Dataset Information

Serelaxin in acute heart failure patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: results from the RELAX-AHF trial.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Serelaxin is effective in relieving dyspnoea and improving multiple outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF). Many AHF patients have preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Given the lack of evidence-based therapies in this population, we evaluated the effects of serelaxin according to EF in RELAX-AHF trial.

Methods and results

RELAX-AHF randomized 1161 AHF patients to 48-h serelaxin (30 μg/kg/day) or placebo within 16 h from presentation. We compared the effects of serelaxin on efficacy endpoints, safety endpoints, and biomarkers of organ damage between preserved (≥50%) and reduced (<50%, HFrEF) EF. HFpEF was present in 26% of patients. Serelaxin induced a similar dyspnoea relief in HFpEF vs. HFrEF patients by visual analogue scale-area under the curve (VAS-AUC) through Day 5 [mean change, 461 (-195, 1117) vs. 397 (10, 783) mm h, P = 0.87], but had possibly different effects on the proportion of patients with moderately or markedly dyspnoea improvement by Likert scale at 6, 12, and 24 h [odds ratio for favourable response, 1.70 (0.98, 2.95) vs. 0.85 (0.62, 1.15), interaction P = 0.030]. No differences were encountered in the effect of serelaxin on short- or long-term outcome between HFpEF and HFrEF patients including cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart/renal failure through Day 60, cardiovascular death through Day 180, and all-cause death through Day 180. Similar safety and changes in biomarkers (high-sensitivity troponin T, cystatin-C, and alanine/aspartate aminotransferases) were found in both groups.

Conclusions

In AHF patients with HFpEF compared with those with HFrEF, serelaxin was well tolerated and effective in relieving dyspnoea and had a similar effect on short- and long-term outcome, including survival improvement.

SUBMITTER: Filippatos G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3992428 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine clinical and prognostic differences between preserved and deteriorated systolic function (defined as left ventricular (LV) ejection fractions > or = 50% and < 50%, respectively) in patients with heart failure satisfying modified Framingham criteria.Patients and methodsRecords were studied of 1252 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) (mean (SD) age 69.4 (11.7) years; 485 women, 767 men) who had been admitted to a cardiology service for CHF in the period 1991-2002 and whose LV systolic function had been echocardiographically evaluated within two weeks of admission. Data were collected on the main clinical findings, supplementary examinations, treatment, and duration of hospitalisation. Whether the patient was alive in the spring of 2003 was evaluated by searching the general archives of the hospital and by telephone survey.ResultsLV systolic function was preserved in 39.8% of patients. Age, female to male sex ratio, and prevalence of atrial fibrillation, valve disease, and other non-ischaemic, non-dilated cardiopathies were all significantly greater in the group with preserved systolic function. New York Heart Association functional class IV, third heart sound, jugular vein congestion, cardiomegaly, radiological signs of lung oedema, pathological Q waves, left bundle branch block, sinus rhythm, ischaemic cardiopathy, and dilated cardiomyopathy were all significantly more prevalent in the group with deteriorated systolic function, as was treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and most other antihypertensive drugs on discharge from hospital. There was no significant difference in survival between the groups with preserved and deteriorated systolic function (either survival regardless of age at admission or in subgroups aged < 75 and > or = 75 years at admission). In the whole group, survival rates after one, three, and five years were 84.0%, 66.7%, and 50.9%, respectively.ConclusionIn view of the poor prognosis of patients with CHF with preserved LV systolic function, who are currently treated empirically, it is to be hoped that relevant controlled clinical trials under way will afford information allowing optimisation of their treatment.

Project description:AIMS:Neuregulin1-? (NRG1-?) is released from microvascular endothelial cells in response to inflammation with compensatory cardioprotective effects. Circulating NRG1-? is elevated in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not studied in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:Circulating NRG1-? was quantified in 86 stable patients with HFpEF (EF ?45% and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide >300 ng/L), in 86 patients with HFrEF prior to and after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and/or heart transplantation (HTx) and in 21 healthy controls. Association between NRG1-? and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality/HF hospitalization in HFpEF and all-cause mortality/HTx/LVAD implantation in HFrEF with and without ischaemia assessed as macrovascular coronary artery disease was assessed. In HFpEF, median (25th-75th percentile) NRG1-? was 6.5 (2.1-11.3) ng/mL; in HFrEF, 3.6 (2.1-7.6) ng/mL (P = 0.035); after LVAD, 1.7 (0.9-3.6) ng/mL; after HTx 2.1 (1.4-3.6) ng/mL (overall P < 0.001); and in controls, 29.0 (23.1-34.3) ng/mL (P = 0.001). In HFrEF, higher NRG1-? was associated with worse outcomes (hazard ratio per log increase 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.03, P = 0.029), regardless of ischaemia. In HFpEF, the association of NRG1-? with outcomes was modified by ischaemia (log-rank P = 0.020; Pinteraction = 0.553) such that only in ischaemic patients, higher NRG1-? was related to worse outcomes. In contrast, in patients without ischaemia, higher NRG1-? trended towards better outcomes (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.48-1.05, P = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS:Neuregulin1-? was reduced in HFpEF and further reduced in HFrEF. The opposing relationships of NRG1-? with outcomes in non-ischaemic HFpEF compared with HFrEF and ischaemic HFpEF may indicate compensatory increases of cardioprotective NRG1-? from microvascular endothelial dysfunction in the former (non-ischaemic HFpEF), but this compensatory mechanism is overwhelmed by the presence of ischaemia in the latter (HFrEF and ischaemic HFpEF).