Eplerenone and Atrial Fibrillation in Mild Systolic Heart Failure
Eplerenone and Atrial Fibrillation in Mild Systolic Heart Failure
Eplerenone and Atrial Fibrillation in Mild Systolic Heart Failure
Heart Failure
The purpose of this study was to analyze the incidence of new atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) in the
EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization And SurvIval Study in Heart Failure) database.
Background
Aldosterone antagonism in heart failure might influence atrial fibrosis and remodeling and, therefore, risk of developing AFF. The development of new AFF was a pre-specified secondary endpoint in the EMPHASIS-HF study.
Methods
Patients in New York Heart Association functional class II and with ejection fraction 35% were eligible for
EMPHASIS-HF. History of AFF at baseline was reported by investigators using the study case report form.
New onset AFF (in those with no history of AFF at baseline) was reported using a specific endpoint form; in
a sensitivity analysis we also examined the effect of eplerenone on AFF reported as an adverse event.
Results
New onset AFF was significantly reduced by eplerenone: 25 of 911 (2.7%) versus 40 of 883 (4.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 0.96; p 0.034). The reduction in the
primary endpoint with eplerenone was similar among patients with and without AFF at baseline (HR: 0.60, 95%
CI: 0.46 to 0.79 vs. HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.85, respectively; p for interaction 0.41). The risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospital admission for worsening heart failure, the primary endpoint, was not significantly
different in subjects with and without AFF at baseline (both study groups combined: HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.81 to
1.86; p 0.33).
Conclusions
In patients with systolic heart failure and mild symptoms, eplerenone reduced the incidence of new onset AFF. The
effects of eplerenone on the reduction of major CV events were similar in patients with and without AFF at
baseline. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1598603) 2012 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
traveling to meetings of the committee. Mr. Shi and Dr. Vincent are currently
employed by Pfizer and own stock in Pfizer Inc., the makers of eplerenone. Dr.
McMurray is supported by the Eugene Braunwald Endowment for the Advancement
of Cardiovascular Discovery and Care. Dr. van Veldhuisen has board membership fees
with Amgen, Alere, Vifor, and Pfizer. The sponsor was responsible for data
management and final data analyses. The Writing Committee had full access to all
data, and was responsible for the interpretation of the results, the development and
writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit for publication. Members of the
medical and scientific departments of the sponsor, Pfizer, supported the work of the
Writing Committee, but did not make any scientific or research decisions independent of this committee.
Manuscript received September 14, 2011; revised manuscript received November
22, 2011, accepted November 29, 2011.
Swedberg et al.
Eplerenone and AF in Mild Systolic Heart Failure
1599
1600
Swedberg et al.
Eplerenone and AF in Mild Systolic Heart Failure
Baseline
in Patients With
and Without
AFFWithout AFF
Table 1 Characteristics
Baseline Characteristics
in Patients
With and
No AFF (n 1,794)
AFF (n 943)
Eplerenone
(n 911)
Placebo
(n 883)
Total
(n 1,794)
Eplerenone
(n 453)
Placebo
(n 490)
Total
(n 943)
p Value
(No AFF vs. AFF)
Age, yrs
68 7.6
67.9 7.5
Men, %
675 (74)
665 (75)
1,340 (75)
67.9 7.5
70.1 7.7
69.9 7.7
70.0 7.7
0.0001*
380 (84)
407 (83)
787 (83)
659 (72.3)
619 (70.1)
0.0001*
1,278 (71.2)
292 (64.5)
316 (64.5)
608 (64.5)
451 (49.5)
433 (49.0)
884 (49.3)
263 (58.1)
293 (59.8)
556 (59)
0.0003*
0.0001*
Hypertension, %
588 (64.5)
569 (64.4)
1,157 (64.5)
322 (71.1)
340 (69.4)
662 (70.2)
0.0029*
Diabetes mellitus, %
330 (36.2)
275 (31.1)
605 (33.7)
129 (28.5)
125 (25.5)
254 (26.9)
0.0003*
173 (19.0)
158 (17.9)
331 (18.5)
102 (20.8)
185 (19.6)
0.4717
26 (4.6)
26 (4.7)
26 (4.7)
26.3 (4.7)
26.2 (4.7)
26.3 (4.7)
0.2034
72.1 (14.4)
71.6 (14.6)
71.9 (14.5)
76.7 (17.3)
76.4 (16.9)
0.0001*
1.1 (0.3)
1.1 (0.3)
1.1 (0.3)
1.2 (0.3)
1.2 (0.3)
0.0001*
0.0001*
EF, %
Heart rate, beats/min
Serum creatinine, mg/dl
83 (18.3)
76 (16.6)
1.2 (0.3)
Medications, %
Diuretics
788 (86.5)
777 (88)
1,565 (87.2)
415 (91.6)
454 (92.7)
869 (92.2)
ACE inhibitor/ARB
876 (96.2)
840 (95.1)
1,716 (95.7)
434 (95.8)
465 (94.9)
899 (95.3)
0.6976
Beta-blocker
820 (90.0)
801 (90.7)
1,621 (90.4)
413 (91.2)
447 (91.2)
860 (91.2)
0.4905
Digitalis glucosides
213 (23.4)
204 (23.1)
417 (23.2)
214 (47.2)
254 (51.8)
468 (49.6)
0.0001*
Amiodarone
116 (12.7)
136 (15.4)
252 (14.0)
132 (29.1)
150 (30.6)
282 (29.9)
0.0001*
Lipid-lowering agents
654 (71.8)
630 (71.4)
1,284 (71.6)
266 (58.7)
295 (60.2)
561 (59.5)
0.0001*
Values are mean SD or n (%). *p Values were based on 2-sample t test for continuous variables and Fishers exact test for categorical variables.
