Clinical outcomes according to QRS duration and morphology in the irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function (I-PRESERVE) trial

Predictors and prognostic implications of left ventricular ejection fraction trajectory improvement in the spectrum of heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The latest guidelines emphasize the significance of evaluating the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory in patients with heart failure (HF). Because patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) have reduction in systolic function, they might be in a trajectory of LVEF improvement after medical and device-based therapies. While previous studies have primarily focused on LVEF improvement in HFrEF, there is limited research on LVEF trajectory improvement across the spectrum of HFrEF and HFmrEF. This study aimed to assess the determinants and prognostic implications of LVEF trajectory improvement in HFrEF and HFmrEF patients.

METHODS

The cohort was classified into the improved group (HFrEF-to-HF with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) and HFmrEF-to-HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)) and the unimproved group (lack of improved group criteria). The primary endpoints were the composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalization. Predictors of LVEF trajectory improvement were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total 1303 patients were included in the study (improved/unimproved group: n = 497/806). Cox regression analysis showed that the improved group experienced lower risks of prespecified end points than the unimproved group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that atrial flutter, use of spironolactone, and treatment with catheter ablation were associated with LVEF trajectory improvement, while myocardial infarction, prior percutaneous catheter intervention or coronary artery bypass graft, E/e', and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter were identified as negative predictors of LVEF trajectory improvement. In the improved subgroup, the prognosis for the HFrEF-to-HFimpEF and HFmrEF-to-HFpEF was comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

LVEF trajectory improvement patients had improved clinical outcomes and it was associated with important clinical, baseline cardiac structure and function, and treatment factors. Outcomes were similar in both HFrEF-to-HFimpEF and HFmrEF-to-HFpEF subgroups. These results suggest that emphasis should be placed on LVEF trajectory improvement to improve the outcomes of this population.

Effect of Spironolactone on QRS Duration in Patients at Risk for Heart Failure (from the HOMAGE Trial)

The QRS duration can be easily obtained from a 12-lead electrocardiogram. Increased QRS duration reflects greater ventricular activation times and often ventricular dyssynchrony. Dyssynchrony causes an impairment of the global cardiac function and adversely affects the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). Little is known about the impact of pharmacologic therapies on the QRS duration, particularly for patients with presymptomatic HF with a preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (i.e., stage B HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]). The HOMAGE (Heart OMics in AGEing) trial enrolled patients at risk factors for developing HF and assigned them to receive either spironolactone or the usual care for approximately 9 months in a randomized manner. This analysis reports the effect of spironolactone on the QRS duration. A total of 525 patients was included in the analysis. The median (percentile_25-75) QRS duration at baseline was 92 (84 to 106) ms. Spironolactone reduced the QRS duration at month 9 by -2.8, 95% confidence interval -4.6 to -1.0 ms, p = 0.003. No significant associations were found between month 9 changes in the QRS duration and corresponding changes in the LV ejection fraction, LV mass, LV end-diastolic volume, blood pressure, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and procollagen type I carboxy-terminal propeptide (all p >0.05). This analysis shows that for patients with stage B HFpEF, therapy with spironolactone for 9 months shortened the QRS duration, an effect that was not associated with reductions in LV mass or volume, supporting the hypothesis that spironolactone has direct beneficial effects to improve myocardial electrical activation in patients with stage B HFpEF.

Mortality and readmission risk in relation to QRS duration among patients hospitalized for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

In ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), QRS prolongation (QRS > 120 msec) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) each carry an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality and/or HF hospitalization. Less is known about implications of conduction abnormalities following an acute HF hospitalization for HFpEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective cohort of 1454 patients discharged from after a HF hospitalization between 2015 and 2019 with ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 45% were identified (age 75.1 ± 10.8 years, EF 58.5% ± 10.2%). All patients' electrocardiograms were classified by QRS duration (prolonged - 545 [37.5%] vs. normal [QRS ≤ 120 msec] 909 [62.5%]). QRS prolongation was comprised of: LBBB (4.2%), right bundle branch block (RBBB, 18.3%), intraventricular conduction delay (9.7%), and ventricularly paced (9.7%). Over 4.09 ± 1.00 years, 769 (52.9%) patients died. Survival was similar between normal and prolonged QRS cohorts with an age and sex adjusted hazard ratio of 1.01 (95%CI: 0.87-1.17, p = 0.16). Recurrent HF hospitalization occurred in 91 (16.7%) with QRS prolongation vs. 90 (9.9%) without (odds ratio: 1.82 [95%CI: 1.33-2.50, p < 0.001]). RBBB carried 2.26 higher odds of recurrent HF hospitalization (95%CI: 1.56-3.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Following a HF hospitalization, QRS prolongation increased the odds of re-admission for HF in patients with HFpEF without differences in overall mortality.

