Comprehensive comparative analysis of the prognostic impact of systemic inflammation biomarkers for patients underwent cardiac surgery

BackgroundInflammation plays an integral role in the development of cardiovascular disease, and few studies have identified different biomarkers to predict the prognosis of cardiac surgery. But there is a lack of reliable and valid evidence to determine the optimal systemic inflammatory biomarkers to predict prognosis.MethodsFrom December 2015 and March 2021, we collected 10 systemic inflammation biomarkers among 820 patients who underwent cardiac surgery. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) curve at different time points and C-index was compared at different time points. Kaplan–Meier method was performed to analyze overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to assess independent risk factors for OS. A random internal validation was conducted to confirm the effectiveness of the biomarkers.ResultsThe area under the ROC of lymphocyte-to-C-reactive protein ratio (LCR) was 0.655, 0.620 and 0.613 at 1-, 2- and 3-year respectively, and C-index of LCR for OS after cardiac surgery was 0.611, suggesting that LCR may serve as a favorable indicator for predicting the prognosis of cardiac surgery. Patients with low LCR had a higher risk of postoperative complications. Besides, Cox proportional hazard regression analyses indicated that LCR was considered as an independent risk factor of OS after cardiac surgery.ConclusionLCR shows promise as a noteworthy representative among the systemic inflammation biomarkers in predicting the prognosis of cardiac surgery. Screening for low LCR levels may help surgeons identify high-risk patients and guide perioperative management strategies

Contemporary characteristics and outcomes in chagasic heart failure compared with other nonischemic and ischemic cardiomyopathy

Background: Chagas’ disease is an important cause of cardiomyopathy in Latin America. We aimed to compare clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction caused by Chagas’ disease, with other etiologies, in the era of modern HF therapies. Methods and Results: This study included 2552 Latin American patients randomized in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure) trials. The investigator-reported etiology was categorized as Chagasic, other nonischemic, or ischemic cardiomyopathy. The outcomes of interest included the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization and its components and death from any cause. Unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were performed to compare outcomes by pathogenesis. There were 195 patients with Chagasic HF with reduced ejection fraction, 1300 with other nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 1057 with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Compared with other etiologies, Chagasic patients were more often female, younger, and had lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and renal impairment (but had higher prevalence of stroke and pacemaker implantation) and had worse health-related quality of life. The rates of the composite outcome were 17.2, 12.5, and 11.4 per 100 person-years for Chagasic, other nonischemic, and ischemic patients, respectively—adjusted hazard ratio for Chagasic versus other nonischemic: 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.15–1.94; P=0.003) and Chagasic versus ischemic: 1.55 (1.18–2.04; P=0.002). The rates of all-cause mortality were also higher. Conclusions: Despite younger age, less comorbidity, and comprehensive use of conventional HF therapies, patients with Chagasic HF with reduced ejection fraction continue to have worse quality of life and higher hospitalization and mortality rates compared with other etiologies. Clinical Trial Registration: PARADIGM-HF: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255; ATMOSPHERE: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00853658

Dementia-related adverse events in PARADIGM-HF and other trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Aims: Inhibition of neprilysin, an enzyme degrading natriuretic and other vasoactive peptides, is beneficial in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), as shown in PARADIGM-HF which compared the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril. As neprilysin is also one of many enzymes clearing amyloid-β peptides from the brain, there is a theoretical concern about the long-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cognition. Therefore, we have examined dementia-related adverse effects (AEs) in PARADIGM-HF and placed these findings in the context of other recently conducted HFrEF trials. Methods and results: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with symptomatic HFrEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg b.i.d. or enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in a 1:1 ratio. We systematically searched AE reports, coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), using Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQs) with ‘broad’ and ‘narrow’ preferred terms related to dementia. In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18–96 years were randomized and followed for a median of 2.25 years (up to 4.3 years). The narrow SMQ search identified 27 dementia-related AEs: 15 (0.36%) on enalapril and 12 (0.29%) on sacubitril/valsartan [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33–1.59]. The broad search identified 97 (2.30%) and 104 (2.48%) AEs (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75–1.37), respectively. The rates of dementia-related AEs in both treatment groups in PARADIGM-HF were similar to those in three other recent trials in HFrEF. Conclusion: We found no evidence that sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, increased dementia-related AEs, although longer follow-up may be necessary to detect such a signal and more sensitive tools are needed to detect lesser degrees of cognitive impairment. Further studies to address this question are warranted

Outcomes and effect of treatment according to etiology in HFrEF: an analysis of PARADIGM-HF

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes (and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan) according to etiology in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI] with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor [ACEI] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. Background: Etiology of heart failure (HF) has changed over time in more developed countries and is also evolving in non-Western societies. Outcomes may vary according to etiology, as may the effects of therapy. Methods: We examined outcomes and the effect of sacubtril/valsartan according to investigator-reported etiology in PARADIGM-HF. The outcomes analyzed were the primary composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, and components, and death from any cause. Outcomes were adjusted for known prognostic variables including N terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide. Results: Among the 8,399 patients randomized, 5,036 patients (60.0%) had an ischemic etiology. Among the 3,363 patients (40.0%) with a nonischemic etiology, 1,595 (19.0% of all patients; 47% of nonischemic patients) had idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, 968 (11.5% of all patients; 28.8% of nonischemic patients) had a hypertensive cause, and 800 (9.5% of all patients, 23.8% of nonischemic patients) another cause (185 infective/viral, 158 alcoholic, 110 valvular, 66 diabetes, 30 drug-related, 14 peripartum–related, and 237 other). Whereas the unadjusted rates of all outcomes were highest in patients with an ischemic etiology, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were not different from patients in the 2 major nonischemic etiology categories; for example, for the primary outcome, compared with ischemic (HR: 1.00), hypertensive 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.02), idiopathic 0.92 (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.04) and other 1.00 (95% CI: 0.85 to 1.17). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across etiologic categories (interaction for primary outcome; p = 0.11). Conclusions: Just under one-half of patients in this global trial had nonischemic HF with reduced ejection fraction, with idiopathic and hypertensive the most commonly ascribed etiologies. Adjusted outcomes were similar across etiologic categories, as was the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure; NCT01035255

Prevalence and incidence of intraventricular conduction delays and outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Insights from PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE

Aims: The importance of intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), incidence of new IVCD and its relationship to outcomes in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is not well studied. We addressed these questions in the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials. Methods and results: Risk of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality were estimated by use of Cox regression according to baseline QRS duration and morphology in 11,861 patients without an intracardiac device. At baseline, 1,789 (15.1%) patients had left bundle branch block (LBBB), 524 (4.4%) RBBB, 454 (3.8%) non-specific IVCD, 2588 (21.8%) "mildly abnormal" QRS (110-129 milliseconds [ms]) and 6506 (54.9%) QRS <110 ms. During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the risk of the primary composite endpoint was higher among those with a wide QRS, irrespective of morphology: hazard ratios (95% CI) LBBB 1.36 (1.23, 1.50), RBBB 1.54 (1.31, 1.79), nonspecific IVCD 1.65 (1.40, 1.94) and QRS 110-129 ms 1.35 (95% CI 1.23, 1.47), compared with QRS duration <110 ms. A total of 1,234 (15.6%) patients developed new-onset QRS-widening ≥130 ms (6.1 per 100 py). Incident LBBB occurred in 495 (6.3%) patients (2.4 per 100 py) and was associated with a higher risk of the primary composite outcome; HR 1.42 (1.12, 1.82). Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, a wide QRS was associated with worse clinical outcomes irrespective of morphology. The annual incidence of new-onset LBBB was around 2.5%, and associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes, highlighting the importance of repeat ECG review

Income inequality and outcomes in heart failure: a global between-country analysis

Objectives: This study examined the relationship between income inequality and heart failure outcomes. Background: The income inequality hypothesis postulates that population health is influenced by income distribution within a society, with greater inequality associated with worse outcomes. Methods: This study analyzed heart failure outcomes in 2 large trials conducted in 54 countries. Countries were divided by tertiles of Gini coefficients (where 0% represented absolute income equality and 100% represented absolute income inequality), and heart failure outcomes were adjusted for standard prognostic variables, country per capita income, education index, hospital bed density, and health worker density. Results: Of the 15,126 patients studied, 5,320 patients lived in Gini coefficient tertile 1 countries (coefficient: <33%), 6,124 patients lived in tertile 2 countries (33% to 41%), and 3,772 patients lived in tertile 3 countries (>41%). Patients in tertile 3 were younger than tertile 1 patients, were more often women, and had less comorbidity and several indicators of less severe heart failure, yet the tertile 3-to-1 hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization were 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38 to 1.79) and 1.48 for all-cause death (95% CI: 1.29 to 1.71) after adjustment for recognized prognostic variables. After additional adjustments were made for per capita income, education index, hospital bed density, and health worker density, these HRs were 1.46 (95% CI: 1.25 to 1.70) and 1.30 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.53), respectively. Conclusions: Greater income inequality was associated with worse heart failure outcomes, with an impact similar to those of major comorbidities. Better understanding of the societal and personal bases of these findings may suggest approaches to improve heart failure outcomes

The prevalence and importance of frailty in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction – an analysis of PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE

Aims: Frailty, characterized by loss of homeostatic reserves and increased vulnerability to physiological decompensation, results from an aggregation of insults across multiple organ systems. Frailty can be quantified by counting the number of ‘health deficits’ across a range of domains. We assessed the frequency of, and outcomes related to, frailty in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: Using a cumulative deficits approach, we constructed a 42‐item frailty index (FI) and applied it to identify frail patients enrolled in two HFrEF trials (PARADIGM‐HF and ATMOSPHERE). In keeping with previous studies, patients with FI ≤0.210 were classified as non‐frail and those with higher scores were divided into two categories using score increments of 0.100. Clinical outcomes were examined, adjusting for prognostic variables. Among 13 625 participants, mean (± standard deviation) FI was 0.250 (0.10) and 8383 patients (63%) were frail (FI >0.210). The frailest patients were older and had more symptoms and signs of heart failure. Women were frailer than men. All outcomes were worse in the frailest, with high rates of all‐cause death or all‐cause hospitalization: 40.7 (39.1–42.4) vs. 22.1 (21.2–23.0) per 100 person‐years in the non‐frail; adjusted hazard ratio 1.63 (1.53–1.75) (P < 0.001). The rate of all‐cause hospitalizations, taking account of recurrences, was 61.5 (59.8–63.1) vs. 31.2 (30.3–32.2) per 100 person‐years (incidence rate ratio 1.76; 1.62–1.90; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Frailty is highly prevalent in HFrEF and associated with greater deterioration in quality of life and higher risk of hospitalization and death. Strategies to prevent and treat frailty are needed in HFrEF

Insulin treatment and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Aims: Insulin causes sodium retention and hypoglycaemia and its use is associated with worse outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We have investigated whether this is also the case in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results: We examined the association between diabetes/diabetes treatments and the risk of the primary composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, as well as other outcomes in adjusted analyses in CHARM-Preserved (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45%), I-Preserve and TOPCAT (Americas) pooled. Of 8466 patients, 2653 (31%) had diabetes, including 979 (37%) receiving insulin. Patients receiving insulin were younger, had a higher body mass index, prevalence of ischaemic aetiology, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and use of diuretics, worse New York Heart Association class and signs and symptoms, and worse quality of life and renal function, compared to patients with diabetes not on insulin. Among the 1398 patients with echocardiographic data, insulin use was associated with higher left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and more diastolic dysfunction than in other participants. The primary outcome occurred at a rate of 6.3 per 100 patient-years in patients without diabetes, and 10.2 and 17.1 per 100 patient-years in diabetes patients without and with insulin use, respectively [fully adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) insulin-treated diabetes vs. other diabetes: 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-1.63, P < 0.001]. The adjusted HR is 1.67 (95% CI 1.20-2.32, p = 0.002) for sudden death (insulin-treated diabetes vs. other diabetes). Conclusions: Insulin use is associated with poor outcomes in HFpEF. Although we cannot conclude a causal association, the safety of insulin and alternative glucose-lowering treatments in HF needs to be evaluated in clinical trials

Developing and validating models to predict sudden death and pump failure death in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

Background: Sudden death (SD) and pump failure death (PFD) are leading modes of death in heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Risk stratification for mode-specific death may aid in patient enrichment for new device trials in HFpEF. Methods: Models were derived in 4116 patients in the Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction trial (I-Preserve), using competing risks regression analysis. A series of models were built in a stepwise manner, and were validated in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved and Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trials. Results: The clinical model for SD included older age, men, lower LVEF, higher heart rate, history of diabetes or myocardial infarction, and HF hospitalization within previous 6 months, all of which were associated with a higher SD risk. The clinical model predicting PFD included older age, men, lower LVEF or diastolic blood pressure, higher heart rate, and history of diabetes or atrial fibrillation, all for a higher PFD risk, and dyslipidaemia for a lower risk of PFD. In each model, the observed and predicted incidences were similar in each risk subgroup, suggesting good calibration. Model discrimination was good for SD and excellent for PFD with Harrell’s C of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68–0.75) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.75–0.82), respectively. Both models were robust in external validation. Adding ECG and biochemical parameters, model performance improved little in the derivation cohort but decreased in validation. Including NT-proBNP substantially increased discrimination of the SD model, and simplified the PFD model with marginal increase in discrimination. Conclusions: The clinical models can predict risks for SD and PFD separately with good discrimination and calibration in HFpEF and are robust in external validation. Adding NT-proBNP further improved model performance. These models may help to identify high-risk individuals for device intervention in future trials. Clinical trial registration: I-Preserve: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00095238; TOPCAT: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00094302; CHARM-Preserved: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00634712