Natriuretic Peptides, Kidney Function, and Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptides (NT-proBNPs) are guideline-recommended biomarkers for risk stratification in patients with heart failure. However, NT-proBNP levels are often elevated in chronic kidney disease, introducing uncertainty about their prognostic relevance in persons across a broad range of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the association of NT-proBNP with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, stratified by baseline kidney function. METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted of participants with NT-proBNP and eGFR measured at baseline in the I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction), TOPCAT (Americas region) (Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function), PARAGON (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction), and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients With PReserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. The relationship between NT-proBNP and eGFR was assessed using piecewise linear regression. Using multivariable Cox and Poisson regression models, the association of NT-proBNP with outcomes across a range of eGFR was evaluated. The primary outcome was hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Among 14,831 participants (mean age: 72.1 years; 50.3% female; mean eGFR: 63.3 mL/min/1.73 m2, and median NT-proBNP: 840 pg/mL) followed up for a median 33.5 months, there were 3,092 primary outcomes. NT-proBNP levels increased by 9%, 8%, and 23% per 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 lower eGFR in patients with baseline eGFR ≥60, 45-<60, and <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively (P for nonlinearity < 0.001). Each doubling in NT-proBNP was associated with a 37% relative increase in the primary outcome (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.34-1.41), consistent across different eGFR categories (P for interaction = 0.42). For the same incidence of the primary outcome, NT-proBNP levels were approximately 2.5- to 3.5-fold lower in patients with eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, compared with patients with eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Similar patterns were observed across all outcomes studied, including cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: The same NT-proBNP concentration predicts a substantially higher absolute risk of adverse outcomes for people with heart failure and reduced kidney function, compared with those with preserved kidney function. These data call into question proposals for higher NT-proBNP references ranges in people with CKD, and suggest that reduced kidney function per se should not be a reason to disregard higher NT-proBNP levels.

Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension.

Interatrial Shunt Treatment for Heart Failure: The Randomized RELIEVE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: An interatrial shunt may provide an autoregulatory mechanism to decrease left atrial pressure and improve heart failure (HF) symptoms and prognosis. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic HF with any left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were randomized 1:1 to transcatheter shunt implantation versus a placebo procedure, stratified by reduced (≤40%) versus preserved (>40%) LVEF. The primary safety outcome was a composite of device-related or procedure-related major adverse cardiovascular or neurological events at 30 days compared with a prespecified performance goal of 11%. The primary effectiveness outcome was the hierarchical composite ranking of all-cause death, cardiac transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation, HF hospitalization, outpatient worsening HF events, and change in quality of life from baseline measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score through maximum 2-year follow-up, assessed when the last enrolled patient reached 1-year follow-up, expressed as the win ratio. Prespecified hypothesis-generating analyses were performed on patients with reduced and preserved LVEF. RESULTS: Between October 24, 2018, and October 19, 2022, 508 patients were randomized at 94 sites in 11 countries to interatrial shunt treatment (n=250) or a placebo procedure (n=258). Median (25th and 75th percentiles) age was 73.0 years (66.0, 79.0), and 189 patients (37.2%) were women. Median LVEF was reduced (≤40%) in 206 patients (40.6%) and preserved (>40%) in 302 patients (59.4%). No primary safety events occurred after shunt implantation (upper 97.5% confidence limit, 1.5%; P<0.0001). There was no difference in the 2-year primary effectiveness outcome between the shunt and placebo procedure groups (win ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.61-1.22]; P=0.20). However, patients with reduced LVEF had fewer adverse cardiovascular events with shunt treatment versus placebo (annualized rate 49.0% versus 88.6%; relative risk, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.42-0.73]; P<0.0001), whereas patients with preserved LVEF had more cardiovascular events with shunt treatment (annualized rate 60.2% versus 35.9%; relative risk, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.29-2.19]; P=0.0001; Pinteraction<0.0001). There were no between-group differences in change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score during follow-up in all patients or in those with reduced or preserved LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter interatrial shunt implantation was safe but did not improve outcomes in patients with HF. However, the results from a prespecified exploratory analysis in stratified randomized groups suggest that shunt implantation is beneficial in patients with reduced LVEF and harmful in patients with preserved LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03499236.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces incident anaemia and iron therapy utilization in heart failure: The PARAGON-HF trial.

