L’insuffisance cardiaque à fraction d’éjection préservée : une maladie de système ?

When the syndrome of heart failure (HF) is due to left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction the clinical manifestations and natural history of the syndrome depend primarily on the severity of LV systolic dysfunction. In contrast, when the syndrome is attributed to LV diastolic dysfunction multiple comorbidities are responsible for the clinical manifestations and the natural history of the syndrome. The present review underscores the multifactorial pathogenesis of the syndrome of HF associated with LV diastolic dysfunction that nowadays is more properly referred to as HF with preserved LV ejection fraction (HFpEF) than to diastolic HF. The prognosis is similarly poor whether HF is due to systolic dysfunction or associated with diastolic dysfunction. The cause of death that is commonly non-cardiovascular in HFpEF supports the pathogenic importance of comorbidities in this condition. Hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes, obesity and sleep disorder breathing are among the most frequent comorbidities in HFpEF. These comorbidities account for the multiple clinical presentations of the syndrome of HFpEF. Limited functional capacity is in HFpEF largely related to the downward spiral between CKD mediated fluid accumulation and LV stiffness as well as altered ventricular-vascular coupling. The diagnosis of HFpEF currently relies on 2D-Doppler echocardiography findings of impaired LV relaxation and increased LV stiffness and to a lesser extent on biomarkers. Owing to both lack of stringent inclusion and exclusion enrollment criteria and mistaken therapeutic target, placebo-controlled randomized therapeutic trials have been so far negative in HFpEF.     

Impact of comorbidities on health status measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction

Aim

Patients with heart failure (HF) often suffer from a range of comorbidities, which may affect their health status. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different comorbidities on health status in patients with HF and reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods and results

Using individual patient data from HFrEF (ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM-HF, DAPA-HF) and HFpEF (TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF) trials, we examined the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) domain scores and overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) across a range of cardiorespiratory (angina, atrial fibrillation [AF], stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]) and other comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease [CKD], anaemia). Of patients with HFrEF (n = 20 159), 36.2% had AF, 33.9% CKD, 33.9% diabetes, 31.4% obesity, 25.5% angina, 12.2% COPD, 8.4% stroke, and 4.4% anaemia; the corresponding proportions in HFpEF (n = 6563) were: 54.0% AF, 48.7% CKD, 43.4% diabetes, 53.3% obesity, 28.6% angina, 14.7% COPD, 10.2% stroke, and 6.5% anaemia. HFpEF patients had lower KCCQ domain scores and KCCQ-OSS (67.8 vs. 71.3) than HFrEF patients. Physical limitations, social limitations and quality of life domains were reduced more than symptom frequency and symptom burden domains. In both HFrEF and HFpEF, COPD, angina, anaemia, and obesity were associated with the lowest scores. An increasing number of comorbidities was associated with decreasing scores (e.g. KCCQ-OSS 0 vs. ≥4 comorbidities: HFrEF 76.8 vs. 66.4; HFpEF 73.7 vs. 65.2).

Conclusions

Cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities are common in both HFrEF and HFpEF patients and most are associated with reductions in health status although the impact varied among comorbidities, by the number of comorbidities, and by HF phenotype. Treating/correcting comorbidity is a therapeutic approach that may improve the health status of patients with HF.     

可溶性鸟苷酸环化酶激动剂治疗射血分数保留性心力衰竭的研究进展

心力衰竭(心衰)发病率、病死率高,是多种心血管疾病的终末阶段,其中射血分数保留性心力衰竭(HFpEF)是一组常见且复杂的临床综合征,约占所有心力衰竭患者的50％.HFpEF预后差,再住院率及死亡率与射血分数降低性心力衰竭(HFrEF)相当.尽管针对HFrEF有了相对完整的指南共识,但目前尚缺乏可真正改善HFpEF患者预...     

