NIMBUS-ERB instrument study

Characterization studies were performed on flight spare ERB wide field of view Earth flux sensors. Field of view sensitivity profiles were determined for total energy sensors with and without painted baffles. Similarly, sensors with filter domes were also characterized in terms of field of view. The transient response of sensors with filter domes was determined for both long wave and short wave radiation. Long wave radiation interacts directly with the quartz dome causing undesired responses. While short wave radiation was shown not to interact with the domes, modules as a whole exhibited a secondary response to bursts of short wave radiation indicative of a heating mechanism. How the results of this characterization can or should be applied to the data emanating from these sensors on ERB-6 and 7 is outlined

Baseline characteristics and treatment of patients in prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to determine impact on global mortality and morbidity in heart failure trial (PARADIGM-HF)

Aim<p></p> To describe the baseline characteristics and treatment of the patients randomized in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNi with ACEi to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, testing the hypothesis that the strategy of simultaneously blocking the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and augmenting natriuretic peptides with LCZ696 200 mg b.i.d. is superior to enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in reducing mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.<p></p> Methods<p></p> Key demographic, clinical and laboratory findings, along with baseline treatment, are reported and compared with those of patients in the treatment arm of the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD-T) and more contemporary drug and device trials in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.<p></p> Results<p></p> The mean age of the 8442 patients in PARADIGM-HF is 64 (SD 11) years and 78% are male, which is similar to SOLVD-T and more recent trials. Despite extensive background therapy with beta-blockers (93% patients) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (60%), patients in PARADIGM-HF have persisting symptoms and signs, reduced health related quality of life, a low LVEF (mean 29 ± SD 6%) and elevated N-terminal-proB type-natriuretic peptide levels (median 1608 inter-quartile range 886–3221 pg/mL).<p></p> Conclusion<p></p> PARADIGM-HF will determine whether LCZ696 is more beneficial than enalapril when added to other disease-modifying therapies and if further augmentation of endogenous natriuretic peptides will reduce morbidity and mortality in heart failure and reduced ejection fractio

Influence of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) on 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for hospital readmission in the first 30 days following HF hospitalization. Objectives: This study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital readmission at 30-days following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril. Methods: We assessed the risk of 30-day readmission for any cause following investigator-reported hospitalizations for HF in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8,399 participants with HF and reduced ejection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril. Results: Accounting for multiple hospitalizations per patient, there were 2,383 investigator-reported HF hospitalizations, of which 1,076 (45.2%) occurred in subjects assigned to LCZ696 and 1,307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril. Rates of readmission for any cause at 30 days were 17.8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.97; p = 0.031). Rates of readmission for HF at 30-days were also lower in subjects assigned to LCZ696 (9.7% vs. 13.4%; odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.87; p = 0.006). The reduction in both all-cause and HF readmissions with LCZ696 was maintained when the time window from discharge was extended to 60 days and in sensitivity analyses restricted to adjudicated HF hospitalizations. Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmissions for any cause following discharge from HF hospitalization

Type of atrial fibrillation and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in heart failure (HF), but the outcome by type of AF is largely unknown. Objectives: This study investigated outcomes related to type of AF (paroxysmal, persistent or permanent, or new onset) in 2 recent large trials in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods: The study analyzed patients in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure) trials. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes related to AF type. Results: Of 15,415 patients, 5,481 (35.6%) had a history of AF at randomization, and of these, 1,645 (30.0%) had paroxysmal AF. Compared with patients without AF, patients with paroxysmal AF at randomization had a higher risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09 to 1.32; p < 0.001), HF hospitalization (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51; < 0.001), and stroke (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.76; p = 0.037), whereas the corresponding risks in patients with persistent or permanent AF were not elevated. Neither type of AF was associated with higher mortality. New onset AF was associated with the greatest risk of adverse outcomes: primary endpoint (HR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.80 to 2.71), HF hospitalization (HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.81), stroke (HR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.25 to 3.88), and all-cause mortality (HR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.86 to 2.74), all p values < 0.001, compared with patients without AF. Anticoagulants were used less often in patients with paroxysmal (53%) and new onset (16%) AF than in patients with persistent or permanent AF (71%). Conclusions: Among HF patients with a history of AF, those with paroxysmal AF were at greater risk of HF hospitalization and stroke than were patients with persistent or permanent AF, underlining the importance of anticoagulant therapy. New onset AF was associated with increased risk of all outcomes. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255) (Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure [ATMOSPHERE]; NCT00853658

Contemporary characteristics and outcomes in chagasic heart failure compared with other nonischemic and ischemic cardiomyopathy

