Citations

Abstract Background NT-proBNP levels are associated with disease severity and outcomes in patients with HF across the spectrum of LVEF. Recently, it has been suggested that the effectiveness of certain treatments may vary by NT-proBNP level with greater benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, and smaller benefit from vericiguat, in patients with higher NT-proBNP levels. We examined the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes across the range of NT-proBNP levels in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF. Purpose To evaluate clinical outcomes, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, according to NT-proBNP levels, in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF, using the pooled dataset of participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials. Methods The PARADIGM-HF (n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (n=4822) trials enrolled patients with HF, functional limitation, and elevated NT-proBNP levels. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10mg twice daily in PARADIGM-HF, and those with LVEF ≥45% to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or valsartan 160mg twice daily in PARAGON-HF. Patients were categorized by quintiles of NT-proBNP level and using NT-proBNP as a continuous variable, analysed using restricted cubic splines. The primary outcome in the present study was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 13195 patients in the pooled PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF dataset, 13142 (99.6%) patients with baseline NT-proBNP were analysed. Patients with higher NT-proBNP levels were more often male, had lower body mass index and LVEF, worse New York Heart Association functional class, worse kidney function, and more atrial fibrillation, while age was similar across NT-proBNP levels. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with NT-proBNP level: quintile 1, 5.9 (95%CI 5.3-6.5); quintile 2, 7.5 (95%CI 6.9-8.2); quintile 3, 9.0 (95%CI 8.2-9.7); quintile 4, 12.0 (95%CI 11.1-12.9); and quintile 5, 20.8 (95%CI 19.6-22.2) (Figure 1). Similar trends were observed for other outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across NT-proBNP levels: the hazard ratio for the primary outcome in NT-proBNP quintile 1 was 0.79 (95%CI 0.65-0.96); quintile 2, 0.87 (95%CI 0.72-1.04); quintile 3, 0.79 (95%CI 0.66-0.93); quintile 4, 0.85 (95%CI 0.73-0.99); and quintile 5, 0.86 (95%CI 0.76-0.97), P-interaction=0.86. The consistent benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was also seen when NT-proBNP was analysed as a continuous variable (Figure 2). The absolute benefit was greatest in quintile 5 of NT-proBNP; the number needed to treat for quintile 5 was 16 versus 37 for the quintile 1 for the primary endpoint. Conclusions Patients with higher NT-proBNP had worse outcomes, but the benefits of sacubitril valsartan were consistent across the range of NT-proBNP levels of participants in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF.Kaplan-Meier curvesEffect of sac/val across NT-proBNP range

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is common in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction but its clinical correlates and prognostic associations are poorly understood. METHODS: We analyzed cognitive function, using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction enrolled in a prespecified substudy of the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the variables associated with lower MMSE scores at baseline and postbaseline decline in MMSE scores at 48 weeks. Cox proportional hazards regression and semiparametric proportional rates models were used to examine the risk of clinical outcomes related to baseline MMSE scores, and decline in MMSE scores during follow-up, adjusted for prognostic variables including NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). RESULTS: At baseline, cognitive function was normal (MMSE score 28–30) in 1809 of 2895 patients (62.5%), borderline (score 24–27) in 794 (27.4%), and impaired (score <24) in 292 (10.1%). Variables associated with both a lower MMSE score at baseline and a decline in score from baseline included older age, a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, and lower serum albumin. Compared with those with baseline MMSE scores of 28 to 30, patients in the lower MMSE score categories had a stepwise increase in the risk of the composite of time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06–1.53) for those with scores of 24 to 27 and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.21–2.06) for those with scores <24, respectively. These associations were also found for the individual components of the composite and all-cause death. Likewise, cognitive impairment was associated with a 50% higher risk of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Examining the change in MMSE score from baseline, a decrease in MMSE score during follow-up was associated with a higher risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, even modest baseline impairment of cognitive function was associated with worse outcomes, including death. A decline in MMSE score during follow-up was a strong predictor of mortality, independent of other prognostic variables.

