Search

Background Many patients with heart failure (HF) have severely reduced ejection fraction but do not meet threshold for consideration of advanced therapies (ie, stage D HF). The clinical profile and health care costs associated with these patients in US practice is not well described. Methods and Results We examined patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction ≤40% from 2014 to 2019 in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry, who did not receive advanced HF therapies or have end-stage kidney disease. Patients with severely reduced EF defined as EF ≤30% were compared with those with EF 31% to 40% in terms of clinical profile and guideline-directed medical therapy. Among Medicare beneficiaries, postdischarge outcomes and health care expenditure were compared. Among 113 348 patients with EF ≤40%, 69% (78 589) had an EF ≤30%. Patients with severely reduced EF ≤30% tended to be younger and were more likely to be Black. Patients with EF ≤30% also tended to have fewer comorbidities and were more likely to be prescribed guideline-directed medical therapy ("triple therapy" 28.3% versus 18.2%, P

BACKGROUND: Initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains suboptimal, in part because of concerns regarding tolerability and adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare rates of AE in patients randomized to GDMT medication vs placebo in a meta-analysis of landmark cardiovascular outcomes trials. METHODS: The authors assessed rates of reported AE in 17 landmark HFrEF clinical trials across each class of GDMT in the placebo and intervention arms. The overall rates of AE for each drug class, the absolute difference in frequency in AEs between the placebo and intervention arms, and the odds of each AE according based on randomization strata were calculated. RESULTS: AE were reported commonly in trials across each class of GDMT, with 75% to 85% of participants reporting at least 1 AE. There was no significant difference in the frequency of AE between the intervention and placebo arms, except for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (87.0% [95% CI: 85.0%-88.8%] vs 82.0% [95% CI: 79.8%-84.0%], absolute difference: +5% with intervention; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in drug discontinuation because of AE between placebo and intervention arms in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker trials. Patients randomized to beta-blocker were significantly less likely to stop study drug because of AE than placebo (11.3% [95% CI: 10.3%-12.3%] vs 13.7% [95% CI: 12.5%-14.9%], absolute difference: -1.1%; P = 0.015). When individual types of AE were assessed, the initiation of an intervention vs placebo resulted in small differences in absolute frequency of AE that were largely not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials of GDMT for HFrEF, AEs are observed frequently. However, rates of AE are similar between active medication and control, suggesting these may reflect the high risk nature of the heart failure disease state rather than be attributive to a specific therapy.

AIM: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) have high mortality, hospitalizations, and poorly tolerate evidence-based medical treatment. Omecamtiv mecarbil may be particularly helpful in such patients. This study examined its efficacy and tolerability in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The GALACTIC-HF enrolled patients with baseline SBP ≥85 mmHg with a primary outcome of time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure event. In this analysis, patients were divided according to their baseline SBP (≤100 vs. >100 mmHg). Among the 8232 analysed patients, 1473 (17.9%) had baseline SBP ≤100 mmHg and 6759 (82.1%) had SBP >100 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 715 (48.5%) and 2415 (35.7%) patients with SBP ≤100 and >100 mmHg, respectively. Patients with lower SBP were at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, appeared to be more effective in reducing the primary composite endpoint in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.94] compared with those with SBP >100 mmHg (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; P-value for interaction = 0.051). In both groups, omecamtiv mecarbil did not change SBP values over time and did not increase the risk of adverse events, when compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: In GALACTIC-HF, risk reduction of heart failure outcomes with omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo was large and significant in patients with low SBP. Omecamtiv mecarbil did not affect SBP and was well tolerated independent of SBP values.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to evaluate the association of frailty with the use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: The burden of frailty in HFrEF is high, and the patterns of GDMT use according to frailty status have not been studied previously. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of patients with HFrEF enrolled in the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) trial was conducted. Frailty was assessed with the use of a frailty index (FI) using a 38-variable deficit model, and participants were categorized into 3 groups: class 1: nonfrail, FI 0.31). Multivariate-adjusted Cox models were used to study the association of frailty status with clinical outcomes. Use of optimal GDMT over time (beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) across frailty strata was assessed with the use of adjusted linear and logistic mixed-effect models. RESULTS: The study included 879 participants, of which 56.3% had high frailty burden (class 3 FI). A higher frailty burden was associated with a significantly higher risk of HF hospitalization or death in adjusted Cox models: high frailty vs nonfrail HR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.20-2.58. On follow-up, participants with high frailty burden also had a significantly lower likelihood of achieving optimal GDMT: high frailty vs non-frail GDMT triple therapy use at study end: 17.7% vs 28.4%; P interaction, frailty class × time

