Sex differences in cardiac structure and function following acute myocardial infarction: Insights from the PARADISE-MI echocardiographic substudy.

AIMS: The incidence of heart failure hospitalization is higher in women than in men after myocardial infarction (MI). Sex-related differences in left ventricular (LV) remodelling may contribute to the differences in post-MI outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess sex differences in echocardiographic parameters post-MI, and whether the relationship between echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes differs by sex. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the PARADISE-MI trial, patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril within 0.5 to 7 days of high-risk MI. In the pre-specified echocardiographic substudy, 544 patients underwent echocardiography at the time of randomization and after 8 months. We compared key echocardiographic parameters in men and women and their association with primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or incident heart failure). At baseline, women had higher LV ejection fraction (LVEF), lower LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) index, LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) index, and LV mass index. After adjusting for baseline clinical differences, changes in these echocardiographic parameters from baseline to 8 months were not significantly different in women versus men. Lower LVEF, higher LVEDV, LVESV, left atrial volume index, and average E/e' were associated with a higher risk of the primary composite outcome. Sex did not modify the relationship between echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline differences in measures of cardiac function between men and women following acute high-risk MI, there were no significant sex-related changes in chamber size or LV function. Sex did not modify the association between echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcome.

In-hospital course of patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction in the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) may face residual risks of clinical events that are comparable to those experienced by patients with HF whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has consistently been above 40%. However, little is known about the clinical course of patients with HFimpEF during hospitalization for HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: DELIVER randomized patients with HF and LVEF >40% to dapagliflozin or placebo, including HFimpEF (LVEF previously ≤40%). We evaluated all HF hospitalizations adjudicated by the clinical endpoints committee with available data for determination of in-hospital course. Complicated hospitalization was defined as any hospitalization requiring intensive care unit stay, intravenous vasopressors/inotropes/vasodilators, invasive or non-invasive ventilation, mechanical fluid removal, ultrafiltration, or mechanical circulatory support. LVEF changes were extracted using a validated GPT-3.5, a large language model, via a secure private endpoint. Of the 6263 patients enrolled in DELIVER, 1151 (18%) had HFimpEF. During a median follow-up of 2.3 years, there were 224 total HF hospitalizations in 144 patients with HFimpEF and 985 in 603 patients with LVEF consistently >40%. Patients with HFimpEF experienced higher rates of complicated HF hospitalization as compared with patients with LVEF consistently >40% (39% vs. 27%; p < 0.001). Among those who experienced a first HF hospitalization, there was no significant difference in length of stay or in-hospital mortality between patients with HFimpEF versus LVEF consistently >40%. In a subset of participants who had at least one LVEF measurement available during HF hospitalization, 66% of those with HFimpEF and 29% of patients with LVEF consistently >40% experienced a reduction in their LVEF to ≤40% from the time of enrolment (p < 0.001). In the entire DELIVER cohort, dapagliflozin reduced total uncomplicated and complicated HF hospitalizations, irrespective of HFimpEF status (pinteraction ≥0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for HF in DELIVER, those with HFimpEF experienced a more adverse in-hospital clinical course, necessitating higher resource utilization beyond standard diuretic therapy compared with patients with HF and LVEF consistently >40%, but had similar in-hospital mortality. Treatment benefits of dapagliflozin were not modified by hospitalization type.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in heart failure: an individual patient level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) reduce hospitalisations and death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the benefit in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unclear. We evaluated the effect of MRAs in four trials that enrolled patients with heart failure across the range of ejection fraction. METHODS: This is a prespecified, individual patient level meta-analysis of the RALES (spironolactone) and EMPHASIS-HF (eplerenone) trials, which enrolled patients with HFrEF, and of the TOPCAT (spironolactone) and FINEARTS-HF (finerenone) trials, which enrolled patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was a composite of time to first hospitalisation for heart failure or cardiovascular death. We also estimated the effect of MRAs on components of this composite, total (first or repeat) heart failure hospitalisations (with and without cardiovascular deaths), and all-cause death. Safety outcomes were also assessed, including serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum potassium, and systolic blood pressure. An interaction between trials and treatment was tested to examine the heterogeneity of effect in these populations. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024541487. FINDINGS: 13 846 patients were included in the four trials. MRAs reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation (hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·72-0·83]). There was a statistically significant interaction by trials and treatment (p for interaction=0·0012) due to the greater efficacy in HFrEF (0·66 [0·59-0·73]) compared with HFmrEF or HFpEF (0·87 [0·79-0·95]). We observed significant reductions in heart failure hospitalisation in the HFrEF trials (0·63 [0·55-0·72]) and the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·82 [0·74-0·91]). The same pattern was observed for total heart failure hospitalisations with or without cardiovascular death. Cardiovascular death was reduced in the HFrEF trials (0·72 [0·63-0·82]) but not in the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·92 [0·80-1·05]). All-cause death was also reduced in the HFrEF trials (0·73 [0·65-0·83]) but not in the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·94 [0·85-1·03]). With an MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia was doubled compared with placebo (odds ratio 2·27 [95% CI 2·02-2·56]), but the incidence of serious hyperkalaemia (serum potassium >6·0 mmol/L) was low (2·9% vs 1·4%); the risk of hypokalaemia (potassium <3·5 mmol/L) was halved (0·51 [0·45-0·57]; 7% vs 14%). INTERPRETATION: Steroidal MRAs reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation in patients with HFrEF and non-steroidal MRAs reduce this risk in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. FUNDING: None.

