Heart failure pharmacological treatments and outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

Potassium levels and short-term outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

The study investigates the prognostic impact of dyskalemias in patients hospitalized with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

BACKGROUND

Although dyskalemias represent a common complication in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), data concerning the prevalence and prognostic impact of dyskalemias in HFmrEF is limited.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with HFmrEF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. The prognostic impact of potassium levels was assessed comparing patients with potassium levels > 3.3 to ≤4.5 mmol/L, ≤3.3 mmol/L and > 4.5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

2079 patients with HFmrEF and potassium measurement were included (median potassium level: 4.4 mmol/L; mean 4.2 mmol/L). 84 % of patients hospitalized with HFmrEF presented with potassium levels in the norm range, 8 % with hypokalemia and 8 % with hyperkalemia, respectively. The risk of all-cause mortality at 30 days was higher in patients with hyperkalemia compared to patients with normokalemia (7 % vs 4 %; log rank p = 0.026), whereas the presence of hypokalemia (6 %; log rank p = 0.075) was not significantly associated with the risk of 30-days all-cause mortality. Compared to patients with normokalemia, the presence of hyperkalemia was still associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality within a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR = 2.002; 95 % CI 1.004-3.992; p = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

In patients hospitalized with HFmrEF, hyperkalemia - but not hypokalemia - was independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality at 30 days.

Timing of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction

This study investigates the prognosis of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) on admission (i.e., primary ADHF) as compared to ADHF onset during course of hospitalization (i.e., secondary ADHF) in patients hospitalized with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Limited data regarding the prognostic impact of the timing of onset of ADHF is available. Consecutive patients with HFmrEF and ADHF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Patients with primary ADHF were compared to patients with secondary ADHF with regard to the primary endpoint all-cause mortality at 30 months. Kaplan-Meier, uni- and multivariable Cox proportional regression analyses were applied for statistics. From a total of 484 patients hospitalized with HFmrEF and ADHF, 67.98% (n = 329) were admitted with primary ADHF. Patients with secondary ADHF had higher rates of concomitant acute myocardial infarction, alongside with a higher extend of coronary artery disease. The risk of all-cause mortality at 30 months was not affected by the timing of ADHF (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.853; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.653-1.115; p = 0.246). However, patients with primary ADHF were associated with a higher risk of HF-related rehospitalization at 30 months (HR = 2.513; 95% CI 1.555-4.065; p = 0.001), which was still evident after multivariable adjustment (HR = 2.347; 95% CI 1.418-3.883; p = 0.001). The timing of onset of ADHF was not associated with long-term mortality in HFmrEF, however primary ADHF was associated with a higher risk of HF-related rehospitalization.

Comprehensive review of the heart failure management guidelines presented by the American College of Cardiology and the current supporting evidence

CONTEXT

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic condition that affects the heart's functional capacity, resulting in symptoms such as fatigue, edema, and dyspnea. It affects millions of adults in the United States and presents challenges in optimizing treatment and coordinating care among clinicians. Additionally, the various classifications for HF and limited research on treatment outcomes in heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) further complicate the pharmacological management of patients with this disease.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this article are to review the pharmacotherapy guidelines for HF provided by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and offer an update on the current trials conducted on these agents.

METHODS

The paper includes a post hoc analysis of established randomized controlled trials (RCTs), current RCTs, analysis of HF registries, and the guidelines published by the ACC. The gathering of research began in June 2023 and completed in August 2023. PubMed was utilized with the following search items: "treatment for HFrEF" (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), "treatment for HFmrEF," and "treatment for HFpEF." The screening process was completed by one author. The automation tools utilized were "clinical trials," "randomized control trials," and "five years". Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and case reports were excluded from the screening process. This review does not include research regarding medical devices, interventional therapies, and lifestyle modifications. Finally, research regarding additional comorbidities, nonpharmacological focused research, and agents not recommended by the ACC are not included in this paper.

RESULTS

The search began with 6,561 records identified from PubMed, with 407 records screened after automation tools were utilized to filter for "clinical trials," "randomized control trials," "one year," and "five years". A total of 22 duplicates were reviewed, 318 were sought for screening after trials from 2019 were removed, and 31 studies were ultimately included in the review. A detailed summary of the most recent recommendations by the ACC are provided. The discussion includes indications, mechanisms of action, side effects, and contraindications for the selected agents. Additionally, recent clinical trials are included to provide evidence on the efficacy of the recommended classes of drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current guidelines for managing HFrEF have been consistent, but there is limited consensus on treating HFmrEF and HFpEF. Large RCTs have provided compelling evidence supporting the use of the recommended pharmacological agents. However, despite the new effective treatment protocols, slow clinical inertia and underoptimization of HF management persist. Thus, it is crucial to synchronize care among clinicians involved in managing patients with this disease.

