Top ten risk factors for morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic systolic heart failure and elevated heart rate: the SHIFT risk model

Aims We identified easily obtained baseline characteristics associated with outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and elevated heart rate (HR) receiving contemporary guideline-recommended therapy in the SHIFT trial, and used them to develop a prognostic model. Methods We selected the 10 best predictors for each of four outcomes (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation; all-cause mortality; cardiovascular mortality; and HF hospitalisation). All variables with p &#60; 0.05 for association were entered into a forward stepwise Cox regression model. Our initial analysis excluded baseline therapies, though randomisation to ivabradine or placebo was forced into the model for the composite endpoint and HF hospitalisation. Results Increased resting HR, low ejection fraction, raised creatinine, New York Heart Association class III/IV, longer duration of HF, history of left bundle branch block, low systolic blood pressure and, for three models, age were strong predictors of all outcomes. Additional predictors were low body mass index, male gender, ischaemic HF, low total cholesterol, no history of hyperlipidaemia or dyslipidaemia and presence of atrial fibrillation/flutter. The c-statistics for the four outcomes ranged from 67.6% to 69.5%. There was no evidence for lack of fit of the models with the exception of all-cause mortality (p = 0.017). Similar results were found including baseline therapies. Conclusion The SHIFT Risk Model includes simple, readily obtainable clinical characteristics to produce important prognostic information in patients with chronic HF, systolic dysfunction, and elevated HR. This may help better calibrate management to individual patient risk.</p

Effect of visit-to-visit variation of heart rate and systolic blood pressure on outcomes in chronic systolic heart failure: results from the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) trial

Background: Elevated resting heart rate (HR) and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) are related to poor outcomes in heart failure (HF). The association between visit-to-visit variation in SBP and HR and risk in HF is unknown. Methods and Results: In Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) patients, we evaluated relationships between mean HR, mean SBP, and visit-to-visit variations (coefficient of variation [CV]=SD/mean×100%) in SBP and HR (SBP-CV and HR-CV, respectively) and primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization), its components, all-cause mortality, and all-cause hospitalization. High HR and low SBP were closely associated with risk for primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalization. The highest number of primary endpoint events occurred in the highest HR tertile (38.8% vs 16.4% lowest tertile; P&lt;0.001). For HR-CV, patients at highest risk were those in the lowest tertile. Patients in the lowest thirds of mean SBP and SBP-CV had the highest risk. The combination of high HR and low HR-CV had an additive deleterious effect on risk, as did that of low SBP and low SBP-CV. Ivabradine reduced mean HR and increased HR-CV, and increased SBP and SBP-CV slightly. Conclusions: Beyond high HR and low SBP, low HR-CV and low SBP-CV are predictors of cardiovascular outcomes with additive effects on risk in HF, but with an unknown effect size. Beyond HR reduction, ivabradine increases HR-CV. Low visit-to-visit variation of HR and SBP might signal risk of cardiovascular outcomes in systolic HF. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.isrctn.com/. Unique identifier: ISRCTN70429960

Efficacy profile of ivabradine in patients with heart failure plus angina pectoris

Objectives: In the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), slowing of the heart rate with ivabradine reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations among patients with systolic chronic heart failure (CHF). Subsequently, in the Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the If Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (SIGNIFY) slowing of the heart rate in patients without CHF provided no benefit for cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (primary composite end point), with secondary analyses suggesting possible harm in the angina subgroup. Therefore, we examined the impact of ivabradine in the patients with CHF plus angina in SHIFT. Methods: SHIFT enrolled adults with stable, symptomatic CHF, a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and a sinus rhythm with a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm. Outcomes were the SHIFT and SIGNIFY primary composite end points and their components. Results: Of 6,505 patients in SHIFT, 2,220 (34%) reported angina at randomization. Ivabradine numerically, but not significantly, reduced the SIGNIFY primary composite end point by 8, 11 and 11% in the SHIFT angina subgroup, nonangina subgroup and overall population, respectively. Ivabradine also reduced the SHIFT primary composite end point in all 3 subgroups. Conclusions: In SHIFT, ivabradine showed consistent reduction of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CHF; similar results were seen in the subgroup of SHIFT patients with angina

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan relative to a prior decompensation: the PARADIGM-HF trial

Objectives: This study assessed whether the benefit of sacubtril/valsartan therapy varied with clinical stability. Background: Despite the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan therapy shown in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, it has been suggested that switching from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker should be delayed until occurrence of clinical decompensation. Methods: Outcomes were compared among patients who had prior hospitalization within 3 months of screening (n = 1,611 [19%]), between 3 and 6 months (n = 1,009 [12%]), between 6 and 12 months (n = 886 [11%]), &gt;12 months (n = 1,746 [21%]), or who had never been hospitalized (n = 3,125 [37%]). Results: Twenty percent of patients without prior HF hospitalization experienced a primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization during the course of the trial. Despite the increased risk associated with more recent hospitalization, the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan therapy did not differ from that of enalapril according to the occurrence of or time from hospitalization for HF before screening, with respect to the primary endpoint or with respect to cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Patients with recent HF decompensation requiring hospitalization were more likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who had never been hospitalized. Patients who were clinically stable, as shown by a remote HF hospitalization (&gt;3 months prior to screening) or by lack of any prior HF hospitalization, were as likely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan therapy as more recently hospitalized patients. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)

Dynamic QRS complex and ST segment vectorcardiographic monitoring can identify vessel patency in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion therapy

Reperfusion therapy has lowered the mortality in patients suffering acute myocardial infarction. Failure to reperfuse is associated with significantly higher risk of short- and long-term mortality. Detection of reperfusion is thus important. In a prospective pilot study, we used continuous on-line computerized vectorcardiography to monitor 21 patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion therapy to noninvasively detect coronary patency. By using trend analysis of QRS vector difference, we were able to correctly blindly identify 15 of 16 patients with a perfused infarct-related artery and four of six patients with a persistently occluded artery at an early anglogram. The present results are based on a limited number of patients, but suggest that QRS complex and ST segment monitoring with continuous on-line vectorcardiography has substantial potential for monitoring patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion therapy.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29117/1/0000156.pd

Incremental benefit of drug therapies for chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a network meta-analysis

Aims: A network meta‐analysis (NMA) of all recommended drug groups for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including their combinations, was performed to assess the relative efficacy and incremental benefit. Methods and results: A search was made in biomedical databases for randomized controlled trials published between 1987 and 2017 on angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), beta‐blockers (BBs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), ivabradine (IVA), or angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI). A total of 58 relevant trials were identified. The relative efficacy of each treatment group (or combination) in terms of all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all‐cause hospitalizations and hospitalizations for heart failure, per patient‐year of follow‐up, were combined in a random‐effects Bayesian NMA. The pairwise comparison between each regimen and for each outcome was estimated. The NMA was dominated by 15 large‐scale trials with between 1984 and 18 898 patient‐years of follow‐up. Combinations of drug groups showed incremental benefits on outcomes over single groups. The most effective combinations were ARNI+BB + MRA and ACEI+BB + MRA + IVA, showing reductions in all‐cause mortality (vs. placebo) of 62% and 59%, respectively; hazard ratios were 0.38 [credible interval (CrI) 0.20–0.65] and 0.41 (CrI 0.21–0.70); and in all‐cause hospitalizations with reductions of 42% for both. These two combinations were also the most effective for the other outcomes studied. Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the incremental use of combinations of disease‐modifying therapies has resulted in the progressive improvement in mortality and hospitalization outcomes in HFrEF. Our findings support the current guideline recommendations