Search

Aims: We examined the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, according to aetiology in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) enrolled in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse‐outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA‐HF). Methods and results: Aetiology was investigator‐reported and categorized as ischaemic or non‐ischaemic. The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. A total of 4744 patients were randomized in DAPA‐HF, of whom 2674 (56.4%) patients had an ischaemic aetiology. Participants with an ischaemic aetiology had a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–1.63], but lower risk of HF hospitalization (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70–0.98) than non‐ischaemic patients. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death to a similar extent in both patients with ischaemic and non‐ischaemic aetiology (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65–0.92, and HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58–0.87, respectively; P for interaction = 0.55). Consistent benefits were observed for the components of the primary outcome and all‐cause mortality. Dapagliflozin, as compared with placebo, increased the proportion of patients with an improvement of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (KCCQ‐TSS) of ≥5 points (P for interaction = 0.32) and decreased the proportion with a deterioration in KCCQ‐TSS of ≥5 points (P for interaction = 0.76), irrespective of aetiology. Study drug discontinuation and serious adverse events were similar according to treatment groups, irrespective of aetiology. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF and death, and improved symptoms, similarly in patients with ischaemic and non‐ischaemic aetiology. In addition, dapagliflozin was safe and well‐tolerated, irrespective of aetiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between gender and survival of patients with heart failure, using data from both randomized trials and observational studies, and the relative contribution of age, left ventricular systolic function, aetiology, and diabetes to differences in prognosis between men and women. Methods and results Data from 31 studies (41 949 patients; 28 052 men, 13 897 women) from the Meta-Analysis Global Group In Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) individual patient meta-analysis were used. We performed survival analysis to assess the association of gender with mortality, adjusting for predictors of mortality, including age, reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF), and ischaemic or non-ischaemic aetiology. Women were older [70.5 ( standard deviation 12.1) vs. 65.6 (standard deviation 11.6) years], more likely to have a history of hypertension (49.9% vs. 40.0%), and less likely to have a history of ischaemic heart disease (46.3% vs. 58.7%) and reduced EF (62.6% vs. 81.6%) compared with men. During 3 years follow-up, 3521 (25%) women and 7232 (26%) men died. After adjustment, male gender was an independent predictor of mortality, and the better prognosis associated with female gender was more marked in patients with heart failure of non-ischaemic, compared with ischaemic, aetiology (P-value for interaction = 0.03) and in patients without, compared with those with, diabetes (P-value for interaction <0.0001). Conclusion This large, individual patient data meta-analysis has demonstrated that survival is better for women with heart failure compared with men, irrespective of EF. This survival benefit is slightly more marked in non-ischaemic heart failure but is attenuated by concomitant diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Background: We describe the baseline characteristics of subjects randomised in the largest placebo-controlled, morbidity-mortality trial to date in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction — the irbesartan in heart failure with preserved systolic function trial (I-PRESERVE). Methods and results: 4133 patients with a mean age of 72 years (a third were 75 years or older) were randomised and 60% were women. The mean (SD) LVEF was 59 (9)% and almost 80% of patients were in NYHA Class III or IV. Approximately 80% of patients were also overweight or obese. Heart failure was reported by investigators to have a hypertensive aetiology in 64% of patients. Prior myocardial infarction was relatively uncommon (24%), as was coronary revascularisation (13%). Atrial fibrillation and diabetes each occurred in between a quarter and a third of patients. The following treatments were used at baseline: diuretic 83%, beta-blocker 59%, calcium channel blocker 40%, ACE inhibitor 25%, spironolactone 15% and digoxin 14%. Conclusions: Patients in I-PRESERVE are broadly representative of those seen in epidemiological studies and, because of this, the results of this trial should be generally applicable to “real world” patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Heart failure is a leading cause of hospital admission and readmission in older adults. The new United States healthcare reform law has created provisions for financial penalties for hospitals with higher than expected 30-day all-cause readmission rates for hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with heart failure. We examined the effect of digoxin on 30-day all-cause hospital admission in older patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Methods: In the main Digitalis Investigation Group trial, 6800 ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure (ejection fraction ≤45%) were randomly assigned to digoxin or placebo. Of these, 3405 were aged ≥65 years (mean age, 72 years; 25% were women; 11% were nonwhite). The main outcome in the current analysis was 30-day all-cause hospital admission. Results: In the first 30 days after randomization, all-cause hospitalization occurred in 5.4% (92/1693) and 8.1% (139/1712) of patients in the digoxin and placebo groups, respectively, (hazard ratio {HR} when digoxin was compared with placebo, 0.66; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.51-0.86; P=.002). Digoxin also reduced both 30-day cardiovascular (3.5% vs 6.5%; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.72; P<.001) and heart failure (1.7 vs 4.2%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.62; P<.001) hospitalizations, with similar trends for 30-day all-cause mortality (0.7% vs 1.3%; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.27-1.11; P=.096). Younger patients were at lower risk of events but obtained similar benefits from digoxin. Conclusions: Digoxin reduces 30-day all-cause hospital admission in ambulatory older patients with chronic systolic heart failure. Future studies need to examine its effect on 30-day all-cause hospital readmission in hospitalized patients with acute heart failure. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]