Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure: Characteristics and Treatment

Expert recommendations for the management of iron deficiency in patients with heart failure in Asia

BACKGROUND

Iron deficiency is a common comorbidity in heart failure (HF) and is independently associated with a worse quality-of-life and exercise capacity, as well as increased risk of hospitalization, regardless of anemia status. Although international guidelines have provided recommendations for the management of iron deficiency in patients with HF, guidelines in Asia are less established, and practical use of guidelines for management of iron deficiency is limited in the region.

METHODS

A panel comprising cardiologists from China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand convened to share insights and provide guidance for the optimal management of iron deficiency in patients with HF, tailored for the Asian community.

RESULTS

Expert opinions were provided for the screening, diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of iron deficiency in patients with HF. It was recommended that all patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction should be screened for iron deficiency, and iron-deficient patients should be treated with intravenous iron. Monitoring of iron levels in patients with HF should be carried out once or twice yearly. Barriers to the management of iron deficiency in patients with HF in the region include low awareness of iron deficiency amongst general physicians, lack of reimbursement for screening and treatment, and lack of proper facilities for administration of intravenous iron.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations provide a structured approach to the management of iron deficiency in patients with HF in Asia.

Intravenous iron therapy among patients with heart failure and iron deficiency: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of intravenous (IV) iron administration in patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency (ID) have yielded inconsistent results.

Methods

Electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and OVID databases was performed until November 2022 for RCTs that evaluated the role of IV iron administration in patients with HF and ID. The main study outcomes were the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality, and individual outcome of HF hospitalization. Summary estimates were evaluated using random effects model.

Results

The final analysis included 12 RCTs with 3,492 patients (1,831 patients in the IV iron group and 1,661 patients in the control group). The mean follow-up was 8.3 months. IV iron was associated with a lower incidence in the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality (31.9% vs. 45.3%; relative risk [RR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.88) and individual outcome of HF hospitalization (28.4% vs. 42.2; RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.85). There was no significant difference between both groups in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75-1.04) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.83-1.09). IV iron was associated with lower New York Heart Association class and higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Meta-regression analyses showed no effect modification for the main outcomes based on age, hemoglobin level, ferritin level or LVEF.

Conclusion

Among patients with HF and ID, IV iron administration was associated with reduction in the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality and driven by a reduction in HF hospitalization.

The role of iron deficiency in heart failure

Iron is an essential micronutrient for several physiological processes in the body beyond erythropoiesis. Iron deficiency (ID) is a common comorbidity observed in about 50% of patients with stable heart failure (HF) irrespective of the left ventricular function. The presence of ID is often as a multi-factorial condition, and it is associated with exercise intolerance, reduced quality of life, increased hospitalization rate, and mortality risk regardless of anaemia. The intravenous administration of iron to correct ID has emerged as a promising treatment in HF with reduced ejection fraction as it has been shown to alleviate symptoms, improve quality of life and exercise capacity, and reduce hospitalizations.

Is the Benefit of Treating Iron Deficiency Greater in Acute Heart Failure with Renal Dysfunction?

BACKGROUND

This study aims to analyse whether in acute heart failure (AHF) with iron deficiency (ID), the administration of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) produces a greater benefit in renal dysfunction.

METHODS

A total of 812 consecutive patients admitted for AHF and ID were studied. Untreated (n:272) and treated (n:540) patients were compared. The six-month prevalence of a combined event (readmission for HF, all-cause death, and emergency department visit for decompensation) was analysed. Three grades of renal dysfunction (KDIGO) were compared, Group 1 (grades 1 and 2), Group 2 (grades 3a and 3b), and Group 3 (grades 4 and 5).

RESULTS

There were differences in sex distribution (untreated group: males 39.7% vs. treated group: males 51.9%; p < 0.001). Sex-adjusted combined event analysis showed a greater benefit in Group 1 (OR: 0.31, 95% CI:0.19-0.5; p < 0.001) and Group 2 (OR: 0.23, 95% CI:0.14-0.38; p < 0.001), but not in Group 3 (OR: 0.51, 95% CI:0.17-0.55; p: 0.237).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of FCM in patients with AHF and ID reduces the combined event analysed. The benefit is greater when renal dysfunction is present, except in very advanced degrees where no significant benefit is obtained.

Why Iron Deficiency in Acute Heart Failure Should Be Treated: A Real-World Clinical Practice Study

Background. This study aims to determine whether the administration of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) and iron deficiency (ID) improves morbidity and mortality. Methods. We studied 890 consecutive patients admitted for AHF. Patients were divided into six groups according to reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF), presence of ID, and administration of FCM. Emergency visits, re-admissions, and all-cause mortality were assessed at 6 months. Results. The overall prevalence of ID was 91.2%. In the HFrEF group, no differences were found in isolated events when patients with untreated vs. treated ID were compared, while differences were found in the combined event rate (p = 0.049). The risk calculation showed an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 10% and relative risk reduction (RRR) of 18%. In HFpEF there was a positive trend with regard to the combined event (p = 0.107), with an ARR of 9% and an RRR of 15%. The number of patients we needed to treat to prevent a combined event was 10.5 in HFrEF and 10.8 in HFpEF. Conclusions. FCM in AHF reduced the combined event rate of emergency visits, re-admission, and all-cause death at 6 months in HF with left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, and showed a positive trend in HFpEF.