BACKGROUND: Initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains suboptimal, in part because of concerns regarding tolerability and adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare rates of AE in patients randomized to GDMT medication vs placebo in a meta-analysis of landmark cardiovascular outcomes trials. METHODS: The authors assessed rates of reported AE in 17 landmark HFrEF clinical trials across each class of GDMT in the placebo and intervention arms. The overall rates of AE for each drug class, the absolute difference in frequency in AEs between the placebo and intervention arms, and the odds of each AE according based on randomization strata were calculated. RESULTS: AE were reported commonly in trials across each class of GDMT, with 75% to 85% of participants reporting at least 1 AE. There was no significant difference in the frequency of AE between the intervention and placebo arms, except for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (87.0% [95% CI: 85.0%-88.8%] vs 82.0% [95% CI: 79.8%-84.0%], absolute difference: +5% with intervention; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in drug discontinuation because of AE between placebo and intervention arms in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker trials. Patients randomized to beta-blocker were significantly less likely to stop study drug because of AE than placebo (11.3% [95% CI: 10.3%-12.3%] vs 13.7% [95% CI: 12.5%-14.9%], absolute difference: -1.1%; P = 0.015). When individual types of AE were assessed, the initiation of an intervention vs placebo resulted in small differences in absolute frequency of AE that were largely not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials of GDMT for HFrEF, AEs are observed frequently. However, rates of AE are similar between active medication and control, suggesting these may reflect the high risk nature of the heart failure disease state rather than be attributive to a specific therapy.

Relaxin is a naturally occurring peptide hormone that plays a central role in the hemodynamic and renovascular adaptive changes that occur during pregnancy. Triggering similar changes could potentially be beneficial in the treatment of patients with heart failure. The effects of relaxin include the production of nitric oxide, inhibition of endothelin, inhibition of angiotensin II, production of VEGF, and production of matrix metalloproteinases. These effects lead to systemic and renal vasodilation, increased arterial compliance, and other vascular changes. The recognition of this has led to the study of relaxin for the treatment of heart failure. An initial pilot study has shown favorable hemodynamic effects in patients with heart failure, including reduction in ventricular filling pressures and increased cardiac output. The ongoing RELAX-AHF clinical program is designed to evaluate the effects of relaxin on the symptoms and outcomes in a large group of patients admitted to hospital for acute heart failure. This review will summarize both the biology of relaxin and the data supporting its potential efficacy in human heart failure.

Aims

Although dyspnoea is the most common cause of admission for acute heart failure (AHF), more needs to be known about its clinical course and prognostic significance.

Methods and results

The Pre-RELAX-AHF study randomized 232 subjects with AHF to placebo or four doses of relaxin and evaluated early (6-24 h Likert scale) and persistent [change in visual analogue scale area under the curve (VAS AUC) through Day 5] dyspnoea relief. Worsening heart failure (WHF) was defined as worsening AHF signs and symptoms requiring additional therapy. Patients were followed until Day 180. Early dyspnoea relief was observed in only 25% of all patients, and VAS AUC at 5 days was 45% over baseline values in all patients (32% placebo; 50% all relaxin-treated patients). Worsening heart failure to Day 5 was observed in 16% of all patients (21% placebo; 14% relaxin). Lack of persistent dyspnoea relief and WHF were associated with a longer length of initial hospital stay and worse 60-day outcomes.

Conclusion

Dyspnoea relief in patients admitted with AHF is often incomplete, and many may show WHF after the initial stabilization. Both lack of persistent dyspnoea relief and in-hospital WHF predict a longer length of stay and worse outcome.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we sought to evaluate the association of frailty with the use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: The burden of frailty in HFrEF is high, and the patterns of GDMT use according to frailty status have not been studied previously. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of patients with HFrEF enrolled in the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) trial was conducted. Frailty was assessed with the use of a frailty index (FI) using a 38-variable deficit model, and participants were categorized into 3 groups: class 1: nonfrail, FI <0.21); class 2: intermediate frailty, FI 0.21-0.31), and class 3: high frailty, FI >0.31). Multivariate-adjusted Cox models were used to study the association of frailty status with clinical outcomes. Use of optimal GDMT over time (beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) across frailty strata was assessed with the use of adjusted linear and logistic mixed-effect models. RESULTS: The study included 879 participants, of which 56.3% had high frailty burden (class 3 FI). A higher frailty burden was associated with a significantly higher risk of HF hospitalization or death in adjusted Cox models: high frailty vs nonfrail HR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.20-2.58. On follow-up, participants with high frailty burden also had a significantly lower likelihood of achieving optimal GDMT: high frailty vs non-frail GDMT triple therapy use at study end: 17.7% vs 28.4%; P interaction, frailty class × time <0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF with a high burden of frailty have a significantly higher risk for adverse clinical outcomes and are less likely to be initiated and up-titrated on an optimal GDMT regimen.

