evaluation and management of heart failure · 2017-09-07 · evaluation and management of heart...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure
S. Carolina Masri, MD
Division of Cardiology
University of Washington
Disclosures
No financial disclosures
No conflict of interest
Objectives
Frame the epidemiology of HF
Discuss evidence-based pharmacotherapies on reduced ejection fraction
Explore the utility of guideline directed medical therapies (GDMT)
At age 40, lifetime risk is 20 % in both genders
About 50% HFrEF, 50% preserved
Mortality rate 50% within 5 years
1-month readmission rate is ~25 %
Population Group Prevalence Incidence Mortality
Hospital Discharges Cost
Total population
5,700,000 670,000 277,193 990,000$39.2 billion
4
Heart Failure Epidemic in US
ACCF/AHA Guidelines 2013
Chronic Heart Failure Groups
Classification LV EF % Description
HFrEF ≤ 40 Effective therapies well-established
HFpEF ≥ 50 “Diastolic HF”, challenging diagnosis, therapies unclear
a. HFpEF, borderline
41 – 49 Intermediate group, clinically more similar to HFpEF
b. HFpEF, improved
> 40 Recovered HFrEF, not well characterized
Yancy C et al. ACCF/AHA 2013 Guidelines
100
75
50
25
0I II III IV
1
10
NYHA CLASS
Ann
ual S
urvi
val R
ate
Hos
pita
lizat
ions
/ y
ear
.1
Deceased
Adapted from Bristow, MR Management of Heart Failure, Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, 6th edition, ed. Braunwald et al.
Survival RateHospitalizations
Heart Failure Progression
Heart Failure Progression
New York Heart Association Functional Classification
Class I: No symptoms with ordinary activity
Class II: Slight limitation of physical activity. Comfortable at rest, but ordinary physical activity results in fatigue, palpitation, dyspnea, or angina
Class III: Marked limitation of physical activity. Comfortable at rest, but less than ordinary physical activity results in fatigue, palpitation, dyspnea, or anginal pain
Class IV: Unable to carry out any physical activity without discomfort. Symptoms of cardiac insufficiency may be present even at rest
Stages of CHF — ACC/AHA Guidelines 2005
AHigh-risk patients
Hypertension, diabetes, coronary disease, family history, cardiotoxic drugs
BStructural heart disease
LVH, MI, low LVEF, dilatation, valvular disease
C
Prior or current HF symptoms
D
Refractory
22%
34%
12%
0.2%
5 year survival Prevalence
20%
75%
96%
97%
Revised August 2005 from Jessup M, Brozena S. NEJM 2003;348:2003
Risk factor reduction, patient and family educationTreat HTN, DM, CAD, dyslipidemia. ACEI or ARB
ACEI, BB in all. Is patient candidate for surgery?Sodium restriction, diuretics
Aldosterone antagonistsDigoxin
InotropeVAD, TX
Stage AHigh riskwith no
symptoms
CRT, ICD if applicable
Stage BStructural
heart disease,
no symptoms
Stage CStructuraldisease,prior orcurrent
symptoms
Stage DRefractorysymptomsrequiring special
intervention
Stages & steps: treatment of systolic HF
Hospice
Brief inotrope
ACEI, ARB’s if intolerant of ACEI, BB if MI or low LVEF
(#1) 75 year old man with non-ischemic CM is admitted tooutside hospital. BNP on admission is 500 pg/mL. He istransferred immediately to your institution for furthermanagement. NT-proBNP at your hospital the following dayis 2300 pg/mL. Which of the following is true?
