Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 164
Filtrar
1.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 2022 Jan 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35014132

RESUMO

In order to ensure that the next generation of heart failure specialists will receive high-quality training, this document outlines the new European training and certification requirements for physicians with an interest in heart failure and for those working in certified heart failure centres, required by the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

2.
Int J Cardiol ; 346: 30-34, 2022 Jan 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34800593

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure. As a result, we sought to compare mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with and without diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Veteran Affairs Hospitals' databases were queried to identify all veterans diagnosed with HFrEF from 2007 to 2015. From the overall sample of 165,159 veterans, 41,120 patients with diabetes were matched by their propensity scores (without replacement) 1:1 to non-diabetic patients. To estimate the association between diabetes (Type 1 and 2) and overall mortality of HFrEF patients, a Cox proportional hazard model was used on the matched sample and controlled for patient characteristics for a mean follow up of 3.6 years (standard deviation ±2.3). RESULTS: In a matched sample of 41,120 veterans with HFrEF with and without diabetes, those with diabetes and HFrEF were more often on guideline-directed medical therapy than those without diabetes. In the matched cohort, the mortality risk for patients with concurrent HFrEF and diabetes was 17.7% at 1 year and 74.3% at 5 years, whereas the mortality risk for those without diabetes was 15.3% at 1 year and 69.2% at 5 years. After controlling for patient characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index, heart rate, medical therapies, comorbidities, medications, low-density lipoproteins, high-density lipoproteins, we found that patients with diabetes compared to those without had a significantly increased risk of mortality (HR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.77-1.92, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic HFrEF patients have a higher risk of mortality than non-diabetic HFrEF patients despite controlling for medical therapies and comorbidities.

3.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 2021 Dec 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34962044

RESUMO

AIMS: To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17). CONCLUSION: In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.

4.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34921603

RESUMO

AIMS: Digoxin is included in some heart failure (HF) guidelines but controversy persists about the true role for and impact of treatment with this drug, particularly in the absence of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to assess the association between clinical characteristics and digoxin use and between digoxin use and mortality/morbidity in a large, contemporary cohort of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) stratified by history of AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFrEF (EF < 40%) enrolled in the Swedish HF registry between 2005 and 2018 were analysed. The independent association between digoxin use and patient characteristics was assessed by logistic regression, and between digoxin use and outcomes [composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, and HFH] by Cox regressions in a 1:1 propensity score matched population. Digoxin use was analysed at baseline and as a time-dependent variable. Of 42 456 patients with HFrEF, 16% received digoxin, 29% in the AF group and 2.8% in the non-AF group. The main independent predictors of use were advanced HF, higher heart rate, history of AF, preserved renal function, and concomitant use of beta blockers. Digoxin use was associated with lower risk of all-cause death/HFH [hazard ratio (HR): 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-0.99] in AF, but with higher risk in non-AF (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.09-1.43). Consistent results were observed when digoxin use was analysed as a time-dependent variable. CONCLUSION: The great majority of digoxin users had a history of AF. Digoxin use was associated with lower mortality/morbidity in patients with AF, but with higher mortality/morbidity in patients without AF.

5.
ESC Heart Fail ; 2021 Nov 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34811954

RESUMO

AIMS: In the heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) PARAGON-HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan improved mortality/morbidity in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below median (57%). We assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on four scenarios. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eligibility was assessed in the Karolinska-Rennes study (acute HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 45%, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥300 pg/mL subsequently assessed as outpatients including echocardiography) in (i) a trial scenario (all trial criteria); (ii) a pragmatic scenario (selected trial criteria); (iii) LVEF below lower limit of normal range (<54% in women and <52% in men); and (iv) LVEF below mean of normal range (<64% in women and <62% in men). Among 425 patients [age 78 (72-83) years, 57% women, 28% LVEF ≤ 57% (median in PARAGON-HF), the trial scenario, identified 34% as eligible. Left atrial enlargement and/or left ventricular hypertrophy were present in 99%. Inclusion criteria not met were diuretic treatment and New York Heart Association class. Important exclusion criteria were estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 , haemoglobin <10 g/day, and cancer. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible. In LVEF below lower limit of normal range, 5.4% were eligible, and in LVEF below mean of normal range, 41% were eligible. In patients with LVEF ≤ 57%, eligibility was 42%, 69%, 21%, and 91% according to the trial scenario, pragmatic scenario, LVEF below lower limit of normal range, and LVEF below mean of normal range, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 45%) with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and cardiac structure/function assessed, eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan was according to PARAGON-HF complete criteria 34%, pragmatic criteria 63%, LVEF below lower limit of normal range 5.4%, and LVEF below mean of normal range 41%. Cardiac structural impairment was almost ubiquitous. Ineligibility was more due to exclusion criteria than failing to meet inclusion criteria.

