Dataset Information

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction: A Patient-Pooled Analysis From the Kor HF and Kor AHF Registries.

ABSTRACT: Background Although current guidelines now define heart failure with midrange ejection fraction ( HF mr EF ) as HF with a left ventricular EF of 40% to 49%, there are limited data on response to guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HF mr EF . The current study aimed to evaluate the association between ?-blocker, renin-angiotensin system blocker ( RASB ), or aldosterone antagonist ( AA ) treatment with clinical outcome in patients with HF mr EF . Methods and Results We performed a patient-level pooled analysis on 1144 patients with HF mr EF who were hospitalized for acute HF from the Kor HF (Korean Heart Failure) and Kor AHF (Korean Acute Heart Failure) registries. The study population was divided between use of ?-blocker, RASB , or AA to evaluate the guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HF mr EF . Sensitivity analyses, including propensity score matching and inverse-probability-weighted methods, were performed. The use of ?-blocker in the discharge group showed significantly lower rates of all-cause mortality compared with those who did not use a ?-blocker (?-blocker versus no ?-blocker, 30.7% versus 38.2%; hazard ratio, 0.758; 95% confidence interval, 0.615-0.934; P=0.009). Similarly, the RASB use in the discharge group was associated with the lower risk of mortality compared with no use of RASB ( RASB versus no RASB , 31.9% versus 38.1%; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.618-0.946; P=0.013). However, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between AA and no AA in the discharge group ( AA versus no AA , 34.2% versus 34.0%; hazard ratio, 1.063; 95% confidence interval, 0.858-1.317; P=0.578). Multiple sensitivity analyses showed similar trends. Conclusions For treatment of acute HFmrEF after hospitalization, ?-blocker and RASB therapies on discharge were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01389843.

SUBMITTER: Choi KH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6404181 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction: A Patient-Pooled Analysis From the Kor HF and Kor AHF Registries.

Choi Ki Hong KH Choi Jin-Oh JO Jeon Eun-Seok ES Lee Ga Yeon GY Choi Dong-Ju DJ Lee Hae-Young HY Kim Jae-Joong JJ Chae Shung Chull SC Baek Sang Hong SH Kang Seok-Min SM Yoo Byung-Su BS Kim Kye Hun KH Cho Myeong-Chan MC Park Hyun-Young HY Oh Byung-Hee BH

Journal of the American Heart Association 20181101 21

Background Although current guidelines now define heart failure with midrange ejection fraction ( HF mr EF ) as HF with a left ventricular EF of 40% to 49%, there are limited data on response to guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HF mr EF . The current study aimed to evaluate the association between β-blocker, renin-angiotensin system blocker ( RASB ), or aldosterone antagonist ( AA ) treatment with clinical outcome in patients with HF mr EF . Methods and Results We performed a ...[more]

PMID: 30608208

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes. Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064-2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335-2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096-1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247-2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020-1.718, P = 0.035). Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.

Project description:Evidence-based therapies for heart failure (HF) differ significantly according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, few data are available on the phenotype and prognosis of patients with HF with midrange LVEF of 40% to 55%, and the impact of recovered systolic function on the clinical features, functional capacity, and outcomes of this population is not known.We studied 944 patients with HF who underwent clinically indicated cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The study population was categorized according to LVEF as follows: HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF<40%; n=620); HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (LVEF was consistent between 40% and 55%; n=107); HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction (LVEF, 40%-55% but previous LVEF<40%; n=170); and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF; LVEF>55%; n=47). HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction and HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had similar clinical characteristics, which were intermediate between those of HFrEF and HFpEF, and comparable values of predicted peak oxygen consumption and minute-ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, which were better than HFrEF and similar to HFpEF. After a median of 4.4 (2.9-5.7) years, there were 253 composite events (death, left ventricular assistant device implantation, or transplantation). In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had lower risk of composite events than HFrEF (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) and HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.67), and similar prognosis when compared with HFpEF. In contrast, HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction tended to show intermediate risk of outcomes in comparison with HFpEF and HFrEF, albeit not reaching statistical significance in fully adjusted analyses.Patients with HF with midrange LVEF demonstrate a distinct clinical profile from HFpEF and HFrEF patients, with objective measures of functional capacity similar to HFpEF. Within the midrange LVEF HF population, recovered systolic function is a marker of more favorable prognosis.

