Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a complex and progressive clinical condition characterized by dyspnea and functional impairment. HFrEF has a high burden of mortality and readmission rate making it one of the most significant public health challenges. Basic treatment strategies include diuretics for symptom relief and use of quadruple therapy (Angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitors, evidence-based beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors) for reduction in hospitalizations, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Despite compelling evidence of clinical benefit, guideline directed medical therapy is vastly underutilized in the real-world clinical practice. Other medications such as intravenous iron, ivabradine, hydralazine/nitrates and vericiguat may also have a role in certain subgroup of HFrEF patients. Specific groups of patients with HFrEF may also be candidates for various device therapies such as implanted cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy and trans catheter mitral valve repair. This review provides a comprehensive overview of drug and device management approaches for patients with HFrEF, recommendations for initiation and titrations of therapies, and challenges associated with guideline directed medical therapy in the management of patients with HFrEF (Graphical abstract).     

Comparison of Beta-Blocker Effectiveness in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Versus Those With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the benefit of beta-blockers (BB) in heart failure (HF) with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (EF).Methods and ResultsThis was a retrospective study of insured patients who were hospitalized for HF from January 2000 to June 2008. Pharmacy claims were used to estimate BB exposure over 6-month rolling windows. The association between BB exposure and all-cause hospitalization or death was tested with the use of time-updated proportional hazards regression, with adjustment for baseline covariates and other HF medication exposure. The groups were compared by stratification (EF <50% vs ≥50%) and with the use of an EF-group × BB exposure interaction term. A total of 1,835 patients met the inclusion criteria, 741 (40%) with a preserved EF. Median follow-up was 2.1 years. In a fully adjusted multivariable model, BB exposure was associated with a decreased risk of death or hospitalization in both groups (EF <50%: hazard ratio [HR] 0.53 [P < .0001]; EF ≥50%: HR 0.68 [P = .009]). There was no significant difference in this protective association between groups (interaction: P = .32).ConclusionsBB exposure was associated with a similar protective effect regarding time to death or hospitalization in HF patients regardless of whether EF was preserved or reduced. An adequately powered randomized trial of BB in HF with preserved EF is warranted.     

Right Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Beta-Blocker Effect in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BackgroundA low right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) is a marker of poor outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Beta-blockers improve outcomes in HFrEF, but whether this effect is modified by RVEF is unknown.Methods and ResultsOf the 2798 patients in Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST), 2008 had data on baseline RVEF (mean 35%, median 34%). Patients were categorized into an RVEF of less than 35% (n = 1012) and an RVEF of 35% or greater (n = 996). We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within each RVEF subgroup and formally tested for interactions between bucindolol and RVEF. The effect of bucindolol on all-cause mortality in 2008 patients with baseline RVEF (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75–1.02) is consistent with that in 2798 patients in the main trial (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–1.02). Bucindolol use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality in patients with an RVEF of 35% or greater (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.89), but not in those with an RVEF of less than 35% (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83–1.24, P for interaction = .022). Similar variations were observed for cardiovascular mortality (P for interaction = .009) and sudden cardiac death (P for interaction = .018), but not for pump failure death (P for interaction = .371) or HF hospitalization (P for interaction = .251).ConclusionsThe effect of bucindolol on mortality in patients with HFrEF was modified by the baseline RVEF. If these hypothesis-generating findings can be replicated using approved beta-blockers in contemporary patients with HFrEF, then RVEF may help to risk stratify patients with HFrEF for optimization of beta-blocker therapy.     

Clinical Course of Patients With Worsening Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

Epidemiology of patients with worsening heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the real-world setting is not well described.