Objectives

This study sought to evaluate if diastolic pulmonary gradient (DPG) can predict survival in patients with pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease (PH-LHD).

Background

Patients with combined post- and pre-capillary PH-LHD have worse prognosis than those with passive pulmonary hypertension. The transpulmonary gradient (TPG) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) have commonly been used to identify high-risk patients. However, these parameters have significant shortcomings and do not always correlate with pulmonary vasculature remodeling. Recently, it has been suggested that DPG may be better a marker, yet its prognostic ability in patients with cardiomyopathy has not been fully assessed.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of 1,236 patients evaluated for unexplained cardiomyopathy at Johns Hopkins Hospital was studied. All patients underwent right heart catheterization and were followed until death, cardiac transplantation, or the end of the study period (mean time 4.4 years). The relationships between DPG, TPG, or PVR and survival in subjects with PH-LHD (n = 469) were evaluated with Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.

Results

DPG was not significantly associated with mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.02, p = 0.10) in PH-LHD whereas elevated TPG and PVR predicted death (HR: 1.02, p = 0.046; and HR: 1.11, p = 0.002, respectively). Similarly, DPG did not differentiate survivors from non-survivors at any selected cut points including a DPG of 7 mm Hg.

Conclusions

In this retrospective study of patients with cardiomyopathy and PH-LHD, an elevated DPG was not associated with worse survival.

Background There are conflicting data regarding the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of ICD placement in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results Data were obtained from the Get With the Guidelines-Health Failure registry, linked with claims from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We used a Cox proportional hazards model censored at 5 years with propensity score matching. Of the 17 186 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims database (6540 with diabetes mellitus; 38%), 1677 (646 with diabetes mellitus; 39%) received an ICD during their index HF hospitalization or were prescribed an ICD at discharge. Patients with diabetes mellitus and an ICD (n=646), as compared with those without an ICD (n=1031), were more likely to be younger (74 versus 78 years of age) and have coronary artery disease (68% versus 60%). After propensity matching, ICD use among patients with diabetes mellitus, as compared with those without an ICD, was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years after HF discharge (54% versus 59%; multivariable hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82; P<0.0001). Ischemic heart disease did not modify the association between ICD use and all-cause mortality (P=0.95 for interaction). Similar results were seen in patients without diabetes mellitus. Conclusions Primary prevention ICD use among older patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and diabetes mellitus was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality. Our analysis supports current guideline recommendations for implantation of primary prevention ICDs among older patients with diabetes mellitus and HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Aims

Episodes of acute heart failure (AHF) may lead to end-organ dysfunction. In this post hoc analysis of the Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure trial, we used the MELD-XI (Model of End-Stage Liver Dysfunction) score to examine hepatorenal dysfunction in patients with AHF.

Methods and results

On admission, the MELD-XI score was elevated (abnormal) in 918 (82%) patients, with 638 (57%) having isolated renal dysfunction (creatinine > 1 mg/dL), 73 (6.5%) isolated liver dysfunction (bilirubin > 1 mg/dL), and 207 (18.5%) coexisting dysfunction of the kidneys and the liver (both creatinine and bilirubin > 1 mg/dL). The percentage of patients with elevated MELD-XI score remained constant through a 60 day follow-up, as we observed a gradual decrease of liver dysfunction prevalence, counterbalanced by an increase in renal dysfunction. Serelaxin treatment was associated with a lower MELD-XI score on Day 2 and Day 5 (both P < 0.05), but this difference vs. placebo disappeared during longer follow-up. In the multivariable model, an elevated MELD-XI score on admission was associated with higher 180 day mortality: hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for cardiovascular death were 3.10 (1.22-7.87), and for all-cause death 2.47 (1.19-5.15); both P < 0.05. The addition of the MELD-XI score to a prespecified prognostic model increased the discrimination of the model for all-cause death, but the increment in the C-index was only modest: 0.013 (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

In patients with AHF, hepatorenal dysfunction is prevalent and related to poor outcome. The MELD-XI score is a useful prognosticator in AHF.

