1.41), consistent across different eGFR categories (P for interaction = 0.42). For the same incidence of the primary outcome, NT-proBNP levels were approximately 2.5- to 3.5-fold lower in patients with eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, compared with patients with eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Similar patterns were observed across all outcomes studied, including cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: The same NT-proBNP concentration predicts a substantially higher absolute risk of adverse outcomes for people with heart failure and reduced kidney function, compared with those with preserved kidney function. These data call into question proposals for higher NT-proBNP references ranges in people with CKD, and suggest that reduced kidney function per se should not be a reason to disregard higher NT-proBNP levels.

Race in Heart Failure: A Pooled Participant-Level Analysis of the Global PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF Trials.

BACKGROUND: Mechanisms of disease pathobiology, prognosis, and potentially treatment responses might vary by race in patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan among patients with HF by self-reported race. METHODS: PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) were global, randomized clinical trials testing sacubitril/valsartan against a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor ([RASi], enalapril or valsartan, respectively) in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (PARADIGM-HF) or left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% (PARAGON-HF). Patients with self-reported race were categorized as White, Asian, or Black. We assessed the composite of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, its components, and angioedema across races. RESULTS: Among 12,097 participants, 9,451 (78.1%) were White, 2,116 (17.5%) were Asian, and 530 (4.4%) were Black. Over a median follow-up of 2.5 years, Black (adjusted HR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.42-1.98) and Asian patients (adjusted HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.18-1.47) experienced higher risks of the primary outcome compared with White patients. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi on the primary endpoint were consistent among White (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.91), Asian (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.78-1.10), and Black patients (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.58-1.07; Pinteraction = 0.58). Rates of severe angioedema were higher with sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi (White: 0.2% vs 0.1%; Black: 1.5% vs 0.0%; Asian: 0.1% vs 0.1%). CONCLUSIONS: In a pooled experience of 2 global trials, Black and Asian patients exhibited a higher risk of cardiovascular events than White patients. The benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent across races. Risks of severe angioedema were low but numerically higher with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255; Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Clinical Correlates and Prognostic Impact of Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is common in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction but its clinical correlates and prognostic associations are poorly understood. METHODS: We analyzed cognitive function, using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction enrolled in a prespecified substudy of the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the variables associated with lower MMSE scores at baseline and postbaseline decline in MMSE scores at 48 weeks. Cox proportional hazards regression and semiparametric proportional rates models were used to examine the risk of clinical outcomes related to baseline MMSE scores, and decline in MMSE scores during follow-up, adjusted for prognostic variables including NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). RESULTS: At baseline, cognitive function was normal (MMSE score 28-30) in 1809 of 2895 patients (62.5%), borderline (score 24-27) in 794 (27.4%), and impaired (score <24) in 292 (10.1%). Variables associated with both a lower MMSE score at baseline and a decline in score from baseline included older age, a history of stroke or transient ischemia attack, and lower serum albumin. Compared with those with baseline MMSE scores of 28 to 30, patients in the lower MMSE score categories had a stepwise increase in the risk of the composite of time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.53) for those with scores of 24 to 27 and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.21-2.06) for those with scores <24, respectively. These associations were also found for the individual components of the composite and all-cause death. Likewise, cognitive impairment was associated with a 50% higher risk of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Examining the change in MMSE score from baseline, a decrease in MMSE score during follow-up was associated with a higher risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, even modest baseline impairment of cognitive function was associated with worse outcomes, including death. A decline in MMSE score during follow-up was a strong predictor of mortality, independent of other prognostic variables.

