IMPORTANCE: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan reduces cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). ...These benefits may be related to effects on hemodynamics and cardiac remodeling. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan improves central aortic stiffness and cardiac remodeling compared with enalapril. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 464 participants with heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less enrolled across 85 US sites between August 17, 2016, and June 28, 2018. Follow-up was completed on January 26, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization (1:1) to sacubitril-valsartan (n = 231; target dosage, 97/103 mg twice daily) vs enalapril (n = 233; target dosage, 10 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 12 in aortic characteristic impedance (Zc), a measure of central aortic stiffness. Prespecified secondary outcomes included change from baseline to week 12 in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, mitral annular relaxation velocity, mitral E/e′ ratio, left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes (LVESVI and LVEDVI), left atrial volume index, and ventricular-vascular coupling ratio. RESULTS: Of 464 validly randomized participants (mean age, 67.3 SD, 9.1 years; 23.5% women), 427 completed the study. At 12 weeks, Zc decreased from 223.8 to 218.9 dyne × s/cm5 in the sacubitril-valsartan group and increased from 213.2 to 214.4 dyne × s/cm5 in the enalapril group (treatment difference, −2.2 95% CI, −17.6 to 13.2 dyne × s/cm5; P = .78). Of 9 prespecified secondary end points, no significant between-group difference in change from baseline was seen in 4, including left ventricular ejection fraction (34%-36% with sacubitril-valsartan vs 33 to 35% with enalapril; treatment difference, 0.6% 95% CI, −0.4% to 1.7%; P = .24). However, greater reductions from baseline were seen with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril in all others, including left atrial volume (from 30.4 mL/m2 to 28.2 mL/m2 vs from 29.8 mL/m2 to 30.5 mL/m2; treatment difference, −2.8 mL/m2 95% CI, −4.0 to −1.6 mL/m2; P < .001), LVEDVI (from 75.1 mL/m2 to 70.3 mL/m2 vs from 79.1 mL/m2 to 75.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, −2.0 mL/m2 95% CI, −3.7 to 0.3 mL/m2; P = .02), LVESVI (from 50.8 mL/m2 to 46.3 mL/m2 vs from 54.1 to 50.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, −1.6 mL/m2 95% CI, −3.1 to −0.03 mL/m2; P = .045), and mitral E/e′ ratio (from 13.8 to 12.3 vs from 13.4 to 13.8; treatment difference, −1.8 95% CI, −2.8 to −0.8; P = .001). Rates of adverse events including hypotension (1.7% vs 3.9%) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, did not significantly reduce central aortic stiffness. The study findings may provide insight into mechanisms underlying the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874794
The period shortly after hospitalization for heart failure (HF) represents a high-risk window for recurrent clinical events, including rehospitalization or death.
This study sought to determine ...whether the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan varies in relation to the proximity to hospitalization for HF among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor with ARB Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF), we assessed the risk of clinical events and response to sacubitril/valsartan in relation to time from last HF hospitalization among patients with HFpEF (≥45%). The primary outcome was composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region.
Of 4,796 validly randomized patients in PARAGON-HF, 622 (13%) were screened during hospitalization or within 30 days of prior hospitalization, 555 (12%) within 31 to 90 days, 435 (9%) within 91 to 180 days, and 694 (14%) after 180 days; 2,490 (52%) were never previously hospitalized. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was inversely and nonlinearly associated with timing from prior HF hospitalization (p < 0.001). There was a gradient in relative risk reduction in primary events with sacubitril/valsartan from patients hospitalized within 30 days (rate ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 0.99) to patients never hospitalized (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.24; trend in relative risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.15). With valsartan alone, the rate of total primary events was 26.7 (≤30 days), 24.2 (31 to 90 days), 20.7 (91 to 180 days), 15.7 (>180 days), and 7.9 (not previously hospitalized) per 100 patient-years. Compared with valsartan, absolute risk reductions with sacubitril/valsartan were more prominent in patients enrolled early after hospitalization: 6.4% (≤30 days), 4.6% (31 to 90 days), and 3.4% (91 to 180 days), whereas no risk reduction was observed in patients screened >180 days or who were never hospitalized (trend in absolute risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.050).