ABSTRACT Aims In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Among the 16 951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12 812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1–Q3: 2.5–5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74–0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate &lt;70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02). Conclusions In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-β peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0–30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was −0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was −0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was −0.01 (95% CI, −0.20 to 0.19; P =0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Abstract Aims Left ventricular (LV) subclinical impairment has been described in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We assessed the relationship between LV myocardial deformation by strain imaging and recurrent hospitalization for heart failure (HF) or cardiovascular death in a large international HFpEF population. Methods and results We assessed two-dimensional speckle-tracking based global longitudinal strain (GLS) in 790 patients (mean age 74 ± 8 years, 54% female) with adequate image quality enrolled in the PARAGON-HF echocardiography study. We examined the relationship of GLS with total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (the primary composite outcome) after accounting for clinical confounders. Approximately 47% of the population had evidence of LV subclinical dysfunction, defined as absolute GLS &lt;16%. Impaired GLS was significantly associated with higher values of circulating baseline N-terminal pro-B-type-natriuretic peptide. After a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there were 407 total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. After multivariable adjustment, worse GLS was associated with a greater risk for the primary composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio per 1% decrease: 1.06; 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.11; p = 0.008). GLS did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan for the composite outcome (p for interaction &gt;0.1). Conclusions In a large HFpEF population, impaired LV function was observed even among patients with preserved ejection fraction, and was associated with an increased risk of total HF hospitalizations or cardiovascular death, accounting for clinical confounders. These findings highlight the key role of subtle LV systolic impairment in the pathophysiology of HFpEF.

Introduction: Impaired tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), fractional area change (FAC) and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (RVFWLS) have been individually associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, these parameters measure different aspects of RV function and understanding their cumulative effect may provide insights into the overall impact of RV dysfunction (RVD) in HFpEF patients. Goal: Assess the association between the number of echocardiographic RVD parameters and clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients from the echocardiographic sub-study of the PARAGON-HF trial with adequate image quality (N=809, 53% women, mean age 74±8 years) were categorized based on the number of measures of RVD, which included TAPSE <1.7 cm, FAC <35% or RVFWLS <20% (absolute value). Associations with total HF hospitalizations (HFH) and CV death, total HFH alone, first HFH or CV death, all-cause death and CV death were assessed by Groups, after accounting for confounders. Results: A total of 348 patients (43%) in Group 0 (no abnormal parameter), 355 (44%) in Group 1 (one abnormal parameter) and 106 (13%) in Group 2 (two or more abnormal parameters) were identified. After multivariable adjustment ( Table ), Group 2 was significantly associated with an increased risk of total HFH and CV death (RR 2.13, 95%CI 1.13-4.01), first HFH or CV death (RR 2.07, 95%CI 1.15-3.73), all-cause death (RR 2.61, 95%CI 1.19-5.74) and CV death (RR 3.08, 95%CI 1.14-8.31). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan for total HFH and CV death was not modified by RVD Group (p-value for interaction=0.94). Conclusions: The presence of two or more RVD parameters was associated with a significantly worse prognosis, while an isolated RVD measure was not. These findings suggest that a more comprehensive approach to assessment of RV function may have better prognostic value in HFpEF.

Introduction: Right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) is a major prognostic factor in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), however determinants of RVD in HFpEF are not well described. Although sex-specific mechanisms have been incriminated in the development of HFpEF, it is unclear whether this is also true for RVD. Goals: (1) Assess the prevalence of RVD (defined as a tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion [TAPSE] <1.7 cm, a fractional area change [FAC] <35% or a RV free wall longitudinal strain [RVFWLS] <20%, absolute value) in patients with HFpEF; (2) identify determinants of RVD, overall and according to sex, in patients with HFpEF. Methods: We used data from patients enrolled in the echocardiographic sub-study of the PARAGON-HF trial with adequate image quality (N=809, 53% women, mean age 74±8 years). Determinants of RVD, in the whole study population and according to sex, were identified using a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: There were 461 patients (57%) with RVD. After multivariable adjustment, RVD was cross-sectionally associated with a history of atrial fibrillation of flutter (AFF), older age, higher heart rate, greater LV mean wall thickness and higher NT-proBNP values. Systolic blood pressure and LV global longitudinal strain (absolute value) showed an inverse association ( Figure ). These results were consistent between men and women, except for AFF and LV mean wall thickness, which were associated with a greater likelihood of RVD in men (OR 2.46, 95%CI 1.33-4.56, OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.18-2.21 respectively) but not in women (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.58-1.68, OR 0.90 95%CI 0.69-1.17 respectively, p-values for interaction=0.028 and 0.006). Conclusions: RVD was highly prevalent in our study population. Determinants of RVD included AFF, LV remodeling and systolic impairment, and increased NT-proBNP levels. Differences between men and women suggest gender-specific mechanisms in the development of RVD in HFpEF.

Introduction: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) may have different characteristics by age groups. Aim Compare clinical and echocardiographic characteristics in patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF echocardiography substudy by age groups. Methods: Echocardiography was performed in 1097 patients in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction), where patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >=45% were enrolled. Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were compared in patients who were <65, 65-74, and >75 years of age. Results: Younger patients were more likely to be male, obese, have prior myocardial infarction (MI) and diabetes, but less likely to have atrial fibrillation (AF, Table 1). Older patients had smaller left ventricular (LV) dimension indices, more likely to have concentric hypertrophy or remodeling, higher LVEF and better global longitudinal strain, and more likely to have left atrial enlargement and echocardiographic evidence of higher LV filling pressure (Table 1). Echocardiographic measures of pulmonary pressure and right ventricular function were similar across age groups. After adjusting for sex, race, region, history of MI, diabetes, AF, and body mass index, every 10 years of increase in age was associated with 5.1 mL/m 2 decrease in LV end-diastolic volume index (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9 - 6.5, p < 0.001), 0.4% increase in absolute global longitudinal strain (95% CI 0.1% - 0.7%, p = 0.017), and 1.07 increase in E/e’ septal ratio (95% CI 0.42 - 1.73, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Compared with younger patients, older patients with HFpEF were more likely to be female with AF, have better systolic function and higher LV filling pressure. These findings demonstrated the heterogeneity in cardiac structure and function in HFpEF by age and may have implications for treatment and future clinical trial recruitment.

BACKGROUND: The rate of stroke in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction but without atrial fibrillation (AF), is uncertain as is whether it is possible to reliably predict the risk of stroke in these patients. METHODS: We validated a previously developed simple risk model for stroke among patients enrolled in the I-Preserve trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function) and PARAGON-HF trial (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction). The risk model consisted of 3 variables: history of previous stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level. RESULTS: Of the 8924 patients included in the pooled trial dataset, 5126 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 190 (3.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow-up of 3.6 years (rate 10.5 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: second tertile hazard ratio, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.17–2.71); third tertile hazard ratio, 3.03 (95% CI, 2.06–4.47), with the first tertile as reference. For patients in the third tertile, the occurrence rate of stroke was 17.7 per 1000 patient-years, similar to that in patients with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.7 per 1000 patient-years), and those with AF who were receiving anticoagulation (14.5 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C index of 0.81 (0.68–0.91) and a simple score could be created from the model. CONCLUSIONS: A simple risk model can detect a subset of HF and preserved ejection fraction patients without AF who have a higher risk for stroke. The balance of risk-to-benefit in these individuals may justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be prospectively evaluated. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT00095238 and NCT01920711.

Abstract Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous entity with complex pathophysiology and manifestations. Phenomapping is the process of applying statistical learning techniques to patient data to identify distinct subgroups based on patterns in the data. Phenomapping has emerged as a technique with potential to improve the understanding of different HFpEF phenotypes. Phenomapping efforts have been increasing in HFpEF over the past several years using a variety of data sources, clinical variables, and statistical techniques. This review summarizes methodologies and key takeaways from these studies, including consistent discriminating factors and conserved HFpEF phenotypes. We argue that phenomapping results to date have had limited implications for clinical care and clinical trials, given that the phenotypes, as currently described, are not reliably identified in each study population and may have significant overlap. We review the inherent limitations of aggregating and utilizing phenomapping results. Lastly, we discuss potential future directions, including using phenomapping to optimize the likelihood of clinical trial success or to drive discovery in mechanisms of the disease process of HFpEF.