Personalized Intervention Strategy Based on a Risk Score Generated From Subcutaneous Insertable Cardiac Monitor: Results From Phase 1 of ALLEVIATE-HF.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic variables from insertable cardiac monitors may be useful in identifying patients at increased risk of heart failure (HF) events. High-risk alerts must be coupled with interventions to improve outcomes. We aim to assess the safety of a predefined protocolized intervention pathway activated by insertable cardiac monitor high-risk alerts. METHODS AND RESULTS: ALLEVIATE-HF (Algorithm Using LINQ Sensors for Evaluation and Treatment of Heart Failure) Phase 1 was a randomized interventional study enrolling patients with New York Heart Association class II/III and a recent HF event. A HF risk score based on insertable cardiac monitor diagnostics, including impedance, respiration rate, atrial fibrillation burden, heart rate during atrial fibrillation, heart rate variability, and activity duration, was calculated. A protocolized intervention pathway was activated when high-risk scores were detected that involved physician-prescribed nurse-implemented uptitration of diuretic for 4 days, unless safety rule-out conditions were met. Interventions could be repeated if high-risk scores persisted and did not require worsening symptoms. In total, 59 patients were randomized (mean age 68.2±11.8 years; 59.3% male); 67.8% with ejection fraction ≥50%. The mean follow-up was 11.8±8.1 months. Overall, 146 high-risk scores were recorded in 33 patients and 118 interventions occurred in 75 (51.4%) high-risk alerts that did not meet safety rule-out criteria. There were no serious adverse events and 13 adverse events related to interventions. In patients with symptoms at intervention initiation, symptoms resolved in 37 interventions (80%) and worsened in 8 (17%). In asymptomatic patients, symptoms developed in 3 interventions (7%). CONCLUSIONS: A personalized medication intervention based on insertable cardiac monitor risk score can be safely instituted in patients with HF, irrespective of symptoms. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT04452149.

Visit-to-visit changes in heart rate in heart failure: A pooled participant-level analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials.

AIMS: Resting heart rate (HR) is a strong risk marker in patients with heart failure (HF), but the clinical implications of visit-to-visit changes in HR (ΔHR) are less well established. We aimed to explore the association between ΔHR and subsequent outcomes in a pooled dataset of two well-characterized cohorts of patients with HF across the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF were randomized trials testing sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril or valsartan, respectively, in patients with HF and LVEF ≤40% (PARADIGM-HF) or LVEF ≥45% (PARAGON-HF). We analysed the association between ΔHR from the preceding visit with the primary endpoint of HF hospitalization (HFH) or cardiovascular death using covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. A total of 13 194 patients (mean age 67 ± 11 years, 67% men, mean LVEF 40 ± 15%) were included. Over a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 3114 patients experienced a first HFH or cardiovascular death event (10.4 events per 100 patient-years). An increase in HR from the preceding visit, compared with no change, was associated with a higher risk (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.15; p < 0.001 per 5 bpm increase). Conversely, a drop in HR was associated with a lower risk (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.94-1.00; p = 0.044 per 5 bpm drop). The prognostic implications of ΔHR were consistent across the range of LVEF and observed regardless of ß-blocker use or presence of a permanent pacemaker. Visit-to-visit increases in HR were especially prognostic in patients without atrial fibrillation (pinteraction = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Across a broad spectrum of patients with chronic HF, increases in HR from a preceding visit independently predicted clinical outcomes. The detection of notable increases in HR between outpatient visits may help identify patients at heightened risk of adverse events. Clinical Trial Registration; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF), NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF).

Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces incident anaemia and iron therapy utilization in heart failure: The PARAGON-HF trial.

AIMS: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to lower haemoglobin levels, potentially related to reductions in erythropoietin levels and haematopoiesis. We examined whether sacubitril/valsartan might attenuate this effect of RASi alone on incident anaemia in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: PARAGON-HF was a global, multicentre randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus the RASi valsartan in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%. We evaluated haemoglobin trajectory and risks of incident anaemia and new iron therapy initiation during follow-up. Among 4795 participants, 1111 (23.2%) had anaemia at randomization and 5.6% were treated with iron at baseline. Over a median follow-up of 2.9 years, patients with anaemia were at significantly higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, compared with those without anaemia (21.6 vs. 11.5 per 100 patient-years; adjusted rate ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.54; p = 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan slightly slowed the decline in haemoglobin levels by 0.1 g/dl (95% CI 0.0-0.2 g/dl; p = 0.005). Participants treated with sacubitril/valsartan were at significantly lower risk of developing anaemia (30.3% vs. 37.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.85; p < 0.001) and starting iron therapy (8.1% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67-0.97; p = 0.026). Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were consistent among patients across the haemoglobin spectrum (pinteraction = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in modestly smaller declines in haemoglobin, lower rates of incident anaemia, and fewer new initiations of iron therapy compared with RASi. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01920711.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in pigs causes shifts in post-transcriptional checkpoints.

