Figures of the Heart Failure Association: Andrew J. Stewart Coats, President‐Elect, 2018–2020

n/

Long-term survival in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy: the importance of performing atrio-ventricular junction ablation in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation

Aims To investigate the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on survival in heart failure (HF) patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) and the role of atrio-ventricular junction (AVJ) ablation in these patients. Methods and results Data from 1285 consecutive patients implanted with CRT devices are presented: 1042 patients were in sinus rhythm (SR) and 243 (19%) in AF. Rate control in AF was achieved by either ablating the AVJ in 118 patients (AVJ-abl) or prescribing negative chronotropic drugs (AF-Drugs). Compared with SR, patients with AF were significantly older, more likely to be non-ischaemic, with higher ejection fraction, shorter QRS duration, and less often received ICD back-up. During a median follow-up of 34 months, 170/1042 patients in SR and 39/243 in AF died (mortality: 8.4 and 8.9 per 100 person-year, respectively). Adjusted hazard ratios were similar for all-cause and cardiac mortality [0.9 (0.57-1.42), P = 0.64 and 1.00 (0.60-1.66) P = 0.99, respectively]. Among AF patients, only 11/118 AVJ-abl patients died vs. 28/125 AF-Drugs patients (mortality: 4.3 and 15.2 per 100 person-year, respectively, P < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios of AVJ-abl vs. AF-Drugs was 0.26 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.73, P = 0.010] for all-cause mortality, 0.31 (95% CI 0.10-0.99, P = 0.048) for cardiac mortality, and 0.15 (95% CI 0.03-0.70, P = 0.016) for HF mortality. Conclusion Patients with HF and AF treated with CRT have similar mortality compared with patients in SR. In AF, AVJ ablation in addition to CRT significantly improves overall survival compared with CRT alone, primarily by reducing HF deat

Systolic blood pressure reduction during the first 24 h in acute heart failure admission: friend or foe?

Aims: Changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) during an admission for acute heart failure (AHF), especially those leading to hypotension, have been suggested to increase the risk for adverse outcomes. Methods and results: We analysed associations of SBP decrease during the first 24 h from randomization with serum creatinine changes at the last time-point available (72 h), using linear regression, and with 30- and 180-day outcomes, using Cox regression, in 1257 patients in the VERITAS study. After multivariable adjustment for baseline SBP, greater SBP decrease at 24 h from randomization was associated with greater creatinine increase at 72 h and greater risk for 30-day all-cause death, worsening heart failure (HF) or HF readmission. The hazard ratio (HR) for each 1 mmHg decrease in SBP at 24 h for 30-day death, worsening HF or HF rehospitalization was 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.02; P = 0.021]. Similarly, the HR for each 1 mmHg decrease in SBP at 24 h for 180-day all-cause mortality was 1.01 (95% CI 1.00–1.03; P = 0.038). The associations between SBP decrease and outcomes did not differ by tezosentan treatment group, although tezosentan treatment was associated with a greater SBP decrease at 24 h. Conclusions: In the current post hoc analysis, SBP decrease during the first 24 h was associated with increased renal impairment and adverse outcomes at 30 and 180 days. Caution, with special attention to blood pressure monitoring, should be exercised when vasodilating agents are given to AHF patients

Rolofylline, an adenosine A1−receptor antagonist, in acute heart failure

Background: Worsening renal function, which is associated with adverse outcomes, often develops in patients with acute heart failure. Experimental and clinical studies suggest that counterregulatory responses mediated by adenosine may be involved. We tested the hypothesis that the use of rolofylline, an adenosine A1−receptor antagonist, would improve dyspnea, reduce the risk of worsening renal function, and lead to a more favorable clinical course in patients with acute heart failure. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with impaired renal function. Within 24 hours after presentation, 2033 patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive daily intravenous rolofylline (30 mg) or placebo for up to 3 days. The primary end point was treatment success, treatment failure, or no change in the patient’s clinical condition; this end point was defined according to survival, heart-failure status, and changes in renal function. Secondary end points were the post-treatment development of persistent renal impairment and the 60-day rate of death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes. Results: Rolofylline, as compared with placebo, did not provide a benefit with respect to the primary end point (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.35). Persistent renal impairment developed in 15.0% of patients in the rolofylline group and in 13.7% of patients in the placebo group (P=0.44). By 60 days, death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes had occurred in similar proportions of patients assigned to rolofylline and placebo (30.7% and 31.9%, respectively; P=0.86). Adverse-event rates were similar overall; however, only patients in the rolofylline group had seizures, a known potential adverse effect of A1-receptor antagonists. Conclusions: Rolofylline did not have a favorable effect with respect to the primary clinical composite end point, nor did it improve renal function or 60-day outcomes. It does not show promise in the treatment of acute heart failure with renal dysfunction. (Funded by NovaCardia, a subsidiary of Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00328692 and NCT00354458.

