Search

Background: Sleep apnea is more common in patients with heart failure (HF) than in the general population, but little is known about its association with clinical outcomes in various HF phenotypes or how it might modify the effect of HF therapy. Objectives: To examine the prevalence of sleep apnea, its association with outcomes and the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HF with and without sleep apnea in a pooled analysis of 2 trials comparing dapagliflozin to placebo in HFrEF (DAPA-HF trial) and HFmrEF/HFpEF (DELIVER trial). Methods: A history of sleep apnea was investigator-reported. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Results: The prevalence of sleep apnea was 5.7% and 7.8% in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF, respectively. The primary outcome occurred at a rate of 16.0 in participants with sleep apnea compared to 10.6 per 100 person-years in those without (adjusted HR 1.29 [95%CI, 1.10–1.52]). Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary endpoint to the same extent in patients with (HR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.59–1.03]) and without sleep apnea (HR 0.79 [0.72–0.87]) [Pinteraction = 0.93]. The beneficial effects of dapagliflozin on other clinical outcomes and symptom burden, physical function, and quality of life were consistent in participants with and without sleep apnea. Conclusions: In DAPA-HF and DELIVER, the true prevalence of sleep apnea was likely underestimated. An investigator-reported history of sleep apnea was associated with higher rates of worsening HF events. The benefits of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes were consistent in patients with and without sleep apnea. Clinical trial registration: Unique identifiers: NCT01920711 Condensed Abstract: In a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials of more than 11,000 patients with heart failure (HF) across the range of ejection fractions, an investigator-reported history of sleep apnea was associated with higher rates

Aim It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high-risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion. Methods and results Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–1.19 and HRMRA– 0.87, 95% CI 0.71–1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator-reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction). Conclusions Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post-MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion., Aim: It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high-risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion. Methods and results: Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–1.19 and HRMRA– 0.87, 95% CI 0.71–1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator-reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction). Conclusions: Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post-MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion.

