Association between dosing and combination use of medications and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
To assess the association between combination, dose and use of current guideline-recommended target doses (TD) of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) and β-blockers, and outcomes in a large and unselected contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.Methods and results
Overall, 17 809 outpatients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) from May 2000 to December 2018, with ejection fraction <40% and duration of HF ≥90 days were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization. Compared with no use of RASi or ARNi, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.76-0.91) with <50% of TD, 0.78 (0.71-0.86) with 50%-99%, and 0.73 (0.67-0.80) with ≥100% of TD. Compared with no use of β-blockers, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.76-0.91), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 0.74 (0.68-0.82) with <50%, 50%-99% and ≥100% of TD, respectively. Patients receiving both an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNi and a β-blocker at 50%-99% of TD had a lower adjusted risk of the primary outcome compared with patients only receiving one drug, i.e. ACEi/ARB/ARNi or β-blocker, even if this was at ≥100% of TD.Conclusion
Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients using higher doses of RASi or ARNi and β-blockers had lower risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Use of two drug classes at 50%-99% of TD dose was associated with lower risk than one drug class at 100% of TD.
SUBMITTER: D'Amario D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9315143 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsIn May 2016, a new version of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines for the management of heart failure (HF) was released. The aim of this study was to describe the management of HF with reduced ejection fraction after the publication of ESC Guidelines.Methods and resultsThe Linx registry is a multicentre, observational, cross-sectional study from 14 Catalan hospitals that enrolled 1056 patients with HF and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40%) from 1 February to 30 April 2017 in outpatient cardiology clinics. Results were compared between hospitals according to their level of complexity in our own registry and compared with previously published registries similar to ours. Sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed to 23.9% of patients in our population, as a consequence, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blockers in monotherapy decreased to 48.1% and 16.9%, respectively, and prescription of beta-blockers (91.8%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (72.7%), and ivabradine (21.4%) remained similar to previous registries. Target doses of beta-blockers (25.4%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (24.9%), angiotensin receptor blockers (7.7%), sacubitril/valsartan (8.1%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (19.7%) were accomplished in a low proportion of patients. Our results also suggest that prescription and up-titration of class I HF drugs were greater in hospitals with higher level of complexity.ConclusionsThe Linx registry shows an appropriate adherence to pharmacological recommendations from ESC HF Guidelines despite a low proportion of patients reached target doses. Almost one-quarter of patients were under treatment with sacubitril/valsartan a few months after ESC HF Guidelines recommendations.
| S-EPMC7083472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of dynamic changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in an all-comer heart failure (HF) population with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%). We sought to identify independent factors related to improvement in EF and to identify risk factors for increased risk of CV events in the subgroups of improved EF (iEF) and non-improved EF (niEF), respecively.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective sub-analysis from the REDEAL HF trial, which included consecutive patients with chronic HF who were hospitalized from July 2009 to December 2017. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography data (interval ≥12 months) of 573 consecutive patients with HFrEF were analysed. iEF was defined as absolute improvement in EF ≥ 10% and follow-up EF over 40%. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, CV hospitalization, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. EF improved in 37.2% of patients with HFrEF during follow-up (median period of 17 months). iEF was independently associated with shorter HF duration (>4 vs. ≤4 years, odd ratio [OR] = 0.477, 95% CI 0.305-0.745), no coronary artery disease (CAD vs. no CAD, OR = 0.583, 95% CI 0.396-0.858), and no ICD implantation (ICD vs. no ICD, OR = 0.341, 95% CI 0.228-0.511). Compared with niEF, iEF was significantly and independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (22.1% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.019; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.674, 95% CI 0.469-0.968), lower CV mortality (8.9% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.015; HR = 0.539, 95% CI 0.317-0.916), and lower CV events risk (27.2% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; HR 0.519, 95% CI 0.381-0.708), after adjustment for age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors. Hypertension (HR = 2.452, P = 0.032) and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >1153 pg/mL, HR = 4.372, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for CV events in the iEF subgroup. ICD implantation (HR = 1.533, P = 0.011), elevated NT-proBNP (HR = 1.626, P = 0.018), increased left atrial volume index (HR = 1.461, P = 0.021), reduced lateral mitral annular plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.478, P = 0.025), and reduced tricuspid plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.491, P = 0.039) were identified as risk factors for CV events in the niEF subgroup.ConclusionsImprovement in EF is independently related to the longer survival and lower CV related mortality and hospitalization rate of HFrEF. Elevated baseline NT-proBNP is identified as the strongest prognostic factor associated with increased CV events risk in HFrEF patients both with and without improved EF, regardless of age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors.
