364 research outputs found
Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Volume Is Normal in Patients With Heart Failure and a Normal Ejection Fraction A Renewed Consensus in Diastolic Heart FailureââEditorials published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of JACC or the American College of Cardiology.
The GUIDE-HF Trial of Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring in Heart Failure: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
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%]), >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 (>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)
Systolic blood pressure, cardiovascular outcomes and efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: results from PARADIGM-HF
Background:
Compared to heart failure patients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP.
Methods:
We analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 toâ<â120, 120 toâ<â130, 130 toâ<â140 and â„140âmmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP.
Findings:
All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74â1.06) in patients with a baseline SBPâ<110âmmHg and 0.81 (0.65â1.02) for those with a SBPââ„140âmmHg (P for interactionâ=â0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP.
Interpretation:
In PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP
Hemodynamically-Guided Management of Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum: The GUIDE-HF Trial
Effects of sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF Trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) according to background therapy
BackgroundâIn the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was more effective than the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined whether this benefit was consistent irrespective of background therapy.
Methods and ResultsâWe examined the effect of study treatment in the following subgroups: diuretics (yes/no), digitalis glycoside (yes/no), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (yes/no), and defibrillating device (implanted defibrillating device, yes/no). We also examined the effect of study drug according to ÎČ-blocker dose (â„50% and <50% of target dose) and according to whether patients had undergone previous coronary revascularization. We analyzed the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, as well as cardiovascular death. Most randomized patients (n=8399) were treated with a diuretic (80%) and ÎČ-blocker (93%); 47% of those taking a ÎČ-blocker were treated with â„50% of the recommended dose. In addition, 4671 (56%) were treated with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, 2539 (30%) with digoxin, and 1243 (15%) had a defibrillating device; 2640 (31%) had undergone coronary revascularization. Overall, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary composite end point was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.73â0.87; P<0.001) and for cardiovascular death was 0.80 (0.71â0.89; P<0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across all subgroups examined. The hazard ratio for primary end point ranged from 0.74 to 0.85 and for cardiovascular death ranged from 0.75 to 0.89, with no treatment-by-subgroup interaction.
ConclusionsâThe benefit of sacubitril/valsartan, over an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, was consistent regardless of background therapy and irrespective of previous coronary revascularization or ÎČ-blocker dose
Baseline characteristics and treatment of patients in prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to determine impact on global mortality and morbidity in heart failure trial (PARADIGM-HF)
Aim<p></p>
To describe the baseline characteristics and treatment of the patients randomized in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNi with ACEi to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, testing the hypothesis that the strategy of simultaneously blocking the reninâangiotensinâaldosterone system and augmenting natriuretic peptides with LCZ696 200 mg b.i.d. is superior to enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in reducing mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.<p></p>
Methods<p></p>
Key demographic, clinical and laboratory findings, along with baseline treatment, are reported and compared with those of patients in the treatment arm of the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD-T) and more contemporary drug and device trials in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.<p></p>
Results<p></p>
The mean age of the 8442 patients in PARADIGM-HF is 64 (SD 11) years and 78% are male, which is similar to SOLVD-T and more recent trials. Despite extensive background therapy with beta-blockers (93% patients) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (60%), patients in PARADIGM-HF have persisting symptoms and signs, reduced health related quality of life, a low LVEF (mean 29 ± SD 6%) and elevated N-terminal-proB type-natriuretic peptide levels (median 1608 inter-quartile range 886â3221 pg/mL).<p></p>
Conclusion<p></p>
PARADIGM-HF will determine whether LCZ696 is more beneficial than enalapril when added to other disease-modifying therapies and if further augmentation of endogenous natriuretic peptides will reduce morbidity and mortality in heart failure and reduced ejection fractio
Influence of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) on 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization
Background:
Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for hospital readmission in the first 30 days following HF hospitalization.
Objectives:
This study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital readmission at 30-days following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril.
Methods:
We assessed the risk of 30-day readmission for any cause following investigator-reported hospitalizations for HF in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8,399 participants with HF and reduced ejection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril.
