Digoxin and prognosis of heart failure in older patients with preserved ejection fraction: Importance of heart rate. Results from an observational and multicenter study

Effects of calcium channel blockers in patients with heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

In contrast to beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, the role of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains uncertain. Despite several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies exploring the effects of CCBs on prognosis and exercise capacity in HFpEF patients, the findings have been inconsistent, likely due to limited statistical power and/or variations in study design. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the effects of CCBs in HFpEF patients. The search of electronic databases identified 2 RCTs including 35 patients and 4 cohort studies including 25,078 patients. In cases of significant heterogeneity (I2 > 50 %), data were pooled using a random-effects model; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. In pooled analysis of the cohort studies, use of CCBs was not associated with the risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [95 % CI] = 0.913 [0.732, 1.139], P random  = 0.420) or hospitalization for heart failure (1.050 [0.970, 1.137], P fix  = 0.230). Separate analyses for dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine CCBs revealed similar results. In pooled analysis of the RCTs, verapamil increased exercise time (weighted mean difference [95 % CI] = 0.953 [0.109, 1.797] min; P fix  = 0.027) and decreased the congestive heart failure score (2.019 [1.673, 2.365] points; P fix  < 0.001) compared with placebo. In conclusion, in HFpEF patients, verapamil may improve exercise capacity and symptoms but use of CCBs, regardless of subclass, may not be associated with better prognosis. Our meta-analysis is limited by the inclusion of only several studies for each outcome and further research is necessary to confirm our findings.

Evaluating the Prognostic Value of the Modified H2FPEF Score in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background

The H2FPEF score, a convenient tool developed for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), exhibited useful prognostic utility in HFpEF. However, the applicability and the prognostic value of the H2FPEF score in Chinese HFpEF patients have yet to be fully confirmed. The study aimed to evaluate the effect of modified H2FPEF score on the prognosis of Chinese HFpEF patients.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we calculated the H2FPEF scores by body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2 and 30 kg/m2 respectively, for 497 consecutive HFpEF patients in China. Subjects were divided into low- (0 - 3 points), intermediate- (4 - 6 points), and high-score (7 - 9 points) groups. The primary and secondary endpoints were heart failure (HF)-related events and acute coronary syndrome (ACS), respectively. Cox proportional hazard models were applied to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and areas under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the prediction of the H2FPEF score for adverse outcomes.

Results

Over a mean follow-up of 40.46 ± 6.52 months, the primary and secondary endpoints occurred in 168 patients (33.8%) and 97 patients (19.5%), respectively. By the definition of obesity as BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, a higher incidence of HF-related events and ACS was observed among those with a higher modified H2FPEF score. The modified H2FPEF significantly predicted HF-related events (AUC: 0.723; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.676 - 0.770; P < 0.001) and ACS (AUC: 0.670; 95% CI: 0.608 - 0.731; P < 0.014) with higher power than the H2FPEF score calculated by BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2. The cutoff of the modified H2FPEF score was 6.5 for detecting HF-related events and ACS.

Conclusions

The modified H2FPEF score, using BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 to define obesity, could more effectively predict the occurrence of subsequent cardiovascular events in Chinese HFpEF patients. The modified H2FPEF score above 6.5 is a risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events in HFpEF patients.

Pharmacological Treatments in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with reduced ejection fraction, despite recent trials with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is).

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to estimate the aggregate therapeutic benefit of drugs for HFmrEF and HFpEF.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomized trials including patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%, treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (analyzed together as renin-angiotensin system inhibitors [RASi]), beta-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, ARNI, and SGLT2i. An additive component network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and first hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); secondary outcomes were CV death, total HHF, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The authors identified 13 studies with a total of 29,875 patients and a mean LVEF of 56.3% ± 8.7%. ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i separately, but not RASi, BB, or digoxin, reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo. The combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was the most effective (HR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.70]); this was largely explained by the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i (HR: 0.56 [95% CI 0.43-0.71]). Results were similar for CV death (HR: 0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.91] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) or total HHF (HR: 0.49 [95% CI 0.33-0.71] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) alone. In a subgroup analysis, only SGLT2i had a consistent benefit among all LVEF subgroups, whereas the triple combination had the greatest benefit in HFmrEF, robust benefit in patients with LVEF 50% to 59%, and a statistically marginal benefit in patients with LVEF ≥60%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF and LVEF>40%, the quadruple combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i provides the largest reduction in the risk of CV death and HHF; driven by the robust effect of the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i. The benefit was more pronounced in HFmrEF patients.