| S-EPMC10053299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCT) generalizability may be limited due to strict patient selection.ObjectiveIn a real-world heart failure (HF) population, we assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on PARADIGM-HF (sacubitril/valsartan effective)/PARAGON-HF [sacubitril/valsartan effective in mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF)].MethodsOutpatients from the Swedish HF Registry (SwedeHF) were analysed. In SwedeHF, EF is recorded as <30, 30-39, 40-49 and ≥50%. In PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan was effective with EF ≤ 57% (i.e. median). We defined reduced EF/PARADIGM-HF as EF < 40%, mildly reduced EF/PARAGON-HF ≤ median as EF 40-49%, and normal EF/PARAGON-HF > median as EF ≥ 50%. We assessed 2 scenarios: (i) criteria likely to influence treatment decisions (pragmatic scenario); (ii) all criteria (literal scenario).ResultsOf 37 790 outpatients, 57% had EF < 40%, 24% EF 40-49% and 19% EF ≥ 50%. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible in EF < 50% (67% for EF < 40% and 52% for 40-49%) and 52% in EF ≥ 40% (52% for EF ≥ 50%). For the literal scenario, 32% were eligible in EF < 50% (38% of EF < 40%, 20% of EF 40-49%) and 22% in EF ≥ 40% (25% for EF ≥ 50%). Eligible vs. noneligible patients had more severe HF, more comorbidities and overall worse outcomes.ConclusionIn a real-world HF outpatient cohort, 81% of patients had EF < 50%, with 63% eligible for sacubitril/valsartan based on pragmatic criteria and 32% eligible based on literal trial criteria. Similar eligibility was observed for EF 40-49% and ≥50%, suggesting that our estimates for EF < 50% may be reproduced whether or not a higher cut-off for EF is considered.
| S-EPMC7984286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe introduction of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) is likely to change the approach to the management of patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The Assessment of Real Life Care-Describing European Heart Failure Management (ARIADNE) registry will evaluate patient characteristics, practice patterns, outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization in the outpatient setting across Europe, with the main focus on factors that guide physicians' decisions to start and continue sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF.Methods and resultsARIADNE, a prospective, observational registry will enrol 9000 ambulatory patients with HFrEF in 23 European countries Supplement 1. The study will describe 4500 patients treated with conventional treatment (including an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker), and 4500 patients started on sacubitril/valsartan. In each country, patients will be enrolled consecutively over an expected period of 12 months, and followed-up for 12 months. The primary objective is to describe the baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with chronic HFrEF, which guide the decision of the treating physician to initiate sacubitril/valsartan or to continue conventional treatment. A co-primary objective is to identify the baseline characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of reaching the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily during follow-up.ConclusionsThe ARIADNE registry will provide a comprehensive profile of patients with chronic HFrEF in Europe, will elucidate how management varies between countries, and will help clarify the usage and outcomes associated with use of sacubitril/valsartan in real life.
| S-EPMC7160498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.
| S-EPMC9065872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic congestive heart failure is a common condition that, if untreated, markedly impairs the quality of life and is associated with a high risk of recurrent hospitalization and death.MethodsThis review is based on articles retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, as well as on relevant guidelines.ResultsEvidence-based treatment options are available only for congestive heart failure with a low ejection fraction. Pharma - cotherapy is based on neurohumoral inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the adrenergic system. The prognosis of patients with this condition has been further improved recently through the introduction of combined angiotensin receptor antagonists and neprilysin inhibitors. Modern implantable devices are a further component of treatment. Implantable defibrillators and special pacemakers for cardiac resynchronization are well established; the utility of alternative devices (baroreflex modulation or cardiac contractility modulation) needs to be investigated in further studies. It was recently shown that the catheter-based treatment of secondary mitral regurgitation with a MitraClip improves the outcome of selected patients.ConclusionThe treatment of chronic systolic heart failure as recommended in the relevant guidelines, with drugs and implanted devices if indicated, can significantly improve the clinical outcome.
| S-EPMC7643567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsIvabradine and sacubitril/valsartan are second-line therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on guideline recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two medications.Methods and resultsPatients' data were extracted from a multicentre database between 2016 and 2018. Patients were classified into (1) Simultaneous group: simultaneous prescription of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan within 6 weeks; (2A) Sequential group, ivabradine-first: ivabradine was prescribed first, followed by sacubitril/valsartan; and (2B) Sequential group, sacubitril/valsartan-first: sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed first, followed by ivabradine. A total of 464 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Cardiovascular death and/or unplanned re-hospitalizations for HF were less frequent (28.6% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.01), and the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in patients from the Simultaneous group than those from the Sequential group (∆LVEF 12.8 ± 12.9% vs. 9.3 ± 12.6%, P = 0.007). Among Sequential subgroups, the ivabradine-first treatment decreased heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment (∆heart rate -9.1 ± 12.9 b.p.m. vs. 2.6 ± 16.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001; ∆SBP 4.6 ± 16.5 mmHg vs. -4.8 ± 17.2 mmHg, P < 0.001), whereas sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment showed a higher degree of LVEF improvement (∆LVEF 3.6 ± 7.8% vs. 0.7 ± 7.7%, P = 0.002) than ivabradine-first treatment. At the end of follow-up, SBP, LVEF, and left ventricular volume were comparable between two Sequential subgroups.ConclusionsAmong patients with HFrEF, simultaneous rather than sequential treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was a better strategy to reduce adverse events and achieve left ventricular reverse remodelling. Ivabradine treatment had a more significant benefit on improving haemodynamic stability, whereas sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a more significant effect on improving LVEF.
