The rise and fall of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Aspirin is one of the most frequently used drugs worldwide and is generally considered effective for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. By contrast, the role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is controversial. Early trials evaluating aspirin for primary prevention, done before the turn of the millennium, suggested reductions in myocardial infarction and stroke (although not mortality), and an increased risk of bleeding. In an effort to balance the risks and benefits of aspirin, international guidelines on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have typically recommended aspirin only when a substantial 10-year risk of cardiovascular events exists. However, in 2018, three large randomised clinical trials of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease showed little or no benefit and have even suggested net harm. In this narrative Review, we reappraise the role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, contextualising data from historical and contemporary trials

Contemporary economic burden in a real-world heart failure population with Commercial and Medicare supplemental plans

Background Limited real-world data exist on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), including urgent HF visits, which are assumed to be less burdensome than HF hospitalizations (hHFs) Hypothesis This study aimed to quantify the economic burden of HFrEF and HFpEF, via a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study, using IBM(R) linked claims/electronic health records (Commercial and Medicare Supplemental data only). Methods Adult patients, indexed on HF diagnosis (ICD-10-CM: I50.x) from July 2012 through June 2018, with 6-month minimum baseline period and varying follow-up, were classified as HFrEF (I50.2x) or HFpEF (I50.3x) according to last-observed EF-specific diagnosis. HCRU/costs were assessed during follow-up. Results About 109 721 HF patients (22% HFrEF, 31% HFpEF, 47% unclassified EF; median 18 months' follow-up) were identified. There were 3.2 all-cause outpatient visits per patient-month (HFrEF, 3.3; HFpEF, 3.6); 69% of patients required inpatient stays (HFrEF, 80%; HFpEF, 78%). Overall, 11% of patients experienced hHFs (HFrEF, 23%; HFpEF, 16%), 9% experienced urgent HF visits (HFrEF, 15%; HFpEF, 12%); 26% were hospitalized less than 30 days after first urgent HF visit versus 11% after first hHF. Mean monthly total direct healthcare cost per patient was $9290 (HFrEF,$11 053; HFpEF, $7482). Conclusions HF-related HCRU is substantial among contemporary real-world HF patients in US Commercial or Medicare supplemental health plans. Patients managed in urgent HF settings were over twice as likely to be hospitalized within 30 days versus those initially hospitalized, suggesting urgent HF visits are important clinical events and quality improvement targets

Relation of serum magnesium levels and postdischarge outcomes in patients hospitalized for heart failure (from the EVEREST Trial)

Serum magnesium levels may be impacted by neurohormonal activation, renal function, and diuretics. The clinical profile and prognostic significance of serum magnesium level concentration in patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unclear. In this retrospective analysis of the placebo group of the Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan trial, we evaluated 1,982 patients hospitalized for worsening HF with ejection fractions ≤40%. Baseline magnesium levels were measured within 48 hours of admission and analyzed as a continuous variable and in quartiles. The primary end points of all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiovascular mortality or HF rehospitalization were analyzed using Cox regression models. Mean baseline magnesium level was 2.1 ± 0.3 mg/dl. Compared with the lowest quartile, patients in the highest magnesium level quartile were more likely to be older, men, have lower heart rates and blood pressures, have ischemic HF origin, and have higher creatinine and natriuretic peptide levels (all p <0.003). During a median follow-up of 9.9 months, every 1-mg/dl increase in magnesium level was associated with higher ACM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35 to 2.32; p <0.001) and the composite end point (HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.81; p = 0.002). However, after adjustment for known baseline covariates, serum magnesium level was no longer an independent predictor of either ACM (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.28; p = 0.7) or the composite end point (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; p = 0.9). In conclusion, despite theoretical concerns, baseline magnesium level was not independently associated with worse outcomes in this cohort. Further research is needed to understand the importance of serum magnesium levels in specific HF patient populations

Water and Sodium in Heart Failure: A Spotlight on Congestion.

Despite all available therapies, the rates of hospitalization and death from heart failure (HF) remain unacceptably high. The most common reasons for hospital admission are symptoms related to congestion. During hospitalization, most patients respond well to standard therapy and are discharged with significantly improved symptoms. Post-discharge, many patients receive diligent and frequent follow-up. However, rehospitalization rates remain high. One potential explanation is a persistent failure by clinicians to adequately manage congestion in the outpatient setting. The failure to successfully manage these patients post-discharge may represent an unmet need to improve the way congestion is both recognized and treated. A primary aim of future HF management may be to improve clinical surveillance to prevent and manage chronic fluid overload while simultaneously maximizing the use of evidence-based therapies with proven long-term benefit. Improvement in cardiac function is the ultimate goal and maintenance of a ‘‘dry’’ clinical profile is important to prevent hospital admission and improve prognosis. This paper focuses on methods for monitoring congestion, and strategies for water and sodium management in the context of the complex interplay between the cardiac and renal systems. A rationale for improving recognition and treatment of congestion is also proposed