Contemporary approach to treating heart failure

Over the past several decades, important advances have been made in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF). Whereas in the past, the main goal of drug therapy was to relieve congestion, there is now compelling evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showing that several classes of drugs, most of which work predominantly by blocking or modulating neurohormonal activity, can substantially reduce morbidity and mortality as well as improve quality of life in patients with HF. Most of these trials, however, separated patients according to whether their ejection fraction (EF) was reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) and for the most part, favorable effects on clinical outcomes were demonstrated only in patients with HFrEF. In addition to the paucity of effective agents for managing patients with HFpEF, it has become apparent that underutilization of available therapies has greatly limited the overall impact of medical therapy on outcomes. This review provides an overview of current medical management of HF across the spectrum of EF, including the underutilization of treatment modalities. The focus is to provide clinicians the rationale for the use of specific agents and to present a practical approach for patient management. The strategies discussed are based on results of RCTs, guideline recommendations and the authors’ own experience in managing patients with HF over the years.     

Reframing the association and significance of co‐morbidities in heart failure

Several co‐existing diseases and/or conditions (co‐morbidities) are present in patients with heart failure (HF), with diverse clinical relevance. Multiple mechanisms may underlie the co‐existence of HF and co‐morbidities, including direct causation, associated risk factors, heterogeneity, and independence. The complex inter‐relationship of co‐morbidities and their impact on the cardiovascular system contribute to the features of HF, both with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The purpose of this work is to provide an overview of the contribution of major cardiac and non‐cardiac co‐morbidities to HF development and outcomes, in the context of both HFpEF and HFrEF. Accordingly, epidemiological evidence linking co‐morbidities to HF and the effect of prevalent and incident co‐morbidities on HF outcome will be reviewed.     

射血分数保留的心力衰竭合并慢性肾功能不全的研究进展

射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)是发病率及死亡率均较高的一种常见疾病,慢性肾功能不全(CKD)是HFpEF患者常见的伴随疾病。HFpEF合并CKD的发病机制尚未完全阐明,HFpEF与CKD常相互影响、交互促进疾病的进展。与单纯HFpEF患者相比,合并CKD的HFpEF患者通常预后较差,且随着肾损伤程度的加重,其死亡风险增加。治疗心力衰竭的基石类药物并不能使HFpEF患者明显获益,然而建议将沙库巴曲缬沙坦等新型抗心力衰竭药物应用于合并轻中度CKD的HFpEF患者。     

Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A protocol for meta-analysis

Background:Nearly half of patients with heart failure (HF) have preserved ejection fraction (EF) and the mortality and morbidity of patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) are high. Patients with HFpEF are often elderly and their primary chronic symptom is severe exercise intolerance that results in a reduced quality of life. Thus, improvement of exercise capacity presents another important clinical outcome in HFpEF patients. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs reported that sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HF with reduced EF. Although the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors in HFpEF patients have been examined in multiple RCTs, the results are inconsistent due partly to limited power. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SGLT-2 inhibitors in HFpEF patients.Methods:This meta-analysis will include RCTs examining the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on HF severity and health-related quality of life in HFpEF patients. Information of studies will be collected from electronic databases. The primary outcome will be HF severity (plasma B-type natriuretic peptide levels and exercise capacity assessed as 6-minute walk distance). The secondary outcome will be health-related quality of life. The safety outcomes will be all-cause death, HF hospitalization, hypotension, acute renal failure, diabetic ketoacidosis, and urinary tract infection.Discussion:This meta-analysis will evaluate the efficacy and safety of SGLT-2 inhibitors in HFpEF patients, providing evidence to the clinical use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in these patients.Systematic review registration:INPLASY2021120033     

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Pathophysiology and Emerging Therapies

Approximately half of patients with heart failure (HF) have a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Morbidity and mortality are similar to HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), yet therapies with unequivocal benefit in HFrEF have not been shown to be effective in HFpEF. Recent studies have shown that the pathophysiology of HFpEF, initially believed to be due principally to diastolic dysfunction, is more complex. Appreciation of this complexity has shed new light into how HFpEF patients might respond to traditional HF treatments, while also suggesting new applications for novel therapies and strategies. In this review, we shall briefly review the pathophysiologic mechanisms in HFpEF, currently available clinical trial data, and finally explore new investigational therapies that are being developed and tested in ongoing and forthcoming trials.     

