Search

Question: What are the relative efficacy and safety of warfarin and aspirin in patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm? Methods Design: Randomized controlled trial (Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction [WARCEF] trial). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00041938. Allocation: {Concealed}*.† Blinding: Blinded† (patients, clinicians, {data collectors, safety committee}*, and outcome assessors). Follow-up period:  6 years (mean 3.5 y). Setting: 168 centers in the USA, Canada, Argentina, and Europe. Patients: 2305 adults =" src="ge9.gif"/> 18 years of age (mean age 61 y, 80% men) who had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)  35% and normal sinus rhythm, and planned treatment with a β-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or hydralazine and nitrates. Exclusion criteria included modified Rankin score > 4, medical conditions with high risk for cardiac embolism, clear indication for warfarin or aspirin, or contraindication to warfarin. Patients in New York Heart Association class I were eligible but could not comprise > 20% of randomized patients. Intervention: Active warfarin (with target international normalized ratio 2.0 to 3.5) plus aspirin placebo (n = 1142), or aspirin, 325 mg/d, plus warfarin placebo (n = 1163). Outcomes: Primary composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), or death. Secondary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, ICH, death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure. The safety outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, ICH, death, or intracranial hemorrhage. The trial had 69% power to detect a relative hazard reduction of 17.8% in the primary outcome and 83% power for the secondary outcome. Patient follow-up: {93%}* (96% for vital status; intention-to-treat analysis). Main results: Enrolment was stopped early because of slow recruitment. Groups did not differ for the primary composite outcome or any of its components except for ischemic stroke (Table). Groups also did not differ for the secondary or safety composite endpoints (Table). Conclusion: In patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm, warfarin and aspirin did not differ for a composite of death or ischemic or hemorrhage outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine patterns of care and clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the United States and Canada., Background: In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial, the use of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide-guided titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) was compared with usual care alone for patients with HFrEF in the United States and Canada. It remains unknown whether the country of enrollment had an impact on outcomes or GDMT use., Methods: A total of 894 patients at 45 sites across the United States and Canada with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were enrolled in the trial. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates stratified by country of enrollment were developed for the trial outcomes, and log-rank testing was compared between the groups. GDMT use and titration were also compared., Results: U.S. patients were more likely to be younger, to be Black, to have higher body mass index, and to have histories of defibrillator placement or sleep apnea. Use of β-blockers was significantly higher in Canada at baseline (99.3% vs. 94.0%; p = 0.01) and 6 months (99.0% vs. 94.1%; p = 0.04), and use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was higher in Canada at 6 months (68.3% vs. 55.1%; p = 0.01). Canadian patients were less likely to experience the primary study endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45 to 0.93; p = 0.01) due to decreased rates of HF hospitalization (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.86; p = 0.003). The differences in outcomes were driven by increased heart failure hospitalization among U.S. Black patients., Conclusions: In GUIDE-IT, patients with HFrEF in Canada were significantly less likely to be hospitalized for heart failure. Differences in GDMT use, along with differences in sociodemographics and care delivery structures, may contribute to these differences, highlighting the importance of increasing diversity in clinical trials. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The GUIDE-IT trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Additional substudies were supported by Roche Diagnostics. The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the present study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr. Januzzi is a trustee of the American College of Cardiology; has received grant support from Roche Diagnostics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Applied Therapeutics; has received consulting income from Abbott, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and participates in clinical endpoint committees and data and safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda. Dr. Desai works under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures used for public reporting and pay-for-performance programs; and has received research grants and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, The Medicines Company, Relypsa, Novartis, and SCPharmaceuticals. Dr. Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, Amgen, Bayer Merck, Cytokinetics, and Myokardia; has acted as a consultant to Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Innolife, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, Eidos Therapeutics, Reprieve, and Sequana; and has served on clinical endpoint committees and data and safety monitoring boards for Amgen, Merck, Medtronic, EBR Systems, V-Wave, LivaNova, and Rocket Pharma. Dr. Fiuzat has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. O’Connor has received grant support from Roche Diagnostics and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ahmad is a consultant for Amgen, Cytokinetics, Relypsa, and Novartis. 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.)

Background NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) is a prognostic biomarker in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. However, it is unclear whether there is a sex difference in NT-proBNP response and whether the therapeutic goal of NT-proBNP ≤1000 pg/mL has equivalent prognostic value in men and women with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results In a secondary analysis of the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial we analyzed trends in NT-proBNP and goal attainment by sex. Differences in clinical characteristics, HF treatment, and time to all-cause death or HF hospitalization were compared. Landmark analysis at 3 months determined the prognostic value of early NT-proBNP goal achievement in men and women. Of the 286 (32%) women and 608 (68%) men in the GUIDE-IT trial, women were more likely to have a nonischemic cause and shorter duration of HF. Guideline-directed medical therapy was less intense over time in women. The absolute NT-proBNP values were consistently lower in women; however, the change in NT-proBNP and clinical outcomes were similar. After adjustment, women achieving the NT-proBNP goal had an 82% reduction in death or HF hospitalization compared with a 59% reduction in men. Conclusions Men and women with HF with reduced ejection fraction had a similar NT-proBNP response despite less intensive HF treatment among women. However, compared with men, the early NT-proBNP goal of ≤1000 pg/mL had greater prognostic value in women. Future efforts should be aimed at intensifying guideline-directed medical therapy in women, which may result in greater NT-proBNP reductions and improved outcomes in women with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01685840.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as 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 also propose revised stages of HF as: At risk for HF (Stage A), Pre-HF (Stage B), Symptomatic HF (Stage C) and Advanced HF (Stage D). Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This includes HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): symptomatic HF with LVEF ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF): symptomatic HF with LVEF 41-49%; HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): symptomatic HF with LVEF ≥50%; and HF with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF): symptomatic HF with a baseline LVEF ≤40%, a ≥10 point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF > 40%., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology and Elsevier, Inc.)