Left atrial function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims Left atrial (LA) mechanical function may play a significant role in the development and progression of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate association of impaired LA function with outcomes in HFpEF. Methods and results Multiple databases were searched for original studies measuring different phases of LA function in HFpEF patients. Comparative LA function between HFpEF patients and healthy controls was assessed by pooling weighted mean differences (WMD). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals were pooled to evaluate the prognostic utility of LA function. Twenty-two studies (2 trials, 20 observational) comprising 1974 HFpEF patients and 751 healthy controls were included. HFpEF patients had decreased LA reservoir [WMD = -12.21% (-15.47, -8.95); P <0.001], LA conduit [WMD = -5.68% (-8.56, -2.79); P <0.001], and pump [WMD = -11.07% (-14.81, -7.34); P <0.001] emptying fractions compared with controls. LA reservoir [WMD = -13.38% (-16.07, -10.68); P <0.001], conduit [WMD = -4.09% (-6.77, -1.42); P = 0.003], and pump [WMD = -3.53% (-4.47, -2.59); P <0.001] strains were also significantly lower in HFpEF patients. Decreased LA reservoir strain [HR 1.24 (1.02, 1.50); P = 0.03] was significantly associated with risk of composite all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Conclusions Impaired LA function appears to have diagnostic and prognostic value in HFpEF, but whether indices of LA function truly refine discrimination for diagnosis or prognosis remains to be fully determined. Larger studies are needed to better evaluate associations between LA function and clinical outcomes and the role of LA function as a target for novel HFpEF therapies

Estimated Lifetime Cardiovascular, Kidney, and Mortality Benefits of Combination Treatment With SGLT2 Inhibitors, GLP-1 Receptor Agonists, and Nonsteroidal MRA Compared With Conventional Care in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Albuminuria

BACKGROUND: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (ns-MRA) finerenone all individually reduce cardiovascular, kidney, and mortality outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. However, the lifetime benefits of combination therapy with these medicines are not known. METHODS: We used data from 2 SGLT2i trials (CANVAS [Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment] and CREDENCE [Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation]), 2 ns-MRA trials (FIDELIO-DKD [Finerenone in Reducing Kidney Failure and Disease Progression in Diabetic Kidney Disease] and FIGARO-DKD [Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and the Clinical Diagnosis of Diabetic Kidney Disease]), and 8 GLP-1 RA trials to estimate the relative effects of combination therapy versus conventional care (renin-angiotensin system blockade and traditional risk factor control) on cardiovascular, kidney, and mortality outcomes. Using actuarial methods, we then estimated absolute risk reductions with combination SGLT2i, GLP-1 RA, and ns-MRA in patients with type 2 diabetes and at least moderately increased albuminuria (urinary albumin:creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g) by applying estimated combination treatment effects to participants receiving conventional care in CANVAS and CREDENCE. RESULTS: Compared with conventional care, the combination of SGLT2i, GLP-1 RA, and ns-MRA was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.55–0.76) for major adverse cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death). The corresponding estimated absolute risk reduction over 3 years was 4.4% (95% CI, 3.0–5.7), with a number needed to treat of 23 (95% CI, 18–33). For a 50-year-old patient commencing combination therapy, estimated major adverse cardiovascular event–free survival was 21.1 years compared with 17.9 years for conventional care (3.2 years gained [95% CI, 2.1–4.3]). There were also projected gains in survival free from hospitalized heart failure (3.2 years [95% CI, 2.4–4.0]), chronic kidney disease progression (5.5 years [95% CI, 4.0–6.7]), cardiovascular death (2.2 years [95% CI, 1.2–3.0]), and all-cause death (2.4 years [95% CI, 1.4–3.4]). Attenuated but clinically relevant gains in event-free survival were observed in analyses assuming 50% additive effects of combination therapy, including for major adverse cardiovascular events (2.4 years [95% CI, 1.1–3.5]), chronic kidney disease progression (4.5 years [95% CI, 2.8–5.9]), and all-cause death (1.8 years [95% CI, 0.7–2.8]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and at least moderately increased albuminuria, combination treatment of SGLT2i, GLP-1 RA, and ns-MRA has the potential to afford relevant gains in cardiovascular and kidney event-free and overall survival

Cost and value in contemporary heart failure clinical guidance documents

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the frequency and nature of cost/value statements in contemporary heart failure (HF) clinical guidance documents (CGDs). BACKGROUND: In an era of rising health care costs and expanding therapeutic options, there is an increasing need for formal consideration of cost and value in the development of HF CGDs. METHODS: HF CGDs published by major professional cardiovascular organizations between January 2010 and February 2021 were reviewed for the inclusion of cost/value statements. RESULTS: Overall, 33 documents were identified, including 5 (15%) appropriate use criteria, 7 (21%) clinical practice guidelines, and 21 (64%) expert consensus documents. Most CGDs (27 of 33; 82%) included at least 1 cost/value statement, and 20 (61%) CGDs included at least 1 cost/value-related citation. Most of these statements were found in expert consensus documents (77.7%). Three (9%) documents reported estimated costs of recommended interventions, but only 1 estimated out-of-pocket cost. Of 179 cost/value-related statements observed, 116 (64.8%) highlighted the economic impact of HF or HF-related care, 6 (3.4%) advocated for cost/value issues, 15 (8.4%) reported gaps in cost/value evidence, and 42 (23.5%) supported clinical guidance recommendations. Over time, patterns of inclusion of statements and citations of cost/value have been largely stable. CONCLUSIONS: Although most contemporary HF CGDs contain at least 1 cost/value statement, most CGDs focus on the high economic impact of HF and its related care; explicit inclusion of cost/value to support clinical guidance recommendations remains infrequent. These results highlight key opportunities for the integration of formalized cost/value considerations in future HF-focused CGDs

