Advanced chronic heart failure: A position statement from the Study Group on Advanced Heart Failure of the Heart Failure Association of the European Societyof Cardiology

Therapy has improved the survival of heart failure (HF) patients. However, many patients progress to advanced chronic HF (ACHF). We propose a practical clinical definition and describe the characteristics of this condition. Patients that are generally recognised as ACHF often exhibit the following characteristics: 1) severe symptoms (NYHA class III to IV); 2) episodes with clinical signs of fluid retention and/or peripheral hypoperfusion; 3) objective evidence of severe cardiac dysfunction, shown by at least one of the following: left ventricular ejection fraction1 HF hospitalisation in the past 6 months; 6) presence of all the previous features despite optimal therapy. This definition identifies a group of patients with compromised quality of life, poor prognosis, and a high risk of clinical events. These patients deserve effective therapeutic options and should be potential targets for future clinical research initiative

Controversies in the Use of Beta Blockers in Heart Failure

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94510/1/j.1527-5299.2003.00294.x.pd

Individual patient data meta-analysis of beta-blockers in heart failure: rationale and design

The Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group (BB-HF) was formed to obtain and analyze individual patient data from the major randomized controlled trials of beta-blockers in heart failure. Even though beta-blockers are an established treatment for heart failure, uptake is still sub-optimal. Further, the balance of efficacy and safety remains uncertain for common groups including older persons, women, those with impaired renal function and diabetes. Our aim is to provide clinicians with a thorough and definitive evidence-based assessment of these agents. We have identified 11 large randomized trials of beta-blockers versus placebo in heart failure and plan to meta-analyze the data on an individual patient level. In total, these trials have enrolled 18,630 patients. Uniquely, the BB-HF group has secured access to the individual data for all of these trials, with the participation of key investigators and pharmaceutical companies.Our principal objectives include deriving an overall estimate of efficacy for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization. Importantly, we propose a statistically-robust sub-group assessment according to age, gender, diabetes and other key factors; analyses which are only achievable using an individual patient data meta-analysis. Further, we aim to provide an assessment of economic benefit and develop a risk model for the prognosis of patients with chronic heart failure.This paper outlines inclusion criteria, search strategies, outcome measures and planned statistical analyses. Clinical trial registration information: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00832442

2020 Heart Failure Society of South Africa perspective on the 2016 European Society of Cardiology Chronic Heart Failure Guidelines

Heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a condition frequently encountered by healthcare professionals and, in order to achieve the best outcomes for patients, needs to be managed optimally. This guideline document is based on the European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the treatment of acute and chronic heart failure published in 2016, and summarises what is considered the best current management of patients with the condition. It provides information on the definition, diagnosis and epidemiology of HFrEF in the African context. The best evidence-based treatments for HFrEF are discussed, including established therapies (beta-blockers, ACE-i/ARBs, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), diuretics) that form the cornerstone of heart failure management as well as therapies that have only recently entered clinical use (angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors). Guidance is offered in terms of more invasive therapies (revascularisation, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) by implantation of a biventricular pacemaker with (CRT-D) or without (CRT-P) an ICD, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) use and heart transplantation) in order to ensure efficient use of these expensive treatment modalities in a resource-limited environment. Furthermore, additional therapies (digoxin, hydralazine and nitrates, ivabradine, iron supplementation) are discussed and advice is provided on general preventive strategies (vaccinations). Sections to discuss conditions that are particularly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa (HIV-associated cardiomyopathy (CMO), peripartum CMO, rheumatic heart disease, atrial fibrillation) have been added to further improve clinical care for these commonly encountered disease processes. You are encouraged to read the complete 2016 ESC Heart Failure guideline: Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al.; on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J 2016,37:2129-2200

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction in CHARM: characteristics, outcomes and effect of candesartan across the entire ejection fraction spectrum.

