Markus Meyer1, Jeanne Du Fay Lavallaz2, Lina Benson3, Gianluigi Savarese4, Ulf Dahlström5, Lars H Lund4. 1. Lillehei Heart Institute, Department of Cardiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. Electronic address: meye3249@umn.edu. 2. Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel (CRIB) and Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Heart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of Cardiology and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: β-Blockers have an uncertain effect in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction of 50% or higher (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]). METHODS AND RESULTS: We included patients with HFpEF from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) enrolled from 2011 through 2018. In a 2:1 propensity-score matched analysis (β-blocker use vs nonuse), we assessed the primary outcome first HF hospitalization, the coprimary outcome cardiovascular (CV) death, and the secondary outcomes of all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death. We performed intention-to-treat and a per-protocol consistency analyses. There were a total of 14,434 patients (median age 79 years, IQR 71-85 years, 51% women); 80% were treated with a β-blocker at baseline. Treated patients were younger and had higher rates of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. In the 4412:2206 patient matched cohort, at 5 years, 42% (95% CI 40%-44%) vs 44% (95% CI 41%-47%) had a HF admission and 38% (IQR 36%-40%) vs 40% (IQR 36%-42%) died from CV causes. In the intention-to-treat analysis, β-blocker use was not associated with HF admissions (hazard ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.87-1.05, P = .31]) or CV death (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% CI 0.85-1.03, P = .19]). In the subgroup analyses, men seemed to have a more favorable association between β-blockers and outcomes than did women. There were no associations between β-blocker use and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFpEF, β-blocker use is common but not associated with changes in HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. In the absence of a strong rational and randomized control trials the case for β-blockers in HFpEF remains inconclusive. BULLET POINTS: ● The effect of β-blockers with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction of 50% or greater is uncertain.● In a propensity score-matched heart failure with preserved ejection fraction analysis in the SwedeHF registry, β-blockers were not associated with a change in risk for heart failure admissions or cardiovascular deaths. LAY SUMMARY: The optimal treatment for heart failure with a preserved pump function remains unknown. Despite the lack of scientific studies, β-blockers are very commonly used. When matching patients with a similar risk profile in a large heart failure registry, the use of β-blockers for the treatment of heart failure with a preserved pump function was not associated with any changes in heart failure hospital admissions or cardiovascular death.
BACKGROUND: β-Blockers have an uncertain effect in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction of 50% or higher (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]). METHODS AND RESULTS: We included patients with HFpEF from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) enrolled from 2011 through 2018. In a 2:1 propensity-score matched analysis (β-blocker use vs nonuse), we assessed the primary outcome first HF hospitalization, the coprimary outcome cardiovascular (CV) death, and the secondary outcomes of all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death. We performed intention-to-treat and a per-protocol consistency analyses. There were a total of 14,434 patients (median age 79 years, IQR 71-85 years, 51% women); 80% were treated with a β-blocker at baseline. Treated patients were younger and had higher rates of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. In the 4412:2206 patient matched cohort, at 5 years, 42% (95% CI 40%-44%) vs 44% (95% CI 41%-47%) had a HF admission and 38% (IQR 36%-40%) vs 40% (IQR 36%-42%) died from CV causes. In the intention-to-treat analysis, β-blocker use was not associated with HF admissions (hazard ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.87-1.05, P = .31]) or CV death (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% CI 0.85-1.03, P = .19]). In the subgroup analyses, men seemed to have a more favorable association between β-blockers and outcomes than did women. There were no associations between β-blocker use and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFpEF, β-blocker use is common but not associated with changes in HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. In the absence of a strong rational and randomized control trials the case for β-blockers in HFpEF remains inconclusive. BULLET POINTS: ● The effect of β-blockers with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction of 50% or greater is uncertain.● In a propensity score-matched heart failure with preserved ejection fraction analysis in the SwedeHF registry, β-blockers were not associated with a change in risk for heart failure admissions or cardiovascular deaths. LAY SUMMARY: The optimal treatment for heart failure with a preserved pump function remains unknown. Despite the lack of scientific studies, β-blockers are very commonly used. When matching patients with a similar risk profile in a large heart failure registry, the use of β-blockers for the treatment of heart failure with a preserved pump function was not associated with any changes in heart failure hospital admissions or cardiovascular death.
Authors: Theophilus E Owan; David O Hodge; Regina M Herges; Steven J Jacobsen; Veronique L Roger; Margaret M Redfield Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eldrin F Lewis; Gervasio A Lamas; Eileen O'Meara; Christopher B Granger; Mark E Dunlap; Robert S McKelvie; Jeffrey L Probstfield; James B Young; Eric L Michelson; Katarina Halling; Jonas Carlsson; Bertil Olofsson; John J V McMurray; Salim Yusuf; Karl Swedberg; Marc A Pfeffer Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2006-12-21 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Marcus D Flather; Marcelo C Shibata; Andrew J S Coats; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen; Aleksandr Parkhomenko; Joszef Borbola; Alain Cohen-Solal; Dan Dumitrascu; Roberto Ferrari; Philippe Lechat; Jordi Soler-Soler; Luigi Tavazzi; Lenka Spinarova; Jiri Toman; Michael Böhm; Stefan D Anker; Simon G Thompson; Philip A Poole-Wilson Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-01-09 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Adrian F Hernandez; Bradley G Hammill; Christopher M O'Connor; Kevin A Schulman; Lesley H Curtis; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John G F Cleland; Karina V Bunting; Marcus D Flather; Douglas G Altman; Jane Holmes; Andrew J S Coats; Luis Manzano; John J V McMurray; Frank Ruschitzka; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Thomas G von Lueder; Michael Böhm; Bert Andersson; John Kjekshus; Milton Packer; Alan S Rigby; Giuseppe Rosano; Hans Wedel; Åke Hjalmarson; John Wikstrand; Dipak Kotecha Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Gianluigi Savarese; Peter Vasko; Åsa Jonsson; Magnus Edner; Ulf Dahlström; Lars H Lund Journal: Ups J Med Sci Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 2.384
Authors: Daniel N Silverman; Jeanne du Fay de Lavallaz; Timothy B Plante; Margaret M Infeld; Parag Goyal; Stephen P Juraschek; Geoff B Dougherty; Peter W Callas; Markus Meyer Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 2.778