Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Update in the Management of Heart Failure –Evidence Based Care in 2021
Freny Vaghaiwalla Mody, MD Director, Heart Failure and Preventive Cardiology Program
Division of Cardiology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. Professor of Medicine
David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
Outline Definition Epidemiology &Prognosis Classification Pathophysiology Diagnosis Prevention Treatment
“Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome that can result from any structural
or functional cardiac disorder that impairs the ability of the ventricle to fill with or eject blood.” ( reduced stroke volume is common
pathophysiology for both systolic and diastolic HF).
ACC/AHA Guidelines
DEFINITION OF HEART FAILURE
Outline
Definition Epidemiology & Prognosis Classification Pathophysiology Diagnosis Prevention Treatment
Heart Failure (HF) statistic in USA 6.5 million Americans > 20 years with HF
91M with CV disease (Therefore HF= 7% of all CV disease) 960 K new cases annually
#1 cause of hospitalization for Medicare
8.5 % of Heart disease deaths in USA, (~ 840K deaths/year) 36% of CV deaths in the world.
50% with HF have 5 year survival ( prognosis worse than many cancers) 10-20% with advanced HF have 1 year survival Sudden death in 40% of deaths.
Medical Cost $21B (2012) >> $53B in 2030 Total ( indirect included) $31B >> $70B
**New therapeutic advances not fully embraced** -especially in the Geriatric population!!
AHA ( heart.org) and HFSA (hfsa.org) 2018
Acute Heart Failure Statistics Acute Heart Failure – Definition:
Acute HF symptoms requiring unplanned office visit, ER visit or hospitalization.
Have We Made Progress? The good news:
– In-hospital mortality 5% (↓ 40% in 10 years) – Mean length of stay 5-6 days (↓ 30% in 10 years)
The bad news:
– Readmission rates remain high • 25% within 30 days and 50% within 6-12 months
-- High mortality rates persist 5-10% at 30 days and 20-40% at 6-12 months
Despite Medical Advances, Heart Failure Hospitalization is a Worsening Epidemic
1. NIH.gov, Accessed 2016.
2. Fang J, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008. se.
SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CORONARY DEATHS1
050
100150200250300350400
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN HF HOSPITALIZATIONS2
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-2004
THE PROBLEM: Unless focused, dramatic measures are taken, the clinical and financial burden to society is only going to escalate.
Deaths/100,000 Population Number of HF Hospitalizations with HF as Primary or Secondary Diagnosis,
by 5-year Time Period
*Study projections assumes HF prevalence remains constant and continuation of current hospitalization practices
Heart Failure is a Growing Economic Burden
HOSPITALIZATIONS AND READMISSIONS COSTS
> 1,100,000hospitalizations
for HF1
> 3,000,000hospitalizations include HF as a contributor.2
Total medical costs for HF are projected to
increase to $70B
by 2030, a 2x increase from 2013.*
50% of the costs are
attributed to hospitalization.6~5 days
average length of hospital stay3
~25%all-cause readmission within 30 days; ~50% within 6 months.4,5
se.
Despite advances in medical therapies to treat heart failure, the hospitalization rate has not changed significantly from 2000. As a result, heart failure continues to be a MAJOR DRIVER OF OVERALL HEALTH CARE COSTS.
UNITED STATES
1. CDC NCHS National Hospital Discharge Survey, 2000-10.
2. Blekcer et al. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013.
3. Yancy et al. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2006.
4. Wxler DJ, et al. Am Heart J, 2001.5. Krumholz HM, et al. Circ Cardiovas Qual Outcomes, 2009.
6. Yancy CW, et al. Circulation, 2013.
Decompensation Events Requiring More Intensive Therapy are Associated with Higher Mortality Risk
Okumura N, et al. Circulation, 2016;133:2254-2262. .
No Event
Intensification of Therapy
Emergency Department Visit
Heart Failure Hospitalization
All decompensation events were associated with a statistically significant increase in mortality risk.
All Cause Death
Kaplan-Meier cumulative mortality curve all-cause mortality after each subsequent hospitalization for HF.
Long-term Mortality Risk Increases with Multiple Hospitalizations
Setoguchi S, Stevenson LW, Schneeweiss S, Am Heart J, 2007;154:260-264. .
1st admission(n = 14,374)
2nd admission(n = 3,358)
3rd admission(n = 1,123)
4th admission(n = 417)
Heart Failure hospitalization in USA by age 1970-2005.
CDC/NCHS AHA: Heart , Stroke and Statistics Update
Outline Definition Epidemiology & Progosis Classification Pathophysiology Diagnosis Prevention Treatment
New Classification of Heart Failure
Marked symptoms at rest despite maximal medical therapy (eg, those who are recurrently hospitalized or cannot be safely discharged from the hospital without specialized interventions)
Refractory end-stage HFD
Known structural heart disease Shortness of breath and fatigue Reduced exercise tolerance
Symptomatic HFC
Previous MI LV systolic dysfunction Asymptomatic valvular disease
Asymptomatic HFB
Hypertension CAD Diabetes mellitus Family history of cardiomyopathy
High risk for developing heart failure (HF)A
Patient DescriptionStage
Hunt SA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:2101–2113.
- Based on progressive HF pathophysiology and disease process -- These complement, but do not replace functional classes
New Definition and Classification of HF by LVEF
HFrEF – reduced LVEF < 40%
HF mrEF –mildly reduced/mid-range LVEF 41-49%
HFpEF– preserved LVEF > 50%
HFimpEF– improved LVEF defined as < 40% at baseline and with > 10-point increase and improved LVEF > 40%
Management of AHF and Chronic HFGO STEPWISE AND SYSTEMATICALLY !!!
Acute or Chronic LV dysfunction?
Exclude reversable etiologies if acute LV dysfunction ( ischemia, tachycardia mediated, aortic stenosis, etc. )
Congested or not congested ?
Identify precipitating causes of decompensation in WHF or chronic HF exacerbation.
Decongestion (diuretics/ mechanical) • Diuretics ( loop, thiazides, MRA (DCT), vasopressin inhibitor tolvaptan• Ultrafiltration (UNLOAD trial)
GDMT--• Betablockers, • ACEI/ARB or Saccubutril/valsartan (ARNI)• Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA)
• Spironolactone, eplernone• Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors
• Dapagliflozin, empagliflozin• Vericuagat
NYHA ClassificationBased on functional exercise capacity
Class I : No limitation of physical activity or only with severe exertion.
Class II : Slight limitation of physical activity
Class III: Marked limitation of activity/ or symptoms with ADLs
Class IV: Symptoms at rest
Outline Definition Epidemiology &Prognosis Classification Pathophysiology Diagnosis Prevention Treatment
Heart failure: a changing paradigm
Normal heart Failing heart
Development and Regression of End-stage Dilated Cardiomyopathy
RAAS, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system; SNS, sympathetic nervous system; RAS, renin-angiotensin system.
↓ Systolic function↑ LV volumes↑ LV massShape→ rounder
RAS and SNS Blockade
Injury Leading to RAAS and SNS Activation
Hall et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:1154-1161.
Time Course of Changesin Ventricular Function
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
BSLN Day 1 1M 3M BSLN Day 1 1M 3M
Eje
ctio
nFr
actio
n P<0.0001
P<0.05
P=0.013 for metoprolol vs standard therapy
Standard Therapy Metoprolol
Outline Definition Epidemiology Classification Pathophysiology Prognosis Diagnosis Prevention Treatment
Symptoms Left Heart Failure = fluid buildup in lungs
Orthopnea (shortness of breath lying flat) Dyspnea on exertion
Right Heart Failure = fluid buildup in body Epigastric fullness (stomach bloating) Dyspnea or discomfort tying shoes Anorexia (loss of appetite) Early satiety (can only eat small meals)
Low Output Symptoms Fatigue and weakness Daytime somnolence (sleepy all the time) Nocturnal sleep disorder
THE GOAL:Predict gradual decompensation leading to acute decompensation
Current HF Management Tools Designed to Predict Decompensation
FACE-TO-FACE EVALUATION PARAMETER SURROGATE FOR:
Symptoms (PND, orthopnea, etc.) LVEDP, RAP
JVP RAP
HJR RAP
S3 LVEDP
Rales LVEDP
Daily weight Body volume (LVEDP, RAP)
BNP and NT-proBNP PCWP
Intrathoracicimpedance
PCWP
Heart rate variability Cardiac autonomic control
.
