Prevalence of Coronary Artery Disease and Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Importance: Coronary artery disease (CAD) and coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) may contribute to the pathophysiologic characteristics of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the prevalence of CAD and CMD have not been systematically studied. Objective: To examine the prevalence of CAD and CMD in hospitalized patients with HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 106 consecutive patients hospitalized with HFpEF were evaluated in this prospective, multicenter, cohort study conducted between January 2, 2017, and August 1, 2018; data analysis was performed from March 4 to September 6, 2019. Participants underwent coronary angiography with guidewire-based assessment of coronary flow reserve, index of microvascular resistance, and fractional flow reserve, followed by coronary vasoreactivity testing. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed with late gadolinium enhancement and assessment of extracellular volume. Myocardial perfusion was assessed qualitatively and semiquantitatively using the myocardial-perfusion reserve index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of obstructive epicardial CAD, CMD, and myocardial ischemia, infarction, and fibrosis. Results: Of 106 participants enrolled (53 [50%] women; mean [SD] age, 72 [9] years), 75 had coronary angiography, 62 had assessment of coronary microvascular function, 41 underwent coronary vasoreactivity testing, and 52 received cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Obstructive epicardial CAD was present in 38 of 75 participants (51%, 95% CI, 39%-62%); 19 of 38 (50%; 95% CI, 34%-66%) had no history of CAD. Endothelium-independent CMD (ie, coronary flow reserve <2.0 and/or index of microvascular resistance ≥25) was identified in 41 of 62 participants (66%; 95% CI, 53%-77%). Endothelium-dependent CMD (ie, abnormal coronary vasoreactivity) was identified in 10 of 41 participants (24%; 95% CI, 13%-40%). Overall, 45 of 53 participants (85%; 95% CI, 72%-92%) had evidence of CMD and 29 of 36 (81%; 95% CI, 64%-91%) of those without obstructive epicardial CAD had CMD. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging findings included myocardial-perfusion reserve index less than or equal to 1.84 (ie, impaired global myocardial perfusion) in 29 of 41 patients (71%; 95% CI, 54%-83%), visual perfusion defect in 14 of 46 patients (30%; 95% CI, 19%-46%), ischemic late gadolinium enhancement (ie, myocardial infarction) in 14 of 52 patients (27%; 95% CI, 16%-41%), and extracellular volume greater than 30% (ie, diffuse myocardial fibrosis) in 20 of 48 patients (42%; 95% CI, 28%-56%). Patients with obstructive CAD had more adverse events during follow-up (28 [74%]) than those without obstructive CAD (17 [46%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, 91% of patients with HFpEF had evidence of epicardial CAD, CMD, or both. Of those without obstructive CAD, 81% had CMD. Obstructive epicardial CAD and CMD appear to be common and often unrecognized in hospitalized patients with HFpEF and may be therapeutic targets.

Invasive versus medically managed acute coronary syndromes with prior bypass (CABG-ACS): insights into the registry versus randomised trial populations.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patients are under-represented in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) trials. We compared characteristics and outcomes for patients who did and did not participate in a randomised trial of invasive versus non-invasive management (CABG-ACS). METHODS: ACS patients with prior CABG in four hospitals were randomised to invasive or non-invasive management. Non-randomised patients entered a registry. Primary efficacy (composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalisation for refractory ischaemia/angina, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure) and safety outcomes (composite of bleeding, stroke, procedure-related MI, worsening renal function) were independently adjudicated. RESULTS: Of 217 patients screened, 84 (39%) screenfailed, of whom 24 (29%) did not consent and 60 (71%) were ineligible. Of 133 (61%) eligible, 60 (mean±SD age, 71±9 years, 72% male) entered the trial and 73 (age, 72±10 years, 73% male) entered a registry (preferences: physician (79%), patient (38%), both (21%)).Compared with trial participants, registry patients had more valve disease, lower haemoglobin, worse New York Heart Association class and higher frailty.At baseline, invasive management was performed in 52% and 49% trial and registry patients, respectively, of whom 32% and 36% had percutaneous coronary intervention at baseline, respectively (p=0.800). After 2 years follow-up (694 (median, IQR 558-841) days), primary efficacy (43% trial vs 49% registry (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.89)) and safety outcomes (28% trial vs 22% registry (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.46)) were similar. EuroQol was lower in registry patients at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with trial participants, registry participants had excess morbidity, but longer-term outcomes were similar. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01895751.

The impact of COVID-19 on the management of heart failure: a United Kingdom patient questionnaire study.