Diabetic Heart Failure with Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Review of Current Pharmacotherapy

Diabetes is associated with several diabetic-related abnormalities which increase the risk of onset or worsening of heart failure. Recent studies showed that the majority of diabetic patients present with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the prevalence of HFpEF in diabetics is alarming. Moreover, outcomes in HFpEF are poor and could be compared to those of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with 1-year mortality ranging between 10 and 30%. In contrast to HFrEF, there is very limited evidence for pharmacologic therapy in symptomatic patients with preserved ejection fraction, and therefore, the optimal selection of treatment for diabetic HFpEF remains challenging. This narrative review article summarizes the currently available data on the pharmacological treatment of HFpEF in patients with diabetes.

Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Distinctive Subtype or a Transitional Stage?

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) was first proposed by Lam and Solomon in 2014, and was listed as a new subtype of heart failure (HF) in 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Since then, HFmrEF has attracted an increasing amount of attention, and the number of related studies on this topic has grown rapidly. The diagnostic criteria on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are straightforward; however, LVEF is not a static parameter, and it changes dynamically during the course of HF. Thus, HFmrEF may not be an independent disease with a uniform pathophysiological process, but rather a collection of patients with different characteristics. HFmrEF is often associated with various cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the pathophysiological mechanisms of HFmrEF are particularly complex, and its clinical phenotypes are diverse. The complexity and heterogeneity of HFmrEF may be one reason for inconsistent results between clinical studies. In fact, whether HFmrEF is a distinctive subtype or a transitional stage between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is controversial. In this review, we discuss the clinical characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with HFmrEF, as well as the differences among HFmrEF, HFrEF, and HFpEF.

Amiodarone is associated with increased short-term mortality in elderly atrial fibrillation patients with preserved ejection fraction

PURPOSE

Amiodarone is commonly used in atrial fibrillation (AF). Long-term use of amiodarone is associated with significant toxicities especially in elderly patients. However, in the short term after hospitalization of AF, it remains uncertain whether the use of amiodarone will increase mortality. We aim to investigate whether Amiodarone affects short-term mortality in elderly patients after hospitalization for atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study including patients (Age > = 60 years old) who were hospitalized between 07/01/2004 and 06/30/2019 with primary diagnosis of AF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > = 50%. Patients who were prescribed amiodarone during hospitalization but not before hospitalization are classified into Amiodarone group (341 patients). Patients who were not prescribed amiodarone are classified into non-amiodarone group (2171 patients). Propensity score matching was performed with 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching of Amiodarone group and Non-amiodarone group based on baseline variables. Univariate and Multivariate logistic regression were used to calculate the odds ratio of amiodarone use on in-hospital mortality, and multivariate cox regression was adopted to calculate the hazard ratio of amiodarone use on 100-day mortality.

RESULTS

Patients' baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were well matched in both groups. Both univariate and multivariate logistic regression showed amiodarone group had higher in-hospital mortality (OR 10.27, p = 0.0268; 16.50, p = 0.0171) than non-amiodarone group and multivariate Cox regression suggested increased 100-day all-cause mortality (HR 2.34, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Amiodarone use in elderly patients with preserved ejection fraction is associated with increased in-hospital and 100-day all-cause mortality after hospitalization for AF.