Project description:ImportancePatients categorized as having heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the midrange between 40% and 50% (HFmrEF) are known to be at increased risk of future events. Although patients can transition into the midrange through either improvement or deterioration in their LVEF, there is limited information available assessing the association of directional change in LVEF with future events. Understanding the association between change in LVEF and the clinical course of patients with HFmrEF would be of value in guiding management strategies.ObjectiveTo determine whether risk of clinical events experienced by patients with HFmrEF varies according to whether LVEF improved or deteriorated into the range of 40% to 50% from previous measurements.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, patients were identified from the electronic health records at the UC San Diego Health System who had an LVEF measured between 40% and 50% on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) performed during the calendar year of 2015 and who also had at least 1 prior TTE for comparison. The clinical course of these patients was then followed from the time of the index TTE through December 2018. Data were analyzed from January to March 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe composite of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization, the composite of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization, and each of the individual components.ResultsOf the 448 patients who were identified with HFmrEF, 278 (62.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 67.4 (9.7) years. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved from less than 40% in 157 patients (35.0%), deteriorated from greater than 50% in 224 patients (50.0%), and remained between 40% and 50% over time in 67 patients (15.0%). Compared with patients whose LVEF improved from less than 40% to midrange levels, patients whose LVEF deteriorated from greater than 50% had higher risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.82; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08-2.50; P = .02), and these differences persisted after multivariable analysis. Outcomes did not differ significantly between patients whose LVEF improved and those in whom it remained stable.Conclusion and relevanceIn a cohort of patients with HFmrEF from a large academic medical center, the clinical course was strongly influenced by the directional change in LVEF from prior study. Patients whose LVEF deteriorated into midrange levels experienced a significantly higher risk of adverse clinical events than patients whose LVEF had improved. These results suggest that directional change in LVEF from prior measurements should be considered when devising management strategies for patients with HFmrEF.

Project description:ImportanceOptimal treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is scripted by treatment guidelines, but many eligible patients do not receive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo determine whether a remote, algorithm-driven, navigator-administered medication optimization program could enhance implementation of GDMT in HFrEF.Design, setting, and participantsIn this case-control study, a population-based sample of patients with HFrEF was offered participation in a quality improvement program directed at GDMT optimization. Treating clinicians in a tertiary academic medical center who were caring for patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less (identified through an electronic health record-based search) were approached for permission to adjust medical therapy according to a sequential titration algorithm modeled on the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines. Navigators contacted participants by telephone to direct medication adjustment and conduct longitudinal surveillance of laboratory tests, blood pressure, and symptoms under supervision of a pharmacist, nurse practitioner, and heart failure cardiologist. Patients and clinicians declining to participate served as a control group.ExposuresNavigator-led remote optimization of GDMT compared with usual care.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of patients receiving GDMT in the intervention and control groups at 3 months.ResultsOf 1028 eligible patients (mean [SD] values: age, 68 [14] years; ejection fraction, 32% [8%]; and systolic blood pressure, 122 [18] mm Hg; 305 women (30.0%); 892 individuals [86.8%] in New York Heart Association class I and II), 197 (19.2%) participated in the medication optimization program, and 831 (80.8%) continued with usual care as directed by their treating clinicians (585 [56.9%] general cardiologists; 443 [43.1%] heart failure specialists). At 3 months, patients participating in the remote intervention experienced significant increases from baseline in use of renin-angiotensin system antagonists (138 [70.1%] to 170 [86.3%]; P < .001) and β-blockers (152 [77.2%] to 181 [91.9%]; P < .001) but not mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (51 [25.9%] to 60 [30.5%]; P = .14). Doses for each category of GDMT also increased from baseline in the intervention group. Among the usual-care group, there were no changes from baseline in the proportion of patients receiving GDMT or the dose of GDMT in any category.Conclusions and relevanceRemote titration of GDMT by navigators using encoded algorithms may represent an efficient, population-level strategy for rapidly closing the gap between guidelines and clinical practice in patients with HFrEF.

Project description:AimsThe PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.Methods and resultsBoth PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002).ConclusionIn pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting.

Dataset Information

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction: A Patient-Pooled Analysis From the Kor HF and Kor AHF Registries.

Publications

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction: A Patient-Pooled Analysis From the Kor HF and Kor AHF Registries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets