Abstract 2391: Impact of Therapies for Anemia on Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure in Randomized Clinical Trials

Circulation ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard M Julien ◽  
Preetika Muthukrishnan ◽  
Eldrin F Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Serum Creatinine ◽  
Exercise Capacity ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
The Impact

Anemia is common in heart failure (HF) patients and has been well-established as a risk factor for increased risk of HF hospitalization and mortality. Treatment with erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESA) has increased hemoglobin, but outcomes trials are limited and use of ESA has been controversial given disparate results in other populations. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of ESA and iron on outcomes in HF patients. A systematic review of four databases was conducted in April 2008 (n = 95 unique trials). Analysis inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trial to ESA/iron with clinically defined HF, yielding 10 eligible trials published between 6/01–3/08. Data was independently extracted and cross-checked for accuracy and reliability (2 investigators). A total of 768 subjects (421 treated and 338 controls) are included (Characteristics in Table 1 ). Randomization to ESA produced a significant improvement in exercise capacity 0.39 standard units [95% CI 0.1– 0.6, p = 0.001], a 5.72% [95% CI 1.2–10.3, p = 0.014] increase in left ventricle ejection fraction and a 0.23 mg/dL [95% CI 0.4 – 0.1 p = 0.001] reduction in serum creatinine. There was no difference in all-cause mortality - RR 0.79 [95% CI 0.49, 1.26, p = 0.320]. Trends were noted in reduced hospitalization rates, decreased brain natriuretic peptide, and improved quality of life. Meta-analysis of randomized studies of treatment of anemia in HF patients suggests significant benefit in exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction, and serum creatinine. There does not appear to be excess mortality with ESA/iron treatment. Despite favorable findings, definitive randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the role of this treatment modality in HF management. Table 1. Baseline Patient and Study Characteristics

scholarly journals The continuous heart failure spectrum: moving beyond an ejection fraction classification

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (26) ◽  
pp. 2155-2163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filippos Triposkiadis ◽  
Javed Butler ◽  
Francois M Abboud ◽  
Paul W Armstrong ◽  
Stamatis Adamopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Abstract Randomized clinical trials initially used heart failure (HF) patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to select study populations with high risk to enhance statistical power. However, this use of LVEF in clinical trials has led to oversimplification of the scientific view of a complex syndrome. Descriptive terms such as ‘HFrEF’ (HF with reduced LVEF), ‘HFpEF’ (HF with preserved LVEF), and more recently ‘HFmrEF’ (HF with mid-range LVEF), assigned on arbitrary LVEF cut-off points, have gradually arisen as separate diseases, implying distinct pathophysiologies. In this article, based on pathophysiological reasoning, we challenge the paradigm of classifying HF according to LVEF. Instead, we propose that HF is a heterogeneous syndrome in which disease progression is associated with a dynamic evolution of functional and structural changes leading to unique disease trajectories creating a spectrum of phenotypes with overlapping and distinct characteristics. Moreover, we argue that by recognizing the spectral nature of the disease a novel stratification will arise from new technologies and scientific insights that will shape the design of future trials based on deeper understanding beyond the LVEF construct alone.

Effect of ivabradine in heart failure: a meta-analysis of heart failure patients with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Noémi Tóth ◽  
Alexandra Soós ◽  
Alex Váradi ◽  
Péter Hegyi ◽  
Benedek Tinusz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Performance

In clinical trials of heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ivabradine seemed to be an effective heart rate lowering agent associated with lower risk of cardiovascular death. In contrast, ivabradine failed to improve cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) despite the significant effect on heart rate. This meta-analysis is the first to compare the effects of ivabradine on heart rate and mortality parameters in HFpEF versus HFrEF. We screened three databases: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The outcomes of these studies were mortality, reduction in heart rate, and left ventricular function improvement. We compared the efficacy of ivabradine treatment in HFpEF versus HFrEF. Heart rate analysis of pooled data showed decrease in both HFrEF (–17.646 beats/min) and HFpEF (–11.434 beats/min), and a tendency to have stronger bradycardic effect in HFrEF (p = 0.094) in randomized clinical trials. Left ventricular ejection fraction analysis revealed significant improvement in HFrEF (5.936, 95% CI: [4.199–7.672], p < 0.001) when compared with placebo (p < 0.001). We found that ivabradine significantly improves left ventricular performance in HFrEF, at the same time it exerts a tendency to have improved bradycardic effect in HFrEF. These disparate effects of ivabradine and the higher prevalence of non-cardiac comorbidities in HFpEF may explain the observed beneficial effects in HFrEF and the unchanged outcomes in HFpEF patients after ivabradine treatment.