Aims

To examine the characteristics associated with early dyspnoea relief during acute heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and its association with 30-day outcomes.

Methods and results

ASCEND-HF was a randomized trial of nesiritide vs. placebo in 7141 patients hospitalized with acute HF in which dyspnoea relief at 6 h was measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Patients were classified as having early dyspnoea relief if they experienced moderate or marked dyspnoea improvement at 6 h. We analysed the clinical characteristics, geographical variation, and outcomes (mortality, mortality/HF hospitalization, and mortality/hospitalization at 30 days) associated with early dyspnoea relief. Early dyspnoea relief occurred in 2984 patients (43%). In multivariable analyses, predictors of dyspnoea relief included older age and oedema on chest radiograph; higher systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and natriuretic peptide level; and lower serum blood urea nitrogen (BUN), sodium, and haemoglobin (model mean C index = 0.590). Dyspnoea relief varied markedly across countries, with patients enrolled from Central Europe having the lowest risk-adjusted likelihood of improvement. Early dyspnoea relief was associated with lower risk-adjusted 30-day mortality/HF hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.96] and mortality/hospitalization (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99), but similar mortality.

Conclusion

Clinical characteristics such as respiratory rate, pulmonary oedema, renal function, and natriuretic peptide levels are associated with early dyspnoea relief, and moderate or marked improvement in dyspnoea was associated with a lower risk for 30-day outcomes.

AIM: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) have high mortality, hospitalizations, and poorly tolerate evidence-based medical treatment. Omecamtiv mecarbil may be particularly helpful in such patients. This study examined its efficacy and tolerability in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The GALACTIC-HF enrolled patients with baseline SBP ≥85 mmHg with a primary outcome of time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure event. In this analysis, patients were divided according to their baseline SBP (≤100 vs. >100 mmHg). Among the 8232 analysed patients, 1473 (17.9%) had baseline SBP ≤100 mmHg and 6759 (82.1%) had SBP >100 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 715 (48.5%) and 2415 (35.7%) patients with SBP ≤100 and >100 mmHg, respectively. Patients with lower SBP were at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, appeared to be more effective in reducing the primary composite endpoint in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.94] compared with those with SBP >100 mmHg (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; P-value for interaction = 0.051). In both groups, omecamtiv mecarbil did not change SBP values over time and did not increase the risk of adverse events, when compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: In GALACTIC-HF, risk reduction of heart failure outcomes with omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo was large and significant in patients with low SBP. Omecamtiv mecarbil did not affect SBP and was well tolerated independent of SBP values.

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a common comorbidity in HF and affects patients' outcome. We sought to assess the effects of serelaxin in patients with and without AFib.

Methods

In a post hoc analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial, we compared the effects of serelaxin on efficacy end points, safety end points and biomarkers in 1161 patients with and without AFib on admission electrocardiogram.

Results

AFib was present in 41.3% of patients. Serelaxin had a similar effect in patients with and without AFib, including dyspnea relief by visual analog scale through day 5 [mean change in area under the curve, 541.11 (33.79, 1048.44), p = 0.0366 in AFib versus 361.80 (-63.30, 786.90), p = 0.0953 in non-AFib, interaction p = 0.5954] and all-cause death through day 180 [HR = 0.42 (0.23, 0.77), p = 0.0051 in AFib versus 0.90 (0.53, 1.52), p = 0.6888 in non-AFib, interaction p = 0.0643]. Serelaxin was similarly safe in the two groups and induced similar reductions in biomarkers of cardiac, renal and hepatic damage. Stroke occurred more frequently in AFib patients (2.8 vs. 0.8%, p = 0.0116) and there was a trend for lower stroke incidence in the serelaxin arm in AFib patients (odds ratios, 0.31, p = 0.0759 versus 3.88, p = 0.2255 in non-AFib, interaction p = 0.0518).

Conclusions

Serelaxin was similarly safe and efficacious in improving short- and long-term outcomes and inducing organ protection in acute HF patients with and without AFib.