AIMS: We tested the hypothesis that candesartan improves outcomes in heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction [HFmrEF; ejection fraction (EF) 40-49%]. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 7598 patients enrolled in the CHARM Programme (HF across the spectrum of EF), we assessed characteristics, outcomes and treatment effect of candesartan according to EF. Patients with HFmrEF (n = 1322, 17%) were similar to those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; n = 4323, 57%) with respect to some characteristics, and intermediate between HFrEF and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; n = 1953, 26%) with respect to others. Over a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, the incidence rates for the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization were 15.9, 8.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF. In adjusted analyses, the rates of the primary outcome declined with increasing EF up to 50%. For treatment effect, the incidence rates for the primary outcome for candesartan vs. placebo were 14.4 vs. 17.5 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.91; P < 0.001], 7.4 vs. 9.7 per 100 patient-years in HFmrEF (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.02), and 8.6 vs. 9.1 per 100 patient-years in HFpEF (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.14; P = 0.57). For recurrent HF hospitalization, the incidence rate ratios were 0.68 in HFrEF (95% CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), 0.48 in HFmrEF (95% CI 0.33-0.70; P < 0.001), and 0.78 in HFpEF (95% CI 0.59-1.03; P = 0.08). With EF as a continuous spline variable, candesartan significantly reduced the primary outcome until EF well over 50% and recurrent HF hospitalizations until EF well over 60%. CONCLUSION: Candesartan improved outcomes in HFmrEF to a similar degree as in HFrEF. ClinicalTrials.gov: CHARM Alternative NCT00634400, CHARM Added NCT00634309, CHARM Preserved NCT00634712

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril at lower than target doses in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AimsIn this analysis, we utilized data from PARADIGM-HF to test the hypothesis that participants who exhibited any dose reduction during the trial would have similar benefits from lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to lower doses of enalapril.Methods and resultsIn a post-hoc analysis from PARADIGM-HF, we characterized patients by whether they received the maximal dose (200 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 10 mg enalapril twice daily) throughout the trial or had any dose reduction to lower doses (100/50/0 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 5/2.5/0 mg enalapril twice daily). The treatment effect for the primary outcome was estimated, stratified by dose level using time-updated Cox regression models. In the two treatment arms, participants with a dose reduction (43% of those randomized to enalapril and 42% of those randomized to sacubitril/valsartan) had similar baseline characteristics and similar baseline predictors of the need for dose reduction. In a time-updated analysis, any dose reduction was associated with a higher subsequent risk of the primary event [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-2.7]. However, the treatment benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril following a dose reduction was similar (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93, P &lt; 0.001) to that observed in patients who had not experienced any dose reduction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.88, P &lt; 0.001).ConclusionsIn PARADIGM-HF, study medication dose reduction identified patients at higher risk of a major cardiovascular event. The magnitude of benefit for patients on lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to those on lower doses of enalapril was similar to that of patients who remained on target doses of both drugs

Impact of Renal Impairment on Beta-Blocker Efficacy in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Moderate and moderately severe renal impairment are common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but whether beta-blockers are effective is unclear, leading to underuse of life-saving therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate patient prognosis and the efficacy of beta-blockers according to renal function using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS: Analysis of 16,740 individual patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% from 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials was performed. The authors report all-cause mortality on an intention-to-treat basis, adjusted for baseline covariates and stratified by heart rhythm. RESULTS: Median eGFR at baseline was 63 (interquartile range: 50 to 77) ml/min/1.73 m2; 4,584 patients (27.4%) had eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 2,286 (13.7%) 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2. Over a median follow-up of 1.3 years, eGFR was independently associated with mortality, with a 12% higher risk of death for every 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 lower eGFR (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10% to 15%; p < 0.001). In 13,861 patients in sinus rhythm, beta-blockers reduced mortality versus placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.73 for eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86; p < 0.001) and 0.71 for eGFR 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.87; p = 0.001). The authors observed no deterioration in renal function over time in patients with moderate or moderately severe renal impairment, no difference in adverse events comparing beta-blockers with placebo, and higher mortality in patients with worsening renal function on follow-up. Due to exclusion criteria, there were insufficient patients with severe renal dysfunction (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2) to draw conclusions. In 2,879 patients with atrial fibrillation, there was no reduction in mortality with beta-blockers at any level of eGFR. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and sinus rhythm should receive beta-blocker therapy even with moderate or moderately severe renal dysfunction