Key result
Non-eligibility for pivotal HFpEF/HFmrEF trials strongly predicted increased mortality, with 24-month survival of 53% vs 76% for CHARM-Preserved criteria (HR 2.32; 95% CI 1.47-3.67; p<0.001).
Why the study?
Pivotal HFpEF and HFmrEF outcome trials may have excluded patients at highest risk of poor outcomes.
Does non-eligibility for pivotal HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials predict increased mortality in a contemporary heart failure cohort?
Cohort (n=407)
No
Does non-eligibility for pivotal HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials predict increased mortality in a contemporary heart failure cohort?
Hazard Ratio: 2.32 (95% CI 1.47–3.67)
Absolute Event Rate: 53% vs 76%
p-value: p=<0.001
Patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF who are ineligible for pivotal outcome trials represent a high-risk population with significantly increased mortality, highlighting an unmet medical need.
Trial-ineligible HFpEF/HFmrEF patients show markedly higher mortality; leaves open generalizability of pivotal trial results to real-world cohorts.
Pivotal outcome trials targeting heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and mildly-reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) may have excluded patients at highest risk of poor outcomes. We aimed to assess eligibility for HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials in an unselected heart failure cohort and its association with all-cause mortality. Among 32.028 patients presenting to a tertiary care center emergency unit for any reason between August 2018 and July 2019, we identified 407 admissions with evident HFpEF and HFmrEF. Eligibility criteria for pivotal trials CHARM-Preserved, I-PRESERVE, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER were assessed by chart review. The proportions of admissions fulfilling HFpEF/HFmrEF trial eligibility criteria were 88% for CHARM-Preserved, 40% for I-PRESERVE, 35% for TOPCAT, 28% for PARAGON-HF, 51% for EMPEROR-Preserved, and 49% for DELIVER. During a median follow-up of 1.9 years, death-from-any-cause occurred in 121 cases (30%). Twenty-four-month overall survival estimates for non-eligible and eligible admissions were 53% vs. 76% for CHARM-Preserved (HR=2.32, 95% CI: 1.47–3.67, p <0.001), 62% vs. 87% for I-PRESERVE (HR=2.97, 1.85–4.77, p <0.001), 67% vs. 84% for TOPCAT (HR=2.04, 1.29–3.24, p = 0.002), 68% vs. 85% for PARAGONHF (HR=2.28, 1.33–3.90, p = 0.003), 64% vs. 81% for EMPEROR-Preserved (HR=1.90, 1.27–2.84, p = 0.002), and 65% vs. 80% for DELIVER (HR=1.71, 1.14–2.57, p = 0.010). Exclusion criteria independently predicting death were eGFR <20 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , COPD with home oxygen therapy, and severe valvular heart disease. Conclusively, in a contemporary HFpEF/HFmrEF cohort, non-eligibility for outcome trials predicted for strongly increased mortality. HFpEF/HFmrEF patients at highest mortality risk were likely underrepresented in previous outcome trials and their treatment remains an unmet medical need.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santner et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and mildly-reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) (n=407). Non-eligibility for pivotal HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials vs. Eligibility for pivotal HFpEF/HFmrEF outcome trials was evaluated on 24-month overall survival (CHARM-Preserved criteria) (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.47-3.67, p=<0.001). Non-eligibility for pivotal HFpEF/HFmrEF trials strongly predicted increased mortality, with 24-month survival of 53% vs 76% for CHARM-Preserved criteria (HR 2.32; 95% CI 1.47-3.67; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: