Search

Background Patients with heart failure (HF) often suffer from a range of comorbidities, which may affect their health status. Objectives To assess the impact of different comorbidities on health status in patients with HF and reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF). Methods 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 cardio-respiratory (angina, AF, stroke, COPD) and other comorbidities (obesity, DM, CKD, anaemia). Results 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=6,563) 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., BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) often suffer from a range of comorbidities, which may affect their health status.OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of different comorbidities on health status in patients with HF and reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF).METHODS: 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 cardio-respiratory (angina, AF, stroke, COPD) and other comorbidities (obesity, DM, CKD, anaemia).RESULTS: 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=6,563) 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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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 composit, 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 outc

Background: NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) is a potent predictor of death and heart failure (HF) across multiple populations. We evaluated the prognostic importance of NT-proBNP in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both and ≥1 of 8 risk-augmenting factors enrolled in the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction). Methods: Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily within 0.5 to 7 days of a MI. Patients with prior HF were excluded. NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT (high-sensitivity troponin T) were collected at randomization in a prespecified substudy of 1129 patients. The primary end point of PARADISE-MI was a composite of cardiovascular death or incident HF (hospitalization or outpatient symptomatic HF), analyzed as time-to-first event; additional end points included all-cause death and the composite of fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke. Results: Median NT-proBNP was 1757 ng/L (25th-75th percentiles, 896-3462 ng/L) at randomization (4.0±1.8 days after the index MI). Patients in the highest quartile of NT-proBNP were older, more commonly women and had more hypertension, atrial fibrillation, renal dysfunction, and pulmonary congestion on presentation (all P<0.001). NT-proBNP was strongly associated with the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.45 per doubling of NT-proBNP; [95% CI, 1.23-1.70]), adjusted for clinical variables and baseline hs-cTnT. NT-proBNP was also independently associated with all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38-2.21]) and fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.45]). NT-proBNP did not significantly modify the neutral treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan relative to ramipril (P interaction=0.46). Conclusions: Within the first week

Aim The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. We examined these differences in PARADISE-MI. Methods and results Overall, 23.0% were randomized in Eastern Europe/Russia, 17.5% in Western Europe, 12.2% in Southern Europe, 10.1% in Northern Europe, 12.0% in Latin America (LA), 9.3% in North America (NA), 10.0% in East/South-East Asia and 5.8% in South Asia (SA). Those from Asia, particularly SA, were different from patients enrolled in the other regions, being younger and thinner. They also differed in terms of comorbidities (high prevalence of diabetes and low prevalence of atrial fibrillation), type of myocardial infarction (more often ST-elevation myocardial infarction), and treatment (low rate of primary percutaneous coronary intervention). By contrast, patients from LA did not differ meaningfully from those randomized in Europe or NA. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (34.8%) and beta-blockers (65.5%) was low in SA, whereas mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use was lowest in NA (22%) and highest in Eastern Europe/Russia (53%). Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure varied two-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (4.6/100 person-years) and the highest in LA (9.2/100 person-years). Rates of incident heart failure varied almost six-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (1.0/100 person-years) and the highest in Northern Europe (5.9/100 person-years). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was not modified by region. Conclusion In PARADISE-MI, there were substantial regional differences in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes. Although the generalizability of these findings to a ‘real-world’ unselected population may be limited, these findings underscore the importance of considering both regional and within-region differences whe, Aim: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. We examined these differences in PARADISE-MI. Methods and results: Overall, 23.0% were randomized in Eastern Europe/Russia, 17.5% in Western Europe, 12.2% in Southern Europe, 10.1% in Northern Europe, 12.0% in Latin America (LA), 9.3% in North America (NA), 10.0% in East/South-East Asia and 5.8% in South Asia (SA). Those from Asia, particularly SA, were different from patients enrolled in the other regions, being younger and thinner. They also differed in terms of comorbidities (high prevalence of diabetes and low prevalence of atrial fibrillation), type of myocardial infarction (more often ST-elevation myocardial infarction), and treatment (low rate of primary percutaneous coronary intervention). By contrast, patients from LA did not differ meaningfully from those randomized in Europe or NA. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (34.8%) and beta-blockers (65.5%) was low in SA, whereas mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use was lowest in NA (22%) and highest in Eastern Europe/Russia (53%). Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure varied two-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (4.6/100 person-years) and the highest in LA (9.2/100 person-years). Rates of incident heart failure varied almost six-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (1.0/100 person-years) and the highest in Northern Europe (5.9/100 person-years). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was not modified by region. Conclusion: In PARADISE-MI, there were substantial regional differences in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes. Although the generalizability of these findings to a ‘real-world’ unselected population may be limited, these findings underscore the importance of considering both regional and within-region differences when designing global clini

Aims: The effects of adding a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) or an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are uncertain, even though the use of all three drugs is recommended in recent guidelines. Methods and results: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin added to background MRA or ARNI therapy was examined in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF enrolled in the DELIVER trial. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Of 6263 patients, 2667 (42.6%) were treated with an MRA and 301 (4.8%) with an ARNI at baseline. Patients taking either were younger, more often men and had lower systolic blood pressure and ejection fraction; they were also more likely to have prior HF hospitalization. The benefit of dapagliflozin was similar whether patients were receiving these therapies. The hazard ratio for the effect of dapagliflozin compared to placebo on the primary outcome was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–1.01) for MRA non-users versus 0.76 (95% CI 0.64–0.91) for MRA users (pinteraction = 0.30). The corresponding values for ARNI non-users and users were 0.82 (95% CI 0.73–0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.45–1.22), respectively (pinteraction = 0.75). None of the adverse events examined was more common with dapagliflozin compared to placebo overall or in the MRA and ARNI subgroups. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were similar, regardless of background treatment with an MRA or ARNI. SGLT2 inhibitors may be added to other treatments recommended in recent guidelines for HFmrEF/HFpEF.

Aims: Patients surviving an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at risk of developing symptomatic heart failure (HF) or premature death. We hypothesized that sacubitril/valsartan, effective in the treatment of chronic HF, prevents development of HF and reduces cardiovascular death following high-risk AMI compared to a proven angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. This paper describes the study design and baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Prospective ARNI vs. ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction (PARADISE-MI) trial. Methods and results: PARADISE-MI, a multinational (41 countries), double-blind, active-controlled trial, randomized patients within 0.5–7 days of presentation with index AMI to sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. Transient pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% and at least one additional factor augmenting risk of HF or death (age ≥70 years, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, diabetes, prior myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, LVEF <30%, Killip class ≥III, ST-elevation myocardial infarction without reperfusion) were required for inclusion. PARADISE-MI was event-driven targeting 708 primary endpoints (cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization or outpatient development of HF). Randomization of 5669 patients occurred 4.3 ± 1.8 days from presentation with index AMI. The mean age was 64 ± 12 years, 24% were women. The majority (76%) qualified with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; acute percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 88% and thrombolysis in 6%. LVEF was 37 ± 9% and 58% were in Killip class ≥II. Conclusions: Baseline therapies in PARADISE-MI reflect advances in contemporary evidence-based care. With enrollment complete PARADISE-MI is poised to determine whether sacubitril/valsartan is more effective than a proven ACE inhibitor in preventing development