a) His clinical condition has worsened since his initial
presentation
b) The BNP and NT-proBNP values are approximately
Equivalent
c) Natriuretic peptide levels are not useful in the elderly
d) None of the above
Structure and Cleavage of NT-proBNP/BNP
T ½ = 2 hours T ½ = 22 minutes
Both digested by NEPs and cleared renally
NT-ProBNP vs BNP
NT-ProBNP values between 5-10 times BNP value in same patient
Both are affected by age (NT-ProBNP more)
Both affected by renal function
BNP and diagnosis of HF: Breathing Not Properly Trial
Dyspneic patients in the ED setting
ROC for BNP was 0.91, more accurate than H+P findings
Cutpoint of 100 pg/mL for all pt: Sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%
Maisel et al. N Engl J Med 347:161-167, 2002
Conditions that Influence BNP Concentrations
Increased BNP
Age (older)
Sex (female)
Renal dysfunction
MI/ACS
Right-sided heart failure (corpulmonale, PE)
High output failure (cirrhosis,septic shock)
Decreased BNP
ObesityEarly acute heart failure (less than 1 hr)
Heart Fail Rev 8:327-334, 2003.
Logeart et al, JACC 2004
Death or hospitalization after admission stratified by pre-discharge BNP
BNP/NT-proBNP
Heart Failure Pathophysiology
Myocardial injury (CAD, HTN, CM, Valvular disease)
Fall in LV performance ↑ wall stress
Activation of RAAS, SNS and Cytokines
Morbidity and Mortality
Peripheral vasoconstrictionHemodynamic alterations
Heart Failure symptoms
ANPBNPANPBNP
Remodeling and Progressive worsening
of LV function
Myocardial Toxicity
Goals in the Management of Heart Failure
Stabilize the patient –
– Make the patient feel better
Stabilize the disease process
– Keep the patient alive, out of the hospital, and feeling better
(#2) Ms LA is a 62 year old female with systolic heart failure LVEF 32 % in CF II of NYHA. She becomes an expert on HF management from reading wikipedia. She is wondering which of the following will improve her chance of survival?
a) β-blocker, ACE-I, aldosterone antagonists
b) β-blocker, ACE-I, aldosterone antagonists, diuretics
c) β-blocker, ACE-I, aldosterone antagonists, digoxin
d) All of the above
e) None of the above
Diuretics
Used to relieve fluid retention and treat symptoms
Diuretics do NOT decrease mortality
In fact, observational studies have shown association of higher doses with worse survival
Sodium Reabsorption Sites in the Nephron
Proximal Tubule
70%Distal Tubule
20%
5%
1-4%
Loop of Henle
Collecting
Tubule
Glomerulus
Thiazide Diuretics
Loop Diuretics
Mineralocorticoid
Receptor antagonist
Bioavailability of Loop Diuretics
100%
80%
50%
10%
-
-
-
furosemide torsemide bumetanide
Additional points about diuretics
1 mg Bumetanide= 20 mg torsemide = 40 mg furosemide
Furosemide PO to IV conversion is 2:1
Bumetanide and torsemide PO to IV conversion are 1:1
Consider ethacrynic acid if true allergy to loop diuretics
Sulfa moiety in antibiotics is not the same as loop diuretics
Diuretics: Guideline-Based Recommendations
Indication To improve symptoms in fluid overload
Considerations wheregreater diuresisneeded.(Diuretic refractoriness)
Increased dose – 2 or 3 times daily dosing provides more diuresisConsider switch to oral torsemide/bumetanide if persistent fluid retention despite high dose of furosemideConsider adding chlorothiazides or metolazone.Try to avoid chronic daily metolazone use: high potential for electrolyte imbalance and volume depletion.Intravenous administration
Monitoring BMP, symptomatic hypotension, renal dysfunction, especially with high dose and combination use.
When treatment goalachieved
Consider dose reduction or even discontinuation if improved clinical status
Monitor carefully for recurrent fluid retention.
