Search

AIM: Acyl ghrelin increases cardiac output (CO) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This could impair the right ventricular-pulmonary arterial coupling (RVPAC), both through an increased venous return and right ventricular afterload. We aim to investigate if acyl ghrelin increases CO with or without worsening the right-sided haemodynamics in HFrEF assessed by RVPAC. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Karolinska Acyl ghrelin Trial was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of acyl ghrelin versus placebo (120-min intravenous infusion) in HFrEF. RVPAC was assessed echocardiographically at baseline and 120 min. ANOVA was used for difference in change between acyl ghrelin versus placebo, adjusted for baseline values. Of the 30 randomized patients, 22 had available RVPAC (acyl ghrelin n = 12, placebo n = 10). Despite a 15% increase in CO in the acyl ghrelin group (from 4.0 (3.5-4.6) to 4.6 (3.9-6.1) L/min, P = 0.003), RVPAC remained unchanged; 5.9 (5.3-7.6) to 6.3 (4.8-7.5) mm·(m/s)-1 , P = 0.372, while RVPAC was reduced in the placebo group, 5.2 (4.3-6.4) to 4.8 (4.2-5.8) mm·(m/s)-1 , P = 0.035. Comparing change between groups, CO increased in the acyl ghrelin group versus placebo (P = 0.036) while RVPAC and the right ventricular pressure gradient remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Treatment with acyl ghrelin increases CO while preserving or even improving RVPAC in HFrEF, possibly due to increased contractility, reduced PVR and/or reduced left sided filling pressures. These potential effects strengthen the role of acyl ghrelin therapy in HFrEF with right ventricular failure.

Aims The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology has recently proposed to optimize guideline-directed medical treatments according to patient s profiles. The aim of this analysis was to investigate prevalence/characteristics/treatments/outcomes for individual profiles Methods and results Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) between 2013 and 2021 were considered. Among 108 profiles generated by combining different strata of renal function (by estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]), systolic blood pressure (sBP), heart rate, atrial fibrillation (AF) status and presence of hyperkalaemia, 93 were identified in our cohort. Event rates for a composite of cardiovascular (CV) mortality or first HF hospitalization were calculated for each profile. The nine most frequent profiles accounting for 70.5% of the population had eGFR 30- 60 or =60 ml/min/1.73m(2), sBP 90-140mmHg and no hyperkalaemia. Heart rate and AF were evenly distributed. The highest risk of CV mortality/first HF hospitalization was observed in those with concomitant eGFR 30- 60ml/min/1.73m(2) and AF. We also identified nine profiles with the highest event rates, representing only 5% of the study population, characterized by no hyperkalaemia, even distribution among the sBP strata, predominance of eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m(2) and AF. The three profiles with eGFR 30- 60ml/min/1.73m(2) also showed sBP < 90 mmHg Conclusions In a real-world cohort, most patients fit in a few easily identifiable profiles; the nine profiles at highest risk of mortality/morbidity accounted for only 5% of the population. Our data might contribute to identifying profile-tailored approaches to guide drug implementation and follow-up., Funding Agencies|Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation; [20220680]

Aims Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but remain underused and are often discontinued especially in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) due to concerns on renal safety. Therefore, in a real-world HFrEF population we investigated the safety of MRA use, in terms of risk of renal events, any mortality and any hospitalization, across the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) spectrum including severe CKD.Methods and results We analysed patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%), not on dialysis, from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry. We performed multivariable logistic regression models to investigate patient characteristics independently associated with MRA use, and univariable and multivariable Cox regression models to assess the associations between MRA use and outcomes. Of 33 942 patients, 17 489 (51%) received MRA, 32%, 45%, 54%, 54% with eGFR <30, 30-44, 45-59 or >= 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), respectively. An eGFR >= 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and patient characteristics linked with more severe HF were independently associated with more likely MRA use. In multivariable analyses, MRA use was consistently not associated with a higher risk of renal events (i.e. composite of dialysis/renal death/hospitalization for renal failure or hyperkalaemia) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.10), all-cause death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.08) as well as of all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.02) across the eGFR spectrum including also severe CKD.Conclusions The use of MRAs in patients with HFrEF decreased with worse renal function; however their safety profile was demonstrated to be consistent across the entire eGFR spectrum., Funding Agencies|We thank all staff members at all care units in Sweden for their contribution to the SwedeHF.

