-
International Journal of Cardiology.... Apr 2024Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) based T1 mapping and extracellular volume fraction (ECV) are powerful tools for identifying myocardial fibrosis. This systematic...
BACKGROUND
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) based T1 mapping and extracellular volume fraction (ECV) are powerful tools for identifying myocardial fibrosis. This systematic review and -analysis aims to characterize the utility of native T1 mapping and ECV in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and to clarify the prognostic significance of elevated values.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted for studies reporting on use of CMR-based native T1 mapping and ECV measurement in NICM patients and their association with major adverse cardiac events (MACE), ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), and left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR). Databases searched included: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The search was not restricted to time or publication status.
RESULTS
Native T1 and ECV were significantly higher in NICM patients compared to controls (MD 78.80, 95 % CI 50.00, 107.59; p < 0.01; MD 5.86, 95 % CI 4.55, 7.16; p < 0.01). NICM patients who experienced MACE had higher native T1 and ECV (MD 52.87, 95 % CI 26.59, 79.15; p < 0.01; MD 6.03, 95 % CI 3.79, 8.26; p < 0.01). There was a non-statistically significant trend toward higher native T1 time in NICM patients who experienced VAs. NICM patients who were poor treatment responders had higher baseline native T1 and ECV (MD 40.58, 95 % CI 12.90, 68.25; p < 0.01; MD 3.29, 95 % CI 2.25, 4.33; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
CMR-based native T1 and ECV quantification may be useful tools for risk stratification of patients with NICM. They may provide additional diagnostic utility in combination with LGE, which poorly characterizes fibrosis in patients with diffuse myocardial involvement.
PubMed: 38371310
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101339 -
Current Problems in Cardiology Jan 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization with sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) compared to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization with sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) compared to standard HF therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using real-world data. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for the observational studies published in English exploring the clinical outcomes of S/V use in HFrEF till March 14, 2022. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. A random-effect model was used to combine data. The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization associated with S/V use in comparison to standard HF therapy. A total of 9 observational studies comparing S/V to Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I)/Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in HFrEF were included in the systematic review, with more than 32000 patients included in the final analysis. Overall, S/V use was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (Risk Ratio [RR] = 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.93, I = 83%) and HF hospitalization (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80, I= 94%). Similar to the landmark controlled evidence, real-world data of S/V use in HFrEF demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization.
Topics: Humans; Heart Failure; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Stroke Volume; Tetrazoles; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Valsartan; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
PubMed: 36170910
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101412 -
Pharmacological Research Jul 2021Pharmacotherapies, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs), β-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Combination pharmacotherapies for cardiac reverse remodeling in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Pharmacotherapies, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs), β-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), have played a pivotal role in reducing in-hospital and mortality in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, effects of the five drug categories used alone or in combination for cardiac reverse remodeling (CRR) in these patients have not been systematically evaluated. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted based on 55 randomized controlled trials published between 1989 and 2019 involving 12,727 patients from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020170457). Our primary outcomes were CRR indicators, including changes of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and end-systolic volume (LVESV), indexed LVEDV (LVEDVI) and LVESV (LVESVI), and left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) and end-systolic dimension (LVESD); Secondary outcomes were functional capacity comprising New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and 6-min walking distance (6MWD); cardiac biomarkers involving B type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP). The effect sizes were presented as the mean difference with 95% credible intervals. According to the results, all dual-combination therapies except ACEI+ARB were significantly more associated with LVEF or NYHA improvement than placebo, ARB+BB and ARNI+BB were the top two effective dual-combinations in LVEF improvement (+7.59% [+4.27, +11.25] and +7.31% [+3.93, +10.97] respectively); ACEI+BB was shown to be superior to ACEI in reducing LVEDVI and LVESVI (-6.88 mL/m [-13.18, -1.89] and -10.64 mL/m [-18.73, -3.54] respectively); ARNI+BB showed superiority over ACEI+BB in decreasing the level of NT-proBNP (-240.11 pg/mL [-456.57, -6.73]). All tri-combinations were significantly more effective than placebo in LVEF improvement, and ARNI+BB+MRA ranked first (+21.13% [+14.34, +28.13]); ACEI+BB+MRA was significantly more associated with a decrease in LVEDD than ACEI (-6.57 mm [-13.10, -0.84]). A sensitivity analysis ignoring concomitant therapies for LVEF illustrated that all the five drug types except ARB were shown to be superior to placebo, and ARNI ranked first (+4.83% [+1.75, +7.99]). In conclusion, combination therapies exert more benefits on CRR for patients with HFrEF. Among them, ARNI+BB, ARB+BB, ARNI+BB+MRA and ARB+BB+MRA were the top two effective dual and triple combinations in LVEF improvement, respectively; The new "Golden Triangle" of ARNI+BB+MRA was shown to be superior to ACEI+BB+MRA or ARB+BB+MRA in LVEF improvement.
Topics: Cardiotonic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Heart Failure; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Remodeling
PubMed: 33766629
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105573 -
Current Pharmaceutical Design 2023Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have large individual differences, unclear risk stratification, and imperfect treatment plans. Risk...
BACKGROUND
Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have large individual differences, unclear risk stratification, and imperfect treatment plans. Risk prediction models are helpful for the dynamic assessment of patients' prognostic risk and early intensive therapy of high-risk patients. The purpose of this study is to systematically summarize the existing risk prediction models and novel prognostic factors for HFpEF, to provide a reference for the construction of convenient and efficient HFpEF risk prediction models.
METHODS
Studies on risk prediction models and prognostic factors for HFpEF were systematically searched in relevant databases including PubMed and Embase. The retrieval time was from inception to February 1, 2023. The Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. The predictive value of risk prediction models for end outcomes was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, the area under the curve, C-statistic, C-index, etc. In the literature screening process, potential novel prognostic factors with high value were explored.
RESULTS
A total of 21 eligible HFpEF risk prediction models and 22 relevant studies were included. Except for 2 studies with a high risk of bias and 2 studies with a moderate risk of bias, other studies that proposed risk prediction models had a low risk of bias overall. Potential novel prognostic factors for HFpEF were classified and described in terms of demographic characteristics (age, sex, and race), lifestyle (physical activity, body mass index, weight change, and smoking history), laboratory tests (biomarkers), physical inspection (blood pressure, electrocardiogram, imaging examination), and comorbidities.
CONCLUSION
It is of great significance to explore the potential novel prognostic factors of HFpEF and build a more convenient and efficient risk prediction model for improving the overall prognosis of patients. This review can provide a substantial reference for further research.
Topics: Humans; Prognosis; Stroke Volume; Heart Failure; Biomarkers; Body Mass Index; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 37644795
DOI: 10.2174/1381612829666230830105740 -
Indian Heart Journal 2022To assess the safety and efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo in heart failure (HF) patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To assess the safety and efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo in heart failure (HF) patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS until August 15th, 2021. We included all randomized controlled studies comparing omecamtiv mecarbil with placebo in heart failure patients. The meta-analysis was carried out using Rev Man software V5.4.
RESULTS
A total of eight studies were included in our systematic review. Pooled analysis showed that omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with increased incidence of death, any adverse events, hypotension, heart failure, ventricular tachyarrhythmia, dyspnea, dizziness, and serious adverse events. Regarding the efficacy, omecamtiv mecarbil significantly reduced heart rate with some studies demonstrating its significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and systolic function.
CONCLUSION
Omecamtiv mecarbil is a well-tolerated drug in heart failure patients. The limited data regarding the efficacy suggested that it may improve ejection fraction and systolic function.
Topics: Cardiac Myosins; Heart Failure; Humans; Stroke Volume; Urea; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 35301008
DOI: 10.1016/j.ihj.2022.03.005 -
Current Drug Targets 2023One of the major indications for digoxin use is the treatment of heart failure (HF). Although the clinical application of digoxin in long-term outcomes in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
One of the major indications for digoxin use is the treatment of heart failure (HF). Although the clinical application of digoxin in long-term outcomes in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients is well explained, the association between digoxin therapy and outcomes in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not very clear.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to show the clinical efficacy of digoxin on long-term outcomes in subjects with HFpEF.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science (ISI) electronic databases were searched until May 2021 to obtain relevant studies. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality attributed to treatment with digoxin. The secondary outcomes were "all-cause hospitalization", "hospitalization because of HF" and "all-cause mortality or hospitalization of HF".
RESULTS
Seven studies with more than 23000 patients with HFpEF, of which more than 4900 were treated with digoxin, fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Treatment with digoxin was associated with a neutral effect on all-cause mortality (HR 1.04, 95 % CI 0.91-1.20, I2 = 57.9 %), all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.88-1.07, I2 = 0.0 %), HFhospitalization (HR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.90-1.02, I2 = 41.4 %), and all-cause mortality or HFhospitalization (HR 1.07, 95 % CI 0.91-1.26, I2 = 81.2 %). In subgroup meta-analyses based on ejection fraction (EF), treatment with digoxin did not significantly alter these outcomes in each subset of patients.
CONCLUSION
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that digoxin does not have any significant effect on long-term outcomes of HFpEF patients, including "all-cause mortality", "all-cause hospitalization", "hospitalization because of HF" and "all-cause mortality or hospitalization of HF".
Topics: Humans; Digoxin; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Prognosis; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Cardiotonic Agents
PubMed: 36065922
DOI: 10.2174/1389450123666220906093058 -
International Journal of Molecular... Sep 2023The cardiovascular implications of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have been associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The cardiovascular implications of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have been associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The purpose of this review was to conduct a bibliographic search regarding the correlation between NAFLD and the echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular diastolic function. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase for original research data reporting on the association of NAFLD with diastolic function markers [E/e', left atrial volume index (LAVi), left ventricular mass index (LVMi)]. Meta-analysis was performed using the meta and dmetar packages in R studio v.1.4.1106, with < 0.05 values being considered significant. Results are expressed as the standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous variables and as the odds ratio (OR) for categorical variables, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity between studies was expressed with index Ι. From the preliminary search, 2619 articles were found from which 31 studies were included in the final statistical analysis. The meta-analysis of 8 studies which reported on the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction showed that it was increased in patients with NAFLD (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.24-3.44 with = 0.01, I: 80% with < 0.01). The meta-analysis of 21 studies showed significantly higher E/e' in NAFLD patients (SMD 1.02, 95% CI 0.43-1.61 with < 0.001, I: 97% with < 0.001). Individuals with NAFLD had increased LAVi (SMD: 0.87, 95% CI 0.38-1.37 with < 0.001, I: 96% with < 0.001) and LVMi (SMD: 0.89, 95% CI 0.31-1.48 with = 0.003, I: 100% with < 0.001). To conclude, in the meta-analysis of 31 observational studies, NAFLD patients were found to have affected left ventricular diastolic function, supporting the hypothesis of NAFLD being associated with HFpEF.
Topics: Humans; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; Heart Failure; Stroke Volume; Echocardiography; Atrial Appendage
PubMed: 37762592
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241814292 -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Mar 2018Clinical drug trials in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction have failed to demonstrate improvements in mortality. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Clinical drug trials in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction have failed to demonstrate improvements in mortality.
METHODS
We systematically searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCT) assessing pharmacological treatments in patients with heart failure with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction≥40% from January 1996 to May 2016. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, exercise capacity (6-min walk distance, exercise duration, VO max), quality of life and biomarkers (B-type natriuretic peptide, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled relative risks (RR) for the binary outcomes, and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% CI.
RESULTS
We included data from 25 RCTs comprising data for 18101 patients. All-cause mortality was reduced with beta-blocker therapy compared with placebo (RR: 0.78, 95%CI 0.65 to 0.94, p=0.008). There was no effect seen with ACE inhibitors, aldosterone receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and other drug classes, compared with placebo. Similar results were observed for cardiovascular mortality. No single drug class reduced heart failure hospitalisation compared with placebo.
CONCLUSION
The efficacy of treatments in patients with heart failure and an LV ejection fraction≥40% differ depending on the type of therapy, with beta-blockers demonstrating reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further trials are warranted to confirm treatment effects of beta-blockers in this patient group.
Topics: Biomarkers; Cardiovascular Agents; Disease Progression; Heart Failure; Heart Ventricles; Humans; Recovery of Function; Risk Factors; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 28780577
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311652 -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Nov 2014Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a robust, well validated and reproducible technique for the measurement of LV longitudinal deformation. We sought to assemble... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a robust, well validated and reproducible technique for the measurement of LV longitudinal deformation. We sought to assemble evidence that GLS is an accurate marker in predicting cardiovascular outcomes, compared to LVEF.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review of the evidence from observational studies which compared GLS against LVEF in predicting major adverse cardiac events. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, malignant arrhythmia, hospitalisation due to heart failure, urgent valve surgery or heart transplantation, and acute coronary ischaemic event. A random effects model was used to combine HR and 95% CIs. A meta-regression was undertaken to assess the impact of potential covariates.
RESULTS
Data were collated from 16 published articles (n=5721 adults) comprising 15 prospective and 1 retrospective observational studies. The underlying cardiac conditions were heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, valvular heart disease, and miscellaneous cardiac diseases. Mortality was independently associated with each SD change in the absolute value of baseline GLS (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.69; p<0.002) and less strongly with LVEF (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92; p=0.572). The HR per SD change in GLS was associated with a reduction in mortality 1.62 (95% CI 1.13 to 2.33; p=0.009) times greater than the HR per SD change in LVEF.
CONCLUSIONS
There is strong evidence of the prognostic value of GLS, which appears to have superior prognostic value to EF for predicting major adverse cardiac events.
Topics: Cause of Death; Global Health; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Stroke Volume; Survival Rate; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
PubMed: 24860005
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2014-305538 -
International Journal of Cardiology Feb 2023Heart failure (HF) is a growing global health burden increasing in prevalence as the average age of the population rises. HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Heart failure (HF) is a growing global health burden increasing in prevalence as the average age of the population rises. HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is defined as EF that is ≥50% and represents almost half of the population with HF.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring an association between HFpEF and statin use on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular rehospitalisation. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE via Ovid, The Cochrane Library for clinical trials in CENTRAL and Embase via Ovid for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 2 July 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and evidence rated for quality using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies were included in the review. The analysis suggests a risk reduction of 27% for the statin exposed participants compared to the statin non-exposed participants (HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.68-0.79) with regard to all-cause mortality. There is a low level of heterogeneity (I = 38%) associated with this result that has been accounted for by using a random effects model, however given the included studies are observational, the quality of the evidence is rated as low. Information on rehospitalisation was insufficient for determining the impact of statin use on rehospitalisations.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis revealed a reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with HFpEF on statin therapy. Considering the outcomes from this meta-analysis there is a need for high level studies to provide quality evidence on the use of statins in patients with HFpEF.
Topics: Humans; Heart Failure; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Stroke Volume; Heart Failure, Diastolic; Patient Readmission
PubMed: 36496040
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.12.006