BackgroundFor patients with acute heart failure (AHF), substantial diuresis after administration of loop diuretics is generally associated with better clinical outcomes but may cause creatinine to rise, suggesting renal function decline. We investigated the interaction between diuretic response and worsening renal function (WRF) on clinical outcomes in patients with AHF.Methods and resultsIn two AHF cohorts (PROTECT, n = 1698 and RELAX-AHF-2, n = 5586 in current analysis), the prognostic impact of WRF (creatinine ≥0.3 mg/dl increase baseline-day 4; sensitivity analyses incorporated baseline renal function) by diuretic response (kg weight loss/40 mg furosemide equivalent baseline-day 4) was investigated with regard to (cardiovascular) death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plots (STEPP) and survival analyses. WRF occurred in 286 (16.8%) and 1031 (18.5%) patients in PROTECT and RELAX-AHF-2, respectively. Patients with WRF had higher left ventricular ejection fraction and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline (p

Background There are conflicting data regarding the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of ICD placement in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results Data were obtained from the Get With the Guidelines-Health Failure registry, linked with claims from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We used a Cox proportional hazards model censored at 5 years with propensity score matching. Of the 17 186 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims database (6540 with diabetes mellitus; 38%), 1677 (646 with diabetes mellitus; 39%) received an ICD during their index HF hospitalization or were prescribed an ICD at discharge. Patients with diabetes mellitus and an ICD (n=646), as compared with those without an ICD (n=1031), were more likely to be younger (74 versus 78 years of age) and have coronary artery disease (68% versus 60%). After propensity matching, ICD use among patients with diabetes mellitus, as compared with those without an ICD, was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years after HF discharge (54% versus 59%; multivariable hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82; P

Background Limited data exist to guide treatment for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation, including the important decision regarding rate versus rhythm control. Methods and Results We analyzed the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2014 to describe current treatments for rate versus rhythm control and subsequent outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation using inverse probability weighted analysis. Rhythm control was defined as use of an antiarrhythmic medication, cardioversion, or AF ablation or surgery. Rate control was defined as use of any combination of β-blocker, calcium channel blocker, and digoxin without evidence of rhythm control. Among 15 682 fee-for-service Medicare patients, at the time of discharge, 1857 were treated with rhythm control and 13 825 with rate control, with minimal differences in baseline characteristics between groups. There was higher all-cause death at 1 year in the rate control compared with the rhythm control group (37.5% and 30.8%, respectively, P

AimsEpisodes of acute heart failure (AHF) may lead to end-organ dysfunction. In this post hoc analysis of the Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure trial, we used the MELD-XI (Model of End-Stage Liver Dysfunction) score to examine hepatorenal dysfunction in patients with AHF.Methods and resultsOn admission, the MELD-XI score was elevated (abnormal) in 918 (82%) patients, with 638 (57%) having isolated renal dysfunction (creatinine > 1 mg/dL), 73 (6.5%) isolated liver dysfunction (bilirubin > 1 mg/dL), and 207 (18.5%) coexisting dysfunction of the kidneys and the liver (both creatinine and bilirubin > 1 mg/dL). The percentage of patients with elevated MELD-XI score remained constant through a 60 day follow-up, as we observed a gradual decrease of liver dysfunction prevalence, counterbalanced by an increase in renal dysfunction. Serelaxin treatment was associated with a lower MELD-XI score on Day 2 and Day 5 (both P