Patient education Weight and fluid monitoring Selected patients may adjust dose to weight / clinical change
ACCF/AHA 2013: Common DiureticsDrug Initial Dose Max Dose Duration of Action
Loop Diuretics
Bumetanide 0.5-1.0 mg 1-2x/d 10 mg 4-6 h
Furosemide 20-40 mg 1-2x/d 600 mg 6-8 h
Torsemide 10-20 mg 1x/d 200 mg 12-16 h
Thiazide Diuretics
Hydrochlorothiazide 25 -100 mg 1-2x/d 200 mg 6-12 h
Metolazone 2.5-10 mg with loop diuretic 20 mg 12-24 h
Chlorothiazide (IV) 500 mg with loop diuretic N/A N/A
K-sparing Diuretics
Amiloride 5 mg 1x/d 20 mg 24 h
Spironolactone 12.5-25.0 mg 1x/d 50 mg 1-3 h
Triamterene 50-75 mg 2x/d 200 mg 7-9 h
Adapted from: Yancy C et al. ACCF/AHA 2013 Guidelines
(#3)-Your patient Mr G has recently been discharged from the hospital on lisinopril 10 mg bid, furosemide 40 mg qd and low doses of carvedilol 6.25 mg bid. On his visit to the clinic one week after dismissal, he reported feeling well, able to climb 2 flights of stairs, no PND or orthopnea. His weight has been stable, no swollen of LE.
VS: BP: 110/60 mmHg, HR: 78 bpm ,reg rhytm
PE: No JVD, no gallop, CTA bilaterally, no peripheral edema, warm and well perfused. Normal mentation
Labs: Creatinine: 1.7 mg/dl ( prior to discharged was 1.3 mg/dl)K: 4.9 mEq/LBNP: 250 pg/ml upon admission was 1040 pg/ml
(#3)-Cont’dThe most appropriate step at this point include which of the following?
a)Discontinue treatment with lisinopril and start with
hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate.
b)Discontinue treatment with lisinopril and start with candesartan
c)Decrease the doses to half of lisinopril
d)Continues with the same treatment
RAAS Pathway: ACE-I
Angiotensinogen
Non-ACE pathways(eg, chymase)
Vasoconstriction Cell growth Na/H2O retention Sympathetic activation
Renin Angiotensin I
Angiotensin II
ACE
Cough,angioedema
Benefits? Bradykinin
Inactivefragments
Vasodilation Antiproliferation
(kinins)
Aldosterone AT2
AT1
ACEI in Chronic Heart FailureJAMA 1995;273:1450
Metanalysis - ACEi trials in Heart Failure N~7,500 patients
Death 23%
Death/HF Hosp 35%
Heart Failure Death 31%
Sudden Death 9%
Reinfarction 18%
Selected ACE-I Trials: Mortality
Low vs.High dose
ACE-I vs.ISDN/Hydra
Class I* Benefit forhospitalizationTrend for ACM;Low backgroundmortality; 12 yearf/u significant
CONSENSUS SOLVDTreatment
SOLVDPrevention
VHeFT II ATLAS
N 253 2569 4228 804 3164
LVEF Not reported < 35% < 35% < 45% < 30%
NYHA IV II-IV I I-IV II-IV
ACE-I Enalapril Enalapril Enalapril Enalapril Lisinopril 32.5-35 mg
Mortality in comparator
36% in placebo arm at 12 mo
40% in placebo arm at 41 mo
16% in placebo arm at 37 mo
25% in HYD/NIT armat 24 mo
42% in Lisinopril 2.5-5 mg at 46 mo
RRR 31% 16% No difference 28% No difference
Adapted from: Griffin BP et al. Cleveland Clinic Cardiology Board Review
When to Use ACE Inhibitors?
