Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Left ventricular (LV) subclinical impairment has been described in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We assessed the relationship between LV myocardial deformation by strain imaging and recurrent hospitalization for heart failure (HF) or cardiovascular death in a large international HFpEF population. Methods and results: We assessed two‐dimensional speckle‐tracking based global longitudinal strain (GLS) in 790 patients (mean age 74 ± 8 years, 54% female) with adequate image quality enrolled in the PARAGON‐HF echocardiography study. We examined the relationship of GLS with total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (the primary composite outcome) after accounting for clinical confounders. Approximately 47% of the population had evidence of LV subclinical dysfunction, defined as absolute GLS <16%. Impaired GLS was significantly associated with higher values of circulating baseline N‐terminal pro‐B‐type‐natriuretic peptide. After a median follow‐up of 3.0 years, there were 407 total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. After multivariable adjustment, worse GLS was associated with a greater risk for the primary composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio per 1% decrease: 1.06; 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.11; p = 0.008). GLS did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan for the composite outcome (p for interaction >0.1). Conclusions: In a large HFpEF population, impaired LV function was observed even among patients with preserved ejection fraction, and was associated with an increased risk of total HF hospitalizations or cardiovascular death, accounting for clinical confounders. These findings highlight the key role of subtle LV systolic impairment in the pathophysiology of HFpEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to creatinine ratio is associated with worse outcomes in acute heart failure (HF) but little is known about its importance in chronic HF. Methods and results: We combined individual patient data from clinical trials (HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]: PARADIGM‐HF, ATMOSPHERE and DAPA‐HF, and HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]: PARAGON‐HF and I‐PRESERVE). The primary outcome examined was a composite time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death; its components and all‐cause death were also examined. Each HF phenotype was categorized according to median BUN/creatinine ratio, generating four groups that is, HFpEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio and HFrEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio. The association between BUN/creatinine ratio and outcomes was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models. Overall, 28 820 patients were analysed. The median (IQR) BUN/creatinine ratio was 20.1 (Q1–Q3 16.7–24.7) in HFpEF and 18.7 (15.2–22.8) in HFrEF. In both HFpEF and HFrEF, higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with older age, female sex, and diabetes, but similar estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The risk of each outcome examined was significantly higher in patients with BUN/creatinine ratio ≥median, compared to

Aims: Red cell distribution width (RDW) is a strong prognostic marker in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction and other conditions. However, very little is known about its prognostic significance in HF with preserved ejection fraction. We examined the relationship between RDW and outcomes and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, on RDW and clinical outcomes in PARAGON‐HF. Methods and results: PARAGON‐HF enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45%, structural heart disease, and elevated N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP). The primary endpoint was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Median RDW at randomization was 14.1% (interquartile range 13.5–15.0%). Patients with higher RDW levels were more often men and had more comorbidity, a higher heart rate and NT‐proBNP concentration, more advanced New York Heart Association class, and worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores. There was a graded relationship between quartiles of RDW at randomization and the primary endpoint, with a significantly higher risk associated with increasing RDW, even after adjustment for NT‐proBNP and other prognostic variables {Quartile 1, reference; Quartile 2, rate ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.28]; Quartile 3, 1.25 [1.01 to 1.54]; Quartile 4, 1.70 [1.39 to 2.08]}. This association was seen for each of the secondary outcomes, including cardiovascular and all‐cause death. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced RDW at 48 weeks [mean change −0.09 (95% CI −0.15 to −0.02)]. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan was not significantly modified by RDW levels at randomization. Conclusions: RDW, a routinely available and inexpensive biomarker, provides incremental prognostic information when added to established predictors. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan led to a small reduction in RDW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are often treated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), although the safety of CCBs in these patients is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the association between CCB use and clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF; CCBs were examined overall, as well as by subtype (dihydropyridine and non‐dihydropyridine). Methods and results: We pooled individual patient data from four large HFpEF/HFmrEF trials. The association between CCB use and outcomes was assessed. Among the 16 954 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 402 (79.0%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Altogether, 5874 patients (34.6%) received a CCB (87.6% dihydropyridines). Overall, the risks of death and HF hospitalization were not higher in patients treated with a CCB, particularly dihydropyridines. The risk of pump failure death was significantly lower (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.96), while the risk of stroke was higher (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06–1.50) in patients treated with a CCB compared to those not. These risks remained different in patients treated and not treated with a CCB after adjustment for other prognostic variables. Although the majority of patients were treated with dihydropyridine CCBs, the pattern of outcomes was broadly similar for both dihydropyridine and non‐dihydropyridine CCBs. Conclusion: Although this is an observational analysis of non‐randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that CCBs were associated with worse HF outcomes. Indeed, CCB use was associated with a lower incidence of pump failure death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Although education in self‐management is thought to be an important aspect of the care of patients with heart failure, little is known about whether self‐rated knowledge of self‐management is associated with outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between patient‐reported knowledge of self‐management and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: Using individual patient data from three recent clinical trials enrolling participants with HFrEF, we examined patient characteristics and clinical outcomes according to responses to the 'self‐efficacy' questions of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. One question quantifies patients' understanding of how to prevent heart failure exacerbations ('prevention' question) and the other how to manage complications when they arise ('response' question). Self‐reported answers from patients were pragmatically divided into: poor (do not understand at all, do not understand very well, somewhat understand), fair (mostly understand), and good (completely understand). Cox‐proportional hazard models were used to evaluate time‐to‐first occurrence of each endpoint, and negative binomial regression analysis was performed to compare the composite of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death across the above‐defined groups. Of patients (n = 17 629) completing the 'prevention' question, 4197 (23.8%), 6897 (39.1%), and 6535 (37.1%) patients had poor, fair, and good self‐rated knowledge, respectively. Of those completing the 'response' question (n = 17 637), 4033 (22.9%), 5463 (31.0%), and 8141 (46.2%) patients had poor, fair, and good self‐rated knowledge, respectively. For both questions, patients with 'poor' knowledge were older, more often female, and had a worse heart failure profile but similar treatment. The rates (95% confidence interval) per 100 person‐years for the primary composite outcome for 'poor', 'moderate' and 'good' self‐rated knowledge in answer to the 'prevention' question were 12.83 (12.11–13.60), 12.08 (11.53–12.65) and 11.55 (11.00–12.12), respectively, and for the 'response' question were 12.88 (12.13–13.67), 12.22 (11.60–12.86) and 11.56 (11.07–12.07), respectively. The lower event rates in patients with 'good' self‐rate knowledge were accounted for by lower rates of cardiovascular (and all‐cause) death and not hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Conclusions: Poor patient‐reported 'self‐efficacy' may be associated with higher rates of mortality. Evaluation of knowledge of 'self‐efficacy' may provide prognostic information and a guide to which patients may benefit from further education about self‐management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Patients with heart failure (HF) often suffer from a range of comorbidities, which may affect their health status. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different comorbidities on health status in patients with HF and reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results: Using individual patient data from HFrEF (ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM‐HF, DAPA‐HF) and HFpEF (TOPCAT, PARAGON‐HF) trials, we examined the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) domain scores and overall summary score (KCCQ‐OSS) across a range of cardiorespiratory (angina, atrial fibrillation [AF], stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]) and other comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease [CKD], anaemia). Of patients with HFrEF (n = 20 159), 36.2% had AF, 33.9% CKD, 33.9% diabetes, 31.4% obesity, 25.5% angina, 12.2% COPD, 8.4% stroke, and 4.4% anaemia; the corresponding proportions in HFpEF (n = 6563) were: 54.0% AF, 48.7% CKD, 43.4% diabetes, 53.3% obesity, 28.6% angina, 14.7% COPD, 10.2% stroke, and 6.5% anaemia. HFpEF patients had lower KCCQ domain scores and KCCQ‐OSS (67.8 vs. 71.3) than HFrEF patients. Physical limitations, social limitations and quality of life domains were reduced more than symptom frequency and symptom burden domains. In both HFrEF and HFpEF, COPD, angina, anaemia, and obesity were associated with the lowest scores. An increasing number of comorbidities was associated with decreasing scores (e.g. KCCQ‐OSS 0 vs. ≥4 comorbidities: HFrEF 76.8 vs. 66.4; HFpEF 73.7 vs. 65.2). Conclusions: Cardiac and non‐cardiac comorbidities are common in both HFrEF and HFpEF patients and most are associated with reductions in health status although the impact varied among comorbidities, by the number of comorbidities, and by HF phenotype. Treating/correcting comorbidity is a therapeutic approach that may improve the health status of patients with HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Adrenomedullin is a vasodilatory peptide with a role in microcirculatory and endothelial homeostasis. Adrenomedullin is a substrate for neprilysin and may therefore play a role in beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) treatment. Methods and results: Mid‐regional pro‐adrenomedullin (MR‐proADM) was measured in 156 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with Sac/Val and 264 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) randomized to treatment with Sac/Val or valsartan. Echocardiography and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire results were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months in the HFrEF cohort. Median (Q1–Q3) baseline MR‐proADM concentrations were 0.80 (0.59–0.99) nmol/L in HFrEF and 0.88 (0.68–1.20) nmol/L in HFpEF. After 12 weeks of treatment with Sac/Val, MR‐proADM increased by median 49% in HFrEF and 60% in HFpEF, while there were no significant changes in valsartan‐treated patients (median 2%). Greater increases in MR‐proADM were associated with higher Sac/Val doses. Changes in MR‐proADM correlated weakly with changes in N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide, cardiac troponin T and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate. Increases in MR‐proADM were associated with decreases in blood pressure, but not significantly associated with changes in echocardiographic parameters or health status. Conclusions: MR‐proAD concentrations rise substantially following treatment with Sac/Val, in contrast to no change from valsartan. Change in MR‐proADM from neprilysin inhibition did not correlate with improvements in cardiac structure and function or health status. More data are needed regarding the role of adrenomedullin and its related peptides in the treatment of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: PROVE‐HF ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02887183, PARAMOUNT ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887588. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: It is uncertain how much candidate biomarkers improve risk prediction when added to comprehensive models including routinely collected clinical and laboratory variables in heart failure. Methods and results: Aldosterone, cystatin C, high‐sensitivity troponin T (hs‐TnT), galectin‐3, growth differentiation factor‐15 (GDF‐15), kidney injury molecule‐1, matrix metalloproteinase‐2 and ‐9, soluble suppression of tumourigenicity‐2, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase‐1 (TIMP‐1) and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio were measured in 1559 of PARADIGM‐HF participants. We tested whether these biomarkers, individually or collectively, improved the performance of the PREDICT‐HF prognostic model, which includes clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide data, for the primary endpoint and cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality. The mean age of participants was 67.3 ± 9.9 years, 1254 (80.4%) were men and 1103 (71%) were in New York Heart Association class II. During a mean follow‐up of 30.7 months, 300 patients experienced the primary outcome and 197 died. Added individually, only four biomarkers were independently associated with all outcomes: hs‐TnT, GDF‐15, cystatin C and TIMP‐1. When all biomarkers were added simultaneously to the PREDICT‐HF models, only hs‐TnT remained an independent predictor of all three endpoints. GDF‐15 also remained predictive of the primary endpoint; TIMP‐1 was the only other predictor of both cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality. Individually or in combination, these biomarkers did not lead to significant improvements in discrimination or reclassification. Conclusions: None of the biomarkers studied individually or collectively led to a meaningful improvement in the prediction of outcomes over what is provided by clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate the prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes associated with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in a clinical trial population with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and describe the baseline characteristics by variant carrier status. Methods and results: This was a post hoc analysis of the Phase 3 PARADIGM‐HF trial. Forty‐four genes, divided into three tiers, based on definitive, moderate or limited evidence of association with DCM, were assessed for rare predicted loss‐of‐function (pLoF) variants, which were prioritized using ClinVar annotations, measures of gene transcriptional output and evolutionary constraint, and pLoF confidence predictions. Prevalence was reported for pLoF variant carriers based on DCM‐associated gene tiers. Clinical features were compared between carriers and non‐carriers. Of the 1412 HFrEF participants with whole‐exome sequence data, 68 (4.8%) had at least one pLoF variant in the 8 tier‐1 genes (definitive/strong association with DCM), with Titin being most commonly affected. The prevalence increased to 7.5% when considering all 44 genes. Among patients with idiopathic aetiology, 10.0% (23/229) had tier‐1 variants only and 12.6% (29/229) had tier‐1, ‐2 or ‐3 variants. Compared to non‐carriers, tier‐1 carriers were younger (4 years; adjusted p‐value [padj] = 4 × 10−3), leaner (27.8 kg/m2 vs. 29.4 kg/m2; padj = 3.2 × 10−3), had lower ejection fraction (27.3% vs. 29.8%; padj = 5.8 × 10−3), and less likely to have ischaemic aetiology (37.3% vs. 67.4%; padj = 4 × 10−4). Conclusion: Deleterious pLoF variants in