AIMS: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to lower haemoglobin levels, potentially related to reductions in erythropoietin levels and haematopoiesis. We examined whether sacubitril/valsartan might attenuate this effect of RASi alone on incident anaemia in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: PARAGON-HF was a global, multicentre randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus the RASi valsartan in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%. We evaluated haemoglobin trajectory and risks of incident anaemia and new iron therapy initiation during follow-up. Among 4795 participants, 1111 (23.2%) had anaemia at randomization and 5.6% were treated with iron at baseline. Over a median follow-up of 2.9 years, patients with anaemia were at significantly higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, compared with those without anaemia (21.6 vs. 11.5 per 100 patient-years; adjusted rate ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.54; p = 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan slightly slowed the decline in haemoglobin levels by 0.1 g/dl (95% CI 0.0-0.2 g/dl; p = 0.005). Participants treated with sacubitril/valsartan were at significantly lower risk of developing anaemia (30.3% vs. 37.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.85; p < 0.001) and starting iron therapy (8.1% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67-0.97; p = 0.026). Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were consistent among patients across the haemoglobin spectrum (pinteraction = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in modestly smaller declines in haemoglobin, lower rates of incident anaemia, and fewer new initiations of iron therapy compared with RASi. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01920711.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in pigs causes shifts in post-transcriptional checkpoints.

Background: Left ventricular pressure overload (LVPO) can lead to heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and LV chamber stiffness (LV Kc) is a hallmark. This project tested the hypothesis that the development of HFpEF due to an LVPO stimulus, will alter post-transcriptional regulation, specifically microRNAs (miRs). Methods: LVPO was induced in pigs (n=9) by sequential ascending aortic cuff and age and weight matched pigs (n=6) served as controls. LV function was measured by echocardiography and LV Kc by speckle tracking. LV myocardial miRs were quantified using an 84 miR array. Treadmill testing and natriuretic peptide-A (NPPA) mRNA levels in controls and LVPO were performed (n=10, n=9, respectively). LV samples from LVPO and controls (n=6, respectively) were subjected to RNA sequencing. Results: LV mass and Kc increased by over 40% with LVPO (p<0.05). A total of 30 miRs shifted with LVPO of which 11 miRs correlated to LV Kc (p<0.05) which mapped to functional domains relevant to Kc such as fibrosis and calcium handling. LVPO resulted in reduced exercise tolerance (oxygen saturation, respiratory effort) and NPPA mRNA levels increased by 4-fold (p<0.05). RNA analysis identified several genes which mapped to specific miRs that were altered with LVPO. Conclusion: A specific set of miRs are changed in a large animal model consistent with the HFpEF phenotype, were related to LV stiffness properties and several miRs mapped to molecular pathways which may hold relevance in terms of prognosis and therapeutic targets.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 80 years and over with heart failure: Need for better treatment.

