-
1.
Assessment of Omecamtiv Mecarbil for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Heart Failure: A Post Hoc Analysis of Data From the GALACTIC-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.
Felker, GM, Solomon, SD, Claggett, B, Diaz, R, McMurray, JJV, Metra, M, Anand, I, Crespo-Leiro, MG, Dahlström, U, Goncalvesova, E, et al
JAMA cardiology. 2022;(1):26-34
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a progressive clinical syndrome, and many patients' condition worsen over time despite treatment. Patients with more severe disease are often intolerant of available medical therapies. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil for the treatment of patients with severe heart failure (HF) enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) randomized clinical trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The GALACTIC-HF study was a global double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial that was conducted at multiple centers between January 2017 and August 2020. A total of 8232 patients with symptomatic HF (defined as New York Heart Association symptom class II-IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less were randomized to receive omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo and followed up for a median of 21.8 months (range, 15.4-28.6 months). The current post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients classified as having severe HF compared with patients without severe HF. Severe HF was defined as the presence of all of the following criteria: New York Heart Association symptom class III to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and hospitalization for HF within the previous 6 months. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was time to first HF event or cardiovascular (CV) death. Secondary end points included time to CV death and safety and tolerability. RESULTS Among 8232 patients enrolled in the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, 2258 patients (27.4%; mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.6] years; 1781 men [78.9%]) met the specified criteria for severe HF. Of those, 1106 patients were randomized to the omecamtiv mecarbil group and 1152 to the placebo group. Patients with severe HF who received omecamtiv mecarbil experienced a significant treatment benefit for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), whereas patients without severe HF had no significant treatment benefit (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .005 for interaction). For CV death, the results were similar (HR for patients with vs without severe HF: 0.88 [95% CI, 0.75-1.03] vs 1.10 [95% CI, 0.97-1.25]; P = .03 for interaction). Omecamtiv mecarbil therapy was well tolerated in patients with severe HF, with no significant changes in blood pressure, kidney function, or potassium level compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this post hoc analysis of data from the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, omecamtiv mecarbil therapy may have provided a clinically meaningful reduction in the composite end point of time to first HF event or CV death among patients with severe HF. These data support a potential role of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients for whom current treatment options are limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929329.
-
2.
Association between ethnicity and degree of improvement in cardiac function following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan.
Holm, N, Bromage, DI, Cannata, A, DeCourcey, J, Bhatti, P, Huang, M, McDonagh, TA
Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.). 2022;(1):37-41
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the degree of short-term improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), haemodynamics, NT-proBNP and quality of life following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in black patients when compared with white patients. METHODS This was a retrospective, observational, single-centre, hypothesis-generating study of patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with guideline recommended therapy, who were transitioned from an ACE inhibitor (ACE-I) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS Our analysis included 83 patients (mean age 57 years) with echocardiography performed before and after transition from ACE-I/ARB to sacubitril/valsartan, after excluding patients with concomitant Cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation. Overall, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with LVEF improvement from 28.8% ± 0.7 to 32.0% ± 1.1% (P = 0.0002), but no reverse remodelling was observed. The association with LVEF improvement was only observed in white patients (n = 46, P = 0.0006), but not in black patients (n = 37, P = 0.1728), and appeared to be associated with reduced blood pressure (baseline vs. 2-week blood pressure 116.5 ± 13.9 vs. 109.4 ± 14.3 mmHg, respectively, in white patients, P = 0.0449). Fifteen patients (18.1%) became ineligible for primary prevention Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. CONCLUSION Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with improved LVEF, NT-proBNP concentrations and quality of life in patients with symptomatic HFrEF on guideline recommended therapy. However, in our cohort, improvement of LVEF and quality of life might be attenuated in black patients, which warrants further investigation.
-
3.
Do SGLT-2 inhibitors exhibit similar cardiovascular benefit in patients with heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction?
Singh, AK, Singh, R, Misra, A
Journal of diabetes. 2021;(7):596-600
Abstract
Highlights The beneficial cardiovascular (CV) effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) in patients with heart failure are already known. Whether SGLT-2i exert similar CV effects in heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction is not known. This meta-analysis showed SGLT-2i exert similar CV benefits irrespective of the types of heart failure. Future trials will confirm or refute the CV effects of SGLT-2i in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
-
4.
Comparison of Microplegia Solution and Del Nido Cardioplegia Solution in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: Which One is More Effective?
