Association Between Hemoglobin Levels and Efficacy of Intravenous Ferric Carboxymaltose in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Iron Deficiency: An AFFIRM-AHF Subgroup Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency, with or without anemia, is an adverse prognostic factor in heart failure (HF). In AFFIRM-AHF (a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial comparing the effect of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose on hospitalizations and mortality in iron-deficient subjects admitted for acute heart failure), intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), although having no significant effect on the primary end point, reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (hHF) and improved quality of life versus placebo in iron-deficient patients stabilized after an acute HF (AHF) episode. These prespecified AFFIRM-AHF subanalyses explored the association between hemoglobin levels and FCM treatment effects. METHODS: AFFIRM-AHF was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of FCM in hospitalized AHF patients with iron deficiency. Patients were stratified by baseline hemoglobin level (<12 versus ≥12 g/dL). In each subgroup, the primary composite (total hHF and cardiovascular death) and secondary (total hHF; total cardiovascular hospitalizations and cardiovascular death; time to cardiovascular death, and time to first/days lost due to hHF or cardiovascular death) outcomes were assessed with FCM versus placebo at week 52. Sensitivity analyses using the World Health Organization anemia definition (hemoglobin level <12 g/dL [women] or <13 g/dL [men]) were performed, among others. RESULTS: Of 1108 AFFIRM-AHF patients, 1107 were included in these subanalyses: 464 (FCM group, 228; placebo group, 236) had a hemoglobin level <12 g/dL, and 643 (FCM, 329; placebo, 314) had a hemoglobin level ≥12 g/dL. Patients with a hemoglobin level <12 g/dL were older (mean, 73.7 versus 69.1 years), with more frequent previous HF (75.0% versus 68.7%), serum ferritin <100 μg/L (75.4% versus 68.1%), and transferrin saturation <20% (87.9% versus 81.4%). For the primary outcome, annualized event rates per 100 patient-years with FCM versus placebo were 71.1 and 73.6 (rate ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.66-1.41]), respectively, and 48.5 versus 72.9 (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.48-0.93]) in the hemoglobin levels <12 and ≥12 g/dL subgroups, respectively. No significant interactions between hemoglobin subgroup and treatment effect were observed for primary (Pinteraction=0.15) or secondary outcomes. Changes from baseline in hemoglobin, serum ferritin and transferrin saturation were significantly greater with FCM versus placebo in both subgroups between weeks 6 and 52. Findings were similar using the World Health Organization definition for anemia. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of intravenous FCM on outcomes in iron-deficient patients stabilized after an AHF episode, including improvements in iron parameters over time, did not differ between patients with hemoglobin levels <12 and ≥12 g/dL. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02937454

Impact of ischaemic aetiology on the efficacy of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose in patients with iron deficiency and acute heart failure: insights from the AFFIRM-AHF trial.

AIMS: In AFFIRM‐AHF, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalisations and improved quality of life versus placebo in iron‐deficient patients stabilised after an acute HF episode. This analysis explored the effects of FCM versus placebo in patients with ischaemic and non‐ischaemic HF aetiology. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 1082 patients from AFFIRM‐AHF: 590 with ischaemic HF (defined as investigator‐reported ischaemic HF aetiology and/or prior acute myocardial infarction and/or prior coronary revascularisation) and 492 with non‐ischaemic HF. The prevalences of male sex, comorbidities, and history of HF were higher in the ischaemic versus non‐ischaemic HF subgroup. Annualised event rates for the primary composite outcome of total HF hospitalisations and cardiovascular death with FCM versus placebo were 65.3 versus 100.6 per 100 patient‐years in the ischaemic HF subgroup (rate ratio [RR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47–0.89, p = 0.007) and 58.3 versus 52.5 in the non‐ischaemic HF subgroup (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.75–1.66, p = 0.60) (p (interaction) = 0.039). An interaction between HF aetiology and treatment effect was also observed for the secondary outcome of total HF hospitalisations (p (interaction) = 0.038). A nominal increase in quality of life, assessed using the 12‐item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, was observed with FCM versus placebo, within each subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure hospitalisations and cardiovascular deaths occurred at a higher rate in patients with ishaemic versus those with non‐ischaemic HF and were reduced by FCM versus placebo only in ischaemic patients. Further studies are needed to assess the role of aetiology in FCM efficacy

Comparing biomarker profiles of patients with heart failure:atrial fibrillation vs. sinus rhythm and reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction

Aims: The clinical correlates and consequences of atrial fibrillation (AF) might be different between heart failure with reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF vs. HFpEF). Biomarkers may provide insights into underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these different heart failure (HF) phenotypes. Methods and results: We performed a retrospective analysis of the BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF), which was an observational cohort. We studied 2152 patients with HFrEF [ejection fraction (EF &lt; 40%)], of which 1419 were in sinus rhythm (SR) and 733 had AF. Another 524 patients with HFpEF (EF ≥50%) were studied, of which 286 in SR and 238 with AF. For the comparison of biomarker profiles, 92 cardiovascular risk markers were measured (Proseek® Olink Cardiovascular III panel). The circulating risk marker pattern observed in HFrEF was different than the pattern in HFpEF: in HFrEF, AF was associated with higher levels of 77 of 92 (84%) risk markers compared to SR; whereas in HFpEF, many more markers were higher in SR than in AF. Over a median follow-up of 21 months, AF was associated with increased mortality risk [multivariable hazard ratio (HR) of 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.48, P = 0.002]; there was no significant interaction between heart rhythm and EF group on outcome. Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, the presence of AF was associated with a homogeneously elevated cardiovascular risk marker profile. In contrast, in patients with HFpEF, the presence of AF was associated with a more scattered risk marker profile, suggesting differences in underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these HF phenotypes

2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

2016 ESC on Acute and Chronic H

Potassium and the use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from BIOSTAT-CHF

Background: Hyperkalaemia is a common co-morbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether it affects the use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors and thereby negatively impacts outcome is unknown. Therefore, we investigated the association between potassium and uptitration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and its association with outcome. Methods and results: Out of 2516 patients from the BIOSTAT-CHF study, potassium levels were available in 1666 patients with HFrEF. These patients were sub-optimally treated with ACEi/ARB or beta-blockers and were anticipated and encouraged to be uptitrated. Potassium levels were available at inclusion and at 9 months. Outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization at 2 years. Patients&apos; mean age was 67 ± 12 years and 77% were male. At baseline, median serum potassium was 4.3 (interquartile range 3.9–4.6) mEq/L. After 9 months, 401 (24.1%) patients were successfully uptitrated with ACEi/ARB. During this period, mean serum potassium increased by 0.16 ± 0.66 mEq/L (P &amp;lt; 0.001). Baseline potassium was an independent predictor of lower ACEi/ARB dosage achieved [odds ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51–0.98]. An increase in potassium was not associated with adverse outcomes (hazard ratio 1.15; 95% CI 0.86–1.53). No interaction on outcome was found between baseline potassium, potassium increase during uptitration, or potassium at 9 months and increased dosage of ACEi/ARB (Pinteraction &amp;gt; 0.5 for all). Conclusion: Higher potassium levels are an independent predictor of enduring lower dosages of ACEi/ARB. Higher potassium levels do not attenuate the beneficial effects of ACEi/ARB uptitration. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiolog

Identifying Pathophysiological Mechanisms in Heart Failure With Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background: Information on the pathophysiological differences between heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) versus heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is needed Objectives: The purpose of this study was to establish biological pathways specifically related to HFrEF and HFpEF. Methods: The authors performed a network analysis to identify unique biomarker correlations in HFrEF and HFpEF using 92 biomarkers from different pathophysiological domains in a cohort of 1,544 heart failure (HF) patients. Data were independently validated in 804 patients with HF. Networks were enriched with existing knowledge on protein–protein interactions and translated into biological pathways uniquely related to HFrEF, HF with a midrange ejection fraction, and HFpEF. Results: In the index cohort (mean age 74 years; 34% female), 718 (47%) patients had HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] &lt;40%) and 431 (27%) patients had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). A total of 8 (12%) correlations were unique for HFrEF and 6 (9%) were unique to HFpEF. Central proteins in HFrEF were N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide, growth differentiation factor-15, interleukin-1 receptor type 1, and activating transcription factor 2, while central proteins in HFpEF were integrin subunit beta-2 and catenin beta-1. Biological pathways in HFrEF were related to DNA binding transcription factor activity, cellular protein metabolism, and regulation of nitric oxide biosynthesis. Unique pathways in patients with HFpEF were related to cytokine response, extracellular matrix organization, and inflammation. Biological pathways of patients with HF with a midrange ejection fraction were in between HFrEF and HFpEF. Conclusions: Network analysis showed that biomarker profiles specific for HFrEF are related to cellular proliferation and metabolism, whereas biomarker profiles specific for HFpEF are related to inflammation and extracellular matrix reorganization. (The BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure [BIOSTAT-CHF]; EudraCT 2010-020808-29) © 201