Influence of prior heart valve intervention on treatment and disease trajectory after diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
S A A Sam Aiyad,L M O Ostergaard,M K E Ersboll,J G B Butt,J K P Petersen,X B Begun,M S Schou,F G Gustafsson,E L F Fosbol,L K Kober,L K Kristensen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.902
IF: 39.3
2024-10-30
European Heart Journal
Abstract:Background and aim Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), knowledge is scarce on whether patients with prior valvular heart disease (VHD) intervention are distinct regarding clinical characteristics, treatment, and prognosis. Methods Using the Danish Heart Failure Registry and nationwide administrative registries, we identified patients with new-onset HFrEF from 2008 to 2021. Within this cohort, patients with a prior VHD intervention were identified and matched 1:5 on age-, sex-, in/outpatient presentation, and year of HFrEF diagnosis with remaining patients (controls). Outcomes were 1) baseline use and up-titration of guidelines-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and implementation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker/defibrillator (ICD/CRT-P/D) at 6 months follow-up, and 2) a composite of HF hospitalization or all-cause death at 3 years follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression models, adjusted for HF severity, socioeconomic status, and major comorbidities, were used to compare the composite outcome, with patients without prior heart valve intervention as reference. Results The study cohort comprised 32,713 patients, of whom 1196 (3.6%) underwent a prior VHD intervention (median time since intervention 10 months). After matching, the study population were 1151 cases (median age 74 years, 82% men), and 3769 matched controls. Among cases and controls, median left ventricular ejection fraction was similar (30% vs. 30%) and the proportion in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II was alike (82% vs 83%). At the time of HFrEF diagnosis, numerically more cases were on a beta-blocker (62% vs. 53%), ACEi/ARB/ARNI (48% vs. 44%), MRA (19% vs. 14%), and more had an implementation of (ICD/CRT-P/D) (17 % vs. 7%) (Figure 1). At 6 months, ≥ 50% of the daily target dose was achieved in (46% vs. 46%) for beta-blockers, (47% vs. 47%) for ACEi/ARBs/ARNI, (31% vs. 33%) for MRA, and implementation of ICD/CRT-P/D was attained in (28% vs. 18%), among cases and controls, respectively (Figure 1). The 3-year risk of HF hospitalization or all-cause death was 25% in cases and 24% in controls (Figure 2) with no significant differences (hazard ratio (HR) 0.95 , 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.08) compared to controls. Conclusions Patients with new-onset HFrEF and prior VHD interventions received more GDMT and had a higher implementation of ICD/CRT-P/D at the time of HFrEF diagnosis. However, following diagnosis, no major differences in GDMT initiation and up-titration, implementation of ICD/CRT-P/D, and the adjusted rates of HF hospitalization or all-cause death were observed among patients with and without prior heart valve intervention.Figure 1 Guideline-directed medicationFigure 2 Crude cumulative risk
cardiac & cardiovascular systems