Comparative analysis of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

Introduction

To clarify the efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (RASI/ARNI) in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Methods

This study assessed the association between these medications and outcomes in HFmrEF using data from the National Taiwan University Hospital-integrated Medical Database. The primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality/heart failure hospitalization (HHF). Inverse probability of treatment weighting balanced baseline patient characteristics. The exposure of primary interest was use of MRA and use of RASI/ARNI, while the non-user group was also likely to receive other heart failure medication treatment.

Results

Among 2,584 HFmrEF patients, 17% received MRA and 43% received RASI/ARNI. Predictors of MRA use included older age, slightly higher ejection fraction, and lower NT-proBNP level. RASI/ARNI use was predicted by higher BMI, lower NT-proBNP level, normal uric acid and potassium levels. MRA use was not associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular death [hazard ratio = 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.02] or HHF (hazard ratio = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94-1.09). Conversely, RASI//ARNI use was linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71-0.94) but not HHF (hazard ratio = 0.995, 95% CI: 0.924-1.07). Landmark analysis showed no significant difference in outcomes for follow-up durations exceeding 2 years.

Conclusion

MRA had a neutral effect on cardiovascular death and HHF, while RASI/ARNI was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular death. RASI/ARNI may be more beneficial than MRA for HFmrEF patients. Regular re-evaluation is essential to adjust heart failure treatment.

Associations between systemic immune-inflammation index and heart failure: A cross-sectional study

The detrimental effects of inflammation on cardiovascular health have received a lot of attention. However, the relationship between heart failure (HF) and the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) has not been demonstrated. The authors sought to learn more about the relationship between HF and SII in US adults. Adults with complete SII and HF information from the 1999 to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participated in the current cross-sectional study. The calculation for SII involved multiplying the platelet count by the neutrophil count and then dividing it by the lymphocyte count. The relationship between SII and HF was studied using multivariate logistic regression, sensitivity analysis, and smoothed curve fitting. A total of 49,471 participants were enrolled in the study, and 1625 patients (3.28%) were diagnosed with HF. In the model that took all relevant factors into account, we observed that for every 100-unit increase in SII, there was a 2% higher likelihood of developing HF (OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01-1.03, P < .0016). Furthermore, we discovered L-shaped associations between SII levels and HF. In subgroups stratified by smoking and diabetes, SII was found to be substantially associated with HF (P < .05). Interaction tests revealed that this positive association was not significantly influenced by gender, age, body mass index, smoking status, diabetes, or hypertension (all P for interaction > 0.05). In US adults, SII and HF had a positive association. Our study suggests that SII may be a convenient and readily available marker for identifying HF.

Effect of heart failure pharmacotherapies in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

The study sought to comprehensively investigate the effect of heart failure (HF) pharmacotherapies in patients with HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). In the absence of randomized controlled trials, guideline recommendations concerning HF-related therapies in patients with HFmrEF are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients hospitalized with HFmrEF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. The prognostic value of treatment with beta-blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, receptor blockers, or receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ACEi/ARB/ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and sodium-glucose-linked transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) was investigated for all-cause mortality at 30 months (a median follow-up) and HF-related rehospitalization. A total of 2109 patients with HFmrEF were included. Treatment with BB [27.0 vs. 35.0%; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.737; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.617-0.881; P = 0.001], ACEi/ARB/ARNI (25.9 vs. 37.6%; HR = 0.612; 95% CI 0.517-0.725; P = 0.001), and SGLT2i (11.9 vs. 29.5%; HR = 0.441; 95% CI 0.236-0.824; P = 0.010) was associated with a lower risk of 30-month all-cause mortality, which was still demonstrated after multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching. In contrast, MRA treatment was not associated with long-term prognosis. The risk of HF-related rehospitalization was not affected by HF pharmacotherapies. Finally, the lowest risk of long-term all-cause mortality was observed in patients with combined use of BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI, and SGLT2i (HR = 0.456; 95% CI 0.227-0.916; P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Beta-blockers, ACEi/ARB/ARNI, and SGLT2i were independently associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HFmrEF, specifically when applied as combined 'HF triple therapy'. Randomized studies are needed to investigate the effect of HF-related pharmacotherapies in patients with HFmrEF.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 80 years and over with heart failure: Need for better treatment

