Background: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved empagliflozin for reducing cardiovascular mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, limited data are available on the generalizability of empagliflozin to clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated real-world eligibility and potential cost-effectiveness based on a nationwide prospective HF registry. Methods: A total of 3,108 HFrEF and 2,070 HFpEF patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. Eligibility was estimated by inclusion and exclusion criteria of EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) and EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trials and by FDA & EMA label criteria. The cost-utility analysis was done using a Markov model to project the lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: Among the KorAHF patients, 91.4% met FDA & EMA label criteria, while 44.7% met the clinical trial criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin was calculated at US$6,764 per QALY in the overall population, which is far below a threshold of US$18,182 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more evident in patients with HFrEF (US$5,012 per QALY) than HFpEF (US$8,971 per QALY). Conclusion There is a large discrepancy in real-world eligibility for empagliflozin between FDA & EMA labels and clinical trial criteria. Empagliflozin is cost-effective in HF patients regardless of ejection fraction in South Korea health care setting. The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in real-world HF patients should be further investigated for a broader range of clinical applications.

Objective: Data pertaining to the prognostic value of the combination of high neutrophilto-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and anemia on admission in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are limited. The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical value of baseline NLR in combination with anemia in predicting clinical outcomes after STEMI. Methods: A total of 5,194 consecutive patients with STEMI within 12 hours of symptom onset from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health database between 2011 and 2015 were categorized into 4 groups according to their NLR and hemoglobin levels: low NLR (<4) without anemia (n=2,722; reference group); high NLR (≥4) without anemia (n=1,527); low NLR with anemia (n=508); and high NLR with anemia (n=437). The co-primary outcomes were 180-day and 3-year all-cause mortality. Results: Mortality rates significantly increased at the 3-year follow-up across the groups (3.3% vs. 5.4% vs. 16.5% vs. 21.7% for 180-day mortality and 5.3% vs. 9.0% vs. 23.8% vs. 33.4% for 3-year mortality; all p-trends <0.001). After adjusting for baseline covariates, the combination of high NLR and anemia was a significant predictor of 180-day mortality after STEMI with low NLR and no anemia as the reference (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.58–2.95; p<0.001). Similar findings were observed for the 3-year mortality. Conclusions This nationwide prospective cohort study showed that the combination of high NLR (≥4) and anemia is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality after STEMI.

Background/Aims: This study investigated the prognostic power of corrected QT (QTc) interval in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) according to sex. Methods: We analyzed multicenter Korean Acute Heart Failure registry with patients with AHF admitted from 2011 to 2014. Among them, we analyzed 4,990 patients who were followed up to 5 years. Regarding QTc interval based on 12 lead electrocardiogram, patients were classified into quartiles according to sex. Results: During follow-up with median 43.7 months, 2,243 (44.9%) patients died. The relationship between corrected QT interval and all-cause mortality followed a J-curve relationship. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, both sex had lowest mortality in the second QTc quartile. There were significant prognostic differences between the second and the fourth quartiles in male (log-rank p = 0.002), but not in female (log-rank p = 0.338). After adjusting covariates, the third (hazard ratio [HR], 1.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001 to 1.404; p = 0.049) and the fourth (HR, 1.404; 95% CI, 1.091 to 1.535; p = 0.003) quartiles demonstrated increased risk of mortality compared to the second quartile in male. In female, however, there was no significant difference across quartiles. QTc interval was associated with 5-year all-cause mortality in J-shape with nadir of 440 to 450 ms in male and 470 to 480 ms in female. Conclusions QTc interval was an independent predictor of overall death in male, but its significance decreased in female. The relationship between QTc interval and all-cause mortality was J-shaped in both sex.

