Pulse pressure and prognosis in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: A high pulse pressure (PP) is associated with adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes; however, this relationship may be reversed in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF). METHODS: Patients from the WARCEF trial with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% were included. PP was divided into tertiles: ≤42, 42-54 and >54 mm Hg. Age and ejection fraction adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to evaluate the relationship between PP and outcomes [mortality, CV mortality, stroke and HF hospitalizations (HFH)]. Cox proportional hazards models were created incorporating PP as a continuous variable. The interaction of PP with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was examined. Linear and restricted cubic splines were used to study nonlinear association between PP and outcomes. RESULTS: We included 2,299 patients with a mean(±SD) follow-up of 3.5 ± 1.8 years. The lowest tertile of PP (≤42 mm Hg) was associated with significantly higher CV mortality and HFH. Cox proportional hazards models showed a reduction in CV death and HFH with higher PP, with adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of 0.91 (P = 0.02) and 0.93 (P = 0.04) per 10 mm Hg increase in PP. This relationship was more pronounced in subjects with NYHA functional class III-IV. Spline analysis showed that the association between PP and CV mortality and HFH was only seen at PP values lower than 40 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced HFREF, a low PP (<40 mm Hg) portends a worse prognosis, whereas a high PP (>50 mm Hg) predicts a relatively favourable prognosis.

Resting Heart Rate and Ischemic Stroke in Patients with Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Although high resting heart rate (RHR) is known to be associated with an increased risk of mortality and hospital admission in patients with heart failure, the relationship between RHR and ischemic stroke remains unclear. This study is aimed at investigating the relationship between RHR and ischemic stroke in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm. METHODS: We examined 2,060 patients with systolic heart failure in sinus rhythm from the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial. RHR was determined from baseline electrocardiogram, and was examined as both a continuous variable and a categorical variable using quartiles. Ischemic strokes were identified during follow-up and adjudicated by physician review. RESULTS: During 3.5 ± 1.8 years of follow-up, 77 patients (5.3% from Kaplan-Meier [KM] curve) experienced an ischemic stroke. The highest incidence of ischemic stroke (21/503 [KM 6.9%]) was observed in the lowest RHR quartile (RHR <64 beats/min) compared to other groups; 22/573 (KM 5.3%) in 64-70 beats/min, 13/465 (KM 3.5%) in 71-79 beats/min, and 21/519 (KM 5.4%) in RHR >79 beats/min (p = 0.693). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that RHR was significantly associated with ischemic stroke (hazard ratio per unit decrease: 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, when RHR <64/beats/min; p = 0.038), along with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack and left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to its beneficial effect on mortality and hospital re-admissions, lower RHR may increase the risk of ischemic stroke in patients with systolic heart failure in sinus rhythm.

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Risk of Stroke and Cardiac Events in Heart Failure: Data From the Warfarin Versus Aspirin in Reduced Ejection Fraction Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In heart failure (HF), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is inversely associated with mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. Its relationship with stroke is controversial, as is the effect of antithrombotic treatment. We studied the relationship of LVEF with stroke and cardiovascular events in patients with HF and the effect of different antithrombotic treatments. METHODS: In the Warfarin Versus Aspirin in Reduced Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial, 2305 patients with systolic HF (LVEF≤35%) and sinus rhythm were randomized to warfarin or aspirin and followed for 3.5±1.8 years. Although no differences between treatments were observed on primary outcome (death, stroke, or intracerebral hemorrhage), warfarin decreased the stroke risk. The present report compares the incidence of stroke and cardiovascular events across different LVEF and treatment subgroups. RESULTS: Baseline LVEF was inversely and linearly associated with primary outcome, mortality and its components (sudden and cardiovascular death), and HF hospitalization, but not myocardial infarction. A relationship with stroke was only observed for LVEF of <15% (incidence rates: 2.04 versus 0.95/100 patient-years; P=0.009), which more than doubled the adjusted stroke risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.125; 95% CI, 1.182-3.818; P=0.012). In warfarin-treated patients, each 5% LVEF decrement significantly increased the stroke risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.346; 95% CI, 1.044-1.737; P=0.022; P value for interaction=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with systolic HF and sinus rhythm, LVEF is inversely associated with death and its components, whereas an association with stroke exists for very low LVEF values. An interaction with warfarin treatment on stroke risk may exist. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00041938.

