Top ten risk factors for morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic systolic heart failure and elevated heart rate: the SHIFT risk model

Aims We identified easily obtained baseline characteristics associated with outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and elevated heart rate (HR) receiving contemporary guideline-recommended therapy in the SHIFT trial, and used them to develop a prognostic model. Methods We selected the 10 best predictors for each of four outcomes (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation; all-cause mortality; cardiovascular mortality; and HF hospitalisation). All variables with p &#60; 0.05 for association were entered into a forward stepwise Cox regression model. Our initial analysis excluded baseline therapies, though randomisation to ivabradine or placebo was forced into the model for the composite endpoint and HF hospitalisation. Results Increased resting HR, low ejection fraction, raised creatinine, New York Heart Association class III/IV, longer duration of HF, history of left bundle branch block, low systolic blood pressure and, for three models, age were strong predictors of all outcomes. Additional predictors were low body mass index, male gender, ischaemic HF, low total cholesterol, no history of hyperlipidaemia or dyslipidaemia and presence of atrial fibrillation/flutter. The c-statistics for the four outcomes ranged from 67.6% to 69.5%. There was no evidence for lack of fit of the models with the exception of all-cause mortality (p = 0.017). Similar results were found including baseline therapies. Conclusion The SHIFT Risk Model includes simple, readily obtainable clinical characteristics to produce important prognostic information in patients with chronic HF, systolic dysfunction, and elevated HR. This may help better calibrate management to individual patient risk.</p

Effect of visit-to-visit variation of heart rate and systolic blood pressure on outcomes in chronic systolic heart failure: results from the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) trial

Background: Elevated resting heart rate (HR) and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) are related to poor outcomes in heart failure (HF). The association between visit-to-visit variation in SBP and HR and risk in HF is unknown. Methods and Results: In Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) patients, we evaluated relationships between mean HR, mean SBP, and visit-to-visit variations (coefficient of variation [CV]=SD/mean×100%) in SBP and HR (SBP-CV and HR-CV, respectively) and primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization), its components, all-cause mortality, and all-cause hospitalization. High HR and low SBP were closely associated with risk for primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, and HF hospitalization. The highest number of primary endpoint events occurred in the highest HR tertile (38.8% vs 16.4% lowest tertile; P&lt;0.001). For HR-CV, patients at highest risk were those in the lowest tertile. Patients in the lowest thirds of mean SBP and SBP-CV had the highest risk. The combination of high HR and low HR-CV had an additive deleterious effect on risk, as did that of low SBP and low SBP-CV. Ivabradine reduced mean HR and increased HR-CV, and increased SBP and SBP-CV slightly. Conclusions: Beyond high HR and low SBP, low HR-CV and low SBP-CV are predictors of cardiovascular outcomes with additive effects on risk in HF, but with an unknown effect size. Beyond HR reduction, ivabradine increases HR-CV. Low visit-to-visit variation of HR and SBP might signal risk of cardiovascular outcomes in systolic HF. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.isrctn.com/. Unique identifier: ISRCTN70429960

Efficacy profile of ivabradine in patients with heart failure plus angina pectoris

Objectives: In the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), slowing of the heart rate with ivabradine reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations among patients with systolic chronic heart failure (CHF). Subsequently, in the Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the If Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (SIGNIFY) slowing of the heart rate in patients without CHF provided no benefit for cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (primary composite end point), with secondary analyses suggesting possible harm in the angina subgroup. Therefore, we examined the impact of ivabradine in the patients with CHF plus angina in SHIFT. Methods: SHIFT enrolled adults with stable, symptomatic CHF, a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and a sinus rhythm with a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm. Outcomes were the SHIFT and SIGNIFY primary composite end points and their components. Results: Of 6,505 patients in SHIFT, 2,220 (34%) reported angina at randomization. Ivabradine numerically, but not significantly, reduced the SIGNIFY primary composite end point by 8, 11 and 11% in the SHIFT angina subgroup, nonangina subgroup and overall population, respectively. Ivabradine also reduced the SHIFT primary composite end point in all 3 subgroups. Conclusions: In SHIFT, ivabradine showed consistent reduction of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CHF; similar results were seen in the subgroup of SHIFT patients with angina

