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.

Introduction: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), increasing body mass index (BMI) is not associated with worsening prognosis, termed the obesity paradox. Although this phenomenon has been studied extensively, data on the African-American population are limited. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality in African Americans with HFrEF. Methods and Results: The African-American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) database was utilized to conduct a retrospective analysis. In A-HeFT, 1050 self-identified black patients with BMI range of 15.7 to 69.4 kg/m 2 (median 30.3 kg/m 2 ) were followed for a median of 15 months, with 86 deaths. BMI was modeled as a curvilinear continuous variable using restricted cubic splines. Unadjusted Cox regression analysis of the relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality revealed a significant (p = 0.001) inverse relationship, with an increase in mortality risk below the median BMI of approximately 30 kg/m 2 (HR> 1.0) without an upward trend in mortality risk above a BMI > 30 kg/m 2 (Figure1). Adjustment for other variables including age, sex, comorbidities, and clinical assessments did not reveal an increase in HR above the median BMI. Conclusion: Consistent with the obesity paradox, the mortality risk increased with decreasing BMI and did not increase when the BMI exceeded the definition of obesity. Until the mechanisms of the obesity paradox are better understood, these results question whether weight reduction would be beneficial in the African American population with HFrEF.

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.

Background Cardiac troponin (cTn) can be elevated in many patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain but without a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We compared the prognostic significance of cTn in these different populations. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the CHOPIN study, which enrolled patients who presented to the ED with chest pain. Patients were grouped as ACS, non-ACS cardiovascular disease, noncardiac chest pain and chest pain not otherwise specified (NOS). We examined the prognostic ability of cTnI for the clinical endpoints of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; a composite of acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, revascularization, reinfarction, and congestive heart failure and stroke) at 180-day follow-up. Results Among 1982 patients analyzed, 14% had ACS, 21% had non-ACS cardiovascular disease, 31% had a noncardiac diagnosis and 34% had chest pain NOS. cTnI elevation above the 99th percentile was observed in 52, 18, 6 and 7% in these groups, respectively. cTnI elevation was associated with mortality and MACE, and their relationships were more prominent in noncardiac diagnosis and chest pain NOS than in ACS and non-ACS cardiovascular diagnoses for mortality, and in non-ACS patients than in ACS patients for MACE (hazard ratio for doubling of cTnI 1.85, 2.05, 8.26 and 4.14, respectively; P for interaction 0.011 for mortality; 1.04, 1.23, 1.54 and 1.42, respectively; P for interaction <0.001 for MACE). Conclusion In patients presenting to the ED with chest pain, cTnI elevation was associated with a worse prognosis in non-ACS patients than in ACS patients.

Aim There is an association between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and insulin resistance, but less is known about the diabetic continuum, and in particular about pre‐diabetes, in HFpEF. We examined characteristics and outcomes of participants with diabetes or pre‐diabetes in PARAGON‐HF. Methods and results Patients aged ≥50 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, structural heart disease and elevated N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) were eligible. Patients were classified according to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c): (i) normal HbA1c, <6.0%; (ii) pre‐diabetes, 6.0%–6.4%; (iii) diabetes, ≥6.5% or history of diabetes. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and total heart failure hospitalizations (HFH). Of 4796 patients, 50% had diabetes and 18% had pre‐diabetes. Compared to patients with normal HbA1c, patients with pre‐diabetes and diabetes more often were obese, had a history of myocardial infarction and had lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, while patients with diabetes had more clinical evidence of congestion, but similar NT‐proBNP concentrations. The risks of the primary composite outcome (rate ratio [RR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–1.88), total HFH (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39–2.02) and CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.07–1.71) were higher among patients with diabetes, compared to those with normal HbA1c. Patients with pre‐diabetes had a higher risk (which was intermediate between that of patients with diabetes and those with normal HbA1c) of the primary outcome (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00–1.60) and HFH (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03–1.77), but not of CV death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75–1.40). Patients with diabetes treated with insulin had worse outcomes than those not, and those with ‘lean diabetes’ had similar mortality rates to those with a higher body mass index, but lower rates of HFH. Conclusion Pre‐diabetes is common in patients with HFpEF and is associated with worse clinical status and greater risk of HFH. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Background Little is known about the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and Results We examined outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARAGON‐HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. Of 4791 patients, 670 (14%) had COPD. Patients with COPD were more likely to be men (58% versus 47%; P <0.001) and had worse New York Heart Association functional class (class III/IV 24% versus 19%), worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores (69 versus 76; P <0.001) and more frequent history of heart failure hospitalization (54% versus 47%; P <0.001). The decrement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores with COPD was greater than for other common comorbidities. Patients with COPD had echocardiographic right ventricular enlargement, higher serum creatinine (100 μmol/L versus 96 μmol/L) and neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (2.7 versus 2.5), than those without COPD. After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with worse outcomes: adjusted rate ratio for the primary outcome 1.51 (95% CI, 1.25–1.83), total heart failure hospitalization 1.54 (95% CI, 1.24–1.90), cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10–1.82), and all‐cause death (adjusted HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25–1.84). COPD was associated with worse outcomes than other comorbidities and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores declined more in patients with COPD than in those without. Conclusions Approximately 1 in 7 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction had concomitant COPD, which was associated with greater functional limitation and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization and death. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01920711 .

Introduction: Copeptin has demonstrated a role in early rule out for acute myocardial infarction in combination with a negative troponin. However, the value of copeptin in patients with a positive troponin is not established. Hypothesis: The addition of a baseline copeptin at chest pain presentation will improve risk stratification in patients with mild troponin elevation. Methods: The multi-center CHOPIN trial enrolled 2071 acute chest pain patients. All subjects with ST segment elevations were excluded from this analysis. Of the remaining patients, 124 had a mildly elevated troponin (defined by < 2x URL) and were included in the study cohort. Baseline cTnI and copeptin levels were drawn on presentation, and another cTnI at 2 hours. Copeptin ≤14 pmol/l and troponin deltas ≤10% from baseline were considered positive. Two independent blinded cardiologists adjudicated AMI diagnosis. The value of a baseline copeptin in this cohort was assessed using AMI incidence, odds ratio, sensitivity, and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Of the 124 patients in the study cohort, 73 (59%) had an elevated copeptin and an associated AMI incidence of 25% (18 AMIs). The remaining 51 patients (41%) were copeptin negative and diagnosed with 3 AMIs, an incidence of 5.9% (p = 0.006, figure 1). A positive copeptin increased the likelihood of AMI diagnosis with an odds ratio of 5.3 (95% CI: 1.5-19.2). The sensitivity and NPV for AMI were 86% and 94%, both of which were higher than the delta troponin (table 1). When an initial copeptin was combined with the delta troponin the sensitivity and NPV for AMI improved to 100%. Conclusion: Use of copeptin in chest pain patients with mild troponin elevation provides further risk stratification. The combination of copeptin with a delta troponin may aid in earlier AMI rule out in this subset of patients. This approach could be especially relevant as the increasing use of high sensitivity troponin assays leads to greater rates of mild troponin elevations.