TY - JOUR A1 - Gerhardt, Louisa M. S. A1 - Kordsmeyer, Maren A1 - Sehner, Susanne A1 - Güder, Gülmisal A1 - Störk, Stefan A1 - Edelmann, Frank A1 - Wachter, Rolf A1 - Pankuweit, Sabine A1 - Prettin, Christiane A1 - Ertl, Georg A1 - Wanner, Christoph A1 - Angermann, Christiane E. T1 - Prevalence and prognostic impact of chronic kidney disease and anaemia across ACC/AHA precursor and symptomatic heart failure stages JF - Clinical Research in Cardiology N2 - Background The importance of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and anaemia has not been comprehensively studied in asymptomatic patients at risk for heart failure (HF) versus those with symptomatic HF. We analysed the prevalence, characteristics and prognostic impact of both conditions across American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) precursor and HF stages A–D. Methods and results 2496 participants from three non-pharmacological German Competence Network HF studies were categorized by ACC/AHA stage; stage C patients were subdivided into C1 and C2 (corresponding to NYHA classes I/II and III, respectively). Overall, patient distribution was 8.1%/35.3%/32.9% and 23.7% in ACC/AHA stages A/B/C1 and C2/D, respectively. These subgroups were stratified by the absence ( – ) or presence ( +) of CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 60 mL/min/1.73m2) and anaemia (haemoglobin in women/men < 12/ < 13 g/dL). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up. Prevalence increased across stages A/B/C1 and C2/D (CKD: 22.3%/23.6%/31.6%/54.7%; anaemia: 3.0%/7.9%/21.7%/33.2%, respectively), with concordant decreases in median eGFR and haemoglobin (all p < 0.001). Across all stages, hazard ratios [95% confidence intervals] for all-cause mortality were 2.1 [1.8–2.6] for CKD + , 1.7 [1.4–2.0] for anaemia, and 3.6 [2.9–4.6] for CKD + /anaemia + (all p < 0.001). Population attributable fractions (PAFs) for 5-year mortality related to CKD and/or anaemia were similar across stages A/B, C1 and C2/D (up to 33.4%, 30.8% and 34.7%, respectively). Conclusions Prevalence and severity of CKD and anaemia increased across ACC/AHA stages. Both conditions were individually and additively associated with increased 5-year mortality risk, with similar PAFs in asymptomatic patients and those with symptomatic HF. KW - anaemia KW - ACC/AHA classification KW - chronic kidney disease KW - comorbidity KW - heart failure KW - mortality Y1 - 2023 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-323990 VL - 112 IS - 7 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Edelmann, Frank A1 - Musial-Bright, Lindy A1 - Gelbrich, Goetz A1 - Trippel, Tobias A1 - Radenovic, Sara A1 - Wachter, Rolf A1 - Inkrot, Simone A1 - Loncar, Goran A1 - Tahirovic, Elvis A1 - Celic, Vera A1 - Veskovic, Jovan A1 - Zdravkovic, Marija A1 - Lainscak, Mitja A1 - Apostolović, Svetlana A1 - Neskovic, Aleksandar N. A1 - Pieske, Burkert A1 - Düngen, Hans-Dirk T1 - Tolerability and feasibility of beta-blocker titration in HFpEF versus HFrEF: Insights from the CIBIS-ELD trial JF - JACC: Heart Failure N2 - OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the tolerability and feasibility of titration of 2 distinctly acting beta-blockers (BB) in elderly heart failure patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction. BACKGROUND: Broad evidence supports the use of BB in HFrEF, whereas the evidence for beta blockade in HFpEF is uncertain. METHODS: In the CIBIS-ELD (Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in Elderly) trial, patients >65 years of age with HFrEF (n = 626) or HFpEF (n = 250) were randomized to bisoprolol or carvedilol. Both BB were up-titrated to the target or maximum tolerated dose. Follow-up was performed after 12 weeks. HFrEF and HFpEF patients were compared regarding tolerability and clinical effects (heart rate, blood pressure, systolic and diastolic functions, New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute-walk distance, quality of life, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). RESULTS: For both of the BBs, tolerability and daily dose at 12 weeks were similar. HFpEF patients demonstrated higher rates of dose escalation delays and treatment-related side effects. Similar HR reductions were observed in both groups (HFpEF: 6.6 beats/min; HFrEF: 6.9 beats/min, p = NS), whereas greater improvement in NYHA functional class was observed in HFrEF (HFpEF: 23% vs. HFrEF: 34%, p < 0.001). Mean E/e' and left atrial volume index did not change in either group, although E/A increased in HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: BB tolerability was comparable between HFrEF and HFpEF. Relevant reductions of HR and blood pressure occurred in both groups. However, only HFrEF patients experienced considerable improvements in clinical parameters and Left ventricular function. Interestingly, beta-blockade had no effect on established and prognostic markers of diastolic function in either group. Long-term studies using modern diagnostic criteria for HFpEF are urgently needed to establish whether BB therapy exerts significant clinical benefit in HFpEF. (Comparison of Bisoprolol and Carvedilol in Elderly Heart Failure HF] Patients: A Randomised, Double-Blind Multicentre Study CIBIS-ELD]; ISRCTN34827306). KW - beta-blockers KW - heart failure KW - HFpEF KW - HFrEF KW - tolerability Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-191022 VL - 4 IS - 2 ER -