All HF patients with LVEF <40% should be treated with an ACE-I and a beta-blocker, unless a specific contraindication exists
(Class I, Level A)
Jessup et al, Circulation 2009
Optimal Dosing of ACE Inhibitors
• General Guideline:
• Start low and titrate to the target dose used in the clinical trials or the MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE(ATLAS trial)
• Captopril 6.25-12.5 mg 50 mg BID-TID (SAVE)
• Enalapril 2.5 mg BID 20 mg BID (SOLVD/X)
• Ramipril 2.5 mg BID 5 mg BID (AIRE/EX)
• Lisinopril 2.5-5 mg QD 30-40 mg OD (GISSI 3)
• Trandolapril 1mg 4 mg (TRACE)
ACE – Pearls
Up to 85-90% tolerate ACEIs
Start with low dose, especially in elderly
Follow-up BMP in 1-2 weeks
Titrate/double dose to target every 1-2 weeks
Bedtime dosing once BB introduced
Most ACEIs now on $ 4 generic lists
Remember some ACE inhibitor is better than no ACE inhibitor
ACEI or ARB - pearls
Worsening renal function
10% to 30% creatinine can be anticipated with ACE -and it is not an indication to discontinue treatment:
Avoid sodium and volume depletion Reduce diuretic dose Fluid resuscitation, salt liberalization Avoid NSAIDs
Hyperkalemia
Incidence ~ 3-10%, [K+] > 5.5 mEq/L
Drug Interactions: NSAIDs, KCL supplements,
Additional considerations: ACE-I
ACE-I can cause angioedema
Bilateral RAS is a contraindication to ACE-I
AVOID during pregnancy
Can increase bradykinin, resulting in cough
Generally used as 1st line therapy due to vasodilation even during ADHF
Inability to tolerate ACE-I is a bad prognostic sign
RAAS Pathway: ARB
Angiotensinogen
Non-ACE pathways(eg, chymase)
Vasoconstriction Cell growth Na/H2O retention Sympathetic activation
Renin Angiotensin I
Angiotensin II
ACE
Cough,angioedema
Benefits? Bradykinin
Inactivefragments
Vasodilation Antiproliferation
(kinins)
Aldosterone AT2
AT1
ARB in Heart Failure
Questions
Alternative to ACEI ?
Better than ACEI ?
Added to ACEI ?
Granger CB, et al. Lancet. 2003;362:772-776.
CHARM-Alternative: ARB vs. Placebo
Number at risk
Candesartan 1,013 929 831 434 122
Placebo 1,015 887 798 427 126
0 1 2 3Years
0
10
20
30
40
50
Placebo
Candesartan (intolerant of ACE-I)
HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.67-0.89), P=.0004Adjusted HR 0.70, P<.0001
3.5
406 (40.0%)
334 (33.0%)
Pro
po
rtio
n W
ith
CV
Dea
th
or
CH
F H
osp
ital
izat
ion
(%
)
Primary outcome of CV death or CHF hospitalization
ARB vs. ACE-I
No clear difference between ACE-I and ARB, with some trials favoring ARB, and others trending toward ACE-I superiority
ARB in addition to ACE-I
ARB added to ACE-I had no impact on all-causemortality in any of the major cardiovascular trials
ACEI/ARBs : Low vs Higher doses
Higher doses HF hospitalizations > Death
ATLAS - Lisinopril 5 vs 35 mg 24% vs. 8%HEAAL - Losartan 50 vs 150 mg 13% vs 6%
ARBs Doses in HF
ARBs
Candesartan 4-8 mg qd 32 mg qd 24 mg/day
Losartan 25-50 mg qd 150 mg qd 129 mg/day
Valsartan 20-40 mg bid 160 mg bid 254 mg/day
Starting HF doses! Target HF doses! Mean doses achieved in trials!
Mineralocorticoids receptors antagonist
Direct aldosterone antagonism in LV remodeling:
Decreased local fibrosis
Increased local dilation via increased NO
Decrease cardiac NE release, SCD
Benefits in 1-3 months
Spironolactone
Placebo
Months
RR = 0.70P < 0.001
Pro
bab
ility
of
Su
rviv
al
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 12 24 36
Epleronone
Placebo
RR = 0.85P < 0.008
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 12 24 36
Months
RR = 0.78P = 0.014
MRAs Beneficial in HFrEF and Post-MI LVD
30% Risk Reduction 15% Risk Reduction
0 12 24 36
0.50
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.40
1.00
0.60
Epleronone
Placebo
22% Risk Reduction
RALES(Severe HFrEF)
EPHESUS(Post-MI)
EMPHASIS(Mild HFrEF)
Reviews of Mechanisms : Pitt Heart Fail Rev 2012; Kamalov,…,Weber JCV Pharm 2013
Pitt NEJM 1999 Pitt NEJM 2003 Zannad NEJM 2011
Months
When to use aldosterone blockers?ACCF/AHA 2013:
-Recommended for NYHA class II-IV HF with LVEF ≤ 35%.