Clinical and Echocardiographic Factors Associated With New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure　- Subanalysis of the WARCEF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) patients have a high incidence of new-onset AF. Given the adverse prognostic influence of AF in HF, identifying patients at high risk of developing AF is important. METHODS AND RESULTS: The incidence and factors associated with new-onset AF were investigated in patients in sinus rhythm with reduced LVEF enrolled in the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial. Analyses involved clinical factors alone (n=2,219), and clinical plus echocardiographic findings (n=1,125). During 3.5±1.8 years of follow-up, 212 patients (9.6% of total cohort) developed AF. In both samples, new-onset AF was associated with age, male sex, White race, and IHD. Among echocardiographic variables, only LAD predicted AF. On multivariate Cox modeling, age (HR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00-1.03, P=0.008), IHD (HR, 1.37; 95% CI: 1.02-1.84, P=0.036) and LAD (HR, 1.48; 95% CI: 1.15-1.91, P=0.003) remained associated with AF onset. Patients with IHD, LAD>4.5 cm and age>50 years had a 2.5-fold higher risk of AF than patients without any of these characteristics (HR, 2.52; 95% CI: 1.72-3.69, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Age, IHD and LAD independently predict new-onset AF in HF patients in sinus rhythm, at younger age and smaller LAD than generally believed. This information may be useful to risk-stratify HF patients for AF development, allowing close monitoring and possibly early detection. (Circ J 2016; 80: 619-626).

Warfarin and aspirin in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS: We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS: The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P=0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P=0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P=0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; WARCEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00041938.).

Stroke in heart failure in sinus rhythm: the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial.

BACKGROUND: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial found no difference between warfarin and aspirin in patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm for the primary outcome: first to occur of 84 incident ischemic strokes (IIS), 7 intracerebral hemorrhages or 531 deaths. Prespecified secondary analysis showed a 48% hazard ratio reduction (p = 0.005) for warfarin in IIS. Cardioembolism is likely the main pathogenesis of stroke in heart failure. We examined the IIS benefit for warfarin in more detail in post hoc secondary analyses. METHODS: We subtyped IIS into definite, possible and noncardioembolic using the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation method. Statistical tests, stratified by prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, were the conditional binomial for independent Poisson variables for rates, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for stroke subtype and the van Elteren test for modified Rankin Score (mRS) and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) distributions, and an exact test for proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 1,142 warfarin and 55 of 1,163 aspirin patients had IIS. The warfarin IIS rate (0.727/100 patient-years, PY) was lower than for aspirin (1.36/100 PY, p = 0.003). Definite cardioembolic IIS was less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.22 vs. 0.55/100 PY, p = 0.012). Possible cardioembolic IIS tended to be less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.37 vs. 0.67/100 PY, p = 0.063) but noncardioembolic IIS showed no difference: 5 (0.12/100 PY) versus 6 (0.15/100 PY, p = 0.768). Among patients experiencing IIS, there were no differences by treatment arm in fatal IIS, baseline mRS, mRS 90 days after IIS, and change from baseline to post-IIS mRS. The warfarin arm showed a trend to a lower proportion of severe nonfatal IIS [mRS 3-5; 3/23 (13.0%) vs. 16/48 (33.3%), p = 0.086]. There was no difference in NIHSS at the time of stroke (p = 0.825) or in post-IIS mRS (p = 0.948) between cardioembolic, possible cardioembolic and noncardioembolic stroke including both warfarin and aspirin groups. CONCLUSIONS: The observed benefits in the reduction of IIS for warfarin compared to aspirin are most significant for cardioembolic IIS among patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. This is supported by trends to lower frequencies of severe IIS and possible cardioembolic IIS in patients on warfarin compared to aspirin.

