Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 185
Filtrar
1.
JAMA ; 2020 Mar 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32219386

RESUMO

Importance: Additional treatments are needed for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may be an effective treatment for patients with HFrEF, even those without diabetes. Objective: To evaluate the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF with and without diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory analysis of a phase 3 randomized trial conducted at 410 sites in 20 countries. Patients with New York Heart Association classification II to IV with an ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and elevated plasma N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide were enrolled between February 15, 2017, and August 17, 2018, with final follow-up on June 6, 2019. Interventions: Addition of once-daily 10 mg of dapagliflozin or placebo to recommended therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. This outcome was analyzed by baseline diabetes status and, in patients without diabetes, by glycated hemoglobin level less than 5.7% vs greater than or equal to 5.7%. Results: Among 4744 patients randomized (mean age, 66 years; 1109 [23%] women; 2605 [55%] without diabetes), 4742 completed the trial. Among participants without diabetes, the primary outcome occurred in 171 of 1298 (13.2%) in the dapagliflozin group and 231 of 1307 (17.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.60-0.88]). In patients with diabetes, the primary outcome occurred in 215 of 1075 (20.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and 271 of 1064 (25.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63-0.90]) (P value for interaction = .80). Among patients without diabetes and a glycated hemoglobin level less than 5.7%, the primary outcome occurred in 53 of 438 patients (12.1%) in the dapagliflozin group and 71 of 419 (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.47-0.96]). In patients with a glycated hemoglobin of at least 5.7%, the primary outcome occurred in 118 of 860 patients (13.7%) in the dapagliflozin group and 160 of 888 (18.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.59-0.94]) (P value for interaction = .72). Volume depletion was reported as an adverse event in 7.3% of patients in the dapagliflozin group and 6.1% in the placebo group among patients without diabetes and in 7.8% of patients in the dapagliflozin group and 7.8% in the placebo group among patients with diabetes. A kidney adverse event was reported in 4.8% of patients in the dapagliflozin group and 6.0% in the placebo group among patients without diabetes and in 8.5% of patients in the dapagliflozin group and 8.7% in the placebo group among patients with diabetes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this exploratory analysis of a randomized trial of patients with HFrEF, dapagliflozin compared with placebo, when added to recommended therapy, significantly reduced the risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death independently of diabetes status. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03036124.

2.
Eur Heart J ; 2020 Mar 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32221582

RESUMO

AIMS: In the DAPA-HF trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (HF) and death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. We examined whether this benefit was consistent in relation to background HF therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effect of study treatment in the following yes/no subgroups: diuretic, digoxin, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, implanted cardioverter-defibrillating (ICD) device, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. We also examined the effect of study drug according to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker dose, beta-blocker (BB) dose, and MRA (≥50% and <50% of target dose). We analysed the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or a worsening HF event. Most randomized patients (n = 4744) were treated with a diuretic (84%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (94%), and BB (96%); 52% of those taking a BB and 38% taking a RAS blocker were treated with ≥50% of the recommended dose. Overall, the dapagliflozin vs. placebo hazard ratio (HR) was 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.85] for the primary composite endpoint (P < 0.0001). The effect of dapagliflozin was consistent across all subgroups examined: the HR ranged from 0.57 to 0.86 for primary endpoint, with no significant randomized treatment-by-subgroup interaction. For example, the HR in patients taking a RAS blocker, BB, and MRA at baseline was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.86) compared with 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.94) in those not on all three of these treatments (P-interaction 0.64). CONCLUSION: The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent regardless of background therapy for HF.