Treatment of Heart Failure With Normal Ejection Fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity and one of the most frequent reasons for hospital admission in the United States and Europe. Currently, more than 50% of HF patients have a normal (N) left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) (LVEF >50%). The main pathophysiologic processes involved in HFNEF are increased LV stiffness and abnormal relaxation, resulting in impaired LV filling. Hypertension and myocardial ischemia are the most common causes of HFNEF. Precipitating factors include volume overload, tachycardia, physical exercise, systemic stressors (such as fever and infection), arrhythmia, increased salt intake, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. There is little evidence to guide treatment, as previously HFNEF patients have been excluded from clinical trials on the basis of a normal LVEF. Survival improved over time in patients with reduced (R) EF (HFREF) (LVEF <40%), reflecting the beneficial effects of treatment in this phenotype. However, survival did not improve for HFNEF patients. The approach to the treatment of HFNEF patients should focus on reducing LV filling pressure, controlling hypertension, modifying ischemia, and improving LV relaxation. Therefore, diuretics are suitable for HFNEF patients to reduce ventricular filling pressure. Hypertension can be treated by using multiple agents if necessary. Drugs of particular interest and recommended to treat hypertension are calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and antagonists of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and aldosterone antagonists. Ischemic heart disease can be treated with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulants, and β-blockers. Heart rate control in atrial fibrillation can be achieved with β-blockers and digoxin. Finally, ACE inhibitors and ARBs could potentially decrease LV hypertrophy in hypertensive patients with HFNEF.     

Hypertension in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Hypertension (HTN) is a well-known health problem associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and it is an important risk factor for the development of heart failure (HF). These findings support the need for optimizing the antihypertensive strategies to prevent the progression to HF. Interestingly, the progression from HTN to HF, among other things, may be a consequence of inappropriate over-activation of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS), sympathetic nervous system (SNS), and the natriuretic peptide system (NPS). In the present review, we will discuss the pathophysiological aspects of the progression from HTN to HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and we will focus on the evolution of different pharmacological therapies which are reported to be effective in reducing BP and improving HF outcomes, paying particular attention to the recent trials that have demonstrated the efficacy of the combined therapy of RAAS blockade and Neprilysin (NEP) inhibitor in lowering BP and mediating several beneficial actions within cardiovascular tissues, such as avoiding the worsening of HF.     

Complex and Potentially Harmful Medication Patterns in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BackgroundComplex medication regimens, often present in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, may increase the risk of adverse drug effects and harm. We sought to characterize this complexity by determining the prevalence of polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, and therapeutic competition (where a medication for 1 condition may worsen another condition) in 1 of the few dedicated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction programs in the United States.MethodsWe conducted chart review on 231 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction seen in the University of Michigan's Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Clinic between July 2016 and September 2019. We recorded: 1) standing medications to determine the presence of polypharmacy, defined as ≥10 medications; 2) potentially inappropriate medications based on the 2016 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on drugs that pose a major risk of causing or exacerbating heart failure, the 2019 Beers Criteria update, or a previously described list of medications associated with geriatric syndromes; and 3) competing conditions and subsequent medications that could create therapeutic competition.ResultsThe prevalence of polypharmacy was 74%, and the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications was 100%. Competing conditions were present in 81% of patients, of whom 49% took a medication that created therapeutic competition.ConclusionIn addition to confirming that polypharmacy was highly prevalent, we found that potentially inappropriate medications and therapeutic competition were also frequently present. This supports the urgent need to develop patient-centered approaches to mitigate the negative effects of complex medication regimens endemic to adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.     

Titration of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BackgroundGuidelines recommend that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have medical therapy titrated to target doses derived from clinical trials, as tolerated. The degree to which titration occurs in contemporary U.S. practice is unknown.ObjectivesThis study sought to characterize longitudinal titration of HFrEF medical therapy in clinical practice and to identify associated factors and reasons for medication changes.MethodsAmong 2,588 U.S. outpatients with chronic HFrEF in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry with complete medication data and no contraindications to medical therapy, use and dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) were examined at baseline and at 12-month follow-up.ResultsAt baseline, 658 (25%), 525 (20%), 287 (11%), and 45 (2%) patients were receiving target doses of MRA, beta-blocker, ACEI/ARB, and ARNI therapy, respectively. At 12 months, proportions of patients with medication initiation or dose increase were 6% for MRA, 10% for beta-blocker, 7% for ACEI/ARB, and 10% for ARNI; corresponding proportions with discontinuation or dose decrease were 4%, 7%, 11%, and 3%, respectively. Over 12 months, <1% of patients were simultaneously treated with target doses of ACEI/ARB/ARNI, beta-blocker, and MRA. In multivariate analysis, across the classes of medications, multiple patient characteristics were associated with a higher likelihood of initiation or dose increase (e.g., previous HF hospitalization, higher blood pressure, lower ejection fraction) and discontinuation or dose decrease (e.g., previous HF hospitalization, impaired quality of life, more severe functional class). Medical reasons were the most common reasons for discontinuations and dose decreases of each therapy, but the relative contributions from patient preference, health team, and systems-based reasons varied by medication.ConclusionsIn this contemporary U.S. registry, most eligible HFrEF patients did not receive target doses of medical therapy at any point during follow-up, and few patients had doses increased over time. Although most patients had no alterations in medical therapy, multiple clinical factors were independently associated with medication changes. Further quality improvement efforts are urgently needed to improve guideline-directed medication titration for HFrEF.     

Prognostic Interplay Between COVID-19 and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BackgroundCOVID-19 may negatively impact the prognosis of patients with chronic HFrEF and vice versa.MethodsThis study included 2 parallel analyses of patients in the United States who were in the TriNetX health database and who underwent polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 as an inpatient or outpatient between January and September of 2020. Analysis A included patients with positive tests for COVID-19 and compared patients with histories of worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (hospitalization due to heart failure (HF) or IV diuretic use during the prior 12 months), HFrEF without worsening, and no prior HF. Analysis B included patients with histories of HFrEF and compared patients with positive vs negative COVID-19 tests. Outcomes included mortality and worsening HF. In both analyses, prespecified subgroup analyses were stratified by inpatient vs outpatient settings of the COVID-19 tests.ResultsIn Analysis A, of 99,052 patients with positive COVID-19 tests, 514 (0.5%) and 524 (0.5%) patients had histories of worsening HFrEF and HFrEF without worsening, respectively. After adjustment, compared to patients without HF, worsening HFrEF (risk ratio [RR] 1.42, 95% CI 1.10–1.83; P< 0.001) and HFrEF without worsening (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96–1.84; P= 0.06) were associated with higher 30-day mortality rates. Excess risk of mortality tended to be pronounced in patients initially diagnosed with COVID-19 as outpatients (P for interaction, 0.12 and 0.006, respectively). In Analysis B, of 14,838 patients with HFrEF tested for COVID-19, 1038 (7.0%) had positive tests. After adjustment, testing positive was associated with excess 30-day mortality risk (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.38–2.02; P< 0.001) and worsening HF (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17–1.51; P< 0.001). Mortality risk was nominally more pronounced among patients presenting as outpatients (P for interaction 0.07).ConclusionIn this large cohort of patients tested for COVID-19, among patients testing positive, a history of HFrEF with or without worsening was associated with excess mortality rates, particularly among patients diagnosed with COVID-19 as outpatients. Among patients with established HFrEF, compared with testing negative, testing positive for COVID-19 was independently associated with higher risk of death and worsening HF.     

Heart Failure Duration and Mechanistic Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BackgroundAlthough sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is indicated for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), gaps in care continue to exist for those with newer onset HFrEF vs those with longer durations of disease.Methods and ResultsWe categorized 794 persons with HFrEF (EF of ≤40%) according to a HF duration of less than 12 months, 12–24 months, 24–60 months, and more than> 60 months. After the initiation of Sac/Val, concentrations of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide, high sensitivity cardiac troponin T, and soluble ST2 were measured, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 23 scores were obtained serially from baseline to 12 months. The left ventricular ejection fraction was measured by echocardiography. Significant decreases in the concentrations of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide, high sensitivity cardiac troponin T, and soluble ST2 were observed regardless of HF duration (P < .001). Comparable gains in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 23 scores were achieved in all HF duration categories. Moreover, consistent reverse cardiac remodeling in all HF duration categories occurred, with the absolute left ventricular ejection fraction improvement by 12 months across HF duration groups of 12.2%, 6.9%, 8.5%, and 8.6% for HF duration of less than 12 months, 12–24 months, 24–60 months, and more than 60 months, respectively.ConclusionsThe initiation of Sac/Val decreases prognostic biomarkers, improves health status, and reverses cardiac remodeling processes, regardless of HF duration.Brief lay summaryWe categorized 794 persons with heart failure owing to a low ejection fraction according to disease duration into 4 groups: less than 12 months, 12–24 months, 24–60 months, and more than 60 months. After the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), we found that regardless of the duration of heart failure significant improvements occurred in cardiac biomarkers, patients felt better with improved health status and on testing with cardiac ultrasound examination, improvement in heart size, and function occurred. These results suggest that, regardless of heart failure duration, patients with a reduced ejection fraction would benefit from use of sacubitril/valsartan for their care.