Effect of sacubitril valsartan on heart failure with mid-range or preserved ejection fraction in patients on maintenance hemodialysis: real-world experience in a single-center, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril valsartan (SV) on heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients on hemodialysis with HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF; HFpEF). METHODS: This single-center, prospective study enrolled 155 stable hemodialysis patients with EF > 40% who were followed up for 12 months. Fifty-nine patients were treated with SV; the others were matched for EF (57.89 ± 9.35 vs. 58.00 ± 11.82, P = 0.9) at a ratio of 1:1 and included as controls. The target dosage of SV was 200 mg/day. RESULTS: Twenty-three (23/155; 14.84%) had HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), while 132 (85.16%) had HFpEF. After SV treatment, the peak early diastolic transmitral flow velocity/peak early diastolic mitral annular tissue velocity(E/e') improved from 17.19 ± 8.74 to 12.80 ± 5.52 (P = 0.006), the left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter decreased from 53.14 ± 7.67 mm to 51.56 ± 7.44 mm (P = 0.03), and the LV mass index decreased from 165.7 ± 44.6 g/m2 to 154.8 ± 24.0 g/m2 (P = 0.02). LVEF (P = 0.08) and LV global longitudinal strain (P = 0.7) did not change significantly. The composite outcome of first and recurrent HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death showed no difference between group. However, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Workgroup (ADQI) HF class improved in 39 and 15 patients and worsened in 1 and 11 patients in the SV and control groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Age, diabetes mellitus, and pulmonary arterial pressure were independent risk factors for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: SV improved LV hypertrophy, diastolic function, and the ADQI class for HF; however, it failed to reduce the composite endpoints of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular disease-related mortality over 12 months of follow-up in patients on maintenance hemodialysis with EF of > 40%.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in the non-diabetic heart failure patient.

Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a global cause of morbidity and mortality with over 60 million estimated cases worldwide. The burden of HF care is expected to increase with an ageing population as evidenced by the fact that 80% of HF-related hospitalizations occur in those aged above 65. Given the significant morbidity and mortality associated with HFrEF, there is a need for new prognostic therapies that have an impact on morbidity and mortality. In February of 2021, the National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) released new guidance on the utility of Dapagliflozin for the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). NICE advocated that dapagliflozin is a viable treatment option in symptomatic HFrEF patients on optimal medical management. The current list price of dapagliflozin is around £36.59 per 28-tablet pack with an estimated annual cost of £476.98 equating to £6939 per quality-adjusted life year. The guidance was mainly based on evidence produced from the 2019 DAPA-HF trial. This demonstrated that in HFrEF population, the use of dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in worsening HF events, cardiovascular, and all-cause death. In this article, we summarize the evidence base for sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in the non-diabetic heart failure patient.

Starting Neurohormonal Antagonists in Patients With Acute Heart Failure With Mid-Range and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefits of neurohormonal antagonists for patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF and HFpEF) are uncertain.Methods and Results: This study analyzed 858 consecutive patients with HFmrEF (EF: 40-49%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%), who were hospitalized for acute HF, and who were discharged alive, and were not taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE)-I/ angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) or ß-blockers at admission. The study population was classified into 4 groups according to the status of prescription of ACE-I/ARB and ß-blocker at discharge: no neurohormonal antagonist (n=342, 39.9%), ACE-I/ARB only (n=128, 14.9%), ß-blocker only (n=189, 22.0%), and both ACE-I/ARB and ß-blocker (n=199, 23.2%) groups. The primary outcome measure was a composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization. The cumulative 1-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was 41.2% in the no neurohormonal antagonist group, 34.0% in the ACE-I/ARB only group, 28.6% in the ß-blocker only group, and 16.4% in the both ACE-I/ARB and ß-blocker group (P<0.001). Compared with the no neurohormonal antagonist group, both the ACE-I/ARB and ß-blocker groups were associated with a significantly lower risk for a composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28-0.76, P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, starting both ACE-I/ARB and a ß-blocker was associated with a reduced risk of the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization compared with patients not starting on an ACE-I/ARB or ß-blocker.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure: A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as: At-risk for HF (Stage A) , for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-heart failure (Stage B) for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C) for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D) for patients with severe symptoms and/ or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT) , refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) . The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) : HF with LVEF ≤ 40%; HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF) : HF with LVEF 41-49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) : HF with LVEF ≥ 50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF) : HF with a baseline LVEF ≤ 40%, a ≥ 10 point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF > 40.

