Dataset Information

Systolic Blood Pressure in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guidelines recommend targeting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mm Hg in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with limited data.

Objectives

This study sought to determine the optimal achieved SBP and whether the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes are related to BP lowering, particularly among women who derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.

Methods

Using 4,795 trial participants, this study related baseline and time-updated mean achieved SBP quartiles (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, ≥140 mm Hg) to the primary outcome (cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalization), its components, myocardial infarction or stroke, and a renal composite outcome. At the 16-week visit, the study assessed the relationship between SBP change and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The study analyzed whether the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan accounted for its treatment effects.

Results

Average age was 73 ± 8 years, and 52% of participants were women. After multivariable adjustment, baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg demonstrated the lowest risk for all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by 5.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: 4.4 to 6.0) compared with valsartan at 4 weeks, which was not modified by baseline SBP. However, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP more in women (6.3 mm Hg) than men (4.0 mm Hg) (interaction p = 0.005). Change in SBP was directly associated with change in NT-proBNP (p < 0.001) but not KCCQ-OSS (p = 0.40). The association between sacubitril/valsartan and the primary outcome was not modified by baseline SBP (interaction p = 0.50) and was similar when adjusting for time-updated SBP, regardless of sex.

Conclusions

Baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg identified the lowest risk patients with HFpEF. Baseline SBP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan, and the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan did not account for its effects on outcomes, regardless of sex. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

SUBMITTER: Selvaraj S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8109279 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Dyslipidemia is common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan improves glycemic control and augments natriuretic peptide signaling, providing mechanisms by which sacubitril/valsartan may affect serum lipids. However, empiric data on these effects are lacking. Methods and Results We analyzed 4774 participants from PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) with available screening lipids. During follow-up visits, we analyzed the treatment effect on lipid levels and assessed for interaction by baseline lipid levels. At the 16-week visit, we adjusted these treatment effects for the change in several biomarkers (including hemoglobin A1c and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate/creatinine [a biomarker of natriuretic peptide activation]). The average age was 73±8 years, 52% were women, 43% had diabetes mellitus, and 64% were on statin therapy. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced triglycerides -5.0% (95% CI, -6.6% to -3.5%), increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol +2.6% (95% CI, +1.7% to +3.4%), and increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol +1.7% (95% CI, +0.4% to +3.0%). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced triglycerides most among those with elevated baseline levels (triglycerides≥200 mg/dL) (P-interaction<0.001), and at 16 weeks by -13.0% (95% CI, -18.1% to -7.6%), or -29.9 (95% CI, -44.3 to -15.5) mg/dL, in this group. Adjusting for the change in urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate/creatinine significantly attenuated treatment effects on triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, but not low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, while adjusting for other biomarkers did not significantly alter the treatment effects. Conclusions Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces triglycerides compared with valsartan, an effect that was nearly threefold stronger in those with elevated baseline triglycerides. Modest increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol cholesterol were also observed with therapy. The underlying mechanism(s) of changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides are related to sacubitril/valsartan's effects on natriuretic peptide activity. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Project description:AimsPatients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on 'apparent resistant hypertension' in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril-valsartan with valsartan.Methods and resultsIn this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). 'Apparent resistant hypertension' was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. 'Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant' hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril-valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6-19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7-14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [-4.8 (-7.0 to -2.5) and 3.9 (-6.6 to -1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [-8.8 (-14.0 to -3.5) and -6.3 (-12.5 to -0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18-5.89).ConclusionSacubitril-valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA.Clinical trial registrationPARAGON-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Project description:Importance:Lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels are associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure. Less is known about this association in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Objective:To determine the associations of SBP levels with mortality and other outcomes in HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants:A propensity score-matched observational study of the Medicare-linked Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) registry included 25 354 patients who were discharged alive; 8873 (35.0%) had an ejection fraction of at least 50%, and of these, 3915 (44.1%) had stable SBP levels (≤20 mm Hg admission to discharge variation). Data were collected from 259 hospitals in 48 states between March 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2003, to December 31, 2008. Exposure:Discharge SBP levels less than 120 mm Hg. A total of 1076 of 3915 (27.5%) had SBP levels less than 120 mm Hg, of whom 901 (83.7%) were matched by propensity scores with 901 patients with SBP levels of 120 mm Hg or greater who were balanced on 58 baseline characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures:Thirty-day, 1-year, and overall all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission through December 31, 2008. Results:The 1802 matched patients had a mean (SD) age of 79 (10) years; 1147 (63.7%) were women, and 134 (7.4%) were African American. Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 91 (10%) and 45 (5%) of matched patients with discharge SBP of less than 120 mm Hg vs 120 mm Hg or greater, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.45-2.95; P < .001). Systolic blood pressure level less than 120 mm Hg was also associated with a higher risk of mortality at 1 year (39% vs 31%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.16-1.59; P < .001) and during a median follow-up of 2.1 (overall 6) years (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.30; P = .005). Systolic blood pressure level less than 120 mm Hg was associated with a higher risk of heart failure readmission at 30 days (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-2.01; P = .02) but not at 1 or 6 years. Hazard ratios for the combined end point of heart failure readmission or all-cause mortality associated with SBP level less than 120 mm at 30 days, 1 year, and overall were 1.71 (95% CI, 1.34-2.18; P < .001), 1.21 (95% CI, 1.07-1.38; P = .004), and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .03), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance:Among hospitalized patients with HFpEF, an SBP level less than 120 mm Hg is significantly associated with poor outcomes. Future studies need to prospectively evaluate optimal SBP treatment goals in patients with HFpEF.

Project description:AimsIn the heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) PARAGON-HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan improved mortality/morbidity in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below median (57%). We assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on four scenarios.Methods and resultsEligibility was assessed in the Karolinska-Rennes study (acute HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 45%, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥300 pg/mL subsequently assessed as outpatients including echocardiography) in (i) a trial scenario (all trial criteria); (ii) a pragmatic scenario (selected trial criteria); (iii) LVEF below lower limit of normal range (<54% in women and <52% in men); and (iv) LVEF below mean of normal range (<64% in women and <62% in men). Among 425 patients [age 78 (72-83) years, 57% women, 28% LVEF ≤ 57% (median in PARAGON-HF), the trial scenario, identified 34% as eligible. Left atrial enlargement and/or left ventricular hypertrophy were present in 99%. Inclusion criteria not met were diuretic treatment and New York Heart Association class. Important exclusion criteria were estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 , haemoglobin <10 g/day, and cancer. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible. In LVEF below lower limit of normal range, 5.4% were eligible, and in LVEF below mean of normal range, 41% were eligible. In patients with LVEF ≤ 57%, eligibility was 42%, 69%, 21%, and 91% according to the trial scenario, pragmatic scenario, LVEF below lower limit of normal range, and LVEF below mean of normal range, respectively.ConclusionsIn real-world HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 45%) with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and cardiac structure/function assessed, eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan was according to PARAGON-HF complete criteria 34%, pragmatic criteria 63%, LVEF below lower limit of normal range 5.4%, and LVEF below mean of normal range 41%. Cardiac structural impairment was almost ubiquitous. Ineligibility was more due to exclusion criteria than failing to meet inclusion criteria.