Weight Change is Not a Reliable Indicator of Rising Pressure or Impending Decompensation
1. Data based on Zile MR, et al. Circulation, 2008. Presented at FDA Advisory Panel, October 9, 2013.
2. Lewin J, et al. Eur J HF, 2005.
3. Abraham WT, et al. Cong Heart Failure, 2011.
WEIGHT GAIN SENSITIVITY SPECIFICITY
2 kg weight gain over 48-72 hrs2 9% 97%
2% weight gain over 48-72 hrs2 17% 94%
3 lbs in 1 day or 5 lbs in 3 days3 22.5% -
NO CORRELATION – Daily weights do not correlate with filling pressures
Clinical Examinations are not Reliable for Assessing Rising Pressure – Poor Sensitivity and Specificity
VARIABLE ESTIMATE OF SENSITIVITY (%) SPECIFICITY (%) PPV (%) NPV (%)
JVPEDEMA
RAP4810
7894
6055
6960
PULSE PRESS Cardiac Index 27 69 52 44
S3DYSPNEAORTHOPNEAPNDRALES
PCWP365013
817390
696760
545748
Table adapted from Capomolla S, et al. Eur J Heart Failure, 2005..
N = 366
Clinical examination has LIMITED RELIABILITY in assessing filling pressures.
Absence of Specific Signs, Symptoms, and CXR Findings Doesn’t Exclude High PCWP
Ability to predict PCWP >18–20 mm Hg in pts. with severe HF
Sens. Spec. PPV NPV
Dyspnea on exertion 66 52 45 27Orthopnea 66 47 61 37Pedal Edema 46 73 79 46JVD 70 79 85 62S3 73 42 66 44CXR
Cardiomegaly 97 10 61 ---Redistribution 60 68 75 52Interstitial edema 60 73 78 53Pleural effusion 43 79 76 47
Adapted from: Chakko S, et al. Am J Med. 1991;90:353.Adapted from: Butman SM, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22:968.
BNP Levels of Patients Diagnosed Without CHF, With Baseline Left Ventricular Dysfunction, and
With CHFM
ean
BN
P C
once
ntra
tion
(pg/
ml)
AsymptomaticCompensated LV
Dysfunction(n=14)
38 ± 4141 ± 31
1076 ± 138
No CHF(n=139)
Decompensated CHF
(n=97)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Maisel A. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37(2):379-85
P < 0.001
Plasma BNP in some cardiovascular diseases
Hypertension +Tachycardias ( eg Afib with RVR) +Isolated diastolic dysfunction ++Mitral stenosis ++Aortic stenosis ++Dialysis-dependent Renal Failure +++Dilated cardiomyopathy ++++Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy ++++Acute Myocardial Infarction ++++
Large variation in “normal” or optimal level Obesity Age Gender
Confounders of Naturietic Peptide interpretation
Higher NP levels than expected Lower NP levels than expected
Increasing age* Obesity
ACS* Flash pulmonary edema
Renal insufficiency Pericarditis/Tamponade
RV dysfunction* Genetic polymorphisms
Atrial fibrillation “Burned-out” Cardiomyopathy
Pulmonary hypertension*
Pulmonary embolism*
Anemia/high output states*
Sepsis
Mitral Regurgiation*
* Delineates likely elevation from Ventricular stretch
BNP and Heart FailureLimitations
20% of patients with chronic HF reported to have BNP levels <100 pg/ml.
BNP may be elevated in AA patients, Renal failure, ACS, LV diastolic dysfunction, Aortic stenosis, COPD, PPH, PE .
BNP may be reduced in obese patients.
Biomarkers willMake bad doctors worse and good doctors better!