7.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 23(11): 1806-1818, 2021 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34612556

RESUMO

Patients with heart failure (HF) who contract SARS-CoV-2 infection are at a higher risk of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Regardless of therapeutic attempts in COVID-19, vaccination remains the most promising global approach at present for controlling this disease. There are several concerns and misconceptions regarding the clinical indications, optimal mode of delivery, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with HF. This document provides guidance to all healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination scheme in patients with HF. COVID-19 vaccination is indicated in all patients with HF, including those who are immunocompromised (e.g. after heart transplantation receiving immunosuppressive therapy) and with frailty syndrome. It is preferable to vaccinate against COVID-19 patients with HF in an optimal clinical state, which would include clinical stability, adequate hydration and nutrition, optimized treatment of HF and other comorbidities (including iron deficiency), but corrective measures should not be allowed to delay vaccination. Patients with HF who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 need to continue precautionary measures, including the use of facemasks, hand hygiene and social distancing. Knowledge on strategies preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (including the COVID-19 vaccination) should be included in the comprehensive educational programmes delivered to patients with HF.

8.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34596659

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) trials have stringent in- and ex- clusion criteria, but limited data exists regarding generalisability of trials. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes between patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in trials and observational registries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient data for 16922 patients from five randomised clinical trials and 46914 patients from two HF registries were included. The registry patients were categorised into trial-eligible and non-eligible groups using the most commonly used in- and ex-clusion criteria. A total of 26104 (56%) registry patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Unadjusted all-cause mortality rates at one year were lowest in the trial population (7%), followed by trial-eligible patients (12%) and trial-non-eligible registry patients (26%). After adjustment for age and sex, all-cause mortality rates were similar between trial participants and trial-eligible registry patients (standardised mortality ratio (SMR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 -1.03) but cardiovascular mortality was higher in trial participants (SMR 1.19; 1.12 -1.27). After full case-mix adjustment, the SMR for cardiovascular mortality remained higher in the trials at 1.28 (1.20- 1.37) compared to RCT-eligible registry patients. CONCLUSION: In contemporary HF registries, over half of HFrEF patients would have been eligible for trial enrolment. Crude clinical event rates were lower in the trials, but, after adjustment for case-mix, trial participants had similar rates of survival as registries. Despite this, they had about 30% higher cardiovascular mortality rates. Age and sex were the main drivers of differences in clinical outcomes between HF trials and observational HF registries.

9.
JACC Heart Fail ; 9(11): 775-783, 2021 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34627725

RESUMO

Medications with proven benefit in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction are recommended, according to prospective large clinical trials, in the stable patient after careful up-titration in a strict sequential order. Although the relevance of careful clinical up-titration is unproven, there is evidence that after recompensation and shortly after hospital discharge, the rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalization is high. Clinical studies provided evidence that the onset of treatment effects is rapid, occurring within 28 days with most of these drugs used, and in some trials, early treatment after discharge or already started in the hospital has provided benefits. Therefore, early treatment without deferring it to the stable outpatient may be useful to reduce cardiac-related events further. This expert opinion proposes treatment layering according to individual patient phenotypes involving heart rate, blood pressure, impaired renal function, and electrolyte disturbances, as well as dedicated subgroups of patients with specific requirements for treatment initiation. This complements other approaches that suggest starting sequential treatment according to the size of treatment effects of drugs, specific cardiac diseases, and patient wishes. Patient phenotyping may guide personalized drug layering in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction that provides the best outcomes, whereas pragmatic clinical trials are warranted to scrutinize the effectiveness of these approaches.


Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Preparações Farmacêuticas , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Fenótipo , Estudos Prospectivos , Volume Sistólico
11.
Int J Cardiol ; 343: 63-72, 2021 Nov 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34517016

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) are often cared for by non-cardiologists. The implications are unknown. METHODS: In a nationwide HF cohort with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we compared demographics, clinical characteristics, guideline-based therapy use and outcomes in non-cardiology vs. cardiology in-patient and out-patient care. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2016, 36,076 patients with HFrEF were enrolled in the Swedish HF registry (19,337 [54%] in-patients overall), with 44% of in-patients and 45% of out-patients managed in non-cardiology settings. Predictors of treatment in non-cardiology were age > 75 years (adjusted odds ratio for non-cardiology 1.20; 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.27), lower education level (0.71; 0.66-0.76 for university vs. compulsory), valve disease (1.24; 1.18-1.31) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) >120 mmHg (1.05; 1.00-1.10). Non-cardiology care was significantly associated with lower use of beta-blockers (0.80; 0.74-0.86) and devices (intracardiac defibrillator [ICD] and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]: 0.63; 0.56-0.71), and less frequent specialist follow-up (0.61; 0.57-0.65). Over 1-year follow-up the risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.09; 1.03-1.15) was higher but the risk of first HF (re-) hospitalization was lower (0.93; 0.89-0.97) in non-cardiology vs. cardiology care. CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, non-cardiology care was independently associated with older ageand lower education. After covariate adjustment, non-cardiology care was associated with lower use of beta-blockers and devices, higher mortality, and lower risk of HF hospitalization. Access to cardiology care may not be equitable and this may have implications for use of guideline-based care and outcomes.


Assuntos
Cardiologia , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Idoso , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Hospitalização , Humanos , Sistema de Registros , Volume Sistólico , Suécia/epidemiologia
13.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 23(11): 1844-1854, 2021 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34476878

RESUMO

AIMS: Iron deficiency (ID) is associated with poor prognosis regardless of anaemia. Intravenous iron improves quality of life and outcomes in patients with ID and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In the Swedish HF registry, we assessed (i) frequency and predictors of ID testing; (ii) prevalence and outcomes of ID with/without anaemia; (iii) use of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and its predictors in patients with ID. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used multivariable logistic regressions to assess patient characteristics independently associated with ID testing/FCM use, and Cox regressions to assess risk of outcomes associated with ID. Of 21 496 patients with HF and any ejection fraction enrolled in 2017-2018, ID testing was performed in 27%. Of these, 49% had ID and more specifically 36% had ID-/anaemia-, 15% ID-/anaemia+, 29% ID+/anaemia-, and 20% ID+/anaemia+ (48%, 39%, 13%, 30% and 18% in HFrEF, respectively). Risk of recurrent all-cause hospitalizations was higher in patients with ID regardless of anaemia. Of 1959 patients with ID, 19% received FCM (24% in HFrEF). Important independent predictors of ID testing and FCM use were anaemia, higher New York Heart Association class, having HFrEF, and referral to HF specialty care. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide HF registry, ID testing occurred in only about a quarter of the patients. Among tested patients, ID was present in one half, but only one in five patients received FCM indicating low adherence to current guidelines on screening and treatment.