Background: Left ventricular pressure overload (LVPO) can lead to heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and LV chamber stiffness (LV Kc) is a hallmark. This project tested the hypothesis that the development of HFpEF due to an LVPO stimulus, will alter post-transcriptional regulation, specifically microRNAs (miRs). Methods: LVPO was induced in pigs (n=9) by sequential ascending aortic cuff and age and weight matched pigs (n=6) served as controls. LV function was measured by echocardiography and LV Kc by speckle tracking. LV myocardial miRs were quantified using an 84 miR array. Treadmill testing and natriuretic peptide-A (NPPA) mRNA levels in controls and LVPO were performed (n=10, n=9, respectively). LV samples from LVPO and controls (n=6, respectively) were subjected to RNA sequencing. Results: LV mass and Kc increased by over 40% with LVPO (p<0.05). A total of 30 miRs shifted with LVPO of which 11 miRs correlated to LV Kc (p<0.05) which mapped to functional domains relevant to Kc such as fibrosis and calcium handling. LVPO resulted in reduced exercise tolerance (oxygen saturation, respiratory effort) and NPPA mRNA levels increased by 4-fold (p<0.05). RNA analysis identified several genes which mapped to specific miRs that were altered with LVPO. Conclusion: A specific set of miRs are changed in a large animal model consistent with the HFpEF phenotype, were related to LV stiffness properties and several miRs mapped to molecular pathways which may hold relevance in terms of prognosis and therapeutic targets.

Interatrial Shunt Treatment for Heart Failure: The Randomized RELIEVE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: An interatrial shunt may provide an autoregulatory mechanism to decrease left atrial pressure and improve heart failure (HF) symptoms and prognosis. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic HF with any left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were randomized 1:1 to transcatheter shunt implantation versus a placebo procedure, stratified by reduced (≤40%) versus preserved (>40%) LVEF. The primary safety outcome was a composite of device-related or procedure-related major adverse cardiovascular or neurological events at 30 days compared with a prespecified performance goal of 11%. The primary effectiveness outcome was the hierarchical composite ranking of all-cause death, cardiac transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation, HF hospitalization, outpatient worsening HF events, and change in quality of life from baseline measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score through maximum 2-year follow-up, assessed when the last enrolled patient reached 1-year follow-up, expressed as the win ratio. Prespecified hypothesis-generating analyses were performed on patients with reduced and preserved LVEF. RESULTS: Between October 24, 2018, and October 19, 2022, 508 patients were randomized at 94 sites in 11 countries to interatrial shunt treatment (n=250) or a placebo procedure (n=258). Median (25th and 75th percentiles) age was 73.0 years (66.0, 79.0), and 189 patients (37.2%) were women. Median LVEF was reduced (≤40%) in 206 patients (40.6%) and preserved (>40%) in 302 patients (59.4%). No primary safety events occurred after shunt implantation (upper 97.5% confidence limit, 1.5%; P<0.0001). There was no difference in the 2-year primary effectiveness outcome between the shunt and placebo procedure groups (win ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.61-1.22]; P=0.20). However, patients with reduced LVEF had fewer adverse cardiovascular events with shunt treatment versus placebo (annualized rate 49.0% versus 88.6%; relative risk, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.42-0.73]; P<0.0001), whereas patients with preserved LVEF had more cardiovascular events with shunt treatment (annualized rate 60.2% versus 35.9%; relative risk, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.29-2.19]; P=0.0001; Pinteraction<0.0001). There were no between-group differences in change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score during follow-up in all patients or in those with reduced or preserved LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter interatrial shunt implantation was safe but did not improve outcomes in patients with HF. However, the results from a prespecified exploratory analysis in stratified randomized groups suggest that shunt implantation is beneficial in patients with reduced LVEF and harmful in patients with preserved LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03499236.

