Effect of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Individuals With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (9) ◽  
pp. 618-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bárbara Pereira Fernandes ◽  
Lino Sergio Rocha Conceição ◽  
Paulo Ricardo Saquete Martins-Filho ◽  
Douglas Rafanelle Moura de Santana Motta ◽  
Vitor Oliveira Carvalho
2015 ◽  
Vol 200 ◽  
pp. 15-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annalisa Capuano ◽  
Cristina Scavone ◽  
Cristiana Vitale ◽  
Liberata Sportiello ◽  
Francesco Rossi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Mares ◽  
Tayana Rodriguez ◽  
Abhizith Deoker ◽  
Angelica Lehker ◽  
Debabrata Mukherjee

Background: Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally. By end of this decade, ~8 million Americans will have heart failure, with an expenditure of $69.8 billion. Objective: In this narrative review, we evaluate the benefits, potential risks, and role of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists (MRAs) in the management of both Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF). Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature review to assess the available evidence on the role of MRAs in heart failure using the online databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google Scholar). Results: Clinical evidence shows that MRAs, such as spironolactone and eplerenone, reduce mortality and readmissions for patients with HFrEF compared with placebo. Furthermore, one trial has reported that MRAs minimize heart failure hospitalization in patients with HFpEF. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines strongly recommend using MRA in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with Class II-IV symptoms, estimated glomerular filtration rate >30 ml/min/1.73 m2, and absence of hyperkalemia. Despite this, MRAs are underutilized in the management of heart failure. Conclusions: MRAs improve outcomes in patients with both HFpEF and HFrEF but remain underutilized.


Author(s):  
Matthew S Durstenfeld ◽  
Stuart D Katz ◽  
Hannah Park ◽  
Saul Blecker

Background: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are an important component of guideline-directed therapy for patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but are underutilized in clinical practice. Hospitalization is a quality-improvement opportunity to increase appropriate use of MRAs, particularly as this therapy is associated with reduced readmission following both hospitalizations with a principal and secondary diagnosis of heart failure. We studied MRA prescription for heart failure patients before and after hospitalization. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults hospitalized within an academic tertiary-care hospital system in 2013-2015 with a principal or secondary discharge diagnosis of heart failure. We included patients with ejection fraction ≤35%, systolic blood pressure ≥100 mm Hg, estimated glomerular filtration rate >30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , and potassium <5.0 mEq/L. We recorded MRA prescription before and after hospitalization. We used McNemar’s test to compare MRA prescription before and after hospitalization, with pre-specified principal and secondary diagnosis subgroups. We used the chi-square test to compare prescriptions between groups. Results: Among 1176 hospitalizations of patients who met the inclusion criteria, the mean age was 72.7±13.4 years and 366 (31%) were female. Of these patients, 303 (25.8%) were prescribed MRAs prior to hospitalization and 331 (28.2%) were prescribed them at discharge, a small but statistically significant increase (p=0.02). Among patients previously prescribed MRAs, 241 (79.5%) continued them at discharge. Among 873 patients not previously prescribed MRAs, 90 (10.3%) had MRAs initiated at discharge. Among 347 patients with a principal diagnosis of heart failure, 95 had MRAs continued, 27 had MRAs discontinued, and 39 had MRAs initiated, a non-significant increase of 12 patients (+3.6%, p=0.14). Among 829 patients with a secondary diagnosis, 146 had MRAs continued, 35 had MRAs discontinued, and 51 had MRAs initiated, a non-significant increase of 16 patients (+1.9%, p=0.08). More patients with a principal diagnosis received MRAs at discharge: 134/347 (38.6%) compared to 197/829 (23.7%) patients discharged with a secondary diagnosis of HFrEF, p<0.0001; similarly, patients with a principal diagnosis of HFrEF had higher rates of MRA initiation at discharge: 39/225 (17.3%) versus 51/648 (7.9%), p=0.0004. Conclusions: Over 70% of hospitalized HFrEF patients did not receive MRAs before or after hospitalization. Although more patients with a principal diagnosis than secondary diagnosis of heart failure received MRAs and had them initiated, over 80% of eligible patients not on MRAs were not initiated on them at discharge. Hospitalization remains an opportunity to identify patients indicated for MRAs and initiate guideline-directed heart failure pharmacotherapy.


2010 ◽  
pp. 2728-2728
Author(s):  
John G.F Cleland ◽  
Andrew L Clark

Heart failure is a common clinical syndrome, often presenting with breathlessness, fatigue and peripheral oedema. It is predominantly a disease of older people. The prevalence is increasing, exceeding 2% of the adult population in developed countries. The pathophysiology of heart failure is complex. A common feature is salt and water retention, possibly triggered by a relative fall in renal perfusion pressure. Common aetiologies include ischaemic heart disease, hypertension, and valvular heart disease. The early diagnosis of heart failure relies on a low threshold of suspicion and screening of people at risk before the onset of obvious symptoms or signs. In patients with suspected heart failure, routine investigation with electrocardiography and blood tests for urea and electrolytes, haemoglobin and BNP/NT-proBNP are recommended. Low plasma concentrations of BNP/NT-proBNP exclude most forms of heart failure. Intermediate or high concentrations should prompt referral for echocardiography to identify possible causes of heart failure and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Patients can be classified as reduced (<40%) LVEF (HFrEF), normal (>50%) LVEF (HFnEF), or borderline (40–50%) LVEF (HFbEF). Currently HFbEF and HFnEF are managed similarly by current guidelines. Treatable causes for heart failure (e.g. valvular disease, tachyarrhythmias, thyrotoxicosis, anaemia or hypertension) should be identified and corrected. Patients with heart failure will generally benefit from lifestyle advice (diet, exercise, vaccination). Pharmacological therapy is given to improve symptoms and prognosis. Diuretic therapy is the mainstay for control of congestion and symptoms; it may be life-saving for patients with acute heart failure but its effect on long-term prognosis is unknown. For patients with HFrEF, either angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or, more recently, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, combined with β‎-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (triple therapy) provide both symptomatic and prognostic benefit. Ivabridine may be added for those in sinus rhythm where the heart rate remains above 70 bpm. Whether digoxin still has a role in contemporary management is uncertain. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is appropriate for symptomatic patients with HFrEF if they are in sinus rhythm and have a broad QRS (>140 ms). Implantable defibrillators provide additional prognostic benefit in selected patients with an ejection fraction below 35%. For patients with HFnEF, treatments directed at comorbid conditions (e.g. hypertension, atrial fibrillation) and congestion (e.g. diuretics and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) are appropriate but there is no robust evidence that any treatment can improve prognosis. Heart transplantation or assist devices may be options for highly selected patients with endstage heart failure; many others may benefit from palliative care services. Effective management of chronic heart failure requires a coordinated multidisciplinary team, including heart failure nurse specialists, primary care physicians, and cardiologists. New treatments have improved the prognosis of heart failure substantially over the past two decades. The annual mortality is now probably less than 5% for patients with HFrEF receiving good contemporary care whose symptoms are stable and controlled. For patients with recurrent or recalcitrant congestion requiring admission to hospital, the prognosis is much worse. In-patient mortality is about 5% for those aged less than 75 years but threefold higher for older patients; mortality in the year after discharge ranges from 20% to 40% depending on age.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document