3.
Circ Heart Fail ; 13(2): e006541, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32065760

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Both BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide) are widely used to aid diagnosis, assess the effect of therapy, and predict outcomes in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. However, little is known about how these 2 peptides compare in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, especially with contemporary assays. Both peptides were measured at screening in the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: Eligibility criteria in PARADIGM-HF included New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, and elevated natriuretic peptides: BNP ≥150 pg/mL or NT-proBNP ≥600 pg/mL (for patients with HF hospitalization within 12 months, BNP ≥100 pg/mL or NT-proBNP ≥400 pg/mL). BNP and NT-proBNP were measured simultaneously at screening and only patients who fulfilled entry criteria for both natriuretic peptides were included in the present analysis. The BNP/NT-proBNP criteria were not different for patients in atrial fibrillation. Estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 was a key exclusion criterion. RESULTS: The median baseline concentration of NT-proBNP was 2067 (Q1, Q3: 1217-4003) and BNP 318 (Q1, Q3: 207-559), and the ratio, calculated from the raw data, was ≈6.25:1. This ratio varied considerably according to rhythm (atrial fibrillation 8.03:1; no atrial fibrillation 5.75:1) and with age, renal function, and body mass index but not with left ventricular ejection fraction. Each peptide was similarly predictive of death (all-cause, cardiovascular, sudden and pump failure) and heart failure hospitalization, for example, cardiovascular death: BNP hazard ratio, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.33-1.49) per 1 SD increase, P<0.0001; NT-proBNP, 1.45 (1.36-1.54); P<0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: The ratio of NT-proBNP to BNP in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction appears to be greater than generally appreciated, differs between patients with and without atrial fibrillation, and increases substantially with increasing age and decreasing renal function. These findings are important for comparison of natriuretic peptide concentrations in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

4.
Circ Heart Fail ; 13(1): e006638, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31957468

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Spironolactone has been demonstrated to reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction in the Americas region of the TOPCAT trial (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial). We assessed effects of 12 months of treatment with spironolactone on biomarkers reflecting myocardial stress, myocardial injury, renal function, and systemic inflammation. METHODS: This TOPCAT biorepository substudy evaluated 247 patients (14% of the total 1767 patients in the Americas region) with symptomatic HF, ejection fraction ≥45%, and elevated natriuretic peptides or a prior HF hospitalization. Paired blood samples at baseline and after 12 months of treatment with spironolactone or placebo were available in 204 patients. RESULTS: At baseline, the median (interquartile range) concentration of BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) was 124 (69-197) ng/L, NT-proBNP (N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) 624 (307-1312) ng/L, hs-cTnI (high sensitivity cardiac troponin I) 6.3 (3.4-13.0) ng/L, hs-CRP (high sensitivity C-reactive protein) 2.8 (1.3-6.1) mg/L, uric acid 7.2 (5.8-8.7) mg/dL, and urine protein-creatinine ratio 0.11 (0.08-0.20) mg/mg. Compared with placebo-assigned participants at 12 months, those randomized to spironolactone experienced greater reductions from baseline in levels of NT-proBNP (P=0.017) and BNP (P=0.002); these differences persisted after adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and enrollment strata. No between-group differences in changes in hs-cTnI, CRP, uric acid, or urine protein-creatinine ratio were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This TOPCAT biorepository substudy suggests potential effects on markers of cardiac wall stress or filling pressures during 12 months of treatment with spironolactone in patients with chronic HF with preserved ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302.

5.
JAMA Cardiol ; 2020 Jan 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31995119

RESUMO

Importance: Accurate prediction of risk of death or hospitalizations in patients with heart failure (HF) may allow physicians to explore how more accurate decisions regarding appropriateness and timing of disease-modifying treatments, advanced therapies, or the need for end-of-life care can be made. Objective: To develop and validate a prognostic model for patients with HF. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multivariable analyses were performed in a stepwise fashion. Harrell C statistic was used to assess the discriminative ability. The derivation cohort was Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF) participants. The models were validated using the Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure Trial (ATMOSPHERE) study and in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF). A total of 8399 participants enrolled in PARADIGM-HF. Data were analyzed between June 2016 and June 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization at both 1 and 2 years. Results: Complete baseline clinical data were available for 8011 patients in PARADIGM-HF. The mean (SD) age of participants was 64 (11.4) years, 78.2% were men (n = 6567 of 8011), and 70.6% were New York Heart Association class II (n = 5919 of 8011). During a mean follow-up of 27 months, 1546 patients died, and 2031 had a cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. The common variables were: male sex, race/ethnicity (black or Asian), region (Central Europe or Latin America), HF duration of more than 5 years, New York Heart Association class III/ IV, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes mellitus, ß-blocker use at baseline, and allocation to sacubitril/valsartan. Ranked by χ2, N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide was the single most powerful independent predictor of each outcome. The C statistic at 1 and 2 years was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.71-0.76) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.70-0.73) for the primary composite end point, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71-0.75) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.73) for cardiovascular death, and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.74) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67-0.74) for all-cause death, respectively. When validated in ATMOSPHERE, the C statistic at 1 and 2 years was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.68-0.71) for the primary composite end point, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.74) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.69-0.72) for cardiovascular death, and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69-0.74) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.68-0.72) for all-cause death, respectively. An online calculator was created to allow calculation of an individual's risk (http://www.predict-hf.com). Conclusions and Relevance: Predictive models performed well and were developed and externally validated in large cohorts of geographically representative patients, comprehensively characterized with clinical and laboratory data including natriuretic peptides, who were receiving contemporary evidence-based treatment.