Epidemiology of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) and its subtype, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is on the rise due to aging of the population. HFpEF is convergence of several pathophysiological processes, which are not yet clearly identified. HFpEF is usually seen in association with systemic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, sleep apnea, renal and pulmonary disease. The proportion of HF patients with HFpEF varies by patient demographics, study settings (cohort vs. clinical trial, outpatient clinics vs. hospitalised patients) and cut points used to define preserved function. There is an expanding body of literature about prevalence and prognostic significance of both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities in HFpEF patients. Current therapeutic approaches are targeted towards alleviating the symptoms, treating the associated comorbid conditions, and reducing recurrent hospital admissions. There is lack of evidence-based therapies that show a reduction in the mortality amongst HFpEF patients; however, an improvement in exercise tolerance and quality of life is seen with few interventions. In this review, we highlight the epidemiology and current treatment options for HFpEF.     

Iron therapy in iron-deficiency patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A protocol for meta-analysis

Background:Nearly half of patients with heart failure (HF) have preserved ejection fraction (EF) and the mortality and morbidity of patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) are high. However, there is no established therapy to improve survival in these patients. HFpEF patients are often elderly and their primary chronic symptom is severe exercise intolerance. Thus, improvement of exercise capacity presents another important clinical outcome in HFpEF patients. Iron deficiency is common in HF patients, and the presence of iron deficiency, regardless of concomitant anemia, is associated with worse symptoms, impaired exercise capacity, and higher mortality and hospitalization in these patients. Several meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials reported that iron administration improved HF symptoms, exercise capacity, and clinical outcomes in iron-deficiency patients with HF with reduced EF. However, there is insufficient evidence as to the effect of iron administration in iron-deficiency HFpEF patients.Methods and Results:This meta-analysis will include randomized controlled trials on the effects of iron administration on HF symptoms, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life in iron-deficiency HFpEF patients. Information of studies will be collected from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The primary outcome will be exercise capacity (6-minute walking distance). The secondary outcomes will be HF symptoms, health-related quality of life, and mortality and hospitalization rates.Conclusion:This meta-analysis will evaluate the effect of iron therapy in iron-deficiency HFpEF patients, providing evidence as to the iron administration in these patients.Systematic review registration:PROSPERO CRD42020205297.     

CCS/CHFS Heart Failure Guidelines: Clinical Trial Update on Functional Mitral Regurgitation,SGLT2 Inhibitors,ARNI in HFpEF,and Tafamidis in Amyloidosis

In this update, we focus on selected topics of high clinical relevance for health care providers who treat patients with heart failure (HF), on the basis of clinical trials published after 2017. Our objective was to review the evidence, and provide recommendations and practical tips regarding the management of candidates for the following HF therapies: (1) transcatheter mitral valve repair in HF with reduced ejection fraction; (2) a novel treatment for transthyretin amyloidosis or transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis; (3) angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); and (4) sodium glucose cotransport inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of HF in patients with and without type 2 diabetes. We emphasize the roles of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy and of multidisciplinary teams when considering transcatheter mitral valve repair, to ensure excellent evaluation and care of those patients. In the presence of suggestive clinical indices, health care providers should consider the possibility of cardiac amyloidosis and proceed with proper investigation. Tafamidis is the first agent shown in a prospective study to alter outcomes in patients with transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis. Patient subgroups with HFpEF might benefit from use of sacubitril/valsartan, however, further data are needed to clarify the effect of this therapy in patients with HFpEF. Sodium glucose cotransport inhibitors reduce the risk of incident HF, HF-related hospitalizations, and cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. A large clinical trial recently showed that dapagliflozin provides significant outcome benefits in well treated patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%), with or without type 2 diabetes.     

