Citations

Abstract Background Cognitive decline is common in patients with heart failure (HF), but its clinical correlates and prognostic impact are not well understood in this population. Purpose To examine the baseline variables associated with cognitive decline and the associations between cognitive decline and HF outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods We analyzed cognitive function, as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), in 2895 patients with HFpEF enrolled in a pre-specified sub-study of PARAGON-HF. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with cognitive decline i.e., a decrease in MMSE score of ≥3 points by 48 weeks. Time-updated Cox proportional hazards regressions and semiparametric proportional rates models were used to examine the subsequent risk of clinical outcomes after a decline in MMSE scores of ≥1-, 2- and 3-points during follow-up respectively, adjusted for known prognostic variables including NT-proBNP and baseline MMSE. Results A total of 450 (15.5% of the population) patients experienced a decrease in MMSE score of ≥3 points from baseline, at any follow-up visit. The corresponding number for a decrease in MMSE score of ≥2 points and ≥1 point was 755 (26.1%) and 1231 (42.5%), respectively. Independent predictors of cognitive decline at 48 weeks included older age, living in Latin America or the Asia/Pacific region, ischemic etiology, prior HF hospitalization, history of stroke/TIA, and lower serum albumin level (Figure 1). There was a graded relationship between the size of the decrease in MMSE score from baseline and the subsequent risk of mortality. Notably, a decrease of ≥3 points was associated with a 50% increase in the subsequent risk of death from any cause (adjusted HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.11) and a 90% elevation in risk of death from cardiovascular causes (1.89, 1.25-2.86), respectively, after extensive adjustment for known prognostic variables and baseline MMSE score. By contrast, cognitive decline during follow-up was not associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization or the composite of HF hospitalization or CV death (Figure 2). Conclusions In patients with HFpEF, a decline in MMSE score during follow-up is independently associated with a graded increase in the risk for mortality, but not of HF hospitalization.The predictors for cognitive declineRisk of outcomes after a decline in MMSE

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

Abstract Background Concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of use and safety of beta-blockers (BBs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, randomized trial evidence is still lacking. Purpose To perform an observational analysis of the association between BB use and clinical outcomes in a large dataset of patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Methods We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The associations between baseline BB use and outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results 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 95.1% at 1 year and 93.1% at 2 years (in patients who survived more than 1 and 2 years, respectively). Overall, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.91-1.05]) but among patients with HFmrEF, BB users had a lower HR (0.84 [95% CI 0.71-0.98]), whereas in HFpEF the HR was similar BB users and non-users (0.99 [95% CI 0.92-1.08]). However, after comprehensive adjustment for known prognostic variables, including NT-proBNP, BB use was associated with a better outcome in the overall cohort (HR 0.81 [0.74-0.88]), and this association was maintained across the range of LVEF (Figure 1). In subgroup analyses, the risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, with or without a history of hypertension, or with or without a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (Figure 2). Conclusions Although this is an observational analysis of non-randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables. Figure Legends Figure 1. Association between beta-blocker use and outcomes across the range of LVEF. Risk in beta-blocker users versus non-users is shown as an adjusted continuous hazard ratio Figure 2. Association between beta-blocker use and non-use in the overall population and clinically relevant patient subgroups, shown as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR). The outcome analyzed was the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome)Figure 1Figure 2

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 Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined. Methods and Results We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON‐HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline circulating protein concentrations significantly associated with the primary end point and the timing and occurrence of total heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared with published analyses in 2515 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Efficacy and Safety of Aliskiren and Aliskiren/Enalapril Combination on Morbidity–Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) clinical trials. We identified 288 proteins that were robustly associated with the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with HFpEF. The baseline proteins most strongly related to outcomes included B2M (β‐2 microglobulin), TIMP1 (tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1), SERPINA4 (serpin family A member 4), and SVEP1 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type A, EGF, and pentraxin domain containing 1). Overall, the protein–outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ as compared with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A proteomic risk score derived in patients with HFpEF was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction nor to clinical risk factors, NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide), or high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin. Conclusions Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis in the PARAGON‐HF proteomic substudy. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities among serum proteomic risk markers for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death when comparing clinical trial participants with heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifiers: NCT01920711, NCT01035255, NCT00853658.

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: Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined. Goal: To identify serum proteins associated with risk for HF hospitalization (HFH) and cardiovascular (CV) death in patients with HFpEF, including proteins with differential associations with clinical outcomes in HFpEF compared to HFrEF. Methods: We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline protein concentrations significantly associated with total HFH and CV death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared to 2515 patients with HFrEF from the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials. Results: We identified 288 proteins to be robustly associated with the risk of HFH and CV death (335 events over an average of 2.7 years of follow-up) in a HFpEF trial population. Proteins most strongly related to HFpEF outcomes included B2M, TIMP1, SERPINA4, and SVEP1 ( Figure ). Protein-outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ compared to HFrEF. Just 3 proteins (APOE, RTF1, and VWF) were differentially associated with outcomes between the HF subtypes (FDR <0.05). A proteomic risk score derived in HFpEF patients was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in HFrEF nor to clinical risk factors, NT-proBNP, or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin. Conclusions: Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis. SVEP1, a cell adhesion protein recently identified as a HFrEF prognosis biomarker, also strongly predicted risk in HFpEF. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities in serum proteomic risk markers across the EF spectrum.

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.