Association between loop diuretic dose changes and outcomes in chronic heart failure: observations from the ESC-EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

[Abstract] Aims. Guidelines recommend down-titration of loop diuretics (LD) once euvolaemia is achieved. In outpatients with heart failure (HF), we investigated LD dose changes in daily cardiology practice, agreement with guideline recommendations, predictors of successful LD down-titration and association between dose changes and outcomes. Methods and results. We included 8130 HF patients from the ESC-EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry. Among patients who had dose decreased, successful decrease was defined as the decrease not followed by death, HF hospitalization, New York Heart Association class deterioration, or subsequent increase in LD dose. Mean age was 66±13 years, 71% men, 62% HF with reduced ejection fraction, 19% HF with mid-range ejection fraction, 19% HF with preserved ejection fraction. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] LD dose was 40 (25–80) mg. LD dose was increased in 16%, decreased in 8.3% and unchanged in 76%. Median (IQR) follow-up was 372 (363–419) days. Diuretic dose increase (vs. no change) was associated with HF death [hazard ratio (HR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12–2.08; P = 0.008] and nominally with cardiovascular death (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.96–1.63; P = 0.103). Decrease of diuretic dose (vs. no change) was associated with nominally lower HF (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33–1.07; P = 0.083) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.62 95% CI 0.38–1.00; P = 0.052). Among patients who had LD dose decreased, systolic blood pressure [odds ratio (OR) 1.11 per 10 mmHg increase, 95% CI 1.01–1.22; P = 0.032], and absence of (i) sleep apnoea (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09–0.69; P = 0.008), (ii) peripheral congestion (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29–0.80; P = 0.005), and (iii) moderate/severe mitral regurgitation (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37–0.87; P = 0.008) were independently associated with successful decrease. Conclusion. Diuretic dose was unchanged in 76% and decreased in 8.3% of outpatients with chronic HF. LD dose increase was associated with worse outcomes, while the LD dose decrease group showed a trend for better outcomes compared with the no-change group. Higher systolic blood pressure, and absence of (i) sleep apnoea, (ii) peripheral congestion, and (iii) moderate/severe mitral regurgitation were independently associated with successful dose decrease

Sex- and age-related differences in the management and outcomes of chronic heart failure: an analysis of patients from the ESC HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Aims: This study aimed to assess age- and sex-related differences in management and 1-year risk for all-cause mortality and hospitalization in chronic heart failure (HF) patients. Methods and results: Of 16 354 patients included in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry, 9428 chronic HF patients were analysed [median age: 66 years; 28.5% women; mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 37%]. Rates of use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) were high (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists: 85.7%, 88.7% and 58.8%, respectively). Crude GDMT utilization rates were lower in women than in men (all differences: P\ua0 64 0.001), and GDMT use became lower with ageing in both sexes, at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. Sex was not an independent predictor of GDMT prescription; however, age >75 years was a significant predictor of GDMT underutilization. Rates of all-cause mortality were lower in women than in men (7.1% vs. 8.7%; P\ua0=\ua00.015), as were rates of all-cause hospitalization (21.9% vs. 27.3%; P\ua075 years. Conclusions: There was a decline in GDMT use with advanced age in both sexes. Sex was not an independent predictor of GDMT or adverse outcomes. However, age >75 years independently predicted lower GDMT use and higher all-cause mortality in patients with LVEF 6445%

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure &lt; 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

First three months of anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in non-cancer patients: LMWH VS. VKAs. Findings from the RIETE registry

Background: The use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for long-term therapy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients without cancer has not been consistently evaluated. Methods: We used the data in the RIETE registry to compare the 3-month outcomes (VTE recurrences, major bleeding or death) in non-cancer patients with VTE, according to long-term therapy with LMWH or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Results: As of March 2018, 14,582 non-cancer patients with VTE had received initial therapy with LMWH and then switched to VKAs, while 9151 were prescribed LMWH for initial and long-term therapy. Overall, 11,494 had initially presented with pulmonary embolism (PE) and 12,239 with isolated deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Among 11,494 patients initially presenting with PE, 84 had VTE recurrences, 204 major bleeding and 406 died. Among 12,239 patients with isolated DVT, 133 developed VTE recurrences, 137 bled and 289 died. On propensity score analysis, PE patients on long-term LMWH therapy were at increased risk for PE recurrences (OR: 3.30; 95%CI: 1.67–6.48), major bleeding (OR: 1.68; 95%CI: 1.21–2.32) or death (OR: 3.16; 95%CI: 2.43–4.09) compared with those receiving VKAs. In patients with DVT, those on long-term LMWH also were at increased risk for PE recurrences (OR: 2.31; 95%CI: 1.13–4.73), major bleeding (OR 2.28; 95%CI: 1.51–3.44) or death (OR: 2.32; 95%CI: 1.54–3.51). Conclusions: In the RIETE non-cancer patients with VTE, long-term therapy with VKAs was associated with a lower risk for recurrences, major bleeding or death

Potentiation effect of the AMPK activator A-769662 on cardiac myocytes metabolism and survival

Abstract 286 van Poster session 2 Frontiers in CardioVascular Biology, London 30th March – 1st April 2012 Second Congress of the ESC Council on Basic Cardiovascular Science

Sacubitril/valsartan eligibility and outcomes in the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry: bridging between European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration label, the PARADIGM-HF trial, ESC guidelines, and real world

Aims: To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results: Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%). and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF. Conclusions: Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group