The relationship between mortality and heart rate remains unclear for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in either sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation (AF).
This analysis ...explored the prognostic importance of heart rate in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in randomized controlled trials comparing beta-blockers and placebo.
The Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group performed a meta-analysis of harmonized individual patient data from 11 double-blind randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, analyzed with Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR) modeling heart rate measured at baseline and approximately 6 months post-randomization.
A higher heart rate at baseline was associated with greater all-cause mortality for patients in sinus rhythm (n = 14,166; adjusted HR: 1.11 per 10 beats/min; 95% confidence interval CI: 1.07 to 1.15; p < 0.0001) but not in AF (n = 3,034; HR: 1.03 per 10 beats/min; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.08; p = 0.38). Beta-blockers reduced ventricular rate by 12 beats/min in both sinus rhythm and AF. Mortality was lower for patients in sinus rhythm randomized to beta-blockers (HR: 0.73 vs. placebo; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.79; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline heart rate (interaction p = 0.35). Beta-blockers had no effect on mortality in patients with AF (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.12; p = 0.58) at any heart rate (interaction p = 0.48). A lower achieved resting heart rate, irrespective of treatment, was associated with better prognosis only for patients in sinus rhythm (HR: 1.16 per 10 beats/min increase, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.22; p < 0.0001).
Regardless of pre-treatment heart rate, beta-blockers reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. Achieving a lower heart rate is associated with better prognosis, but only for those in sinus rhythm.
Display omitted
Abstract
Aims
Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40–49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We investigated the effect of ...beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
Methods and results
Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21–33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40–49% and 244 ≥ 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF ≥ 50%. For LVEF 40–49%, death occurred in 21/292 7.2% randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 12.4% with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34–1.03. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 4.5% with beta-blockers and 26/283 9.2% with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24–0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF ≥50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis.
Conclusion
Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40–49%.
Warming experiments are increasingly relied on to estimate plant responses to global climate change. For experiments to provide meaningful predictions of future responses, they should reflect the ...empirical record of responses to temperature variability and recent warming, including advances in the timing of flowering and leafing. We compared phenology (the timing of recurring life history events) in observational studies and warming experiments spanning four continents and 1,634 plant species using a common measure of temperature sensitivity (change in days per degree Celsius). We show that warming experiments underpredict advances in the timing of flowering and leafing by 8.5-fold and 4.0-fold, respectively, compared with long-term observations. For species that were common to both study types, the experimental results did not match the observational data in sign or magnitude. The observational data also showed that species that flower earliest in the spring have the highest temperature sensitivities, but this trend was not reflected in the experimental data. These significant mismatches seem to be unrelated to the study length or to the degree of manipulated warming in experiments. The discrepancy between experiments and observations, however, could arise from complex interactions among multiple drivers in the observational data, or it could arise from remediable artefacts in the experiments that result in lower irradiance and drier soils, thus dampening the phenological responses to manipulated warming. Our results introduce uncertainty into ecosystem models that are informed solely by experiments and suggest that responses to climate change that are predicted using such models should be re-evaluated.
In this review, we explore the concept of ‘double diabetes’, a combination of type 1 diabetes with features of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. After considering whether double diabetes is a ...useful concept, we discuss potential mechanisms of increased insulin resistance in type 1 diabetes before examining the extent to which double diabetes might increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We then go on to consider the proposal that weight gain from intensive insulin regimens may be associated with increased CV risk factors in some patients with type 1 diabetes, and explore the complex relationships between weight gain, insulin resistance, glycaemic control and CV outcome. Important comparisons and contrasts between type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes are highlighted in terms of hepatic fat, fat partitioning and lipid profile, and how these may differ between type 1 diabetic patients with and without double diabetes. In so doing, we hope this work will stimulate much-needed research in this area and an improvement in clinical practice.