Background and Aims Heart failure endpoints in cardiovascular outcome trials are commonly identified through centralized adjudication of investigator-reported events. It remains unclear whether central adjudication improves the accuracy of treatment effect estimates in terms of log[hazard ratios (HR)]. Methods Data from seven cardiovascular outcome trials with >1000 patients that included centrally adjudicated heart failure outcomes were utilized to assess (i) the concordance between investigator-reported and centrally adjudicated heart failure and cardiovascular death events; (ii) rates of subsequent all-cause mortality following positively vs. negatively adjudicated heart failure events; and (iii) the correlation of log(HR) based on centrally adjudicated vs. investigator-reported events. Results Positive adjudication rates for investigator-reported events varied widely across trials, but were generally higher for cardiovascular death (range: 87.9%–99.2%) than for heart failure hospitalization (range: 61.6%–88.0%). The risk for subsequent all-cause death was similar for positively and negatively adjudicated heart failure hospitalizations. Log(HR) correlated well for cardiovascular death [ R 2 =.80, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.53–0.93] and the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (R 2 =.79, 95% CrI: 0.46–0.93), but less for heart failure hospitalization (R 2 =.57, 95% CrI: 0.10–0.83). Conclusions Positive adjudication rates were lower for heart failure events than cardiovascular death, but even negatively adjudicated heart failure events are prognostically important. Central adjudication of events did not alter the results (precision or estimated log(HR)), though some variation was observed, depending on the indication. The results suggest that the decision to pursue centralized adjudication of heart failure events in a specific trial may need to be individualized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AimsCurrently, no acute heart failure (AHF) therapy definitively improves outcomes. Reducing morbidity and mortality from acute heart failure (AHF) remains an unmet need. TRV027 is a novel 'biased' ligand of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R), selectively antagonizing the negative effects of angiotensin II, while preserving the potential pro-contractility effects of AT1R stimulation. BLAST-AHF was designed to determine the safety, efficacy, and optimal dose of TRV027 to advance into future studies.Methods and resultsBLAST-AHF was a multi-centre, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, phase IIb dose-ranging study, enrolling patients with AHF into 4 groups: placebo, 1, 5, or 25 mg/h of TRV027. Treatment was by IV infusion for 48-96 h. The primary composite endpoint was comprised of the following: (i) time from baseline to death through day 30, (ii) time from baseline to heart failure re-hospitalization through day 30, (iii) the first assessment time point following worsening heart failure through day 5, (iv) change in dyspnea visual analogue scale (VAS) score calculated as the area under the curve (AUC) representing the change from baseline over time from baseline through day 5, and (v) length of initial hospital stay (in days) from baseline. Analyses were by modified intention-to-treat. Overall, 621 patients were enrolled. After 254 patients, a pre-specified interim analysis resulted in several protocol changes, including a lower blood pressure inclusion criterion as well as a new allocation scheme of 2:1:2:1, overweighting both placebo, and the 5 mg/h dose. TRV027 did not confer any benefit over placebo at any dose with regards to the primary composite endpoint or any of the individual components. There were no significant safety issues with TRV027.ConclusionIn this phase IIb dose-ranging AHF study, TRV027 did not improve clinical status through 30-day follow-up compared with placebo.

Patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF) experience high rates of in-hospital and post-discharge morbidity and mortality despite current therapies. Serelaxin is recombinant human relaxin-2, a hormone with vasodilatory and end-organ protective effects believed to play a central role in the cardiovascular and renal adaptations of human pregnancy. In the phase 3 RELAX-AHF trial, serelaxin met its primary endpoint of improving dyspnoea through day 5 in patients admitted for AHF. Compared to placebo, serelaxin also reduced worsening heart failure (WHF) by 47% through day 5 and both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality by 37% through day 180. RELAX-AHF-2 ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01870778) is designed to confirm serelaxin's effect on these clinical outcomes. RELAX-AHF-2 is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven, phase 3 trial enrolling ∼6800 patients hospitalized for AHF with dyspnoea, congestion on chest radiograph, increased natriuretic peptide levels, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and systolic blood pressure ≥125 mmHg. Patients are randomized within 16 h of presentation to 48 h intravenous infusions of serelaxin (30 µg/kg/day) or placebo, both in addition to standard of care treatments. The primary objectives are to demonstrate that serelaxin is superior to placebo in reducing: (i) 180 day cardiovascular death, and (ii) occurrence of WHF through day 5. Key secondary endpoints include 180 day all-cause mortality, composite of 180 day combined cardiovascular mortality or heart failure/renal failure rehospitalization, and in-hospital length of stay during index AHF. The results from RELAX-AHF-2 will provide data on the potential beneficial effect of serelaxin on cardiovascular mortality and WHF in selected patients with AHF.