Results:
Accounting for multiple hospitalizations per patient, there were 2,383 investigator-reported HF hospitalizations, of which 1,076 (45.2%) occurred in subjects assigned to LCZ696 and 1,307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril. Rates of readmission for any cause at 30 days were 17.8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.97; p = 0.031). Rates of readmission for HF at 30-days were also lower in subjects assigned to LCZ696 (9.7% vs. 13.4%; odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.87; p = 0.006). The reduction in both all-cause and HF readmissions with LCZ696 was maintained when the time window from discharge was extended to 60 days and in sensitivity analyses restricted to adjudicated HF hospitalizations.
Conclusions:
Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmissions for any cause following discharge from HF hospitalization
Type of atrial fibrillation and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction
Background:
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in heart failure (HF), but the outcome by type of AF is largely unknown.
Objectives:
This study investigated outcomes related to type of AF (paroxysmal, persistent or permanent, or new onset) in 2 recent large trials in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.
Methods:
The study analyzed patients 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. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes related to AF type.
Results:
Of 15,415 patients, 5,481 (35.6%) had a history of AF at randomization, and of these, 1,645 (30.0%) had paroxysmal AF. Compared with patients without AF, patients with paroxysmal AF at randomization had a higher risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 1.32; p < 0.001), HF hospitalization (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51; < 0.001), and stroke (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.76; p = 0.037), whereas the corresponding risks in patients with persistent or permanent AF were not elevated. Neither type of AF was associated with higher mortality. New onset AF was associated with the greatest risk of adverse outcomes: primary endpoint (HR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.80 to 2.71), HF hospitalization (HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.81), stroke (HR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.25 to 3.88), and all-cause mortality (HR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.86 to 2.74), all p values < 0.001, compared with patients without AF. Anticoagulants were used less often in patients with paroxysmal (53%) and new onset (16%) AF than in patients with persistent or permanent AF (71%).
Conclusions:
Among HF patients with a history of AF, those with paroxysmal AF were at greater risk of HF hospitalization and stroke than were patients with persistent or permanent AF, underlining the importance of anticoagulant therapy. New onset AF was associated with increased risk of all outcomes. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255) (Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure [ATMOSPHERE]; NCT00853658
The Natural History of Left Ventricular Geometry in the Community Clinical Correlates and Prognostic Significance of Change in LVÂ Geometric Pattern
AbstractObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate pattern and clinical correlates of change in left ventricular (LV) geometry over a 4-year period in the community; it also assessed whether the pattern of change in LV geometry over 4 years predicts incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cardiovascular death, during an additional subsequent follow-up period.BackgroundIt is unclear how LV geometric patterns change over time and whether changes in LV geometry have prognostic significance.MethodsThis study evaluated 4,492 observations (2,604 unique Framingham Heart Study participants attending consecutive examinations) to categorize LV geometry at baseline and after 4 years. Four groups were defined on the basis of the sex-specific distributions of left ventricular mass (LVM) and relative wall thickness (RWT) (normal: LVM and RWTÂ <80th percentile; concentric remodeling: LVMÂ <80th percentile but RWTÂ â„80th percentile; eccentric hypertrophy: LVMÂ â„80th percentile but RWTÂ <80th percentile; and concentric hypertrophy: LVM and RWTÂ â„80th percentile).ResultsAt baseline, 2,874 of 4,492 observations (64%) had normal LVM and RWT. Participants with normal geometry or concentric remodeling progressed infrequently (4% to 8%) to eccentric or concentric hypertrophy. Change from eccentric to concentric hypertrophy was uncommon (8%). Among participants with concentric hypertrophy, 19% developed eccentric hypertrophy within the 4-year period. Among participants with abnormal LV geometry at baseline, a significant proportion (29% to 53%) reverted to normal geometry within 4 years. Higher blood pressure, greater body mass index (BMI), advancing age, and male sex were key correlates of developing an abnormal geometry. Development of an abnormal LV geometric pattern over 4 years was associated with increased CVD risk (140 events) during a subsequent median follow-up of 12 years (adjusted-hazards ratio: 1.59; 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 2.43).ConclusionsThe longitudinal observations in the community suggest that dynamic changes in LV geometric pattern over time are common. Higher blood pressure and greater BMI are modifiable factors associated with the development of abnormal LV geometry, and such progression portends an adverse prognosis
- âŠ