You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Heart failure and cardiomyopathies
Original research article
Drug treatment effects on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 8 September 2017
    Targeting beta blocker therapy to individual heart failure with preserved ejection fraction phenotypes
    • Sean L Zheng, Core Medical Trainee Royal Brompton Hospital, London

    The letter by Dr Al-Mohammad is welcomed by the study authors and highlights some of the important challenges with using single value cut-offs for diagnosis and in determining treatment options. This is particularly true for heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HFpEF) (and more recently mid-range ejection fraction [HFmrEF], 40-49%) where decisions on starting prognostic medications can be made based on subjective echocardiographic measurements, albeit with evidence of diastolic dysfunction (tissue Doppler, flow Doppler, and volumes). Clearly, additional patient-specific factors should be taken into account, including aetiology, co-morbidities, and underlying rhythm, which are nicely highlighted in the editorial piece accompanying our study[1 2].
    The Study Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalisation in Seniors With Heart Failure (SENIORS) trial investigated the effects of the beta-blocker nebivolol in the treatment of heart failure in patients aged 70 and over[3]. Patients were required to have a clinical diagnosis of heart failure with either hospitalisation for heart failure in the previous 12 months, or a documented LVEF ≤35%. Baseline LVEF was measured by transthoracic echocardiography in 94% of cases. While van Veldhuisen et al. used an LVEF cut-off of 35% to compare “reduced” with “preserved” ejection fraction, they also examined and reported on the effect of Nebivolol in 643 patients with an LVEF ≥40%....

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 7 August 2017
    Do Beta Blockers really reduce the mortality in patients with HFPEF?

    I do welcome the systemic review and meta-analysis on drug treatment effects on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, by Dr Zheng and co-workers.(1) I do note the authors' definition of HFPEF as having a left ventricular ejection fraction of >40% as per the suggestions of the American Guidelines.(2) They acknowledge the difficulties posed by those with LVEF 40-49% where the evidence base is largely lacking with the exception of the more recent sub-study of CHARM data in those with LVEF in the above mid-range.(3)
    I have however an issue with their inclusion of the SENIORS study data.(4) Although the mean LVEF of those labelled as HF with preserved LVEF was 49%, the patients included as those with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, were those with LVEF>35%. This calls into question as to whether the positive effect on mortality of beta-blockers in this trial was caused by the impact of including patients with LVEF 35-40% within this group. I am sure that the authors would agree that the positive impact of the beta-blockers on the mortality of patients with LVEF 35-40%, is un-controversial.(4) While another publication from the SENIORS study group found no statistically significant difference between those deemed HFREF and those deemed HFPEF. We do know that the comparison here may be flawed for the above mentioned issue.
    I would therefore, encourage the authors to reconsider their firm conclusion about the effectivenes...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.