ACE angiotensin-converting enzyme; AFF atrial fibrillation or flutter; ARB angiotensin receptor blocker; bpm beats per minute; EF ejection fraction; CHF chronic heart failure.
Statistical analysis. The comparability of baseline characteristics between subjects without or with baseline AFF was
assessed by 2-sample t test for continuous variables and
Fishers exact test for categorical variables.
The unadjusted and adjusted treatment effect on the risk
of new onset AFF was assessed by Cox proportional hazards
models without or with adjusting for the following prespecified baseline prognostic factors in the model: age,
eGFR or serum creatinine, ejection fraction, body mass
index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, history of hypertension, prior myocardial
infarction, and left bundle branch block or QRS duration
130 ms.
Additionally, the subgroup analyses of the unadjusted treatment effect on the risk of primary and secondary outcomes
were conducted on all randomized patients and according to
the intention-to-treat principle stratified by subjects with or
without baseline AFF using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox
proportional hazards models including treatment as the only
factor. The treatment-by-baseline AFF subgroup interaction
was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model with
terms for treatment, baseline AFF, and interactions between
treatment and baseline AFF subgroup.
The association between baseline AFF and the risk of
primary and secondary endpoints was assessed using Cox
proportional hazards analyses including baseline AFF as the
major factor in the model. Additionally, a multivariate Cox
proportional hazards model was performed adjusting for the
list of baseline characteristics that were found to be significantly imbalanced between patients without or with baseline AFF from Table 1.
Results
The study profile is presented in Figure 1 and the demographic characteristics of patients with and without AFF at
baseline are presented in Table 1. Nine hundred and
forty-three patients (34%) had AFF. Patients with AFF
differed from non-AFF patients in almost all variables.
Patients with AFF were significantly older and larger, had
more prior hospitalizations, and had more hypertension but
less diabetes. While ejection fraction was similar between
those with and without AFF, patients with AFF had a
higher heart rate and slightly higher serum creatinine. The
balanced randomization between allocation groups was
maintained despite absence of stratification for baseline AF.
New onset atrial fibrillation is presented in Figure 2,
according to treatment group. Onset of new atrial fibrilla-
Figure 1
Study Profile
Swedberg et al.
Eplerenone and AF in Mild Systolic Heart Failure
Figure 2
With Baseline
AF/F
No. of
Interaction
No
1794
0.411
Yes
943
All-Cause Mortality
No
1794
0.453
CV Mortality
No
1794
0.699
All-Cause Hospitalization
No
1794
0.223
HF Hospitalization
No
1794
0.485
No
1794
0.260
HF Death or HF Hospitalization
No
1794
0.491
CV Hospitalization
No
1794
0.204
Fatal / Non-Fatal MI
No
1794
0.758
No
1794
0.927
No
1794
N/A
0.1 0.2
Figure 3
P-value for
Patients
HF Hospitalization / CV Death
0.5
Eplerenone
Placebo
Better
Better
10
Effects of eplerenone on major endpoints with interaction according to the presence or absence of atrial fibrillation or flutter at baseline.
AF/F atrial fibrillation/flutter; CI confidence interval; CV cardiovascular; HF heart failure; MI myocardial infarction.
1601
1602
Swedberg et al.
Eplerenone and AF in Mild Systolic Heart Failure
similar between these groups except for all-cause hospitalization, which was associated with increased risk by AFF
(HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.34) as well as all-cause death
or all-cause hospitalization (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.05 to
1.34). Adjusted analyses with covariables as in Table 2
showed similar results.
Discussion
In patients with systolic HF and mild symptoms, addition
of eplerenone to recommended therapy reduced the incidence of new atrial fibrillation by 42%. Furthermore, the
benefits of eplerenone in patients with a history of atrial
fibrillation, or current atrial fibrillation, at baseline were
similar to those in patients without atrial fibrillation. These
benefits were obtained even though nearly all patients were
also treated with other effective and recommended pharmacological agents (i.e., ACE inhibitors/ARBs and betablockers). Atrial fibrillation is a common arrhythmia in
patients with HF and is related to the severity of HF. The
annual incidence of atrial fibrillation in this trial was around
3%, which corresponds to an annual incidence of 4% to 5%
in the COMET (Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial)
study (18) and the SHIFT (Systolic Heart failure treatment
with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial) study (19) as more
symptomatic patients in New York Heart Association
functional class III were included in the latter 2 trials. The
prognostic importance of atrial fibrillation per se is unclear,
and in the present analysis we could not find an independent
prognostic risk for cardiovascular events or death by AFF
over and above other risk factors in HF. This observation is
in agreement with the recent meta-analysis by Wasywich et
al. (20).
Whether or not atrial fibrillation is an independent
predictor of outcome in HF, its occurrence is commonly
associated with symptom deterioration, and in addition
atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke (21), necessitating treatment with anticoagulation with its associated
inconvenience, cost, and bleeding hazard. Consequently,
atrial fibrillation is best avoided, if possible. Unfortunately,
there are few treatment options for preventing atrial fibrillation in HF. Although retrospective analyses and small
prospective studies have suggested that ARBs (and ACE
inhibitors) might prevent atrial fibrillation (8), this finding
has not been confirmed in large prospective trials (10,11)
and, in any case, atrial fibrillation still occurs frequently in
patients taking these drugs, as shown in the present study.
Beta-blockers may also reduce the incidence of AFF but
should, in any case, be used routinely in systolic HF. (22).
Beta-blockers were used extensively in EMPHASIS-HF
and despite this (and the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs),
eplerenone still reduced the incidence of AFF. Additional
prevention can be achieved by class III antiarrhythmic
drugs, which have been shown to reduce the incidence of
atrial fibrillation in HF (23), but these agents have unacceptable toxicity and uncertain safety in patients with acute
Downloaded From: http://content.onlinejacc.org/ on 01/21/2014
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Swedberg et al.
Eplerenone and AF in Mild Systolic Heart Failure
1603
17. Zannad F, McMurray JJ, Drexler H, et al. Rationale and design of the
Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization And SurvIval Study in
Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF). Eur J Heart Fail 2010;12:61722.
18. Poole-Wilson PA, Swedberg K, Cleland JG, et al. Comparison of
carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic
heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET):
randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:713.
19. Swedberg K, Komajda M, Bohm M, et al. Ivabradine and outcomes in
chronic heart failure (SHIFT): a randomised placebo-controlled study.
Lancet 2010;376:875 85.
20. Wasywich CA, Pope AJ, Somaratne J, Poppe KK, Whalley GA,
Doughty RN. Atrial fibrillation and the risk of death in patients with
heart failure: a literature-based meta-analysis. Intern Med J 2010;40:
34756.
21. Neuberger HR, Mewis C, van Veldhuisen DJ, et al. Management of
atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure. Eur Heart J 2007;28:
2568 77.
22. Nasr IA, Bouzamondo A, Hulot JS, Dubourg O, Le Heuzey JY, Lechat
P. Prevention of atrial fibrillation onset by beta-blocker treatment in heart
failure: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2007;28:457 62.
23. Lafuente-Lafuente C, Mouly S, Longas-Tejero MA, Bergmann JF.
Antiarrhythmics for maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion of
atrial fibrillation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:CD005049.
24. Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C, McMurray JJ, et al. Increased mortality
after dronedarone therapy for severe heart failure. N Engl J Med
2008;358:2678 87.
25. Milliez P, Deangelis N, Rucker-Martin C, et al. Spironolactone
reduces fibrosis of dilated atria during heart failure in rats with
myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2005;26:21939.
26. Zhao J, Li J, Li W, et al. Effects of spironolactone on atrial structural
remodelling in a canine model of atrial fibrillation produced by
prolonged atrial pacing. Br J Pharmacol 2010;159:1584 94.
Key Words: aldosterone antagonism y atrial fibrillation y heart failure.