Recent hospitalization for HFpEF identifies patients at high risk for near-term clinical progression. In the PARAGON-HF trial, the relative and absolute benefits of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in HFpEF appear to be amplified when initiated in the high-risk window after hospitalization and warrant prospective validation. (PARAGON-HF; NCT01920711)
Display omitted
Statistical analyses are a crucial component of the biomedical research process and are necessary to draw inferences from biomedical research data. The application of sound statistical methodology is ...a prerequisite for publication in the American Heart Association (AHA) journal portfolio. The objective of this document is to summarize key aspects of statistical reporting that might be most relevant to the authors, reviewers, and readership of AHA journals. The AHA Scientific Publication Committee convened a task force to inventory existing statistical standards for publication in biomedical journals and to identify approaches suitable for the AHA journal portfolio. The experts on the task force were selected by the AHA Scientific Publication Committee, who identified 12 key topics that serve as the section headers for this document. For each topic, the members of the writing group identified relevant references and evaluated them as a resource to make the standards summarized herein. Each section was independently reviewed by an expert reviewer who was not part of the task force. Expert reviewers were also permitted to comment on other sections if they chose. Differences of opinion were adjudicated by consensus. The standards presented in this report are intended to serve as a guide for high-quality reporting of statistical analyses methods and results.
Aims
Recurrent hospitalizations are a major part of the disease burden in heart failure (HF), but conventional analyses consider only the first event. We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan ...vs. enalapril on recurrent events, incorporating all HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) deaths in PARADIGM‐HF, using a variety of statistical approaches advocated for this type of analysis.
Methods and results
In PARADIGM‐HF, a total of 8399 patients were randomized and followed for a median of 27 months. We applied various recurrent event analyses, including a negative binomial model, the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin, Wei, Ying and Yang (LWYY) methods, and a joint frailty model, all adjusted for treatment and region. Among a total of 3181 primary endpoint events (including 1251 CV deaths) during the trial, only 2031 (63.8%) were first events (836 CV deaths). Among a total of 1195 patients with at least one HF hospitalization, 410 (34%) had at least one further HF hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril reduced the risk of recurrent HF hospitalization using the negative binomial model rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–0.89, the WLW method hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.71–0.89, the LWYY method (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68–0.90), and the joint frailty model (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66–0.86) (all P < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent HF hospitalizations/CV death was similar.
Conclusions
In PARADIGM‐HF, approximately one third of patients with a primary endpoint (time‐to‐first) experienced a further event. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced both first and recurrent events. The treatment effect size was similar, regardless of the statistical approach applied.
Background and Aims An increase in blood urea nitrogen (BUN) at 24 hours is a solitary and significant predictor of mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis, which may predict worse outcomes in ...the similarly resuscitation-requiring condition of acute nonvariceal upper GI bleeding (UGIB). The aim of our study was to assess whether an increase in BUN at 24 hours is predictive of worse clinical outcomes in acute nonvariceal UGIB. Methods A retrospective cohort study including patients admitted to an academic hospital from 2004 to 2014 was conducted. An increase in BUN was defined as an increase in BUN at 24 hours of hospitalization compared with BUN at presentation. The primary outcome was a composite of inpatient death, inpatient rebleeding, need for surgical or radiologic intervention, or endoscopic reintervention. Associations between BUN change and outcomes were assessed via the Pearson χ2 test and the Fisher exact test and via logistic regression for adjusted analyses. Results There were 357 patients included in the analysis with a mean age of 64 years; 54% were men. The mean change in BUN was –10.1 mg/dL (standard deviation, 12.7 mg/dL). Patients with an increased BUN (n = 37 10%) were significantly more likely to experience the composite outcome (22% vs 9%, P = .014), including an increased risk of inpatient death (8% vs 1%, P = .004), compared with patients with a decreased or unchanged BUN (n = 320 90%). In a logistic regression model adjusting for the AIMS65 score, an increase in BUN was independently associated with an increased risk for the composite outcome (odds ratio, 2.75; P = .026). Conclusion Increasing BUN at 24 hours likely reflects under resuscitation and is a predictor of worse outcomes in patients with acute nonvariceal UGIB.