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Predicted Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

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.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction and the effect of ß-blockers after acute myocardial infarction.

There is currently an ongoing debate about the 'grey area' of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF). We evaluated characteristics, prognosis, and the effect of ß-blockers on clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We included a total of 10,785 patients and divided them into three groups: EF 40-49% (HFmrEF; n = 2717; reference); EF < 40% (reduced EF [HFrEF]; n = 1194); and EF ≥ 50% (preserved EF [HFpEF]; n = 6874). The primary outcome was 2-year all-cause mortality. HFmrEF was intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF for baseline characteristics. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower for HFmrEF patients compared to HFrEF patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.710; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.544-0.927; P = 0.012). However, HFmrEF patients tended to be at higher risk for 2-year all-cause mortality than HFpEF patients (adjusted HR 1.235; 95% CI 0.989-1.511; P = 0.090). ß-blockers were associated with reductions in all-cause mortality for the entire cohort (adjusted HR 0.760; 95% CI 0.592-0.975; P = 0.031). ß-blockers were effective in patients with HFrEF (adjusted HR 0.667; 95% CI 0.471-0.944; P = 0.022), tended to be effective in patients with HFmrEF (adjusted HR 0.665; 95% CI 0.426-1.038; P = 0.072), but not effective in patients with HFpEF (adjusted HR 0.852; 95% CI 0.548-1.326; P = 0.478; interaction P = 0.026). In conclusion, clinical profiles and prognosis of patients with post-AMI HFmrEF are largely intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF. ß-blockers reduced or tended to reduce 2-year all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF or HFmrEF, respectively, but not those with HFpEF after AMI.

The Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Heart Failure Patients With Mid-Range and Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure patients with mid-range (HFmEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fractions remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the clinical benefits of sacubitril-valsartan in HFmEF and HFpEF patients. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched from inception to 29 February 2020 to identify pertinent articles. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analysed. RESULTS: Six (6) studies, with a total of 5,503 patients, were included. Compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, sacubitril-valsartan significantly reduced the rate of HF hospitalisation (risk ratios, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.91; p<0.001) and improved the New York Heart Association class (risk ratios, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; p=0.001) in HFmEF and HFpEF patients. Both the cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were not significantly decreased by sacubitril-valsartan. In addition, there were no significant between-group differences in the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and left ventricular ejection fraction changes. Regarding safety, sacubitril-valsartan was likely to increase the risk of hypotension, but the incidence of serum creatinine elevation was significantly lower in the sacubitril-valsartan group than in the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers group. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that sacubitril-valsartan may be an effective and safe strategy with which to improve the clinical symptoms and reduce HF hospitalisation in HFmEF and HFpEF patients.

Associations With and Prognostic and Discriminatory Role of N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Mid-range Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to characterize N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in terms of determinants of levels and of its prognostic and discriminatory role in heart failure with mid-range (HFmrEF) versus preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 9847 outpatients with HFpEF (n = 1811; 18%), HFmrEF (n = 2122; 22%) and HFrEF (n = 5914; 60%) enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, median NT-proBNP levels were 1428, 1540, and 2288 pg/mL, respectively. Many determinants of NT-proBNP differed by ejection fraction, with atrial fibrillation (AF) more important in HFmrEF and HFpEF, diabetes and hypertension in HFmrEF, and age and body mass index in HFrEF and HFmrEF, whereas renal function, New York Heart Association functional class, heart rate, and anemia were similar. Hazard ratios for death and death/HF hospitalization for NT-proBNP above the median ranged from 1.48 to 2.00 and were greatest for HFmrEF and HFpEF. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for death and death/HF hospitalization were greater in HFmrEF than in HFpEF and HFrEF and were reduced by AF in HFpEF and HFmrEF but not in HFrEF. CONCLUSIONS: In HFpEF and especially HFmrEF, NT-proBNP was more prognostic and discriminatory, but also more affected by confounders such as AF. These data support the use of NT-proBNP for eligibility, enrichment, and surrogate end points in HFpEF and HFmrEF trials, and suggest that cutoff levels for eligibility should be carefully tailored to comorbidity.

Fate of Acute Heart Failure Patients With Mid-Range Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) have been rarely studied, and follow-up data on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are scarse.Methods and Results:Patients were selected from a prospective multicenter registry of patients hospitalized for acute HF and then classified in the improved group if they exhibited %LVEF change ≥5 with follow-up LVEF ≥50%. Follow-up LVEF reported at least 90 days after discharge was used for classification. Of the 3,085 patients with acute HF, 454 were classified in the HFmrEF, and 276 had follow-up data. Of these 276 patients, 34.1% were classified in the improved group. Multivariate analysis revealed that hypertension, higher heart rate, lower serum sodium level, and maintenance therapy with ß-blocker were associated with improved LVEF. The survival rate was significantly higher in the improved group than in the other groups. Young age and maintenance therapy with renin-angiotensin system blockers or aldosterone antagonists were significantly associated with better survival in HFmrEF. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of HFmrEF patients showed improved LVEF; moreover, the survival rate in the improved group was higher than the other groups. Renin-angiotensin system blockers and aldosterone antagonists could improve the survival of HFmrEF patients.

Precision Cardiology: Phenotype-targeted Therapies for HFmrEF and HFpEF.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represent over half of heart failure cases but lack proven effective therapies beyond sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and diuretics. HFmrEF and HFpEF are heterogeneous conditions requiring precision phenotyping to enable tailored therapies. This review covers concepts on precision medicine approaches for HFmrEF and HFpEF. Areas discussed include HFmrEF mechanisms, anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic treatments for obesity-related HFpEF, If inhibition for HFpEF with atrial fibrillation, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism for chronic kidney disease-HFpEF. Incorporating precision phenotyping and matched interventions in HFmrEF and HFpEF trials will further advance therapy compared to blanket approaches.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in De Novo vs Acute on Chronic HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Background: Decompensated heart failure (HF) can be categorized as de novo or worsening of chronic HF. In PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF), among patients with an ejection fraction >40% that stabilized after worsening HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan. Objectives: This prespecified analysis characterized patients with de novo vs worsening chronic HF in PARAGLIDE-HF and assessed the interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Patients were classified as de novo (first diagnosis of HF) or chronic (known HF prior to the index event). Time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. A win ratio consisting of time to cardiovascular death, number and times of HF hospitalizations during follow-up, number and times of urgent HF visits during follow-up, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP was assessed for each group. Results: Of the 466 participants, 153 (33%) had de novo HF and 313 (67%) had chronic HF. De novo patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and lower creatinine. There was a nonsignificant reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan for de novo (0.82; 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) and chronic HF (0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07), interaction P = 0.66. The win ratio was nominally in favor of sacubitril/valsartan for both de novo (1.12; 95% CI: 0.70-1.58) and chronic HF (1.24; 95% CI: 0.89-1.71). Conclusions: There is no interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril-valsartan.

The impact of empagliflozin and metformin on cardiac parameters in patients with mid-range ejection fraction heart failure without diabetes.

Heart failure (HF) remains a significant problem for healthcare systems, requiring the use of intervention and multimodal management strategies. We aimed to assess the short-term effect of empagliflozin (EMPA) and metformin on cardiac function parameters, including ventricular dimension-hypertrophy, septal thickness, ejection fraction (EF), and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels in patients with HF and mildly reduced EF. A case-control study included 60 newly diagnosed patients with HF. Patients were divided into two groups: Group E received standard HF treatment (carvedilol, bumetanide, sacubitril-valsartan, spironolactone) plus EMPA 10 mg daily, and Group M received standard HF treatment plus metformin 500 mg daily. After three months of treatment, Group E had a significantly higher EF than Group M compared to initial measurements (a change of 9.2% versus 6.1%, respectively). We found similar results in the left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD), with mean reductions of 0.72 mm for Group E and 0.23 mm for Group M. Regarding cardiac indicators, the level of NT-proBNP was considerably decreased in both groups. However, the reduction was significantly greater in group E than in group M compared to the initial level (mean reduction: 719.9 vs. 973.6, respectively). When combined with quadruple anti-heart failure therapy, metformin enhanced several echocardiographic parameters, showing effects similar to those of EMPA when used in the same treatment regimen. However, the benefits of EMPA were more pronounced, particularly regarding improvements in EF and LVESD.

Prognostic value of growth differentiation factor-15 in heart failure among whole ejection fraction phenotypes.

