Abstract
Background
Among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), β-blockers (BB) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) are known as guideline-directed medical therapy to improve prognosis. However, low blood pressure (BP) and renal dysfunction are often challenges prevent clinical implementation, so we investigated the association of different combinations of GDMT treatments with all-cause mortality in HFrEF population with low BP and renal dysfunction.
Methods
This study initially included 51, 060 HF patients from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, and finally 1464 HFrEF patients with low BP (systolic BP ≦ 100 mmHg) and renal dysfunction (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≦ 60 ml/min/1.73m2) were ultimately enrolled. Patients were receiving oral medication for HF at study enrollment, and divided into four groups (group 1–4: ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA, ACEI/ARB + BB, ACEI/ARB + MRA or ACEI/ARB only, and other). The outcome is time to all-cause mortality.
Results
Among the study patients, 485 (33.1%), 672 (45.9%), 109 (7.4%) and 198 (13.5%) patients were in group 1–4. Patients in group 1 were younger, had highest hemoglobin, and most with EF < 30%. During a median of 1.33 years follow-up, 937 (64%) patients died. After adjustment for age, gender, LVEF, eGFR, hemoglobin when compared with the group 1, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in group 2 was 1.04 (0.89–1.21) (p = 0.62), group 3 1.40 (1.09–1.79) (p = 0.009), and group 4 1.71 (1.39–2.09) (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
In real-world HFrEF patients with low BP and renal dysfunction, full medication of guideline-directed medical therapy is associated with improved survival. The benefit was larger close to the index date and decreased with follow-up time.
Graphic abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Heart failure (HF) has a prevalence of approximately 2% in adults in developed countries [1] and mainly affects elderly patients, who may have multiple comorbidities. Two such comorbidities, low systolic blood pressure (SBP) and impaired renal function [2, 3], have been shown to be strong predictors of mortality and can be present in about 50% of patients treated for HF [4]. To improve patient outcome, guideline-directed medical therapy, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), beta blockers (BB) and Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), is recommended for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [5, 6].
Despite proven benefits and strong guideline recommendations, medication usage and dosing remain suboptimal in routine clinical practice. Two of the most common barriers to adhere to guideline-directed medical therapy are low SBP and renal dysfunction, which often occur simultaneously [7]. Therefore, in this study, we sought to compare whether different combinations of guideline-directed medical therapy treatments upon discharge or at an outpatient visit in patients with HFrEF included in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF), with coexisting low SBP and renal dysfunction are associated with different risks for all-cause mortality.
Methods
Study design and setting
This study utilized patients from the SweHF, with available data from 11 May 2000 to 31 December 2012, which is described previously [8]. Inclusion criteria are clinician-judged HF. Ejection fraction (EF) is categorized as < 30, 30–39, 40–49, or ≥ 50%. Approximately, 80 variables are recorded at discharge from hospital or at an outpatient visit and entered into a web-based database managed by the Uppsala Clinical Research Center (www.ucr.uu.se/en). Deaths are obtained from the Swedish Population Registry. The protocol, registration form, and annual reports are available at www.swedehf.se. Establishment of the registry and this analysis conform to the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by a multisite ethics committee. Individual patient consent is not required, but patients are informed of entry into national registries.
Patient population
The HF patients were receiving oral medication for HF at study enrollment (including diuretics, ACEI, ARB, BB, MRA, antihypertensive, or other cardiovascular medications). Key inclusion criteria included: (1) Patients with HFrEF (defined as EF < 40%); (2) HFrEF patients with renal insufficiency, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤ 60 ml/min/1.73m2 [corresponding to chronic kidney disease (CKD) 3, 4 and 5] [9]; (3) HFrEF patients with low SBP ≤ 100 mmHg [10]. Patients were excluded if they died during hospitalization or having missing information on the use of ACEI, ARB, BB or MRA.
Group dividing and outcome
Patients treated with guideline-directed medical therapy were divided into 4 groups: group 1: treated with all three: ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA; group 2: treated with ACEI/ARB + BB; group 3: treated with ACEI/ARB + MRA or ACEI/ARB only; group 4: others (the patients were treated dominated by BB and to some extent MRA). Furthermore, groups 1–3 were divided into two subgroups according to the dose levels of ACEI/ARB < 50% or ≥ 50% of target doses [5].
The eGFR was used to assess renal function and calculated by CKD-EPI [7], renal dysfunction was defined as eGFR ≤ 60 ml/min/1.73m2.
Blood pressure and renal function were measured at the first registration into our registry, and the medical therapy was collected at discharge or at the outpatient visit. The endpoint for this study was time to all-cause mortality during study follow-up.
