Taiwan Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Registry 2020: Rationale and Design.

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a significant public health problem worldwide. Death and rehospitalization rates are similar across different HF phenotypes. However, the existing Taiwanese HF registries mainly enrolled inpatients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) before 2019, so their results may not apply to outpatients or patients with HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) phenotypes. Methods: The Taiwan Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Registry 2020 is a prospective, multicenter, observational registry that will enroll patients with HF from 27 hospitals in Taiwan between 2020 and 2022 and will be followed for two years. Patients eligible for enrollment include those admitted due to acute decompensated heart failure or outpatients with a history of hospitalization for heart failure within the past six months. The registry will collect patient demographics, medical history, HF diagnosis, medication use, examination results, and comorbidities. The registry plans to enroll 3,370 patients, with the distribution of HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF as 59%/13%/28%. Follow-up intervals will occur every six months for up to two years to monitor clinical outcomes and major cardiac interventions. The registry will conclude in December 2024. Conclusions: The Taiwan Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Registry 2020 is a comprehensive and meticulous effort to demonstrate the epidemiology, adherence to guidelines, clinical outcomes, and disease progression of Taiwanese patients with HF in contemporary clinical practice.

2024 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multi-organ systemic syndrome that involves cardiac and extra-cardiac pathophysiological abnormalities. Its growing prevalence causes a major public concern worldwide. HFpEF is usually associated with multiple comorbidities, and non-cardiovascular death is common in patients with HFpEF. In Asia, patients with HFpEF has a younger age, higher prevalence of diabetes and chronic kidney disease than Western countries. A 2-step diagnostic algorithm is recommended in this guideline. In the first step, the diagnosis of HFpEF can be made if patients have symptoms and/or signs of heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%, increased natriuretic peptide, and objective evidence of left atrial or left ventricular abnormalities or raised left ventricular filling pressure. If diagnosis is still uncertain, invasive or noninvasive stress test can be performed in the second step. Comorbidities need to be controlled in HFpEF. Weight reduction for obesity and supervised exercise training are recommended for HFpEF. For pharmacological therapy, diuretic is used to relieve congestion and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, empagliflozin or dapagliflozin, is recommended to improve prognosis of HFpEF. The research on HFpEF is advancing at a rapid pace. It is expected that newer modalities for diagnosis and management of HFpEF could appear in the near future.

Sodium Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors Versus Metformin on Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes With Low Cardiovascular Risk: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated whether initial SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitor-based treatment is superior to metformin-based regimens as a primary prevention strategy among low-risk patients with diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this nationwide cohort study, a total of 38 496 patients with diabetes with low cardiovascular risk were identified (age 62.0±11.6 years, men 50%) from January 1 to December 31, 2016. Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors-based and metformin-based regimens were 1:2 matched by propensity score. Study outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, stroke, and progression to end-stage renal disease. Compared with 1928 patients receiving metformin-based regimens, 964 patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitor-based regimens had similar all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.51-1.12]), cardiovascular death (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.25-1.89]), hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.59-1.92]), stroke (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.48-1.27]), and progression to end-stage renal disease (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.32-2.39]). However, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.23-0.99]; P for interaction=0.008) and progression to end-stage renal disease (HR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.06-0.82]; P for interaction=0.04) in patients under the age of 65. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to metformin-based regimens, SGLT2 inhibitor-based regimens showed a similar risk of all-cause mortality and adverse cardiorenal events. SGLT2 inhibitors might be considered as first-line therapy in select low-risk patients, for example, younger patients with diabetes.

Bridging the STRONG Gap: Call to Optimize Heart Failure Treatment After Hospitalization in Women and Men in Taiwan.

The benefits of rapidly up-titrating evidence-based treatments following heart failure (HF) hospitalizations were demonstrated in the The Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by NT-proBNP Testing, of Heart Failure Therapies (STRONG-HF) trial and emphasized in contemporary HF guidelines. We aimed to assess up-titration patterns of guideline-directed medical treatments in the Taiwanese HF population. Combining data from the Taiwan Society of Cardiology - Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (TSOC-HFrEF) registry and the Treatment with Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitor for Taiwan Acute Heart Failure (TAROT-AHF) study cohort, we formed the "Taiwan real-world cohort". We compared these data with subgroups of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% in the STRONG-HF trial. Patients in the Taiwan cohort exhibited similar blood pressure, heart rate and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels at discharge compared with those in the STRONG-HF trial. A higher proportion of patients in the STRONG-HF high-intensity care group received up-titrations compared with those in the usual care group and the Taiwan cohort. Composite all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization at 180 days for patients in the high-intensity care group, usual care group, and Taiwan cohort were 17.4%, 23.7%, and 31.9%, respectively, with differences largely contributed by HF hospitalization (10.1%, 17.9%, and 27.6%, respectively), whereas all-cause mortality rates were similar (11.0%, 9.6%, and 9.3%, respectively). Gender did not affect this trend. In conclusion, our data highlights a treatment gap between the STRONG-HF trial and real-world practices in Taiwan, urging prompt optimization of HF therapy.

Efficacy of Sacubitril-Valsartan on Survival and Cardiac Remodeling in Hypotensive Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hypotensive patients diagnosed with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) might benefit from angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNis) in real-world practice because patients with baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) of less than 100 mm Hg have been excluded from landmark trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter study conducted between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2021, a total of 7562 symptomatic patients with HFrEF were enrolled and grouped by SBP (hypotension was defined as an SBP of less than 100 mm Hg) and ARNi use as follows: group 1, hypotensive/non-ARNi users (n=484); group 2, hypotensive/ARNi users (n=308); group 3, nonhypotensive/non-ARNi users (n=4560); and group 4, nonhypotensive/ARNi users (n=2210). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics for survival analysis. RESULTS: Diverse baseline characteristics and lower rates of medication use were found among non-ARNi users compared with ARNi users. Hypotensive/ARNi users had lower ARNi initiation doses than nonhypotensive/ARNi users. We observed significantly lower mortality, composite heart failure hospitalization, and CV death for hypotensive/ARNi and the other 2 nonhypotensive groups (groups 3 and 4) during a median follow-up of 3.43 years (all P<.05), with a similar effect on reverse remodeling for the hypotensive/ARNi group compared with the hypotensive/non-ARNi group. The event-free survival benefits of ARNi vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were consistent with the lower boundary of SBP for clinical benefits found until 88 mm Hg (spline curves) after inverse probability of treatment weighting. CONCLUSION: Patients with HFrEF and hypotension may still benefit from ARNi treatment. Patients with hypotensive HFrEF should not be routinely excluded from ARNi use in a real-world setting.