Heart Failure (HF) is a multi-faceted and life-threatening syndrome characterized by significant morbidity and mortality, poor functional capacity and quality of life, and high costs. HF affects more ...than 64 million people worldwide. Therefore, attempts to decrease its social and economic burden have become a major global public health priority. While the incidence of HF has stabilized and seems to be declining in industrialized countries, the prevalence is increasing due to the ageing of the population, improved treatment of and survival with ischaemic heart disease, and the availability of effective evidence-based therapies prolonging life in patients with HF. There are geographical variations in HF epidemiology. There is substantial lack of data from developing countries, where HF exhibits different features compared with that observed in the Western world. In this review, we provide a contemporary overview on the global burden of HF, providing updated estimates on prevalence, incidence, outcomes, and costs worldwide.
BACKGROUND:While disease-modifying therapies exist for heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), few options are available for patients in the higher range of LVEF ...(>40%). Sacubitril/valsartan has been compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone–system inhibitor alone in 2 similarly designed clinical trials of patients with reduced and preserved LVEF, permitting examination of its effects across the full spectrum of LVEF.
METHODS:We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (LVEF eligibility≤40%; n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (LVEF eligibility≥45%; n=4796) in a prespecified pooled analysis. We divided randomized patients into LVEF categories≤22.5% (n=1269), >22.5% to 32.5% (n=3987), >32.5% to 42.5% (n=3143), > 42.5% to 52.5% (n=1427), > 52.5% to 62.5% (n=2166), and >62.5% (n=1202). We assessed time to first cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, its components, and total heart failure hospitlizations, all-cause mortality, and noncardiovascular mortality. Incidence rates and treatment effects were examined across categories of LVEF.
RESULTS:Among 13 195 randomized patients, we observed lower rates of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, but similar rates of noncardiovascular death, among patients in the highest versus the lowest groups. Overall sacubitril/valsartan was superior to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone–system inhibition for first cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (Hazard Ratio HR 0.84 95% CI, 0.78–0.90), cardiovascular death (HR 0.84 95% CI, 0.76–0.92), heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.84 95% CI, 0.77–0.91), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.88 95% CI, 0.81–0.96). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was modified by LVEF (treatment-by-continuous LVEF interaction P=0.02), and benefit appeared to be present for individuals with EF primarily below the normal range, although the treatment benefit for cardiovascular death diminished at a lower ejection fraction. We observed effect modification by LVEF on the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in both men and women with respect to composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, although women derived benefit to higher ejection fractions.
CONCLUSIONS:The therapeutic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone–system inhibitor alone, vary by LVEF with treatment benefits, particularly for heart failure hospitalization, that appear to extend to patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction. These therapeutic benefits appeared to extend to a higher LVEF range in women compared with men.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiersNCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF), NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF).
Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) remains the major parameter for diagnosis, phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions in heart failure. The 2016 ESC heart failure guidelines introduced a ...third EF category for an EF of 40-49%, defined as heart failure with mid-range EF (HFmrEF). This category has been largely unexplored compared with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF; defined as EF <40% in this Review) and heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF; defined as EF ≥50%). The prevalence of HFmrEF within the overall population of patients with HF is 10-25%. HFmrEF seems to be an intermediate clinical entity between HFrEF and HFpEF in some respects, but more similar to HFrEF in others, in particular with regard to the high prevalence of ischaemic heart disease in these patients. HFmrEF is milder than HFrEF, and the risk of cardiovascular events is lower in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. By contrast, the risk of non-cardiovascular adverse events is similar or greater in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. Evidence from post hoc and subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials and a trial of an SGLT1-SGLT2 inhibitor suggests that drugs that are effective in patients with HFrEF might also be effective in patients with HFmrEF. Although the EF is a continuous measure with considerable variability, in this comprehensive Review we suggest that HFmrEF is a useful categorization of patients with HF and shares the most important clinical features with HFrEF, which supports the renaming of HFmrEF to HF with mildly reduced EF.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Abstract Background It is unknown whether the increased risk of heart failure (HF) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is independent of ischemic heart disease (IHD). Objectives This study sought to ...investigate the relative risk of HF overall and by subtype (ischemic and nonischemic HF) in patients with RA and to assess the impact of RA disease factors. Methods Two contemporary cohorts of RA subjects were identified from Swedish patient and rheumatology registries and matched 1:10 to general population comparator subjects. A first-ever HF diagnosis (classified as ischemic HF or nonischemic HF based on the presence of IHD) was assessed through registry linkages. Relative risks for a history of HF before RA onset were calculated through odds ratios. Relative risks of incident HF in RA were calculated as hazard ratios (HRs). Results By the time of RA onset, a history of HF was not more common in RA. In the new-onset RA cohort, the overall HRs for subsequent HF (any type), ischemic HF, and nonischemic HF were between 1.22 and 1.27. The risk of nonischemic HF increased rapidly after RA onset, in contrast to the risk of ischemic HF. High disease activity was associated with all HF types but was most pronounced for nonischemic HF. In the cohort of patients with RA of any duration, the HRs were between 1.71 and 1.88 for the different HF subtypes. Conclusions Patients with RA are at increased risk of HF that cannot be explained by their increased risk of IHD. The increased risk of nonischemic HF occurred early and was associated with RA severity.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes ...contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device.
In hospital and health care organizational factors may be changed to reduce postoperative mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate a possible association between mortality and 'length of ...hospital stay', 'priority of surgery', 'time of surgery', or 'surgical delay' in hip fracture surgery.
Observational cohort study.
Prospectively and consecutively reported data from the Danish Anaesthesia Database were linked to The Danish National Registry of Patients and The Civil Registration System. Records on vital status, admittance, discharges, codes of diagnosis, anaesthetic and surgical procedures were retrieved.
6143 patients aged more than 65 years undergoing hip fracture surgery.
All-cause mortality.
The one year mortality was 30% (28-31%, 95% Confidence interval (CI)). In a multivariate model 'length of hospital stay' less than 10 days and more than 20 days are associated with mortality with hazard ratios of 1.34 (1.20-1.53 CI, p<0.001) and 1.27 (1.06-1.51 CI, p<0.001), respectively. 'Priority of surgery' categorized as 'non-scheduled' is associated with mortality with a hazard ratio of 1.31 (1.13-1.50 CI, p<0.001). Surgical delay and time of surgery are not significantly associated with mortality.
Non-scheduled surgery and length of hospital stay were associated with increased mortality. Confounding by indication may bias observational studies evaluating early and late discharge as well as priority; therefore cluster randomized clinical trials comparing different clinical set ups may be warranted evaluating health care organizational factors.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