[SEMERGEN positioning on approaching chronic heart failure in primary care]

Heart failure (HF) is a public health problem that generates a large healthcare burden both in hospitals and in Primary Care (PC). The publication of numerous studies about HF in recent years has led to a paradigm shift in the approach to this syndrome, in which the work of PC teams is gaining greater prominence. The recent guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology have fundamentally introduced changes in the management of patients with HF. The new proposed strategy, with drugs that reduce hospitalizations and slow the progression of the disease, should now be a priority for all professionals involved. This position document analyzes a proposal for an approach based on multidisciplinary teams with the leadership of family doctors, key to providing quality care throughout the entire process of the disease, from its prevention to the end of the life.

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); a review of the evidence is required to determine whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with HFpEF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one clinical trial register on 14 May 2020 to identify eligible studies, with no language or date restrictions. We checked references from trial reports and review articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design, enrolling adults with HFpEF, defined by LVEF greater than 40%.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 randomised controlled trials (231 reports), totalling 23,492 participants across all comparisons. The risk of bias was frequently unclear and only five studies had a low risk of bias in all domains. Beta-blockers (BBs) We included 10 studies (3087 participants) investigating BBs. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 30 years to 81 years. A possible reduction in cardiovascular mortality was observed (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; three studies), however, the certainty of evidence was low. There may be little to no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.00; 1105 participants; four studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, and quality of life remain uncertain. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) We included 13 studies (4459 participants) investigating MRA. Eight studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.5 to 80 years. Pooled analysis indicated that MRA treatment probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB = 41; 3714 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MRA treatment probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; 4207 participants; five studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; 4070 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). MRA treatment may have little or no effect on quality of life measures (mean difference (MD) 0.84, 95% CI -2.30 to 3.98; 511 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). MRA treatment was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 11; 4291 participants; six studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) We included eight studies (2061 participants) investigating ACEIs. Three studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 70 to 82 years. Pooled analyses with moderate-certainty evidence suggest that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; 945 participants; two studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45; 1187 participants; five studies) and heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; 1019 participants; three studies), and may result in little or no effect on the quality of life (MD -0.09, 95% CI -3.66 to 3.48; 154 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on hyperkalaemia remain uncertain. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating ARBs were included. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in three the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 61 to 75 years. Pooled analyses with high certainty of evidence suggest that ARB treatment has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% 0.90 to 1.14; 7254 participants; three studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; 7964 participants; four studies), heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.02; 7254 participants; three studies), and quality of life (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.86 to 1.67; 3117 participants; three studies). ARB was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; two studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) Three studies (7702 participants) investigating ARNIs were included. Two studies used ARBs as the comparator and one used standardised medical therapy, based on participants' established treatments at enrolment. The mean age of participants ranged from 71 to 73 years. Results suggest that ARNIs may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 4796 participants; one study; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 7663 participants; three studies; high-certainty evidence), or quality of life (high-certainty evidence). However, ARNI treatment may result in a slight reduction in heart failure hospitalisation, compared to usual care (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7362 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). ARNI treatment was associated with a reduced risk of hyperkalaemia compared with valsartan (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 5054 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that MRA and ARNI treatment in HFpEF probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation but probably has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality and quality of life. BB treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality, however, further trials are needed. The current evidence for BBs, ACEIs, and ARBs is limited and does not support their use in HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication. Although MRAs and ARNIs are probably effective at reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalisation, the treatment effect sizes are modest. There is a need for improved approaches to patient stratification to identify the subgroup of patients who are most likely to benefit from MRAs and ARNIs, as well as for an improved understanding of disease biology, and for new therapeutic approaches.

Left bundle-branch block is associated with asimilar dyssynchronous phenotype in heart failure patients with normal and reduced ejection fractions

BACKGROUND

Few therapies improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). If left bundle-branch block (LBBB) is associated with left ventricular dyssynchrony and impaired cardiac performance in HFpEF, cardiac resynchronization therapy could be a promising treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of selected patients with HFpEF (ejection fraction ≥50%) with and without LBBB (normal conduction, NC) and patients with HFrEF and LBBB who were suitable cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates to describe and contextualize the mechanical phenotype of LBBB in HFpEF. Systolic and diastolic isovolumic times, ejection time(ET), and diastolic filling time(DFT) were measured on spectral tissue Doppler echocardiographic images and indexed to the heart rate. Dyssynchrony pattern was assessed using speckle-tracked longitudinal strain patterns. Comparisons were performed using analysis of variance and χ² test with posthoc pairwise comparisons as indicated.

RESULTS

Eighty-two HFpEF (50 with NC, 32 with LBBB) and 149 HFrEF (all with LBBB) patients met criteria. Overall, 84.4% with HFpEF/LBBB and 91.3% with HFrEF/LBBB had demonstrable mechanical dyssynchrony compared to 0% with HFpEF/NC. Compared to HFpEF/NC, HFpEF/LBBB had significantly prolonged isovolumetric contraction time (ICT), isovolumetric relaxation time (IRT), and total isovolumetric time and significantly shorter ET (all indexed). LBBB/HFrEF patients, compared to LBBB/HFpEF patients, had increased ICT and IRT with decreased DFT but similar ET.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFpEF and LBBB frequently have an LBBB dyssynchrony phenotype, prolonged ICT and IRT, and reduced ET compared to HFpEF patients with NC. The electromechanical dyssynchrony and disordered cardiac timing of HFpEF with LBBB are similar to HFrEF with LBBB.

Sudden death in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and beyond: an elusive target

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents half of HF patients, who are more likely older, women, and hypertensive. Mortality rates in HFpEF are higher compared with age- and comorbidity-matched non-HF controls and lower than in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); the majority (50-70%) are cardiovascular (CV) deaths. Among CV deaths, sudden death (SD) (~ 35%) and HF-death (~ 20%) are the leading cardiac modes of death; however, proportionally, CV deaths, SD, and HF-deaths are lower in HFpEF, while non-CV deaths constitute a higher proportion of deaths in HFpEF (30-40%) than in HFrEF (~ 15%). Importantly, the underlying mechanism of SD has not been clearly elucidated and non-arrhythmic SD may be more prominent in HFpEF than in HFrEF. Furthermore, there is no specific strategy for identifying high-risk patients, probably due to wide heterogeneity in presentation and pathophysiology of HFpEF and a plethora of comorbidities in this population. Thus, the management of HFpEF remains problematic due to paucity of data on the clinical benefits of current therapies, which focus on symptom relief and reduction of HF-hospitalization by controlling fluid retention and managing risk-factors and comorbidities. Matching a specific pathophysiology or mode of death with available and novel therapies may improve outcomes in HFpEF. However, this still remains an elusive target, as we need more information on determinants of SD. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have changed the landscape of SD prevention in HFrEF; if ICDs are to be applied to HFpEF, there must be a coordinated effort to identify and select high-risk patients.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I² = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I² = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I² = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I² = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Influence of baseline QRS on the left ventricular ejection fraction recovery after frequent premature ventricular complex ablation

Aims

Frequent premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) can induce or worsen left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We aimed to investigate the influence of the baseline QRS in the response after PVC ablation in patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Methods and results

Two hundred and fifteen [59 ± 13 years old, 152 (71%) men] consecutive patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and frequent PVCs referred for ablation were included and followed-up for 12 months. Echocardiographic response was defined as an improvement of at least five absolute points in LVEF. Clinical, electrocardiogram, and electrophysiological characteristics were analysed. Mean baseline QRS duration was 110 ms [97–140]. Premature ventricular complex burden significantly decreased after ablation from 23% [16–33] at baseline to 1% [0–8] at 12 months, P &lt; 0.001. Mean PVC burden reduction was 18 [8–30] points. There was a significant improvement of LVEF from 35% [29–40] at baseline to 44% [35–55] at 12 months, P &lt; 0.001. One hundred and thirty (61%) patients were considered as echocardiographic responders. Baseline QRS duration (ms) [odds ratio (OR) 0.98 (0.97–0.99), P = 0.01] was an independent predictor of echocardiographic response. Mean LVEF improvement was 16 [10–21] points when the baseline QRS duration was &lt;90 ms; 12 [4–20] when it was 90–110 ms; 5 [0–15] when it was 110 ± 130 ms; and 0 [0–6] points when it was &gt;130 ms.

Conclusions

In patients with LV systolic dysfunction, intrinsic QRS duration is inversely related to the probability and the degree of echocardiographic response after frequent PVC ablation. Patients with a QRS duration &gt;130 ms at baseline have the poorer response after ablation.