Background: β-blockers (BBs) are considered primary therapy in stable heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) without atrial fibrillation (AF); evidence-based benefits of BB on outcome have been documented. However, BBs have not been shown to improve mortality or reduce hospital admissions in HF patients with AF. This study assessed the relationship between BBs at discharge and relevant clinical outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) patients with AF. Methods: From the Korean Acute Heart Failure Registry, 936 HFrEF and 639 HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and AF were selected. Propensity score (PS) matching accounted for BB selection bias when assessing associations. Results: BB-untreated patients in the overall cohort of HFrEF and HFpEF had greater deteriorated clinical and laboratory characteristics. In the 670 PS-matched cohort of HFrEF patients, incidences of all clinical events at 60 days and 1 year were not different according to use of BBs. In the 470 PS-matched cohort of HFpEF, rehospitalization and composite outcome at 6 months and 1 year more frequently occurred in non-users of BBs. After adjusting for covariates in the multivariable Cox model of matched cohorts, BB was not associated with clinical outcomes at 60 days and 1 year in HFrEF with AF patients. In HFpEF patients with AF, BB use was associated with reduced 6-month (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20–0.74) and 1-year rehospitalization (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34–0.82). Conclusion In the HFrEF with AF PS-matched cohort, the use of BBs at discharge was not associated with clinical outcome. However, in HFpEF with AF, the use of BB was associated with reduced rehospitalization during the 6-month and 1-year follow up.

Background: There are sparse data on the utilization rate of implantable cardioverterdefibrillator (ICD) and its beneficial effects in Korean patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods: Among 5,625 acute heart failure (AHF) patients from 10 tertiary university hospitals across Korea, 485 patients with reassessed LVEF ≤ 35% at least 3 months after the index admission were enrolled in this study. The ICD implantation during the follow-up was evaluated. Mortality was compared between patients with ICDs and age-, sex-, and follow-up duration matched control patients. Results: Among 485 patients potentially indicated for an ICD for primary prevention, only 56 patients (11.5%) underwent ICD implantation during the follow-up. Patients with ICD showed a significantly lower all-cause mortality compared with their matched control population: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) = 0.39 (0.16–0.92), P = 0.032. The mortality rate was still lower in the ICD group after excluding patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (adjusted HR [95% CI] = 0.09 [0.01–0.63], P = 0.015).According to the subgroup analysis for ischemic heart failure, there was a significantly lower all-cause mortality in the ICD group than in the no-ICD group (HR [95% CI] = 0.20 [0.06– 0.72], P = 0.013), with a borderline statistical significance (interaction P = 0.069). Conclusion Follow-up data of this large, multicenter registry suggests a significant underutilization of ICD in Korean heart failure patients with reduced LVEF. Survival analysis implies that previously proven survival benefit of ICD in clinical trials could be extrapolated to Korean patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Beta-blockers are indicated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. However, their efficacy in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. We investigated the hypothesis that beta-blockers are associated with reduced adverse events in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: The Korea Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) is a prospective observational multicentre cohort study. The 5,625 patients hospitalized for acute HF syndrome in 10 tertiary university hospitals across the country have been consecutively enrolled between March 2011 and February 2014. Of these patients, 2,152 patients with HFpEF (ejection fraction ≥40%) were investigated. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality according to beta-blocker use. RESULTS: During a median follow-up duration of 807 days, 702 patients died. In Cox proportional hazards model beta-blocker use was associated with a 14% reduced all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–0.98), but not with reduce rehospitalization (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85–1.27). In the propensity-score matched population, beta-blockers were also associated with reduced all-cause death (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69–0.94) but not with reduced rehospitalization (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87–1.33). CONCLUSIONS: In Korean patients with HFpEF, use of beta-blockers is associated with reduced all-cause death but not with reduced rehospitalization.
Cohort Studies ; Diastole ; Follow-Up Studies ; Heart Failure ; Heart ; Hospitals, University ; Humans ; Korea ; Mortality ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Prospective Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Conflicting data exist regarding the prognostic implication of ventricular conduction disturbance pattern in patients with heart failure (HF). This study investigated the prognostic impact of ventricular conduction pattern in hospitalized patients with acute HF. METHODS: Data from the Korean Acute Heart Failure registry were used. Patients were categorized into four groups: narrow QRS (<120 ms), right bundle branch block (RBBB), left bundle branch block (LBBB), and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (NICD). The NICD was defined as prolonged QRS (≥120 ms) without typical features of LBBB or RBBB. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for HF aggravation within 1 year after discharge. RESULTS: This study included 5,157 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 39.7% of study population. The LBBB group showed the highest incidence of primary endpoint followed by NICD, RBBB, and narrow QRS groups (52.5% vs. 49.7% vs. 44.4% vs. 37.5%, p<0.001). In a multivariable Cox-proportional hazards regression analysis, LBBB and NICD were associated with 39% and 28% increased risk for primary endpoint (LBBB hazard ratio [HR], 1.392; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.152–1.681; NICD HR, 1.278; 95% CI, 1.074–1.520) compared with narrow QRS group. The HR of RBBB for the primary endpoint was 1.103 (95% CI, 0.915–1.329). CONCLUSIONS: LBBB and NICD were independently associated with an increased risk of 1-year adverse event in hospitalized patients with HF, whereas the prognostic impacts of RBBB were limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389843
Bundle-Branch Block ; Heart Failure ; Heart ; Humans ; Incidence ; Mortality ; Prognosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Conflicting data exist regarding the prognostic implication of ventricular conduction disturbance pattern in patients with heart failure (HF). This study investigated the prognostic impact of ventricular conduction pattern in hospitalized patients with acute HF. METHODS: Data from the Korean Acute Heart Failure registry were used. Patients were categorized into four groups: narrow QRS (<120 ms), right bundle branch block (RBBB), left bundle branch block (LBBB), and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (NICD). The NICD was defined as prolonged QRS (≥120 ms) without typical features of LBBB or RBBB. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for HF aggravation within 1 year after discharge. RESULTS: This study included 5,157 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 39.7% of study population. The LBBB group showed the highest incidence of primary endpoint followed by NICD, RBBB, and narrow QRS groups (52.5% vs. 49.7% vs. 44.4% vs. 37.5%, p<0.001). In a multivariable Cox-proportional hazards regression analysis, LBBB and NICD were associated with 39% and 28% increased risk for primary endpoint (LBBB hazard ratio [HR], 1.392; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.152–1.681; NICD HR, 1.278; 95% CI, 1.074–1.520) compared with narrow QRS group. The HR of RBBB for the primary endpoint was 1.103 (95% CI, 0.915–1.329). CONCLUSIONS LBBB and NICD were independently associated with an increased risk of 1-year adverse event in hospitalized patients with HF, whereas the prognostic impacts of RBBB were limited.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389843

