Search

Background: In patients stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure (HF), initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF without increasing the risk of adverse events. It is unknown whether potentially high-risk subpopulations have a similar risk-benefit profile., Methods: PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide] in Patients Stabilized From an Acute HF Episode) was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (n=440) versus enalapril (n=441) in patients stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated HF. The composite of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF was adjudicated. Safety outcomes included worsening renal function, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalemia. We evaluated heterogeneity in the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on these efficacy and safety outcomes in selected subgroups of clinical concern: patients with baseline systolic blood pressure ≤118 mm Hg (median; n=448), baseline NT-proBNP >2701 pg/mL (median; n=395), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/minute per 1.73 m 2 (n=455), ≥1 additional hospitalization for HF within the prior year (n=343), admission to the ICU during the index hospitalization (n=96), inotrope use during the index hospitalization (n=68), and severe congestion (n=219)., Results: The relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was consistent across all high-risk subgroups ( P interaction=non-significant [NS] for each). The risks of worsening renal function, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalemia with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril were also consistent in each high- versus low-risk subgroup ( P interaction=NS for each)., Conclusions: In high-risk subpopulations admitted for acute decompensated HF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan after initial stabilization conferred a consistent reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF and was well tolerated.

Aims: Optimal blood pressure for prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains uncertain and there is concern for increased risk with low diastolic blood pressure (DBP). This study analysed the association between blood pressure and CV outcomes in high-risk patients with T2DM., Methods and Results: Patients with T2DM and elevated CV risk were enrolled in the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in patients with diabetes mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 trial. Cardiovascular outcomes were compared in the biomarker subgroup (n = 12 175) after stratification by baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) and DBP. Adjusted risk was calculated by blood pressure stratum using clinical covariates plus N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity troponin-T (hsTnT). Trends were tested using linear and quadratic models. Adjusted risk of the composite endpoint of CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischaemic stroke showed U-shaped relationships with baseline SBP and DBP (Pquadratic ≤ 0.01) with nadirs at SBP 130-140 or DBP 80-90 mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure <60 mmHg was associated with increased risk of MI (adjusted hazard ratio 2.30; 95% confidence interval 1.50-3.53) relative to DBP 80-90 mmHg. Adjusted odds of hsTnT concentration ≥14 ng/L showed U-shaped relationships with SBP and DBP (Pquadratic ≤ 0.01). The relationships between low DBP, elevated hsTnT, and increased MI remained after exclusion of patients with prior heart failure or NT-proBNP >median, suggesting that the relationship was not due to confounding from diagnosed or undiagnosed heart failure., Conclusions: In patients with diabetes and elevated CV risk, even after extensive adjustment for underlying disease burden, there was a persistent association for low DBP with subclinical myocardial injury and risk of MI.

Background: The ability of a genetic risk score to predict risk in established cardiovascular disease and identify individuals who derive greater benefit from PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibition has not been established.Methods: We studied 14 298 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease from the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Researh With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk). A 27-single-nucleotide polymorphism genetic risk score defined low (quintile 1), intermediate (quintiles 2-4), and high (quintile 5) genetic risk. Patients were also categorized by major atherosclerotic risk factors including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dl, and smoking; multiple (≥2) risk factors was considered high clinical risk. Outcomes consisted of major coronary events (coronary heart death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) and major vascular events (major coronary events and ischemic stroke). Median follow-up was 2.3 years.Results: After we adjusted for clinical factors, the genetic risk score was associated with risk for both major vascular events (Ptrend=0.005) and major coronary events (Ptrend<0.0001). Individuals with intermediate and high genetic risk scores had 1.23- and 1.65-fold increased hazard for major coronary events, respectively. Elevated genetic risk was additive to major atherosclerotic risk factors and identified patients more likely to benefit from evolocumab. There was no benefit for major vascular events in patients without multiple clinical risk factors or high genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; absolute risk reduction [ARR], -0.2%, P=0.86). In contrast, there was a 13% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.87 [0.75-0.998], P=0.047) and a 1.4% ARR in patients with multiple clinical risk factors but without high genetic risk and a 31% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.69 [0.55-0.86], P=0.0012), and 4.0% ARR in patients with high genetic risk, irrespective of clinical risk (Ptrend for HR=0.017, ARR Ptrend=0.004). Patients with high genetic risk who received evolocumab had event rates similar to patients with a low burden of both genetic and clinical risk.Conclusion: Patients without multiple clinical risk factors or high genetic risk had a low event rate and did not appear to derive benefit from evolocumab over 2.3 years. Conversely, patients with multiple clinical risk factors but without high genetic risk had intermediate risk and intermediate risk reduction. Patients with high genetic risk, regardless of clinical risk, had a high event rate and derived the greatest relative and absolute benefit from evolocumab, which mitigated this risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]