Search

Background: Although several studies have addressed plasma proteomics in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, limited data are available on the prognostic value of urinary proteomics. The objective of our study was to identify urinary proteins/peptides associated with death and heart failure admission in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction., Methods and Results: The study population included participants enrolled in TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial). The relationship between urine protein levels and the risk of death or heart failure admission was assessed using Cox regression, in both nonadjusted analyses and adjusting for urine creatinine levels, and the MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) score. A total of 426 (12.4%) TOPCAT participants had urinary protein data and were included. There were 40 urinary proteins/peptides significantly associated with death or heart failure admission in nonadjusted analyses, 21 of which were also significant adjusted analyses. Top proteins in the adjusted analysis included ANGPTL2 (angiopoietin-like protein 2) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.5731 [95% CI, 0.47-0.7]; P =3.13E-05), AMY2A (α amylase 2A) (HR, 0.5496 [95% CI, 0.44-0.69]; P =0.0001), and DNASE1 (deoxyribonuclease-1) (HR, 0.5704 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]; P =0.0002). Higher urinary levels of proteins involved in fibrosis (collagen VI α-1, collagen XV α-1), metabolism (pancreatic α-amylase 2A/B, mannosidase α class 1A member 1), and inflammation (heat shock protein family D member 1, inducible T cell costimulatory ligand) were associated with a lower risk of death or heart failure admission., Conclusions: Our study identifies several novel associations between urinary proteins/peptides and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Many of these associations are independent of clinical risk scores and may aid in risk stratification in this patient population.

Background: Despite reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and death in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive systolic blood pressure goals have not been adopted in the United States. This study aimed to simulate the potential long-term impact of 4 hypertension management strategies in SPRINT-eligible US adults., Methods and Results: The validated Blood Pressure Control-Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes (ie, visit frequency, blood pressure [BP] measurement accuracy, medication intensification, and medication adherence) and CVD outcomes, was populated with 25 000 SPRINT-eligible US adults. Four hypertension management strategies were simulated: (1) usual care targeting BP <140/90 mm Hg (Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care), (2) intensive care per the SPRINT protocol targeting BP <120/90 mm Hg (SPRINT intensive), (3) usual care targeting guideline-recommended BP <130/80 mm Hg (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care), and (4) team-based care added to usual care and targeting BP <130/80 mm Hg. Relative to the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, among the 18.1 million SPRINT-eligible US adults, an estimated 138 100 total CVD events could be prevented per year with SPRINT intensive, 33 900 with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care, and 89 100 with team-based care. Compared with the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, SPRINT intensive care was projected to increase treatment-related serious adverse events by 77 600 per year, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care by 33 300, and team-based care by 27 200., Conclusions: As BP control has declined in recent years, health systems must prioritize hypertension management and invest in effective strategies. Adding team-based care to usual care may be a pragmatic way to manage risk in this high-CVD-risk population.