Carvedilol Improves Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) as Well as Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF)

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. S171-S172
Author(s):  
Naoko Kato ◽  
Koichiro Kinugawa ◽  
Keiko Kazuma ◽  
Atsushi Yao ◽  
Masaru Hatano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction

scholarly journals Therapeutic implications of statins in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a review of current literature

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Chol Techorueangwiwat ◽  
Chanavuth Kanitsoraphan ◽  
Panupong Hansrivijit
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Meta Analyses

Statins are one of the standard treatments to prevent cardiovascular events such as coronary artery disease and heart failure (HF). However, data on the use of statins to improve clinical outcomes in patients with established HF remains controversial. We summarized available clinical studies which investigated the effects of statins on clinical outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Statins possess many pleiotropic effects in addition to lipid-lowering properties that positively affect the pathophysiology of HF. In HFrEF, data from two large randomized placebo-controlled trials did not show benefits of statins on mortality of patients with HFrEF. However, more recent prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses have shown decreased risk of mortality as well as cardiovascular hospitalization with statins treatment. In HFpEF, most prospective and retrospective cohort studies as well as meta analyses have consistently reported positive effects of statins, including reducing mortality and improving other clinical outcomes. Current evidence also suggests better outcomes with lipophilic statins in patients with HF. In summary, statins might be effective in improving survival and other clinical outcomes in patients with HF, especially for patients with HFpEF. Lipophilic statins might also be more beneficial for HF patients. Based on current evidence, statins did not cause harm and should be continued in HF patients who are already taking the medication. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the benefits of statins in HF patients.

P6356Comparisons of clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with and without atrial fibrillation: results from a multicenter PURSUIT-HFpEF registry

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Masuda ◽  
T Kanda ◽  
M Asai ◽  
T Mano ◽  
T Yamada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Heart Failure Patients ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

Abstract Background The presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been demonstrated to be associated with poor clinical outcomes in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction. Objective This study aimed to elucidate the impact of the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the clinical characteristics, therapeutics, and outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods PURSUIT-HFpEF is a multicenter prospective observational study including patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction of >50%. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or severe valvular disease were excluded. Results Of 486 HFpEF patients (age, 80.8±9.0 years old; male, 47%) from 24 cardiovascular centers, 199 (41%) had AF on admission. Patients with AF had lower systolic blood pressures (142±27 vs. 155±35mmHg, p<0.0001) and higher heart rates (91±29 vs. 82±26bpm, p<0.0001) than those without. There was no difference in the usage of inotropes or mechanical ventilation between the 2 groups. A higher quality of life score (EQ5D, 0.72±0.27 vs. 0.63±0.30, p=0.002) was observed at discharge in patients with than without AF. In addition, AF patients tended to demonstrate lower in-hospital mortality rates (0.5% vs. 2.4%, p=0.09) and shorter hospital stays (20.3±12.1 vs. 22.6±18.4 days, p=0.09) than those without. During a mean follow up of 360±111 days, mortality (14.1% vs. 15.3) and heart failure re-hospitalization rates (13.1% vs. 13.9%) were comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusion In contrast to heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction, AF on admission was not associated with poor long-term clinical outcomes among HFpEF patients. Several in-hospital outcomes were better in patients with AF than in those without. Acknowledgement/Funding None

Association of Body Mass Index With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan

2021 ◽  
pp. 107424842110244
Author(s):  
Kazuhiko Kido ◽  
Christopher Bianco ◽  
Marco Caccamo ◽  
Wei Fang ◽  
George Sokos
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Normal Weight ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Propensity Score Weighting ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

Background: Only limited data are available that address the association between body mass index (BMI) and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who are receiving sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: We performed a retrospective multi-center cohort study in which we compared 3 body mass index groups (normal, overweight and obese groups) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving sacubitril/valsartan. The follow-up period was at least 1 year. Propensity score weighting was performed. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality. Results: Of the 721 patients in the original cohort, propensity score weighting generated a cohort of 540 patients in 3 groups: normal weight (n = 78), overweight (n = 181), and obese (n = 281). All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between 3 groups after propensity score weighting. Among our results, we found no significant differences in hospitalization for heart failure (normal weight versus overweight: average hazard ratio [AHR] 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76-2.20, P = 0.35; normal weight versus obese: AHR 1.04, 95% CI = 0.63-1.70, P = 0.88; overweight versus obese groups: AHR 0.81, 95% CI = 0.54-1.20, P = 0.29) or all-cause mortality (normal weight versus overweight: AHR 0.99, 95% CI = 0.59-1.67, P = 0.97; normal weight versus obese: AHR 0.87, 95% CI = 0.53-1.42, P = 0.57; overweight versus obese: AHR 0.87, 95% CI = 0.58-1.32, P = 0.52). Conclusion: We identified no significant associations between BMI and clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan. A large-scale study should be performed to verify these results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document