Effect of anaemia and iron deficiency in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to clarify the prevalence and prognostic impact of anaemia and iron deficiency in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

BACKGROUND

The prognostic impact of anaemia and iron deficiency in HFmrEF has not yet been clarified.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with HFmrEF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Patients with anaemia (i.e. haemoglobin <13 g/dL in males and < 12 g/dL in females) were compared to patients without, respectively patients with or without iron deficiency. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up), secondary endpoints comprised HF-related rehospitalisation.

RESULTS

Two thousand one hundred and fifty four patients with HFmrEF with a median haemoglobin level of 12.2 g/dL were included. Anaemia was present in 52% of patients with HFmrEF and associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (44% vs. 18%; HR = 3.021; 95% CI 2.552-3.576; p =.001) and HF-related rehospitalisation (18% vs. 8%; HR = 2.351; 95% CI 1.819-3.040; p =.001) at 30 months, which was confirmed after multivariable adjustment. Although iron status was infrequently assessed in anaemics with HFmrEF (27%), the presence of iron deficiency was associated with higher risk of rehospitalisation for worsening HF (25% vs. 15%; HR = 1.746; 95% CI 1.024-2.976; p =.038), but not all-cause mortality (p =.279) at 30 months.

CONCLUSION

Anaemia and iron deficiency are very common in atleast half of patients with HFmrEF and independently associated with adverse long-term prognosis.

Contemporary Use and Implications of Beta-Blockers in Patients With HFmrEF or HFpEF: The DELIVER Trial

BACKGROUND

Although beta-blockers are not recommended for the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to the latest European Society of Cardiology and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America guidelines, these therapies remain commonly used for comorbidity management. There has been concern that beta-blockers may adversely influence clinical outcomes by limiting chronotropic response in HFpEF.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the contemporary use and implications of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or HFpEF.

METHODS

In the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial, a total of 6,263 patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40% were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo across 20 countries. In this prespecified analysis, efficacy and safety outcomes were examined according to beta-blocker use at randomization. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

RESULTS

Overall, beta-blockers were used in 5,177 patients (83%), with wide variation by geographic region. Beta-blocker use was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome in covariate-adjusted models (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60-0.83). Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk of the primary outcome in patients taking beta-blockers (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72-0.94) and in patients not taking beta-blockers (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.61-1.03; Pinteraction = 0.85), with similar findings for key secondary endpoints. Adverse events were balanced between patients randomized to dapagliflozin and placebo, regardless of background beta-blocker use.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF who were enrolled in DELIVER, 4 out of 5 participants were treated with a beta-blocker. Beta-blocker use was not associated with a higher risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Dapagliflozin consistently and safely reduced clinical events, irrespective of background beta-blocker use. (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

Prognostic Value of Mitral Valve Regurgitation in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Although mitral valve regurgitation (MR) is a common valvular heart disease in patients with heart failure (HF), there is a paucity of data on the characterization and outcomes of patients with HFmrEF and concomitant MR.

METHODS

From 2016 to 2022, consecutive patients hospitalized with HFmrEF (i.e., left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution. Patients with MR were compared with patients without, further risk stratification was performed according to MR severity an etiology (i.e., primary vs. secondary MR). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30-months (median follow-up), key secondary endpoint was hospitalization for worsening HF.

RESULTS

From a total of 2,181 patients hospitalized with HFmrEF, 59% presented with mild, 10% with moderate and 2% with severe MR. MR was associated with increased all-cause mortality at 30 months (HR = 1.756; 95% CI 1.458 - 2.114; p = 0.001), with higher risk in more advanced stages. Furthermore, MR patients had higher risk of HF-related re-hospitalization at 30 months (HR = 1.560; 95% CI 1.172 - 2.076; p = 0.002). Even after multivariable adjustment, mild, moderate and severe MR were still associated with all-cause mortality. Finally, the risk of all-cause mortality was lower in patients with secondary MR compared to patients with primary MR (HR = 0.592; 95% CI 0.366 - 0.956; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

MR is common in HFmrEF and independently associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and HF-hospitalization.

Effect of Heart Failure Pharmacotherapies in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

OBJECTIVE

The study sought to comprehensively investigate the effect of heart failure (HF) pharmacotherapies in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

BACKGROUND

In the absence of randomized controlled trials, guideline recommendations concerning HF-related therapies in patients with HFmrEF are limited.

METHODS

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 transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) was investigated for all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up) and HF-related rehospitalization.

RESULTS

2,109 patients with HFmrEF were included. Treatment with BB (27.0% vs. 35%; HR = 0.737; 95% 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 lower risk of 30-months 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

BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and SGLT2i were independently associated with 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.

The prognostic value of the visually assessed time difference between mitral valve and tricuspid valve opening score for patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The visually assessed time difference between the mitral valve and tricuspid valve opening (VMT) score was correlated with the increase of left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP).

HYPOTHESIS

We suspected that the VMT score might be a valuable prognostic biomarker for heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) patients. This study was to evaluate the predictive value of VMT score for 1-year all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD)-cause mortality in HFmrEF patients.