-After acute MI with LVEF ≤ 40% or history of diabetes
Contraindications
SCr > 2.5 men, SCr > 2.0 women (eGFR < 30 ml/min)
Acute renal insufficiency Hyperkalemia, K+ > 5
Aldosterone Blockers Pearls
Decrease mortality by 15-30%
Start low spiro/eplerenone 12.5-25 mg/day.
Target doses 25-50 mg/day.
• Follow-up BMP after initiation, dose change:
3 days then,1 week then,monthly for 3 months then,
Every 3 months indefinitely
Eplerenone is generic $28/month at UWMC Pharmacy
– Less Gynecomastia 1% vs. 10%
– Less impotence
(#4)You are asked to evaluate a 60 year old woman AAwho is admitted for treatment of cellulitis. She is doing well , but nurses has been refusing to administer her lisinopril and carvedilol due to low blood pressure. She has stable NYHA Class II symptoms. She is not lightheadedness. Her BP usually range of 75/50-80/55 mmHg. Her LVEF is 28 %.
Meds:Lisinopril 20 mg qd, Carvedilol 12.5 mg bid, furosemide 20 mg qd, Spironolactone 12.5 mg qd
VS: BP: 80/50 HR : 66 bpm regular
PE: No JVD, no gallop, CTA bilaterally, no peripheral edema, warm and well perfused. Normal mentation
(#4)-Cont’dWhich one of the following represent the most appropriate next step?
a)Hold the lisinopril and carvedilol completely
b)Reduce the doses of lisinopril and carvedilol by half and
follow up with the cardiologist as outpatient
c)Discontinue lisinopril and start hydralazine/isordil
d)Continues same doses of lisinopril and carvedilol
How Do Beta Blockers Improve Heart Failure?
Reverse LV remodeling, adrenergic receptors
Reduces risk of sudden cardiac death
Benefits in 3-6 months
Contraindications:
Severe bronchospastic disease
Severe, unpaced, symptomatic bradycardia HR < 50
Unpaced 2nd or 3rd degree AV Block
Effect of Beta Blockade on Outcome in Patients With HF and Post-MI LVD
BB in HFrEF
Drug Starting HF
Doses Target HF Doses
Mean Dose Achieved in
Trials
Bisoprolol 1.25 mg qd 10 mg qd 8.6 mg/day
Carvedilol 3.125 mg bid (with food)
25 mg bid (<85 kg) 50 mg bid (>85 kg)
37 mg/day
Carvedilol CR 10 mg qd 80 mg qd n/a
Metoprolol Succinate CR/XL
12.5-25 mg qd 200 mg qd 159 mg/day
BB -Recommendations
General Recommended for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with reduced LVEF (≤ 40%) to reduce M&M.
Initiation; Dosing;
Initiate at low dosesUp-titrate gradually, generally ≥ 2 week intervals
Target doses shown to be effective in clinical trials
Target dose in 8-12 wks;Maintain at maximum tolerated dose
Beta Blockers -Pearls
If symptoms worsen or side effects appear
Adjust dose of diuretic Continue titration to target dose once symptoms at baseline.
If an acute exacerbation of chronic HF occurs
Maintain therapy if possible.Reduce dosage if necessary.Avoid abrupt discontinuation.If discontinued or reduced, reinstate gradually before discharge
Following decompensation
Initiate after optimizing volume status and discontinuation of intravenous inotropic agents.
Whenever possible, initiate prior to hospital discharge in stable patients.
Should we increase ACE-/ARB to target doses before beginning BB?
Titrating to target doses provides more benefit than very low doses.
However, the difference in efficacy between intermediate and high doses is small.
Thus, not unreasonable to start β-blockers after intermediate doses of ACEI are achieved, or vice versa.