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of Medical Treatments for Chronic Heart Failure: A Network Meta-Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boyang Xiang ◽  
Zongliang Yu ◽  
Xiang Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor ◽  
Medical Treatments

Background: The medical treatments of chronic heart failure have made remarkable progress in recent years. It is crucial to determine the optimal drug combination based on current evidence.Methods: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted for studies on angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and ivabradine (IVA) between 1987 and 2021. The network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of drug therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Results: Forty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which overall included 68,074 patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%, were identified and included in the network meta-analysis. The efficacies of 13 intervention classes, including monotherapies or combinations of ACEI, ARB, ARNI, BB, MRA, SGLT2i, IVA, and placebo, on hospitalization for HF, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality were compared. Among the 13 included interventions, ARNI+BB+MRA, SGLT2i+ACEI+BB+MRA, and IVA+ACEI+BB+MRA were found to be best in terms of all three outcomes. Compared with placebo, these three drug combinations were associated with significant reductions in the risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for HF.Conclusions: ARNI+BB+MRA, SGLT2i+ACEI+BB+MRA, and IVA+ACEI+BB+MRA were the top three therapies for patients with HFrEF. The increasing use of combinations of conventional and novel drugs contributed to progressive reductions in hospitalization and mortality in patients with HFrEF.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Ischemic versus Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy after Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition Therapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (21) ◽  
pp. 4989
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abumayyaleh ◽  
Christina Pilsinger ◽  
Ibrahim El-Battrawy ◽  
Marvin Kummer ◽  
Jürgen Kuschyk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ischemic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
One Year ◽  
The Impact

Background: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) decreases cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Data regarding the impact of ARNI on the outcome in HFrEF patients according to heart failure etiology are limited. Methods and results: One hundred twenty-one consecutive patients with HFrEF from the years 2016 to 2017 were included at the Medical Centre Mannheim Heidelberg University and treated with ARNI according to the current guidelines. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was numerically improved during the treatment with ARNI in both patient groups, that with ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 61) (ICMP), and that with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 60) (NICMP); p = 0.25. Consistent with this data, the NT-proBNP decreased in both groups, more commonly in the NICMP patient group. In addition, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and creatinine changed before and after the treatment with ARNI in both groups. In a one-year follow-up, the rate of ventricular tachyarrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation) tended to be higher in the ICMP group compared with the NICMP group (ICMP 38.71% vs. NICMP 17.24%; p = 0.07). The rate of one-year all-cause mortality was similar in both groups (ICMP 6.5% vs. NICMP 6.6%; log-rank = 0.9947). Conclusions: This study shows that, although the treatment with ARNI improves the LVEF in ICMP and NICMP patients, the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias remains higher in ICMP patients in comparison with NICMP patients. Renal function is improved in the NICMP group after the treatment. Long-term mortality is similar over a one-year follow-up.

scholarly journals Profile of Hospitalized Hypertensives with Preserved and Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Nigeria

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akinsanya Daniel Olusegun-Joseph ◽  
Kamilu M Karaye ◽  
Adeseye A Akintunde ◽  
Bolanle O Okunowo ◽  
Oladimeji G Opadijo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Hypertensive Patients ◽  
The Impact

Introduction The impact of preserved and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been well studied in heart failure, but not in hypertension. We aimed to highlight the prevalence, clinical characteristics, comorbidities and outcomes of hospitalized hypertensives with preserved and reduced LVEF from three teaching hospitals in Nigeria. Methods: This is a retrospective study of hypertensives admitted in 2013 in three teaching hospitals in Lagos, Kano and Ogbomosho, who had echocardiography done while on admission. Medical records and echocardiography parameters of the patients were retrieved and analyzed. Results: 54 admitted hypertensive patients who had echocardiography were recruited, of which 30 (55.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (RLVEF), defined as ejection fraction <50%; while 24 (44.4%) had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (PLVEF). There were 37(61.5%) females and 17 (31.5%) males. Of the male patients 64.7% had RLVEF, while 35.3% had PLVEF. 19(51.4%) of females had RLVEF, while 48.6% had PLVEF. Mean age of patients with PLVEF was 58.83±12.09 vs 54.83± 18.78 of RLVEF; p-0.19. Commonest comorbidity was Heart failure (HF) followed by stroke (found among 59.3% and 27.8% of patients respectively). RLVEF was significantly commoner than PLVEF in HF patients (68.8% vs 31.3%; p- 0.019); no significant difference in stroke patients (46.7% vs 53.3%; p-0.44). Mortality occurred in 1 (1.85%) patient who had RLVEF.         Conclusion: RLVEF was more common than PLVEF among admitted hypertensive patients; they also have more comorbidities. In-hospital mortality is, however, very low in both groups.

Comparison of the prognosis and outcome of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan according to age

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abumayyaleh ◽  
Ibrahim El-Battrawy ◽  
Marvin Kummer ◽  
Christina Pilsinger ◽  
Katherine Sattler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Impact

The treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients suffering from chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction increases left ventricular ejection fraction and decreases the risk of sudden cardiac death. We conducted a retrospective analysis regarding the impact of age differences on the treatment outcome of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Patients were defined as adults if ≤65 years (n = 51) and older if >65 years of age (n = 76). The incidence of ventricular arrhythmias at 1-year follow-up was comparable in both groups (30.8 vs 26.5%; p = 0.71). The mortality rate in adult patients is significantly lower as compared with older patients (2 vs 14.5%; log-rank = 0.04). Older patients may suffer remarkably more side effects than adult patients (21.1 vs 11.8%; p = 0.03).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document