7.
Clin Cardiol ; 43(1): 4-13, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31725920

RESUMO

Although optimal pharmacological therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is carefully scripted by treatment guidelines, many eligible patients are not treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in clinical practice. We designed a strategy for remote optimization of GDMT on a population scale in patients with HFrEF leveraging nonphysician providers. An electronic health record-based algorithm was used to identify a cohort of patients with a diagnosis of heart failure (HF) and ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 40% receiving longitudinal follow-up at our center. Those with end-stage HF requiring inotropic support, mechanical circulatory support, or transplantation and those enrolled in hospice or palliative care were excluded. Treating providers were approached for consent to adjust medical therapy according to a sequential, stepped titration algorithm modeled on the current American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) HF Guidelines within a collaborative care agreement. The program was approved by the institutional review board at Brigham and Women's Hospital with a waiver of written informed consent. All patients provided verbal consent to participate. A navigator then facilitated medication adjustments by telephone and conducted longitudinal surveillance of laboratories, blood pressure, and symptoms. Each titration step was reviewed by a pharmacist with supervision as needed from a nurse practitioner and HF cardiologist. Patients were discharged from the program to their primary cardiologist after achievement of an optimal or maximally tolerated regimen. A navigator-led remote management strategy for optimization of GDMT may represent a scalable population-level strategy for closing the gap between guidelines and clinical practice in patients with HFrEF.

8.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 75(3): 245-254, 2020 Jan 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31726194

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The period shortly after hospitalization for heart failure (HF) represents a high-risk window for recurrent clinical events, including rehospitalization or death. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan varies in relation to the proximity to hospitalization for HF among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in HFpEF), we assessed the risk of clinical events and response to sacubitril/valsartan in relation to time from last HF hospitalization among patients with HFpEF (≥45%). The primary outcome was composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. RESULTS: Of 4,796 validly randomized patients in PARAGON-HF, 622 (13%) were screened during hospitalization or within 30 days of prior hospitalization, 555 (12%) within 31 to 90 days, 435 (9%) within 91 to 180 days, and 694 (14%) after 180 days; 2,490 (52%) were never previously hospitalized. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was inversely and nonlinearly associated with timing from prior HF hospitalization (p < 0.001). There was a gradient in relative risk reduction in primary events with sacubitril/valsartan from patients hospitalized within 30 days (rate ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 0.99) to patients never hospitalized (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.24; trend in relative risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.15). With valsartan alone, the rate of total primary events was 26.7 (≤30 days), 24.2 (31 to 90 days), 20.7 (91 to 180 days), 15.7 (>180 days), and 7.9 (not previously hospitalized) per 100 patient-years. Compared with valsartan, absolute risk reductions with sacubitril/valsartan were more prominent in patients enrolled early after hospitalization: 6.4% (≤30 days), 4.6% (31 to 90 days), and 3.4% (91 to 180 days), whereas no risk reduction was observed in patients screened >180 days or who were never hospitalized (trend in absolute risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: Recent hospitalization for HFpEF identifies patients at high risk for near-term clinical progression. In the PARAGON-HF trial, the relative and absolute benefits of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in HFpEF appear to be amplified when initiated in the high-risk window after hospitalization and warrant prospective validation. (PARAGON-HF; NCT01920711).

