Search

Aims Although recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the advantages of heart failure (HF) therapy in both frail and not frail patients, there is insufficient information on the use of HF therapy based on frailty status in a real-world setting. The aim was to examine how frailty status in HF patients associates with use of HF therapy and with clinical outcomes. Methods and results Patients with new-onset HF between 2014 and 2021 were identified using the nationwide Danish registers. Patients across the entire range of ejection fraction were included. The associations between frailty status (using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score) and use of HF therapy and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and non-HF hospitalization) were evaluated using multivariable-adjusted Cox models adjusting for age, sex, diagnostic setting, calendar year, comorbidities, pharmacotherapy, and socioeconomic status. Of 35 999 participants (mean age 69.1 years), 68% were not frail, 26% were moderately frail, and 6% were severely frail. The use of HF therapy was significantly lower in frailer patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker initiation was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.70–0.77) and 0.48 (0.43–0.53) for moderate frailty and severe frailty, respectively. For beta-blockers, the corresponding HRs were 0.74 (0.71–0.78) and 0.51 (0.46–0.56), respectively, and for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 0.83 (0.80–0.87) and 0.58 (0.53–0.64), respectively. The prevalence of death and non-HF hospitalization increased with frailty status. The HR for death was 1.55 (1.47–1.63) and 2.32 (2.16–2.49) for moderate and severe frailty, respectively, and the HR for non-HF hospitalization was 1.37 (1.32–1.41) and 1.82 (1.72–1.92), respectively. The association between frailty status and HF hospitalization was not significant (HR 1.08 [1.02–1.14] and 1.08 [0.97–1.20], respectively). C, Aims: Although recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the advantages of heart failure (HF) therapy in both frail and not frail patients, there is insufficient information on the use of HF therapy based on frailty status in a real-world setting. The aim was to examine how frailty status in HF patients associates with use of HF therapy and with clinical outcomes. Methods and results: Patients with new-onset HF between 2014 and 2021 were identified using the nationwide Danish registers. Patients across the entire range of ejection fraction were included. The associations between frailty status (using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score) and use of HF therapy and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and non-HF hospitalization) were evaluated using multivariable-adjusted Cox models adjusting for age, sex, diagnostic setting, calendar year, comorbidities, pharmacotherapy, and socioeconomic status. Of 35 999 participants (mean age 69.1 years), 68% were not frail, 26% were moderately frail, and 6% were severely frail. The use of HF therapy was significantly lower in frailer patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker initiation was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.70–0.77) and 0.48 (0.43–0.53) for moderate frailty and severe frailty, respectively. For beta-blockers, the corresponding HRs were 0.74 (0.71–0.78) and 0.51 (0.46–0.56), respectively, and for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 0.83 (0.80–0.87) and 0.58 (0.53–0.64), respectively. The prevalence of death and non-HF hospitalization increased with frailty status. The HR for death was 1.55 (1.47–1.63) and 2.32 (2.16–2.49) for moderate and severe frailty, respectively, and the HR for non-HF hospitalization was 1.37 (1.32–1.41) and 1.82 (1.72–1.92), respectively. The association between frailty status and HF hospitalization was not significant (HR 1.08 [1.02–1.14] and 1.08 [0.97–1.20], respectively). Conclusion: In real-wo

Background Heart failure is common, complex, and often associated with coexisting chronic medical conditions and a high mortality. We aimed to assess the epidemiology of people admitted to hospital with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), including the period covering the COVID-19 pandemic, which was previously not well characterised. Methods In this retrospective, cohort study, we used whole-population electronic health records with 57 million individuals in England to identify patients hospitalised with heart failure as the primary diagnosis in any consultant episode of an in-patient admission to a National Health Service (NHS) hospital. We excluded individuals with less than 1 year of medical history records in primary or secondary care; admissions to NHS hospitals for which less than 10% of heart failure cases were linkable to the National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA); individuals younger than 18 years at the time of the heart failure hospitalisation; and patients who died in hospital during the index heart failure admission. For patients with new onset heart failure, we assessed incidence rates of 30-day and 1-year all-cause and cause-specific (cardiovascular, non-cardiovascular, and heart failure-related) emergency rehospitalisation and mortality after discharge, and dispensed guideline-recommended medical therapy (GRMT). Follow-up occurred from the index admission to the earliest occurrence of the event of interest, death, or end of data coverage. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) to compare HFrEF with HFpEF. We computed population-attributable fractions to quantify the percentage of outcomes attributable to coexisting chronic medical conditions. Findings Among 233 320 patients identified who survived the index heart failure admission across 335 NHS hospitals between Jan 1, 2019, and Dec 31, 2022, 101 320 (43·4%) had HFrEF, 71 910 (30·8%) had HFpEF, and 60 090 (25·8%) had an un