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan relative to a prior decompensation: the PARADIGM-HF trial

Objectives: This study assessed whether the benefit of sacubtril/valsartan therapy varied with clinical stability. Background: Despite the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan therapy shown in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, it has been suggested that switching from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker should be delayed until occurrence of clinical decompensation. Methods: Outcomes were compared among patients who had prior hospitalization within 3 months of screening (n = 1,611 [19%]), between 3 and 6 months (n = 1,009 [12%]), between 6 and 12 months (n = 886 [11%]), &gt;12 months (n = 1,746 [21%]), or who had never been hospitalized (n = 3,125 [37%]). Results: Twenty percent of patients without prior HF hospitalization experienced a primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization during the course of the trial. Despite the increased risk associated with more recent hospitalization, the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan therapy did not differ from that of enalapril according to the occurrence of or time from hospitalization for HF before screening, with respect to the primary endpoint or with respect to cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Patients with recent HF decompensation requiring hospitalization were more likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who had never been hospitalized. Patients who were clinically stable, as shown by a remote HF hospitalization (&gt;3 months prior to screening) or by lack of any prior HF hospitalization, were as likely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan therapy as more recently hospitalized patients. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)

Dynamic QRS complex and ST segment vectorcardiographic monitoring can identify vessel patency in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion therapy

Reperfusion therapy has lowered the mortality in patients suffering acute myocardial infarction. Failure to reperfuse is associated with significantly higher risk of short- and long-term mortality. Detection of reperfusion is thus important. In a prospective pilot study, we used continuous on-line computerized vectorcardiography to monitor 21 patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion therapy to noninvasively detect coronary patency. By using trend analysis of QRS vector difference, we were able to correctly blindly identify 15 of 16 patients with a perfused infarct-related artery and four of six patients with a persistently occluded artery at an early anglogram. The present results are based on a limited number of patients, but suggest that QRS complex and ST segment monitoring with continuous on-line vectorcardiography has substantial potential for monitoring patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion therapy.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29117/1/0000156.pd

Prevalence of prediabetes and undiagnosed diabetes in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF and associated clinical outcomes

Purpose: The prevalence and consequences of prediabetic dysglycemia and undiagnosed diabetes is unknown in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and has not been compared to heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: We examined the prevalence and outcomes associated with normoglycemia, prediabetic dysglycemia and diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) among individuals with a baseline glycated hemoglobin (hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c) measurement stratified by HFrEF or HFpEF in the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity programme (CHARM). We studied the primary outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death, and all-cause death, and estimated hazard ratios (HR) by use of multivariable Cox regression models. Results: HbA1c was measured at baseline in CHARM patients enrolled in the USA and Canada and was available in 1072/3023 (35%) of patients with HFpEF and 1578/4576 (34%) patients with HFrEF. 18 and 16% had normoglycemia (HbA1c &lt; 6.0), 20 and 22% had prediabetes (HbA1c 6.0–6.4), respectively. Finally among patients with HFpEF 22% had undiagnosed diabetes (HbA1c &gt; 6.4), and 40% had known diabetes (any HbA1c), with corresponding prevalence among HFrEF patients being 26 and 35%. The rates of both clinical outcomes of interest were higher in patients with undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes, compared to normoglycemic patients, irrespective of HF subtype, and in general higher among HFrEF patients. For the primary composite outcome among HFpEF patients, the HRs were 1.02 (95% CI 0.63–1.65) for prediabetes, HR 1.18 (0.75–1.86) for undiagnosed diabetes and 2.75 (1.83–4.11) for known diabetes, respectively, p value for trend across groups &lt; 0.001. Dysglycemia was also associated with worse outcomes in HFrEF. Conclusions: These findings confirm the remarkably high prevalence of dysglycemia in heart failure irrespective of ejection fraction phenotype, and demonstrate that dysglycemia is associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, even before the diagnosis of diabetes and institution of glucose lowering therapy in patients with HFpEF as well as HFrEF