Masked hypotension in patients with heart failure

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Abstract Background Hypotension limits the up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) and correlates with poor prognosis in patients with heart failure. The value of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in heart failure patients and its association with GDMTs optimization and clinical outcomes were undetermined. Methods REM-HF (Risk Evaluation and Management in Heart Failure) is a multicenter, prospective observational cohort. Our study screened patients from REM-HF who were hospitalized for incident HF and newly initiated GDMTs between April 2018 and December 2022. Eligible participants conducted a 24-hour ABPM before discharge and were followed-up as the cohort routine. GDMTs target dose achievement and dose trajectories were assessed at 3-month visit. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission. Results On adjusted restricted cubic spline analysis, office SBP demonstrated a U-shape relationship with the primary outcome (P for nonlinearity=0.003), while 24-hour SBP was linear (P for nonlinearity=0.338). The risk-related threshold of ambulatory and office systolic hypotension was defined as corresponding SBP < 120 mmHg accordingly. Combining these two measurements together, we described three blood pressure status as sustained hypotension (s-hypo, both SBP < 120 mmHg), masked hypotension (m-hypo, 24h SBP < 120 mmHg while office SBP ≥ 120mmHg), and non-hypotension (n-hypo). Among the 491 patients included, 124 (25.3%), 151 (30.8%) and 216 (44.0%) had s-hypo, m-hypo, and n-hypo, respectively. The m-hypo group showed similar clinical features as the s-hypo subjects, including more serious left ventricle remodeling and worse cardiac function. After the GDMTs dose titration, either patients with s-hypo or m-hypo were as unlikely to achieve target dose as the non-hypotensives (OR for s-hypo 0.42, 95%CI 0.19-0.95, P=0.038; OR for m-hypo 0.39, 95%CI 0.19-0.80, P=0.011). During a median follow-up of 693 days, the adjusted risk of primary outcome was higher in the s-hypo group and m-hypo group compared with the non-hypo group (HR for s-hypo 2.47, 95%CI 1.54-3.96, P<0.001; HR for m-hypo 1.68, 95%CI 1.06-2.65, P=0.027). No significant differences were found in target dose achievement and clinical outcomes between the s-hypo and m-hypo groups. Conclusion Masked systolic hypotension can occur in nearly one-third of new-onset HF patients. Patients with m-hypo and s-hypo exhibit similar clinical characteristics, both associated with GDMTs intolerance and adverse outcomes, suggesting m-hypo deserves recognition as a discrete entity. ABPM provides a more comprehensive view of patients’ blood pressure status by identifying this population.