In GALACTIC-HF (Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure) (n = 8,256), the cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, significantly ...reduced the primary composite endpoint (PCE) of time-to-first heart failure event or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (EF) (≤35%).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of baseline EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil.
Outcomes in patients treated with omecamtiv mecarbil were compared with placebo according to EF.
The risk of the PCE in the placebo group was nearly 1.8-fold greater in the lowest EF (≤22%) compared with the highest EF (≥33%) quartile. Amongst the pre-specified subgroups, EF was the strongest modifier of the treatment effect of omecamtiv mecarbil on the PCE (interaction as continuous variable, p = 0.004). Patients receiving omecamtiv mecarbil had a progressively greater relative and absolute treatment effect as baseline EF decreased, with a 17% relative risk reduction for the PCE in patients with baseline EF ≤22% (n = 2,246; hazard ratio: 0.83; 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 0.95) compared with patients with EF ≥33% (n = 1,750; hazard ratio: 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 1.16; interaction as EF by quartiles, p = 0.013). The absolute reduction in the PCE increased with decreasing EF (EF ≤22%; absolute risk reduction, 7.4 events per 100 patient-years; number needed to treat for 3 years = 11.8), compared with no reduction in the highest EF quartile.
In heart failure patients with reduced EF, omecamtiv mecarbil produced greater therapeutic benefit as baseline EF decreased. These findings are consistent with the drug’s mechanism of selectively improving systolic function and presents an important opportunity to improve the outcomes in a group of patients at greatest risk. (Registrational Study With Omecamtiv Mecarbil/AMG 423 to Treat Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction GALACTIC-HF; NCT02929329)
Display omitted
BACKGROUND:In people with atrial fibrillation (AF), periods of sinus rhythm present an opportunity to detect prothrombotic atrial remodeling through measurement of P-wave indices (PWIs)—prolonged ...P-wave duration, abnormal P-wave axis, advanced interatrial block, and abnormal P-wave terminal force in lead V1. We hypothesized that the addition of PWIs to the CHA2DS2-VASc score would improve its ability to predict AF-related ischemic stroke.
METHODS:We included 2229 participants from the ARIC study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) and 700 participants from MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) with incident AF who were not on anticoagulants within 1 year of AF diagnosis. PWIs were obtained from study visit ECGs before development of AF. AF was ascertained using study visit ECGs and hospital records. Ischemic stroke cases were based on physician adjudication of hospital records. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs of PWIs for ischemic stroke. Improvement in 1-year stroke prediction was assessed by C-statistic, categorical net reclassification improvement, and relative integrated discrimination improvement.
RESULTS:Abnormal P-wave axis was the only PWI associated with increased ischemic stroke risk (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.33–2.55) independent of CHA2DS2-VASc variables, and that resulted in meaningful improvement in stroke prediction. The β estimate was approximately twice that of the CHA2DS2-VASc variables, and thus abnormal P-wave axis was assigned 2 points to create the P2-CHA2DS2-VASc score. This improved the C-statistic (95% CI) from 0.60 (0.51–0.69) to 0.67 (0.60–0.75) in ARIC and 0.68 (0.52–0.84) to 0.75 (0.60–0.91) in MESA (validation cohort). In ARIC and MESA, the categorical net reclassification improvements (95% CI) were 0.25 (0.13–0.39) and 0.51 (0.18–0.86), respectively, and the relative integrated discrimination improvement (95% CI) were 1.19 (0.96–1.44) and 0.82 (0.36–1.39), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS:Abnormal P-wave axis—an ECG correlate of left atrial abnormality— improves ischemic stroke prediction in AF. Compared with CHA2DS2-VASc, the P2-CHA2DS2-VASc is a better prediction tool for AF-related ischemic stroke.
PDF