Urcun, YS, Pala, AA
The heart surgery forum. 2021;(5):E842-E848
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of the microplegia solution and Del Nido cardioplegia solution in coronary artery bypass surgery with clinical, biochemical, and echocardiographic data. METHODS Three hundred patients, who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery between January 2017 and January 2020, by the same surgical team were included in the study. Preoperative, operative and postoperative data (cardiac biomarker levels, cross-clamp and CPB times, echocardiographic measurements, etc.) of the patients were compared. RESULTS In the study, cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in the DN cardioplegia group (55.60 ± 13.49 min/75.58 ± 12.43 min, P = 0.024). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of intensive care stay, extubation time, hospital stay, and cardiopulmonary bypass time. In our study, it was shown that both the left and right ventricular ejection fraction was better protected in the Del Nido cardioplegia group (5.34±3.03 vs. 3.40±2.84, P = 0.017 and 3.82±1.19 vs. 2.28±1.87, P = 0.047, respectively), and the need for inotrope support was lower in this group (28% vs. 44%, P < 0.021). There was no significant difference between the groups, in terms of blood transfusion rates, IABP requirement. CONCLUSION In light of short-term results, we can say that Del Nido cardioplegia provides better myocardial protection than microplegia. In addition, Del Nido cardioplegia can be given as a single dose for 90 minutes of cross-clamp time and therefore can be preferred to increase surgical comfort and reduce cross-clamp times.
-
5.
The dawn of the four-drug era? SGLT2 inhibition in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Genuardi, MV, Mather, PJ
Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease. 2021;:17539447211002678
Abstract
Sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a relatively new class of antihyperglycemic drug with salutary effects on glucose control, body weight, and blood pressure. Emerging evidence now indicates that these drugs may have a beneficial effect on outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Post-approval cardiovascular outcomes data for three of these agents (canagliflozin, empagliflozin, and dapagliflozin) showed an unexpected improvement in cardiovascular endpoints, including heart failure hospitalization and mortality, among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular disease or risk factors. These studies were followed by a placebo controlled trial of dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF both with and without T2DM, showing a reduction in all-cause mortality comparable to current guideline-directed HFrEF medical therapies such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers. In this review, we discuss the current landscape of evidence, safety and adverse effects, and proposed mechanisms of action for use of these agents for patients with HFrEF. The United States (US) and European guidelines are reviewed, as are the current US federally approved indications for each SGLT2 inhibitor. Use of these agents in clinical practice may be limited by an uncertain insurance environment, especially in patients without T2DM. Finally, we discuss practical considerations for the cardiovascular clinician, including within-class differences of the SGLT2 inhibitors currently available on the US market (217/300).
-
6.
Associations of Empagliflozin With Left Ventricular Volumes, Mass, and Function in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Substudy of the Empire HF Randomized Clinical Trial.
Omar, M, Jensen, J, Ali, M, Frederiksen, PH, Kistorp, C, Videbæk, L, Poulsen, MK, Tuxen, CD, Möller, S, Gustafsson, F, et al
JAMA cardiology. 2021;(7):836-840
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The association with cardiac remodeling has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE To investigate the outcome of the SGLT2i empagliflozin, compared with placebo, on cardiac remodeling in patients with HFrEF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This exploratory post hoc analysis included participants with stable HFrEF and ejection fractions of 40% or less, who were randomly enrolled in an investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in Denmark. Enrollment commenced on June 29, 2017, and continued through September 10, 2019, with the last participant follow-up on December 20, 2019. INTERVENTIONS Randomization (1:1) to empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or matching placebo in addition to recommended heart failure therapy for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Efficacy measures were changes from baseline to week 12 in left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes, left atrial volume index, and left ventricular ejection fraction adjusted for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, and atrial fibrillation. Secondary efficacy measures included changes in left ventricular mass index, global longitudinal strain, and relative wall thickness. RESULTS A total of 190 patients were randomized (95 each receiving empagliflozin and placebo), with a mean (SD) age of 64 (11) years; 162 were men (85.3%), 97 (51.1%) had ischemic HFrEF, 24 (12.6%) had type 2 diabetes, and the mean (SD) latest recorded left ventricular ejection fraction was 29% (8%). Of the 190, 186 completed the study. Empagliflozin significantly reduced left ventricular end-systolic volume index (-4.3 [95% CI, -8.5 to -0.1] mL/m2; P = .04), left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (-5.5 [95% CI, -10.6 to -0.4] mL/m2; P = .03), and left atrial volume index (-2.5 [95% CI, -4.8 to -0.1] mL/m2; P = .04) compared with placebo at 12 weeks' follow-up, with no change in left ventricular ejection fraction (1.2% [95% CI, -1.2% to 3.6%]; P = .32). These findings were consistent across subgroups. Of secondary efficacy measures, left ventricular mass index was significantly reduced by empagliflozin (-9.0 [95% CI, -17.2 to -0.8] g/m2; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this small, randomized, short-term study, empagliflozin was associated with modest reductions in left ventricular and left atrial volumes with no association with ejection fraction. Effects beyond 12 weeks of SGLT2i use require further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03198585.
-
7.
Effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors on cardiac structure and function: a narrative review of clinical evidence.