Cognitive Decline Over Time in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure: Insights From WARCEF.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize cognitive decline (CD) over time and its predictors in patients with systolic heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of CD and its impact on mortality, predictors of CD in HF have not been established. METHODS: This study investigated CD in the WARCEF (Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial, which performed yearly Mini-Mental State Examinations (MMSE) (higher scores indicate better cognitive function; e.g., normal score: 24 or higher). A longitudinal time-varying analysis was performed among pertinent covariates, including baseline MMSE and MMSE scores during follow-up, analyzed both as a continuous variable and a 2-point decrease. To account for a loss to follow-up, data at the baseline and at the 12-month visit were analyzed separately (sensitivity analysis). RESULTS: A total of 1,846 patients were included. In linear regression, MMSE decrease was independently associated with higher baseline MMSE score (p < 0.0001), older age (p < 0.0001), nonwhite race/ethnicity (p < 0.0001), and lower education (p < 0.0001). In logistic regression, CD was independently associated with higher baseline MMSE scores (odds ratio [OR]: 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 1.20]; p < 0.001), older age (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.24 to 1.50; p < 0.001), nonwhite race/ethnicity (OR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.72 to 3.13 for black; OR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.69 for Hispanic vs. white; p < 0.001), lower education (p < 0.001), and New York Heart Association functional class II or higher (p = 0.03). Warfarin and other medications were not associated with CD. Similar trends were seen in the sensitivity analysis (n = 1,439). CONCLUSIONS: CD in HF is predicted by baseline cognitive status, demographic variables, and NYHA functional class. The possibility of intervening on some of its predictors suggests the need for the frequent assessment of cognitive function in patients with HF. (Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction [WARCEF]; NCT00041938).

Association between mortality and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators by aetiology of heart failure: a propensity-matched analysis of the WARCEF trial.

AIMS: There is debate on whether the beneficial effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is attenuated in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). We assess whether any ICD benefit differs between patients with NICM and those with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), using data from the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a post hoc analysis using WARCEF (N = 2293; ICM, n = 991 vs. NICM, n = 1302), where participants received optimal medical treatment. We developed stratified propensity scores for having an ICD at baseline using 41 demographic and clinical variables and created 1:2 propensity-matched cohorts separately for ICM patients with ICD (N = 223 with ICD; N = 446 matched) and NICM patients (N = 195 with ICD; N = 390 matched). We constructed a Cox proportional hazards model to assess the effect of ICD status on mortality for patients with ICM and those with NICM and tested the interaction between ICD status and aetiology of heart failure. During mean follow-up of 3.5 ± 1.8 years, 527 patients died. The presence of ICD was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death among those with ICM (hazard ratio: 0.640; 95% confidence interval: 0.448 to 0.915; P = 0.015) but not among those with NICM (hazard ratio: 0.984; 95% confidence interval: 0.641 to 1.509; P = 0.941). There was weak evidence of interaction between ICD status and the aetiology of heart failure (P = 0.131). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of ICD is associated with a survival benefit in patients with ICM but not in those with NICM.

Risk of thromboembolism in heart failure: an analysis from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT).

