New England Journal of Medicine April 10, 2014

Spironolactone for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Bertram Pitt, Marc A. Pfeffer, Susan F. Assmann, et al.

Bottom Line

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, spironolactone did not significantly reduce the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, or heart failure hospitalization, although it did reduce the incidence of heart failure hospitalizations.

Key Findings

1. The primary composite outcome occurred in 18.6% (320 of 1722) of the spironolactone group versus 20.4% (351 of 1723) of the placebo group (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.04; P=0.14) [1.2.1].
2. Spironolactone significantly reduced the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure compared to placebo (12.0% vs. 14.2%; HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P=0.04).
3. Total deaths and hospitalizations for any reason were not significantly reduced by spironolactone.
4. Treatment with spironolactone was associated with increased serum creatinine levels and a doubling of the rate of hyperkalemia (18.7% in the spironolactone group).

Study Design

Design
Randomized Controlled Trial
Double-Blind
Sample
3,445
Patients
Duration
3.3 yr
Median
Setting
Multicenter, international
Population Patients aged 50 years or older with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or more.
Intervention Spironolactone (15 to 45 mg daily).
Comparator Placebo.
Outcome Composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure.

Study Limitations

Significant regional variations confounded the results; patients enrolled in Russia and Georgia had uncharacteristically low event rates, and subsequent analyses suggested many of these patients may not have taken the study drug [1.1.4].
The use of two different enrollment pathways (prior heart failure hospitalization versus elevated natriuretic peptides) resulted in heterogeneous baseline cardiovascular risk among the trial cohorts.
The trial's overall event rate was lower than anticipated, potentially reducing the statistical power to detect a difference in the primary outcome.

Clinical Significance

Although TOPCAT failed to meet its primary endpoint, the significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and the later revelation of profound regional confounding (with robust benefits seen in the Americas cohort) led to spironolactone becoming a Class IIb recommendation in guidelines for patients with symptomatic HFpEF to reduce hospitalizations, provided renal function and potassium are closely monitored.

Historical Context

Prior to TOPCAT, therapies like ACE inhibitors and ARBs failed to show compelling morbidity or mortality benefits in HFpEF. Given the established survival benefit of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in HFrEF (shown in trials like RALES and EMPHASIS-HF), there was high hope for spironolactone in HFpEF. TOPCAT was a landmark trial that strongly influenced the understanding of clinical trial conduct and regional variations, paving the way for subsequent successful HFpEF trials.

Guided Discussion

High-yield insights from every perspective

Med Student
Medical Student

How does the mechanism of action of spironolactone theoretically benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) regarding myocardial remodeling?

Key Response

Spironolactone is a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. In HFpEF, aldosterone promotes myocardial fibrosis, collagen deposition, and diastolic stiffness. Blocking this pathway theoretically improves diastolic compliance, a core pathophysiologic issue in HFpEF.

Resident
Resident

Given that the TOPCAT trial was technically negative for its primary composite outcome but showed a reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, how would you counsel a symptomatic HFpEF patient about starting spironolactone?

Key Response

Residents must balance negative primary outcomes with clinically meaningful secondary outcomes. MRA therapy is often used in HFpEF off-label to reduce hospitalizations, provided potassium and renal function are closely monitored. Counseling should focus on symptom management and hospitalization risk rather than a definitive mortality benefit.

Fellow
Fellow

Post-hoc analyses of the TOPCAT trial revealed stark regional differences in outcomes between the Americas and Russia/Georgia. How should these regional disparities influence your interpretation of the trials efficacy, and what does it suggest about the HFpEF phenotype enrolled?

Key Response

Fellows must understand the controversy. Patients in Russia/Georgia had a much lower event rate, and subsequent pharmacokinetic studies suggested many were not taking the drug. In the Americas cohort, spironolactone significantly improved the primary outcome, suggesting true efficacy in a properly phenotyped and adherent HFpEF population.

Attending
Attending

How do you integrate the findings of TOPCAT with more recent HFpEF trials, such as EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER, when constructing a practical, polypharmacy-conscious medical regimen for an older patient with HFpEF and mild chronic kidney disease?

Key Response

Attendings must synthesize historical trials with modern ones. While SGLT2 inhibitors are now frontline for HFpEF, MRAs remain a valuable adjunctive tool. The combination can actually be synergistic, as SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce the risk of MRA-induced hyperkalemia, highlighting the art of individualized therapy in complex patients.

Scholarly Review

Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development

PhD
PhD

The TOPCAT trial allowed enrollment based on either a recent heart failure hospitalization or an elevated natriuretic peptide level. How did this dual enrollment criterion introduce methodological vulnerability into the trial, particularly regarding the dilution of treatment effect?

Key Response

Methodologists recognize that the hospitalization stratum in Eastern Europe likely enrolled patients without true HFpEF, evidenced by drastically lower event rates. Allowing subjective criteria without mandated high natriuretic peptides in regions with different diagnostic standards led to phenotypic heterogeneity, diluting the trials statistical power.

Journal Editor
Journal Editor

If you were reviewing the TOPCAT manuscript, how would you address the handling of the massive regional heterogeneity in the primary analysis, and would you permit the authors to heavily emphasize the Americas-only data?

Key Response

A seasoned editor would flag the profound regional interaction. The dilemma is whether highlighting a post-hoc regional analysis constitutes cherry-picking or uncovers a critical flaw in trial execution. The editor must balance strict intention-to-treat purism with the ethical obligation to report plausible biological efficacy masked by poor trial execution in specific regions.

Guideline Committee
Guideline Committee

Despite TOPCAT failing its primary endpoint, the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guidelines give MRAs a Class 2b recommendation for HFpEF. How does the committee justify this recommendation using the TOPCAT secondary endpoints and regional analyses?

Key Response

The guidelines incorporate the reduction in HF hospitalizations seen in the overall cohort and the significant primary outcome benefit seen in the Americas subgroup. They weigh these benefits against the risks of hyperkalemia and renal dysfunction, resulting in a weak but present recommendation to decrease hospitalizations in appropriately selected patients.

Clinical Landscape

Noteworthy Related Trials

2003

CHARM-Preserved Trial

n = 3,023 · Lancet

Tested

Candesartan target dose 32 mg once daily

Population

Patients with heart failure and ejection fraction >40%

Comparator

Placebo

Endpoint

Composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure

Key result: Candesartan reduced hospital admissions for heart failure but did not significantly decrease cardiovascular mortality.
2019

PARAGON-HF Trial

n = 4,796 · NEJM

Tested

Sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily

Population

Patients with heart failure and ejection fraction >=45%

Comparator

Valsartan 160 mg twice daily

Endpoint

Composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death

Key result: Sacubitril/valsartan missed statistical significance for the primary endpoint but suggested benefit in women and those with an ejection fraction of 45-57%.
2021

EMPEROR-Preserved Trial

n = 5,988 · NEJM

Tested

Empagliflozin 10 mg daily

Population

Patients with heart failure and ejection fraction >40%

Comparator

Placebo

Endpoint

Composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure

Key result: Empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure compared to placebo.

Tailored to your role

Want this tailored to you?

Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.

Personalize this analysis