Background and Aims Ghrelin is an endogenous appetite-stimulating peptide hormone with potential cardiovascular benefits. Effects of acylated (activated) ghrelin were assessed in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and in ex vivo mouse cardiomyocytes. Methods and results In a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trial, 31 patients with chronic HFrEF were randomized to synthetic human acyl ghrelin (0.1 µg/kg/min) or placebo intravenously over 120 min. The primary outcome was change in cardiac output (CO). Isolated mouse cardiomyocytes were treated with acyl ghrelin and fractional shortening and calcium transients were assessed. Acyl ghrelin but not placebo increased cardiac output (acyl ghrelin: 4.08 ± 1.15 to 5.23 ± 1.98 L/min; placebo: 4.26 ± 1.23 to 4.11 ± 1.99 L/min, P < 0.001). Acyl ghrelin caused a significant increase in stroke volume and nominal increases in left ventricular ejection fraction and segmental longitudinal strain and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion. There were no effects on blood pressure, arrhythmias, or ischaemia. Heart rate decreased nominally (acyl ghrelin: 71 ± 11 to 67 ± 11 b.p.m.; placebo 69 ± 8 to 68 ± 10 b.p.m.). In cardiomyocytes, acyl ghrelin increased fractional shortening, did not affect cellular Ca2+ transients, and reduced troponin I phosphorylation. The increase in fractional shortening and reduction in troponin I phosphorylation was blocked by the acyl ghrelin antagonist D-Lys 3. Conclusion In patients with HFrEF, acyl ghrelin increased cardiac output without causing hypotension, tachycardia, arrhythmia, or ischaemia. In isolated cardiomyocytes, acyl ghrelin increased contractility independently of preload and afterload and without Ca2+ mobilization, which may explain the lack of clinical side effects. Ghrelin treatment should be explored in additional randomized trials.

Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an independent risk factor for heart failure (HF). Yet, the association between RA and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in incident HF is not well studied, nor are outcomes of HF in RA by LVEF.Methods We identified incident HF patients between 2003 and 2018 through the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, enriched with data from national health registers. Using logistic regression, associations between a prior diagnosis of RA and LVEF among HF patients and vs age, sex, and geographical area matched general population controls without HF were assessed. Additionally, associations between HF with vs without a prior diagnosis of RA, by LVEF, and outcomes up to 5 years after HF diagnosis were investigated using Cox regression. LVEF was primarily dichotomized at 40% and secondarily categorized as <40%, 40% to 49%, and >50%. Covariates included demographics and cardiovascular comorbidities. Results Among 20,916 incident HF patients, 331 (1.6%) had RA vs 1,047/103,501 (1.0%) of HF-free controls. The odds ratio (OR) for RA was 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1-1.8) in LVEF<40% vs HF-free controls and 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3-2.0) in LVEF>40% vs HF-free controls. Among HF patients, RA was more common in HF with LVEF >40% (1.9%) vs LVEF<40% (1.3%), corresponding to OR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1-1.7). No associations between RA and cardiovascular outcomes were observed across LVEF. An association between RA and all-cause mortality was observed only for patients with LVEF<40% (hazard ratio: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1-1.8).Conclusions RA was independently associated with incident HF, particularly HF with LVEF>40%. RA did not associate with cardiovascular outcomes following HF diagnosis but was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality in HF with LVEF<40%. (Am Heart J 2023;259:42-51.), Funding Agencies|Stiftelsen Tornspiran; King Gustaf Vs 80-year foundation; Swedish Heart Lung Foundation; Swedish Society for Medical Research SSMF; Jeansson Foundation; Swedish Medical Association; Swedish Research Council; Region Stockholm/Karolinska Institutet; Vinnova; Nordforsk

Aim We present the baseline characteristics of the PREFERS Stockholm epidemiological study on the natural history and course of new onset heart failure (HF) aiming to improve phenotyping focusing on HF with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) pathophysiology. Methods and results New onset HF patients diagnosed in hospital or at outpatient HF clinics were included at five Stockholm hospitals 2015-2018 and characterized by N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), biomarkers, echocardiography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (subset). HFpEF [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >= 50%) was compared with HF with mildly reduced LVEF (HFmrEF; LVEF 41-49%) and with HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF <= 40%). We included 547 patients whereof HFpEF (n = 137; 25%), HFmrEF (n = 61; 11%), and HFrEF (n = 349; 64%). HFpEF patients were older (76; 70-81 years; median; interquartile range) than HFrEF (67; 58-74; P < 0.001), more often women (49% vs. 30%; P < 0.001), and had significantly higher comorbidity burden. They more often had atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and renal dysfunction. NT-proBNP was lower in HFpEF (896; 462-1645 ng/L) than in HFrEF (1160; 563-2370; P = 0.005). In HFpEF, left ventricular (LV) diameters and volumes were smaller (P < 0.001) and septa! and posterior wall thickness and relative wall thickness higher (P < 0.001). E/e >= 14 was present in 26% of HFpEF vs. 32% of HFrEF (P = 0.017) and left atrial volume index > 34 mL/m(2) in 57% vs. 61% (P = 0.040). HFmrEF patients were intermediary between HFpEF and HFrEF for LV mass, LV volumes, and RV volumes but had the highest proportion of left ventricular hypertrophy and the lowest proportion of elevated E/e. Conclusions Phenotype data in new onset HF patients recruited in a broad clinical setting showed that 25% had HFpEF, were older, more often women, and had greater comorbidity burden. PREFERS is well suited to further explore biomarker and ima

