scholarly journals Myocardial strain to identify benefit from beta‐blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chan Soon Park ◽  
Jin Joo Park ◽  
In‐Chang Hwang ◽  
Jun‐Bean Park ◽  
Jae‐Hyeong Park ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Edouard L Fu ◽  
Alicia Uijl ◽  
Friedo W Dekker ◽  
Lars H Lund ◽  
Gianluigi Savarese ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aims Beta-blockers reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) were underrepresented in landmark trials. We evaluated if beta-blockers are associated with improved survival in patients with HFrEF and advanced CKD. Method We identified 3906 persons with an ejection fraction <40% and advanced CKD (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73m2) enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry during 2001-2016. The associations between beta-blocker use, 5-year all-cause mortality, and the composite of time to cardiovascular (CV) mortality/first HF hospitalization were assessed by multivariable Cox regression. Analyses were adjusted for 36 variables, including demographics, laboratory measures, comorbidities, medication use, medical procedures, and socioeconomic status. To assess consistency, the same analyses were performed in a positive control cohort of 12,673 patients with moderate CKD (eGFR <60-30 mL/min/1.73m2). Results The majority (89%) of individuals with HFrEF and advanced CKD received treatment with beta-blockers. Median (IQR) age was 81 (74-86) years, 36% were women and median eGFR was 26 (20-28) mL/min/173m2. During 5 years of follow-up, 2086 (53.4%) individuals had a subsequent HF hospitalization, and 2954 (75.6%) individuals died, of which 2089 (70.1%) due to cardiovascular causes. Beta-blocker use was associated with a significant reduction in 5-year all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.96)] and CV mortality/HF hospitalization (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98). The magnitude of the associations between beta-blocker use and outcomes was similar to that observed for HFrEF patients with mild/moderate CKD, with adjusted HRs for all-cause mortality and CV mortality/HF hospitalization of 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.91) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.96), respectively. Conclusion Despite lack of trial evidence, the use of beta-blockers in patients with HFrEF and advanced CKD was high in routine Swedish care, and was independently associated with reduced mortality to the same degree as HFrEF with moderate CKD.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 1803
Author(s):  
Gad Cotter ◽  
Beth A. Davison ◽  
Alexandre Mebazaa ◽  
Koji Takagi ◽  
Maria Novosadova ◽  
...  

The armamentarium of therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) has increase substantially with the introduction of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNi), sodium glucose cotransport inhibitors (SGLTis), ivabradine, and Vericinguat, bringing to seven the number of potential therapies for HFREF. In the current review we highlight available data on the different classes of medications. Renin angiotensin blockers (RAASbs) and beta blockers (BBs) were shown to have very substantial effects in patients with HFREF. These medications are generic and hence relatively inexpensive. They have a 30-year track record of relatively benign short- and long-term safety profiles and should remain the cornerstone of therapy for patients with HFREF. ARNis are effective in further reducing adverse effects and should replace RAASbs in symptomatic HFREF patients, despite their relatively high prices. The addition of SGLTis (congested patients), Ivabradine (tachycardic patients), and Vericinguat (hypertensive patients) should be considered in patients who remain symptomatic despite optimal doses of RAASbs/ARNis, MRAs, and BBs. Comparative studies examining the efficacy of these medications, and strategies and prioritizing some over others should be considered as, given their similar side effects on heart rate, blood pressure, and renal function, it is highly unlikely that all can be given to the same patient.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Tanacli ◽  
D Hashemi ◽  
T Lapinskas ◽  
H.-D Duengen ◽  
F Edelmann ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Muscular architecture of the heart is three dimensionally complex and contractility parameters vary widely. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) feature tracking is a largely available and facile method to assess myocardial strain at different layers of the myocardium. Purpose Assessing and compare the myocardial longitudinal (GLS) and circumferential strain (GCS) at three distinct layers of the myocardium in patients with heart failure (HF). Methods 59 patients with a clinical diagnosis of HF who were post-hoc subdivided according to the measured EF and echo assessment of diastolic impairment into 3 groups, following ESC guidelines, were included: (1) patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) where EF >50% and diastolic dysfunction (E/e' ratio) is present and plasma levels of natriuretic peptides are elevated, (2) patients with HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), where EF = 40–49% and similar additional criterias are present, (3) patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) where EF <40%. Exclusion criteria: valvulopathy, arrhythmias, insufficient acquisition and artefacts. Results Strain values are the highest in the Endo− and progressively lower in the Myo− and Epi− layers with a gradient present in all groups but decreasing in HFmEF and further in HFrEF. GLS decrease with the severity of the disease in all 3 layers Normal > HFpEF > HFmrEF > HFrEF (Endo−: −23.0±3.5 vs −20.0±3.3 vs −16.4±2.2 vs −11.0±3.2, p<0.001, Myo−: −20.7±2.4 vs −17.5.0±2.6 vs −14.5±2.1 vs −9.6±2.7, p<0.001, Epi−: −15.7±1.9 vs −12.2±2.1 vs −10.6±2.3 vs −7.7±2.3, p<0.001) (Figure A), GCS is not different between the Normal and HFpEF (Endo−: −34.5±6.2 vs −33.9±5.7, p=0.51; Myo−: −21.9±3.8 vs −21.3±2.2, p=0.39; Epi−: −11.4±2.0 vs −10.9±2.3, p=0.54) but markedly lower in systolic HF groups Normal > HFmrEF > HFrEF (Endo−: −34.5±6.2 vs −20.0±4.2 vs −12.3±4.2, p<0.001; Myo−: −21.9±3.8 vs −13.0±3.4 vs −8.0±2.7, p<0.001; Epi−: −11.4±2.0 vs −7.9±2.3 vs −4.5±1.9) (Figure B). ROC analysis renders Endo− GCS (AUC=0.89) and respectively Endo− GLS (AUC=0.74) as optimal to detect contractile impairment in HF with Youden's thresholds of −20.2 for Endo− GLS and, respectively, −28.1 for Endo− GCS. Endo− GCS is not different between control and HFpEF and GLS impairment is present only inconstantly in HFpEF. Conclusions Feature tracking CMR successfully assess layer-specific myocardial strain and emerges as a powerful tool in functional stratification of patients with HF. Strain amplitude varies consistently throughout the myocardium and its quantification warrants careful standardization. Sub-endocardial strain values of strain are comparatively the highest and show most predictive power to detect contractile impairment. Underlying systolic impairment is present only in a subgroup of patients with HFpEF and only GLS and not the GCS is for this purpose a useful diagnostic tool.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document