| S-EPMC8006660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsARIADNE aimed to assess the association between effects of sacubitril/valsartan and no sacubitril/valsartan treatment and clinical characteristics, functional capacity, and clinical outcomes (cause-specific mortality and hospitalizations) in outpatients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).MethodsARIADNE was a prospective European registry of 9069 patients with HFrEF treated by office-based cardiologists or selected primary care physicians. Of the 8787 eligible for analysis, 4173 patients were on conventional HF treatment (non-S/V group), whereas 4614 patients were either on sacubitril/valsartan treatment at enrolment or started sacubitril/valsartan within 1 month of enrolment (S/V group). We also generated a restricted analysis set (rS/V) including only those 2108 patients who started sacubitril/valsartan treatment within the month prior to or after enrolment.ResultsAt the baseline, average age of patients enrolled in the study was 68 years, and 23.9% (2099/8787) were female. At the baseline, the proportions of patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III symptoms were 30.9 (1288/4173), 42.8 (1974/4614), and 48.2% (1015/2108), in non-S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively. After 12 months of treatment, the proportion of patients with NYHA Class III at baseline who improved to Class II was 32.0% (290/907) in the non-S/V group vs. 46.3% (648/1399) in S/V group and 48.7% (349/717) in rS/V group. The overall mortality rate was 5.0 per 100 patient-years. Rates of HF hospitalizations were high (20.9, 20.3, and 21.2 per 100 patient-years in the non-S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively). Emergency room visits without hospitalization occurred in 3.9, 3.2, and 3.9% of patients in the non-S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively.ConclusionsThis large HFrEF European registry provides a contemporary outcome profile of outpatients with HFrEF treated with or without sacubitril/valsartan. In a real-world setting, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an improvement of symptoms in patients with HFrEF compared with the conventional HFrEF treatment.
| S-EPMC9773755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure (HF) can occur in patients with preserved (HFpEF, EF?50%) or reduced (HFrEF, EF<50%) ejection fraction (EF), but changes in EF after HF diagnosis are not well described.Among a community cohort of incident HF patients diagnosed from 1984 to 2009 in Olmsted County, Minnesota, we obtained all EFs assessed by echocardiography from initial HF diagnosis until death or last follow-up through March 2010. Mixed effects models fit a unique linear regression line for each person using serial EF data. Compiled results allowed estimates of the change in EF over time in HFpEF and HFrEF. Among 1233 HF patients (48.3% male, mean age 75.0 years, mean follow-up 5.1 years), 559 (45.3%) had HFpEF at diagnosis. In HFpEF, on average, EF decreased by 5.8% over 5 years (P<0.001) with greater declines in older individuals and those with coronary disease. Conversely, EF increased in HFrEF (average increase 6.9% over 5 years, P<0.001). Greater increases were noted in women, younger patients, individuals without coronary disease, and those treated with evidence-based medications. Overall, 39% of HFpEF patients had an EF<50% and 39% of HFrEF patients had an EF?50% at some point after diagnosis. Decreases in EF over time were associated with reduced survival whereas increases in EF were associated with improved survival.These data suggest that progressive contractile dysfunction may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF. Prospective longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these observations and establish the mechanism and clinical relevance of decline in EF over time in HFpEF.
| S-EPMC3661289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLifetime risk of heart failure has been estimated to range from 20% to 46% in diverse sex and race groups. However, lifetime risk estimates for the 2 HF phenotypes, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are not known.MethodsParticipant-level data from 2 large prospective cohort studies, the CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study) and MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), were pooled, excluding individuals with prevalent HF at baseline. Remaining lifetime risk estimates for HFpEF (EF ≥45%) and HFrEF (EF <45%) were determined at different index ages with the use of a modified Kaplan-Meier method with mortality and the other HF subtype as competing risks.ResultsWe included 12 417 participants >45 years of age (22.2% blacks, 44.8% men) who were followed up for median duration of 11.6 years with 2178 overall incident HF events with 561 HFrEF events and 726 HFpEF events. At the index age of 45 years, the lifetime risk for any HF through 90 years of age was higher in men than women (27.4% versus 23.8%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFrEF was higher in men than women (10.6% versus 5.8%). In contrast, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was similar in men and women. In race-stratified analyses, lifetime risk for overall HF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (25.9% versus 22.4%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (11.2% versus 7.7%), whereas that for HFrEF was similar across the 2 groups. Among participants with antecedent myocardial infarction before HF diagnosis, the remaining lifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF were up to 2.5-fold and 4-fold higher, respectively, compared with those without antecedent myocardial infarction.ConclusionsLifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF vary by sex, race, and history of antecedent myocardial infarction. These insights into the distribution of HF risk and its subtypes could inform the development of targeted strategies to improve population-level HF prevention and control.
| S-EPMC6417883 | biostudies-literature