Association of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute heart failure

Contemporary Data on the Status and Medical Management of Acute Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute heart failure (AHF) is among the leading causes for unplanned hospital admission. Despite advancements in the management of chronic heart failure, the prognosis of AHF remains poor with high in-hospital mortality and increased rates of unfavorable post-discharge outcomes. With this review, we aim to summarize current data on AHF epidemiology, focus on the different patient profiles and classifications, and discuss management, including novel therapeutic options in this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is significant heterogeneity among patients admitted for AHF in their baseline characteristics, heart failure (HF) aetiology and precipitating factors leading to decompensation. A novel classification scheme based on four distinct clinical scenarios has been included in the most recent ESC guidelines, in an effort to better risk stratify patients and guide treatment. Intravenous diuretics, vasodilators, and inotropes remain the cornerstone of management in the acute phase, and expansion of use of mechanical circulatory support has been noted in recent years. Meanwhile, many treatments that have proved their value in chronic heart failure demonstrate promising results in the setting of AHF and research in this field is currently ongoing. Acute heart failure remains a major health challenge with high in-hospital mortality and unfavorable post-discharge outcomes. Admission for acute HF represents a window of opportunity for patients to initiate appropriate treatment as soon as possible after stabilization. Future studies are needed to elucidate which patients will benefit the most by available therapies and define the optimal timing for treatment implementation.

An overview of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists as a treatment option for patients with heart failure: the current state-of-the-art and future outlook

INTRODUCTION

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure. These benefits of MRAs vary in different heart failure populations based on left ventricular ejection fraction and associated comorbidities.

AREAS COVERED

We define the pharmacologic properties of MRAs and the pathophysiological rationale for their utility in heart failure. We outline the current literature on the use of MRAs in different heart failure populations, including reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF/ HFpEF), and acute heart failure decompensation. Finally, we describe the limitations of currently available data and propose future directions of study.

EXPERT OPINION

While there is strong evidence supporting the use of MRAs in HFrEF, evidence in patients with HFpEF or acute heart failure is less definitive. Comorbidities such as obesity or atrial fibrillation could be clinical modifiers of the response to MRAs and potentially alter the risk/benefit ratio in these subpopulations. Emerging evidence for new non-steroidal MRAs reveal promising preliminary results that, if confirmed in large randomized clinical trials, could favor a change in clinical practice.

In-hospital Initiation and Up-titration of Guideline-directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure is suboptimal. The use of guideline-directed medical therapy improves minimally after heart failure hospitalisation, despite this event clearly indicating increased risk of further hospitalisation and death. In-hospital initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapies is one potential strategy to fill these gaps in care, both in the acute vulnerable period after hospital discharge and in the long term. The purpose of this article is to review the knowledge gaps in best practices of in-hospital initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies, the benefits and risks of in-hospital initiation and post-discharge focused titration of guideline-directed medical therapies, the recent literature evaluating these practices, and propose strategies to apply these principles to the care of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: an expert consensus position paper

The short-term mortality and rehospitalization rates after admission for acute heart failure (AHF) remain high, despite the high level of adherence to contemporary practice guidelines. Observational data from non-randomized studies in AHF strongly support the in-hospital administration of oral evidence-based modifying chronic heart failure (HF) medications (i.e., b-blockers, ACE inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) to reduce morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, a well-designed prospective randomized multicenter study (PIONEER-HF) showed an improved clinical outcome and stress/injury biomarker profile after in-hospital administration of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) as compared to enalapril, in hemodynamically stable patients with AHF. However, sac/val implementation during hospitalization remains suboptimal due to the lack of an integrated individualized plan or well-defined appropriateness criteria for transition to oral therapies, an absence of specific guidelines regarding dose selection and the up-titration process, and uncertainty regarding patient eligibility.

In the present expert consensus position paper, clinical practical recommendations are proposed, together with an action plan algorithm, to encourage and facilitate sac/val administration during hospitalization after an AHF episode with the aim of improving efficiencies of care and resource utilization.

[Update on heart failure]

Heart failure is one of the leading diseases in internal medicine worldwide. Because of the increase in population aging, the incidence and prevalence of heart insufficiency is rising annually and is now the most frequent individual diagnosis among hospitalized patients in Germany. The mortality rate has recently been reduced, since new pharmacological options, especially the inhibition of neprilysin, have been developed; however, heart failure is still associated with a high mortality and morbidity rate. Thus, guideline-conform treatment is of crucial importance. This review highlights and summarizes the current scientific knowledge on heart failure from 2017 and 2018 based on the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. New aspects about heart failure with middle grade limitations of ejection fraction are firstly presented. Subsequently, innovative diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, new pharmacological developments and handling of frequent comorbidities in patients with heart failure are discussed.

Mechanisms of cardiovascular complications in chronic kidney disease: research focus of the Transregional Research Consortium SFB TRR219 of the University Hospital Aachen (RWTH) and the Saarland University

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) exhibit a massively increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, and traditional strategies to improve CV outcome have largely failed in the context of CKD. This review article summarizes the current understanding of the pathophysiology of CVD in patients with CKD, defines the gaps in knowledge and describes the structure of the German Transregional Research Consortium SFB TRR219 which addresses "Mechanisms of Cardiovascular Complications in Chronic Kidney Disease".

Heart failure and the discrepancy between trials of intensive blood pressure management: an analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

ACCORD and SPRINT are the best randomized controlled trial data evaluating the effects of blood pressure targets below 140 mmHg. These trials had contradictory results regarding the benefits of intensive antihypertensive therapy. We investigate if this discordance was driven by SPRINT's inclusion of Heart Failure in its primary outcome, as this is a parameter not included in ACCORD's original primary outcome. This analysis helps to resolve a significant area of contention.

METHODS

Individual patient data from 4733 participants in ACCORD were analyzed from time of randomization. All participants were diabetic and at increased cardiovascular risk. Participants were assigned to their original intervention, a standard blood pressure target of less than 140 mmHg or an intensive target of less than 120 mmHg. Primary composite outcome was defined as in SPRINT: a composite of first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, death from cardiovascular causes, and other acute coronary syndromes.

RESULTS

Primary outcome was not significantly different between standard and intensive groups [HR: 0.89; 95% CI: (0.76-1.03); p = 0.108]. The primary composite outcome occurred in 370 participants in the standard group (15.6%) and 324 participants in the intensive group (13.7%), with an event rate of 3.38% per year for the standard group and 3.01% per year for the intensive group.

CONCLUSIONS

Differing results between ACCORD and SPRINT are not attributable to ACCORD's exclusion of Heart Failure from its original primary outcome measurement. No significant differences in primary outcome were observed between intensive and standard blood pressure groups in the ACCORD patients under the SPRINT primary outcome definition. Caution should be taken in extrapolating the intensive blood pressure control benefits of SPRINT to the diabetic population.