14.
Europace ; 2021 Sep 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34486653

RESUMO

AIMS: Randomized data on the efficacy/safety of cardiac resynchronization therapy with vs. without defibrillator (CRT-D,-P) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are scarce. We aimed to evaluate survival associated with use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in a contemporary cohort with HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients from Swedish HF Registry treated with CRT-D/CRT-P and fulfilling criteria for primary prevention defibrillator use were included. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of CRT-D non-use. All-cause mortality was compared in CRT-D vs. CRT-P by Cox regression in a 1 : 1 propensity-score-matched cohort. Of 1988 patients with CRT, 1108 (56%) had CRT-D and 880 (44%) CRT-P. Older age, higher ejection fraction (EF), female sex, and the lack of referral to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic were major determinants of CRT-D non-use. After matching, 645 CRT-D patients were compared with 645 with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was associated with lower 1- and 3-year all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR):0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.58-0.98; HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99, respectively]. Results were consistent in all pre-specified subgroups except for CRT-D use being associated with lower 3-year mortality in patients with an EF < 30% but not in those with an EF ≥ 30% (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59-0.89 and HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.83-1.85, respectively; P-interaction = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In a contemporary HFrEF cohort, CRT-D was associated with lower mortality compared with CRT-P. The CRT-D use was less likely in older patients, females, and in patients not referred to HF nurse-led outpatient clinic. Our findings support the use of CRT-D vs. CRT-P in HFrEF, in particular with severely reduced EF.

15.
Nat Rev Cardiol ; 2021 Sep 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34489589

RESUMO

Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) remains the major parameter for diagnosis, phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions in heart failure. The 2016 ESC heart failure guidelines introduced a third EF category for an EF of 40-49%, defined as heart failure with mid-range EF (HFmrEF). This category has been largely unexplored compared with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF; defined as EF <40% in this Review) and heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF; defined as EF ≥50%). The prevalence of HFmrEF within the overall population of patients with HF is 10-25%. HFmrEF seems to be an intermediate clinical entity between HFrEF and HFpEF in some respects, but more similar to HFrEF in others, in particular with regard to the high prevalence of ischaemic heart disease in these patients. HFmrEF is milder than HFrEF, and the risk of cardiovascular events is lower in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. By contrast, the risk of non-cardiovascular adverse events is similar or greater in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. Evidence from post hoc and subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials and a trial of an SGLT1-SGLT2 inhibitor suggests that drugs that are effective in patients with HFrEF might also be effective in patients with HFmrEF. Although the EF is a continuous measure with considerable variability, in this comprehensive Review we suggest that HFmrEF is a useful categorization of patients with HF and shares the most important clinical features with HFrEF, which supports the renaming of HFmrEF to HF with mildly reduced EF.

16.
Cardiovasc Res ; 2021 Aug 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34390570

RESUMO

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is highly prevalent and associated with a 2-fold increased mortality, mostly explained by cardiovascular diseases. Trial evidence on older glucose-lowering agents such as metformin and sulfonylureas is limited in terms of cardiovascular efficacy. Since 2008, after rosiglitazone was observed to increase the risk of myocardial infarction and heart failure (HF), cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT) have been required by regulators for licensing new glucose-lowering agents. In the following CVOTs, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) have been shown to be safe but not to improve morbidity/mortality, except for saxagliptin which increased the risk of HF. Several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-Ra) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. SGLT2i have shown a class effect for the reduction in risk of HF events in patients with T2DM, leading to trials testing their efficacy/safety in HF regardless of T2DM. In the DAPA-HF and the EMPEROR-Reduced trials dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively, improved cardiovascular mortality/morbidity in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with and without T2DM. Therefore, these drugs are now key part of HFrEF pharmacotherapy. In the SOLOIST-WHF, sotagliflozin reduced cardiovascular mortality/morbidity in patients with T2DM and a recent acute episode of HF regardless of EF. The DELIVER and the EMPEROR-Preserved are testing dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively, in patients with HF with mildly reduced and preserved EF. A strong renal protective role of SGLT2i has also emerged in trials enrolling patients with and without T2DM.

