The Effectiveness of Eplerenone vs Spironolactone on Left Ventricular Systolic Function, Hospitalization and Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure–HFrEF

BACKGROUND: Heart failure remains one of the most prevalent clinical syndromes associated with significant morbidity and mortality. According to current guidelines, the prescription of a MRA is recommended to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and death in all patients with symptomatic heart failure and no contraindications for this therapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of eplerenone vs. spironolactone on left ventricular systolic function by measuring left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with chronic heart failure, especially their effect on preventing hospitalization, reducing mortality, and improving clinical status among patients with chronic HF. METHODS: From June 2021 to June 2022, the study was a randomized, prospective clinical trial single blind study. A total of 142 patients of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were selected by random sampling. Each patient was randomly allocated into either of the two groups and was continued receiving treatment with either spironolactone (Spiron-HF group) or eplerenone (Epler-HF group). Patients in Epler-HF group were compared with an arm of the same size and matched by age and gender patients in Spiron-HF group for management of chronic HFrEF. Each patient was evaluated clinically, biochemically, and echocardiographically at the beginning of treatment (baseline) after 6 months and at the end of 12th month. Echocardiography was performed to find out change in left ventricular systolic function. RESULTS: After 12 months of treatment, significant improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction was observed in eplerenone treated arm (37.9 ± 3.8 ± 4.6 in Spiron-HF group versus 40.1 ± 5.7 in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05). A significant reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (6.3 ± 2.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 17.8± 4.4ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05) and left ventricular systolic diameter volume (2.7 ± 0.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 6.7 ± 0.2ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05), occurred after 12 months of treatment. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) was significantly improved in Epler-HF group compared with Spiron-HF group (0.6 ± 0.4 versus 3.4 ± 0.9; P < 0.05). There were no significant differences observed in reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (2.2 ± 0.5 ml versus 4.7 ± 1.1ml; P =0.103) and left ventricular diastolic diameter (1.2 ± 0.6 versus 1.7 ± 0.3; P=0.082) in both arms. The effects of both MRA agents spironolactone and eplerenone on the primary composite outcome, each of the individual mortality and hospital admission outcomes are shown in Figure 1 and 2. Patients of the Epler-HF group showed statistically significant lower cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.34–0.82; p= 0.007) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44–0.93; p= 0.022) than patients of the Spiron-HF group. The statistical analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between Epler -HF and Spiron-HF study groups regarding the risk of the primary composite outcome; cardiovascular death or hospitalization due to HF (Hazard Ratio (HR) eplerenone vs. spironolactone = 0.95; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.73– 1.27; p= 0.675). CONCLUSION: Our study has demonstrated favorable effects of eplerenone on cardiac remodeling parameters and reduction of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality compared with spironolactone in the treatment of HFrEF. The ability of eplerenone to effectively block the mineralocorticoid receptor while minimizing side effects and a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization and cardiovascular death confirms its key role in the treatment of patients with chronic HFrEF.