Clinical Phenotypes of Heart Failure across the spectrum of Ejection Fraction: A Cluster Analysis

Introduction: Heart failure (HF), and especially HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), remains a challenging condition to define. The heterogenous nature of this population may be related to a variety of underlying etiologies interacting myocardial dysfunction. Method: Alberta HEART study was a prospective, observational cohort that enrolled participants along the spectrum of heart failure including: healthy controls, people at risk of HF, and patients with HF and preserved (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to explore phenotypes of patients with HF and at-risk of developing HF. Utilising 27 detailed clinical, echocardiographic and biomarker variables, latent class analysis with and without multiple imputation was undertaken to identify distinct clinical phenotypes. Results: Of 621 participants, 191 (30.8%) and 169 (27.2%) were adjudicated by cardiologists to have HFpEF and HFrEF respectively. In the overall cohort, latent class analysis identified four distinct phenotypes. Phenotype A (n=152, 24.5%) was a healthy and low risk group. Phenotype B (n=129, 20.8%) demonstrated increased left ventricular mass and end-diastolic volumes, with elevated natriuretic peptides and clinical features of congestion. Phenotype C (n=128, 20.6%) was primarily characterised by obesity (80%) and normal indexed cardiac chamber sizes, low natriuretic peptide levels and minimal features of congestion.  Phenotype D (n=212, 34.1%) consisted of elderly patients with clinical features of congestions. Phenotypes B and D demonstrated the highest risk of mortality and hospitalization over a median follow-up of 3.7 years. Conclusion: Phenotypes with congestive features demonstrated increased risk profiles. Heart failure is a heterogenous classification which requires further work to appropriately categorise patients based on the underlying etiology or mechanism of impairment.     

Galectin‐3 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

In the last decades it has been appreciated that many patients with heart failure (HF) suffer from HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The diagnosis and treatment of HFpEF is difficult, as we lack specific markers of the disease and no specific treatments have been identified. Galectin‐3 has a strong relationship to several aspects of the pathophysiology of HF, especially myocardial fibrosis, the transition from compensated to decompensated HF, and co‐morbidities such as renal disease and diabetes. Many of these traits are very commonly observed in patients with HFpEF, and this suggests that galectin‐3 may be particularly important and useful in the study of HFpEF. This review summarizes our knowledge of the role of galectin‐3 in fibrosis, specifically in experimental models of HF and HFpEF. Galectin‐3 may be a marker and also a causal factor, and experimental studies suggested that galectin‐3 may be a target for therapy in HFpEF. The detrimental effects of aldosterone may, in part, be conferred via galectin‐3, and there are data to suggest that aldosterone blockers are of more benefit in patients with high levels of galectin‐3. Furthermore, the relationship of galectin‐3 to clinical correlates of developing HFpEF in human subjects is discussed, and the association between increased levels of galectin‐3 and new‐onset HF and mortality in the general population is highlighted. Additionally, the usefulness of galectin‐3 in patients with established HFpEF is described. We conclude that galectin‐3 may be useful for early detection, phenotyping, risk stratification, and therapeutic targeting of individuals with early or established HFpEF in which fibrosis is a major contributor to the disease. Finally, we propose areas of further research that should validate the role of galectin‐3 in HFpEF.     

Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of hospitalized elderly patients for heart failure with reduced,mid-range and preserved ejection fraction

Introduction: Elderly patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) have high mortality rates and requires specific evidence based theraphy, however there are few studies which have focused on patients older than 80 years hospitalized with HF. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the overall clinical characteristics, management, and in-hospital outcomes of elderly patients hospitalized with HF.Methods: Journey-HF study was conducted in 37 different centers in Turkey and recruited 1606 patients who were hospitalized with HF between September 2015 and September 2016. In this study, clinical profile of patients ≥ 80 years old and 65-79 years old hospitalized with HF were described and compared based on EF-related classification: HFrEF (HF with reduced ejection fraction), HFmrEF (HF with mid-range ejection fraction) and HFpEF (HF with preserved ejection fraction).Results: A total of 1034 elder patients (71.6% 65–79 years old and 28.4% ≥80 years old) were recruited. Of the 65–79 years old patients 67.4% had HFrEF, 16.2% had HFmrEF and 16.3% had HFpEF. Among patients ≥80 years old 61.6% had HFrEF, 15.6% had HmrEF and 22.8% had HFpEF.When compared with patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF, patients ≥80 years old with HFpEF were more likely to be older, have atrial fibrilation (AF), and less likely to have diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary artery disease (CAD) or to be recieving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or beta blocker theraphy. When compared to patients 65–79 years old with HFpEF, patients ≥80 years with HFpEF had a higher rate of AF and less likely DM. Acute coronary syndrome was the most common precipitant factor for hospitalization in both age groups with HFrEF group. Arrhythmia was a major precipitant factor for hospitalization of patients ≥80 years old with HFpEF. Non-compliance with theraphy was a major problem of patients ≥80 years old with HFrEF.Conclusion: Elderly patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF each had characterized unique patient profiles and the guideline recommended medications were less likely to be used in these patient populations. In hospital mortality rate is worrisome and reflects a need for more specific tretment strategy.     