Etiology of Heart Failureo Coronary artery disease-
Chronic ischemia “Hibernating myocardium”**
o Hypertensiono Idiopathic cardiomyopathyo Myocarditis**o Valvular heart disease-
Aortic Stenosis**o Hereditaryo Other: toxic (Alcohol, adriamycin) , o metabolic -thyroid**o Tachycardia- induced CM**o Beriberi ( Vitamin B1 deficiency)
**=Reversible causes of LV Dysfunction
Outline Definition Epidemiology Classification Pathophysiology Prognosis Diagnosis Prevention Treatment
Hypertension is the No. 1 risk factor for HF
20
40
60
0HTN
Population-attributable
risk (%)
MI Angina VHD LVH Diabetes
Hazard ratio M 2.1 6.3 1.4 2.5 2.2 1.8W 3.3 6.0 1.7 2.1 2.8 3.7
Men Women
Levy D at al. JAMA. 1996;275:1557-62.VHD = valvular heart disease
Framingham Heart Study
-16-21
-38
-52-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0CHF Fatal/non-fatal
strokesCVD deaths Fatal/non-fatal
CHD events
Antihypertensive Drug Treatment Reduces CHF and other CV Events
*17 randomized, placebo-controlled treatment trials (48,000 subjects)—14 diuretic and 3 beta-blocker-based trials
**All differences are statistically significant.
Hebert P, Moser M, Mayer J, Glynn RJ, Hennekens CH. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(5):578-581.Moser M, Herbert PR. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27(5):1214-1218.
Per
cent
Outline Definition Epidemiology Classification Pathophysiology Prognosis Diagnosis Prevention Treatment
Management of Systolic And Diastolic Heart Failure
Precipitating Causes of Acute Decompensated CHF
P — Pulmonary embolus R — Renal failure/fluid overload E — Endocarditis C — compliance *** with diet and medications I — ischemia/infarct P — pregnancy I — infection T — tachycardia mediated /temperature/fever A — arrhythmia (a.fib) /anemia T — thyroid E — environmental toxins/COPD- emphysema S — systemic HTN out of control
Heart Failure ManagementMainstay of Therapy for Systolic HF
Diuretics ACE inhibitors (ARBs) β-Blockers Aldosterone antagonists (Spironolactone, Eplerone)
Digoxin ( increases mortality >> so use for refractory symptoms and cannot tolerate other GDMT)
Newly approved Therapy for Systolic HFo Ivabradine receptor inhibitor o Neprisylin Inhibitor / ARB o SGLT2 inhibitorso Vericuguat
Diuretics and Heart Failure Diuretics are a mainstay of therapy
for heart failure Relieve symptoms of dyspnea and
edema Associated with variety of problems:Electrolyte abnormalitiesActivation of RAAS and SNSDiuretic resistance Increased mortality?
Mortality and Diuretics in Chronic CHF: SOLVD
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
All Cause CV Arrhythmic
Mor
talit
y
DiureticsNo Diuretics
Cooper HA et al, Circulation 1999
The TRANSFORM-HF Trial
ToRsemide compArisoN with furoSemide FOR Management of
Heart Failure
Background and Rationale (3) Despite pre-clinical and clinical data supporting
several benefits of torsemide over furosemide, there are no large, definitive, randomized trials comparing these therapies.
X
Adams KF, et al. Am Heart J 2005 Buggey J, et al. Am Heart J 2015 Bikdeli B, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013
Mortality With Torsemide Compared With Furosemide
Background and Rationale (2)
Potential Advantages of Torsemide More consistent oral bioavailability and longer
duration of action Anti-Aldosterone Effects Anti-Fibrotic Myocardial Effects Positive Ventricular Remodeling Favorable BNP Effects Functional Status Benefits Reduced HF Rehospitalization Potential Mortality Benefits
Cosin J, et al. Eur J Heart Fail 2002Buggey J, et al. Am Heart J 2015Murray MD, et al. Am J Med 2001
Primary Objective
To compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on long-term clinical outcomes among patients
hospitalized for HF
Primary Endpoint:All-cause mortality
Placebo(n = 126)
Enalapril (n = 127)
Placebo(n = 1,284)
Enalapril (n = 1,285)
CONSENSUS*NYHA Class IV
SOLVD** NYHA Class II–III
80
60
40
20
00 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Perc
ent (
%)
MonthsRisk reduction 27% (P = 0.003) Risk reduction 16% (P = 0.0036)
*The CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:1429–1435. **The SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(5):293–302.