METHODS

This cohort study enrolled 379 patients aged ≥18 years old with HFmrEF. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis was employed to assess the association between VMT score and all-cause or CVD-cause mortality in HFmrEF patients. Hazards ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were effect sizes. Kaplan-Meier curves showed the survival probability of patients. The area under the curve (AUC) evaluated the prognostic value of the VMT score.

RESULTS

The risk of all-cause mortality was increased in HFmrEF patients in the VMT score of 2 (HR = 2.80, 95%CI: 1.04-7.52) and 3 (HR = 4.29, 95%CI: 1.58-11.66). The VMT score of 3 was associated with an increased risk of 1-year CVD-cause mortality in patients with HFmrEF (HR = 7.63, 95%CI: 1.70-34.33). The AUC of VMT score for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality of HFmrEF patients was 0.724, and for predicting 1-year CVD-cause mortality of HFmrEF patients was 0.748. The survival probability of patients with the VMT score < 2 was higher than those with the VMT score of 2 and 3.

CONCLUSION

The VMT score might be a reliable prognostic index for 1-year all-cause or CVD-cause mortality of HFmrEF patients.

Prognostic Implications of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the characterization and outcomes of diabetics with heart failure with a mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is scarce. This study investigates the prevalence and prognostic impact of type 2 diabetes in patients with HFmrEF.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (i.e., left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Patients with type 2 diabetes (dia-betics) were compared to patients without (i.e., non-diabetics). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 months. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox regression analyses and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 2169 patients with HFmrEF were included. The overall prevalence of type 2 diabetes was 36%. Diabetics had an increased risk of 30-months all-cause mortality (35.8% vs. 28.6%; HR = 1.273; 95% CI 1.092-1.483; p = 0.002), which was confirmed after multivariable adjustment (HR = 1.234; 95% CI 1.030-1.479; p = 0.022) and propensity score matching (HR = 1.265; 95% CI 1.018-1.572; p = 0.034). Diabetics had a higher risk of HF-related rehospitalization (17.8% vs. 10.7%; HR = 1.714; 95% CI 1.355-2.169; p = 0.001). Finally, the risk of all-cause mortality was increased in diabetics treated with insulin (40.7% vs. 33.1%; log-rank p = 0.029), whereas other anti-diabetic pharmacotherapies had no prognostic impact in HFmrEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Type 2 diabetes is common and independently associated with adverse long-term prognosis in patients with HFmrEF.

Prognostic Implications of Septal Hypertrophy in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

Cardiac remodeling is frequently observed in patients with heart failure (HF) and serves as an indicator of disease progression and severity. Septal hypertrophy represents an aspect of remodeling that can be easily assessed via an echocardiographic measurement of the interventricular septal end diastole (IVSd), but it has not been evaluated for its prognostic value, particularly in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). We retrospectively included 1881 consecutive patients hospitalized with HFmrEF (i.e., a left ventricular ejection fraction of 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) at one institution during a study period from 2016 to 2022. Septal hypertrophy, defined as an IVSd > 12 mm, was prevalent in 34% of the HFmrEF patients. Although septal hypertrophy was not associated with all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up) (HR = 1.067; 95% CI: 0.898-1.267; p = 0.460), it was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization due to worsening HF at 30 months (HR = 1.303; 95% CI: 1.008-1.685; p = 0.044), which was confirmed even after multivariable adjustment (HR = 1.340; 95% CI: 1.002-1.792; p = 0.049) and propensity score matching (HR = 1.399; 95% CI: 1.002-1.951; p = 0.048). Although septal hypertrophy was not associated with the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HFmrEF, it was identified as an independent predictor of long-term HF-related rehospitalization.

Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Aminoterminal Prohormone of Brain Natriuretic Peptide in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction Stratified by the Degree of Renal Dysfunction

Limited data concerning the diagnostic and prognostic value of blood-derived biomarkers in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is available. This study investigates the diagnostic and prognostic value of aminoterminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in patients with HFmrEF, stratified by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Consecutive patients with HFmrEF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. First, the diagnostic value of NT-proBNP for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) was tested. Thereafter, the prognostic value of NT-proBNP levels was tested for 30-months all-cause mortality in patients with ADHF. From a total of 755 patients hospitalized with HFmrEF, the rate of ADHF was 42%. Patients with ADHF revealed higher NT-proBNP levels compared to patients without (median 5394 pg/mL vs. 1655 pg/mL; p = 0.001). NT-proBNP was able to discriminate ADHF with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.777 (p = 0.001), with the highest AUC in patients with eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min (AUC = 0.800; p = 0.001), and no diagnostic value was seen in eGFR < 30 mL/min (AUC = 0.576; p = 0.210). Patients with NT-proBNP levels > 3946 pg/mL were associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality at 30 months (57.7% vs. 34.4%; HR = 2.036; 95% CI 1.423-2.912; p = 0.001), even after multivariable adjustment (HR = 1.712; 95% CI 1.166-2.512; p = 0.006). In conclusion, increasing NT-proBNP levels predicted the risk of ADHF and all-cause mortality in patients with HFmrEF and preserved renal function; however, NT-proBNP levels were not predictive in patients with HFmrEF and eGFR < 30 mL/min.

