scholarly journals P0154BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE AND MORTALITY RISK: A POPULATION-BASED PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios Douros ◽  
Alice Schneider ◽  
Dörte Huscher ◽  
Natalie Ebert ◽  
Nina Mielke ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aims Current guidelines on the management of heart failure (HF) recommend control of blood pressure (BP) in elderly patients. However, the exact treatment goals in this vulnerable population are unclear. Thus, our population-based prospective cohort study aimed to assess whether BP values <140/90 mmHg are associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular (CV) death and all-cause mortality in HF patients ≥70 years. Method The study included participants of the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), all ≥70 years, who were treated with antihypertensive drugs and had a diagnosis of HF (ICD-10 codes: I11.0, I13.0, I13.2, I50.x) at baseline. The study period was from 2009 to 2017. Demographics, lifestyle factors, medications, and comorbidities were assessed in face-to-face interviews and from linked administrative healthcare data. Outcomes were adjudicated using death certificates and hospital discharge notes. Cox proportional hazards models yielded crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of CV death and all-cause mortality associated with normalized BP (systolic BP <140 mmHg and diastolic BP <90 mmHg) compared with non-normalized BP (systolic BP ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg) in patients with HF. In sensitivity analyses we restricted to high-risk HF patients (≥80 years or with previous CV events). We also repeated the analyses in patients without HF to assess a potential effect modification. Results Among 1623 BIS participants treated with antihypertensive drugs at baseline, 544 (33.5%) had a diagnosis of HF. Of those, 255 (46.9%) showed normalized BP and 289 (53.1%) had non-normalized values. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 82.8 (6.8) years (45.4% female). Selected patient characteristics are shown in the Table. Median (interquartile range) duration of follow-up was 6.7 (4.1-7.3) years. Compared with non-normalized BP, normalized BP was associated with a numerically increased risk of CV death (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.90-2.17) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.96-1.71) in patients with HF. The associations were more pronounced or reached statistical significance when restricting to HF patients ≥80 years (CV death: HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.94-2.53 / all-cause mortality: HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.11-2.18) or HF patients with previous CV events (CV death: HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.29 / all-cause mortality: HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.85-2.07) (Figure). The effect estimates in patients without HF were comparable to those with HF (CV death: HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.78-1.78; p for interaction, 0.695 / all-cause mortality: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.93-1.54; p for interaction, 0.604). Conclusion Our study suggests that normalized BP does not decrease the risk of CV death or all-cause mortality in elderly patients with HF and it could even increase the risk especially in high-risk subgroups. Thus, individualized benefit-risk assessment is required for the pharmacotherapy of HF in this vulnerable population.

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Adachi ◽  
N Iritani ◽  
K Kamiya ◽  
K Iwatsu ◽  
K Kamisaka ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a comprehensive disease management program highly recommended by heart failure (HF) guidelines. However, the prognostic effects of outpatient CR are inconsistent among recent meta-analyses which enrolled mainly younger HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). With an aging population, an increased importance of CR has been put on patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Purpose This study aimed to examine the prognostic effects of regularly undergoing CR for 6 months after discharge analysing nationwide cohort data including older population with HFrEF and HFpEF. Methods We analysed 2876 patients who hospitalised for acute HF or worsening chronic HF and capable of walking at discharge in the multicentre prospective cohort study. Frequency of outpatient CR participation of each patient was collected using medical records. We assessed CR frequency within 6 months of discharge since most collaborating hospitals conducted final follow-up examinations at 6 months. The CR group was defined as patients who underwent outpatient CR once or more per week for 6 months after discharge. The main study endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and HF rehospitalisation during a 2-year follow-up. We performed a propensity score-matched analysis to compare survival rates between the CR and non-CR groups. Propensity scores for each patient were produced by a logistic regression analysis with the CR group as the dependent variable and 33 potential confounders as independent variables. To evaluate events beyond 6 months, we also conducted landmark analyses at 6 months. Results Of the 2876 enrolled patients, 313 underwent CR for 6 months. After propensity score matching using confounding factors, 626 patients (313 pairs) were included in the survival analysis (median age: 74 years, men: 59.6%, median left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]: 42%). During 1006.1 person-years of follow-up, 137 patients were rehospitalised due to HF exacerbation, and 50 patients died in the matched cohort. In Cox proportional hazards model (Figure 1), CR was associated with a reduced risk of composite outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–0.91), all-cause mortality (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.30–0.95), and HF rehospitalisation (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47–0.92). A subgroup analysis showed similar CR effects in patients with HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%) and HFrEF (LVEF <40%). However, in a landmark analysis, CR did not reduce the adverse outcomes beyond 6 months after discharge (Figure 2). Conclusions The findings of this study demonstrate the needs that CR should become a standard treatment for HF regardless of HF type and the necessity of periodical follow-up after completing CR program to maintain its prognostic effects. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Figure 1. Prognostic effects of CR Figure 2. Landmark analysis


2019 ◽  
Vol 126 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agneta Åkesson ◽  
Carolina Donat-Vargas ◽  
Marika Berglund ◽  
Anders Glynn ◽  
Alicja Wolk ◽  
...  

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. e1000314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz F. Sinner ◽  
Wibke Reinhard ◽  
Martina Müller ◽  
Britt-Maria Beckmann ◽  
Eimo Martens ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. e007366-e007366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Borne ◽  
L. Barregard ◽  
M. Persson ◽  
B. Hedblad ◽  
B. Fagerberg ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document