Background Patients with heart failure (HF) often suffer from a range of comorbidities, which may affect their health status. Objectives To assess the impact of different comorbidities on health status in patients with HF and reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF). Methods Using individual patient data from HFrEF (ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM-HF, DAPA-HF) and HFpEF (TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF) trials, we examined the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) domain scores and Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) across a range of cardio-respiratory (angina, AF, stroke, COPD) and other comorbidities (obesity, DM, CKD, anaemia). Results Of patients with HFrEF(n=20,159), 36.2% had AF, 33.9% CKD, 33.9% diabetes, 31.4% obesity, 25.5% angina, 12.2% COPD, 8.4% stroke, and 4.4% anaemia; the corresponding proportions in HFpEF(n=6,563) were: 54.0% AF, 48.7% CKD, 43.4% diabetes, 53.3% obesity, 28.6% angina, 14.7% COPD, 10.2% stroke, and 6.5% anaemia. HFpEF patients had lower KCCQ domain scores and KCCQ-OSS (67.8 vs. 71.3) than HFrEF patients. Physical limitations, social limitations and quality of life domains were reduced more than symptom frequency and symptom burden domains. In both HFrEF and HFpEF, COPD, angina, anaemia, and obesity were associated with the lowest scores. An increasing number of comorbidities was associated with decreasing scores e.g., KCCQ-OSS 0 vs. ≥4 comorbidities: HFrEF 76.8 vs. 66.4; HFpEF 73.7 vs. 65.2. Conclusions Cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities are common in both HFrEF and HFpEF patients and most are associated with reductions in health status although the impact varied among comorbidities, by the number of comorbidities, and by HF phenotype. Treating/correcting comorbidity is a therapeutic approach that may improve the health status of patients with HF., BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) often suffer from a range of comorbidities, which may affect their health status.OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of different comorbidities on health status in patients with HF and reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF).METHODS: Using individual patient data from HFrEF (ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM-HF, DAPA-HF) and HFpEF (TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF) trials, we examined the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) domain scores and Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) across a range of cardio-respiratory (angina, AF, stroke, COPD) and other comorbidities (obesity, DM, CKD, anaemia).RESULTS: Of patients with HFrEF(n=20,159), 36.2% had AF, 33.9% CKD, 33.9% diabetes, 31.4% obesity, 25.5% angina, 12.2% COPD, 8.4% stroke, and 4.4% anaemia; the corresponding proportions in HFpEF(n=6,563) were: 54.0% AF, 48.7% CKD, 43.4% diabetes, 53.3% obesity, 28.6% angina, 14.7% COPD, 10.2% stroke, and 6.5% anaemia. HFpEF patients had lower KCCQ domain scores and KCCQ-OSS (67.8 vs. 71.3) than HFrEF patients. Physical limitations, social limitations and quality of life domains were reduced more than symptom frequency and symptom burden domains. In both HFrEF and HFpEF, COPD, angina, anaemia, and obesity were associated with the lowest scores. An increasing number of comorbidities was associated with decreasing scores e.g., KCCQ-OSS 0 vs. ≥4 comorbidities: HFrEF 76.8 vs. 66.4; HFpEF 73.7 vs. 65.2.CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities are common in both HFrEF and HFpEF patients and most are associated with reductions in health status although the impact varied among comorbidities, by the number of comorbidities, and by HF phenotype. Treating/correcting comorbidity is a therapeutic approach that may improve the health status of patients with HF. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Aim Although education in self-management is thought to be an important aspect of the care of patients with heart failure, little is known about whether self-rated knowledge of self-management is associated with outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between patient-reported knowledge of self-management and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results Using individual patient data from three recent clinical trials enrolling participants with HFrEF, we examined patient characteristics and clinical outcomes according to responses to the ‘self-efficacy’ questions of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. One question quantifies patients' understanding of how to prevent heart failure exacerbations (‘prevention’ question) and the other how to manage complications when they arise (‘response’ question). Self-reported answers from patients were pragmatically divided into: poor (do not understand at all, do not understand very well, somewhat understand), fair (mostly understand), and good (completely understand). Cox-proportional hazard models were used to evaluate time-to-first occurrence of each endpoint, and negative binomial regression analysis was performed to compare the composite of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death across the above-defined groups. Of patients (n = 17 629) completing the ‘prevention’ question, 4197 (23.8%), 6897 (39.1%), and 6535 (37.1%) patients had poor, fair, and good self-rated knowledge, respectively. Of those completing the ‘response’ question (n = 17 637), 4033 (22.9%), 5463 (31.0%), and 8141 (46.2%) patients had poor, fair, and good self-rated knowledge, respectively. For both questions, patients with ‘poor’ knowledge were older, more often female, and had a worse heart failure profile but similar treatment. The rates (95% confidence interval) per 100 person-years for the primary composit, AIM: Although education in self-management is thought to be an important aspect of the care of patients with heart failure, little is known about whether self-rated knowledge of self-management is associated with outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between patient-reported knowledge of self-management and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).METHODS AND RESULTS: Using individual patient data from three recent clinical trials enrolling participants with HFrEF, we examined patient characteristics and clinical outcomes according to responses to the 'self-efficacy' questions of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. One question quantifies patients' understanding of how to prevent heart failure exacerbations ('prevention' question) and the other how to manage complications when they arise ('response' question). Self-reported answers from patients were pragmatically divided into: poor (do not understand at all, do not understand very well, somewhat understand), fair (mostly understand), and good (completely understand). Cox-proportional hazard models were used to evaluate time-to-first occurrence of each endpoint, and negative binomial regression analysis was performed to compare the composite of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death across the above-defined groups. Of patients (n = 17 629) completing the 'prevention' question, 4197 (23.8%), 6897 (39.1%), and 6535 (37.1%) patients had poor, fair, and good self-rated knowledge, respectively. Of those completing the 'response' question (n = 17 637), 4033 (22.9%), 5463 (31.0%), and 8141 (46.2%) patients had poor, fair, and good self-rated knowledge, respectively. For both questions, patients with 'poor' knowledge were older, more often female, and had a worse heart failure profile but similar treatment. The rates (95% confidence interval) per 100 person-years for the primary composite outc