AIMS

Although the prevalence of heart failure (HF) increases markedly with advancing age, surprisingly little is known about HF in the very elderly. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of octogenarians with HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Individual participant meta-analysis of patients with HF and reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively) enrolled in eight large randomized trials. Overall, the proportion of octogenarians was 1518 of 20 168 patients (7.5%) with HFrEF, 610 of 4609 (13.2%) with HFmrEF, and 3130 of 15 354 (20.4%) with HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, octogenarian patients were more often female and had more comorbidities, more symptoms and signs of congestion, and worse health status (but not quality of life), in comparison to patients aged <80 years. The incidence (per 100 person-years) of the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization was 13.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.7-14.0) in octogenarians versus 9.5 (95% CI 9.3-9.7) in non-octogenarians (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.32-1.48). Each component of the composite was more frequent in octogenarians with rates of cardiovascular mortality of 7.0 (95% CI 6.5-7.4) per 100 person-years versus 4.9 (95% CI 4.8-5.1) in non-octogenarians (aHR 1.60, 95% CI 1.48-1.72, p < 0.001). Octogenarians received less evidence-based therapy, especially mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, than younger patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite worse health status and higher hospitalization and mortality rates, octogenarians were undertreated compared to younger patients.

Heart failure management with β-blockers: can we do better?

Heart failure (HF) is associated with disabling symptoms, poor quality of life, and a poor prognosis with substantial excess mortality in the years following diagnosis. Overactivation of the sympathetic nervous system is a key feature of the pathophysiology of HF and is an important driver of the process of adverse remodelling of the left ventricular wall that contributes to cardiac failure. Drugs which suppress the activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, including β-blockers, are foundation therapies for the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and despite a lack of specific outcomes trials, are also widely used by cardiologist in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Today, expert opinion has moved away from recommending that treatment for HF should be guided solely by the LVEF and interventions should rather address signs and symptoms of HF (e.g. oedema and tachycardia), the severity of HF, and concomitant conditions. β-blockers improve HF symptoms and functional status in HF and these agents have demonstrated improved survival, as well as a reduced risk of other important clinical outcomes such as hospitalisation for heart failure, in randomised, placebo-controlled outcomes trials. In HFpEF, β-blockers are anti-ischemic and lower blood pressure and heart rate. Moreover, β-blockers also reduce mortality in the setting of HF occurring alongside common comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, CKD (of any severity), and COPD. Higher doses of β-blockers are associated with better clinical outcomes in populations with HF, so that ensuring adequate titration of therapy to their maximal (or maximally tolerated) doses is important for ensuring optimal outcomes for people with HF. In principle, a patient with HF could have combined treatment with a β-blocker, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor/neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and a SGLT2 inhibitor, according to tolerability.

Heart failure pharmacotherapy and cancer: pathways and pre-clinical/clinical evidence

Heart failure (HF) patients have a significantly higher risk of new-onset cancer and cancer-associated mortality, compared to subjects free of HF. While both the prevention and treatment of new-onset HF in patients with cancer have been investigated extensively, less is known about the prevention and treatment of new-onset cancer in patients with HF, and whether and how guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF should be modified when cancer is diagnosed in HF patients. The purpose of this review is to elaborate and discuss the effects of pillar HF pharmacotherapies, as well as digoxin and diuretics on cancer, and to identify areas for further research and novel therapeutic strategies. To this end, in this review, (i) proposed effects and mechanisms of action of guideline-directed HF drugs on cancer derived from pre-clinical data will be described, (ii) the evidence from both observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the effects of guideline-directed medical therapy on cancer incidence and cancer-related outcomes, as synthetized by meta-analyses will be reviewed, and (iii) considerations for future pre-clinical and clinical investigations will be provided.

Heart failure registries - Future directions

Heart failure (HF) is a growing, global public health issue. Despite advances in HF care, many challenges remain and HF outcomes are poor. Some of the major reasons for this are the lack of understanding and treatment for certain HF sub-types as well as the lack of implementation of treatment in areas where effective treatment exists. HF registries provide the opportunity to transform clinical research and patient care. Recently the registry-based randomized clinical trial has emerged as a pragmatic and inexpensive alternative to the gold standard in clinical trial design, the randomized controlled trial. Registries may also provide platforms for strategy trials, implementation trials, and screening. Using examples from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry and others, the present review provides insights into how registry-based research can address many of the unmet needs in HF.