A network analysis to compare biomarker profiles in patients with and without diabetes mellitus in acute heart failure

Aims: It is unclear whether distinct pathophysiological processes are present among patients with acute heart failure (AHF), with and without diabetes. Network analysis of biomarkers may identify correlative associations that reflect different pathophysiological pathways. Methods and results: We analysed a panel of 48 circulating biomarkers measured within 24 h of admission for AHF in a subset of patients enrolled in the PROTECT trial. In patients with and without diabetes, we performed a network analysis to identify correlations between measured biomarkers. Compared with patients without diabetes (n = 1111), those with diabetes (n = 922) had a higher prevalence of ischaemic heart disease and traditional coronary risk factors. After multivariable adjustment, patients with and without diabetes had significantly different levels of biomarkers across a spectrum of pathophysiological domains, including inflammation (TNFR-1a, periostin), cardiomyocyte stretch (BNP), angiogenesis (VEGFR, angiogenin), and renal function (NGAL, KIM-1) (adjusted P-value &lt;0.05). Among patients with diabetes, network analysis revealed that periostin strongly clustered with C-reactive protein and interleukin-6. Furthermore, renal markers (creatinine and NGAL) closely associated with potassium and glucose. These findings were not seen among patients without diabetes. Conclusion: Patients with AHF and diabetes, compared with those without diabetes, have distinct biomarker profiles. Network analysis suggests that cardiac remodelling, inflammation, and fibrosis are closely associated with each other in patients with diabetes. Furthermore, potassium levels may be sensitive to changes in renal function as reflected by the strong renal–potassium–glucose correlation. These findings were not seen among patients without diabetes and may suggest distinct pathophysiological processes among AHF patients with diabetes

A combined clinical and biomarker approach to predict diuretic response in acute heart failure

Background: Poor diuretic response in acute heart failure is related to poor clinical outcome. The underlying mechanisms and pathophysiology behind diuretic resistance are incompletely understood. We evaluated a combined approach using clinical characteristics and biomarkers to predict diuretic response in acute heart failure (AHF). Methods and results: We investigated explanatory and predictive models for diuretic response—weight loss at day 4 per 40 mg of furosemide—in 974 patients with AHF included in the PROTECT trial. Biomarkers, addressing multiple pathophysiological pathways, were determined at baseline and after 24 h. An explanatory baseline biomarker model of a poor diuretic response included low potassium, chloride, hemoglobin, myeloperoxidase, and high blood urea nitrogen, albumin, triglycerides, ST2 and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (r2 = 0.086). Diuretic response after 24 h (early diuretic response) was a strong predictor of diuretic response (β = 0.467, P &lt; 0.001; r2 = 0.523). Addition of diuretic response after 24 h to biomarkers and clinical characteristics significantly improved the predictive model (r2 = 0.586, P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: Biomarkers indicate that diuretic unresponsiveness is associated with an atherosclerotic profile with abnormal renal function and electrolytes. However, predicting diuretic response is difficult and biomarkers have limited additive value. Patients at risk of poor diuretic response can be identified by measuring early diuretic response after 24 h

Biomarker profiles of acute heart failure patients with a mid-range ejection fraction

OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors used biomarker profiles to characterize differences between patients with acute heart failure with a midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and compare them with patients with a reduced (heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]) and preserved (heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]) ejection fraction. BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on biomarker profiles in acute HFmrEF. METHODS: A panel of 37 biomarkers from different pathophysiological domains (e.g., myocardial stretch, inflammation, angiogenesis, oxidative stress, hematopoiesis) were measured at admission and after 24 h in 843 acute heart failure patients from the PROTECT trial. HFpEF was defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥50% (n = 108), HFrEF as LVEF of &lt;40% (n = 607), and HFmrEF as LVEF of 40% to 49% (n = 128). RESULTS: Hemoglobin and brain natriuretic peptide levels (300 pg/ml [HFpEF]; 397 pg/ml [HFmrEF]; 521 pg/ml [HFrEF]; ptrend &lt;0.001) showed an upward trend with decreasing LVEF. Network analysis showed that in HFrEF interactions between biomarkers were mostly related to cardiac stretch, whereas in HFpEF, biomarker interactions were mostly related to inflammation. In HFmrEF, biomarker interactions were both related to inflammation and cardiac stretch. In HFpEF and HFmrEF (but not in HFrEF), remodeling markers at admission and changes in levels of inflammatory markers across the first 24 h were predictive for all-cause mortality and rehospitalization at 60 days (pinteraction &lt;0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker profiles in patients with acute HFrEF were mainly related to cardiac stretch and in HFpEF related to inflammation. Patients with HFmrEF showed an intermediate biomarker profile with biomarker interactions between both cardiac stretch and inflammation markers. (PROTECT-1: A Study of the Selective A1 Adenosine Receptor Antagonist KW-3902 for Patients Hospitalized With Acute HF and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function; NCT00328692)

Influence of heart rate, blood pressure, and beta-blocker dose on outcome and the differences in outcome between carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the COMET trial.

AIMS: We studied the influence of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and beta-blocker dose on outcome in the 2599 out of 3029 patients in Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) who were alive and on study drug at 4 months after randomization (time of first visit on maintenance therapy). METHODS AND RESULTS: By multivariable analysis, baseline HR, baseline SBP, and their change after 4 months were not independently related to subsequent outcome. In a multivariable analysis including clinical variables, HR above and SBP below the median value achieved at 4 months predicted subsequent increased mortality [relative risk (RR) for HR>68 b.p.m. 1.333; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.152-1.542; P120 mmHg 0.78; 95% CI 0.671-0.907; P<0.0013]. Achieving target beta-blocker dose was associated with a better outcome (RR 0.779; 95% CI 0.662-0.916; P<0.0025). The superiority of carvedilol as compared to metoprolol tartrate was maintained in a multivariable model (RR 0.767; 95% CI 0.663-0.887; P=0.0004) and there was no interaction with HR, SBP, or beta-blocker dose. CONCLUSION: Beta-blocker dose, HR, and SBP achieved during beta-blocker therapy have independent prognostic value in heart failure. None of these factors influenced the beneficial effects of carvedilol when compared with metoprolol tartrate at the pre-defined target doses used in COMET