Search

Background: Conventional time-to-first-event analyses cannot incorporate recurrent hospitalizations and patient well-being in a single outcome. Objectives: To overcome this limitation, we tested an integrated measure that includes days lost from death and hospitalization, and additional days of full health lost through diminished well-being. Methods: The effect of dapagliflozin on this integrated measure was assessed in the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial, which examined the efficacy of dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, in patients with NYHA functional class II to IV heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%. Results: Over 360 days, patients in the dapagliflozin group (n = 2,127) lost 10.6 ± 1.0 (2.9%) of potential follow-up days through cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization, compared with 14.4 ± 1.0 days (4.0%) in the placebo group (n = 2,108), and this component of all measures of days lost accounted for the greatest between-treatment difference (−3.8 days [95% CI: −6.6 to −1.0 days]). Patients receiving dapagliflozin also had fewer days lost to death and hospitalization from all causes vs placebo (15.5 ± 1.1 days [4.3%] vs 20.3 ± 1.1 days [5.6%]). When additional days of full health lost (ie, adjusted for Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–overall summary score) were added, total days lost were 110.6 ± 1.6 days (30.7%) with dapagliflozin vs 116.9 ± 1.6 days (32.5%) with placebo. The difference in all measures between the 2 groups increased over time (ie, days lost by death and hospitalization −0.9 days [−0.7%] at 120 days, −2.3 days [−1.0%] at 240 days, and −4.8 days [−1.3%] at 360 days). Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the total days of potential full health lost due to death, hospitalizations, and impaired well-being, and this benefit increased over time during the

Importance: In the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of time to first worsening heart failure (HF) event or cardiovascular death in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Objective: To evaluate the effect of dapagliflozin on total (ie, first and recurrent) HF events and cardiovascular death in this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prespecified analysis of the DELIVER trial, the proportional rates approach of Lin, Wei, Yang, and Ying (LWYY) and a joint frailty model were used to examine the effect of dapagliflozin on total HF events and cardiovascular death. Several subgroups were examined to test for heterogeneity in the effect of dapagliflozin, including left ventricular EF. Participants were enrolled from August 2018 to December 2020, and data were analyzed from August to October 2022. Interventions: Dapagliflozin, 10 mg, once daily or matching placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome was total episodes of worsening HF (hospitalization for HF or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous HF therapies) and cardiovascular death. Results: Of 6263 included patients, 2747 (43.9%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 71.7 (9.6) years. There were 1057 HF events and cardiovascular deaths in the placebo group compared with 815 in the dapagliflozin group. Patients with more HF events had features of more severe HF, such as higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, worse kidney function, more prior HF hospitalizations, and longer duration of HF, although EF was similar to those with no HF events. In the LWYY model, the rate ratio for total HF events and cardiovascular death for dapagliflozin compared with placebo was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.89; P <.001) compared with a hazard ratio o

Aims: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are at significant risk of stroke. Anticoagulation reduces this risk in patients with and without atrial fibrillation (AF), but the risk-to-benefit balance in the latter group, overall, is not favourable. Identification of patients with HFrEF, without AF, at the highest risk of stroke may allow targeted and safer use of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy. Methods and results: In a pooled patient-level cohort of the PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE, and DAPA-HF trials, a previously derived simple risk model for stroke, consisting of three variables (history of prior stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level), was validated. Of the 20 159 patients included, 12 751 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 346 (2.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow up of 2.0 years (rate 11.7 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: fourth quintile hazard ratio (HR) 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-3.45]; fifth quintile HR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58-5.38), with the first quintile as reference. For patients in the top quintile, the rate of stroke was 21.2 per 1000 patient-years, similar to participants with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.1 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C-index of 0.84 (0.75-0.91). Conclusion: It is possible to identify a subset of HFrEF patients without AF with a stroke-risk equivalent to that of patients with AF who are not anticoagulated. In these patients, the risk-to-benefit balance might justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be tested prospectively.