[Sacubitril/valsartan in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and worsening heart failure: A review]

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as growing economic burden. This review describes recent studies on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors Among Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction

OBJECTIVE

Results from large placebo-controlled randomized trials in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) have become available recently. This article discusses results of these clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed articles were identified from MEDLINE (1966 to December 31, 2022) using search terms dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, SGLT-2Is, HFmrEF, and HFpEF.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Eight completed, pertinent clinical trials were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

EMPEROR-Preserved, and DELIVER demonstrated that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin reduce CV death and heart failure hospitalization (HHF) in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, with/without diabetes when added to a standard heart failure (HF) regimen. The benefit is primarily due to reduction in HHF. Additional data from post hoc analyses of trials of dapagliflozin, ertugliflozin, and sotagliflozin suggest that these benefits may be a class effect. Benefits appear greatest in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction 41% up to about 65%.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

While many pharmacologic treatments have been proven to reduce mortality and improve cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in people with HFmrEF and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), there are few therapy which improve CV outcome in people with HFpEF. SGLT-2I become one of the first class of pharmacologic agent that can be used to reduce HHF and CV mortality.

CONCLUSION

Studies showed that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin reduce the combined risk of CV death or HHF in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF when added to a standard HF regimen. Given that benefit has now been demonstrated across the spectrum of HF, SGLT-2Is should be considered one of the standard HF pharmacotherapy.

Combined Radiofrequency Ablation and Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Atrial Fibrillation and Systolic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Managing patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and comorbid heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF) or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is of clinical importance but a great challenge. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of the combined radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedure in AF patients complicated with systolic HF.

METHODS

AF patients with HFrEF or HFmrEF who underwent the combined RFCA and LAAC procedure were prospectively enrolled in the LAACablation registry. The procedural complications and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Another cohort of AF patients with systolic HF who did not undergo either RFCA or LAAC were used for prognosis comparison.

RESULTS

Among 802 AF patients who underwent the combined procedure, 65 patients were comorbid with systolic HF (25 with HFrEF and 40 with HFmrEF). The overall procedural complication rate was 9.2%, which was mainly attributed to acute decompensated HF (6.2%). Accompanied with markedly reduced AF burden (from median [25th, 75th percentile]: 100 [100, 100] to 0 [0, 1.2]%, p < 0.001), upward trajectories of cardiac function were observed in 51 (78.4%) patients, showing improvement in New York Heart Classification (p < 0.01), natriuretic peptide levels (from 1492 [809, 3259] to 413 [163, 880] pg/mL, p < 0.001) and left ventricular EF (from 42.6 ± 5.3 to 53.8 ± 8.2%, p < 0.001). During the 27-month follow-up period, death, thromboembolism, major bleeding, and HF rehospitalization were observed in three, one, one, and four patients, respectively. The observed event rates showed a significant reduction compared with the non-procedure AF-HF cohort (n = 138; for composite endpoint: hazard ratio: 2.509, 95% confidence interval: 1.415-4.449, p = 0.002) and with the respective rates predicted by risk scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining RFCA and LAAC achieves acceptable safety and credible long-term efficacy in AF patients with systolic HF. Further randomized studies are warranted in a larger patient cohort.

Total 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Is an Independent Marker of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Heart Failure with Reduced and Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

Vitamin D emerged as an important prognostic biomarker in heart failure (HF), with currently highly debated therapeutic implications. Several trials on vitamin D supplementation in HF showed improvements in left ventricular (LV) remodeling and function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which did not translate into mid- to long-term beneficial effects regarding physical performance and mortality. We addressed total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), serum albumin, and uric acid (UA) levels, focusing mainly on vitamin D deficiency, as potential markers of LV systolic dysfunction in HF with reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, HFmrEF). Seventy patients with LVEF < 50% were comprehensively evaluated using ECG, echocardiography, lung ultrasound (LUS), blood sampling, and the six-minute walk test (6MWT). HRQoL was also assessed using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ). Statistically significant positive correlations were found between LVEF, 25(OH)D, serum UA, and albumin, respectively (p = 0.008, p = 0.009, and p = 0.001). Serum UA (7.4 ± 2.4 vs. 5.7 ± 2.1, p = 0.005), NT-proBNP levels (1090.4 (675.2-2664.9) vs. 759.0 (260.3-1474.8), p = 0.034), and MLHFQ scores (21.0 (14.0-47.0) vs. 14.5 (4.5-25.5), p = 0.012) were significantly higher, whereas 25(OH)D concentrations (17.6 (15.1-28.2) vs. 22.7 (19.5-33.8), p = 0.010) were lower in subjects with severely reduced LVEF. Also, 25(OH)D was independently associated with LVEF in univariate and multiple regression analysis, maintaining its significance even after adjusting for confounders such as age, NT-proBNP, the presence of chronic coronary syndrome, hypertension, and anemia. According to our current findings, 25(OH)D is closely associated with LVEF, further supporting the need to establish correct vitamin D supplementation schemes and dietary interventions in HF. The changes in LVEF, 25(OH)D, serum UA, and albumin levels in HFrEF and HFmrEF indicate a similar pathophysiological background.

Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction According to Polypharmacy Status

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) have a high burden of multimorbidity, often necessitating numerous medications. There may be clinical concern about introducing another medication, especially among individuals with polypharmacy.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the efficacy and safety of addition of dapagliflozin according to the number of concomitant medications in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial, 6,263 participants with symptomatic HF with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo. Baseline medication use (including vitamins and supplements) was collected. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by medication use categories ("nonpolypharmacy": <5 medications; "polypharmacy": 5 to 9 medications; and "hyperpolypharmacy": ≥10 medications) and continuously. The primary outcome was worsening HF or cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

Overall, 3,795 (60.6%) patients met polypharmacy and 1,886 (30.1%) met hyperpolypharmacy criteria. Higher numbers of medications were strongly associated with higher comorbidity burden and increased rates of the primary outcome. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin similarly reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of polypharmacy status (nonpolypharmacy HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.58-1.34]; polypharmacy HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.75-1.03]; hyperpolypharmacy HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.60-0.88]; Pinteraction = 0.30). Similarly, benefits with dapagliflozin were consistent across the spectrum of total medication use (Pinteraction = 0.06). Although adverse events increased with higher number of medications, they were not more frequent with dapagliflozin, regardless of polypharmacy status.

CONCLUSIONS

In the DELIVER trial, dapagliflozin safely reduced worsening HF or cardiovascular death across a broad range of baseline medication use, including among individuals with polypharmacy (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

Dapagliflozin and diuretic utilization in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: the DELIVER trial

AIMS

Dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. In this study, the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin according to background diuretic therapy and the influence of dapagliflozin on longitudinal diuretic use were evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this pre-specified analysis of the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial, the effects of dapagliflozin vs. placebo were assessed in the following subgroups: no diuretic, non-loop diuretic, and loop diuretic furosemide equivalent doses of <40, 40, and >40 mg, respectively. Of the 6263 randomized patients, 683 (10.9%) were on no diuretic, 769 (12.3%) were on a non-loop diuretic, and 4811 (76.8%) were on a loop diuretic at baseline. Treatment benefits of dapagliflozin on the primary composite outcome were consistent by diuretic use categories (Pinteraction = 0.64) or loop diuretic dose (Pinteraction = 0.57). Serious adverse events were similar between dapagliflozin and placebo arms, irrespective of diuretic use or dosing. Dapagliflozin reduced new initiation of loop diuretics by 32% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.84, P < 0.001] but did not influence discontinuations/disruptions (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86-1.13, P = 0.83) in follow-up. First sustained loop diuretic dose increases were less frequent, and sustained dose decreases were more frequent in patients treated with dapagliflozin: net difference of -6.5% (95% CI: -9.4 to -3.6; P < 0.001). The mean dose of loop diuretic increased over time in the placebo arm, a longitudinal increase that was significantly attenuated with treatment with dapagliflozin (placebo-corrected treatment effect of -2.5 mg/year; 95% CI: -1.5, -3.7, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, the clinical benefits of dapagliflozin relative to placebo were consistent across a wide range of diuretic categories and doses with a similar safety profile. Treatment with dapagliflozin significantly reduced new loop diuretic requirement over time.

Global Public Health Burden of Heart Failure: An Updated Review

Heart failure (HF) is a rapidly growing public health issue with an estimated prevalence of 64 million people globally. Although the incidence of HF has stabilised worldwide and seems to be declining in developed countries, the prevalence is increasing due to the ageing of the population, improved survival after MI and improved treatment and survival of patients with HF. Yet, HF remains associated with high mortality and morbidity, poor quality of life and functional capacity, and confers a substantial burden to the healthcare system. The prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity rates reported show geographical variations, depending on the different aetiologies and clinical characteristics observed among patients with HF. In this review, we provide an overview of the global epidemiology of HF with updated data on prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity worldwide.

Conduction system pacing improves the outcomes on patients with high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSP in patients with a high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with HFmrEF.

Methods

Patients who underwent CSP for HFmrEF and ventricular pacing >40% were consecutively enrolled from January 2018 to May 2021. All participants were followed up at least 12 months. Clinical data including cardiac performance and lead outcomes were compared before and after the procedure. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured using the biplane Simpson's method. HFmrEF was defined as heart failure with the LVEF ranging from 41%-49%.