Glycaemic control is an inadequate surrogate marker of cardiovascular event reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Clinical trials to date have been unsuccessful in identifying a therapeutic ...approach that addresses the underlying problem in diabetes (glycaemic control) and reduces cardiovascular risk. The potential for some agents to increase the risk of cardiovascular events has led to substantial changes in regulatory requirements for new anti-diabetic therapies. These requirements, while key to ensuring the cardiovascular safety of new agents, fail to emphasize the need to show clinical benefits, such as less visual impairment, less need for dialysis, or fewer cardiovascular events and deaths. Changes in test results such as glycaemic control, serum creatinine, micro-albuminuria, or retinopathy are inadequate surrogates. Regulators should consider the potential advantages of offering extended patent protection in order to encourage companies to conduct long-term trials in diabetes and many other chronic medical conditions. Cooperative efforts among physicians, clinical trialists, regulators, and sponsors are needed to address unresolved issues including re-defining therapeutic targets that are meaningful to patients with diabetes, determining the appropriate length of follow-up for future trials, and considering the ethical and operational challenges of non-inferiority designs.
The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has published a series of guidelines on heart failure (HF) over the last 25 years, most recently in 2016. Given the amount of new information that has become ...available since then, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC recognized the need to review and summarise recent developments in a consensus document. Here we report from the HFA workshop that was held in January 2019 in Frankfurt, Germany. This expert consensus report is neither a guideline update nor a position statement, but rather a summary and consensus view in the form of consensus recommendations. The report describes how these guidance statements are supported by evidence, it makes some practical comments, and it highlights new research areas and how progress might change the clinical management of HF. We have avoided re‐interpretation of information already considered in the 2016 ESC/HFA guidelines.
Specific new recommendations have been made based on the evidence from major trials published since 2016, including sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus, MitraClip for functional mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation ablation in HF, tafamidis in cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis, rivaroxaban in HF, implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators in non‐ischaemic HF, and telemedicine for HF. In addition, new trial evidence from smaller trials and updated meta‐analyses have given us the chance to provide refined recommendations in selected other areas.
Further, new trial evidence is due in many of these areas and others over the next 2 years, in time for the planned 2021 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure.
Summary Background Atrial fibrillation and heart failure often coexist, causing substantial cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. β blockers are indicated in patients with symptomatic heart failure ...with reduced ejection fraction; however, the efficacy of these drugs in patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation is uncertain. We therefore meta-analysed individual-patient data to assess the efficacy of β blockers in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm compared with atrial fibrillation. Methods We extracted individual-patient data from ten randomised controlled trials of the comparison of β blockers versus placebo in heart failure. The presence of sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation was ascertained from the baseline electrocardiograph. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. Outcome data were meta-analysed with an adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression. The study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov , number NCT0083244 , and PROSPERO, number CRD42014010012. Findings 18 254 patients were assessed, and of these 13 946 (76%) had sinus rhythm and 3066 (17%) had atrial fibrillation at baseline. Crude death rates over a mean follow-up of 1·5 years (SD 1·1) were 16% (2237 of 13 945) in patients with sinus rhythm and 21% (633 of 3064) in patients with atrial fibrillation. β-blocker therapy led to a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with sinus rhythm (hazard ratio 0·73, 0·67–0·80; p<0·001), but not in patients with atrial fibrillation (0·97, 0·83–1·14; p=0·73), with a significant p value for interaction of baseline rhythm (p=0·002). The lack of efficacy for the primary outcome was noted in all subgroups of atrial fibrillation, including age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, heart rate, and baseline medical therapy. Interpretation Based on our findings, β blockers should not be used preferentially over other rate-control medications and not regarded as standard therapy to improve prognosis in patients with concomitant heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Funding Menarini Farmaceutica Internazionale (administrative support grant).
Background Conventional composite outcomes in heart failure (HF) trials, for example, time to cardiovascular death or first HF hospitalization, have recognized limitations. We propose an alternative ...outcome, days alive and out of hospital (DAOH), which incorporates mortality and all hospitalizations into a single measure. A refinement, the patient journey, also uses functional status (New York Heart Association NYHA class) measured during follow-up. The CHARM program is used to illustrate the methodology. Methods CHARM randomized 7,599 patients with symptomatic HF to placebo or candesartan, with median follow-up of 38 months. We related DAOH and percent DAOH (ie, percentage of time spent alive and out of hospital) to treatment using linear regression adjusting for follow-up time. Results Mean increase in DAOH for patients on candesartan versus placebo was 24.1 days (95% CI 9.8-38.3 days, P < .001). The corresponding mean increase in percent DAOH was 2.0% (95% CI 0.8%-3.1%, P < .001). These findings were dominated by reduced mortality (23 days) but enhanced by reduced time in hospital (1 day). Percent time spent in hospital because of HF was reduced by 0.10% (95% CI 0.04%-0.14%, P < .001). The patient journey analysis showed that patients in the candesartan group spent more follow-up time in NYHA classes I and II and less in NYHA class IV. Conclusions Days alive and out of hospital, especially percent DAOH, provide a valuable tool for summarizing the overall absolute treatment effect on mortality and morbidity. In future HF trials, percent DAOH can provide a useful alternative perspective on the effects of treatment.