9.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 22(3): 528-538, 2020 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31849164

RESUMO

AIMS: To investigate the relationship between heart rate and outcomes in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients in sinus rhythm (SR) and atrial fibrillation (AF) adjusting for natriuretic peptide concentration, a powerful prognosticator. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 13 562 patients from two large HFrEF trials, 10 113 (74.6%) were in SR and 3449 (25.4%) in AF. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Heart rate was analysed as a categorical (tertiles, T1-3) and continuous variable (per 10 bpm), separately in patients in SR and AF. Outcomes were adjusted for prognostic variables, including N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and also examined using change from baseline heart rate to 1 year (≤ -10 bpm, ≥ +10 bpm, < ±10 bpm). SR patients with a higher heart rate had worse symptoms and quality of life, more often had diabetes and higher NT-proBNP concentrations. They had higher risk of the primary endpoint [T3 vs. T1 adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-1.66; P < 0.001; per 10 bpm: 1.12, 95% CI 1.09-1.16; P < 0.001]. In SR, heart rate was associated with a relatively higher risk of pump failure than sudden death (adjusted HR per 10 bpm 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.26; P < 0.001 vs. 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13; P = 0.011). Heart rate was not predictive of any outcome in AF. CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, an elevated heart rate was an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients in SR, even after adjustment for NT-proBNP. There was no relationship between heart rate and outcomes in AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT01035255 and NCT00853658.

10.
Curr Heart Fail Rep ; 16(6): 220-228, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31792699

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with heart failure (HF) have an increased symptom burden and complex psychosocial and decision-making needs that necessitate the integration of palliative care. However, in the current era, palliative care is frequently evoked for these patients only at the end-of-life or in the inpatient setting; rarely is palliative care proactively utilized in outpatients with HF. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current state of palliative care and heart failure and to provide a roadmap for the integration of palliative care into outpatient HF care. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies, including PAL-HF, CASA, and SWAP-HF, have demonstrated that structured palliative care interventions may improve quality of life, depression, anxiety, understanding of prognosis, and well-being in HF. HF is associated with high mortality risk, significant symptom burden, and impaired quality of life. Palliative care can meet many of these needs; however, in the current era, palliative care consultations in HF occur late in the disease course and too often in the inpatient setting. Primary palliative care should be provided to all outpatients with heart failure based on their needs, with referral to secondary palliative care provided based on certain triggers and milestones.

11.
Circ Heart Fail ; 12(12): e006539, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31813280

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: To describe characteristics and outcomes in women and men with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: Baseline characteristics (including biomarkers and quality of life) and outcomes (primary outcome: composite of first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death) were compared in 4458 women and 4010 men enrolled in CHARM-Preserved (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) (EF≥45%), I-Preserve (Irbesartan in heart failure with Preserved ejection fraction), and TOPCAT-Americas (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist trial). RESULTS: Women were older and more often obese and hypertensive but less likely to have coronary artery disease or atrial fibrillation. Women had more symptoms and signs of congestion and worse quality of life. Despite this, the risk of the primary outcome was lower in women (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]), as was the risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.62-0.80]), but there was no difference in the rate for first hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]). The lower risk of cardiovascular death in women, compared with men, was in part explained by a substantially lower risk of sudden death (hazard ratio, 0.53 [0.43-0.65]; P<0.001). E/A ratio was lower in women (1.1 versus 1.2). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between women and men with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Despite worse symptoms, more congestion, and lower quality of life, women had similar rates of hospitalization and better survival than men. Their risk of sudden death was half that of men. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00853658, NCT01035255.

13.
JACC Heart Fail ; 7(12): 1022-1028, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31779923

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The authors examined efficacy and safety of spironolactone by age in the Americas region (N = 1,767) of the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial. BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction disproportionately affects older adults who may exhibit changes in physiology and variable pharmacokinetics. METHODS: TOPCAT enrolled patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% who were age 50 or older with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and prior heart failure hospitalization or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. Participants were randomized to spironolactone or placebo with a mean follow-up duration of 3.3 years. We assessed treatment effect and safety by protocol-defined age categories (<65, 65 to 74, and ≥75 years). RESULTS: The mean age was 72 ± 10 years (range 50 to 97 years) with 41% over the age of 75 years. Participants ≥75 years were more commonly women and white and had a lower body mass index and estimated glomerular filtration rate compared with the younger age categories. Spironolactone reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo across all age categories (p interaction = 0.42). However, spironolactone was associated with an increased risk of the safety endpoint (hazard ratio: 2.54; 95% confidence interval: 1.91 to 3.37; p < 0.001), particularly in older age groups (p interaction = 0.02). Findings in the whole TOPCAT cohort were consistent with results from the Americas region. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc, exploratory analysis of the TOPCAT trial data from the Americas region, although there was no effect of age on efficacy, there were considerable effects of age on increased rates of adverse safety outcomes. These results should be weighed when considering spironolactone for older heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients. (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302).

