Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.

No abstract

Antecedentes y objetivos: Se ha especulado que las estatinas pueden ser de utilidad en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19, pero no existen evidencias clínicas sólidas. El objetivo de este trabajo es conocer su utilidad en una cohorte de gran tamaño de pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19, así como si su retirada se asocia con un peor pronóstico. Material y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo observacional. Se incluyeron 2191 pacientes hospitalizados con infección confirmada con SARS-CoV-2. Resultados: La edad media fue de 68,0 ± 17,8 años y fallecieron un total de 597 (27,3%) pacientes. Un total de 827 pacientes (37,7% de la muestra), estaban tratados previamente con estatinas. Aunque precisaron con mayor frecuencia de ingreso en camas de críticos, dicho grupo terapéutico no resultó un factor predictor independiente de muerte en el seguimiento [HR 0,95 (0,72-1,25)]. Un total de 371 pacientes (16,9%) recibió al menos una dosis de estatina durante el ingreso. A pesar de ser una población con un perfil clínico más desfavorable, tanto su uso [HR 1,03 (0,78-1,35)] como la suspensión durante el ingreso en pacientes que las recibían crónicamente [HR 1,01 (0,78-1,30)] presentaron un efecto neutro en la mortalidad. No obstante, el grupo con estatinas desarrolló con mayor frecuencia datos de citolisis hepática, rabdomiolisis y más eventos trombóticos y hemorrágicos. Conclusiones: En nuestra muestra, las estatinas no se asociaron de forma independiente a una menor mortalidad en pacientes con COVID-19. En aquellos pacientes que tengan indicación de recibirlas por su patología previa es necesario monitorizar estrechamente sus potenciales efectos adversos durante el ingreso hospitalario.

AimsTo comprehensively assess hyponatraemia in acute heart failure (AHF) regarding prevalence, associations, hospital course, and post‐discharge outcomes.Methods and resultsOf 8298 patients in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long‐Term Registry hospitalized for AHF with any ejection fraction, 20% presented with hyponatraemia (serum sodium <135 mmol/L). Independent predictors included lower systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haemoglobin, along with diabetes, hepatic disease, use of thiazide diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, digoxin, higher doses of loop diuretics, and non‐use of angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta‐blockers. In‐hospital death occurred in 3.3%. The prevalence of hyponatraemia and in‐hospital mortality with different combinations were: 9% hyponatraemia both at admission and discharge (hyponatraemia Yes/Yes, in‐hospital mortality 6.9%), 11% Yes/No (in‐hospital mortality 4.9%), 8% No/Yes (in‐hospital mortality 4.7%), and 72% No/No (in‐hospital mortality 2.4%). Correction of hyponatraemia was associated with improvement in eGFR. In‐hospital development of hyponatraemia was associated with greater diuretic use and worsening eGFR but also more effective decongestion. Among hospital survivors, 12‐month mortality was 19% and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were for hyponatraemia Yes/Yes 1.60 (1.35–1.89), Yes/No 1.35 (1.14–1.59), and No/Yes 1.18 (0.96–1.45). For death or heart failure hospitalization they were 1.38 (1.21–1.58), 1.17 (1.02–1.33), and 1.09 (0.93–1.27), respectively.ConclusionAmong patients with AHF, 20% had hyponatraemia at admission, which was associated with more advanced heart failure and normalized in half of patients during hospitalization. Admission hyponatraemia (possibly dilutional), especially if it did not resolve, was associated with worse in‐hospital and post‐discharge outcomes. Hyponatraemia developing during hospitalization (possibly depletional) was associated with lower risk.

No abstract