Search

Aims: Heart failure (HF), a global pandemic affecting millions of individuals, calls for adequate predictive guidance for improved therapy. Congestion, a key factor in HF-related hospitalizations, further underscores the need for timely interventions. Proactive monitoring of intracardiac pressures, guided by pulmonary artery (PA) pressure, offers opportunities for efficient early-stage intervention, since haemodynamic congestion precedes clinical symptoms., Methods: The BioMEMS study, a substudy of the MONITOR-HF trial, proposes a multifaceted approach integrating blood biobank data with traditional and novel HF parameters. Two additional blood samples from 340 active participants in the MONITOR-HF trial were collected at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits and stored for the BioMEMS biobank. The main aims are to identify the relationship between temporal biomarker patterns and PA pressures derived from the CardioMEMS-HF system, and to identify the biomarker profile(s) associated with the risk of HF events and cardiovascular death., Conclusion: Since the prognostic value of single baseline measurements of biomarkers like N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide is limited, with the BioMEMS study we advocate a dynamic, serial approach to better capture HF progression. We will substantiate this by relating repeated biomarker measurements to PA pressures. This design rationale presents a comprehensive review on cardiac biomarkers in HF, and aims to contribute valuable insights into personalized HF therapy and patient risk assessment, advancing our ability to address the evolving nature of HF effectively., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Despite clear guideline recommendations for initiating four drug classes in all patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and the availability of rapid titration schemes, information on real-world implementation lags behind. Closely following the 2021 ESC HF guidelines and 2023 focused update, the TITRATE-HF study started to prospectively investigate the use, sequencing, and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in HF patients, including the identification of implementation barriers., Methods and Results: TITRATE-HF is an ongoing long-term HF registry conducted in the Netherlands. Overall, 4288 patients from 48 hospitals were included. Among these patients, 1732 presented with de novo, 2240 with chronic, and 316 with worsening HF. The median age was 71 years (interquartile range [IQR] 63-78), 29% were female, and median ejection fraction was 35% (IQR 25-40). In total, 44% of chronic and worsening HFrEF patients were prescribed quadruple therapy. However, only 1% of HFrEF patients achieved target dose for all drug classes. In addition, quadruple therapy was more often prescribed to patients treated in a dedicated HF outpatient clinic as compared to a general cardiology outpatient clinic. In each GDMT drug class, 19% to 36% of non-use in HFrEF patients was related to side-effects, intolerances, or contraindications. In the de novo HF cohort, 49% of patients already used one or more GDMT drug classes for other indications than HF., Conclusion: This first analysis of the TITRATE-HF study reports relatively high use of GDMT in a contemporary HF cohort, while still showing room for improvement regarding quadruple therapy. Importantly, the use and dose of GDMT were suboptimal, with the reasons often remaining unclear. This underscores the urgency for further optimization of GDMT and implementation strategies within HF management., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Despite chronic therapies, atrial fibrillation (AF) leads to rapid ventricular rates (RVR) often requiring intravenous treatments. Etripamil is a fast-acting, calcium-channel blocker administered intranasally affecting the atrioventricular node within minutes., Methods: Reduction of Ventricular Rate in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation evaluated the efficacy and safety of etripamil for the reduction of ventricular rate (VR) in patients presenting urgently with AF-RVR (VR ≥110 beats per minute [bpm]), was randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and conducted in Canada and the Netherlands. Patients presenting urgently with AF-RVR were randomized (1:1, etripamil nasal spray 70 mg: placebo nasal spray). The primary objective was to demonstrate the effectiveness of etripamil in reducing VR in AF-RVR within 60 minutes of treatment. Secondary objectives assessed achievement of VR <100 bpm, reduction by ≥10% and ≥20%, relief of symptoms and treatment effectiveness; adverse events; and additional measures to 360 minutes., Results: Sixty-nine patients were randomized, 56 dosed with etripamil (n=27) or placebo (n=29). The median age was 65 years; 39% were female patients; proportions of AF types were similar between groups. The difference of mean maximum reductions in VR over 60 minutes, etripamil versus placebo, adjusting for baseline VR, was -29.91 bpm (95% CI, -40.31 to -19.52; P <0.0001). VR reductions persisted up to 150 minutes. Significantly greater proportions of patients receiving etripamil achieved VR reductions <100 bpm (with longer median duration <100 bpm), or VR reduction by ≥10% or ≥20%, versus placebo. VR reduction ≥20% occurred in 66.7% of patients in the etripamil arm and no patients in placebo. Using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication-9, there was significant improvement in satisfaction on symptom relief and treatment effectiveness with etripamil versus placebo. Serious adverse events were rare; 1 patient in the etripamil arm experienced transient severe bradycardia and syncope, assessed as due to hypervagotonia., Conclusions: Intranasal etripamil 70 mg reduced VR and improved symptom relief and treatment satisfaction. These data support further development of self-administered etripamil for the treatment of AF-RVR., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT04467905., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Camm has received grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo; personal fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Menarini, and Biotronik; and support from Anthos, Sanofi, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr Piccini has received grants for clinical research from Abbott, the American Heart Association, the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, Bayer, Boston Scientific, iRhythm, and Philips and serves as a consultant to Abbott, AbbVie, ARCA biopharma, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Myokardia), Element Science, Itamar Medical, LivaNova, Medtronic, ElectroPhysiology Frontiers, ReCor, Sanofi, Philips, and UpToDate. Dr Alings has no disclosures to report. Drs Dorian, Ip, and Stambler serve on the steering committee for Milestone Pharmaceuticals. Dr Gosselin has no disclosures to report. Drs Kowey and Mondésert are consultants for Milestone Pharmaceuticals. Drs Prins, Roux, van Eck, and Al Windy have no disclosures to report. Drs Thermil, Shardonofsky, and Bharucha are employees of Milestone Pharmaceuticals. Dr Roy has no disclosures to report.