Natali, A, Nesti, L, Tricò, D, Ferrannini, E
Cardiovascular diabetology. 2021;(1):196
Abstract
The impressive results of recent clinical trials with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) and sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) in terms of cardiovascular protection prompted a huge interest in these agents for heart failure (HF) prevention and treatment. While both classes show positive effects on composite cardiovascular endpoints (i.e. 3P MACE), their actions on the cardiac function and structure, as well as on volume regulation, and their impact on HF-related events have not been systematically evaluated and compared. In this narrative review, we summarize and critically interpret the available evidence emerging from clinical studies. While chronic exposure to GLP-1Ra appears to be essentially neutral on both systolic and diastolic function, irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a beneficial impact of SGLT-2i is consistently detectable for both systolic and diastolic function parameters in subjects with diabetes with and without HF, with a gradient proportional to the severity of baseline dysfunction. SGLT-2i have a clinically significant impact in terms of HF hospitalization prevention in subjects at high and very high cardiovascular risk both with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D) or HF, while GLP-1Ra have been proven to be safe (and marginally beneficial) in subjects with T2D without HF. We suggest that the role of the kidney is crucial for the effect of SGLT-2i on the clinical outcomes not only because these drugs slow-down the time-dependent decline of kidney function and enhance the response to diuretics, but also because they attenuate the meal-related anti-natriuretic pressure (lowering postprandial hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia and preventing proximal sodium reabsorption), which would reduce the individual sensitivity to day-to-day variations in dietary sodium intake.
-
8.
Clinical Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.
Greene, SJ, Choi, S, Lippmann, SJ, Mentz, RJ, Greiner, MA, Hardy, NC, Hammill, BG, Luo, N, Samsky, MD, Heidenreich, PA, et al
Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021;(16):e021459
Abstract
Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P<0.001), all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; P=0.02), but not heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.40). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for HFrEF, prescription of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was independently associated with reduced postdischarge mortality compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, and reduced mortality and all-cause hospitalization compared with no sacubitril/valsartan. These findings support the use of sacubitril/valsartan to improve postdischarge outcomes among older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in routine US clinical practice.
-
9.
A Novel Approach to Medical Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.
Miller, RJH, Howlett, JG, Fine, NM
The Canadian journal of cardiology. 2021;(4):632-643
Abstract
The advent of newly available medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has resulted in many potential therapeutic combinations, increasing treatment complexity. Publication of expert consensus guidelines and initiatives aimed to improve implementation of treatment has emphasized sequential stepwise initiation and titration of medical therapy, which is labour intensive. Data taken from heart failure registries show suboptimal use of medications, prolonged titration times, and consequently little change in dose intensity, all of which indicate therapeutic inertia. Recently published evidence indicates that 4 medication classes-renin-angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors-which we refer to as Foundational Therapy, confer rapid and robust reduction in both morbidity and mortality in most patients with HFrEF and that they work in additive fashion. Additional morbidity and mortality may be observed following addition of several personalized therapies in specific subgroups of patients. In this review, we discuss mechanisms of action of these therapies and propose a framework for their implementation, based on several principles. These include the critical importance of rapid initiation of all 4 Foundational Therapies followed by their titration to target doses, emphasis on multiple simultaneous drug changes with each patient encounter, attention to patient-specific factors in choice of medication class, leveraging inpatient care, use of the entire health care team, and alternative (ie, virtual visits) modes of care. We have incorporated these principles into a Cluster Scheme designed to facilitate timely and optimal medical treatment for patients with HFrEF.
-
10.
Cardiac and Noncardiac Disease Burden and Treatment Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From a Combined PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF Analysis.
Rohde, LE, Claggett, BL, Wolsk, E, Packer, M, Zile, M, Swedberg, K, Rouleau, J, Pfeffer, MA, Desai, AS, Lund, LH, et al
Circulation. Heart failure. 2021;(3):e008052
Abstract
BACKGROUND The net clinical benefit of cardiac disease-modifying drugs might be influenced by the interaction of different domains of disease burden. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac, comorbid, and demographic factors in heart failure (HF) and how their interplay might influence HF prognosis and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS We combined data from 2 global trials that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with a renin-angiotensin antagonist in symptomatic HF patients (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure; n=8399] and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptors Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; n=4796]). We decomposed the previously validated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score into cardiac (left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medications), noncardiac comorbid (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking), and demographic (age, gender) categories. Based on these domains, an index representing the balance of cardiac to noncardiac comorbid burden was created (cardiac-comorbid index). Clinical outcomes were time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality. RESULTS Higher scores of the cardiac domain were observed in PARADIGM-HF (10 [7-13] versus 5 [3-6], P<0.001) and higher scores of the demographic domain in PARAGON-HF (10 [8-13] versus 5 [2-9], P<0.001). In PARADIGM-HF, the contribution of the cardiac domain to clinical outcomes was greater than the noncardiac domain (P<0.001), while in PARAGON-HF the attributable risk of the comorbid and demographic categories predominated. Individual scores from each sub-domain were linearly associated with the risk of clinical outcomes (P<0.001). Beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan were observed in patients with preponderance of cardiac over noncardiac comorbid burden (cardiac-comorbid index >5 points), suggesting a significant treatment effect modification (interaction P<0.05 for both outcomes). CONCLUSIONS Domains of disease burden are clinically relevant features that influence the prognosis and treatment of patients with HF. The therapeutic benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vary according to the balance of components of disease burden, across different ranges of left ventricular ejection fraction.