AIMS: Although the prevalence of heart failure (HF) increases markedly with advancing age, surprisingly little is known about HF in the very elderly. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of octogenarians with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual participant meta-analysis of patients with HF and reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively) enrolled in eight large randomized trials. Overall, the proportion of octogenarians was 1518 of 20 168 patients (7.5%) with HFrEF, 610 of 4609 (13.2%) with HFmrEF, and 3130 of 15 354 (20.4%) with HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, octogenarian patients were more often female and had more comorbidities, more symptoms and signs of congestion, and worse health status (but not quality of life), in comparison to patients aged <80 years. The incidence (per 100 person-years) of the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization was 13.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.7-14.0) in octogenarians versus 9.5 (95% CI 9.3-9.7) in non-octogenarians (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.32-1.48). Each component of the composite was more frequent in octogenarians with rates of cardiovascular mortality of 7.0 (95% CI 6.5-7.4) per 100 person-years versus 4.9 (95% CI 4.8-5.1) in non-octogenarians (aHR 1.60, 95% CI 1.48-1.72, p < 0.001). Octogenarians received less evidence-based therapy, especially mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, than younger patients. CONCLUSION: Despite worse health status and higher hospitalization and mortality rates, octogenarians were undertreated compared to younger patients.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on All-Cause Hospitalizations in Heart Failure: Post Hoc Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Sacubitril/valsartan is indicated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with chronic HF. However, many of these patients are older and have multiple comorbidities that increase the risk of hospitalization for causes other than HF. Objective: To assess the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on hospitalizations of any cause across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc, participant-level, pooled analysis of the PARADIGM-HF (in patients with an LVEF ≤40%) and PARAGON-HF (in patients with an LVEF ≥45%) randomized clinical trials was conducted from February 5, 2024, to April 5, 2024. Participants with chronic HF, New York Heart Association classes II through IV symptoms, and elevated natriuretic peptides were randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan or a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi)-enalapril in the PARADIGM-HF trial or valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial. Intervention: Sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi (enalapril or valsartan). Main Outcomes and Measures: The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on time to first investigator-reported all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations were examined using Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by geographic region and trial. Effect modification by LVEF as a continuous function was examined. Results: Among 13 194 participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, mean (SD) patient age was 67 (11) years, 8883 patients (67.3%) were male, and mean (SD) LVEF was 40% (15%). Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of all-cause hospitalization (ACH) compared with RASi over a median (IQR) follow-up period of 2.5 (1.8-3.1) years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97; P = .002). The incidence rate of first ACH was 25 (95% CI, 24-26) per 100 patient-years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm and 27 (95% CI, 26-28) per 100 patient-years in the RASi arm. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 2.1 per 100 patient-years, corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 48 patient-years of treatment exposure to prevent 1 ACH. Reductions in overall hospitalizations seemed primarily driven by lower rates of cardiac and pulmonary hospitalizations with sacubitril/valsartan. Patients in the 2 treatment arms had similar rates of composite noncardiac hospitalizations. Treatment heterogeneity on ACH by LVEF was observed (P for interaction = .03), with benefits most apparent in patients with an LVEF less than 60% (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96), but not in patients with an LVEF of 60% or more (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.09). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc pooled analysis of 13 194 patients with chronic HF in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF randomized clinical trials, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced hospitalization for any reason, with benefits most apparent in patients with an LVEF below normal. This reduction appeared to be principally driven by lower rates of cardiac and pulmonary hospitalizations. Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF) and NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF).

Beta-blocker use and outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Among the 16 951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12 812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure. Although current U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling does not provide guidance regarding initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with worsening kidney function, guidelines identify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 as a contraindication to therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of continuing sacubitril/valsartan in patients with deterioration of kidney function below an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. METHODS: The association between a deterioration in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy and safety outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor were evaluated using time updated Cox models in a post hoc parallel trial analyses of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. RESULTS: Among 8,346 randomized patients in PARADIGM-HF and 4,746 in PARAGON-HF, 691 (8.3%) and 613 (12.9%), respectively, had an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Patients experiencing such deterioration were at higher risk of the primary outcome in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. However, the incidence of the primary outcome remained lower with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, regardless of deterioration in kidney function in both PARADIGM-HF (Pinteraction = 0.50) and PARAGON-HF (Pinteraction = 0.64). Rates of key safety outcomes were higher among patients experiencing eGFR deterioration; however, rates were similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experiencing deterioration of kidney function to a value below eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 faced high risk of cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes. Continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent clinical benefit and no incremental safety risk. These data support continuation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure treatment even when eGFR declines below this threshold (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure], NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction], NCT01920711).

Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Proteomic Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline circulating protein concentrations significantly associated with the primary end point and the timing and occurrence of total heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared with published analyses in 2515 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Efficacy and Safety of Aliskiren and Aliskiren/Enalapril Combination on Morbidity-Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) clinical trials. We identified 288 proteins that were robustly associated with the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with HFpEF. The baseline proteins most strongly related to outcomes included B2M (ß-2 microglobulin), TIMP1 (tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1), SERPINA4 (serpin family A member 4), and SVEP1 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type A, EGF, and pentraxin domain containing 1). Overall, the protein-outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ as compared with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A proteomic risk score derived in patients with HFpEF was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction nor to clinical risk factors, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis in the PARAGON-HF proteomic substudy. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities among serum proteomic risk markers for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death when comparing clinical trial participants with heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifiers: NCT01920711, NCT01035255, NCT00853658.

Low Natriuretic Peptide Levels and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although some patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction have low natriuretic peptide levels, there are no large-scale systematic studies of how common these individuals are or what happens to them. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the proportion of patients in the I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial with an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level <125 pg/mL, their clinical characteristics, and outcomes. METHODS: I- PRESERVE enrolled patients with symptomatic HF and a LVEF ≥45% but who did not have NT-proBNP or body mass index inclusion/exclusion criteria. Baseline NT-proBNP was measured after enrollment but not reported to investigators. The primary outcome in this analysis was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 808 of 3,480 patients (23.2%) had NT-proBNP <125 pg/mL. Patients with a low NT-proBNP were younger (68.6 years vs 72.6 years; P < 0.001), were less often men (36.1% vs 40.9%; P = 0.015), and had a higher body mass index (48.4% vs 38.7% obese; P < 0.001) than those with a higher NT-proBNP level. Patients with a low NT-proBNP had less atrial fibrillation (8.5% vs 35.1%; P < 0.001), myocardial infarction, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia but better kidney function. Patients with a lower NT-proBNP level had less marked echocardiographic abnormalities and were less likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization; adjusted HR: 0.35 (95% CI: 0.27-0.46; P < 0.001). However, health status was similarly impaired in patients with lower and higher NT-proBNP levels (median Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire 43 vs 43; P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Almost one-quarter of patients with HF with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction had a low NT-proBNP level. Although these patients have a favorable prognosis, compared to those with a high NT-proBNP level, they have similarly impaired health status which should be a target for treatment. (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I- PRESERVE]; NCT00095238).

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

In vivo fluid dynamics of the Ventura interatrial shunt device in patients with heart failure.

AIMS: Interatrial shunts are under evaluation as a treatment for heart failure (HF); however, their in vivo flow performance has not been quantitatively studied. We aimed to investigate the fluid dynamics properties of the 0.51 cm orifice diameter Ventura shunt and assess its lumen integrity with serial transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and bench flow tests were used to establish the flow-pressure relationship of the shunt. Open-label patients from the RELIEVE-HF trial underwent TEE at shunt implant and at 6 and 12 month follow-up. Shunt effective diameter (Deff) was derived from the vena contracta, and flow was determined by the continuity equation. CFD and bench studies independently validated that the shunt's discharge coefficient was 0.88 to 0.89. The device was successfully implanted in all 97 enrolled patients; mean age was 70 ± 11 years, 97% were NYHA class III, and 51% had LVEF ≤40%. Patency was confirmed in all instances, except for one stenotic shunt at 6 months. Deff remained unchanged from baseline at 12 months (0.47 ± 0.01 cm, P = 0.376), as did the trans-shunt mean pressure gradient (5.1 ± 3.9 mmHg, P = 0.316) and flow (1137 ± 463 mL/min, P = 0.384). TEE measured flow versus pressure closely correlated (R2 ≥ 0.98) with a fluid dynamics model. At 12 months, the pulmonary/systemic flow Qp/Qs ratio was 1.22 ± 0.12. CONCLUSIONS: When implanted in patients with advanced HF, this small interatrial shunt demonstrated predictable and durable patency and performance.