17.
ESC Heart Fail ; 8(5): 4243-4254, 2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34374216

RESUMO

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has poor long-term prognosis. We assessed rates and predictors of outcome 10 years after an acute episode of HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Karolinska-Rennes (KaRen) study enrolled HFpEF patients with acute HF, ejection fraction ≥ 45%, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide > 300 ng/L in 2007-11. Clinical data were collected at enrolment and after 4-8 weeks including detailed echocardiography. Follow-up data were collected 10 years after study initiation, starting from 6 months after enrolment until 2018 assessed by telephone. Independent predictors of primary (all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization) and secondary (all-cause mortality) outcomes were assessed by multivariable Cox regression. Of 539 patients, long-term follow-up data were available for 397 patients [52% female; median (interquartile range) age 79 (73, 84) years]. Over a follow-up of 5.44 (2.06-7.89) years, 1, 3, 5, and 10 year mortality rates were 15%, 31%, 47%, and 74%, respectively, with an incidence rate of 130/1000 patient-years. The primary outcome was met in 84% of the population, with an incidence rate of 227/1000 patient-years. The independent predictors of the primary outcome were tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (m/s) [hazard ratio 1.87 (1.34-2.62)], diabetes mellitus [1.75 (1.11-2.74)], and cancer [1.75 (1.01-3.03)] while female sex was associated with reduced risk [0.64 (0.41-0.98)]. CONCLUSIONS: In HFpEF, 1, 3, 5, and 10 year mortality was 15%, 31%, 47%, and 74% and mortality or first HF hospitalization was 35%, 54%, 67%, and 84%, respectively. Independent predictors of mortality or HF hospitalization were tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and male sex. In clinical management of HFpEF, attention should be paid to both cardiac and non-cardiac conditions.


Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Idoso , Feminino , Seguimentos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Prognóstico , Estudos Prospectivos , Volume Sistólico
19.
J Card Fail ; 27(8): 888-895, 2021 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34364665

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, ejection fraction (EF) data were not collected. In the subpopulation with heart failure (HF), we applied a new predictive model for EF to determine the effects of empagliflozin in HF with predicted reduced (HFrEF) vs preserved (HFpEF) EF vs no HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We applied a validated EF predictive model based on patient baseline characteristics and treatments to categorize patients with HF as being likely to have HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF)/HFrEF (EF <50%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%). Cox regression was used to assess the effect of empagliflozin vs placebo on cardiovascular death/HF hospitalization (HHF), cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and HHF in patients with predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no HF. Of 7001 EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients with data available for this analysis, 6314 (90%) had no history of HF. Of the 687 with history of HF, 479 (69.7%) were predicted to have HFmrEF/HFrEF and 208 (30.3%) to have HFpEF. Empagliflozin's treatment effect was consistent in predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no-HF for each outcome (HR [95% CI] for the primary outcome 0.60 [0.31-1.17], 0.79 [0.51-1.23], and 0.63 [0.50-0.78], respectively; P interaction = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, one-third of the patients with HF had predicted HFpEF. The benefits of empagliflozin on HF and mortality outcomes were consistent in nonHF, predicted HFpEF and HFmrEF/HFrEF.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Compostos Benzidrílicos , Glucosídeos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Hospitalização , Humanos , Prognóstico , Fatores de Risco , Volume Sistólico
20.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 23(10): 1698-1707, 2021 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34196082

RESUMO

AIMS: Whether to continue or stop mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) after an episode of hyperkalaemia is a challenge in clinical practice. While stopping MRA may prevent recurrent hyperkalaemias, it deprives patients of their cardioprotection. We here assessed the association between stopping vs. continuing MRA therapy after hyperkalaemia and the subsequent risks of adverse health events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Observational study from the Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements (SCREAM) project 2006-2018. We identified patients initiating MRA and surviving a first-detected episode of hyperkalaemia (plasma potassium >5.0 mmol/L). Using target trial emulation methods, we assessed the association between stopping vs. continuing MRA within 6 months after hyperkalaemia and subsequent outcomes. The primary outcome was the composite of hospital admission with heart failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, or death. The secondary outcome was occurrence of another hyperkalaemia event. Among 39 518 patients initiating MRA, we identified 7366 who developed hyperkalaemia. Median age was 76 years, 45% were women and 69% had a history of heart failure. Following hyperkalaemia, 2222 (30%) discontinued treatment. Compared with continuing MRA, stopping therapy was associated with a lower 2-year risk of recurrent hyperkalaemia [hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.79], but a higher risk of the primary outcome (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.14). Similar results were observed in patients with heart failure, after censoring when treatment decision was changed, and across pre-specified subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Stopping MRA after an episode of hyperkalaemia was associated with reduced risk for recurrent hyperkalaemia, but higher risk of death or cardiovascular events. Recurrent hyperkalaemia was common in either strategy.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...