Effect of spironolactone on diastolic function and exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the Aldo-DHF randomized controlled trial.

IMPORTANCE: Diastolic heart failure (ie, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction) is a common condition without established therapy, and aldosterone stimulation may contribute to its progression. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of long-term aldosterone receptor blockade in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary objective was to determine whether spironolactone is superior to placebo in improving diastolic function and maximal exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Aldo-DHF trial, a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted between March 2007 and April 2012 at 10 sites in Germany and Austria that included 422 ambulatory patients (mean age, 67 [SD, 8] years; 52% female) with chronic New York Heart Association class II or III heart failure, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or greater, and evidence of diastolic dysfunction. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg of spironolactone once daily (n=213) or matching placebo (n=209) with 12 months of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The equally ranked co-primary end points were changes in diastolic function (E/e') on echocardiography and maximal exercise capacity (peak VO2) on cardiopulmonary exercise testing, both measured at 12 months. RESULTS: Diastolic function (E/e') decreased from 12.7 (SD, 3.6) to 12.1 (SD, 3.7) with spironolactone and increased from 12.8 (SD, 4.4) to 13.6 (SD, 4.3) with placebo (adjusted mean difference, -1.5; 95% CI, -2.0 to -0.9; P < .001). Peak VO2 did not significantly change with spironolactone vs placebo (from 16.3 [SD, 3.6] mL/min/kg to 16.8 [SD, 4.6] mL/min/kg and from 16.4 [SD, 3.5] mL/min/kg to 16.9 [SD, 4.4] mL/min/kg, respectively; adjusted mean difference, +0.1 mL/min/kg; 95% CI, -0.6 to +0.8 mL/min/kg; P = .81). Spironolactone induced reverse remodeling (left ventricular mass index declined; difference, -6 g/m2; 95% CI, -10 to-1 g/m2; P = .009) and improved neuroendocrine activation (N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide geometric mean ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .03) but did not improve heart failure symptoms or quality of life and slightly reduced 6-minute walking distance (-15 m; 95% CI, -27 to -2 m; P = .03). Spironolactone also modestly increased serum potassium levels (+0.2 mmol/L; 95% CI, +0.1 to +0.3; P < .001) and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (-5 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI, -8 to -3 mL/min/1.73 m2; P < .001) without affecting hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized controlled trial, long-term aldosterone receptor blockade improved left ventricular diastolic function but did not affect maximal exercise capacity, patient symptoms, or quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Whether the improved left ventricular function observed in the Aldo-DHF trial is of clinical significance requires further investigation in larger populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: ISRCTN94726526; Eudra-CT No: 2006-002605-31.

Contribution of comorbidities to functional impairment is higher in heart failure with preserved than with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities negatively affect prognosis more strongly in heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) than with reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction. Their comparative impact on physical impairment in HFpEF and HFrEF has not been evaluated so far. METHODS AND RESULTS: The frequency of 12 comorbidities and their impact on NYHA class and SF-36 physical functioning score (SF-36 PF) were evaluated in 1,294 patients with HFpEF and 2,785 with HFrEF. HFpEF patients had lower NYHA class (2.0 ± 0.6 vs. 2.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) and higher SF-36 PF score (54.4 ± 28.3 vs. 54.4 ± 27.7, p < 0.001). All comorbidities were significantly (p < 0.05) more frequent in HFrEF, except hypertension and obesity, which were more frequent in HFpEF (p < 0.001). Adjusting for age and gender, COPD, anemia, hyperuricemia, atrial fibrillation, renal dysfunction, cerebrovascular disease and diabetes had a similar (p for interaction > 0.05) negative effect in both groups. Obesity, coronary artery disease and peripheral arterial occlusive disease exerted a significantly (p < 0.05) more adverse effect in HFpEF, while hypertension and hyperlipidemia were associated with fewer (p < 0.05) symptoms in HFrEF only. The total impact of comorbidities on NYHA (AUC for prediction of NYHA III/IV vs. I/II) and SF-36 PF (r(2)) in multivariate analyses was approximately 1.5-fold higher in HFpEF, and also much stronger than the impact of a 10% decrease in ejection fraction in HFrEF or a 5 mm decrease in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter in HFpEF. CONCLUSION: The impact of comorbidities on physical impairment is higher in HFpEF than in HFrEF. This should be considered in the differential diagnosis and in the treatment of patients with HFpEF.