14.
N Engl J Med ; 381(21): 1995-2008, 2019 11 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31535829

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) reduce the risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure, possibly through glucose-independent mechanisms. More data are needed regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 4744 patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy for heart failure) or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Over a median of 18.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). A first worsening heart failure event occurred in 237 patients (10.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 227 patients (9.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 273 patients (11.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98); 276 patients (11.6%) and 329 patients (13.9%), respectively, died from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97). Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes. The frequency of adverse events related to volume depletion, renal dysfunction, and hypoglycemia did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DAPA-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036124.).


Assuntos
Compostos Benzidrílicos/uso terapêutico , Glucosídeos/uso terapêutico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Compostos Benzidrílicos/efeitos adversos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapêutico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Terapia Combinada , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/sangue , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Glucosídeos/efeitos adversos , Hemoglobina A Glicada/análise , Insuficiência Cardíaca/complicações , Hospitalização , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/efeitos adversos , Volume Sistólico/efeitos dos fármacos , Disfunção Ventricular Esquerda/complicações , Disfunção Ventricular Esquerda/tratamento farmacológico
15.
JAMA ; : 1-10, 2019 Sep 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31475296

RESUMO

Importance: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan reduces cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These benefits may be related to effects on hemodynamics and cardiac remodeling. Objective: To determine whether treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan improves central aortic stiffness and cardiac remodeling compared with enalapril. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 464 participants with heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less enrolled across 85 US sites between August 17, 2016, and June 28, 2018. Follow-up was completed on January 26, 2019. Interventions: Randomization (1:1) to sacubitril-valsartan (n = 231; target dosage, 97/103 mg twice daily) vs enalapril (n = 233; target dosage, 10 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 12 in aortic characteristic impedance (Zc), a measure of central aortic stiffness. Prespecified secondary outcomes included change from baseline to week 12 in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, mitral annular relaxation velocity, mitral E/e' ratio, left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes (LVESVI and LVEDVI), left atrial volume index, and ventricular-vascular coupling ratio. Results: Of 464 validly randomized participants (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 9.1] years; 23.5% women), 427 completed the study. At 12 weeks, Zc decreased from 223.8 to 218.9 dyne × s/cm5 in the sacubitril-valsartan group and increased from 213.2 to 214.4 dyne × s/cm5 in the enalapril group (treatment difference, -2.2 [95% CI, -17.6 to 13.2] dyne × s/cm5; P = .78). Of 9 prespecified secondary end points, no significant between-group difference in change from baseline was seen in 4, including left ventricular ejection fraction (34%-36% with sacubitril-valsartan vs 33 to 35% with enalapril; treatment difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.4% to 1.7%]; P = .24). However, greater reductions from baseline were seen with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril in all others, including left atrial volume (from 30.4 mL/m2 to 28.2 mL/m2 vs from 29.8 mL/m2 to 30.5 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.8 mL/m2 [95% CI, -4.0 to -1.6 mL/m2]; P < .001), LVEDVI (from 75.1 mL/m2 to 70.3 mL/m2 vs from 79.1 mL/m2 to 75.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.0 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.7 to 0.3 mL/m2]; P = .02), LVESVI (from 50.8 mL/m2 to 46.3 mL/m2 vs from 54.1 to 50.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -1.6 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.03 mL/m2]; P = .045), and mitral E/e' ratio (from 13.8 to 12.3 vs from 13.4 to 13.8; treatment difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.8]; P = .001). Rates of adverse events including hypotension (1.7% vs 3.9%) were similar in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, did not significantly reduce central aortic stiffness. The study findings may provide insight into mechanisms underlying the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874794.

