Search

Background: Left ventricular (LV) circumferential and longitudinal strain provide important insight into LV mechanics and function, each contributing to volumetric changes throughout the cardiac cycle. We sought to explore this strain-volume relationship in more detail, by mathematically integrating circumferential and longitudinal strain and strain rate to predict LV volume and volumetric rates of change. Methods: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging from 229 participants from the Alberta HEART Study (46 healthy controls, 77 individuals at risk for developing heart failure [HF], 70 patients with diagnosed HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF], and 36 patients with diagnosed HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]) were evaluated. LV volume was assessed by the method of disks and strain/strain rate were assessed by CMR feature tracking. Results: Integrating endocardial circumferential and longitudinal strain provided a close approximation of LV ejection fraction (EFStrain), when compared to gold-standard volumetric assessment (EFVolume: r = 0.94, P < 0.0001). Likewise, integrating circumferential and longitudinal strain rate provided a close approximation of peak ejection and peak filling rates (PERStrain and PFRStrain, respectively) compared to their gold-standard volume-time equivalents (PERVolume, r = 0.73, P < 0.0001 and PFRVolume, r = 0.78, P < 0.0001, respectively). Moreover, each integrated strain measure differentiated patients across the HF continuum (all P < 0.01), with the HFrEF group having worse EFStrain, PERStrain, and PFRStrain compared to all other groups, and HFpEF having less favorable EFStrain and PFRStrain compared to both at-risk and control groups. Conclusions: The data herein establish the theoretical framework for integrating discrete strain components into volumetric measurements across the cardiac cycle, and highlight the potential benefit of this approach for differentiating patients along the heart failure continuum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in the treatment of heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The article highlights that while certain therapies have been approved for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and have shown benefits for HFmrEF and HFpEF, the evidence base for beta-blockade in HFpEF is poor. The article presents a study that analyzes the association of CCBs on outcomes in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, finding that CCB use was associated with no difference in cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. However, CCB use was associated with a lower risk of death due to pump failure and a higher risk of non-fatal stroke. The article suggests that dihydropyridine CCBs could be considered for managing comorbidities in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF without increasing the risk of heart failure-related outcomes. The study has limitations, and further research is needed to fully understand the effects of CCBs in these patient populations. Overall, the article provides valuable insights into the use of medications in heart failure treatment and calls for a reconsideration of traditional concepts regarding indicated and contraindicated therapies. [Extracted from the article]

Aim Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) have high mortality, hospitalizations, and poorly tolerate evidence-based medical treatment. Omecamtiv mecarbil may be particularly helpful in such patients. This study examined its efficacy and tolerability in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF). Methods and results The GALACTIC-HF enrolled patients with baseline SBP ≥85 mmHg with a primary outcome of time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure event. In this analysis, patients were divided according to their baseline SBP (≤100 vs. >100 mmHg). Among the 8232 analysed patients, 1473 (17.9%) had baseline SBP ≤100 mmHg and 6759 (82.1%) had SBP >100 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 715 (48.5%) and 2415 (35.7%) patients with SBP ≤100 and >100 mmHg, respectively. Patients with lower SBP were at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, appeared to be more effective in reducing the primary composite endpoint in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70–0.94] compared with those with SBP >100 mmHg (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88–1.03; P -value for interaction = 0.051). In both groups, omecamtiv mecarbil did not change SBP values over time and did not increase the risk of adverse events, when compared with placebo. Conclusion In GALACTIC-HF, risk reduction of heart failure outcomes with omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo was large and significant in patients with low SBP. Omecamtiv mecarbil did not affect SBP and was well tolerated independent of SBP values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Heart 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 results Patients 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). Conclusions Amongst 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Among patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), those with atrial fibrillation (AF) may respond differently to certain treatments than patients without AF. We investigated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF with and without AF in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF). We also examined the effect of dapagliflozin on new-onset AF. Methods and results The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening HF (HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death. Of the 4744 patients randomized, 1910 (40.3%) had 'any AF' (history of AF or AF on enrolment electrocardiogram). Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death to a similar extent in patients with and without any AF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.92 and 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, respectively; p for interaction = 0.88]. Consistent benefits were observed for the components of the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and improvement of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. Among patients without AF at baseline, dapagliflozin did not significantly reduce the risk of new-onset AF compared with placebo (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60-1.22). However, patients with new-onset AF had a 5 to 6-fold higher risk of adverse outcomes when compared to those without incident AF. Conclusions Dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of worsening HF events, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, and improved symptoms, in patients with and without AF. Dapagliflozin did not reduce the risk of new-onset AF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]