Managing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasing in prevalence as the general population ages. Poorly managed heart failure symptoms of decompensated HFpEF is one of the most common reasons for prolonged hospital admission. The high rate of morbidity and mortality associated with HFpEF is compounded by a poor understanding of the underpinning pathophysiology. Randomized controlled trials have so far been unable to identify an evidence base for reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with HFpEF, although there is some evidence to support quality of life (QOL) improvement. In this review, we described the recent advances on the pathophysiological understanding of HFpEF, the current and emerging treatment strategies, and what this may mean for individual patients. Potential treatments for HFpEF were divided into their relative management strategies and the current evidence assessed for effect on HFpEF mortality, hospital admission frequency, and QOL improvement. Overall, the understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology is improving and has been made a priority in identifying potential therapeutic targets. There is growing evidence that patients with ejection fractions (EF) of less than 60% may obtain a mortality benefit from ACE-inhibitors, angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers, and Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists. However, this covers only a small proportion of the HFpEF spectrum. Therefore, currently there are no universal treatment strategies recommended for HFpEF, and management should focus on an individualised approach and this should take into account the comorbidities of each patient.

Do most patients with obesity or type 2 diabetes, and atrial fibrillation, also have undiagnosed heart failure? A critical conceptual framework for understanding mechanisms and improving diagnosis and treatment

Obesity and diabetes can lead to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), potentially because they both cause expansion and inflammation of epicardial adipose tissue and thus lead to microvascular dysfunction and fibrosis of the underlying left ventricle. The same process also causes an atrial myopathy, which is clinically evident as atrial fibrillation (AF); thus, AF may be the first manifestation of HFpEF. Many patients with apparently isolated AF have latent HFpEF or subsequently develop HFpEF. Most patients with obesity or diabetes who have AF and exercise intolerance have increased left atrial pressures at rest or during exercise, even in the absence of diagnosed HFpEF. Among patients with AF, those who also have latent HFpEF have increased risk for systemic thromboembolism and death. The identification of HFpEF in patients with obesity or diabetes alters the risk-to-benefit relationship of commonly prescribed treatments. Bariatric surgery and statins can ameliorate AF and reduce the risk for HFpEF. Conversely, antihyperglycaemic drugs that promote adipogenesis or cause sodium retention (insulin and thiazolidinediones) may increase the risk for heart failure in patients with an underlying ventricular myopathy. Patients with obesity and diabetes who undergo catheter ablation for AF are at increased risk for AF recurrence and for post-ablation increases in pulmonary venous pressures and worsening heart failure, especially if HFpEF coexists. Therefore, AF may be the earliest indicator of HFpEF in patients with obesity or type 2 diabetes, and recognition of HFpEF alters the management of these patients.

Heightened risk of intensive rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation who are obese or have type 2 diabetes: A critical review and re-evaluation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with obesity and diabetes; the arrhythmia (if long-standing) is typically managed by rate control and anticoagulation. However, the coexistence of these two metabolic disorders complicates therapeutic options for rate control. The likely pathogenesis of AF in these patients is an expansion of epicardial adipose tissue whose inflammation is transmitted to the left atrium causing electromechanical remodeling. However, this same process is also transmitted to the left ventricle (LV), impairing its distensibility and its ability to tolerate volume, leading to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Unfortunately, the latter diagnosis (although commonly present in patients with AF and a coexistent metabolic disorder) is often ignored. To achieve rate control, physicians prescribe intensive treatment with atrioventricular (AV) nodal-blocking drugs, often at doses that are titrated to blunt exercise as well as resting heart rate responses. However, strict rate control (target rate, <80/min) is associated with somewhat worse outcomes than lenient rate control (target rate, <110/min). Furthermore, any rate slowing that facilitates diastolic filling may aggravate filling pressures that are already disproportionately increased because the LV is stiff and overfilled as a result of cardiac inflammation. Rate slowing in AF with beta blockers may not achieve the benefit expected from the blockade of adrenergically mediated cardiotoxicity, and some AV nodal-blocking drugs (digoxin and dronedarone) can increase the risk of death in patients with AF. Finally, cardiac fibrosis in obesity and diabetes may affect the conduction system, which can predispose to serious bradyarrhythmias if patients are prescribed AV nodal-blocking drugs.