CONSENSUS and SOLVD:Effect of ACE Inhibition on Mortality
ACE INHIBITORS - IN WHOM AND WHEN?Indications:• potentially all patients with heart failure
Contra-indications:• Angioedema, bilateral RAS, pregnancy
Cautions- but NOT contraindication (because ACEi are NEPHROPROTECTIVE!!:
• significant renal disease (creatinine > 2.5 or K+ > 5.0)• hypotension (SBP < 85 mmHg)Drug interactions to look out for:• K+ supplements/ K+ sparing diuretics (including
spironolactone)• NSAIDs* avoid!!!
Monitoring Cr and K+ with RAAS Blockade (cont.)
Changing ARB dose or discontinuing is usually NOT necessary
Persistent elevation of creatinine (>30% relative to baseline) suggests other factors: NSAID use? Volume depletion (try decreasing diuretic dose) Renal artery stenosis
Hyperkalemia can usually be corrected by restricting dietary potassium Up to 5.9 mg/dL can generally be tolerated Levels ≥6.0 mg/dL require attention, including
discontinuation of ARB, ACEI, aldosterone receptor blocker NSAID, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
ER, extended release.
Adapted from: MERIT-HF Study Group. Lancet. 1999;353:20012007.CIBIS-II Investigators. Lancet. 1999;353:913.
Packer M, et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:16511658.
Mortality Benefit of Beta Blockers in Heart Failure Due to Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
Followup (months) Time (days)
CIBISII
Log rank P=0.00006
Bisoprolol
Placebo
n=2647
0 200 400 600 800
Prob
abili
ty o
f sur
viva
l
COPERNICUS
Surv
ival
(%)
34%Mortality: 34% 35%
Carvedilol
Placebo
P=0.00014 (unadjusted)
100
90
80
70
60
50P=0.0014 (adjusted)
n=2289
Months0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
MERITHF
Cum
ulat
ive
mor
talit
y (%
) 20
15
10
5
0
P=0.0062 (adjusted)P=0.00009 (nominal)
Placebo
n=3991
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
1.0
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
ER Metoprolol Succinate
CARMEN: Possible Mechanism of Benefit—Left Ventricle Remodeling Comparison of LVESVI
Between Treatments
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
C & ECarvedilolEnalapril
Month 6 Month 12 Month 18
NS P<0.002
Baseline
LVES
VI (b
ipla
ne) [
ml/m
2 ]
Remme WJ. Cardiovasc Drug Ther. 2001;15:69-77.
LVESI = Left ventricular end-systolic volume index
Beta Blocker Withdrawal
Should beta blockers be stopped or the dose reduced when a heart failure patient is hospitalized for decompensated heart failure?
Contra-indications for Starting or Up-titrating a Beta Blocker
High-degree AV node block w/o pacemaker Symptomatic bradycardia Hx. asthma with active wheezing COPD with reactive component/ responsiveness to
bronchodilators (use and titrate with added caution based on risk:benefit ratio)
Bradycardic Patients: Practical Recommendations in the Use and Titration
of Beta Blockers
No data available Resting bradycardia NOT a contraindication, but
warrants caution and slower titration. Strategies frequently used by HF specialists:
– Titrate based on blunting of exercise-induced heart rate– Titrate cautiously in patients with resting heart rate <60– Titrate until symptoms occur
HFSA 2006 Practice Guideline Heart Failure in the Elderly
As in all patients, but especially in the elderly, careful attention is recommended to the following during therapy with ACE inhibitors and beta blockers:
- volume status- the possibility of symptomatic cerebrovascular disease- and the presence of postural hypotension
Strength of Evidence = C
In the absence of contraindications, these therapies are also recommended in the elderly, even the very elderly (>80 years old)
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
RALES: Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study
From Pitt et al. N Engl J Med (in press).