Co-existing comorbidities at or prior to index date were defined either at the clinical examination in SwedeHF (hypertension, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, diabetes, stroke/TIA and anemia) or existing in the patient register between 1 January 1997 and index date (hypertension ICD-10 I10–I15, atrial fibrillation/flutter I48, diabetes E10–E14, stroke/TIA I60–I64 I690–I694 G45, anemia D50–D64).
Statistical analysis
For baseline characteristics, categorical variables are presented as frequencies with percentages and continuous variables as mean with standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR) as applicable. The overall differences in baseline characteristics between the treatment groups were tested using the Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test for continuous variables, and chi-square test for categorical variables. Crude event rates were estimated as number of events divided by number of follow-up years and were expressed per 100 person years with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated applying exact Poisson limits. Event rates with 95% CI adjusted for age and sex were estimated using Poisson regression. Time to all-cause mortality was studied using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and sex in model 1, and additionally adjusted for known risk factors smoking, NYHA, LVEF, eGFR and hemoglobin in model 2. Missing data for smoking and NYHA, 26% and 21%, respectively, were handled as unknown categories in this model. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI were presented. Proportional hazards assumption was checked adding an interaction term between the treatment group variable and the natural logarithm of follow-up time in the Cox model, which was not found to be satisfied. Therefore, the HRs obtained from the Cox regression were regarded as overall treatment effects for the studied time period, and additionally continuous HRs over time were estimated based on flexible parametric survival models by Royston and Parmar [11], using a developed SAS macro for the method [12], for further evaluation. The variables having missing data in the models were smoking (26% missing) and NYHA (21%). Those patients were handled as an own Unknown category in the adjustments.
We considered a 2-sided p value < 0.05 as significant, and used SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) for all analyses.
Results
Patient disposition
Between 11 May 2000 and 5 June 2013, there were 85, 291 registrations from 68 of 77 hospitals and 102 of 1011 primary care outpatient clinics in Sweden, and they were recorded for 51, 060 unique patients. After exclusion of 27, 250 (53.4%) HF patients with EF ≥ 40%, 20, 422 (40.0%) with SBP > 100 mmHg, 1707 (3.3%) with eGFR > 60% and others with missing data, 1464 HF patients were finally enrolled for this analysis, 1435 (98.0%) from the hospitals and 29/1464 (2.0%) from the primary care clinics. The flow chart of study population is depicted in Fig. 1.
Baseline characteristics
Baseline characteristics of subgroups are presented in Table 1. In general, patients treated with pre-defined 3 combinations in guideline-directed medical therapy (group 1, 2 and 3) were younger, more current smoker, had less atrial fibrillation/flutter, less anemia, less CKD (stage 4/5), and more EF < 30% compared with other combinations (group 4) in which 90% were treated with BB, 39% with MRA but no ACEI/ARB. In particular, patients treated with ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA (group 1) were youngest among all groups. Furthermore, when guideline-directed medical therapy use was further stratified by its dose level (Table 2), patients treated with ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA (group 1) and with ≥ 50% dose were the youngest, had less anemia and less CKD (stage 4/5).
Outcomes
Of the 1464 HF patients with low BP and renal dysfunction, 937 (64%) died during a median of 1.33 (IQR 0.41–3.25)-year follow-up. Event rate adjusted for age and sex was highest in group [4 67.3 (95% CI 57.7–78.7) events per 100 person years, 163 (82.3%)] and lowest in group 1 (patients treated with ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA) [26.6 (95% CI 23.7–29.9) events per 100 person years, 286 (59%)], followed by group 2 (ACEI/ARB + BB group) [28.1 (95% CI 25.5–31.0) events per 100 person years, 406 (60.4%)] and group 3 (ACEI/ARB + MRA or ACEI/ARB) [36.3 (95% CI 29.2–45.2) events per 100 person years, 82 (75.2%)] (Table 2, Figs. 2,3).When the dose effect was taken into account, mortality remained lowest in group 1 (patients treated with ACEI + BB + MRA) with ≥ 50% dose [24.1 (95% CI 20.9–27.8) events per 100 person years, 191 (55.8%)] (Table 2).
After adjustments, patients treated with ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA (group 1) still had lowest mortality among all groups, and compared with group 1, group 3 (ACEI/ARB + MRA or ACEI/ARB group) had an 40% higher all-cause mortality [HR 1.40 (95% CI 1.09–1.79), p = 0.0087], while group 4 had a 1.71-fold higher mortality [HR 1.71 (95% CI 1.39–2.09), p < 0.001] (Table 3, Fig. 2). However, the comparison of risks for all-cause mortality between the groups is illustrated in Fig. 3, when compared with ACE/ARB + BB + MRA group, all the other three groups have higher risk for all-cause mortality, and this risk was shown to be highest close to the index visit and decreased during the follow-up time. Comparing low and high dose within each medication group, even lower mortality was found in patients treated ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA ≥ 50% dose. (Table 4, Fig. 2).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluated whether guideline-directed medical therapy affects the outcome in HFrEF patients with low SBP and renal dysfunction. The main findings of this study were that: (1) about one third of patients with HFrEF and with coexisting low SBP and renal dysfunction were treated with all 3 guideline-directed medical therapy drugs (ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA); (2) patients treated with ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA were younger, had highest levels of eGFR and hemoglobin, and more had EF < 30%; (3) HFrEF patients treated with all three guideline-directed medical therapy had lower risk for all-cause mortality, and the outcome was better in those treated with ≥ 50% of the target dose.
The HR is relatively higher and then declined quickly, we also retrieved information about very early deaths, during the first month post-index visit, that is affecting the appearance of the continuous HR curves. The number of patients with early death in the ACE/ARB + BB + AA group was 15 (3.1%), in the ACE/ARB + BB group 41 (6.1%), in the ACE/ARB + AA or ACE/ARB group 12 (11.0%) and in the other group 46 (23.2%). The patients in other medication groups than ACE/ARB + BB + AA are older and higher proportion have had longer HF duration with more severe comorbidity profiles, resulting in higher proportion of very early deaths. Moreover, it is known that it is the early post-discharge period, so called the “vulnerable phase” where the greatest number of adverse outcomes occurs. So this phenomenon may because the patients are not stable at discharge and should receive more GDMT and be titrated medication at the suitable time.
Renal dysfunction represents a significant comorbidity of HF, may lead to further deterioration of HF and worsened clinical outcomes [13, 14], and the mortality risk substantially increases when eGFR is < 45 [15,16,17]. In addition to structural renal abnormalities related to hypertension, diabetes or atherosclerosis, renal dysfunction in HF patients may result from renal hypoperfusion caused by hemodynamic, neurohumoral and inflammatory factors [17]. Several encouraging retrospective analyses had been published demonstrating the safety and efficacy of treatment with renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in elderly patients with HFrEF and moderate to severe renal dysfunction [18].
Heart failure and reduced ejection fraction patients, having a low SBP often have signs and/or symptoms of hypoperfusion and a very poor prognosis [19, 20] [21,22,23]. Studies have found that patients with HF and low SBP were more likely to have had a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), hypercholesterolemia and less likely a history of hypertension [19, 20], and treatment with RAS and BBs has been shown to result in improved outcomes, independent of the baseline SBP [24, 25]. When low SBP was accompanied with renal dysfunction, the situation seems to get worse, so our study adds to the body of evidence showing that despite low SBP and renal dysfunction, treatment with guideline-directed medical therapy was still associated with an improved outcome. In our study, patients in group 1 with full medications of ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA were clearly more beneficial than those in group 4 in which only ACEI/ARB were not included, suggesting that ACEI/ARB are indispensable, and moreover, when dose level was taken into account, at a dose level ≥ 50% of target dose, full medications of ACEI/ARB + BB + MRA were clearly more beneficial than those in group 3 in which BB were not included or group 4 in which ACEI/ARB were not included, indicating that both BB and ACEI/ARB are very essential drugs when treating patients with HF.
Limitations
Our study should be taken in the context of some limitations. First, the study population was derived from SwedeHF, so the results may not be generalizable to other populations or geographic regions. Second, participation in the registry is voluntary, so while most health care facilities (or hospitals if we limit the study to hospital-based patients) report to the registry, the registry does not capture all care throughout Sweden. In addition, we were limited by the data available in the registry and due to the large scale of this registry, some data were missing. Third, as a part of the nature of a registry study, we are unable to validate diagnosis. Fourth, blood pressure and renal function were assessed at a single time which meant that we could not address the influence on outcomes of changes in renal function related to the treatment given. Fifth, the observational nature of this study, unknown residual unmeasured confounders could have influenced our results. Last, we only have the data on drugs at the enrollment, so we cannot evaluate the changes for medical therapy.
Conclusions
About one third of the HFrEF patients with low SBP and renal dysfunction were treated with all three guideline-directed medical therapy drugs, and these patients are associated with a better outcome than those treated with only ACEI/ARB or BB. The benefit was larger close to the index date and decreased with follow-up time.
References
Sayago-Silva I, García-López F, Segovia-Cubero J (2013) Epidemiology of heart failure in Spain over the last 20 years. Rev Esp Cardiol 66:649–656
Ferreira JP, Girerd N, Pellicori P et al (2016) Gault formulas for predicting cardiovascular mortality in population-based, cardiovascular risk, heart failure and post-myocardial infarction cohorts: the heart “OMics” in AGEing (HOMAGE) and the high-risk myocardial infarction database initiatives. BMC Med 14(1):181
Hillege HL, Girbes AR, de Kam PJ et al (2000) Renal function, neurohormonal activation, and survival in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation 102:203–210
Damman K, Valente MA, Voors AA et al (2014) Renal impairment, worsening renal function, and outcome in patients with heart failure: an updated meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 35:455–469
Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD et al (2016) 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J 37:2129–2200
Greene SJ, Butler J, Albert NM et al (2018) Medical Therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. the CHAMP-Hf Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 72:351–366
Parwani P, Ryan J (2012) Heart failure patients with low blood pressure: how should we manage neurohormonal blocking drugs? Circ Heart Fail 5(6):819
Jonsson A, Edner M, Alehagen U, Dahlstrom U (2010) Heart failure registry: a valuable tool for improving the management of patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 12:25–31
Stevens PE, Levin A, KDIGO Chronic Kidney Disease Guideline Development Work Group Members (2013) Evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease: synopsis of the kidney disease: improving global outcomes 2012 clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med 158:825–830
Lee DS, Ghosh N, Floras JS et al (2009) Association of blood pressure at hospital discharge with mortality in patients diagnosed with heart failure. Circ Heart Fail 2:616–623
Royston P, Parmar MK (2002) Flexible parametric proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modelling and estimation of treatment effects. Stat Med 21:2175–2197
Dewar R, Khan I (2015) A new SAS macro for flexible parametric survival modelling: applications to clinical trials and surveillance data. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1:855–866
McAlister FA, Ezekowitz J, Tonelli M, Armstrong PW (2004) Renal insufficiency and heart failure: prognostic and therapeutic implications from a prospective cohort study. Circulation 109:1004–1009
Heywood JT, Fonarow GC, Costanzo MR et al (2007) High prevalence of renal dysfunction and its impact on outcome in 118,465 patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure: a report from the ADHERE database. J Card Fail 13:422–430
Smith GL, Lichtman JH, Bracken MB et al (2006) Renal impairment and outcomes in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:1987–1996
Go AS, Yang J, Ackerson LM et al (2006) Hemoglobin level, chronic kidney disease, and the risks of death and hospitalization in adults with chronic heart failure: the anemia in chronic heart failure: outcomes and resource utilization (ANCHOR) study. Circulation 113:2713–2723
Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu CY (2004) Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med 351(13):1296–1305
Ahmed A, Kiefe CI, Allman RM, Sims RV, DeLong JF (2002) Survival benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in older heart failure patients with perceived contraindications. J Am Geriatr Soc 50:1659–1666
Gheorghiade M, Abraham WT, Albert NM et al (2006) Systolic blood pressure at admission, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure. JAMA 296:2217–2226
Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Lucci D et al (2006) Nationwide survey on acute heart failure in cardiology ward services in Italy. Eur Heart J 27:1207–1215
Ambrosy AP, Vaduganathan M, Mentz RJ et al (2013) Clinical profile and prognostic value of low systolic blood pressure in patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from the efficacy of vasopressin antagonism in heart failure: outcome study with tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial. Am Heart J 165:216–225
Gheorghiade M, Vaduganathan M, Ambrosy A et al (2013) Current management and future directions for the treatment of patients hospitalized for heart failure with low blood pressure. Heart Fail Rev 18:107–122
Komajda M, Böhm M, Borer JS et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of ivabradine in patients with chronic systolic heart failure according to blood pressure level in SHIFT. Eur J Heart Fail 16:810–816
Böhm M, Young R, Jhund PS et al (2017) Systolic blood pressure, cardiovascular outcomes and efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: results from PARADIGM-HF. Eur Heart J 38:1132–1143
Metra M, Torp-Pedersen C, Swedberg K et al (2005) Influence of heart rate, blood pressure, and beta-blocker dose on outcome and the differences in outcome between carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the COMET trial. Eur Heart J 26:2259–2268
Funding
The Swedish Heart Failure Registry is funded by the Swedish Federal Government through the Swedish Association of local authorities and regions. No funding agency had any role in the design and conduct of the study, in the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data, or in the preparation, or approval of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, X., Cui, X., Thunström, E. et al. Guideline-directed medical therapy in real-world heart failure patients with low blood pressure and renal dysfunction. Clin Res Cardiol 110, 1051–1062 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01790-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-020-01790-y