Background: Chagas’ disease is an important cause of cardiomyopathy in Latin America. We aimed to compare clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction caused by Chagas’ disease, with other etiologies, in the era of modern HF therapies. Methods and Results: This study included 2552 Latin American patients randomized in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure) trials. The investigator-reported etiology was categorized as Chagasic, other nonischemic, or ischemic cardiomyopathy. The outcomes of interest included the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization and its components and death from any cause. Unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were performed to compare outcomes by pathogenesis. There were 195 patients with Chagasic HF with reduced ejection fraction, 1300 with other nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 1057 with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Compared with other etiologies, Chagasic patients were more often female, younger, and had lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and renal impairment (but had higher prevalence of stroke and pacemaker implantation) and had worse health-related quality of life. The rates of the composite outcome were 17.2, 12.5, and 11.4 per 100 person-years for Chagasic, other nonischemic, and ischemic patients, respectively—adjusted hazard ratio for Chagasic versus other nonischemic: 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.15–1.94; P=0.003) and Chagasic versus ischemic: 1.55 (1.18–2.04; P=0.002). The rates of all-cause mortality were also higher. Conclusions: Despite younger age, less comorbidity, and comprehensive use of conventional HF therapies, patients with Chagasic HF with reduced ejection fraction continue to have worse quality of life and higher hospitalization and mortality rates compared with other etiologies. Clinical Trial Registration: PARADIGM-HF: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255; ATMOSPHERE: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00853658

Renal effects and associated outcomes during angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in heart failure

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the renal effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Background: Renal function is frequently impaired in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and may deteriorate further after blockade of the renin–angiotensin system. Methods: In the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibition to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, 8,399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was available for all patients, and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was available in 1872 patients, at screening, randomization, and at fixed time intervals during follow-up. We evaluated the effect of study treatment on change in eGFR and UACR, and on renal and cardiovascular outcomes, according to eGFR and UACR. Results: At screening, the eGFR was 70 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 2,745 patients (33%) had chronic kidney disease; the median UACR was 1.0 mg/mmol (interquartile range: 0.4 to 3.2 mg/mmol) and 24% had an increased UACR. The decrease in eGFR during follow-up was less with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (−1.61 ml/min/1.73 m2/year; [95% confidence interval: −1.77 to −1.44 ml/min/1.73 m2/year] vs. −2.04 ml/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI: −2.21 to −1.88 ml/min/1.73 m2/year ]; p < 0.001) despite a greater increase in UACR with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril (1.20 mg/mmol [95% CI: 1.04 to 1.36 mg/mmol] vs. 0.90 mg/mmol [95% CI: 0.77 to 1.03 mg/mmol]; p < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization was not modified by eGFR, UACR (p interaction = 0.70 and 0.34, respectively), or by change in UACR (p interaction = 0.38). Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a slower rate of decrease in the eGFR and improved cardiovascular outcomes, even in patients with chronic kidney disease, despite causing a modest increase in UACR

The EuroHeart Failure survey programme—a survey on the quality of care among patients with heart failure in Europe Part 1: patient characteristics and diagnosis

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has published guidelines for the investigation of patients with suspected heart failure and, if the diagnosis is proven, their subsequent management. Hospitalisation provides a key point of care at which time diagnosis and treatment may be refined to improve outcome for a group of patients with a high morbidity and mortality. However, little international data exists to describe the features and management of such patients. Accordingly, the EuroHeart Failure survey was conducted to ascertain if appropriate tests were being performed with which to confirm or refute a diagnosis of heart failure and how this influenced subsequent management. Methods The survey screened consecutive deaths and discharges during 2000-2001 predominantly from medical wards over a 6-week period in 115 hospitals from 24 countries belonging to the ESC, to identify patients with known or suspected heart failure. Results A total of 46,788 deaths and discharges were screened from which 11,327 (24%) patients were enrolled with suspected or confirmed heart failure. Forty-seven percent of those enrolled were women. Fifty-one percent of women and 30% of men were aged >75 years. Eighty-three percent of patients had a diagnosis of heart failure made on or prior to the index admission. Heart failure was the principal reason for admission in 40%. The great majority of patients (>90%) had had an ECG, chest X-ray, haemoglobin and electrolytes measured as recommended in ESC guidelines, but only 66% had ever had an echocardiogram. Left ventricular ejection fraction had been measured in 57% of men and 41% of women, usually by echocardiography (84%) and was <40% in 51% of men but only in 28% of women. Forty-five percent of women and 22% of men were reported to have normal left ventricular systolic function by qualitative echocardiographic assessment. A substantial proportion of patients had alternative explanations for heart failure other than left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction, including valve disease. Within 12 weeks of discharge, 24% of patients had been readmitted. A total of 1408 of 10,434 (13.5%) patients died between admission and 12 weeks follow-up. Conclusions Known or suspected heart failure comprises a large proportion of admissions to medical wards and such patients are at high risk of early readmission and death. Many of the basic investigations recommended by the ESC were usually carried out, although it is not clear whether this was by design or part of a general routine for all patients being admitted regardless of diagnosis. The investigation most specific for patients with suspected heart failure (echocardiography) was performed less frequently, suggesting that the diagnosis of heart failure is still relatively neglected. Most men but a minority of women who underwent investigation of cardiac function had evidence of moderate or severe left ventricular dysfunction, the main target of current advances in the treatment of heart failure. Considerable diagnostic uncertainty remains for many patients with suspected heart failure, even after echocardiography, which must be resolved in order to target existing and new therapies and services effectively. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd on behalf of The European Society of Cardiology