Beta-blocker use and outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Among the 16 951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12 812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on All-Cause Hospitalizations in Heart Failure: Post Hoc Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Sacubitril/valsartan is indicated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with chronic HF. However, many of these patients are older and have multiple comorbidities that increase the risk of hospitalization for causes other than HF. Objective: To assess the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on hospitalizations of any cause across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc, participant-level, pooled analysis of the PARADIGM-HF (in patients with an LVEF ≤40%) and PARAGON-HF (in patients with an LVEF ≥45%) randomized clinical trials was conducted from February 5, 2024, to April 5, 2024. Participants with chronic HF, New York Heart Association classes II through IV symptoms, and elevated natriuretic peptides were randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan or a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi)-enalapril in the PARADIGM-HF trial or valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial. Intervention: Sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi (enalapril or valsartan). Main Outcomes and Measures: The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on time to first investigator-reported all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations were examined using Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by geographic region and trial. Effect modification by LVEF as a continuous function was examined. Results: Among 13 194 participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, mean (SD) patient age was 67 (11) years, 8883 patients (67.3%) were male, and mean (SD) LVEF was 40% (15%). Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of all-cause hospitalization (ACH) compared with RASi over a median (IQR) follow-up period of 2.5 (1.8-3.1) years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97; P = .002). The incidence rate of first ACH was 25 (95% CI, 24-26) per 100 patient-years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm and 27 (95% CI, 26-28) per 100 patient-years in the RASi arm. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 2.1 per 100 patient-years, corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 48 patient-years of treatment exposure to prevent 1 ACH. Reductions in overall hospitalizations seemed primarily driven by lower rates of cardiac and pulmonary hospitalizations with sacubitril/valsartan. Patients in the 2 treatment arms had similar rates of composite noncardiac hospitalizations. Treatment heterogeneity on ACH by LVEF was observed (P for interaction = .03), with benefits most apparent in patients with an LVEF less than 60% (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96), but not in patients with an LVEF of 60% or more (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.09). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc pooled analysis of 13 194 patients with chronic HF in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF randomized clinical trials, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced hospitalization for any reason, with benefits most apparent in patients with an LVEF below normal. This reduction appeared to be principally driven by lower rates of cardiac and pulmonary hospitalizations. Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF) and NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF).

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 80 years and over with heart failure: Need for better treatment.

AIMS: Although the prevalence of heart failure (HF) increases markedly with advancing age, surprisingly little is known about HF in the very elderly. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of octogenarians with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual participant meta-analysis of patients with HF and reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively) enrolled in eight large randomized trials. Overall, the proportion of octogenarians was 1518 of 20 168 patients (7.5%) with HFrEF, 610 of 4609 (13.2%) with HFmrEF, and 3130 of 15 354 (20.4%) with HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, octogenarian patients were more often female and had more comorbidities, more symptoms and signs of congestion, and worse health status (but not quality of life), in comparison to patients aged <80 years. The incidence (per 100 person-years) of the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization was 13.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.7-14.0) in octogenarians versus 9.5 (95% CI 9.3-9.7) in non-octogenarians (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.32-1.48). Each component of the composite was more frequent in octogenarians with rates of cardiovascular mortality of 7.0 (95% CI 6.5-7.4) per 100 person-years versus 4.9 (95% CI 4.8-5.1) in non-octogenarians (aHR 1.60, 95% CI 1.48-1.72, p < 0.001). Octogenarians received less evidence-based therapy, especially mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, than younger patients. CONCLUSION: Despite worse health status and higher hospitalization and mortality rates, octogenarians were undertreated compared to younger patients.

Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Proteomic Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline circulating protein concentrations significantly associated with the primary end point and the timing and occurrence of total heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared with published analyses in 2515 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Efficacy and Safety of Aliskiren and Aliskiren/Enalapril Combination on Morbidity-Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) clinical trials. We identified 288 proteins that were robustly associated with the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with HFpEF. The baseline proteins most strongly related to outcomes included B2M (ß-2 microglobulin), TIMP1 (tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1), SERPINA4 (serpin family A member 4), and SVEP1 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type A, EGF, and pentraxin domain containing 1). Overall, the protein-outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ as compared with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A proteomic risk score derived in patients with HFpEF was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction nor to clinical risk factors, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis in the PARAGON-HF proteomic substudy. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities among serum proteomic risk markers for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death when comparing clinical trial participants with heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifiers: NCT01920711, NCT01035255, NCT00853658.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure. Although current U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling does not provide guidance regarding initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with worsening kidney function, guidelines identify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 as a contraindication to therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of continuing sacubitril/valsartan in patients with deterioration of kidney function below an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. METHODS: The association between a deterioration in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy and safety outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor were evaluated using time updated Cox models in a post hoc parallel trial analyses of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. RESULTS: Among 8,346 randomized patients in PARADIGM-HF and 4,746 in PARAGON-HF, 691 (8.3%) and 613 (12.9%), respectively, had an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Patients experiencing such deterioration were at higher risk of the primary outcome in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. However, the incidence of the primary outcome remained lower with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, regardless of deterioration in kidney function in both PARADIGM-HF (Pinteraction = 0.50) and PARAGON-HF (Pinteraction = 0.64). Rates of key safety outcomes were higher among patients experiencing eGFR deterioration; however, rates were similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experiencing deterioration of kidney function to a value below eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 faced high risk of cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes. Continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent clinical benefit and no incremental safety risk. These data support continuation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure treatment even when eGFR declines below this threshold (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure], NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction], NCT01920711).