Aims: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are at significant risk of stroke. Anticoagulation reduces this risk in patients with and without atrial fibrillation (AF), but the risk-to-benefit balance in the latter group, overall, is not favourable. Identification of patients with HFrEF, without AF, at the highest risk of stroke may allow targeted and safer use of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy. Methods and results: In a pooled patient-level cohort of the PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE, and DAPA-HF trials, a previously derived simple risk model for stroke, consisting of three variables (history of prior stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level), was validated. Of the 20 159 patients included, 12 751 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 346 (2.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow up of 2.0 years (rate 11.7 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: fourth quintile hazard ratio (HR) 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-3.45]; fifth quintile HR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58-5.38), with the first quintile as reference. For patients in the top quintile, the rate of stroke was 21.2 per 1000 patient-years, similar to participants with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.1 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C-index of 0.84 (0.75-0.91). Conclusion: It is possible to identify a subset of HFrEF patients without AF with a stroke-risk equivalent to that of patients with AF who are not anticoagulated. In these patients, the risk-to-benefit balance might justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be tested prospectively.

Over time, a focus on blood pressure has transferred from diastolic pressure to systolic pressure. Formal analyses of differences in predictive value are scarce. Our goal of the study was whether office SBP adds prognostic information to office DBP and whether both 24-h ambulatory SBP and 24-h ambulatory DBP is specifically important. The authors examined 2097 participants from a population cohort recruited in Copenhagen, Denmark. Cause-specific Cox regression was performed to predict 10-year person-specific absolute risks of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular (CV) events. Also, the time-dependent area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) was utilized to evaluate discriminative ability. The calibration plots of the models (Hosmer-May test) were calculated as well as the Brier score which combines (discrimination and calibration). Adding both 24-h ambulatory SBP and 24-h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure did not significantly increase AUC for CV mortality and CV events. Moreover, adding both office SBP and office DBP did not significantly improve AUC for both CV mortality and CV events. The difference in AUC (95% confidence interval; p-value) was.26% (-.2% to.73%;.27) for 10-year CV mortality and.69% (-.09% to 1.46%;.082) for 10-year risk of CV events. The difference in AUC was.12% (-.2% to.44%;.46) for 10-year CV mortality and.04% (-.35 to.42%;.85) for 10-year risk of CV events. Moreover, for both CV mortality and CV events, office SBP did not improve prognostic information to office DBP. In addition, the Brier scores of office BP in both CV mortality and CV events were.078 and.077, respectively. Furthermore, the Brier scores were.077 and.078 in CV mortality and CV events of 24-h ambulatory. For the average population as those participating in a population survey, the 10-year discriminative ability for long-term predictions of CV death and CV events is not improved by adding systolic to diastolic blood pressure. This finding is found for ambulatory as well a

Over time, a focus on blood pressure has transferred from diastolic pressure to systolic pressure. Formal analyses of differences in predictive value are scarce. Our goal of the study was whether office SBP adds prognostic information to office DBP and whether both 24-h ambulatory SBP and 24-h ambulatory DBP is specifically important. The authors examined 2097 participants from a population cohort recruited in Copenhagen, Denmark. Cause-specific Cox regression was performed to predict 10-year person-specific absolute risks of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular (CV) events. Also, the time-dependent area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) was utilized to evaluate discriminative ability. The calibration plots of the models (Hosmer-May test) were calculated as well as the Brier score which combines (discrimination and calibration). Adding both 24-h ambulatory SBP and 24-h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure did not significantly increase AUC for CV mortality and CV events. Moreover, adding both office SBP and office DBP did not significantly improve AUC for both CV mortality and CV events. The difference in AUC (95% confidence interval; p-value) was.26% (-.2% to.73%;.27) for 10-year CV mortality and.69% (-.09% to 1.46%;.082) for 10-year risk of CV events. The difference in AUC was.12% (-.2% to.44%;.46) for 10-year CV mortality and.04% (-.35 to.42%;.85) for 10-year risk of CV events. Moreover, for both CV mortality and CV events, office SBP did not improve prognostic information to office DBP. In addition, the Brier scores of office BP in both CV mortality and CV events were.078 and.077, respectively. Furthermore, the Brier scores were.077 and.078 in CV mortality and CV events of 24-h ambulatory. For the average population as those participating in a population survey, the 10-year discriminative ability for long-term predictions of CV death and CV events is not improved by adding systolic to diastolic blood pressure. This finding is found for ambulatory as well a