Visit‐to‐visit changes in heart rate in heart failure: A pooled participant‐level analysis of the PARADIGM‐HF and PARAGON‐HF trials

Henri Lu,Brian L. Claggett,Milton Packer,Marc A. Pfeffer,Karl Swedberg,Jean Rouleau,Michael R. Zile,Martin Lefkowitz,Akshay S. Desai,Pardeep S. Jhund,John J.V. McMurray,Scott D. Solomon,Muthiah Vaduganathan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3487
2024-10-24
European Journal of Heart Failure
Abstract:Prognostic impact of visit‐to‐visit changes in heart rate (HR) among patients with heart failure (HF) in the PARADIGM‐HF and PARAGON‐HF trials. AF, atrial fibrillation; CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; FU, follow‐up; HFH, heart failure hospitalization; ICD, implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PPM, permanent pacemaker; RCT, randomized controlled trial. Aims Resting heart rate (HR) is a strong risk marker in patients with heart failure (HF), but the clinical implications of visit‐to‐visit changes in HR (ΔHR) are less well established. We aimed to explore the association between ΔHR and subsequent outcomes in a pooled dataset of two well‐characterized cohorts of patients with HF across the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and results PARADIGM‐HF and PARAGON‐HF were randomized trials testing sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril or valsartan, respectively, in patients with HF and LVEF ≤40% (PARADIGM‐HF) or LVEF ≥45% (PARAGON‐HF). We analysed the association between ΔHR from the preceding visit with the primary endpoint of HF hospitalization (HFH) or cardiovascular death using covariate‐adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. A total of 13 194 patients (mean age 67 ± 11 years, 67% men, mean LVEF 40 ± 15%) were included. Over a median follow‐up of 2.5 years, 3114 patients experienced a first HFH or cardiovascular death event (10.4 events per 100 patient‐years). An increase in HR from the preceding visit, compared with no change, was associated with a higher risk (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–1.15; p
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?