0.950.900.850.800.750.700.650.600.55
1.00
0.500.450.00
No at riskPlacebo 841 775 723 678 628 592 565 483 379 280 179 92 36Spironolactone 822 766 739 698 669 639 608 526 419 316 193 122 43
30% Reductionin mortality
Months
Placebo
Spironolactone
What about Digoxin in Heart Failure?
No effect on mortality In the DIG Trial, digoxin reduced hospitalization
by 10% but increased arrhythmic deaths Digoxin can improve symptoms, exercise
tolerance in some patients Tips- Use low dose (.125 mg) and monitor carefully
When symptoms persist on ACE-i + diuretics + B-blockers, consider Digoxin
AHA / ACC Guidelines 2005
NITRO0010 — AHeFT Slides — v11
Days Since Baseline Visit Date
Hydralazine + Isosorbide dinitrateAHeFT: Trial Summary
0 100 200 300 400 500 60085
90
95
100
Surv
ival
(%)
P=.01
Fixed-dose HYD/ISDN
Placebo
Hazard ratio=0.57
Adapted from Taylor AL, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2052.
43% Decrease in Mortality
PARADIGM -Results
Ivabradine- sinus node If current inhibitor of HCN channel
SHIFT trialReduction in HF hospitalizations
Indications: LVEF < 35%, sinus rhythmn, and HR > 70bpm on max Beta-blocker tolerated doses or cannot tolerate beta-blockers
Hazard ratio (95% CI) P value
Primary composite endpoint* 0.86 (0.74-0.99) 0.04
Secondary composite endpoint† 0.89 (0.78-1.01) 0.08
Death from any cause 0.68 (0.57-0.82) <0.001
CV death 0.62 (0.49-0.77) <0.001
Fatal or nonfatal MI 0.87 (0.70-1.09) 0.23
Hospitalization for HF 0.65 (0.50-0.85) 0.002
Hospitalization for HF or CV death 0.66 (0.55-0.79) <0.001
Clinical Outcomes with Empagliflozin
61
EMPA-REG OUTCOME Pooled Analysis(N=7020)
*CV death, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), or nonfatal stroke; †CV death, nonfatal MI (excluding silent MI), nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina.
CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; MI, myocardial infarction.
Zinman B, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-2128.
Favors empagliflozin
DAPA-HF Primary Outcome
Dapaglifozin vs Placebo in HFrEF with and without T2DM. Presented 9/1/19 by John McMurray At ESC , Paris, France
DAPA-HF Components of Primary Outcome
Dapaglifozin vs Placebo in HFrEF with and without T2DM. Presented 9/1/19 by John McMurray At ESC , Paris, France
DAPA-HF Outcomes for DM vs no DM
Dapaglifozin vs Placebo in HFrEF with and without T2DM. Presented 9/1/19 by John McMurray At ESC , Paris, France
DAPA-HF QOL Score
Dapaglifozin vs Placebo in HFrEF with and without T2DM. Presented 9/1/19 by John McMurray At ESC , Paris, France
SGLT2 mechanism of action.
DAPA-HF adverse events
Dapaglifozin vs Placebo in HFrEF with and without T2DM. Presented 9/1/19 by John McMurray At ESC , Paris, France
GDMT Benefits
Relative Risk 2-Year MortalityNone -- 35%ARNI 28% 25.2%Beta Blocker 35% 16.4%MRA 30% 11.5%SGTL2i 17% 9.5%
Drugs to discontinue doxazosin (probably all alpha blockers) verapamil diltiazem nifedipine Most antiarrhythmics all NSAIDS, including COX-2 agents all Alcohol in non-CAD cardiomyopathy any drug not helping is probably hurting
Hamid EG, Butler J. Timely Management of New-Onset Heart Failure The Other Vulnerable Phase doi.org: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035452. Circulation. 2019;140:621–623
Evidence based therapies for HFpEF
Spironolactone for HF with Preserved EF (HFpEF) – TOPCAT trial-
SD Solomon et al. N Engl J Med 2019. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908655
PARAGON STUDY : Saccubutril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in HFpEF: Primary Composite Outcome.
Hosp for HF/Death from CV
PARAGON Result slide 2.pptPARAGON Result slide 2.pptHosp for HF
Death from CVCauses
SD Solomon et al. N Engl J Med 2019. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908655
PARAGON Study: Primary Outcome in Prespecified Subgroups.