Prognostic implications of congestion on physical examination among contemporary patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: PARADIGM-HF

Background: The contemporary prognostic value of the physical examination— beyond traditional risk factors including natriuretic peptides, risk scores, and symptoms—in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unknown. We aimed to determine the association between physical signs of congestion at baseline and during study follow-up with quality of life and clinical outcomes and to assess the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on congestion. Methods: We analyzed participants from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) with an available physical examination at baseline. We examined the association of the number of signs of congestion (jugular venous distention, edema, rales, and third heart sound) with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), its individual components, and all-cause mortality using time-updated, multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. We further evaluated whether sacubitril/valsartan reduced congestion during follow-up and whether improvement in congestion is related to changes in clinical outcomes and quality of life, assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. Results: Among 8380 participants, 0, 1, 2, and 3+ signs of congestion were present in 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2% of patients, respectively. Patients with baseline congestion were older, more often female, had higher MAGGIC risk scores (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores (P&lt;0.05). After adjusting for baseline natriuretic peptides, time-updated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and time-updated New York Heart Association class, increasing time-updated congestion was associated with all outcomes (P&lt;0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of clinical signs of congestion at baseline (P=0.16 for interaction), and treatment with the drug improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril (P=0.011). Each 1-sign reduction was independently associated with a 5.1 (95% CI, 4.7–5.5) point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. Change in congestion strongly predicted outcomes even after adjusting for baseline congestion (P&lt;0.001). Conclusions: In HF with reduced ejection fraction, the physical exam continues to provide significant independent prognostic value even beyond symptoms, natriuretic peptides, and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score. Sacubitril/valsartan improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril. Reducing congestion in the outpatient setting is independently associated with improved quality of life and reduced cardiovascular events, including mortality

Trends, management, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations with in-hospital-onset versus out-of-hospital onset: The aric study

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with in-hospital onset (AMI-IHO) has poor prognosis but is clinically underap-preciated. Whether its occurrence has changed over time is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Since 1987, the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study has conducted adjudicated surveillance of AMI hospitalizations in 4 US communities. Our analysis was limited to patients aged 35 to 74 years with symptomatic AMI. Patients with symptoms initiating after hospital arrival were considered AMI-IHO. A total of 26 678 weighted hospitalizations (14 276 unweighted hospitalizations) for symptomatic AMI were identified from 1995 to 2014, with 1137 (4%) classified as in-hospital onset. The population incidence rate of AMI-IHO increased in the 4 ARIC communities from 1995 through 2004 to 2005 through 2014 (12.7—16.9 events per 100 000 people; P for 20-year trend 65

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of baseline N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), whether NT-proBNP modified the treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan, and the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan on NT-proBNP overall and in key subgroups. Background: Sacubitril/valsartan reduces NT-proBNP in heart failure (HF) with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction (EF), but did not significantly reduce total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan in patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). Methods: In the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial, 4,796 patients with HFpEF and elevated NT-proBNP were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. NT-proBNP was measured at screening in all patients and at 5 subsequent times in &gt;2,700 patients: before, between, and after sequential valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan run-in periods, and 16 and 48 weeks post-randomization. Results: Median NT-proBNP was 911 pg/ml (interquartile range: 464 to 1,613 pg/ml) at screening. Screening NT-proBNP was strongly associated with the primary endpoint, total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (rate ratio [RR]: 1.68 per log increase in NT-proBNP, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 1.85; p &lt; 0.001). This relationship was stronger in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted RR: 2.33 [95% CI: 1.89 to 2.87] vs. 1.58 [95% CI: 1.42 to 1.75] in patients without atrial fibrillation; p interaction &lt;0.001) and weaker in obese patients (adjusted RR: 1.50 [95% CI: 1.31 to 1.71] vs. 1.92 [95% CI: 1.70 to 2.17] in nonobese patients; p interaction &lt;0.001). Screening NT-proBNP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (p interaction = 0.96). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP by 19% (95% CI: 14% to 23%; p &lt; 0.001) compared with valsartan 16 weeks post-randomization, with similar reductions in men (20%) and women (18%), and in patients with left ventricular EF ≤57% (20%) and &gt;57% (18%). Decreases in NT-proBNP predicted lower subsequent risk of the primary endpoint. Conclusions: Baseline NT-proBNP predicted HF events but did not modify the sacubitril/valsartan treatment effect in patients with HFpEF. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP consistently in men and women, and in patients with lower or higher EF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711