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: New approaches to diagnosis and management

The majority of older patients who develop heart failure (HF), particularly older women, have a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). Patients with HFpEF have severe symptoms of exercise intolerance, poor quality-of-life, frequent hospitalizations, and increased mortality. The prevalence of HFpEF is increasing and its prognosis is worsening. However, despite its importance, our understanding of the pathophysiology of HFpEF is incomplete, and drug development has proved immensely challenging. Currently, there are no universally accepted therapies that alter the clinical course of HFpEF. Originally viewed as a disorder due solely to abnormalities in left ventricular (LV) diastolic function, our understanding has evolved such that HFpEF is now understood as a systemic syndrome, involving multiple organ systems, likely triggered by inflammation and with an important contribution of aging, lifestyle factors, genetic predisposition, and multiple-comorbidities, features that are typical of a geriatric syndrome. HFpEF is usually progressive due to complex mechanisms of systemic and cardiac adaptation that vary over time, particularly with aging. In this review, we examine evolving data regarding HFpEF that may help explain past challenges and provide future directions to care patients with this highly prevalent, heterogeneous clinical syndrome.     

Use of sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors in patients with and without type 2 diabetes: implications for incident and prevalent heart failure

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with an increased risk of heart failure (HF), with recent reports indicating that HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) may be more common than HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in patients with T2D. T2D and HF result in worse outcomes than either disease alone. Sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors (SGLT‐2is) have significantly improved HF outcomes in patients with T2D and may represent a new therapeutic alternative for patients with T2D at risk for or with HF. Current guidelines recommend prevention of HF through risk factor management. Once developed, treatment of HFrEF should include neurohormonal and haemodynamic modulations; however, there are no specific treatments available for HFpEF. SGLT‐2is are the first class of glucose‐lowering therapy to prevent HF in clinical trials and real‐world studies in patients with T2D (with or without established cardiovascular disease and with or without baseline HF). Mechanistic studies suggest that SGLT‐2is have beneficial effects on both systolic and diastolic function and additional systemic effects that could benefit HF outcomes. In patients with HFrEF, SGLT‐2i treatment as add‐on to standard HF therapy has had beneficial effects on HF outcomes, irrespective of T2D status. These results and those of ongoing outcomes trials with SGLT‐2is may help establish this drug class as a treatment for HF in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, as well as HF in patients without T2D.     

Contemporary economic burden in a real‐world heart failure population with Commercial and Medicare supplemental plans

BackgroundLimited real‐world data exist on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), including urgent HF visits, which are assumed to be less burdensome than HF hospitalizations (hHFs)HypothesisThis study aimed to quantify the economic burden of HFrEF and HFpEF, via a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study, using IBM® linked claims/electronic health records (Commercial and Medicare Supplemental data only).MethodsAdult patients, indexed on HF diagnosis (ICD‐10‐CM: I50.x) from July 2012 through June 2018, with 6‐month minimum baseline period and varying follow‐up, were classified as HFrEF (I50.2x) or HFpEF (I50.3x) according to last‐observed EF‐specific diagnosis. HCRU/costs were assessed during follow‐up.ResultsAbout 109 721 HF patients (22% HFrEF, 31% HFpEF, 47% unclassified EF; median 18 months'' follow‐up) were identified. There were 3.2 all‐cause outpatient visits per patient‐month (HFrEF, 3.3; HFpEF, 3.6); 69% of patients required inpatient stays (HFrEF, 80%; HFpEF, 78%). Overall, 11% of patients experienced hHFs (HFrEF, 23%; HFpEF, 16%), 9% experienced urgent HF visits (HFrEF, 15%; HFpEF, 12%); 26% were hospitalized less than 30 days after first urgent HF visit versus 11% after first hHF. Mean monthly total direct healthcare cost per patient was $9290 (HFrEF, $11 053; HFpEF, $7482).ConclusionsHF‐related HCRU is substantial among contemporary real‐world HF patients in US Commercial or Medicare supplemental health plans. Patients managed in urgent HF settings were over twice as likely to be hospitalized within 30 days versus those initially hospitalized, suggesting urgent HF visits are important clinical events and quality improvement targets.     

Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Heart Failure and Chronic Kidney Disease in the United States

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and hemodialysis increase the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure (HF); however, national trends in utilization and outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in this population remain unknown. We sought to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of ICD therapy in HF patients with CKD and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) using the National Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2018. Hospitalizations with a discharge diagnosis of systolic HF and ICD implantation were identified and stratified by stages of kidney disease. A total of 281,219 systolic HF hospitalizations who underwent ICD implantation were included. A significant decrease in inpatient ICD implantation was observed over the past decade (3.7% in 2009 to 1.1% in 2018) regardless of renal impairment. In-hospital mortality was highest in ESRD, followed by CKD compared with patients with no CKD. Length of hospital stay and hospitalization costs were also significantly higher in patients with CKD and ESRD. The overall utilization of inpatient ICD implantation has decreased in systolic HF patients and inpatient ICD placement in CKD is associated with an increased risk of mortality and adverse clinical outcomes. This indicates that patients with renal impairment and HF represent a sicker cohort than the general HF population.     

Cardiac disease in chronic kidney disease: current understandings and opportunities for change

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is prevalent in patients with kidney disease: in populations prior to dialysis, on dialysis and after transplantation. Publications over the last decade have focused on this, and more recently, patients with cardiac disease are now recognized as being at increased risk in the presence of even mild kidney dysfunction. The presence of both traditional and non-traditional risk factors contributes to this overwhelming burden of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Recent studies have focused on the impact of anemia and disorders of mineral metabolism on CVD outcomes, in the context of inflammation and evidence of cytokine activation. Cross-sectional and prospective observational studies have led to improved understanding, and generated novel hypotheses. To date, no clinical trial has determined the positive impact of interventions targeted at these novel risk factors. This overview describes the current state of knowledge and emphasizes the interplay between CVD and CKD as two aspects of a set of pathophysiological processes, which impact on patient outcomes.     

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Predicted Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial

BackgroundIn the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, ejection fraction (EF) data were not collected. In the subpopulation with heart failure (HF), we applied a new predictive model for EF to determine the effects of empagliflozin in HF with predicted reduced (HFrEF) vs preserved (HFpEF) EF vs no HF.Methods and ResultsWe applied a validated EF predictive model based on patient baseline characteristics and treatments to categorize patients with HF as being likely to have HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF)/HFrEF (EF <50%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%). Cox regression was used to assess the effect of empagliflozin vs placebo on cardiovascular death/HF hospitalization (HHF), cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and HHF in patients with predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no HF. Of 7001 EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients with data available for this analysis, 6314 (90%) had no history of HF. Of the 687 with history of HF, 479 (69.7%) were predicted to have HFmrEF/HFrEF and 208 (30.3%) to have HFpEF. Empagliflozin's treatment effect was consistent in predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no-HF for each outcome (HR [95% CI] for the primary outcome 0.60 [0.31–1.17], 0.79 [0.51–1.23], and 0.63 [0.50–0.78], respectively; P interaction = 0.62).ConclusionsIn EMPA-REG OUTCOME, one-third of the patients with HF had predicted HFpEF. The benefits of empagliflozin on HF and mortality outcomes were consistent in nonHF, predicted HFpEF and HFmrEF/HFrEF.