Interatrial shunt therapy in advanced heart failure: Outcomes from the open-label cohort of the RELIEVE-HF trial.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) outcomes remain poor despite optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). We assessed safety, effectiveness, and transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) outcomes during the 12 months after Ventura shunt implantation in the RELIEVE-HF open-label roll-in cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eligibility required symptomatic HF despite optimal GDMT with ≥1 HF hospitalization in the prior year or elevated natriuretic peptides. The safety endpoint was device-related major adverse cardiovascular or neurological events at 30 days, compared to a prespecified performance goal. Effectiveness evaluations included the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and TTE at baseline and 12 months. Overall, 97 patients were enrolled and implanted at 64 sites. Average age was 70 ± 11 years, 97% were in New York Heart Association class III, and half had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%. The safety endpoint was achieved (event rate 0%, p < 0.001). KCCQ overall summary score was improved by 12-16 points at all follow-up timepoints (all p < 0.004), with similar outcomes in patients with reduced and preserved LVEF. At 12 months, left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes were reduced (p = 0.020 and p = 0.038, respectively), LVEF improved (p = 0.009), right ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic areas were reduced (p = 0.001 and p = 0.030, respectively), and right ventricular fractional area change (p < 0.001) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (p < 0.001) improved. CONCLUSION: Interatrial shunting with the Ventura device was safe and resulted in favourable clinical effects in patients with HF, regardless of LVEF. Improvements of left and right ventricular structure and function were consistent with reverse myocardial remodelling. These results would support the potential of this shunt device as a treatment for HF.

Baroreflex activation therapy in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction: Long-term outcomes.

AIMS: Carotid baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) restores baroreflex sensitivity and modulates the imbalance in cardiac autonomic function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We tested the hypothesis that treatment with BAT significantly reduces cardiovascular mortality and heart failure morbidity and provides long-term safety and sustainable symptomatic improvement. METHODS AND RESULTS: BeAT-HF was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, two-arm, parallel-group, open-label, non-implanted control trial. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III subjects, ejection fraction ≤35%, previous heart failure hospitalization or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) >400 pg/ml, no class I indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy and NT-proBNP <1600 pg/ml were randomized to BAT plus optimal medical management (BAT group) or optimal medical management alone (control). The primary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality and HF morbidity; additional pre-specified endpoints included durability of safety, quality of life (QOL), exercise capacity (6-min hall walk distance [6MHWD]), functional status (NYHA class), hierarchical composite win ratio, freedom from all-cause death, left ventricular assists device (LVAD) implantation, heart transplant. Overall, 323 patients had 332 primary events, median follow-up was 3.6 years/patient. Both primary endpoint (rate ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.57; p = 0.82) and components of the primary endpoints were not significantly different between BAT and control. The system- and procedure-related major adverse neurological and cardiovascular event-free rate remained 97% throughout the trial. Symptom improvement (QOL, 6MHWD, NYHA class, all nominal p < 0.001) in the BAT group was durable in time, sustainable in extent. Win ratio (1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.58) and freedom from all-cause death, LVAD implantation, heart transplant (hazard ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43-1.01) favoured the BAT group but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The BeAT-HF primary endpoint was neutral; however, BAT provided safe, effective, and sustainable improvements in HFrEF patient's functional status, 6MHWD and QOL.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate and urine-albumin-creatinine ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan across the KDIGO risk categories in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) was a global randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate by ≥40% or end-stage kidney disease. RESULTS: Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 6.5-9.0 per 100 person-years], 9.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 7.9-11.2 per 100 person-years], and 14.9 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 12.7-17.6 per 100 person-years]; P < 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and demonstrated consistent effects on the risk of both the primary outcome (PInteraction = 0.31) and the renal composite outcome (PInteraction = 0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk. CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255).

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to polypharmacy status in PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non-polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5-9 medications), and 1360 hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper-polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non-adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all-cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76-1.85), 0.94 (0.77-1.15), and 0.77 (0.61-0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment-related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non-fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline.