Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population. Objective: To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy. Results: Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.

Exercise performance in patients with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to patients with unexplained dyspnea.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnea and exercise intolerance are commonly reported post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), but routine diagnostic testing is often normal. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) offers comprehensive assessment of dyspnea to characterize pulmonary PASC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of CPET performed on patients reporting dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance following confirmed Covid-19 between August 1, 2020 and March 1, 2021, and compared them to age- and sex-matched patients with unexplained dyspnea referred for CPET at the same center in the pre-Covid-19 era. FINDINGS: Compared to matched unexplained dyspnea comparators, PASC patients shared similar medical comorbidities and subjective dyspnea at referral (mMRC score 1.6 ± 0.9 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9, P = 0.5). Fifteen (83.3%) PASC patients underwent high resolution computed tomography of the chest, of which half (46.7%) were normal, and 17 (94.4%) patients had pulmonary function testing, of which the majority (76.5%) were normal. All patients underwent CPET, and 12 (67%) had normal findings. Compared to matched comparators, PASC patients had similar peak oxygen consumption, oxygen consumption at ventilatory anaerobic threshold, and ventilatory efficiency measured by the minute ventilation to carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) slope. INTERPRETATION: Despite prominent dyspnea, physiological abnormalities on CPET were mild across a range of initial Covid-19 severity and similar to matched comparators referred for dyspnea without antecedent SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: The project was supported by the NHLBI (R01HL131029, R01HL151841, U10HL110337, T32HL116275) and a KL2 award (5KL2TR002542-02) from Harvard Catalyst.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction according to the HFA-PEFF score in COVID-19 patients: clinical correlates and echocardiographic findings.

AIMS: Viral-induced cardiac inflammation can induce heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)-like syndromes. COVID-19 can lead to myocardial damage and vascular injury. We hypothesised that COVID-19 patients frequently develop a HFpEF-like syndrome, and designed this study to explore this. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiac function was assessed in 64 consecutive, hospitalized, and clinically stable COVID-19 patients from April-November 2020 with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50% (age 56 ± 19 years, females: 31%, severe COVID-19 disease: 69%). To investigate likelihood of HFpEF presence, we used the HFA-PEFF score. A low (0-1 points), intermediate (2-4 points), and high (5-6 points) HFA-PEFF score was observed in 42%, 33%, and 25% of patients, respectively. In comparison, 64 subjects of similar age, sex, and comorbidity status without COVID-19 showed these scores in 30%, 66%, and 4%, respectively (between groups: P = 0.0002). High HFA-PEFF scores were more frequent in COVID-19 patients than controls (25% vs. 4%, P = 0.001). In COVID-19 patients, the HFA-PEFF score significantly correlated with age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), haemoglobin, QTc interval, LVEF, mitral E/A ratio, and H2 FPEF score (all P < 0.05). In multivariate, ordinal regression analyses, higher age and hsTnT were significant predictors of increased HFA-PEFF scores. Patients with myocardial injury (hsTnT ≥14 ng/L: 31%) vs. patients without myocardial injury, showed higher HFA-PEFF scores [median 5 (interquartile range 3-6) vs. 1 (0-3), P < 0.001] and more often showed left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (75% vs. 27%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients frequently show high likelihood of presence of HFpEF that is associated with cardiac structural and functional alterations, and myocardial injury. Detailed cardiac assessments including echocardiographic determination of left ventricular diastolic function and biomarkers should become routine in the care of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Beyond the stethoscope: managing ambulatory heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There have been nearly 70 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide, with over 1.5 million deaths at the time of this publication. This global pandemic has mandated dramatic changes in healthcare delivery with a particular focus on social distancing in order to reduce viral transmission. Heart failure patients are among the highest utilizers of health care and are at increased risk for COVID-related vulnerabilities. Effectively managing this complex and resource-intensive patient population from a distance presents new and unique challenges. Here, we review relevant data on telemedicine and remote monitoring strategies for heart failure patients and provide a framework to help providers treat this population during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes (i) dedicated pre-visit contact and planning (i.e. confirm clinical appropriateness, presence of compatible technology, and patient comfort); (ii) utilization of virtual clinic visits (use of telehealth platforms, a video-assisted exam, self-reported vital signs, and weights); and (iii) use of existing remote heart failure monitoring sensors when applicable (CardioMEMS, Optivol, and HeartLogic). While telemedicine and remote monitoring strategies are not new, these technologies are emerging as an important tool for the effective management of heart failure patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. In general, these strategies appear to be safe; however, additional data will be needed to determine their effectiveness with respect to both process and outcomes measures.

Feasibility and Consistency of Results with Deployment of an In-Line Filter for Exercise-Based Evaluations of Patients With Heart Failure During the Novel Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Exercise testing plays an important role in evaluating heart failure prognosis and selecting patients for advanced therapeutic interventions. However, concern for severe acute respiratory syndrome novel coronavirus-2 transmission during exercise testing has markedly curtailed performance of exercise testing during the novel coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: To examine the feasibility to conducting exercise testing with an in-line filter, 2 healthy volunteer subjects each completed 2 incremental exercise tests, one with discrete stages of increasing resistance and one with a continuous ramp. Each subject performed 1 test with an electrostatic filter in-line with the system measuring gas exchange and air flow, and 1 test without the filter in place. Oxygen uptake and minute ventilation were highly consistent when evaluated with and without use of an electrostatic filter with a >99.9% viral efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Deployment of a commercially available in-line electrostatic viral filter during cardiopulmonary exercise testing is feasible and provides consistent data compared with testing without a filter.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Advanced Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of the LIFE Trial.

The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736).