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Jozef Bartunek (Belgium), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Sergio Buccheri (Sweden), Elisabetta Cerbai (Italy), Erwan Donal (France), Frank Edelmann (Germany), Gloria Farber (Germany), Bettina Heidecker (Germany), Borja Ibanez (Spain), Stefan James (Sweden), Lars Kober (Denmark), Konstantinos C. Koskinas (Switzerland), Josep Masip (Spain), John William McEvoy (Ireland), Robert Mentz (United States of America), Borislava Mihaylova (United Kingdom), Jacob Eifer Moller (Denmark), Wilfried Mullens (Belgium), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Jens Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Agnes A. Pasquet (Belgium), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Bianca Rocca (Italy), Xavier Rossello (Spain), Leyla Elif Sade (United States of America/Turkiye), Hannah Schaubroeck (Belgium), Elena Tessitore (Switzerland), Mariya Tokmakova (Bulgaria), Peter van der Meer (Netherlands), Isabelle C. Van Gelder (Netherlands), Mattias Van Heetvelde (Belgium), Christiaan Vrints (Belgium), Matthias Wilhelm (Switzerland), Adam Witkowski (Poland), and Katja Zeppenfeld (Netherlands)All experts involved in the development of this Focused Update have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and simultaneously published in a supplementary document to the Focused Update. The report is also available on the ESC websiteSee the European Heart Journal online for supplementary documents that include evidence tables.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors decrease blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes, but the consistency and magnitude of blood pressure lowering with dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unknown. We conducted a prespecified analysis of the DAPA-CKD trial to investigate the effect of dapagliflozin on systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with CKD, with and without type 2 diabetes.METHODS: A total of 4304 adults with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 25-75 mL/min/1.73m 2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) 200-5000 mg/g were randomized to either dapagliflozin 10 mg or placebo once daily; median follow-up was 2.4 years. The primary endpoint was a composite of sustained ≥50% eGFR decline, end-stage kidney disease, or death from a kidney or cardiovascular cause. Change in SBP was a prespecified outcome. RESULTS: Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 137.1 mmHg (17.4). By Week 2, dapagliflozin compared to placebo reduced SBP by 3.6 mmHg (95% CI 2.8-4.4 mmHg), an effect maintained over the duration of the trial (2.9 mmHg, 2.3-3.6 mmHg). Time-averaged reductions in SBP were 3.2 mmHg (2.5-4.0 mmHg) in patients with diabetes and 2.3 mmHg (1.2-3.4 mmHg) in patients without diabetes. The time-averaged effect of dapagliflozin on diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was 1.0 mmHg (0.6-1.4 mmHg); 0.8 mmHg (0.4-1.3 mmHg) in patients with diabetes and 1.4 mmHg (0.7-2.1 mmHg) in patients without diabetes. Benefits of dapagliflozin on the primary composite and secondary endpoints were evident across the spectrum of baseline SBP and DBP.CONCLUSION: In patients with CKD and albuminuria, randomization to dapagliflozin was associated with modest reductions in systolic and diastolic BP.

