95 Lack of Evidence for Reduced Efficacy of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure in Older Adults

Introduction

There are almost a million people with heart failure (HF) in the UK; the incidence increases sharply with age. Older adults receive less evidence-based therapy with few trials specifically examining therapeutic efficacy in older age groups representative of a contemporary UK HF population. Concern that efficacy is less in older adults may underlie under-prescription. With important recent advances in HF therapy, we reviewed the contemporary evidence base for any signal of different efficacy in older adults.

Methods

We reviewed recent RCTs of medical therapy for heart failure alongside meta-analyses updated with recent therapies including Angiotensin-Neprilysin inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For those trials in which effect size was presented for age subgroups we compared the effect size.

Results

Of 68 randomised controlled trials, 10 presented effect sizes for different age groups. The median average cut-off between younger and older age groups was 66 years (IQR 65 to 72.5 years) and the highest cut-off used was 75 years. The median hazard ratio was 0.77 (IQR 0.67 to 0.80) for the younger age group and 0.76 (IQR 0.73 to 0.88) for the older age group. In 8 of the 10 trials, the effect size in the oldest age group was statistically significant on its own including Sacubitril-Valsartan and Dapagliflozin.

Conclusion

When considering the medical therapeutic armamentarium for heart failure as a totality, there is no evidence it is any less effective in older adults than younger adults. The recent Zannad et al cross-trial analysis supported this showing significant additional life years in the patients over 80 years on HF therapy. Whilst there may be practical and frailty-related reasons for not prescribing life-prolonging therapy, the proportional survival benefits of these medications is similar in older adults. This should be utilised where practically possible and discussed with patients when making an informed choice.

P2457Left atrial strain parameters predict clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF

Background

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) are conditions sharing similar diagnostic criteria and symptoms. Left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction has often been considered central to the pathophysiology of both, as determined by current conventional echocardiographic measures of elevated filling pressure and/or an increased in left atrial (LA) volume. However, the independent prognostic importance of LA function, beyond clinical predictors and LV features, in those groups remains unclear.

Aims

To evaluate the prognostic value of LA function measured by speckle tracking echocardiography in patients with new diagnosis of HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Methods

A total of 171 consecutive patients diagnosed with HFpEF with an Ejection Fraction (EF) ≥50%, or HFmrEF with an EF of 40–49% were prospectively enrolled and followed up. Follow-up was completed in 134 patients with HFpEF (n=100) and HFmrEF (n=34) for a median period of 57 months. Baseline characteristic and comorbidities were recorded, as well as conventional resting echocardiographic parameters of systolic and diastolic function. Left atrial phasic function was analysed using 2D-Specle Tracking. Peak-atrial longitudinal strain (PALS) and peak-atrial contraction strain (PACS) were measured, reflecting LA reservoir and pump function respectively. We looked at the relationship of traditional parameters of systolic and diastolic function and LA strain, with the following cardiovascular (CV) events: acute coronary syndromes, new atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular events, HF-related admissions and cardiac deaths.

Results

During a median follow up period of 57 months (range 11.10), of 134 patients, 42 (31%) had at least one CV event, 10 (8%) out of whom had at least one HF-related hospitalization and 5 (4%) had cardiac death. 92 patients (69%) remained event-free. In univariate analysis, lower PALS and PACS were associated with increased risk for the composite endpoint of all CV-events (PALS OR=0.92 p<0.01 and PACS OR=0.92 p<0.05), but only PALS predicted HF admissions (PALS OR=0.86 p<0.05). In multivariate analysis after adjusting for LV EF, E/e' and LAVi, PALS remained significant at predicting CV-events (OR=0.91 p<0.05) and HF admissions (OR=0.85 p<0.05), but PACS did not. Amongst all echocardiographic parameters measured, PALS had the greatest Area Under the Curve at Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis (AUC=0.78 p<0.05) and a PALS value of <23% best predicted future HF-related admissions (sensitivity 0.9, specificity 0.6).

Conclusion

LA dysfunction in HFpEF and HFmrEF is associated with a higher risk of CV events and HF hospitalizations. The association of LA strain with HF hospitalization remained significant after adjustment for systolic and diastolic parameters.