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure, rates of clinically apparent stroke range from 1.3% to 3.5% per year. Little is known about the incidence and risk factors in the absence of atrial fibrillation. In the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), 2521 patients with moderate heart failure were randomized to receive amiodarone, implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), or placebo. METHODS AND RESULTS: We determined the incidence of stroke or peripheral or pulmonary embolism in patients with no history of atrial fibrillation (n=2114), predictors of thromboembolism and the relationship to left ventricular ejection fraction. Median follow-up was 45.5 months. Kaplan-Meier estimates (95% CIs) for the incidence of thromboembolism by 4 years were 4.0% (3.0% to 4.9%), with 2.6% (1.1% to 4.1%) in patients randomized to amiodarone, 3.2% (1.8% to 4.7%) in patients randomized to ICD, and 6.0% (4.0% to 8.0%) in patients randomized to placebo (approximate rates of 0.7%, 0.8%, and 1.5% per year, respectively). By multivariable analysis, hypertension (P=0.021) and decreasing left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.023) were significant predictors of thromboembolism; treatment with amiodarone or ICD treatment was a significant predictor of thromboembolism-free survival (P=0.014 for treatment effect; hazard ratio [95% CI] versus placebo, 0.57 [0.33 to 0.99] for ICD; 0.44 [0.24 to 0.80] for amiodarone). Inclusion of atrial fibrillation during follow-up in the multivariable model did not affect the significance of treatment assignment as a predictor of thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: In the SCD-HeFT patient cohort, which reflects contemporary treatment of patients with moderately symptomatic systolic heart failure, patients experienced thromboembolism events at a rate of 1.7% per year without antiarrhythmic therapy. Those treated with amiodarone or ICDs had lower risk of thromboembolism than those given placebo. Hypertension at baseline and lower ejection fraction were independent predictors of risk.

Right heart pressure increases after acute increases in ambient particulate concentration.

OBJECTIVES: We explored the association between acute changes in daily mean pulmonary artery (PA) and right ventricular (RV) pressures and concentrations of ambient fine particulate matter [PM with aerodynamic diameter < or = 2.5 microm (PM(2.5))] as an explanation for previous associations between congestive heart failure (HF) hospital admissions and PM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the Chronicle Offers Management to Patients with Advanced Signs and Symptoms of Heart Failure (COMPASS-HF) trial, to see whether management of ambulatory HF could be improved by providing continuous right heart pressure monitoring to physicians, the Chronicle Implantable Hemodynamic Monitor (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) continuously measured multiple right heart hemodynamic parameters, heart rate, and activity trends in subjects with moderate/severe HF. Using these trial data, we calculated daily mean pressures, using only those time intervals where the subject was not physically active (n = 5,807 person-days; n = 11 subjects). We then studied the association between mean daily PA/RV pressures and mean ambient PM(2.5) concentrations on the same day and previous 6 days. RESULTS: Each 11.62-microg/m(3) increase in same-day mean PM(2.5) concentration was associated with small but significant increases in estimated PA diastolic pressure [0.19 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.05-0.33] and RV diastolic pressure (0.23 mmHg; 95% CI, 0.11-0.34). Although we saw considerable differences in the magnitude of response by COMPASS-HF randomization group (total data access for physicians vs. blocked clinician access), season, left ventricular ejection fraction, and obesity, these effects were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: These pilot study findings provide a potential mechanism for previous findings of increased risk of HF associated with ambient PM. However, because of the small number of subjects, a larger study is needed for confirmation.

Left atrial volume and cardiovascular outcomes in systolic heart failure: effect of antithrombotic treatment.

AIMS: Left atrium (LA) dilation is associated with adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Blood stasis, thrombus formation and atrial fibrillation may occur, especially in heart failure (HF) patients. It is not known whether preventive antithrombotic treatment may decrease the incidence of CV events in HF patients with LA enlargement. We investigated the relationship between LA enlargement and CV outcomes in HF patients and the effect of different antithrombotic treatments. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two-dimensional echocardiography with LA volume index (LAVi) measurement was performed in 1148 patients with systolic HF from the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial. Patients were randomized to warfarin or aspirin and followed for 3.4 ± 1.7 years. While the primary aim of the trial was a composite of ischaemic stroke, death, and intracerebral haemorrhage, the present report focuses on the individual CV events, whose incidence was compared across different LAVi and treatment subgroups. After adjustment for demographics and clinical covariates, moderate or severe LA enlargement was significantly associated with total death (hazard ratio 1.6 and 2.7, respectively), CV death (HR 1.7 and 3.3), and HF hospitalization (HR 2.3 and 2.6) but not myocardial infarction (HR 1.0 and 1.4) or ischaemic stroke (1.1 and 1.5). The increased risk was observed in both patients treated with warfarin or aspirin. In warfarin-treated patients, a time in therapeutic range >60% was associated with lower event rates, and an interaction between LAVi and time in therapeutic range was observed for death (P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with systolic HF, moderate or severe LA enlargement is associated with death and HF hospitalization despite treatment with antithrombotic medications. The possibility that achieving a more consistent therapeutic level of anticoagulation may decrease the risk of death requires further investigation.