Results

CSP was successfully performed in 64 cases (96.97%), which included 16 cases of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and 48 cases of His bundle pacing (HBP). After a mean of 23.12 ± 8.17 months follow-up, NYHA classification (P < 0.001), LVEF (42.45 ± 1.84% vs. 49.97 ± 3.57%, P < 0.001) and left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (55.59 ± 6.17 mm vs. 51.66 ± 3.48 mm, P < 0.001) improved significantly. During follow-up, more than half (39/64,60.9%) of patients returned to normal LVEF and LVEDD with complete reverse remodeling. The pacing threshold in LBBP was lower (0.90 ± 0.27 V@0.4 ms vs. 1.61 ± 0.71 V@0.4 ms, P < 0.001) than that in HBP. No perforation, electrode dislodging, thrombosis or infection was observed during follow-up.

Conclusions

CSP could improve the clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF and a high percentage of ventricular pacing. LBBP might be a better choice because of its feasibility and safety, especially in patients with infranodal atrioventricular block.

Left bundle branch area pacing in mildly reduced heart failure: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) strategy for heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is controversial. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging pacing modality and an alternative option to CRT. This analysis aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the impact of the LBBAP strategy in HFmrEF, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 35% and 50%. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP from inception to July 17, 2022. The outcomes of interest were QRS duration and LVEF at baseline and follow-up in mid-range heart failure. Data were extracted and summarized. A random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to synthesize the results. Out of 1065 articles, 8 met the inclusion criteria for 211 mid-range heart failure patients with an implant LBBAP across the 16 centers. The average implant success rate with lumenless pacing lead use was 91.3%, and 19 complications were reported among all 211 enrolled patients. During the average follow-up of 9.1 months, the average LVEF was 39.8% at baseline and 50.5% at follow-up (MD: 10.90%, 95% CI: 6.56-15.23, p < .01). Average QRS duration was 152.6 ms at baseline and 119.3 ms at follow-up (MD: -34.51 ms, 95% CI: -60.00 to -9.02, p < .01). LBBAP could significantly reduce QRS duration and improve systolic function in a patient with LVEF between 35% and 50%. Application of LBBAP as a CRT strategy for HFmrEF may be a viable option.

Projected clinical benefits of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Aims: To address the projected clinical benefits of dapagliflozin among patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: A multicenter, prospective, cohort study of patients ≥50 years admitted with HF to Spanish internal medicine departments. The projected clinical benefits of dapagliflozin were calculated from the DELIVER trial. Results: A total of 4049 patients were included; 3271 (80.8%) were eligible for dapagliflozin treatment, according to DELIVER criteria. Within 1 year after discharge, 22.2% were rehospitalized for HF and 21.6% died. Implementation of dapagliflozin would translate into an absolute risk reduction of 1.3% for mortality and 5.1% for HF readmission. Conclusion: HF patients with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction have a high risk of events. The use of dapagliflozin could substantially reduce the HF burden.

Patient Selection for Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction

The mineralocorticoid receptor is a steroid hormone receptor that contributes to cardiac tissue inflammation, fibrosis, and cardiac dysfunction and plays an important role in the pathophysiology of heart failure. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) are an important component of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure to improve clinical outcomes. Clinical trial evidence in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) informed a strong guideline recommendation for use of MRA in symptomatic patients, barring contraindications. In heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), data are less robust, and this drug class received a weaker recommendation in the heart failure treatment guidelines. Thus, careful selection of patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF who are most likely to benefit from MRA is paramount to better optimize use of these medications. The purpose of this narrative review is to outline the rationale for the use of MRA in heart failure, summarize the clinical trial evidence for MRA in HFmrEF/HFpEF, discuss clinical considerations for their use, and describe investigations of nonsteroidal MRA in HFmrEF/HFpEF.

Association of Depression and Anxiety with Cardiac Structural and Functional Characteristics in Heart Failure with Reduced and Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure and mental health conditions frequently coexist and have a negative impact on health-related quality of life and prognosis. We aimed to evaluate depression and anxiety symptoms and to determine the association between psychological distress and cardiac parameters in heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction. A total of 43 patients (33 male, mean age 64 ± 10 years) with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (29 with HFrEF, 14 with HFmrEF) underwent comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation. All study participants completed questionnaires for the assessment of depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and health-related quality of life (MLHFQ). Ten (34%) patients with HFrEF and two (14%) participants with HFmrEF had moderate-to-severe depression symptoms. Significant anxiety symptoms were more frequent in HFrEF (10 vs. 2 patients; 34% vs. 14%). Poor quality of life was also more common among patients with HFrEF (17 vs. 5 patients; 59% vs. 36%), showing higher MLHFQ scores (p = 0.009). Moreover, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and MLHFQ scores showed significant correlations between NYHA class severity and the presence of peripheral edema. The symptoms of dyspnea correlated with both PHQ-9 and MLHFQ scores. Significant correlations were observed between MLHFQ scores and a large number of clinical features, such as exercise capacity, 6MWT distance, the need for furosemide, echocardiographic parameters (LVEDVI, LVESVI, LVEF, LVGLS, SVI), and laboratory variables (albumin, GFR, NT-proBNP). In the multiple linear regression analysis, dyspnea proved to be a significant predictor of higher PHQ-9 and MLHFQ scores, even after adjusting for potential confounders. High symptom burden due to psychological distress is common among patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF. More efficient control of congestion may improve depression, anxiety symptoms, and health-related quality of life.