Do not reduce or discontinue ACEI or β-blockers for asymptomatic low BP measurement
Hydralazine and Nitrates
Rationale is to reduce preload and afterload by both venous and arterial vasodilation
Hydralazine is predominately an arterial vasodilator
Nitrates are mostly venodilators
Increases NO bioavailability since nitrates are NO donors and hydralazine may have antioxidant effects
What about Hydralazine and Isordil? The A-HeFT Trial
1050 NYHA III/IV AA pts
LVEF < 35%
Composite endpt (death, HF hosp, QOL), Terminated early
– Hyd 75/Isordil 40 TID
– Mean - Hyd 142/Isordil 76
– ACE/ARB 86%
– BB 74%
– Spiro 39%
– Digoxin 59%
Ann Taylor et al.NEJM 2004;351:2049-57
Mortality 43%, p=0.02Do non-black patients benefit from hydralizine/nitrates?
Su
rviv
al %
Days Since Baseline Visit
43% Decrease in Mortality
Fixed Dose ISDN/HDZN
Placebo
P = 0.01
85
90
95
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Hydralazine-Nitrate Combination -Guideline-Based Recommendations
Medical Therapy for Stage C HFrEF: Magnitude of Benefit Demonstrated in RCTs
GDMTRR
Reduction in Mortality
NNT for Mortality Reduction
(Standardized to 36 mo)
RR Reductionin HF
Hospitalizations
ACE - or ARB 17% 26 31%
Beta blocker 34% 9 41%
Aldosterone antagonist
30% 6 35%
Hydralazine/nitrate 43% 7 33%
Pharmacotherapy: Digoxin The oldest cardiac drug still in contemporary use
• Inhibits Na-K ATPase increases contractility
• Neurohormonal effects decreased SNS activation, vagomimetic Slows AV conduction
Digoxin: DIG Trial (NEJM 1997)
Reduces hospitalization
But does NOT reduce mortality
Narrow therapeutic window : Digoxin level should be < 1.0 (0.5 to 0.9) ng/mL
Monitor closely for digoxin toxicity
Renewed interest in certain subgroups? Subanalyses suggest that sicker patients may have additional benefit (EF < 25%, NYHA III-IV)
Vincent van Gogh’s yellow period and digitalis
Starry nightDr. Gachet at a Table with Sprig of Foxglove
Digoxin Toxicity
Symptoms: Fatigue, anorexia, diarrhea, yellow halos, confusion, agitation
Classic arrhythmias seen with toxicity:
- Paroxysmal atrial tachycardia w/ block
- Accelerated junctional rhythm
- Bidirectional ventricular tachycardia (only dig and CPVT can do this)
Electrolyte abnormalities that predispose to dig tox:
- Low Mg, Low K, High Ca
PARADIGM HF – Valsartan-LCZ696 NEJM 2014
PARADIGM HF – Valsartan-LCZ696NEJM 2014
Composite 20%
CV death 20%
HF Hosp 21%
Mortality 16%
First medication to replace a HF medication (ACEI)
Enalapril 10 mg BID vs. Valsartan-Neprilysin 200 mg BID in 8442 patients NYHA 2-4, EF ≤ 35%, BNP >150 or >100 if HF Hospitalization <12 months. On ACEI/ARB with SBP ≥100 and eGFR>30.
F/U 27 months
Evidence-Based Treatment for Heart Failure with Reduced LVEF
Control VolumeReduce Mortality
Sodium Restriction*Diuretics*
Digoxin*
-BlockerACEIor ARB
AldosteroneAntagonist
Treat Residual SymptomsCRT
an ICD*Hyd/ISDN*
*For select indicated patients.
ICD*
Treat Comorbidities
Aspirin*Warfarin*
Statin*
Enhance Adherence
EducationDisease Management
Performance Improvement Systems18
Potential Impact of Optimal Implementation of Evidence-Based HF Therapies on Mortality
Fonarow GC, et al. Am Heart J 2011;161:1024-1030.
Guideline Recommended
Therapy
HF Patient
Population Eligible
for Treatment, n*
Current HF
Population
Eligible and
Untreated, n (%)
Potential Lives
Saved per Year
ACEI/ARB 2,459,644 501,767 (20.4) 6516
Beta-blocker 2,512,560 361,809 (14.4) 12,922
Aldosterone Antagonist 603,014 385,326 (63.9) 21,407
Hydralazine/Nitrate 150,754 139,749 (92.7) 6655
CRT 326,151 199,604 (61.2) 8317
ICD 1,725,732 852,512 (49.4) 12,179
Total - - 67,996
Improved Adherence to ACC/AHA HF Guidelines Translates to Improved Clinical Outcomes in Real World HF Patients
Each 10% improvement in ACC/AHA guideline-recommended composite care was associated with a 13% lower odds of 24-month mortality (P<0.0001)
Fonarow GC, et al. Circulation. 2011;123:1601-1610.