Heart Failure Severity and Quality of Warfarin Anticoagulation Control (From the WARCEF Trial).

Previous studies in patients with atrial fibrillation showed that a history of heart failure (HF) could negatively impact anticoagulation quality, as measured by the average time in therapeutic range (TTR). Whether additional markers of HF severity are associated with TTR has not been investigated thoroughly. We aimed to examine the potential role of HF severity in the quality of warfarin control in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Data from the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction Trial were used to investigate the association between TTR and HF severity. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association of markers of HF severity, including New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, Minnesota Living with HF (MLWHF) score, and frequency of HF hospitalization, with TTR ≥70% (high TTR). We included 1,067 participants (high TTR, N = 413; low TTR, N = 654) in the analysis. In unadjusted analysis, patients with a high TTR were older and less likely to have had strokes or receive other antiplatelet agents. Those patients also had lower NYHA class, better MLWHF scores, greater 6-minute walk distance, and lower frequency of HF hospitalizations. Multivariable analysis showed that NYHA class III and/or IV (Odds ratio [OR] 0.68 [95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.49 to 0.94]), each 10-point increase in MLWHF score (i.e., worse health-related quality of life) (OR 0.92 [0.86 to 0.99]), and higher number of HF hospitalization per year (OR0.45 [0.30 to 0.67]) were associated with decreased likelihood of having high TTR. In HF patients with systolic dysfunction, NYHA class III and/or IV, poor health-related quality of life, and a higher rate of HF hospitalization were independently associated with suboptimal quality of warfarin anticoagulation control. These results affirm the need to assess the new approaches, such as direct oral anticoagulants, to prevent thromboembolism in this patient population.

Comparison of rate versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (from the AFFIRM Study).

Optimal treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is not well defined. It is unclear if sinus rhythm is of greater benefit in patients with significantly reduced ejection fraction (EF) than in patients with normal or mildly depressed LV function. The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study compared 2 treatment strategies: "rhythm control," attempting to maintain sinus rhythm, principally with antiarrhythmic drugs, and "rate control," allowing AF to persist or recur while controlling the ventricular rate. We sought to determine if rhythm control was superior to rate control for patients in the AFFIRM study with various degrees of LV dysfunction. The present study analyzed outcome data of 3,032 subjects from the AFFIRM study with LV dysfunction by 3 EF strata: 40% to 49%, 30% to 39%, and <30%. The end points were mortality, hospitalization, and a change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. Analyses were done by intent to treat and by final rhythm status. In conclusion, there was no significant improvement in mortality, hospitalization, and NYHA class with the strategy of rhythm control in any of the 3 EF strata. When the data were analyzed by final rhythm status, we again found no significant benefit to patients in the rhythm control arm.

Aspirin Does Not Increase Heart Failure Events in Heart Failure Patients: From the WARCEF Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether aspirin increases heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). BACKGROUND: Because of its cyclooxygenase inhibiting properties, aspirin has been postulated to increase HF events in patients treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs. However, no large randomized trial has addressed the clinical relevance of this issue. METHODS: We compared aspirin and warfarin for HF events (hospitalization, death, or both) in the 2,305 patients enrolled in the WARCEF (Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction) trial (98.6% on ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment), using conventional Cox models for time to first event (489 events). In addition, to examine multiple HF hospitalizations, we used 2 extended Cox models, a conditional model and a total time marginal model, in time to recurrent event analyses (1,078 events). RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline covariates, aspirin- and warfarin-treated patients did not differ in time to first HF event (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.04; p = 0.117) or first hospitalization alone (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.06; p = 0.168). The extended Cox models also found no significant differences in all HF events or in HF hospitalizations alone after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction in the WARCEF trial, there was no significant difference in risk of HF events between the aspirin and warfarin-treated patients. (Warfarin Versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial [WARCEF]; NCT00041938).

