Evidence Hub

Withdrawal of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure and Improved Ejection Fraction

Christian Basile, F. Lindberg, L. Benson, F. Guidetti, U. Dahlström, M. Piepoli, Peter G M Mol, R. Scorza et al.

Circulation, 2025

8,728 participants · 23 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists on the prognostic role of continuing medical therapy in patients with heart failure (HF) and an ejection fraction (EF) that has improved over time. This study assessed rates of, patient profiles, and associations with morbidity/mortality of renin-angiotensin inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), beta-blockers (BBL), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) withdrawal in patients with HF with improved EF. METHODS: Patients with a first recorded EF <40% and a later EF ≥40% from the Swedish HF registry between June 11, 2000, and December 31, 2023, were included in this retrospective observational study. Withdrawal was defined as a patient on treatment at the first (reduced) but not at the second (improved) registration. The association between withdrawal and time to first cardiovascular mortality/hospitalization for HF with censoring at 1 year was assessed by Cox regression model using overlap weighting. RESULTS: Of 8728 patients with HF with improved EF (median age, 70 years [25th to 75th percentile, 61–78], 2611 [29.9%] women), 96%, 94%, and 46% received RASi/ARNi, BBL, and MRA, respectively, when EF was <40%. The withdrawal rates at the time of the improved EF registration were 4.4% for RASi/ARNi, 3.3% for BBL, and 17.2% for MRA. Predictors of withdrawal included lower use of other HF medications, higher EF at the later EF registration, and a longer time between the 2 EF assessments. After weighting,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 8,728 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free