Case# 56 y/o male caucasian admitted in 10/2014 because of AHF. Normal coronary arteries and cardiac MRI without evidence of acute myocarditis and or infiltrative disease
Echocardiogram 10/14 Echocardiogram 3/15
Meds: Metoprolol XL 200 mg qd, Lisinopril 20 mg qd, Spironolactone 12.5 mg qd, Now off diuretics
Conclusions
HF remains common and costly in the current era, with increasing incidence and prevalence
Heart failure medications can reduce mortality by 60-70%
Effort should be made to implement guideline-recommended therapies in HF patients in absence of contraindications or intolerance
High risk patients Inability to tolerate or need to withdraw HF medications
Low BP, Sodium
High Diuretic dose, BUN, Creatinine, BNP
Recurrent hospitalizations
ARB vs. ACE-I
No clear difference between ACE-I and ARB, with some trials favoring ARB, and others trending toward ACE-I superiority
ELITE I ELITE II OPTIMAAL VALIANT
N 722 3152 5477 9818
Admission criteria
EF < 40%NYHA II-IVAge > 65 y
EF < 40%NYHA II-IVAge > 60 y
MI w/ anterior Q waves or clinical HF or EF < 35% or LVEDD > 65 mm
EF < 40% or clinical HF
Ischemic etiology
68% 79% 100% post-MI 100% post-MI
ARB Losartan Losartan Losartan Valsartan
Comparator Captopril Captopril Captopril Captopril
Mortality 46% RRR at 12 mo
No difference at18.2 mo
No difference at32.4 mo
No difference at24.7 mo
Adapted from: Griffin BP et al. Cleveland Clinic Cardiology Board Review
ARB in addition to ACE-I
ARB added to ACE-I had no impact on all-cause mortality in any of the major cardiovascular trials
ValHEFT CHARM Added VALIANT
N 5010 2548 9794
LVEF < 40% < 40% < 40% or clinical HF
NYHA II-IV II-IV I-IV
Ischemic etiology
57% 62% 100%
ARB Valsartan Candesartan Valsartan
ACE-I use 93% on ACE-I 100% on ACE-I 100% on captopril
Mortality No difference at 23 mo
No difference at41 mo
No difference at24.7 mo
Adapted from: Griffin BP et al. Cleveland Clinic Cardiology Board Review
Carvedilol vs Metoprolol Succinate
Usefulness of Torsemide after Admission for ADHF
234 pts admitted for ADHF
torsemide furosemide
52% HF Hospitalization
(Murray, et al. Am J Med 2000;111:513-521)
Randomized on Discharge
DIG Trial (NEJM 1997)
HF with EF < 45% on ACE and diuretic
N = 6800 Mean EF 28%
Mortality
Death or HF Hosp
MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of Metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL randomized intervention trial in congestive heart failure (MERIT-HF). LANCET. 1999;353:2001-07.
Severity of Heart FailureMode of Death
12%
24%
64%
CHF
Other
SuddenDeath
n = 103
NYHA II
26%
15%
59%
CHF
Other
SuddenDeath
n = 103
NYHA III
56%
11%
33%
CHF
Other
SuddenDeath
n = 27
NYHA IV
Neprilysin Inhibition Potentiates Actions of Endogenous Vasoactive Peptides That Counter
Maladaptive Mechanisms in Heart Failure
Endogenousvasoactive peptides
(natriuretic peptides, adrenomedullin,bradykinin, substance P,
calcitonin gene-related peptide)
Inactive metabolites
Neurohormonal activation
Vascular tone
Cardiac fibrosis, hypertrophy
Sodium retention
Neprilysin Neprilysininhibition