Day vs night: Does time of presentation matter in acute heart failure? A secondary analysis from the RELAX-AHF trial

Background Signs and symptoms of heart failure can occur at any time. Differences between acute heart failure (AHF) patients who present at nighttime vs daytime and their outcomes have not been well studied. Our objective was to determine if there are differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes between AHF patients presenting during daytime vs nighttime hours within an international, clinical trial. Methods This is a post hoc analysis of the RELAX AHF trial, which randomized 1,161 AHF patients to serelaxin vs placebo, both in addition to usual AHF therapy. Prespecified end points of the primary trial were used: dyspnea, 60-day heart failure/renal failure rehospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death, and 180-day CV death. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses for outcomes stratified by daytime vs nighttime presentation were performed. Results Of the 1,161 RELAX-AHF patients, 775 (66.8%) patients presented during daytime and 386 (33.2%) at nighttime. Baseline characteristics were largely similar, although daytime patients were more likely to be male, have greater baseline body weight, have higher New York Heart Association class, have history of atrial fibrillation, and have more peripheral edema compared with nighttime patients. No differences in dyspnea relief or 60-day outcomes were observed. However, daytime presentation was associated with greater risk for 180-day CV death after adjustment (hazard ratio 2.28, 95% CI 1.34-3.86; c statistic = 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.86). Conclusion In this secondary analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial, baseline characteristics suggest that daytime-presenting patients may have more gradual worsening of chronic HF. Patients with AHF who presented at night had less risk for 180-day CV death, but similar risk for 60-day CV death or rehospitalization and symptom improvement for patients who presented during the daytime

Effects of serelaxin in acute heart failure patients with renal impairment:results from RELAX-AHF

Serelaxin showed beneficial effects on clinical outcome and trajectories of renal markers in patients with acute heart failure. We aimed to study the interaction between renal function and the treatment effect of serelaxin.In the current post hoc analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial, we included all patients with available estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at baseline (n = 1132). Renal impairment was defined as an eGFR &lt;60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) estimated by creatinine.817 (72.2 %) patients had a baseline eGFR &lt;60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). In placebo-treated patients, baseline renal impairment was related to a higher 180 day cardiovascular (HR 3.12, 95 % CI 1.33-7.30) and all-cause mortality (HR 2.81, 95 % CI 1.34-5.89). However, in serelaxin-treated patients, the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality was less pronounced (HR 1.19, 95 % CI 0.54 -2.64; p for interaction = 0.106, and HR 1.15 95 % CI 0.56-2.34 respectively; p for interaction = 0.088). In patients with renal impairment, treatment with serelaxin resulted in a more pronounced all-cause mortality reduction (HR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.34-0.83), compared with patients without renal impairment (HR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.51-3.29).Renal dysfunction was associated with higher cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in placebo-treated patients, but not in serelaxin-treated patients. The observed reduction in (cardiovascular) mortality in RELAX-AHF was more pronounced in patients with renal dysfunction. These observations need to be confirmed in the ongoing RELAX-AHF-2 trial.</p

Sex differences in early dyspnea relief between men and women hospitalized for acute heart failure:Insights from the RELAX-AHF study

AIMS: Women with heart failure are typically older, and more often have hypertension and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction as compared with men. We sought to analyze if these sex differences influence the course and outcome of acute heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed sex differences in acute heart failure in 1161 patients enrolled in the RELAX-AHF study. The pre-specified study endpoints were used. At baseline, women (436/1161 patients) were older, had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction, a higher rate of hypertension, and were treated differently from men. Early dyspnea improvement (moderate or marked dyspnea improvement measured by Likert scale during the first 24 h) was greater in women. However, dyspnea improvement over the first 5 days (change from baseline in the visual analog scale area under the curve (VAS AUC) to day 5) was similar between men and women. Women reported greater improvements in general wellbeing by Likert, but no such benefits were evident with the VAS score. Multi-variable predictors of moderate or marked dyspnea improvement were female sex (p = 0.0011), lower age (p = 0.0026) and lower diuretic dose (p = 0.0067). The additional efficacy endpoints of RELAX-AHF were similar between men and women and serelaxin was equally effective in men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Women exhibit better earlier dyspnea relief and improvement in general wellbeing compared with men, even adjusted for age and left ventricular ejection fraction. However, in-hospital and post-discharge clinical outcomes were similar between men and women. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00520806

Serelaxin in acute heart failure patients with and without atrial fibrillation:a secondary analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a common comorbidity in HF and affects patients' outcome. We sought to assess the effects of serelaxin in patients with and without AFib. In a post hoc analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial, we compared the effects of serelaxin on efficacy end points, safety end points and biomarkers in 1161 patients with and without AFib on admission electrocardiogram. AFib was present in 41.3% of patients. Serelaxin had a similar effect in patients with and without AFib, including dyspnea relief by visual analog scale through day 5 [mean change in area under the curve, 541.11 (33.79, 1048.44), p = 0.0366 in AFib versus 361.80 (-63.30, 786.90), p = 0.0953 in non-AFib, interaction p = 0.5954] and all-cause death through day 180 [HR = 0.42 (0.23, 0.77), p = 0.0051 in AFib versus 0.90 (0.53, 1.52), p = 0.6888 in non-AFib, interaction p = 0.0643]. Serelaxin was similarly safe in the two groups and induced similar reductions in biomarkers of cardiac, renal and hepatic damage. Stroke occurred more frequently in AFib patients (2.8 vs. 0.8%, p = 0.0116) and there was a trend for lower stroke incidence in the serelaxin arm in AFib patients (odds ratios, 0.31, p = 0.0759 versus 3.88, p = 0.2255 in non-AFib, interaction p = 0.0518). Serelaxin was similarly safe and efficacious in improving short- and long-term outcomes and inducing organ protection in acute HF patients with and without AFib

