heart failure

Background: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain.

Methods: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction.

Results: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32).

Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Clinical trials of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have suggested neutral results and treatment is focused on associated symptoms and comorbidities. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through October 2019 for randomized controlled studies investigating the effects of different RAAS antagonists in patients with HFpEF. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, trial defined cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. To compare different RAAS antagonists, a random-effects restricted-maximum-likelihood network meta-analysis based on a frequentist framework for indirect and mixed comparisons was used. We used p scores to rank best treatments per outcome. Our search identified 5 eligible clinical trials (PEP-CHF, perindopril; CHARM-preserved, candesartan; I-PRESERVE, irbesartan; TOPCAT, spironolactone; PARAGON-HF, sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan) enrolling a total 10,523 on RAAS antagonists and 6,259 controls. We did not identify any statistical difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among RAAS antagonists and placebo. The combination of sacubitril-valsartan was associated with significantly decreased HF hospitalization risk compared with controls (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.87) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.91), without heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 0). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) ranked better than other RAAS antagonists for HF hospitalizations (p value 0.9). In conclusion, RAAS antagonists do not affect mortality but the combination of sacubitril-valsartan is associated with lower HF hospitalizations in HFpEF patients.

Major adverse cardiac events are common causes of perioperative mortality and major morbidity. Preventing these complications requires thorough preoperative risk assessment and postoperative monitoring of at-risk patients. Major guidelines recommend assessment based on a validated risk calculator that incorporates patient- and procedure-specific factors. American and European guidelines define when stress testing is needed on the basis of functional capacity assessment. Favoring cost-effectiveness, Canadian guidelines instead recommend obtaining brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide levels to guide postoperative screening for myocardial injury or infarction. When conditions such as acute coronary syndrome, severe pulmonary hypertension, and decompensated heart failure are identified, nonemergent surgery should be postponed until the condition is appropriately managed. There is an evolving role of biomarkers and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery to enhance risk stratification, but the effect of interventions guided by these strategies is unclear.

BACKGROUND:

Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is a well-established cardiovascular risk factor, yet association between SHS and prognosis of heart failure remains uncertain.

METHOD:

Data were obtained from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys III from 1988 to 1994. Currently nonsmoking adults with a self-reported history of heart failure were included. Household SHS exposure was assessed by questionnaire. Participants were followed up through December 31, 2011. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to assess the association of household SHS exposure and mortality risk. Potential confounding factors were adjusted.

RESULTS:

Of 572 currently nonsmoking patients with heart failure, 88 were exposed to household SHS while 484 were not. There were totally 475 deaths during follow-up. In univariate analysis, household SHS was not associated with mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.26, p = 0.864). However, after adjustment for demographic variables, socioeconomic variables and medication, heart failure patients in exposed group had a 43% increase of mortality risk compared with those in unexposed group (HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.10-1.86, p = 0.007). Analysis with further adjustment for general health status and comorbidities yielded similar result (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.13-1.92, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION:

Household SHS exposure was associated with increased mortality risk in heart failure patients.