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. There is uncertainty whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and a comprehensive review of the evidence is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trial registries on 25 July 2017 to identify eligible studies. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional studies. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design enrolling adult participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40 percent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. The outcomes assessed included cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, all-cause mortality and quality of life. Risk ratios (RR) and, where possible, hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous data, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) were calculated. We contacted trialists where neccessary to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

37 randomised controlled trials (207 reports) were included across all comparisons with a total of 18,311 participants.Ten studies (3087 participants) investigating beta-blockers (BB) were included. A pooled analysis indicated a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (15% of participants in the intervention arm versus 19% in the control arm; RR 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; 3 studies). However, the quality of evidence was low and no effect on cardiovascular mortality was observed when the analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; 643 participants; 1 study). There was no effect on all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation or quality of life measures, however there is uncertainty about these effects given the limited evidence available.12 studies (4408 participants) investigating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) were included with the quality of evidence assessed as moderate. MRA treatment reduced heart failure hospitalisation (11% of participants in the intervention arm versus 14% in the control arm; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB 41; 3714 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence) however, little or no effect on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and quality of life measures was observed. MRA treatment was associated with a greater risk of hyperkalaemia (16% of participants in the intervention group versus 8% in the control group; RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; 4291 participants; 6 studies; high-quality evidence).Eight studies (2061 participants) investigating angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as moderate. The evidence suggested that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, or quality of life. Data for the effect of ACEI on hyperkalaemia were only available from one of the included studies.Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as high. The evidence suggested that treatment with ARB has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, or quality of life. ARB was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalaemia (0.9% of participants in the intervention group versus 0.5% in the control group; RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; 2 studies; high-quality evidence).We identified a single ongoing placebo-controlled study investigating the effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that MRA treatment reduces heart failure hospitalisation in heart failure with preserverd ejection fraction, however the effects on mortality related outcomes and quality of life remain unclear. The available evidence for beta-blockers, ACEI, ARB and ARNI is limited and it remains uncertain whether these treatments have a role in the treatment of HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication for their use. This comprehensive review highlights a persistent gap in the evidence that is currently being addressed through several large ongoing clinical trials.

Heart rate as a predictor of cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND

Heart rate (HR) is a predictor of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and all-cause mortality in the general population, as well as in patients with cardio- and cerebrovascular diseases. We aimed to summarize current knowledge regarding the influence of HR on cardio- and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid and EMBASE databases were searched for large follow-up studies or meta-analysis published between January 1990 and September 2017 in the English language using the following keyword "heart rate," "resting heart rate," "mortality," "outcome," "hypertension," "heart failure," "ischaemic heart disease," "coronary heart disease" and "stroke."

RESULTS

The relationship between increased HR and cardio- and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality has been reported in a large number of studies, and the results regarding this association are concurrent. This connection is generally stronger in men than in women. The increase in HR usually occurs in parallel with elevation of blood pressure and metabolic disturbances (insulin resistance, dyslipidaemia). However, even after adjustment for the most important cardiovascular risk factors, HR remained an independent predictor of adverse events in global population or in patients with cardio- and cerebrovascular diseases.

CONCLUSION

HR has an important negative effect on cardio- and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality. Future longitudinal investigations should clarify HR significance and optimal HR reduction for primary and secondary prevention in cardio- and cerebrovascular events.

Hospitalisation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure is highly prevalent with more than 50% of cases being patients with a preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF), a figure that is projected to increase due to the changing risk factor landscape, in particular the ageing population. Overall mortality is similar to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF), as are the rates of hospitalisation. Patients with HFPEF have more comorbid conditions with fewer therapeutic options available. In this review, we explore the epidemiology of hospitalisation of HFPEF, the impact of current treatment modalities, and the potential of future therapies.

A rare form of extremely wide QRS complex due to reversed homologous electrical ventricular separation of acute heart failure

Electrical ventricular separation, as a special complete intraventricular block, denotes that ventricles be electrically separated into two or more parts caused by severe and wide damage of myocardium and conduction. Electrical ventricular separation can be divided into homologous and heterologous, homologous electrical ventricular separation is a rare phenomenon, literally the excitement of whole ventricle originate from supraventricle, on ECG, there are two different QRS waves which connect with an isoelectric line, one ST segment and T wave. We report a valve heart disease presented with complicated electrophysiological characteristics, which has reversed complex homologous electrical ventricular separation with second degree intraventricular block.