Background: Colchicine reduces risk of cardiovascular events in patients post-myocardial infarction and in patients with chronic coronary disease. It remains unclear whether this effect is related to the time of onset of treatment following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Objectives: This study investigates risk for major adverse cardiovascular events in relation to history and timing of prior ACS, to determine whether the benefits of colchicine are consistent independent of prior ACS status., Methods: The LoDoCo2 (Low-Dose Colchicine 2) trial randomly allocated patients with chronic coronary disease to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo. The rate of the composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization was compared between patients with no prior, recent (6-24 months), remote (2-7 years), or very remote (>7 years) ACS; interaction between ACS status and colchicine treatment effect was assessed., Results: In 5,522 randomized patients, risk of the primary endpoint was independent of prior ACS status. Colchicine consistently reduced the primary endpoint in patients with no prior ACS (incidence: 2.8 vs 3.4 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-1.27), recent ACS (incidence: 2.4 vs 3.3 events per 100 person-years; HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.51-1.10), remote ACS (incidence: 1.8 vs 3.2 events per 100 person-years, HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37-0.82), and very remote ACS (incidence: 3.0 vs 4.3 events per 100 person-years, HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96) (P for interaction = 0.59)., Conclusions: The benefits of colchicine are consistent irrespective of history and timing of prior ACS. (The LoDoCo2 Trial: Low Dose Colchicine for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease [LoDoCo2] ACTRN12614000093684)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This trial was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia; a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee; the Withering Foundation (the Netherlands); the Netherlands Heart Foundation; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The funders did not have any role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr Mosterd has received grants from Novartis; and has received personal fees from Amarin, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Pfizer. Dr Eikelboom has received consulting/honoraria support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received grants and/or in-kind support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, and Sanofi. Dr Thompson has received grants, travel support, and honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr Cornel has served on the advisory board for Amgen and AstraZeneca. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Inhibition of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) reduces the risk of death and heart failure (HF) admissions in patients with chronic HF. However, safety and clinical efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute decompensated HF are unknown., Methods and Results: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, multicentre pilot study, we randomized 80 acute HF patients with and without diabetes to either empagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo for 30 days. The primary outcomes were change in visual analogue scale (VAS) dyspnoea score, diuretic response (weight change per 40 mg furosemide), change in N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and length of stay. Secondary outcomes included safety and clinical endpoints. Mean age was 76 years, 33% were female, 47% had de novo HF and median NT-proBNP was 5236 pg/mL. No difference was observed in VAS dyspnoea score, diuretic response, length of stay, or change in NT-proBNP between empagliflozin and placebo. Empagliflozin reduced a combined endpoint of in-hospital worsening HF, rehospitalization for HF or death at 60 days compared with placebo [4 (10%) vs. 13 (33%); P = 0.014]. Urinary output up until day 4 was significantly greater with empagliflozin vs. placebo [difference 3449 (95% confidence interval 578-6321) mL; P < 0.01]. Empagliflozin was safe, well tolerated, and had no adverse effects on blood pressure or renal function., Conclusions: In patients with acute HF, treatment with empagliflozin had no effect on change in VAS dyspnoea, diuretic response, NT-proBNP, and length of hospital stay, but was safe, increased urinary output and reduced a combined endpoint of worsening HF, rehospitalization for HF or death at 60 days., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)