genes with definitive/strong association with DCM were identified in ∼5% of HFrEF patients from a PARADIGM‐HF trial subset, who were younger, had lower ejection fraction and were less likely to have had an ischaemic aetiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Multimorbidity, the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions, is synonymous with heart failure (HF). How risk related to comorbidities compares at individual and population levels is unknown. The aim of this study is to examine the risk related to comorbidities, alone and in combination, both at individual and population levels. Methods and results: Using two clinical trials in HF – the Prospective comparison of ARNI (Angiotensin Receptor–Neprilysin Inhibitor) with ACEI (Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibitor) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in HF trial (PARADIGM‐HF) and the Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure trials (ATMOSPHERE) – we identified the 10 most common comorbidities and examined 45 possible pairs. We calculated population attributable fractions (PAF) for all‐cause death and relative excess risk due to interaction with Cox proportional hazard models. Of 15 066 patients in the study, 14 133 (93.7%) had at least one and 11 867 (78.8%) had at least two of the 10 most prevalent comorbidities. The greatest individual risk among pairs was associated with peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28–2.33) and anaemia (HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.39–2.11). The combination of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and hypertension had the highest PAF (5.65%; 95% CI 3.66–7.61). Two pairs demonstrated significant synergistic interaction (atrial fibrillation with CKD and coronary artery disease, respectively) and one an antagonistic interaction (anaemia and obesity). Conclusions: In HF, the impact of multimorbidity differed at the individual patient and population level, depending on the prevalence of and the risk related to each comorbidity, and the interaction between individual comorbidities. Patients with coexistent PAD and stroke were at greatest individual risk whereas, from a population perspective, coexistent CKD and hypertension mattered most. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor health‐related quality of life (HRQL). Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have similar HRQL impairment as those with reduced ejection fraction. This study describes the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on HRQL in patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON‐HF trial. Methods and results: Patients completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and EuroQol (EQ‐5D) at randomization, 4, 8 months, and annually thereafter. Changes in HRQL scores were evaluated using repeated measures models adjusted for treatment, baseline values and region. The pre‐specified principal efficacy assessment was at 8 months at which time patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had borderline higher KCCQ clinical summary score (CSS) with least squares mean (LSM) adjusted difference of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0, 2.1; p = 0.051). Including all visits up to 36 months, the LSM difference in KCCQ‐CSS favoured sacubitril/valsartan with average adjusted difference of 1.1 (95% CI 0.1, 2.0; p = 0.034). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan had greater odds of clinically meaningful improvement (≥5‐point increase) in KCCQ‐CSS (odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.06, 1.61) at 8 months. At 8 months, there was no significant difference in the EQ visual analogue scale between the treatment arms, but sacubitril/valsartan was associated with higher EQ‐5D utility score (US‐based) with LSM adjusted difference of 0.01 (95% CI 0.00, 0.02; p = 0.019). Conclusion: Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan had a borderline benefit on KCCQ‐CSS at 8 months in patients with HFpEF. This benefit became more significant when data from all visits up to 36 months were included. This modest overall benefit was also supported by greater odds of patients reporting a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL with sacubitril/valsartan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains associated with high morbidity and mortality, poor quality of life (QoL) and significant exercise limitation. Sympatho‐vagal imbalance has been shown to predict adverse prognosis and symptoms in HFrEF, yet it has not been specifically targeted by any guideline‐recommended device therapy to date. Barostim™, which directly addresses this imbalance, is the first Food and Drug Administration approved neuromodulation technology for HFrEF. We aimed to analyse all randomized trial evidence to evaluate the effect of baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) on heart failure symptoms, QoL and N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) in HFrEF. Methods and results: An individual patient data (IPD) meta‐analysis was performed on all eligible trials that randomized HFrEF patients to BAT + guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT alone (open label). Endpoints included 6‐month changes in 6‐min hall walk (6MHW) distance, Minnesota Living With Heart Failure (MLWHF) QoL score, NT‐proBNP, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class in all patients and three subgroups. A total of 554 randomized patients were included. In all patients, BAT provided significant improvement in 6MHW distance of 49 m (95% confidence interval [CI] 33, 64), MLWHF QoL of −13 points (95% CI −17, −10), and 3.4 higher odds of improving at least one NYHA class (95% CI 2.3, 4.9) when comparing from baseline to 6 months. These improvements were similar, or better, in patients who had baseline NT‐proBNP <1600 pg/ml, regardless of the cardiac resynchronization therapy indication status. Conclusion: An IPD meta‐analysis suggests that BAT improves exercise capacity, NYHA class, and QoL in HFrEF patients receiving GDMT. These clinically meaningful improvements were consistent across the range of patients studies. BAT was also associated with an improvement in NT‐proBNP in subjects with a lower baseline NT‐proBNP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Sudden death is a leading cause of mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In PARADIGM‐HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of sudden death. The purpose of this post hoc study was to analyse the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared to enalapril, on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. Methods and results: Adverse event reports related to ventricular arrhythmias were examined in PARADIGM‐HF. The effect of randomized treatment on two arrhythmia outcomes was analysed: ventricular arrhythmias and the composite of a ventricular arrhythmia, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The risk of death related to a ventricular arrhythmia was examined in time‐updated models. The interaction between heart failure aetiology, or baseline ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy‐defibrillator (CRT‐D) use, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan was analysed. Of the 8399 participants, 333 (4.0%) reported a ventricular arrhythmia and 372 (4.4%) the composite arrhythmia outcome. Ventricular arrhythmias were associated with higher mortality. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of a ventricular arrhythmia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.95; p = 0.015) and the composite arrhythmia outcome (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.97; p = 0.025). The treatment effect was maintained after adjustment and accounting for the competing risk of death. Baseline ICD/CRT‐D use did not modify the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but aetiology did: HR in patients with an ischaemic aetiology 0.93 (95% CI 0.71–1.21) versus 0.53 (95% CI 0.37–0.78) in those without an ischaemic aetiology (p for interaction = 0.020). Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of investigator‐reported ventricular arrhythmias in patients with HFrEF. This effect may have been greater in patients with a non‐ischaemic aetiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The 4822 patients randomized in the PARAGON‐HF trial were a subset of 5746 initially eligible patients who entered sequential run‐in periods. We identified patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run‐in period and estimated the implications of these discontinuations for the overall study result. Methods and results: We utilized multivariable logistic regression models to identify patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run‐in period. The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in a broader cohort approximating the full run‐in population was estimated by weighting randomized patients according to the inverse probability of run‐in completion. A total of 924 (16.1%) subjects failed to complete the run‐in period. In multivariable models, non‐completion was associated with region other than Central Europe, lower systolic blood pressure, lower serum sodium, lower haemoglobin, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide, higher New York Heart Association functional class, prior heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and lack of prior use of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors or beta‐blocker. In repeat analysis of the effect of randomized treatment in PARAGON‐HF giving greater weight to participants resembling those who failed to complete the run‐in period, the incidence of HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was higher, and sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduced the composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan (rate ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.74–1.00). Conclusion: Patients with more advanced HF were at higher risk for non‐completion of the run‐in period in PARAGON‐HF. Re‐analysis of study outcomes accounting for the effect of run‐in non‐completion did not alter the estimated treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan improves morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether initiation of sacubitril/valsartan limits the use and dosing of other elements of guideline‐directed medical therapy for HFrEF is unknown. We examined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on β‐blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use and dosing in a large randomized clinical trial. Methods and results: Patients with full data on medication use were included. We examined β‐blocker and MRA use in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril through 12‐month follow‐up. New initiations and discontinuations of β‐blocker and MRA were compared between treatment groups. Overall, 8398 (99.9%) had full medication and dose data at baseline. Baseline use of β‐blocker and MRA at any dose was 87% and 56%, respectively. Mean doses of β‐blocker and MRA were similar between treatment groups at baseline and at 6‐month and 12‐month follow‐up. New initiations through 12‐month follow‐up were infrequent and similar in the sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril groups for β‐blockers [37 (9.0%) vs. 42 (10.2%), P = 0.56] and MRA [127 (7.6%) vs. 143 (9.2%), P = 0.10]. Among patients on MRA therapy at baseline, there were fewer MRA discontinuations in patients on sacubitril/valsartan as compared with enalapril at 12 months [125 (6.2%) vs. 187 (9.0%), P = 0.001]. Discontinuations of β‐blockers were not significantly different between groups in follow‐up (2.2% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.26). Conclusions: Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even when titrated to target dose, did not appear to lead to greater discontinuation or dose down‐titration of other key guideline‐directed medical therapies, and was associated with fewer discontinuations of MRA. Use of sacubitril/valsartan (when compared with enalapril) may promote sustained MRA use in follow‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The relationship between serum potassium concentration and outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not well‐established. The aim of this study was to explore the association between serum potassium and clinical outcomes in the PARAGON‐HF trial in which 4822 patients with HFpEF were randomised to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Methods and results: The relationship between serum potassium concentrations and the primary study composite outcome of total (first and recurrent) heart failure hospitalisations and cardiovascular death was analysed. Hypo‐, normo‐, and hyperkalaemia were defined as serum potassium <4 mmol/L, 4–5 mmol/L and >5 mmol/L, respectively. Both screening and time‐updated potassium (categorical and continuous spline‐transformed) were studied. Patient mean age was 73 years and 52% were women. Patients with higher baseline potassium more often had an ischaemic aetiology and diabetes and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment. Compared with normokalaemia, both time‐updated (but not screening) hypo‐ and hyperkalaemia were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for hypokalaemia 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30–1.85; P < 0.001, and for hyperkalaemia HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02–1.44; P = 0.025]. Hypokalaemia had a stronger association with a higher risk of all‐cause, cardiovascular and non‐cardiovascular death than hyperkalaemia. The association of hypokalaemia with increased risk of all‐cause and cardiovascular death was most marked in participants with impaired kidney function (interaction P < 0.05). Serum potassium did not significantly differ between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan throughout the follow‐up. Conclusions: Both hypo‐ and hyperkalaemia were associated with heart failure hospitalisation but only hypokalaemia was associated with mortality, especially in the context of renal impairment. Hypokalaemia was as strongly associated with death from non‐cardiovascular causes as with cardiovascular death. Collectively, these findings suggest that potassium disturbances are a more of a marker of HFpEF severity rather than a direct cause of death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Determine the feasibility of implementing a heart failure (HF) management strategy that (i) uses a device‐based, remote, dynamic, multimetric risk stratification model to predict the risk of HF events and (ii) uses a standardized, centrally administered, ambulatory medication intervention protocol to reproducibly and safely decrease elevated risk scores. Methods and results: Prospective, non‐randomized, single‐arm, multicenter feasibility study (Intervene‐HF) was conducted in HF patients implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardio defibrillator (CRT‐D) with TriageHF risk score feature. Certified HF nurses (CHFN) in the Medtronic Care Management Services Program implemented an ambulatory medication intervention strategy by following a standardized guided action pathway triggered by risk‐based alert. When CHFN received notification of increased risk score (HF care alert), they implemented a 3 day course of diuretic up‐titration (PRN) previously prescribed by a physician. Safety was monitored daily. Recovery after PRN was defined as ≥70% recovery of impedance toward baseline levels. Sixty‐six patients followed for 8.2 ± 3.9 months had 49 HF care alerts. Twenty‐three of 49 alerts did not receive PRN due to protocol‐mandated criteria. Twenty‐six of 49 alerts received PRN, 22 were completed, and 19 led to impedance recovery. Four interventions were stopped for safety without leading to an adverse event (AE). One of 26 PRNs was followed by a HF event. Eighty‐five per cent (22/26) of PRNs were completed without an AE; 69% (18/26) met the recovery criteria. Conclusions: The Intervene‐HF study supports the feasibility of testing, in a large randomized clinical trial, an ambulatory medication intervention strategy that is physician‐directed, CHFN‐implemented, and based on individualized device risk stratification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan combines renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibition with amplification of natriuretic peptides. In addition to well‐described effects, natriuretic peptides exert direct effects on pulmonary vasculature. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) has not been fully defined. Methods and results: This was a retrospective case‐series of PAP changes following transition from angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction and a previously implanted CardioMEMS™ sensor. Pre‐sacubitril/valsartan and post‐sacubitril/valsartan PAPs were compared for each patient by examining averaged consecutive daily pressure readings from 1 to 5 days before and after sacubitril/valsartan exposure. PAP changes were also compared between patients based on elevated trans‐pulmonary gradients (trans‐pulmonary gradient ≥ 12 mmHg) at time of CardioMEMS™ sensor implantation. The cohort included 18 patients, 72% male, mean age 60.1 ± 13.6 years. There was a significant decrease in PAPs associated with transition from ACEI/ARB to sacubitril/valsartan. The median (interquartile range) pre‐treatment and post‐treatment change in mean, systolic and diastolic PAPs were −3.6 (−9.8, −0.7) mmHg (P < 0.001), −6.5 (−15.0, −2.0) mmHg (P = 0.001), and −2.5 (−5.7, −0.7) (P = 0.001), respectively. The decrease in PAPs was independent of trans‐pulmonary gradient (F(1,16) = 0.49, P = 0.49). Conclusions: In this retrospective case series, transition from ACEI/ARB to sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an early and significant decrease in PAPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Patients with DM and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction have higher levels of cardiac, profibrotic, and proinflammatory biomarkers relative to non‐diabetics. Limited data are available regarding the biomarker profiles of HFpEF patients with diabetes (DM) vs. no diabetes (non‐DM) and the impact of spironolactone on these biomarkers. This study aims to address such gaps in the literature. Methods and results: Biomarkers were measured at randomization and at 12 months in 248 patients enrolled in Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist's North American cohort. At baseline, DM patients had significantly lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and higher high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein, pro‐collagen type III amino‐terminal peptide, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP‐1), and galectin‐3 levels than those without diabetes. There was a significantly larger 12 month increase in levels of high‐sensitivity troponin T (hs‐TnT), a marker of myocyte death, in DM patients. Elevated pro‐collagen type III amino‐terminal peptide and galectin‐3 levels were associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (cardiovascular mortality, aborted cardiac arrest, or heart failure hospitalization) in DM patients, but not in those without diabetes. A statistically significant interaction between spironolactone and diabetes status was observed for hs‐TnT and for TIMP‐1, with greater biomarker reductions among those with diabetes treated with spironolactone. Conclusions: The presence of diabetes is associated with higher levels of cardiac, profibrotic, and proinflammatory biomarkers in HFpEF. Spironolactone appears to alter the determinants of extracellular matrix remodelling in an anti‐fibrotic fashion in patients with diabetes, reflected by changes in hs‐TnT and TIMP‐1 levels over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The importance of intra‐ventricular conduction delay (IVCD), the incidence of new IVCD and its relationship to outcomes in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are not well studied. We addressed these questions in the PARADIGM‐HF and ATMOSPHERE trials. Methods and results: The risk of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization and all‐cause mortality were estimated by use of Cox regression according to baseline QRS duration and morphology in 11 861 patients without an intracardiac device. At baseline, 1789 (15.1%) patients had left bundle branch block (LBBB), 524 (4.4%) right bundle branch block (RBBB), 454 (3.8%) non‐specific IVCD, 2588 (21.8%) 'mildly abnormal' QRS (110–129 ms) and 6506 (54.9%) QRS <110 ms. During a median follow‐up of 2.5 years, the risk of the primary composite endpoint was higher among those with a wide QRS, irrespective of morphology: hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) LBBB 1.36 (1.23–1.50), RBBB 1.54 (1.31–1.79), non‐specific IVCD 1.65 (1.40–1.94) and QRS 110–129 ms 1.35 (1.23–1.47), compared with QRS duration <110 ms. A total of 1234 (15.6%) patients developed new‐onset QRS widening ≥130 ms (6.1 per 100 patient‐years). Incident LBBB occurred in 495 (6.3%) patients (2.4 per 100 patient‐years) and was associated with a higher risk of the primary composite outcome [hazard ratio 1.42 (1.12–1.82)]. Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, a wide QRS was associated with worse clinical outcomes irrespective of morphology. The annual incidence of new‐onset LBBB was around 2.5%, and associated with a higher risk of adverse outcomes, highlighting the importance of repeat electrocardiogram review. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT0083658 (ATMOSPHERE) and NCT01035255 (PARADIGM‐HF). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aimed to examine the clinical utility of a multisensor, remote, ambulatory diagnostic risk score, TriageHF™, in a real‐world, unselected, large patient sample to predict heart failure events (HFEs) and all‐cause mortality. Methods and results: TriageHF risk score was calculated in patients in the Optum® database who had Medtronic implantable cardiac defibrillator device from 2007 to 2016. Patients were categorized into three risk groups based on probability for having an HFE within 6 months (low risk <5.4%, medium risk ≥5.4 < 20%, and high risk ≥20%). Data were analysed using three strategies: (i) scheduled monthly data download; (ii) alert‐triggered data download; and (iii) daily data download. Study population consisted of 22 901 patients followed for 1.8 ± 1.3 years. Using monthly downloads, HFE risk over 30 days incrementally increased across risk categories (odds ratio: 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 2.5–3.2 for HFE, P < 0.001, low vs. medium risk, and odds ratio: 9.2, 95% confidence interval: 8.1–10.3, P < 0.001, medium vs. high risk). Findings were similar using the other two analytic strategies. Using a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, sensitivity for predicting HFE over 30 days using high‐risk score was 47% (alert triggered) and 51% (daily download) vs. 0.5 per patient year unexplained detection rate. TriageHF risk score also predicted all‐cause mortality risk over 4 years. All‐cause mortality risk was 14% in low risk, 20% in medium risk, and 38% in high risk. Conclusions: TriageHF risk score provides a multisensor remote, ambulatory diagnostic method that predicts both HFEs and all‐cause mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Little is known about patient characteristics, outcomes, and the effect of treatment in relation to duration of heart failure (HF). We have investigated these questions in PARADIGM‐HF. The aim of the study was to compare patient characteristics, outcomes, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, in relation to time from HF diagnosis in PARADIGM‐HF. Methods and results: HF duration was categorized as 0–1, >1–2, >2–5, and >5 years. Outcomes were adjusted for prognostic variables, including N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP). The primary endpoint was the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. The number of patients in each group was as follows: 0–1 year, 2523 (30%); >1–2 years, 1178 (14%); >2–5 years, 2054 (24.5%); and >5 years, 2644 (31.5%). Patients with longer‐duration HF were older, more often male, and had worse New York Heart Association class and quality of life, more co‐morbidity, and higher troponin‐T but similar NT‐proBNP levels. The primary outcome rate (per 100 person‐years) increased with HF duration: 0–1 year, 8.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.6–9.2]; >1–2 years, 11.2 (10.0–12.7); >2–5 years, 13.4 (12.4–14.6); and >5 years, 14.2 (13.2–15.2); P < 0.001. The hazard ratio was 1.26 (95% CI 1.07–1.48), 1.52 (1.33–1.74), and 1.53 (1.33–1.75), respectively, for >1–2, >2–5, and >5 years, compared with 0–1 year. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across HF duration for all outcomes, with the primary endpoint hazard ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.67–0.97) for 0–1 year and 0.73 (0.63–0.84) in the >5 year group. For the primary outcome, the number needed to treat for >5 years was 18, compared with 29 for 0–1 year. Conclusions: Patients with longer‐duration HF had more co‐morbidity, worse quality of life, and higher rates of HF hospitalization and death. The benefit of a neprilysin inhibitor was consistent, irrespective of HF duration. Switching to sacubitril/valsartan had substantial benefits, even in patients with long‐standing HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of serum uric acid (SUA) on outcomes in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and whether sacubitril–valsartan reduces SUA and use of SUA‐related therapies. Methods and results: We analysed 4795 participants from the Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor] with ARB [angiotensin‐receptor blockers] Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON‐HF) trial. We related baseline hyperuricaemia (using age and gender adjusted assay definitions) to the primary outcome [cardiovascular (CV) death and total HF hospitalizations]. We assessed the associations between changes in SUA and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ‐OSS) and other cardiac biomarkers from baseline to 4 months. We simultaneously adjusted for baseline and time‐updated SUA to determine whether lowering SUA was associated with clinical benefit. The mean (± standard deviation) age of patients was 73 ± 8 years and 52% were women. After multivariable adjustment, hyperuricaemia was associated with increased risk for the primary outcome [rate ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37–1.90]. The treatment effect of sacubitril–valsartan for the primary endpoint was not significantly modified by hyperuricaemia (P‐value for interaction = 0.14). Sacubitril–valsartan reduced SUA by 0.38 mg/dL (95% CI 0.31−0.45) compared with valsartan at 4 months, with greater effect in those with elevated SUA vs. normal SUA (−0.51 mg/dL vs. −0.32 mg/dL) (P‐value for interaction = 0.031). Sacubitril–valsartan reduced the odds of initiating SUA‐related treatments by 32% during follow‐up (P < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, change in SUA was inversely associated with change in KCCQ‐OSS and directly associated with high‐sensitivity troponin T (P < 0.05). Time‐updated SUA was a stronger predictor of adverse outcomes than baseline SUA. Conclusions: Serum uric acid independently predicted adverse outcomes in HFpEF. Sacubitril–valsartan reduced SUA and the initiation of related therapy compared with valsartan. Reductions in SUA were associated with improved outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The associations between potassium level and outcomes, the effect of sacubitril–valsartan on potassium level, and whether potassium level modified the effect of sacubitril–valsartan in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction were studied in PARADIGM‐HF. Several outcomes, including cardiovascular death, sudden death, pump failure death, non‐cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization, were examined. Methods and results: A total of 8399 patients were randomized to either enalapril or sacubitril–valsartan. Potassium level at randomization and follow‐up was examined as a continuous and categorical variable (≤3.5, 3.6–4.0, 4.1–4.9, 5.0–5.4 and ≥5.5 mmol/L) in various statistical models. Hyperkalaemia was defined as K+ ≥5.5 mmol/L and hypokalaemia as K+ ≤3.5 mmol/L. Compared with potassium 4.1–4.9 mmol/L, both hypokalaemia [hazard ratio (HR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.84–3.14] and hyperkalaemia (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10–1.83) were associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular death. However, potassium abnormalities were similarly associated with sudden death and pump failure death, as well as non‐cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization. Sacubitril–valsartan had no effect on potassium overall. The benefit of sacubitril–valsartan over enalapril was consistent across the range of baseline potassium levels. Conclusions: Although both higher and lower potassium levels were independent predictors of cardiovascular death, potassium abnormalities may mainly be markers rather than mediators of risk for death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Frailty, characterized by loss of homeostatic reserves and increased vulnerability to physiological decompensation, results from an aggregation of insults across multiple organ systems. Frailty can be quantified by counting the number of 'health deficits' across a range of domains. We assessed the frequency of, and outcomes related to, frailty in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods and Results: Using a cumulative deficits approach, we constructed a 42-item frailty index (FI) and applied it to identify frail patients enrolled in two HFrEF trials (PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE). In keeping with previous studies, patients with FI ≤0.210 were classified as non-frail and those with higher scores were divided into two categories using score increments of 0.100. Clinical outcomes were examined, adjusting for prognostic variables. Among 13 625 participants, mean (± standard deviation) FI was 0.250 (0.10) and 8383 patients (63%) were frail (FI >0.210). The frailest patients were older and had more symptoms and signs of heart failure. Women were frailer than men. All outcomes were worse in the frailest, with high rates of all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization: 40.7 (39.1-42.4) vs. 22.1 (21.2-23.0) per 100 person-years in the non-frail; adjusted hazard ratio 1.63 (1.53-1.75) (P < 0.001). The rate of all-cause hospitalizations, taking account of recurrences, was 61.5 (59.8-63.1) vs. 31.2 (30.3-32.2) per 100 person-years (incidence rate ratio 1.76; 1.62-1.90; P < 0.001).Conclusion: Frailty is highly prevalent in HFrEF and associated with greater deterioration in quality of life and higher risk of hospitalization and death. Strategies to prevent and treat frailty are needed in HFrEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: OptiVol fluid index was developed as a transthoracic impedance‐based indicator of short‐term risk for heart failure hospitalization (HFH). OptiVol is calculated as the accumulating difference between daily impedance (measured impedance) and long‐term average impedance (reference impedance). Measured impedance alone was thought to have limited prognostic utility; however, measured impedance has the advantage of being simple, direct, and possibly additive to OptiVol fluid index in establishing long‐term HFH risk. We tested the hypothesis that directly measured impedance has independent prognostic value in predicting long‐term HFH risk and that changes in measured impedance result in a change in predicted long‐term HFH risk. Methods and results: A retrospective analysis of 1719 patients studied in PARTNERS‐HF, FAST, and RAFT studies was performed. Baseline measured impedance was determined using daily values averaged over 1 month, from Month 6 to 7 post implant; change in measured impedance was determined from values averaged over 1 month, from Month 7 to 8 post implant compared with baseline. The predictive value of baseline measured impedance for HFHs was assessed beginning 7 months post implant. The predictive value of a change in measured impedance for a change in HFHs was assessed beginning 8 months post implant. Baseline measured impedance successfully predicted HFHs. For example, 3 year HFH rate for low baseline impedance < 70 Ω was 23%; for high baseline impedance ≥ 70 Ω was 15% (P < 0.001). Changes in measured impedance resulted in changes in predicted HFHs. For example, when a baseline impedance of ≥70 fell during follow‐up to <70 Ω, the subsequent HFHs were 15% compared with 4% in patients with measured impedance that remained >70 Ω (P = 0.004). In addition, when baseline measured impedance fell during follow‐up by >1%, 2%, or 3%, subsequent HFHs increased to 13%, 17%, or 18%, respectively. Finally, the prognostic value of measured impedance was additive to the prognostic value of the OptiVol fluid index. Conclusions: Direct measurements of intrathoracic impedance using an implanted device can be used to stratify patients at varying risk of long‐term HFH. These direct measurements of impedance have practical clinical appeal because they are simple, continuous, and ambulatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The prevalence of liver function abnormalities is common in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We assessed the impact of liver function on prognosis and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on measures of liver function in patients with HFrEF.Methods and Results: The PARADIGM-HF trial was a randomized, double-blind, active treatment-controlled trial. We included 8232 HFrEF patients with available measures of liver function, including transaminases, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and bilirubin; the primary endpoint was a composite of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular (CV) death. At screening, 11.6% of study patients had total bilirubin above the upper limit of normal (20.5 μmol/L) and 9.2% had ALP above the upper limit of normal (123 