Impact of pulmonary disease on the prognosis in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the TOPCAT trial

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154618/1/ejhf1593_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154618/2/ejhf1593.pd

Influence of ejection fraction on cause‐specific mortality in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143697/1/ejhf1040.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143697/2/ejhf1040_am.pd

Clinical Outcome Predictions for the VerICiguaT Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) Trial

Background: The prediction of outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) may inform prognosis, clinical decisions regarding treatment selection, and new trial planning. The VerICiguaT Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction included high-risk patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and a recent worsening HF event. The study participants had a high event rate despite the use of contemporary guideline-based therapies. To provide generalizable predictive data for a broad population with a recent worsening HF event, we focused on risk prognostication in the placebo group. Methods and Results: Data from 2524 participants randomized to placebo with chronic HF (New York Heart Association functional class II–IV) and an ejection fraction of less than 45% were studied and backward variable selection was used to create Cox proportional hazards models for clinical end points, selecting from 66 candidate predictors. Final model results were produced, accounting for missing data, and nonlinearities. Optimism-corrected c-indices were calculated using 200 bootstrap samples. Over a median follow-up of 10.4 months, the primary outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death occurred in 972 patients (38.5%). Independent predictors of increased risk for the primary end point included HF characteristics (longer HF duration and worse New York Heart Association functional class), medical history (prior myocardial infarction), and laboratory values (higher N-terminal pro-hormone B-type natriuretic peptide, bilirubin, urate; lower chloride and albumin). Optimism-corrected c-indices were 0.68 for the HF hospitalization/cardiovascular death model, 0.68 for HF hospitalization/all-cause death, 0.72 for cardiovascular death, and 0.73 for all-cause death. Conclusions: Predictive models developed in a large diverse clinical trial with comprehensive clinical and laboratory baseline data—including novel measures—performed well in high-risk patients with HF who were receiving excellent guideline-based clinical care. Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT02861534. Lay Summary: Patients with heart failure may benefit from tools that help clinicians to better understand a patient's risk for future events like hospitalization. Relatively few risk models have been created after the worsening of heart failure in a contemporary cohort. We provide insights on the risk factors for clinical events from a recent, large, global trial of patients with worsening heart failure to help clinicians better understand and communicate prognosis and select treatment options

Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists improve the prognosis for patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. We evaluated the effects of spironolactone in patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 3445 patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or more to receive either spironolactone (15 to 45 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 320 of 1722 patients in the spironolactone group (18.6%) and 351 of 1723 patients in the placebo group (20.4%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.04; P = 0.14). Of the components of the primary outcome, only hospitalization for heart failure had a significantly lower incidence in the spironolactone group than in the placebo group (206 patients [12.0%] vs. 245 patients [14.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99, P = 0.04). Neither total deaths nor hospitalizations for any reason were significantly reduced by spironolactone. Treatment with spironolactone was associated with increased serum creatinine levels and a doubling of the rate of hyperkalemia (18.7%, vs. 9.1% in the placebo group) but reduced hypokalemia. With frequent monitoring, there were no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, a serum creatinine level of 3.0 mg per deciliter (265 μmol per liter) or higher, or dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, treatment with spironolactone did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure

Measuring health-related quality of life in population-based studies of coronary heart disease: comparing six generic indexes and a disease-specific proxy score

To compare HRQoL differences with CHD in generic indexes and a proxy CVD-specific score in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. The National Health Measurement Study, a cross-sectional random-digit-dialed telephone survey of adults aged 35–89, administered the EQ-5D, QWB-SA, HUI2, HUI3, SF-36v2™ (yielding PCS, MCS, and SF-6D), and HALex. Analyses compared 3,350 without CHD (group 1), 265 with CHD not taking chest pain medication (group 2), and 218 with CHD currently taking chest pain medication (group 3), with and without adjustment for demographic variables and comorbidities. Data on 154 patients from heart failure clinics were used to construct a proxy score utilizing generic items probing CVD symptoms. Mean scores differed between CHD groups for all indexes with and without adjustment (P < 0.0001 for all except MCS P = 0.018). Unadjusted group 3 versus 1 differences were about three times larger than for group 2 versus 1. Standardized differences for the proxy score were similar to those for generic indexes, and were about 1.0 for all except MCS for group 3 versus 1. Generic indexes capture differences in HRQoL in population-based studies of CHD similarly to a score constructed from questions probing CVD-specific symptoms

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan, versus Valsartan, in Women Compared to Men with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights from PARAGON-HF

Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women, compared with men. In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with HFpEF. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older, had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI 0.59-0.90) in women and 1.03 (0.84-1.25) in men; P interaction=0.017. The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was due to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in NYHA class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in KCCQ-CSS was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events, between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan, was similar in women and men. As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. While the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT01920711

Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464–1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711