Warfarin versus aspirin in patients with reduced cardiac ejection fraction (WARCEF): rationale, objectives, and design.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is widely prescribed for patients with heart failure without level 1 evidence, and an adequately powered randomized study is needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction study is a National Institutes of Health-funded, randomized, double-blind clinical trial with a target enrollment of 2860 patients. It is designed to test with 90% power the 2-sided primary null hypothesis of no difference between warfarin (International Normalized Ratio 2.5-3) and aspirin (325 mg) in 3- to 5-year event-free survival for the composite endpoint of death, or stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) among patients with cardiac ejection fraction < or =35% who do not have atrial fibrillation or mechanical prosthetic heart valves. Secondary analyses will compare warfarin and aspirin for reduction of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI), balanced against the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, among women and African Americans; and compare warfarin and aspirin for prevention of stroke alone. Randomization is stratified by site, New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart class (I vs II-IV), and stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) within 1 year before randomization versus no stroke or TIA in that period. NYHA class I patients will not exceed 20%, and the study has a target of 20% (or more) patients with stroke or TIA within 12 months. Randomized patients receive active warfarin plus placebo or active aspirin plus placebo, double-blind. CONCLUSION: The results should help guide the selection of optimum antithrombotic therapy for patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

CHA2 DS2 -VASc score and adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine whether the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score can predict adverse outcomes such as death, ischaemic stroke, and major haemorrhage, in patients with systolic heart failure in sinus rhythm. METHODS AND RESULTS: CHA2 DS2 -VASc scores were calculated for 1101 patients randomized to warfarin and 1123 patients randomized to aspirin. Adverse outcomes were defined as death or ischaemic stroke, death alone, ischaemic stroke alone, and major haemorrhage. Using proportional hazards models, we found that each 1-point increase in the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score was associated with increased hazard of death or ischaemic stroke events [hazard ratio (HR) for the warfarin arm = 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.30, P < 0.001; for aspirin, HR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.29, P < 0.001]. Similar increased hazards for higher CHA2 DS2 -VASc scores were observed for death alone, ischaemic stroke alone, and major haemorrhage. Overall performance of the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score was assessed using c-statistics for full models containing the risk score, treatment assignment, and score-treatment interaction, with the c-statistics for the full models ranging from 0.57 for death to 0.68 for major haemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: The CHA2 DS2 -VASc score predicted adverse outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure in sinus rhythm, with modest prediction accuracy.

The first prognostic model for stroke and death in patients with systolic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with systolic heart failure (HF) are at increased risk of both ischemic stroke and death. Currently, no risk scores are available to identify HF patients at high risk of stroke or death. The Warfarin vs. Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial studied 2305 HF patients, in sinus rhythm, followed for up to 6 years (3.5±1.5 years). This trial showed no overall difference in those treated with warfarin vs aspirin with regard to death or stroke. The present study develops the first prognostic model to identify patients at higher risk of stroke or death based on their overall risk profile. METHODS AND RESULTS: A scoring algorithm using 8 readily obtainable clinical characteristics as predictors, age, gender, hemoglobin, blood urea nitrogen, ejection fraction, diastolic blood pressure, diabetes status, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (C-index=0.65, 95% CI: 0.613-0.681), was developed. It was validated internally using a bootstrap method. In predicting 1-year survival for death alone, our 8-predictor model had an AUC of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.579-0.678) while the 14-predictor Seattle model had an AUC of 0.72. The Seattle model did not report stroke. CONCLUSIONS: This novel prognostic model predicts the overall risk of ischemic stroke or death for HF patients. This model compares favorably for death with the Seattle model and has the added utility of including stroke as an endpoint. Use of this model will help identify those patients in need of more intensive monitoring and therapy and may help identify appropriate populations for trials of new therapies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.Clinicatrials.govNCT00041938.