AIMS: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created significant challenges to healthcare globally, necessitating rapid restructuring of service provision. This questionnaire survey was conducted amongst adult heart failure (HF) patients in the United Kingdom (UK), to understand the impact of COVID-19 upon HF services. METHODS AND RESULTS: The survey was conducted by the Pumping Marvellous Foundation, a UK HF patient charity. 'Survey Monkey' was used to disseminate the questionnaire in the Pumping Marvellous Foundation 's online patient group and in 10 UK hospitals (outpatient hospital and community HF clinics). There were 1050 responses collected (693/1050-66% women); 55% (579/1050) were aged over 60 years. Anxiety level was significantly higher regarding COVID-19 (mean 7 ± 2.5 on anxiety scale of 0 to 10) compared with anxiety regarding HF (6.1 ± 2.4; P < 0.001). Anxiety was higher amongst patients aged ≤60 years about HF (6.3 ± 2.2 vs. 5.9 ± 2.5 in those aged >60 years; P = 0.005) and COVID-19 (7.3 ± 2.3 vs. 6.7 ± 2.6 those aged >60 years; P < 0.001). Sixty-five per cent of respondents (686/1050) reported disruption to HF appointments (cancellation or postponement) during the lockdown period. Thirty-seven per cent reported disruption to medication prescription services, and Thirty-four per cent reported inability to access their HF teams promptly. Thirty-two per cent expressed reluctance to attend hospital (25% stated they would only attend hospital if there was no alternative, and 7% stated that they would not attend hospital at all). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant anxiety amongst HF patients regarding COVID-19 and HF. Cancellation or postponement of scheduled clinic appointments, investigations, procedures, prescription, and monitoring services were implicated as sources of anxiety.

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

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

Invasive Versus Medical Management in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery With a Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of routine invasive management in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts presenting with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes are uncertain because these patients were excluded from pivotal trials. METHODS: In a multicenter trial, non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft were prospectively screened in 4 acute hospitals. Medically stabilized patients were randomized to invasive management (invasive group) or noninvasive management (medical group). The primary outcome was adherence with the randomized strategy by 30 days. A blinded, independent Clinical Event Committee adjudicated predefined composite outcomes for efficacy (all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for refractory ischemia/angina, myocardial infarction, hospitalization because of heart failure) and safety (major bleeding, stroke, procedure-related myocardial infarction, and worsening renal function). RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen patients were screened and 60 (mean±SD age, 71±9 years, 72% male) were randomized (invasive group, n=31; medical group, n=29). One-third (n=10) of the participants in the invasive group initially received percutaneous coronary intervention. In the medical group, 1 participant crossed over to invasive management on day 30 but percutaneous coronary intervention was not performed. During 2-years' follow-up (median [interquartile range], 744 [570-853] days), the composite outcome for efficacy occurred in 13 (42%) subjects in the invasive group and 13 (45%) subjects in the medical group. The composite safety outcome occurred in 8 (26%) subjects in the invasive group and 9 (31%) subjects in the medical group. An efficacy or safety outcome occurred in 17 (55%) subjects in the invasive group and 16 (55%) subjects in the medical group. Health status (EuroQol 5 Dimensions) and angina class in each group were similar at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the population experienced a serious adverse event. An initial noninvasive management strategy is feasible. A substantive health outcomes trial of invasive versus noninvasive management in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts appears warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01895751.

Approaches to the treatment of anaemia in patients with chronic heart failure.

An association between anaemia, poor functional status and, compared to non-anaemic patients, worse clinical status and a higher risk of hospitalisation and death has been consistently reported in chronic heart failure (CHF), although cause an effect has not been proven. While it is attractive to think that correction of a co-morbidity that exacerbates already diminished delivery of oxygen to the tissues in heart failure is likely to beneficial, the possible haemodynamic effects of increasing haemoglobin, for example vasoconstriction, might not be. Consequently, the balance of benefit and risk of anaemia correction in CHF is uncertain, may vary according to the severity of anaemia (and other factors) and needs to be properly evaluated. To date, most studies of anaemia correction in CHF have used erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs). The trials with erythropoietin have been of small size, uncontrolled or unblended/single blind, raising concerns again about interpretation of subjective outcomes. In addition, the analyses of these trials have been suboptimal. Two double-blind, placebo-controlled, darbepoetin studies have been published in full. Neither showed an improvement in functional capacity or consistent effect on patient reported symptoms/quality of life. Darbepoetin is, however, currently being tested in a large-scale, phase III morbidity and mortality trial, the Reduction of Events with Darbepoetin alfa in Heart Failure (RED-HF) which should contribute important information of the safety and efficacy of ESAs in this syndrome. Other approaches, notably parenteral iron supplementation, are also being evaluated and other agents for anaemia correction are under development.