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.

Why Have We Not Been Able to Demonstrate Reduced Mortality in Patients With HFmrEF/HFpEF?

No randomized controlled trial has yet demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in mortality in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection (HFmrEF) or heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in contrast to the benefits observed in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, this probably reflects the statistical power of trials to date to show an effect on mortality rather than mechanistic differences between HFmEF/HFpEF and HFrEF or differences in treatment efficacy. Compared to patients with HFrEF, those with HFmrEF/HFpEF have lower mortality rates and a smaller proportion of potentially modifiable cardiovascular deaths (as opposed to unmodifiable noncardiovascular deaths). In addition, some causes of cardiovascular deaths may not be reduced by treatments for HF. Therefore, the low rate of potentially modifiable deaths in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, compared with HFrEF, has made it challenging to demonstrate a reduction in death (or cardiovascular death) in trials to date.

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.

Finerenone in Heart Failure and Chronic Kidney Disease with Type 2 Diabetes: the FINE-HEART pooled analysis of cardiovascular, kidney, and mortality outcomes.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome is an emerging entity that connects cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes. The non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, finerenone, has been studied in three prospective randomized clinical trials of patients with cardio-kidney-metabolic syndrome: FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FINEARTS-HF. In light of the strong epidemiological overlap and shared mechanistic drivers of clinical outcomes across cardio-kidney-metabolic syndrome, we summarize the efficacy and safety of finerenone on cardiovascular, kidney, and mortality outcomes in this prespecified participant-level pooled analysis. The three trials included 18,991 participants (mean age 67 ± 10 years; 35% women). During 2.9 years median follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death occurred in 421 (4.4%) assigned to finerenone and 471 (5.0%) assigned to placebo (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78-1.01; P = 0.076). Death from any cause occurred in 1,042 (11.0%) participants in the finerenone arm and 1,136 (12.0%) in the placebo arm (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84-0.99; P = 0.027). Finerenone further reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.75-0.92; P < 0.001) and the composite kidney outcome (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.90; P < 0.001). While this pooled analysis failed to demonstrate significant reductions in cardiovascular death, finerenone was associated with significantly lower deaths of any cause, cardiovascular events, and kidney outcomes. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42024570467.

Finerenone in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists reduce morbidity and mortality among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but their efficacy in those with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction has not been established. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction are needed. METHODS: In this international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive finerenone (at a maximum dose of 20 mg or 40 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of total worsening heart failure events (with an event defined as a first or recurrent unplanned hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) and death from cardiovascular causes. The components of the primary outcome and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 32 months, 1083 primary-outcome events occurred in 624 of 3003 patients in the finerenone group, and 1283 primary-outcome events occurred in 719 of 2998 patients in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.95; P = 0.007). The total number of worsening heart failure events was 842 in the finerenone group and 1024 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P = 0.006). The percentage of patients who died from cardiovascular causes was 8.1% and 8.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11). Finerenone was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia and a reduced risk of hypokalemia. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, finerenone resulted in a significantly lower rate of a composite of total worsening heart failure events and death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Bayer; FINEARTS-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04435626.).

Therapeutic Effects of Heart Failure Medical Therapies on Standardized Kidney Outcomes: Comprehensive Individual Participant-Level Analysis of 6 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Background: Kidney outcomes have been variably defined using non-standardized composite endpoints in key heart failure (HF) trials, thus introducing complexity in their interpretation and cross-trial comparability. We examined the effects of steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on composite kidney endpoints using uniform definitions in 6 contemporary HF trials. Methods: Individual participant-level data from trials of steroidal MRAs (EMPHASIS-HF, TOPCAT Americas), ARNI (PARADIGM-HF, PARAGON-HF), and SGLT2 inhibitors (DAPA-HF, DELIVER) were included. The standardized composite kidney endpoint was defined as a sustained decline (a reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) confirmed by a subsequent measurement at least 30 days later) in eGFR by 40%, 50%, or 57%, end-stage kidney disease, or renal death. eGFR was recalculated in a standardized manner using the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation. Results: Among 28,690 participants across the 6 trials (median age 69 years [IQR, 62-76]; 9,656 [33.7% ] women), the proportion experiencing the composite kidney endpoint with a more stringent definition of a sustained decline in kidney function (eGFR threshold of 57%) ranged from 0.3% to 3.3%. The proportion of patients experiencing this endpoint with a less stringent definition (eGFR threshold of 40%) ranged from 1.0% and 10.0%. The steroidal MRAs doubled the risk of the composite kidney endpoint when applying the least stringent definition compared with placebo, but these effects were less apparent and no longer significant with application of more stringent definitions. ARNI appeared to consistently reduce the occurrence of the composite kidney endpoints irrespective of specific eGFR threshold applied. The potential benefits of SGLT2-inhibitors on the composite kidney endpoints appeared more apparent when defined by more stringent eGFR thresholds, although none of these effects individually were statistically significant. Conclusions: When applying standardized stringent kidney endpoint definitions, steroidal MRAs, ARNI, and SGLT2-inhibitors have either neutral or beneficial effects on kidney outcomes in HF. Applying less stringent definitions increased event rates but included acute declines in eGFR that might not ultimately reflect long-term effects on kidney disease progression.