AIMS: The utility of growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) in predicting long-term adverse outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients is not well established. This study explored the relationship between GDF-15 levels and adverse outcomes in HF patients across various ejection fraction (EF) phenotypes associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) and evaluated the added prognostic value of incorporating GDF-15 into the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) risk score-based model. METHODS AND RESULTS: This single-centre cohort study included 823 HF patients, categorized into 230 (27.9%) reduced EF (HFrEF), 271 (32.9%) mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and 322 (39.1%) preserved EF (HFpEF) groups. The median age was 68.0 years (range: 56.0-77.0), and 245 (29.8%) were females. Compared with the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups, the HFpEF group had a higher GDF-15 concentration (P = 0.002) and a higher MAGGIC risk score (P < 0.001). We examined the associations between GDF-15 levels and the risks of all-cause mortality and HF rehospitalization using Cox regression models. The C-index, integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and net reclassification improvement (NRI) metrics were employed to assess the incremental prognostic value. During the 9.4 year follow-up period, 425 patients died, and 484 were rehospitalized due to HF. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that elevated GDF-15 levels were significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-1.54; P < 0.001] and HF rehospitalization (HR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.57-1.95; P < 0.001) across all HF phenotypes. This association remained significant when GDF-15 was treated as a categorical variable (high GDF-15 group: all-cause death: HR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.40-2.14; P < 0.001; HF rehospitalization: HR = 3.37, 95% CI: 2.73-4.15; P < 0.001). Inclusion of GDF-15 in the MAGGIC risk score-based model provided additional prognostic value for all HF patients (Δ C-index = 0.021, 95% CI: 0.002-0.041; IDI = 0.011, 95% CI: 0.001-0.025; continuous NRI = 0.489, 95% CI: 0.174-0.629) and HF rehospitalization (Δ C-index = 0.034, 95% CI: 0.005-0.063; IDI = 0.021, 95% CI: 0.007-0.032; continuous NRI = 0.307, 95% CI: 0.147-0.548), particularly in the HFpEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: GDF-15 is identified as an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes in HF patients across the entire EF spectrum in the context of CHD. Integrating GDF-15 into the MAGGIC risk score-based model enhances its prognostic capability for adverse outcomes in the general HF population. This incremental prognostic effect was observed specifically in the HFpEF subgroup and not in other subgroups.

Metformin effects on cardiac parameters in non-diabetic Iraqi patients with heart failure and mid-range ejection fraction - a comparative two-arm parallel clinical study.

Heart failure (HF) remains a difficult challenge to the healthcare system, necessitating promoting interventions and multidrug management. Metformin, typically used to manage diabetes, has emerged as a promising intervention in the treatment of HF. This study aimed to assess the effect of adding metformin to the standard treatment of HF on cardiac parameters. This clinical study comprised 60 newly diagnosed HF patients randomly assigned to two groups: Group C received standard HF treatment, while Group M received standard HF treatment in addition to daily metformin (500 mg). After 3 months of treatment, group M showed a significantly higher ejection fraction (EF) compared to Group C (6.1% and 3.2%, respectively; p-value=0.023) and a reduction in the left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDD) (0.28, and 0.21 mm respectively; p-value=0.029). No significant differences were observed in the interventricular septal thickness (IVST) or left ventricular end-systolic pressure (LVESD). For cardiac markers, N-Terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) showed the highest reduction in Group M compared to Group C (719.9 pg/ml and 271.9 pg/ml respectively; p-value=0.009). No significant changes were reported for soluble ST2. Metformin demonstrated cardiac protective effects by increasing EF and reducing NT-proBNP. Given its affordability and accessibility, metformin offers a valuable addition to the current HF treatment options. This positive effect may be attributed to mechanisms that enhance the impact of conventional HF treatments or vice versa.

ß-blocker and 1-year outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction.