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF Trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) according to background therapy

Background—In the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was more effective than the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined whether this benefit was consistent irrespective of background therapy. Methods and Results—We examined the effect of study treatment in the following subgroups: diuretics (yes/no), digitalis glycoside (yes/no), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (yes/no), and defibrillating device (implanted defibrillating device, yes/no). We also examined the effect of study drug according to β-blocker dose (≥50% and &lt;50% of target dose) and according to whether patients had undergone previous coronary revascularization. We analyzed the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, as well as cardiovascular death. Most randomized patients (n=8399) were treated with a diuretic (80%) and β-blocker (93%); 47% of those taking a β-blocker were treated with ≥50% of the recommended dose. In addition, 4671 (56%) were treated with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, 2539 (30%) with digoxin, and 1243 (15%) had a defibrillating device; 2640 (31%) had undergone coronary revascularization. Overall, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary composite end point was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.73–0.87; P&lt;0.001) and for cardiovascular death was 0.80 (0.71–0.89; P&lt;0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across all subgroups examined. The hazard ratio for primary end point ranged from 0.74 to 0.85 and for cardiovascular death ranged from 0.75 to 0.89, with no treatment-by-subgroup interaction. Conclusions—The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan, over an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, was consistent regardless of background therapy and irrespective of previous coronary revascularization or β-blocker dose

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril at lower than target doses in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AimsIn this analysis, we utilized data from PARADIGM-HF to test the hypothesis that participants who exhibited any dose reduction during the trial would have similar benefits from lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to lower doses of enalapril.Methods and resultsIn a post-hoc analysis from PARADIGM-HF, we characterized patients by whether they received the maximal dose (200 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 10 mg enalapril twice daily) throughout the trial or had any dose reduction to lower doses (100/50/0 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 5/2.5/0 mg enalapril twice daily). The treatment effect for the primary outcome was estimated, stratified by dose level using time-updated Cox regression models. In the two treatment arms, participants with a dose reduction (43% of those randomized to enalapril and 42% of those randomized to sacubitril/valsartan) had similar baseline characteristics and similar baseline predictors of the need for dose reduction. In a time-updated analysis, any dose reduction was associated with a higher subsequent risk of the primary event [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-2.7]. However, the treatment benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril following a dose reduction was similar (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93, P &lt; 0.001) to that observed in patients who had not experienced any dose reduction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.88, P &lt; 0.001).ConclusionsIn PARADIGM-HF, study medication dose reduction identified patients at higher risk of a major cardiovascular event. The magnitude of benefit for patients on lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to those on lower doses of enalapril was similar to that of patients who remained on target doses of both drugs

Risk related to pre–diabetes mellitus and diabetes mellitus in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to determine impact on global mortality and morbidity in heart failure trial

Background—The prevalence of pre–diabetes mellitus and its consequences in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction are not known. We investigated these in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. Methods and Results—We examined clinical outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction according to history of diabetes mellitus and glycemic status (baseline hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]: &lt;6.0% [&lt;42 mmol/mol], 6.0%–6.4% [42–47 mmol/mol; pre–diabetes mellitus], and ≥6.5% [≥48 mmol/mol; diabetes mellitus]), in Cox regression models adjusted for known predictors of poor outcome. Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus (n=2907 [35%]) had a higher risk of the primary composite outcome of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality compared with those without a history of diabetes mellitus: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 1.52;P&lt;0.001. HbA1c measurement showed that an additional 1106 (13% of total) patients had undiagnosed diabetes mellitus and 2103 (25%) had pre–diabetes mellitus. The hazard ratio for patients with undiagnosed diabetes mellitus (HbA1c, &gt;6.5%) and known diabetes mellitus compared with those with HbA1c&lt;6.0% was 1.39 (1.17–1.64); P&lt;0.001 and 1.64 (1.43–1.87); P&lt;0.001, respectively. Patients with pre–diabetes mellitus were also at higher risk (hazard ratio, 1.27 [1.10–1.47];P&lt;0.001) compared with those with HbA1c&lt;6.0%. The benefit of LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) compared with enalapril was consistent across the range of HbA1c in the trial. Conclusions—In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, dysglycemia is common and pre–diabetes mellitus is associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (compared with patients with no diabetes mellitus and HbA1c &lt;6.0%). LCZ696 was beneficial compared with enalapril, irrespective of glycemic status