The CHAMPION Trial Design TRIAL HYPOTHESIS
In addition to basing treatment on signs and symptoms, adjusting medications based on PA pressures will reduce HF-related hospitalizations.
.
76
1. Abraham W, et al. Lancet, 2011.2. Abraham W, et al. Lancet, 2016.
CardioMEMS™ PA SENSOR IMPLANTED n = 550
TREATMENT GROUPn = 270
CONTROL GROUPn = 280
TRANSITION TO FORMER TREATMENT
GROUPn = 177
TRANSITION TO FORMER CONTROL
GROUPn = 170
PART 1: RANDOMIZED ACCESS1
Study exitN = 110
Study exitN = 93
PART 2: OPEN ACCESS2
Previously hospitalized patients (past 12 months) with NYHA Class III HF for at least 3 months, regardless of LVEF
575 consented. 25 could not be implanted due to anatomy, comorbidities, etc.
All took daily readings.
Randomization
Primary Efficacy Endpoint Met with Significantly Reduced Heart Failure Hospitalization
PART 1: RANDOMIZED ACCESS
Abraham W, et al. Lancet, 2016. .
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
2
0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 810 900 990 1080
Cum
ulat
ive
Haza
rd R
ate
Days From Implant
33% RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION IN HF HOSPITALIZATIONS:TREATMENT GROUP VS. CONTROL GROUP
TREATMENT
CONTROL
No. at RiskCONTROL 280 267 254 241 210 175 131 101 62 27 12 5 0TREATMENT 270 262 246 235 197 164 125 105 75 38 8 3 0
p < 0.0001
CARDIOMEMS – Most proven device for outcomes benefit.
HFpEF
HFrEF
79
The CardioMEMS™ HF System is indicated for HF patients who are NYHA Class III, regardless of ejection fraction, who have been hospitalized for heart failure in the previous year.
.
INDICATIONS
Incidence of Sudden Death
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Overall incidencein adult population
High coronary risksubgroup
Any prior coronary event
Percent/year
EF <30% HF
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors
Convalescent phaseVT/VF after MI
Myerburg RJ, Castellanos A. Cardiac arrest and sudden death. In: Braunwald E, ed. Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1997:742-779.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Mortality Benefit of ICD Trials in Symptomatic HF
Population Follow up RR vs standard therapy
MIRACLE III–IVLVEF ≤35%
6 months 27%
MADIT II II–IIILVEFV ≤30%
2 years 31%
SCD-HEFT II–IIILVEF ≤35%
5 years 23%
Abraham, et al. NEJM. 2002;346:1845-1853.Brady, et al. NEJM. 2005;352:225-237.
Zareba, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:1487-1491.
Therapies Demonstrated to ReduceMortality in Heart Failure
• ACE Inhibitors (ARB)
• Beta Blockers
• Aldosterone Antagonists
• Hydralazine-Isosorbide dinitrate
• Neprisylin Inhibitor-ARB combination LCZ696
• ICD (LVEF < 35, Class II or II)
• Cardiac Resynchronization (LVEF < 35, QRS > 120 ms, Class III or IV)
• SGLT2 Inhibitors1. The CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:1429–1435.2. Packer M et al. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1349–1355.3. Pitt B et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:709–717.4. Moss A et al. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1933–1940.5. Abraham WT et al. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1845–1853.6. Zinman B, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-2128.
Intravenous Inotropes & Antiarrhytmics
All appear to increase mortality
Use only in refractory Heart Failure
NOT for use as chronic therapy
Conclusion Physicians should identify and aggressively treat
patients with CV risk factors or early HF- HTN most important.
BNP very helpful due to reduced accuracy of Sx and PE
Beta blockers, ACEI, and spironolactone should be routinely prescribed to clinically stable patients with HF (NYHA Class II to stable Class IV) who have LVEF <40% and are on standard therapy with ACE inhibitors (with or without digoxin or diuretics).
Role of new drugs (LCZ696 and ivabradine) to evolve.
Stem cell regeneration hold most promise in chronic heart failure