Permanent pacing is a risk factor for the development of heart failure.

No previous study has examined the importance of right ventricular pacing as a risk factor for the development of heart failure (HF) in subjects without a history of HF. A cohort study of patients who underwent initial pacemaker implantation (n = 11,426) was conducted to test the hypothesis that patients with ventricular dyssynchrony created by permanent pacing would develop HF, as shown by new HF hospitalizations or HF-related deaths, at a higher rate than matched controls.

Long-term effect of diuretic-based therapy on fatal outcomes in subjects with isolated systolic hypertension with and without diabetes.

Diuretic-based antihypertensive therapy is associated with the development of diabetes but with improved clinical outcomes. It has been proposed that the duration of clinical trials has been too short to detect the adverse effects of diabetes. We assessed the long-term mortality rate of subjects in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (n = 4,732) who were randomized to stepped-care therapy with 12.5 to 25.0 mg/day of chlorthalidone or matching placebo. If blood pressure remained above the goal, atenolol or matching placebo was added. At a mean follow-up of 14.3 years, cardiovascular (CV) mortality rate was significantly lower in the chlorthalidone group (19%) than in the placebo group (22%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.854, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.751 to 0.972). Diabetes at baseline (n = 799) was associated with increased CV mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.659, 95% CI 1.413 to 1.949) and total mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.510, 95% CI 1.347 to 1.693). Diabetes that developed during the trial among subjects on placebo (n = 169) was also associated with increased CV adverse outcome (adjusted HR 1.562, 95% CI 1.117 to 2.184) and total mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.348, 95% CI 1.051 to 1.727). However, diabetes that developed among subjects during diuretic therapy (n = 258) did not have significant associations with CV mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.043, 95% CI 0.745 to 1.459) or total mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.151, 95% CI 0.925 to 1.433). Diuretic treatment in subjects who had diabetes was strongly associated with lower long-term CV mortality rate (adjusted HR 0.688, 95% CI 0.526 to 0.848) and total mortality rate (adjusted HR 0.805, 95% CI 0.680 to 0.952). Thus, chlorthalidone-based treatment improved long-term outcomes, especially among subjects who had diabetes. Subjects who had diabetes associated with chlorthalidone had no significant increase in CV events and had a better prognosis than did those who had preexisting diabetes.

Bleeding Risk and Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients With Sinus Rhythm and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Warfarin or Aspirin.

We sought to assess the performance of existing bleeding risk scores, such as the Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly (HAS-BLED) score or the Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index (OBRI), in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in sinus rhythm (SR) treated with warfarin or aspirin. We calculated HAS-BLED and OBRI risk scores for 2,305 patients with HFrEF in SR enrolled in the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial. Proportional hazards models were used to test whether each score predicted major bleeding, and comparison of different risk scores was performed using Harell C-statistic and net reclassification improvement index. For the warfarin arm, both scores predicted bleeding risk, with OBRI having significantly greater C-statistic (0.72 vs 0.61; p = 0.03) compared to HAS-BLED, although the net reclassification improvement for comparing OBRI to HAS-BLED was not significant (0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.18 to 0.37). Performance of the OBRI and HAS-BLED risk scores was similar for the aspirin arm. For participants with OBRI scores of 0 to 1, warfarin compared with aspirin reduced ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.98, p = 0.042) without significantly increasing major bleeding (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.30, p = 0.51). For those with OBRI score of ≥2, there was a trend for reduced ischemic stroke with warfarin compared to aspirin (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.15, p = 0.12), but major bleeding was increased (HR 4.04, 95% CI 1.99 to 8.22, p <0.001). In conclusion, existing bleeding risk scores can identify bleeding risk in patients with HFrEF in SR and could be tested for potentially identifying patients with a favorable risk/benefit profile for antithrombotic therapy with warfarin.