AIMS: The beneficial effect of ß-blocker on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is well established. However, its effect on the 1-year outcome of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the data of the patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 40% and 49% in China Patient-centred Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events Prospective Heart Failure Study (China PEACE 5p-HF Study), in which patients hospitalized for heart failure from 52 Chinese hospitals were recruited from 2016 to 2018. Two primary outcomes were all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization. The associations between ß-blocker use at discharge and outcomes were assessed by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-weighted Cox regression analyses. To assess consistency, IPTW adjusting medications analyses, multivariable analyses and dose-effect analyses were performed. A total of 1035 HFmrEF patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 65.5 ± 12.7 years and 377 (36.4%) were female. The median (interquartile range) of LVEF was 44% (42-47%). Six hundred and sixty-one (63.8%) were treated with ß-blocker. Patients using ß-blocker were younger with better cardiac function, and more likely to use renin-angiotensin system inhibitor and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. During the 1-year follow-up, death occurred in 84 (12.7%) treated and 85 (22.7%) untreated patients (P < 0.0001); all-cause hospitalization occurred in 298 (45.1%) treated and 188 (50.3%) untreated patients (P = 0.04). After IPTW-weighted adjustment, ß-blocker use was significantly associated with lower risk of all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR): 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.96, P = 0.03], but not with lower all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.76-1.10, P = 0.36). Consistency analyses showed consistent favourable effect of ß-blocker on all-cause death, but not on all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF, ß-blocker use was associated with lower risk of all-cause death, but not with lower risk of all-cause hospitalization.

Exercise hemodynamics in heart failure patients with preserved and mid-range ejection fraction: key role of the right heart.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore whether classification of patients with heart failure and mid-range (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) identifies differences in their exercise hemodynamic profile, and whether classification according to an index of right ventricular (RV) function improves differentiation. BACKGROUND: Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF have hemodynamic compromise on exertion. The classification according to LVEF implies a key role of the left ventricle. However, RV involvement in exercise limitation is increasingly recognized. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion/systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (TAPSE/PASP) ratio is an index of RV and pulmonary vascular function. Whether exercise hemodynamics differ more between HFmrEF and HFpEF than between TAPSE/PASP tertiles is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed 166 patients with HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%) or HFmrEF (LVEF 40-49%) who underwent basic diagnostics (laboratory testing, echocardiography at rest, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPET]) and exercise with right heart catheterization. Hemodynamics were compared according to echocardiographic left ventricular or RV function. RESULTS: Exercise hemodynamics (e.g. pulmonary arterial wedge pressure/cardiac output [CO] slope, CO increase during exercise, and maximum total pulmonary resistance) showed no difference between HFpEF and HFmrEF, but significantly differed across TAPSE/PASP tertiles and were associated with CPET results. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide concentration also differed significantly across TAPSE/PASP tertiles but not between HFpEF and HFmrEF. CONCLUSION: In patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF, TAPSE/PASP emerged as a more appropriate stratification parameter than LVEF to predict clinically relevant impairment of exercise hemodynamics. Stratification of exercise hemodynamics in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF according to LVEF or TAPSE/PASP, showing significant distinctions only with the RV-based strategy. All data are shown as median [upper limit of interquartile range] and were calculated using the independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis test. PVR pulmonary vascular resistance; max maximum level during exercise.

A comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure with preserved versus mildly reduced versus reduced ejection fraction - insights from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

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.

Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) have a poor prognosis and are categorized by ejection fraction. We performed a meta-analysis to compare baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure with reduced (HFrEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 27 prospective studies were included. Patients with HFpEF were older and had a higher proportion of females, hypertension, diabetes, and insufficient neuroendocrine antagonist treatments, while patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF had a higher prevalence of coronary heart disease and chronic kidney disease. After more than 1-year of follow-up, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with HFmrEF 9388/25 042 (37.49%) than those with HFrEF 39 333/90 023 (43.69%) and HFpEF 24 828/52 492 (47.30%) (p < .001). Cardiovascular mortality was lowest in patients with HFpEF 1130/9904 (11.41%), highest in patients with HFrEF 3419/16 277 (21.07%) mainly coming from HF death and sudden cardiac death, and middle in patients with HFmrEF 699/5171 (13.52%) and the non-cardiovascular mortality was on the contrary. Subgroup analysis showed that in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, the all-cause mortality of HFpEF was significantly higher than both HFrEF and HFmrEF (p < .001). HF hospitalization was lowest in patients with HFmrEF 1822/5285 (34.47%), highest in patients with HFrEF 12 607/28 590 (44.10%) and middle in patients with HFpEF 8686/22 763 (38.16%) and the composite of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization was also observed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, patients with HFmrEF had the lowest incidence of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization, while the highest all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization rates were HFpEF and HFrEF patients, respectively.

Eligibility of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction for sacubitril/valsartan according to the PARAGON-HF trial.

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.