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

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

Low Natriuretic Peptide Levels and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although some patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction have low natriuretic peptide levels, there are no large-scale systematic studies of how common these individuals are or what happens to them. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the proportion of patients in the I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial with an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level <125 pg/mL, their clinical characteristics, and outcomes. METHODS: I- PRESERVE enrolled patients with symptomatic HF and a LVEF ≥45% but who did not have NT-proBNP or body mass index inclusion/exclusion criteria. Baseline NT-proBNP was measured after enrollment but not reported to investigators. The primary outcome in this analysis was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 808 of 3,480 patients (23.2%) had NT-proBNP <125 pg/mL. Patients with a low NT-proBNP were younger (68.6 years vs 72.6 years; P < 0.001), were less often men (36.1% vs 40.9%; P = 0.015), and had a higher body mass index (48.4% vs 38.7% obese; P < 0.001) than those with a higher NT-proBNP level. Patients with a low NT-proBNP had less atrial fibrillation (8.5% vs 35.1%; P < 0.001), myocardial infarction, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia but better kidney function. Patients with a lower NT-proBNP level had less marked echocardiographic abnormalities and were less likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization; adjusted HR: 0.35 (95% CI: 0.27-0.46; P < 0.001). However, health status was similarly impaired in patients with lower and higher NT-proBNP levels (median Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire 43 vs 43; P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Almost one-quarter of patients with HF with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction had a low NT-proBNP level. Although these patients have a favorable prognosis, compared to those with a high NT-proBNP level, they have similarly impaired health status which should be a target for treatment. (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I- PRESERVE]; NCT00095238).

In vivo fluid dynamics of the Ventura interatrial shunt device in patients with heart failure.

AIMS: Interatrial shunts are under evaluation as a treatment for heart failure (HF); however, their in vivo flow performance has not been quantitatively studied. We aimed to investigate the fluid dynamics properties of the 0.51 cm orifice diameter Ventura shunt and assess its lumen integrity with serial transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and bench flow tests were used to establish the flow-pressure relationship of the shunt. Open-label patients from the RELIEVE-HF trial underwent TEE at shunt implant and at 6 and 12 month follow-up. Shunt effective diameter (Deff) was derived from the vena contracta, and flow was determined by the continuity equation. CFD and bench studies independently validated that the shunt's discharge coefficient was 0.88 to 0.89. The device was successfully implanted in all 97 enrolled patients; mean age was 70 ± 11 years, 97% were NYHA class III, and 51% had LVEF ≤40%. Patency was confirmed in all instances, except for one stenotic shunt at 6 months. Deff remained unchanged from baseline at 12 months (0.47 ± 0.01 cm, P = 0.376), as did the trans-shunt mean pressure gradient (5.1 ± 3.9 mmHg, P = 0.316) and flow (1137 ± 463 mL/min, P = 0.384). TEE measured flow versus pressure closely correlated (R2 ≥ 0.98) with a fluid dynamics model. At 12 months, the pulmonary/systemic flow Qp/Qs ratio was 1.22 ± 0.12. CONCLUSIONS: When implanted in patients with advanced HF, this small interatrial shunt demonstrated predictable and durable patency and performance.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate and urine-albumin-creatinine ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan across the KDIGO risk categories in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) was a global randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate by ≥40% or end-stage kidney disease. RESULTS: Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 6.5-9.0 per 100 person-years], 9.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 7.9-11.2 per 100 person-years], and 14.9 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 12.7-17.6 per 100 person-years]; P < 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and demonstrated consistent effects on the risk of both the primary outcome (PInteraction = 0.31) and the renal composite outcome (PInteraction = 0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk. CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255).