Proteomic profiling of epicardial fat in heart failure with preserved versus reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction

In order to explore the proteomic signatures of epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) related to the mechanism of heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF/HFmrEF) and heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a comprehensive proteomic analysis of EAT was made in HFrEF/HFmrEF (n = 5) and HFpEF (n = 5) patients with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry experiments. The selected differential proteins were verified between HFrEF/HFmrEF (n = 20) and HFpEF (n = 40) by ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). A total of 599 EAT proteins were significantly different in expression between HFrEF/HFmrEF and HFpEF. Among the 599 proteins, 58 proteins increased in HFrEF/HFmrEF compared to HFpEF, whereas 541 proteins decreased in HFrEF/HFmrEF. Of these proteins, TGM2 in EAT was down-regulated in HFrEF/HFmrEF patients and was confirmed to decrease in circulating plasma of the HFrEF/HFmrEF group (p = 0.019). Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed plasma TGM2 could be an independent predictor of HFrEF/HFmrEF (p = 0.033). Receiver operating curve analysis indicated that the combination of TGM2 and Gensini score improved the diagnostic value of HFrEF/HFmrEF (p = 0.002). In summary, for the first time, we described the proteome in EAT in both HFpEF and HFrEF/HFmrEF and identified a comprehensive dimension of potential targets for the mechanism behind the EF spectrum. Exploring the role of EAT may offer potential targets for preventive intervention of HF.

Effect of Dapagliflozin on Health Status in Patients With Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) experience a high burden of symptoms, physical limitations, and poor quality of life; improving health status is a key goal of management.

OBJECTIVES

In a prespecified analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial, we examine effects of dapagliflozin on health status using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).

METHODS

The DELIVER trial randomized patients with symptomatic HFmrEF/HFpEF to dapagliflozin 10 mg or placebo. KCCQ was evaluated at randomization, 1, 4, and 8 months; KCCQ Total Symptom Score (TSS) was a key secondary endpoint. Patients were stratified by KCCQ-TSS tertiles; Cox models examined effects of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes. We evaluated the effects of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-TSS, Physical Limitations (PLS), Clinical Summary (CSS), and Overall Summary (OSS) domains. Responder analyses compared proportions of dapagliflozin vs placebo-treated patients with clinically meaningful changes in KCCQ.

RESULTS

A total of 5,795 patients had baseline KCCQ (median KCCQ-TSS 72.9). The effects of dapagliflozin on reducing cardiovascular death/worsening HF appeared more pronounced in patients with greater baseline symptom burden (lowest-to-highest KCCQ-TSS tertile: HR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.58-0.84]; 0.81 [95% CI: 0.65-1.01]; 1.07 [95% CI: 0.83-1.37]; P_interaction = 0.026). Dapagliflozin improved KCCQ-TSS, -PLS, -CSS, and -OSS at 8 months (2.4, 1.9, 2.3, and 2.1 points higher vs placebo; P < 0.001 for all). Dapagliflozin-treated patients experienced improvements in KCCQ-TSS regardless of EF (P_interaction = 0.85). Fewer dapagliflozin-treated patients had deterioration, and more had improvements in all KCCQ domains at 8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical benefits of dapagliflozin in HFmrEF/HFpEF appear especially pronounced in those with greater baseline symptom impairment. Dapagliflozin improved all KCCQ domains and the proportion of patients experiencing clinically meaningful changes in health status. (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients With PReserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

Is it time for class I recommendation for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction?: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were demonstrated to lower cardiovascular mortality (CV death) and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); however, the advantages of SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are less clear. SGLT2 inhibitors were reported to enhance quality of life (QoL) in HFmrEF or HFpEF patients; however, the findings among studies are inconsistent.

Objective

To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of recent data to assess the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes and QoL in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Method

Three databases were searched for studies that evaluated SGLT2 inhibitors and their effect on cardiovascular outcomes, including CV death, HHF, all-cause death, and the composite outcome of CV death, HHF, and urgent visit for heart failure (HF), and patient QoL (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] score compared to baseline, and increase in KCCQ score ≥ 5 points) that were published during January 2000-August 2022. The meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method and random-effects model. INPLASY registration: INPLASY202290023.

Results

Sixteen studies (9 recent RCTs) were included, and a total of 16,710 HFmrEF or HFpEF patients were enrolled. SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced composite cardiovascular outcome (CV death/HHF/urgent visit for HF; pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.74-0.86) and HHF alone (HR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.67-0.82), but there was no significant reduction in CV death alone (HR: 0.93, 95%CI: 0.82-1.05). Benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors for decreasing CV death/HHF was observed across all subgroups, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) range, diabetes status, New York Heart Association functional class, and baseline renal function. For total HHF, SGLT2 inhibitors conferred benefit in both LVEF 50-60% (HR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.54-0.76), and LVEF >60% (HR: 0.84, 95%CI: 0.71-0.98). Significant change was observed in the KCCQ-clinical summary score compared to baseline (mean difference: 1.33, 95%CI: 1.31-1.35), and meaningful improvement in QoL was shown across all 3 types of increase in KCCQ score ≥ 5 points.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors for improving cardiovascular outcomes and QoL in HFmrEF or HFpEF patients.