Background: NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) is a potent predictor of death and heart failure (HF) across multiple populations. We evaluated the prognostic importance of NT-proBNP in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both and ≥1 of 8 risk-augmenting factors enrolled in the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction). Methods: Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily within 0.5 to 7 days of a MI. Patients with prior HF were excluded. NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT (high-sensitivity troponin T) were collected at randomization in a prespecified substudy of 1129 patients. The primary end point of PARADISE-MI was a composite of cardiovascular death or incident HF (hospitalization or outpatient symptomatic HF), analyzed as time-to-first event; additional end points included all-cause death and the composite of fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke. Results: Median NT-proBNP was 1757 ng/L (25th-75th percentiles, 896-3462 ng/L) at randomization (4.0±1.8 days after the index MI). Patients in the highest quartile of NT-proBNP were older, more commonly women and had more hypertension, atrial fibrillation, renal dysfunction, and pulmonary congestion on presentation (all P<0.001). NT-proBNP was strongly associated with the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.45 per doubling of NT-proBNP; [95% CI, 1.23-1.70]), adjusted for clinical variables and baseline hs-cTnT. NT-proBNP was also independently associated with all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38-2.21]) and fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.45]). NT-proBNP did not significantly modify the neutral treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan relative to ramipril (P interaction=0.46). Conclusions: Within the first week

Aim The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. We examined these differences in PARADISE-MI. Methods and results Overall, 23.0% were randomized in Eastern Europe/Russia, 17.5% in Western Europe, 12.2% in Southern Europe, 10.1% in Northern Europe, 12.0% in Latin America (LA), 9.3% in North America (NA), 10.0% in East/South-East Asia and 5.8% in South Asia (SA). Those from Asia, particularly SA, were different from patients enrolled in the other regions, being younger and thinner. They also differed in terms of comorbidities (high prevalence of diabetes and low prevalence of atrial fibrillation), type of myocardial infarction (more often ST-elevation myocardial infarction), and treatment (low rate of primary percutaneous coronary intervention). By contrast, patients from LA did not differ meaningfully from those randomized in Europe or NA. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (34.8%) and beta-blockers (65.5%) was low in SA, whereas mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use was lowest in NA (22%) and highest in Eastern Europe/Russia (53%). Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure varied two-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (4.6/100 person-years) and the highest in LA (9.2/100 person-years). Rates of incident heart failure varied almost six-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (1.0/100 person-years) and the highest in Northern Europe (5.9/100 person-years). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was not modified by region. Conclusion In PARADISE-MI, there were substantial regional differences in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes. Although the generalizability of these findings to a ‘real-world’ unselected population may be limited, these findings underscore the importance of considering both regional and within-region differences whe, Aim: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. We examined these differences in PARADISE-MI. Methods and results: Overall, 23.0% were randomized in Eastern Europe/Russia, 17.5% in Western Europe, 12.2% in Southern Europe, 10.1% in Northern Europe, 12.0% in Latin America (LA), 9.3% in North America (NA), 10.0% in East/South-East Asia and 5.8% in South Asia (SA). Those from Asia, particularly SA, were different from patients enrolled in the other regions, being younger and thinner. They also differed in terms of comorbidities (high prevalence of diabetes and low prevalence of atrial fibrillation), type of myocardial infarction (more often ST-elevation myocardial infarction), and treatment (low rate of primary percutaneous coronary intervention). By contrast, patients from LA did not differ meaningfully from those randomized in Europe or NA. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (34.8%) and beta-blockers (65.5%) was low in SA, whereas mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use was lowest in NA (22%) and highest in Eastern Europe/Russia (53%). Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure varied two-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (4.6/100 person-years) and the highest in LA (9.2/100 person-years). Rates of incident heart failure varied almost six-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (1.0/100 person-years) and the highest in Northern Europe (5.9/100 person-years). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was not modified by region. Conclusion: In PARADISE-MI, there were substantial regional differences in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes. Although the generalizability of these findings to a ‘real-world’ unselected population may be limited, these findings underscore the importance of considering both regional and within-region differences when designing global clini

Background: In patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease the risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events. Whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan reduce major coronary events more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in high-risk patients with recent AMI remains unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in patients with AMI. Methods: We conducted a prespecified analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitors Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI), which compared sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) with ramipril (5 mg twice daily) for reducing heart failure events after myocardial infarction in 5661 patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both. In the present analysis, the prespecified composite coronary outcome was the first occurrence of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina, or postrandomization coronary revascularization. Results: Patients were randomly assigned at a median of 4.4 [3.0-5.8] days after index AMI (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 76%, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 24%), by which time 89% of patients had undergone coronary reperfusion. Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99], P=0.04) over a median follow-up of 22 months. Rates of the components of the composite outcomes were lower in patients on sacubitril/valsartan but were not individually significantly different. Conclusions: In survivors of an AMI with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan - compared with ramipril - reduced the risk of a prespecified major coronary composite outc