Search

Aims: Compared to heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) are increasing in prevalence, yet little is known about the geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes among these two HF phenotypes. The aim of this study was to investigate geographic differences in HFpEF and HFmrEF., Methods and Results: We conducted an individual patient analysis of five clinical trials enrolling patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF from North America (NA), Latin America (LA), Western Europe (WE), Central/Eastern Europe and Russia (CEER), and Asia-Pacific (AP). We compared regions using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models. Among the 19 959 patients included, 4066 (23.1%) had HFmrEF and 15 353 (76.9%) HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, patients from WE were oldest, and those in CEER youngest. LA had the largest portion of females and NA most black patients. Obesity and diabetes were most prevalent in NA and hypertension and coronary heart disease most common in CEER. Self-reported health status varied strikingly and was the worst in NA and best in AP. Among patients with HFmrEF, rates of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) were: NA 12.56 per 100 patient-years (/100py), AP 11.67/100py, CEER 10.12/100py, LA 8.90/100py, and WE 8.43/100py, driven by differences in the rate of HF hospitalization. The corresponding values in HFpEF were 11.47/100py, 7.80/100py, 5.47/100py, 5.92/100py, and 7.80/100py, respectively., Conclusions: There is substantial geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes among patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These findings have implications for interpretation and generalizability of trial results, design and conduct of future trials, and optimization of care for these patients., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology This article has been co-published with permission in European Heart Journal (published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology) and European Journal of Heart Failure (published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology).)

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and β-blockers are guideline-recommended first-line therapies in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Previous studies showed that individual drug classes were under-dosed in many parts of Europe and Asia. In this study, we investigated the association of combined up-titration of ACEi/ARBs and β-blockers with all-cause mortality and its combination with hospitalization for HF., Methods and Results: A total of 6787 HFrEF patients (mean age 62.6 ± 13.2 years, 77.7% men, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 27.7 ± 7.2%) were enrolled in the prospective multinational European (BIOSTAT-CHF; n = 2100) and Asian (ASIAN-HF; n = 4687) studies. Outcomes were analysed according to achieved percentage of guideline-recommended target doses (GRTD) of combination ACEi/ARB and β-blocker therapy, adjusted for indication bias. Only 14% (n = 981) patients achieved ≥50% GRTD for both ACEi/ARB and β-blocker. The best outcomes were observed in patients who achieved 100% GRTD of both ACEi/ARB and β-blocker [hazard ratio (HR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.39 vs. none]. Lower dose of combined therapy was associated with better outcomes than 100% GRTD of either monotherapy. Up-titrating β-blockers was associated with a consistent and greater reduction in hazards of all-cause mortality (HR for 100% GRTD: 0.40, 95% CI 0.25-0.63) than corresponding ACEi/ARB up-titration (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53-1.07)., Conclusion: This study shows that best outcomes were observed in patients attaining GRTD for both ACEi/ARB and β-blockers, unfortunately this was rarely achieved. Achieving >50% GRTD of both drug classes was associated with better outcome than target dose of monotherapy. Up-titrating β-blockers to target dose was associated with greater mortality reduction than up-titrating ACEi/ARB., (© 2020 European Society of Cardiology.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Recent data from national registries suggest that acute heart failure (AHF) outcomes might vary in men and women, however, it is not known whether this observation is universal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of biological sex and 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with AHF in various regions of the world., Methods and Results: We analysed several AHF cohorts including GREAT registry (22 523 patients, mostly from Europe and Asia) and OPTIMIZE-HF (26 376 patients from the USA). Clinical characteristics and medication use at discharge were collected. Hazard ratios (HRs) for 1-year mortality according to biological sex were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with adjustment for baseline characteristics (e.g. age, comorbidities, clinical and laboratory parameters at admission, left ventricular ejection fraction). In the GREAT registry, women had a lower risk of death in the year following AHF [HR 0.86 (0.79-0.94), P < 0.001 after adjustment]. This was mostly driven by northeast Asia [n = 9135, HR 0.76 (0.67-0.87), P < 0.001], while no significant differences were seen in other countries. In the OPTIMIZE-HF registry, women also had a lower risk of 1-year death [HR 0.93 (0.89-0.97), P < 0.001]. In the GREAT registry, women were less often prescribed with a combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers at discharge (50% vs. 57%, P = 0.001)., Conclusion: Globally women with AHF have a lower 1-year mortality and less evidenced-based treatment than men. Differences among countries need further investigation. Our findings merit consideration when designing future global clinical trials in AHF., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Iron deficiency is common in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and is associated with reduced exercise performance, impaired health-related quality of life and an increased risk of mortality, irrespective of whether or not anaemia is present. Iron deficiency is a serious but treatable condition. Several randomized controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the ability of intravenous (IV) iron, primarily IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), to correct iron deficiency in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), resulting in improvements in exercise performance, CHF symptoms and health-related quality of life. The importance of addressing the issue of iron deficiency in patients with CHF is reflected in the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) heart failure guidelines, which recognize iron deficiency as an important co-morbidity, independent of anaemia. These guidelines recommend that all newly diagnosed heart failure patients are routinely tested for iron deficiency and that IV FCM should be considered as a treatment option in symptomatic patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency (serum ferritin < 100 µg/L, or ferritin 100-299 µg/L and transferrin saturation < 20%). Despite these specific recommendations, there is still a lack of practical, easy-to-follow advice on how to diagnose and treat iron deficiency in clinical practice. This article is intended to complement the current 2016 ESC heart failure guidelines by providing practical guidance to all health care professionals relating to the procedures for screening, diagnosis and treatment of iron deficiency in patients with CHF., (© 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology.)