16.
N Engl J Med ; 381(17): 1609-1620, 2019 10 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31475794

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).


Assuntos
Aminobutiratos/administração & dosagem , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/administração & dosagem , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Neprilisina/antagonistas & inibidores , Tetrazóis/administração & dosagem , Valsartana/administração & dosagem , Idoso , Aminobutiratos/efeitos adversos , Angioedema/induzido quimicamente , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Seguimentos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Hipotensão/induzido quimicamente , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Qualidade de Vida , Fatores Sexuais , Método Simples-Cego , Volume Sistólico , Tetrazóis/efeitos adversos , Valsartana/efeitos adversos
17.
Circulation ; 140(17): 1369-1379, 2019 Oct 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31510768

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The contemporary prognostic value of the physical examination- beyond traditional risk factors including natriuretic peptides, risk scores, and symptoms-in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unknown. We aimed to determine the association between physical signs of congestion at baseline and during study follow-up with quality of life and clinical outcomes and to assess the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on congestion. METHODS: We analyzed participants from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) with an available physical examination at baseline. We examined the association of the number of signs of congestion (jugular venous distention, edema, rales, and third heart sound) with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), its individual components, and all-cause mortality using time-updated, multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. We further evaluated whether sacubitril/valsartan reduced congestion during follow-up and whether improvement in congestion is related to changes in clinical outcomes and quality of life, assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. RESULTS: Among 8380 participants, 0, 1, 2, and 3+ signs of congestion were present in 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2% of patients, respectively. Patients with baseline congestion were older, more often female, had higher MAGGIC risk scores (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores (P<0.05). After adjusting for baseline natriuretic peptides, time-updated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and time-updated New York Heart Association class, increasing time-updated congestion was associated with all outcomes (P<0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of clinical signs of congestion at baseline (P=0.16 for interaction), and treatment with the drug improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril (P=0.011). Each 1-sign reduction was independently associated with a 5.1 (95% CI, 4.7-5.5) point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. Change in congestion strongly predicted outcomes even after adjusting for baseline congestion (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In HF with reduced ejection fraction, the physical exam continues to provide significant independent prognostic value even beyond symptoms, natriuretic peptides, and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score. Sacubitril/valsartan improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril. Reducing congestion in the outpatient setting is independently associated with improved quality of life and reduced cardiovascular events, including mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

18.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 74(5): 601-612, 2019 Aug 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31370950

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considered a disease of the elderly, younger patients are not spared from this syndrome. OBJECTIVES: This study therefore investigated the associations among age, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: Using data on patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% from 3 large HFpEF trials (TOPCAT [Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function], I-PRESERVE [Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function], and CHARM Preserved [Candesartan Cilexetil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity]), patients were categorized according to age: ≤55 years (n = 522), 56 to 64 years (n = 1,679), 65 to 74 years (n = 3,405), 75 to 84 years (n = 2,464), and ≥85 years (n = 398). This study compared clinical and echocardiographic characteristics, as well as mortality and hospitalization rates, mode of death, and quality of life across age categories. RESULTS: Younger patients (age ≤55 years) with HFpEF were more often obese, nonwhite men, whereas older patients with HFpEF were more often white women with a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2). Despite fewer comorbidities, younger patients had worse quality of life compared with older patients (age ≥85 years). Compared with patients age ≤55 years, patients age ≥85 years had higher mortality (hazard ratio: 6.9; 95% confidence interval: 4.2 to 11.4). However, among patients who died, sudden death was, proportionally, the most common mode of death (p < 0.001) in patients age ≤55 years. In contrast, older patients (age ≥85 years) died more often from noncardiovascular causes (34% vs. 20% in patients age ≤55 years; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the elderly, younger patients with HFpEF were less likely to be white, were more frequently obese men, and died more often of cardiovascular causes, particularly sudden death. In contrast, elderly patients with HFpEF had more comorbidities and died more often from noncardiovascular causes. (Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302; Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I-PRESERVE]; NCT00095238; Candesartan Cilexetil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity [CHARM Preserved]; NCT00634712).

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA