Aims Heart failure (HF) medication may reduce blood pressure (BP). Low BP is associated with worse outcomes but how this association is modified by HF medication has not been studied. We evaluated the association between BP and outcomes according to HF medication dose in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results We studied HFrEF patients from the Swedish HF registry (2000-2018). Associations between systolic BP (SBP) and cardiovascular death (CVD) and/or HF hospitalization (HFH) were analysed according to doses of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA). Among 42 040 patients (median age 74.0), lower baseline SBP was associated with higher risk of CVD/HFH (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per 10 mmHg higher SBP: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.93), which was less high risk under optimized RAS inhibitor and beta-blocker doses (10% decrease in event rates per 10 mmHg SBP increase in untreated patients vs. 7% decrease in patients at maximum dose, both adjusted p < 0.02). Among the 13 761 patients with repeated measurements, 9.9% reported a SBP decrease >10 mmHg when HF medication doses were increased, whereas 24.6% reported a SBP decrease >10 mmHg with stable/decreasing doses. Decreasing SBP was associated with higher risk of CVD/HFH in patients with stable (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17) or decreasing (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18-1.42) HF medication dose but not in patients with an increase in doses (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86-1.02). Conclusions The association of lower SBP with higher risk of CVD/HFH is attenuated in patients with optimized HF medication. These results suggest that low or declining SBP should not limit HF medication optimization.

Objectives This study is aimed to compare the effectiveness of modern therapy including angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) with conventional heart failure treatment in the real world. Background Since ARNI and SGLT2i were introduced to treat heart failure (HF), its therapeutic regimen has modernized from previous treatment with beta-blocker (BB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) as added-on in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, a comparison between conventional and modern treatment strategies with drugs in combination has not been performed. Methods This observational study (2013-2020), using the Swedish HF Registry, involved 20,849 HF patients. Patients received either conventional (BB, ACEi/ARB, with/without MRA, n = 20,140) or modern (BB, ACEi/ARB, MRA, SGLT2i or BB, ARNI, MRA with/without SGLT2i, n = 709) treatment at the index visit. The endpoints were all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. Results Modern HF therapy was associated with a significant 28% reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.72 (0.54-0.96); p = 0.024) and a significant 62% reduction in CV mortality (aHR, 0.38 (0.21-0.68); p = 0.0013) compared to conventional HF treatment. Similar results emerged in a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching. The interaction analyses did not reveal any trends for EF (< 40% and >= 40%), sex, age (< 70 and >= 70 years), eGFR (< 60 and >= 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)), and etiology of HF subgroups. Conclusion In this nationwide study, modern HF therapy was associated with significantly reduced all-cause and CV mortality, regardless of EF, sex, age, eGFR, and etiology of HF. [GRAPHICS] .

Aims: In patients with heart failure (HF), we aimed to assess (i) the time trends in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) testing; (ii) patient characteristics associated with NT-proBNP testing; (iii) distribution of NT-proBNP levels, focusing on the subgroups with (WHFE) vs. without (NWHFE) a worsening HF event, defined as an HF hospitalization; and (iv) changes of NT-proBNP levels over time.Methods and results: NT-proBNP testing and levels were investigated in HF patients enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) linked with the Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements project from January 2011 to December 2018. Index date was the first registration in SwedeHF. Patterns of change in NT-proBNP levels before (in the previous 6 +/- 3 months) and after (in the following 6 +/- 3 months) the index date were categorized as follows: (i) <3000 ng/L at both measurements = stable low; (ii) <3000 ng/L at the first measurement and >= 3000 ng/L at the second measurement = increased; (iii) >= 3000 ng/L at the first measurement and <3000 ng/L at the second measurement = decreased; and (iv) >= 3000 ng/L at both measurements = stable high. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models, expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), were performed to assess the associations between (i) clinical characteristics and NT-proBNP testing and (ii) changes in NT-proBNP from 6 months prior to the index date and the index date and a WHFE. Consistency analyses were performed in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) alone. A total of 4424 HF patients were included (median age 74 years, women 34%, HFrEF 53%), 33% with a WHFE. NT-proBNP testing increased over time, up to 55% in 2018, and was almost two-fold as frequent, and time to testing was less than half, in patients with WHFE vs. NWHFE. Independent predictors of testing were WHFE, higher heart rate, diuretic use, and preserved ejection fraction. Median NT-proBNP was 3070 ng/L (Q1-Q3: 1220-7395), approximately three-fold higher in WHFE vs. NWHFE. Compared with stable low NT-proBNP levels, increased (OR 4.27, 95% CI 2.47-7.37) and stable high levels (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.58-3.88) were independently associated with a higher risk of WHFE. Results were consistent in the HFrEF population.Conclusions: NT-proBNP testing increased over time but still was only performed in half of the patients. Testing was associated with a WHFE, with features of more severe HF and for differential diagnosis purposes. Increased and stable high levels were associated with a WHFE. Overall, our data highlight the potential benefits of carrying further implementation of NT-proBNP testing in clinical practice.

Aims To assess the association between combination, dose and use of current guideline-recommended target doses (TD) of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) and beta-blockers, and outcomes in a large and unselected contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. Methods and results Overall, 17 809 outpatients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) from May 2000 to December 2018, with ejection fraction <40% and duration of HF >= 90 days were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization. Compared with no use of RASi or ARNi, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.76-0.91) with <50% of TD, 0.78 (0.71-0.86) with 50%-99%, and 0.73 (0.67-0.80) with >= 100% of TD. Compared with no use of beta-blockers, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.76-0.91), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 0.74 (0.68-0.82) with <50%, 50%-99% and >= 100% of TD, respectively. Patients receiving both an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNi and a beta-blocker at 50%-99% of TD had a lower adjusted risk of the primary outcome compared with patients only receiving one drug, i.e. ACEi/ARB/ARNi or beta-blocker, even if this was at >= 100% of TD. Conclusion Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients using higher doses of RASi or ARNi and beta-blockers had lower risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Use of two drug classes at 50%-99% of TD dose was associated with lower risk than one drug class at 100% of TD.

Aims To evaluate the quality of heart failure (HF) care using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) quality indicators (QIs) for HF and to assess whether better quality of care is associated with improved outcomes. Methods and results We performed a nationwide cohort study using the Swedish HF registry, consisting of patients with any type of HF at their first outpatient visit or hospitalization. Independent participant data for quality of HF care was evaluated against the ESC QIs for HF, and association with mortality estimated using multivariable Cox regression. In total, 43 704 patients from 80 hospitals across Sweden enrolled between 2013-2019 were included, with median follow-up 23.6 months. Of the 16 QIs for HF, 13 could be measured and 5 were inversely associated with all-cause mortality during follow-up. Higher attainment (>= 50% vs. <50% attainment) of the composite opportunity-based score (combination of QIs into a single score) for patients with reduced ejection fraction was associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81; 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.91). Attainment of the composite score was less in the outpatient than inpatient setting (adjusted odds ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.99). Quality of care varied across hospitals, with assessment of health-related quality of life being the indicator with the widest variation in attainment (interquartile range 61.7%). Conclusion Quality of HF care may be measured using the ESC HF QIs. In Sweden, attainment of HF care evaluated using the QIs demonstrated between and within hospital variation, and many QIs were inversely associated with mortality.

Aims Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is required to categorize heart failure (HF) [i.e. HF with preserved (HFpEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and reduced (HFrEF) EF] but is often not captured in population-based cohorts or non-HF registries. The aim was to create an algorithm that identifies EF subphenotypes for research purposes. Methods and results We included 42 061 HF patients from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry. As primary analysis, we performed two logistic regression models including 22 variables to predict (i) EF >= vs. <50% and (ii) EF >= vs. <40%. In the secondary analysis, we performed a multivariable multinomial analysis with 22 variables to create a model for all three separate EF subphenotypes: HFrEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFpEF. The models were validated in the database from the CHECK-HF study, a cross-sectional survey of 10 627 patients from the Netherlands. The C-statistic (discrimination) was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.78] for EF >= 50% and 0.76 (95% CI 0.75-0.76) for EF >= 40%. Similar results were achieved for HFrEF and HFpEF in the multinomial model, but the C-statistic for HFmrEF was lower: 0.63 (95% CI 0.63-0.64). The external validation showed similar discriminative ability to the development cohort. Conclusions Routine clinical characteristics could potentially be used to identify different EF subphenotypes in databases where EF is not readily available. Accuracy was good for the prediction of HFpEF and HFrEF but lower for HFmrEF. The proposed algorithm enables more effective research on HF in the big data setting.

Background Beta-blockers reduce mortality and morbidity in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients older than 80 years are poorly represented in randomized controlled trials. We assessed the association between beta-blocker use and outcomes in HFrEF patients aged amp;gt;= 80 years. Methods and results We included patients with an ejection fraction amp;lt;40% and aged amp;gt;= 80 years from the Swedish HF Registry. The association between beta-blocker use, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality/HF hospitalization was assessed by Cox proportional hazard models in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. To assess consistency, the same analyses were performed in a positive control cohort with age amp;lt;80 years. A negative control outcome analysis was run using hospitalization for cancer as endpoint. Of 6562 patients aged amp;gt;= 80 years, 5640 (86%) received beta-blockers. In the matched cohort including 1732 patients, beta-blocker use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.99]. Reduction in CV mortality/HF hospitalization was not significant (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.05) due to the lack of association with HF hospitalization, whereas CV death was significantly reduced. After adjustment rather than matching for the propensity score in the overall cohort, beta-blocker use was associated with reduced risk of all outcomes. In patients aged amp;lt;80 years, use of beta-blockers was associated with reduced risk of all-cause death (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92) and of the composite outcome (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-0.99). Conclusions In HFrEF patients amp;gt;= 80 years of age, use of beta-blockers was high and was associated with improved all-cause and CV survival.

Aims Hyperkalaemia and hypokalaemia are common in heart failure and associated with worse outcomes. However, the optimal potassium range is unknown. We sought to determine the optimal range of potassium in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (amp;lt; 40%) by exploring the relationship between baseline potassium level and short- and long-term outcomes using the Swedish Heart Failure Registry from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2012. Methods and results We assessed the association between baseline potassium level and all-cause mortality at 30 days, 12 months, and maximal follow-up, in uni- and multivariable stratified and restricted cubic spline Cox regressions. Of 13 015 patients, 93.3% had potassium 3.5-5.0 mmol/L, 3.7% had potassium amp;lt;3.5 mmol/L, and 3.0% had potassium amp;gt;5.0 mmol/L. Potassium 5.0 mmol/L were more common with lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and heart failure of longer duration and greater severity. The potassium level associated with the lowest hazard risk for mortality at 30 days, 12 months, and maximal follow-up was 4.2 mmol/L, and there was a steep increase in risk with both higher and lower potassium levels. In adjusted strata analyses, lower potassium was independently associated with all-cause mortality at 12 months and maximal follow-up, while higher potassium levels only increased risk at 30 days. Conclusion In this nationwide registry, the relationship between potassium and mortality was U-shaped, with an optimal potassium value of 4.2 mmol/L. After multivariable adjustment, hypokalaemia was associated with increased long-term mortality but hyperkalaemia was associated with increased short-term mortality.

n/a

n/a