BACKGROUND: The sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduces the risk of progressive kidney disease and cardiovascular events in patients with chronic kidney disease, with and without type 2 diabetes. Whether its effects are uniform across the spectrum of age and among men and women is unknown.OBJECTIVE: We performed a pre-specified analysis in DAPA-CKD to evaluate efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin according to baseline age and sex.DESIGN: Prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial.PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4304 adults with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 25-75 mL/min/1.73 m 2; urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio 200-5000 mg/g) with and without type 2 diabetes. INTERVENTION: Dapagliflozin 10 mg versus placebo once daily.MAIN MEASURES: Primary endpoint was a composite of ≥ 50% sustained eGFR decline, end-stage kidney disease, and kidney or cardiovascular death. Secondary endpoints included kidney composite endpoint (same as primary composite endpoint but without cardiovascular death), cardiovascular composite endpoint (hospitalized heart failure or cardiovascular death), and all-cause mortality.KEY RESULTS: Median follow-up was 2.4 years. Absolute risks of cardiovascular composite endpoint and all-cause mortality were higher in older patients. Absolute risk of kidney composite endpoint was highest in patients < 50 years (10.7 and 6.2 per 100 patient-years in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups, respectively) and lowest in patients ≥ 80 years (3.0 and 1.2 per 100 patient-years in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups, respectively). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of the effects of dapagliflozin on the primary or secondary endpoints based on age or sex. Neither age nor sex modified the effects of dapagliflozin on total or chronic eGFR slope.CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin reduced the risks of mortality, cardiovascular events, and CKD progression i

Background: A sizeable proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are reported to be frail. Here we examined the safety andefficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with CKD by frailty level.Methods: Adults with CKD, with/without type 2 diabetes, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25–75 mL/min/1.73 m2 , andurinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio 200–5 000 mg/g were randomized to dapagliflozin (10 mg/day) or placebo. The primary endpoint was a com-posite of sustained ≥50% eGFR decline, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), or death from kidney or cardiovascular (CV) causes.Results: Frailty index (FI), assessed by Rockwood cumulative deficit approach, was calculable in 4 303/4 304 (99.9%) patients: 1 162 (27.0%)in not-to-mildly frail (FI ≤0.210), 1 642 (38.2%) in moderately frail (FI 0.211–0.310), and 1 499 (34.8%) in severely frail categories (FI >0.311).Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint across all FI categories (hazard ratios [95% confidence interval {CI}]: 0.50[0.33–0.76], 0.62 [0.45–0.85], and 0.64 [0.49–-0.83], respectively; p-interaction = 0.67). Results were similar for secondary outcomes includ-ing kidney composite outcome (sustained ≥50% eGFR decline, ESKD or death from kidney cause; p-interaction = 0.44), CV endpoint (heartfailure hospitalization or CV death; p-interaction = 0.63), and all-cause mortality (p-interaction p = .42). Results were consistent when usingFI as a continuous variable. Occurrence of serious adverse events was numerically lower in patients receiving dapagliflozin versus placeboin all FI categories (16.9% vs 20.1%, 26.3% vs 30.7%, and 42.9% vs 47.8%, in not-to-mildly, moderately, and severely frail categories,respectively).Conclusions: The relative benefit of dapagliflozin for all outcomes was consistent across all frailty categories, with no difference in associatedsafety., BACKGROUND: A sizeable proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are reported to be frail. Here we examined the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with CKD by frailty level.METHODS: Adults with CKD, with/without type 2 diabetes, with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 25-75 mL/min/1.73m 2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio 200-5000 mg/g were randomized to dapagliflozin (10 mg/day) or placebo. The primary endpoint was composite of sustained ≥50% eGFR decline, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) or death from kidney or cardiovascular (CV) causes.RESULTS: Frailty index (FI), assessed by Rockwood cumulative deficit approach, was calculable in 4303/4304 (99.9%) patients: 1162 (27.0%) in not-to-mildly frail(FI≤0.210), 1642 (38.2%) in moderately frail(FI 0.211-0.310), and 1499 (34.8%) in severely frail categories (FI>0.311). Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint across all FI categories (hazard ratios [95% CI]: 0.50 [0.33-0.76], 0.62 [0.45-0.85], and 0.64 [0.49-0.83], respectively (P-interaction =0.67). Results were similar for secondary outcomes including kidney composite outcome (sustained ≥50% eGFR decline, ESKD or death from kidney cause; P-interaction=0.44), CV endpoint (heart failure hospitalization or CV death; P-interaction=0.63), and all-cause mortality (P-interaction p=0.42). Results were consistent when using FI as a continuous variable. Occurrence of serious adverse events was numerically lower in patients receiving dapagliflozin vs. placebo in all FI categories (16.9% vs. 20.1%, 26.3% vs. 30.7%, and 42.9% vs 47.8%, in not-to-mildly, moderately and severely frail categories, respectively).CONCLUSIONS: The relative benefit of dapagliflozin for all outcomes was consistent across all frailty categories, with no difference in associated safety.