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Beta-blockers are indicated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. However, their efficacy in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. We investigated the hypothesis that beta-blockers are associated with reduced adverse events in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: The Korea Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) is a prospective observational multicentre cohort study. The 5,625 patients hospitalized for acute HF syndrome in 10 tertiary university hospitals across the country have been consecutively enrolled between March 2011 and February 2014. Of these patients, 2,152 patients with HFpEF (ejection fraction ≥40%) were investigated. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality according to beta-blocker use. RESULTS: During a median follow-up duration of 807 days, 702 patients died. In Cox proportional hazards model beta-blocker use was associated with a 14% reduced all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–0.98), but not with reduce rehospitalization (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85–1.27). In the propensity-score matched population, beta-blockers were also associated with reduced all-cause death (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69–0.94) but not with reduced rehospitalization (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87–1.33). CONCLUSIONS In Korean patients with HFpEF, use of beta-blockers is associated with reduced all-cause death but not with reduced rehospitalization.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: It is unknown whether different β-blockers (BBs) have variable effects on long-term survival of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study compares the effects of two BBs, carvedilol and bisoprolol, on survival in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: The Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry is a prospective multicenter cohort that includes 5,625 patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). We selected 3,016 patients with HFrEF and divided this study population into two groups: BB at discharge (n = 1,707) or no BB at discharge (n = 1,309). Among patients with BB at discharge, subgroups were formed based on carvedilol prescription (n = 831), or bisoprolol prescription (n = 553). Propensity score matching analysis was performed. RESULTS: Among patients who were prescribed a BB at discharge, 60.5% received carvedilol and 32.7% received bisoprolol. There was a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in those patients with HFrEF prescribed a BB at discharge compared to those who were not (BB vs. no BB, 26.1% vs. 40.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.67; p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of all-cause mortality between those receiving different types of BB (carvedilol vs. bisoprolol, 27.5% vs. 23.5%; HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.47; p = 0.07). Similar results were observed after propensity score matching analysis (508 pairs, 26.2% vs. 23.8%; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.40; p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS In the treatment of AHF with reduced EF after hospitalization, mortality benefits of carvedilol and bisoprolol were comparable.