Pharmacotherapy Considerations in Heart Failure with Mildly-Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has been classified using various definitions since its first mention in the literature in 2014. This group was most recently defined in the Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure (HF) as HF with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 41% to 49%. An increasing emphasis has been placed on HFmrEF over the past several years, with many recent publications suggesting that common therapies used in HF with reduced ejection fraction provide benefit in this population as well. Patients with HFmrEF comprise approximately one-quarter of all patients with HF. The lack of authoritative guidance concerning pharmacotherapeutic approaches in these patients leaves a significant portion of HF patients without an evidence-based approach. Although it remains unclear if HFmrEF is simply a transitional state from preserved to reduced ejection fraction, or a distinct phenotype requiring medical optimization, there are clear cardiovascular benefits to managing this subset appropriately. This publication was created to help serve as a resource for clinicians on this evolving subset of HF and aid in preventing the progression of this disease state through improved therapy optimization. The objective of this article is to briefly discuss the epidemiology and pathophysiology of HFmrEF and review the pharmacology and clinical application of therapies for the management of HFmrEF.

Estimated Long-Term Benefit of Dapagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines support consideration of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in the long-term management of heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Patients and clinicians may be interested in the expected lifetime benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in this population.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate event-free survival gains from long-term use of dapagliflozin in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction overall and in clinically relevant subgroups.

METHODS

In this prespecified analysis of DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure), we applied validated nonparametric age-based methods to extrapolate potential gains in survival free from the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or worsening HF event) from long-term use of dapagliflozin. Eligible participants had symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, elevated natriuretic peptide levels, and structural heart disease. For every year between the ages of 55 and 85 years, we estimated event-free survival using age at randomization rather than time from randomization as the time horizon. Residual lifespan free from a primary endpoint was estimated based on area under the survival curve in each arm.

RESULTS

Among 6,263 participants, mean survival free from the primary endpoint for a 65-year-old participant was 12.1 years (95% CI: 11.0-13.2 years) with dapagliflozin and 9.7 years (95% CI: 8.8-10.7 years) with placebo, representing a 2.3-year (95% CI: 0.9-3.8 years) event-free survival gain (P = 0.002). Treatment gains in survival free from the primary endpoint ranged from 2.0 years (95% CI: -0.6 to 4.6 years) in a 55-year-old to 1.2 years (95% CI: -0.1 to 2.4 years) in a 75-year-old patient. Mean event-free survival was greater with dapagliflozin than with placebo across all 14 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with dapagliflozin is projected to extend event-free survival by up to 2.0 to 2.5 years among middle-aged and older individuals with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. (DELIVER [Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure]; NCT03619213).

Catheter Ablation for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Insights from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

To investigate the association between catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) and mortality as well as hospitalization for heart failure (HF) in patients with HF across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum.

METHODS

Patients with first-time catheter ablation for AF (ablation group) compared to only medical treated AF patients (no ablation group) were identified from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry between 2005 and 2019. The primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization) was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:2 propensity score (PS) matched cohort and pre-specified EF subgroups (preserved EF [HFpEF] [EF≥50%], mildly reduced EF [HFmrEF] [EF 40% to 49%], reduced EF [HFrEF] [EF<40%]) of this cohort.

RESULTS

452 patients in the ablation and 43766 patients in the no ablation group were identified. After PS matching, 434 patients in the ablation group were compared to 868 patients in the no ablation group. Over a median follow-up of 2.6 years (min. 0.0 years - max. 14.1 years), catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization) (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95%CI,0.65-0.94]). Results were consistent across all EF subgroups. In HFpEF, catheter ablation was also associated with a lower risk of recurrent HF hospitalization (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.17 [95%CI,0.07-0.42]).

CONCLUSION

In HF patients across the EF spectrum, catheter ablation for AF was associated with lower risk of the primary outcome (all-cause mortality/first HF hospitalization). This study supports catheter ablation as a treatment option for AF in HF patients, including those with HFpEF. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: key stumbling blocks for experimental drugs in clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a disease process with a high prevalence. Accounting for more than 50% of all heart failure cases, it carries a significant mortality. So far, there has been a lack of therapeutic options that truly show improvement in morbidity and mortality. Certain novel therapies have shown a decrease in heart failure hospitalizations, however, this beneficial effect was more pronounced for heart failure patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF).