Aims In older patients, guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (<40%; HFrEF) is not contraindicated, but adherence to guidelines is limited. We investigated the implementation of GDMT in HFrEF across different age strata in a large nationwide cohort. Methods and results Patients with HFrEF and HF duration >= 3 months registered in the Swedish HF Registry between 2000-2018 were analysed according to age. Multivariable logistic and multinomial regressions were fitted to investigate factors associated with underuse/underdosing. Of 27 430 patients, 31% were <70 years old, 34% 70-79 years old, and 35% >= 80 years old. Use of treatments progressively decreased with increasing age. Use of renin-angiotensin system/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was 80%, 88% and 35% in age >= 80 years; 90%, 93% and 47% in age 70-79 years; and 95%, 95% and 54% in age <70 years, respectively. Among patients with an indication, use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was 7% and 23% in age >= 80 years; 22% and 42% in age 70-79 years; and 29% and 50% in age <70 years, respectively. Older patients were less likely treated with target doses or combinations of HF medications. Except for CRT, after extensive adjustments, age was inversely associated with the likelihood of GDMT use and target dose achievement. Conclusion In HFrEF, gaps persist in the use of medications and devices. In disagreement with current recommendations, older patients remain undertreated. Improving strategies and a more individualized approach for implementing use of GDMT in HFrEF are required, particularly in older patients., Funding Agencies|Boehringer IngelheimBoehringer Ingelheim; EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking BigData@Heart grant [116074]

AIMS: To evaluate the quality of heart failure (HF) care using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) quality indicators (QIs) for HF and to assess whether better quality of care is associated with improved outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a nationwide cohort study using the Swedish HF registry, consisting of patients with any type of HF at their first outpatient visit or hospitalization. Independent participant data for quality of HF care was evaluated against the ESC QIs for HF, and association with mortality estimated using multivariable Cox regression. In total, 43 704 patients from 80 hospitals across Sweden enrolled between 2013-2019 were included, with median follow-up 23.6 months. Of the 16 QIs for HF, 13 could be measured and 5 were inversely associated with all-cause mortality during follow-up. Higher attainment (≥50% vs. <50% attainment) of the composite opportunity-based score (combination of QIs into a single score) for patients with reduced ejection fraction was associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81; 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.91). Attainment of the composite score was less in the outpatient than inpatient setting (adjusted odds ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.99). Quality of care varied across hospitals, with assessment of health-related quality of life being the indicator with the widest variation in attainment (interquartile range 61.7%). CONCLUSION: Quality of HF care may be measured using the ESC HF QIs. In Sweden, attainment of HF care evaluated using the QIs demonstrated between and within hospital variation, and many QIs were inversely associated with mortality.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) has a dramatic impact on worldwide health care systems that is determined by the growing prevalence of and the high exposure to cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events. Prognosis remains poor. We sought to compare a large population with HF across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum with a population without HF for patient characteristics, and HF, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HF registered in the Swedish HF registry in 2005 to 2018 were compared 1:3 with a sex-, age-, and county-matched population without HF. Outcomes were cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality and hospitalizations. Of 76 453 patients with HF, 53% had reduced EF, 23% mildly reduced EF, and 24% preserved EF. Compared with those without HF, patients with HF had more cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities and worse socioeconomic status. Incidence of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events was higher in people with HF versus non-HF, with increased risk of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR], 2.53 [95% CI, 2.50-2.56]), cardiovascular (HR, 4.67 [95% CI, 4.59-4.76]), and noncardiovascular (HR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.46-1.52]) mortality, 2- to 5-fold higher risk of first/repeated cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalizations, and similar to 4 times longer in-hospital length of stay for any cause. Patients with HF with reduced EF had higher risk of HF hospitalizations, whereas those with HF with preserved EF had higher risk of all-cause and noncardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF exert a high health care burden, with a much higher risk of cardiovascular, all-cause, and noncardiovascular events, and nearly 4 times as many days spent in hospital compared with those without HF. These epidemiological data may enable strategies for optimal resource allocation and HF trial design., Funding Agencies|Boehringer Ingelheim

AIMS To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17). CONCLUSION In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.