Natriuretic peptide NP; B‐type NP (BNP), N‐terminal proBNP (NT‐proBNP), and midregional proANP (MR‐proANP) concentrations are quantitative plasma biomarkers for the presence and severity of ...haemodynamic cardiac stress and heart failure (HF). End‐diastolic wall stress, intracardiac filling pressures, and intracardiac volumes seem to be the dominant triggers. This paper details the most important indications for NPs and highlights 11 key principles underlying their clinical use shown below.
NPs should always be used in conjunction with all other clinical information.
NPs are reasonable surrogates for intracardiac volumes and filling pressures.
NPs should be measured in all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of HF such as dyspnoea and/or fatigue, as their use facilitates the early diagnosis and risk stratification of HF.
NPs have very high diagnostic accuracy in discriminating HF from other causes of dyspnoea: the higher the NP, the higher the likelihood that dyspnoea is caused by HF.
Optimal NP cut‐off concentrations for the diagnosis of acute HF (very high filling pressures) in patients presenting to the emergency department with acute dyspnoea are higher compared with those used in the diagnosis of chronic HF in patients with dyspnoea on exertion (mild increase in filling pressures at rest).
Obese patients have lower NP concentrations, mandating the use of lower cut‐off concentrations (about 50% lower).
In stable HF patients, but also in patients with other cardiac disorders such as myocardial infarction, valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation or pulmonary embolism, NP concentrations have high prognostic accuracy for death and HF hospitalization.
Screening with NPs for the early detection of relevant cardiac disease including left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with cardiovascular risk factors may help to identify patients at increased risk, therefore allowing targeted preventive measures to prevent HF.
BNP, NT‐proBNP and MR‐proANP have comparable diagnostic and prognostic accuracy.
In patients with shock, NPs cannot be used to identify cause (e.g. cardiogenic vs. septic shock), but remain prognostic.
NPs cannot identify the underlying cause of HF and, therefore, if elevated, must always be used in conjunction with cardiac imaging.
Moderate and moderately severe renal impairment are common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but whether beta-blockers are effective is unclear, leading to underuse of ...life-saving therapy.
This study sought to investigate patient prognosis and the efficacy of beta-blockers according to renal function using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).
Analysis of 16,740 individual patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% from 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials was performed. The authors report all-cause mortality on an intention-to-treat basis, adjusted for baseline covariates and stratified by heart rhythm.
Median eGFR at baseline was 63 (interquartile range: 50 to 77) ml/min/1.73 m2; 4,584 patients (27.4%) had eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 2,286 (13.7%) 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2. Over a median follow-up of 1.3 years, eGFR was independently associated with mortality, with a 12% higher risk of death for every 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 lower eGFR (95% confidence interval CI: 10% to 15%; p < 0.001). In 13,861 patients in sinus rhythm, beta-blockers reduced mortality versus placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.73 for eGFR 45 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86; p < 0.001) and 0.71 for eGFR 30 to 44 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.87; p = 0.001). The authors observed no deterioration in renal function over time in patients with moderate or moderately severe renal impairment, no difference in adverse events comparing beta-blockers with placebo, and higher mortality in patients with worsening renal function on follow-up. Due to exclusion criteria, there were insufficient patients with severe renal dysfunction (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2) to draw conclusions. In 2,879 patients with atrial fibrillation, there was no reduction in mortality with beta-blockers at any level of eGFR.
Patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and sinus rhythm should receive beta-blocker therapy even with moderate or moderately severe renal dysfunction.
Display omitted
PDF