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.

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).

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.

Incidence of clinical outcomes in heart failure patients with and without advanced chronic kidney disease.

AIMS: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a well-established risk factor for heart failure (HF); however, patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 have been systematically excluded from clinical trials. This study investigated the incidence of HF and kidney outcomes in HF patients with and without advanced CKD, that is, eGFR < 30. METHODS: From nationwide registries, HF patients were identified from 2014 to 2018 and categorized into three groups according to baseline eGFR (eGFR ≥ 60, 60 > eGFR ≥ 30 and eGFR < 30). The incidence of primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, end-stage kidney disease and sustained 50% eGFR decline) was estimated using cumulative incidence functions. RESULTS: Of the 21 959 HF patients included, the median age was 73.9 years, and 30% of patients had an eGFR between 30 and 60 and 7% had an eGFR < 30. The 4 year incidence of all-cause mortality was highest for patients with eGFR < 30 (28.3% for patients with eGFR ≥ 60, 51.6% for patients with 60 > eGFR ≥ 30 and 72.2% for patients with eGFR < 30). The 4 year incidence of HF hospitalization was comparable between the groups (25.8%, 29.8% and 26.1% for patients with eGFR ≥ 60, 60 > eGFR ≥ 30 and eGFR < 30, respectively). For patients with eGFR < 30, kidney outcomes were four times more often the first event than patients with eGFR > 30 (4 year incidence of kidney outcome as the first event was 5.0% for eGFR ≥ 60, 4.8% for 60 > eGFR ≥ 30 and 20.1% for eGFR < 30). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced CKD had a higher incidence of mortality and poorer kidney outcomes than those without advanced CKD, but a similar incidence of HF hospitalizations.

Effects of dapagliflozin according to QRS duration across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction: An analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

AIMS: The primary aim was to evaluate the effect of dapagliflozin according to QRS duration across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), given that prolongation of QRS duration is associated with less favourable ventricular remodelling with pharmacological therapy and worse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, excluding patients with a paced rhythm and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Overall, 4008 patients had heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and 5816 had HF with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). QRS duration was <120 ms in 7039 patients (71.7%), 120-149 ms in 1725 (17.6%), and ≥150 ms in 1060 patients (10.8%). The median follow-up time was 23 months. The rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening HF was 9.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.7-9.7), 14.3 (13.0-15.7), and 15.9 (14.1-17.9) per 100 patient-years in the <120, 120-149, and ≥150 ms groups, respectively. This gradient in event rates was observed both in HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF. Dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of the primary outcome consistently across the QRS duration subgroups (hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.75 [0.67-0.85], 0.79 [0.65-0.96], and 0.89 [0.70-1.13] in the <120, 120-149, and ≥150 ms groups, respectively; p for interaction = 0.28). The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the QRS duration regardless of HF phenotype that is, HFrEF or HFmrEF/HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: Prolongation of QRS duration is associated with worse outcomes irrespective of HF phenotype. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome, regardless of QRS duration, in DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

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.

Diabetic myocardial disorder. A clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC and the ESC Working Group on Myocardial & Pericardial Diseases.

The association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF) has been firmly established; however, the entity of diabetic myocardial disorder (previously called diabetic cardiomyopathy) remains a matter of debate. Diabetic myocardial disorder was originally described as the occurrence of myocardial structural/functional abnormalities associated with T2DM in the absence of coronary heart disease, hypertension and/or obesity. However, supporting evidence has been derived from experimental and small clinical studies. Only a minority of T2DM patients are recognized as having this condition in the absence of contributing factors, thereby limiting its clinical utility. Therefore, this concept is increasingly being viewed along the evolving HF trajectory, where patients with T2DM and asymptomatic structural/functional cardiac abnormalities could be considered as having pre-HF. The importance of recognizing this stage has gained interest due to the potential for current treatments to halt or delay the progression to overt HF in some patients. This document is an expert consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC and the ESC Working Group on Myocardial & Pericardial Diseases. It summarizes contemporary understanding of the association between T2DM and HF and discuses current knowledge and uncertainties about diabetic myocardial disorder that deserve future research. It also proposes a new definition, whereby diabetic myocardial disorder is defined as systolic and/or diastolic myocardial dysfunction in the presence of diabetes. Diabetes is rarely exclusively responsible for myocardial dysfunction, but usually acts in association with obesity, arterial hypertension, chronic kidney disease and/or coronary artery disease, causing additive myocardial impairment.