Effects of serelaxin in patients with acute heart failure

Background: Serelaxin is a recombinant form of human relaxin-2, a vasodilator hormone that contributes to cardiovascular and renal adaptations during pregnancy. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with serelaxin may result in relief of symptoms and in better outcomes in patients with acute heart failure. Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial, we enrolled patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure and had dyspnea, vascular congestion on chest radiography, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and a systolic blood pressure of at least 125 mm Hg, and we randomly assigned them within 16 hours after presentation to receive either a 48-hour intravenous infusion of serelaxin (30 μg per kilogram of body weight per day) or placebo, in addition to standard care. The two primary end points were death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days and worsening heart failure at 5 days. Results: A total of 6545 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At day 180, death from cardiovascular causes had occurred in 285 of the 3274 patients (8.7%) in the serelaxin group and in 290 of the 3271 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.15; P=0.77). At day 5, worsening heart failure had occurred in 227 patients (6.9%) in the serelaxin group and in 252 (7.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.07; P=0.19). There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of death from any cause at 180 days, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or rehospitalization for heart failure or renal failure at 180 days, or the length of the index hospital stay. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. Conclusions: In this trial involving patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure, an infusion of serelaxin did not result in a lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days or worsening heart failure at 5 days than placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; RELAX-AHF-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01870778. opens in new tab.

Effect of aliskiren on post-discharge outcomes among diabetic and non-diabetic patients hospitalized for heart failure: insights from the ASTRONAUT trial

Aims The objective of the Aliskiren Trial on Acute Heart Failure Outcomes (ASTRONAUT) was to determine whether aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor, would improve post-discharge outcomes in patients with hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) with reduced ejection fraction. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggested potential heterogeneity in post-discharge outcomes with aliskiren in patients with and without baseline diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods and results ASTRONAUT included 953 patients without DM (aliskiren 489; placebo 464) and 662 patients with DM (aliskiren 319; placebo 343) (as reported by study investigators). Study endpoints included the first occurrence of cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 and 12 months, all-cause death within 6 and 12 months, and change from baseline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at 1, 6, and 12 months. Data regarding risk of hyperkalaemia, renal impairment, and hypotension, and changes in additional serum biomarkers were collected. The effect of aliskiren on cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 months (primary endpoint) did not significantly differ by baseline DM status (P = 0.08 for interaction), but reached statistical significance at 12 months (non-DM: HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99; DM: HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.91-1.47; P = 0.03 for interaction). Risk of 12-month all-cause death with aliskiren significantly differed by the presence of baseline DM (non-DM: HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50-0.94; DM: HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.15-2.33; P < 0.01 for interaction). Among non-diabetics, aliskiren significantly reduced NT-proBNP through 6 months and plasma troponin I and aldosterone through 12 months, as compared to placebo. Among diabetic patients, aliskiren reduced plasma troponin I and aldosterone relative to placebo through 1 month only. There was a trend towards differing risk of post-baseline potassium ≥6 mmol/L with aliskiren by underlying DM status (non-DM: HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.71-1.93; DM: HR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.30-4.42; P = 0.07 for interaction). Conclusion This pre-specified subgroup analysis from the ASTRONAUT trial generates the hypothesis that the addition of aliskiren to standard HHF therapy in non-diabetic patients is generally well-tolerated and improves post-discharge outcomes and biomarker profiles. In contrast, diabetic patients receiving aliskiren appear to have worse post-discharge outcomes. Future prospective investigations are needed to confirm potential benefits of renin inhibition in a large cohort of HHF patients without D

Creating a suite of macros for meta-analysis in SAS®: A case study in collaboration

A series of macros that have been created to perform fixed and random effects meta-analysis in SAS® are described as is the motivation for their creation. These macros are being made freely available on the internet for others to use. The application of the macros is illustrated using an example of trials in pre-eclampsia.Fixed effects Random effects Galbraith plot Forest plot Funnel plot

Blood pressure variability in hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation in the VALUE trial

Purpose: Blood pressure variability is associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors, but little is known about the association with atrial fibrillation. We compared blood pressure variability in patients with and without atrial fibrillation using data from the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. Materials and methods: The VALUE trial was a randomised-controlled trial of valsartan versus amlodipine in patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk, followed for 4.2 years (mean). For the present analysis we included patients with electrocardiogram at baseline and during follow-up, and ≥3 visits from 6 months onwards. We compared standard deviation (SD) of all blood pressures within each visit averaged across all visits (within-visit variability) and of mean blood pressure at each visit (visit-to-visit variability) in patients with and without atrial fibrillation at baseline. We similarly compared patients who developed non-persistent or persistent atrial fibrillation during follow-up with those who did not, using t-tests, ANOVA and linear regression. Results: Of 15,245 patients in the VALUE trial, 13,827 were eligible for analysis. SD of visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure was not significantly different between patients with and without atrial fibrillation at baseline (mean difference 0.3 mm Hg, p = 0.4), but significantly higher in patients with incident non-persistent or persistent atrial fibrillation during follow-up than in those who never developed atrial fibrillation (differences 1.2 and 1.8 mm Hg, respectively, p-values <0.0001). Associations with non-persistent and persistent atrial fibrillation were confirmed in linear regression models (p-values <0.0001). SD of within-visit systolic blood pressure was not significantly different between patients with and without atrial fibrillation at baseline (p = 0.4) but significantly higher in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation during follow-up (p = 0.04). Conclusion: In patients treated for hypertension, atrial fibrillation was not associated with increased blood pressure variability, but blood pressure variability was higher in those who developed atrial fibrillation during follow-up