IU/L). Although ALP and albumin were associated with an increased risk of outcomes, among conventional test of liver function, total bilirubin was the strongest predictor for the primary endpoint [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.15; P < 0.001], HF hospitalization (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.07-1.22; P < 0.001); CV death (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.14; P = 0.040), and all-cause death (HR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14; P = 0.009). All conventional measures of liver function were significantly improved in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with the enalapril group after randomization (between-group reduction: total bilirubin 2.4%, 95% CI 0.7-4.2%, P = 0.007; aspartate aminotransferase 7.9%, 95% CI 6.7-9.0%, P < 0.001; alanine aminotransferase 7.7%; 95% CI 6.2-9.3%, P < 0.001; ALP 5.4%, 95% CI 4.4-6.4%, P < 0.001).Conclusion: Total bilirubin was a significant and independent predictor of CV death or HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF. Sacubitril/valsartan improved measures of liver function compared with enalapril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To investigate the relationship between heart rate and outcomes in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients in sinus rhythm (SR) and atrial fibrillation (AF) adjusting for natriuretic peptide concentration, a powerful prognosticator.Methods and Results: Of 13 562 patients from two large HFrEF trials, 10 113 (74.6%) were in SR and 3449 (25.4%) in AF. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Heart rate was analysed as a categorical (tertiles, T1-3) and continuous variable (per 10 bpm), separately in patients in SR and AF. Outcomes were adjusted for prognostic variables, including N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and also examined using change from baseline heart rate to 1 year (≤ -10 bpm, ≥ +10 bpm, < ±10 bpm). SR patients with a higher heart rate had worse symptoms and quality of life, more often had diabetes and higher NT-proBNP concentrations. They had higher risk of the primary endpoint [T3 vs. T1 adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-1.66; P < 0.001; per 10 bpm: 1.12, 95% CI 1.09-1.16; P < 0.001]. In SR, heart rate was associated with a relatively higher risk of pump failure than sudden death (adjusted HR per 10 bpm 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.26; P < 0.001 vs. 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13; P = 0.011). Heart rate was not predictive of any outcome in AF.Conclusions: In HFrEF, an elevated heart rate was an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients in SR, even after adjustment for NT-proBNP. There was no relationship between heart rate and outcomes in AF.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT01035255 and NCT00853658. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Insulin causes sodium retention and hypoglycaemia and its use is associated with worse outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We have investigated whether this is also the case in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).Methods and Results: We examined the association between diabetes/diabetes treatments and the risk of the primary composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, as well as other outcomes in adjusted analyses in CHARM-Preserved (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45%), I-Preserve and TOPCAT (Americas) pooled. Of 8466 patients, 2653 (31%) had diabetes, including 979 (37%) receiving insulin. Patients receiving insulin were younger, had a higher body mass index, prevalence of ischaemic aetiology, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and use of diuretics, worse New York Heart Association class and signs and symptoms, and worse quality of life and renal function, compared to patients with diabetes not on insulin. Among the 1398 patients with echocardiographic data, insulin use was associated with higher left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and more diastolic dysfunction than in other participants. The primary outcome occurred at a rate of 6.3 per 100 patient-years in patients without diabetes, and 10.2 and 17.1 per 100 patient-years in diabetes patients without and with insulin use, respectively [fully adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) insulin-treated diabetes vs. other diabetes: 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-1.63, P < 0.001]. The adjusted HR is 1.67 (95% CI 1.20-2.32, p = 0.002) for sudden death (insulin-treated diabetes vs. other diabetes).Conclusions: Insulin use is associated with poor outcomes in HFpEF. Although we cannot conclude a causal association, the safety of insulin and alternative glucose-lowering treatments in HF needs to be evaluated in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess differences in diuretic dose requirements in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial.Methods and Results: Overall, 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and reduced LVEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg twice daily. Loop diuretic doses were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and furosemide dose equivalents were calculated via multiplication factors (2x for torsemide and 40x for bumetanide). Percentages of participants with reductions or increases in loop diuretic dose were determined. At baseline, 80.8% of participants were taking any diuretics (n = 6290 for loop diuretics, n = 496 for other diuretics); of those, recorded dosage data for loop diuretics were available on 5487 participants. Mean baseline furosemide equivalent doses were 48.2 mg for sacubitril/valsartan and 49.6 mg for enalapril (P = 0.25). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to reduce diuretic dose and less likely to increase diuretic dose relative to those randomized to enalapril at 6, 12, 24 months post-randomization, with an overall decreased diuretic use of 2.0% (P = 0.02), 4.1% (P < 0.001), and 6.1% (P < 0.001) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, with similar findings in an on-treatment analysis.Conclusion: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was associated with more loop diuretic dose reductions and fewer dose increases compared with enalapril, suggesting that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan may reduce the requirement for loop diuretics relative to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We examined the prognostic importance of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin T (TnT) in heart failure patients with and without diabetes.Methods and Results: We measured NT-proBNP and TnT in the biomarker substudy of the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF). Of 1907 patients, 759 (40%) had diabetes. Median TnT in patients with diabetes was 18 (interquartile range 11-27) ng/L and 13 (9-21) ng/L in those without (P < 0.001). The TnT frequency-distribution curve was shifted to the right in patients with diabetes, compared to those without diabetes. By contrast, NT-proBNP did not differ between patients with and without diabetes. Diabetes and each biomarker were predictive of worse outcomes. Thus, patients with diabetes, an elevated TnT and a NT-proBNP level in the highest tertile (9% of all patients) had an absolute risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization of 265 per 1000 person-years, compared to a rate of 42 per 1000 person-years in those without diabetes, a TnT < 18 ng/L and a NT-proBNP in the lowest tertile (16% of all patients). TnT remained an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in multivariable analyses including NT-proBNP.Conclusion: TnT is elevated to a greater extent in heart failure patients with diabetes compared to those without (whereas NT-proBNP is not). TnT and NT-proBNP are additive in predicting risk and when combined help identify diabetes patients at extremely high absolute risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a global public health problem. Unfortunately, little is known about HFpEF across Asia.Methods and Results: We prospectively studied clinical characteristics, echocardiographic parameters and outcomes in 1204 patients with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%) from 11 Asian regions, grouped as Northeast Asia (Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Japan, Korea, n = 543), South Asia (India, n = 252), and Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, n = 409). Mean age was 68 ±12 years (37% were < 65 years) and 50% were women. Seventy per cent of patients had ≥2 co-morbidities, most commonly hypertension (71%), followed by anaemia (57%), chronic kidney disease (50%), diabetes (45%), coronary artery disease (29%), atrial fibrillation (29%) and obesity (26%). Southeast Asian patients had the highest prevalence of all co-morbidities except atrial fibrillation, South Asians had the lowest prevalence of all co-morbidities except anaemia and obesity, and Northeast Asians had more atrial fibrillation. Left ventricular hypertrophy and concentric remodelling were most prominent among Southeast and South Asians, respectively (P < 0.001). Overall, 12.1% of patients died or were hospitalized for heart failure within 1 year. Southeast Asians were at higher risk for adverse outcomes, independent of co-morbidity burden and cardiac geometry.Conclusion: These first prospective multinational data from Asia show that HFpEF affects relatively young patients with a high burden of co-morbidities. Regional differences in types of co-morbidities, cardiac remodelling and outcomes of HFpEF across Asia have important implications for public health measures and global HFpEF trial design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) is associated with adverse prognosis in cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV diseases. We evaluated the association of GDF-15 with CV and non-CV outcomes in the PARADIGM-HF trial.Methods and Results: In 1935 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF, median GDF-15 values were elevated and similar in sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril patients (1626 ng/L and 1690 ng/L, respectively). Diabetes, age, creatinine, high-sensitive troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and New York Heart Association class III/IV were most strongly associated with elevated GDF-15 values (all P < 0.001) (adjusted R2 = 0.3857). Baseline GDF-15 and changes in GDF-15 at both 1 month and 8 months (log-transformed) were associated with subsequent mortality and CV events. Each 20% increment in baseline GDF-15 value was associated with a higher risk of mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.18, P < 0.001], the combined endpoint of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.14, P < 0.001) and heart failure death (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28, P < 0.001). Changes in GDF-15 were not influenced by assigned therapy (all P-values ≥ 0.1).Conclusion: In patients with ambulatory HFrEF, GDF-15 is not modified by sacubitril/valsartan and is strongly associated with mortality and CV outcomes, suggesting that GDF-15 is a marker of poor outcomes in these patients.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01035255. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Recurrent hospitalizations are a major part of the disease burden in heart failure (HF), but conventional analyses consider only the first event. We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent events, incorporating all HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) deaths in PARADIGM-HF, using a variety of statistical approaches advocated for this type of analysis.Methods and Results: In PARADIGM-HF, a total of 8399 patients were randomized and followed for a median of 27 months. We applied various recurrent event analyses, including a negative binomial model, the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin, Wei, Ying and Yang (LWYY) methods, and a joint frailty model, all adjusted for treatment and region. Among a total of 3181 primary endpoint events (including 1251 CV deaths) during the trial, only 2031 (63.8%) were first events (836 CV deaths). Among a total of 1195 patients with at least one HF hospitalization, 410 (34%) had at least one further HF hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril reduced the risk of recurrent HF hospitalization using the negative binomial model [rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.89], the WLW method [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89], the LWYY method (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and the joint frailty model (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.86) (all P < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent HF hospitalizations/CV death was similar.Conclusions: In PARADIGM-HF, approximately one third of patients with a primary endpoint (time-to-first) experienced a further event. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced both first and recurrent events. The treatment effect size was similar, regardless of the statistical approach applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Inhibition of neprilysin, an enzyme degrading natriuretic and other vasoactive peptides, is beneficial in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), as shown in PARADIGM-HF which compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril. As neprilysin is also one of many enzymes clearing amyloid-β peptides from the brain, there is a theoretical concern about the long-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cognition. Therefore, we have examined dementia-related adverse effects (AEs) in PARADIGM-HF and placed these findings in the context of other recently conducted HFrEF trials.Methods and Results: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with symptomatic HFrEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg b.i.d. or enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in a 1:1 ratio. We systematically searched AE reports, coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), using Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQs) with 'broad' and 'narrow' preferred terms related to dementia. In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18-96 years were randomized and followed for a median of 2.25 years (up to 4.3 years). The narrow SMQ search identified 27 dementia-related AEs: 15 (0.36%) on enalapril and 12 (0.29%) on sacubitril/valsartan [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-1.59]. The broad search identified 97 (2.30%) and 104 (2.48%) AEs (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75-1.37), respectively. The rates of dementia-related AEs in both treatment groups in PARADIGM-HF were similar to those in three other recent trials in HFrEF.Conclusion: We found no evidence that sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, increased dementia-related AEs, although longer follow-up may be necessary to detect such a signal and more sensitive tools are needed to detect lesser degrees of cognitive impairment. Further studies to address this question are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: In this analysis, we utilized data from PARADIGM-HF to test the hypothesis that participants who exhibited any dose reduction during the trial would have similar benefits from lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to lower doses of enalapril.Methods and Results: In a post-hoc analysis from PARADIGM-HF, we characterized patients by whether they received the maximal dose (200 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 10 mg enalapril twice daily) throughout the trial or had any dose reduction to lower doses (100/50/0 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 5/2.5/0 mg enalapril twice daily). The treatment effect for the primary outcome was estimated, stratified by dose level using time-updated Cox regression models. In the two treatment arms, participants with a dose reduction (43% of those randomized to enalapril and 42% of those randomized to sacubitril/valsartan) had similar baseline characteristics and similar baseline predictors of the need for dose reduction. In a time-updated analysis, any dose reduction was associated with a higher subsequent risk of the primary event [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-2.7]. However, the treatment benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril following a dose reduction was similar (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93, P < 0.001) to that observed in patients who had not experienced any dose reduction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.88, P < 0.001).Conclusions: In PARADIGM-HF, study medication dose reduction identified patients at higher risk of a major cardiovascular event. The magnitude of benefit for patients on lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to those on lower doses of enalapril was similar to that of patients who remained on target doses of both drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]