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the pathophysiology of the disease to help elucidate the differences between heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and HFpEF, which could explain why therapies are successful in one (rather than the other). At the focus of this review are non-standardized nomenclature across major trials, the challenges of finding a therapeutic agent for such a heterogeneous population, and identification of specific phenotypes that have different outcomes and could be a target for future therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

Lack of standardized diagnostic criteria, associated with population heterogeneity, might explain why trials have failed to improve outcomes for patients with HFpEF. Standardizing phenotypes and recapitulating these phenotypes in animal models, as well as understanding the mechanisms of the disease at the molecular level could be the first steps in identifying promising therapeutic options.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients With HF With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: DELIVER Trial

OBJECTIVES

This report describes the baseline clinical profiles and management of DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial participants and how these compare with those in other contemporary heart failure with preserved ejection fraction trials.

BACKGROUND

The DELIVER trial was designed to evaluate the effects of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on cardiovascular death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, or urgent HF visits in patients with HF with mildly reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

Adults with symptomatic HF and LVEF >40%, with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and evidence of structural heart disease were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or matching placebo.

RESULTS

A total of 6,263 patients were randomized (mean age: 72 ± 10 years; 44% women; 45% type 2 diabetes mellitus; 45% with body mass index ≥30 kg/m²; and 57% with history of atrial fibrillation or flutter). Most participants had New York Heart Association functional class II symptoms (75%). Baseline mean LVEF was 54.2 ± 8.8% and median NT-proBNP of 1,399 pg/mL (IQR: 962 to 2,210 pg/mL) for patients in atrial fibrillation/flutter compared with 716 pg/mL (IQR: 469 to 1,281 pg/mL) in those who were not. Patients in both hospitalized and ambulatory settings were enrolled, including 10% enrolled in-hospital or within 30 days of a hospitalization for HF. Eighteen percent of participants had HF with improved LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

DELIVER is the largest and broadest clinical trial of this population to date and enrolled high-risk, well-treated patients with HF with mildly reduced and preserved LVEF. (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [NCT03619213]).

Evaluating sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment option for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and preserved ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan is the first-in-class angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor approved in 2015 for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). On 16 February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged that "Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below normal," thus potentially extending the use in subjects with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

AREAS COVERED

The authors outline the regulatory history, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and risk-benefit profile of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF and HFpEF. A critical cross-trial comparison is presented, including sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), together with an insight into the latest European Society of Cardiology guidelines, where the new category of heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction is introduced.

EXPERT OPINION

Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundation of the pharmacological armamentarium in HFrEF to counteract the neuro-hormonal changes and reverse cardiac remodeling, together with beta-blockers, SGLT2i and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The optimal sequence algorithm is an evolving issue, and the authors provide the reader with their personal perspective. A multidisciplinary management is encouraged to minimize the therapeutic inertia and manage tolerability issues, thus supporting adherence. Pragmatic trials, pharmacovigilance, and high-quality real-world evidence are crucial toward personalized safe prescribing of sacubitril/valsartan.

Vascular Dysfunction Predicts Future Deterioration of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with vascular dysfunction and whether vascular function predicts future deterioration of LVEF in patients with HFmrEF. We evaluated endothelial function assessed by flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) and vascular smooth muscle function assessed by nitroglycerine-induced vasodilation (NID) in 69 patients with HFmrEF and 426 patients without HF and evaluated the future deterioration of LVEF, defined as a decrease in LVEF to <40%, in 39 patients with HFmrEF for up to 3 years. Both FMD and NID were significantly lower in patients with HFmrEF than in patients without HF. We categorized patients into two groups based on low tertiles of NID: a low group (NID of <7.0%) and an intermediate and high group (NID of ≥7.0%). There were significant differences between the Kaplan–Meier curves for the deterioration of LVEF in the two groups (p < 0.01). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that NID of <7.0% was an independent predictor of future deterioration of LVEF in patients with HFmrEF. Both endothelial function and vascular smooth muscle function are impaired in patients with HFmrEF compared with those in patients without HF. In addition, low NID of <7.0% predicts future deterioration of LVEF.

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Predicted Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial

BACKGROUND

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, ejection fraction (EF) data were not collected. In the subpopulation with heart failure (HF), we applied a new predictive model for EF to determine the effects of empagliflozin in HF with predicted reduced (HFrEF) vs preserved (HFpEF) EF vs no HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We applied a validated EF predictive model based on patient baseline characteristics and treatments to categorize patients with HF as being likely to have HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF)/HFrEF (EF <50%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%). Cox regression was used to assess the effect of empagliflozin vs placebo on cardiovascular death/HF hospitalization (HHF), cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and HHF in patients with predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no HF. Of 7001 EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients with data available for this analysis, 6314 (90%) had no history of HF. Of the 687 with history of HF, 479 (69.7%) were predicted to have HFmrEF/HFrEF and 208 (30.3%) to have HFpEF. Empagliflozin's treatment effect was consistent in predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no-HF for each outcome (HR [95% CI] for the primary outcome 0.60 [0.31-1.17], 0.79 [0.51-1.23], and 0.63 [0.50-0.78], respectively; P interaction = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, one-third of the patients with HF had predicted HFpEF. The benefits of empagliflozin on HF and mortality outcomes were consistent in nonHF, predicted HFpEF and HFmrEF/HFrEF.