Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions

Recommendations for the Management of Cardiomyopathy Mutation Carriers: Evidence, Doubts, and Intentions

Cardiomyopathies may be hereditary and associated with a familial predilection. Morbidity and mortality can be caused by heart failure, sudden death, or arrhythmias. Sometimes these events are the first manifestations of cardiovascular disease. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy are perhaps most thoroughly studied in that context. Dilated cardiomyopathy, although most frequently of secondary etiology, has a significant familial cluster. Noncompaction of the left ventricle can sometimes be seen in healthy individuals and, in other instances, is associated with severe LV dysfunction. Genetic testing is of utmost importance, since it might allow for the identification of individuals carrying mutations predisposing them to these diseases. In addition, certain variants may benefit from tailored therapeutic regimens, and thus searching for a causal mutation can impact clinical practice and is recommended for all patients with HCM or ACM. Patients with DCM and positive family history should be included as well. Regular follow-ups are advised, even in those with negative phenotypes, because these disorders are often age dependent. During pregnancy and in the case of athletes, special consideration should be made as well. We intend to summarize the most current evidence regarding their management.

Updates in Cardiorenal Syndrome

Cardiorenal syndrome is a term that refers to a collection of disorders involving both the heart and kidneys, encompassing multi-directional pathways between the 2 organs mediated through low arterial perfusion, venous congestion, and neurohormonal activation. The pathophysiology is complex and includes hemodynamic and neurohormonal changes, but inconsistent findings from recent studies suggest this is very heterogenous disorder. Management for ADHF remains focused on decongestion and neurohormonal blockade to overcome the intense sodium and fluid avidity of the CRS.

WHF Recommendations for the Use of Echocardiography in Chagas Disease

Chagas disease (ChD) represents a significant health burden in endemic regions of Latin America and is increasingly being recognized as a global health issue. The cardiac involvement in ChD, known as Chagas cardiomyopathy (ChCM), is the most severe manifestation and a leading cause of heart failure and mortality in affected individuals. Echocardiography, a non-invasive imaging modality, plays a crucial role in the diagnosis, monitoring, and risk stratification of ChCM. This consensus recommendation aims to provide guidance on the appropriate use of echocardiography in ChD. An international panel of experts, including cardiologists, infectious disease specialists, and echocardiography specialists, convened to review the available evidence and provide practical recommendations based on their collective expertise. The consensus addresses key aspects related to echocardiography in ChD, including its role in the initial evaluation, serial monitoring, and risk assessment of patients. It emphasizes the importance of standardized echocardiographic protocols, including the assessment of left ventricular function, chamber dimensions, wall motion abnormalities, valvular involvement, and the presence of ventricular aneurysm. Additionally, the consensus discusses the utility of advanced echocardiographic techniques, such as strain imaging and 3D echocardiography, in assessing myocardial mechanics and ventricular remodeling.

The Spectrum of Heart Failure Management

Heart failure, a complex cardiovascular condition, is a huge burden on patients, caregivers, and healthcare systems and it is prevalent worldwide. Heart failure is caused by a wide variety of underlying conditions that include both cardiac and non-cardiac pathologies. Identifying the underlying cause enables us to apply etiology-based interventions. The spectrum of heart failure management ranges from classification to transplantation. In addition to its classification and monitoring, this article reviews various management strategies, including both conventional methods and the latest innovations. These include lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy, device therapy, transplantation, and regenerative medicine.

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation: a Sub-Saharan African perspective

Cardiovascular diseases are a well-established cause of death in high-income countries. In the last 20 years, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has seen one of the sharpest increases in cardiovascular disease-related mortality, superseding that of infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS, in South Africa. This increase is evidenced by a growing burden of heart failure and atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors. AF is a common comorbidity of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), which predisposes to an increased risk of stroke, rehospitalizations, and mortality compared with patients in sinus rhythm. AF had the largest relative increase in cardiovascular disease burden between 1990 and 2010 in SSA and the second highest (106.4%) increase in disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) between 1990 and 2017. Over the last decade, significant advancements in the management of both HFrEF and AF have emerged. However, managing HFrEF/AF remains a clinical challenge for physicians, compounded by the suboptimal efficacy of guideline-mandated pharmacotherapy in this group of patients. There may be an essential role for racial differences and genetic influence on therapeutic outcomes of HFrEF/AF patients, further complicating our overall understanding of the disease and its pathophysiology. In SSA, the lack of accurate and up-to-date epidemiological data on this subgroup of patients presents a challenge in our quest to prevent and reduce adverse outcomes. This narrative review provides a contemporary overview of the epidemiology of HFrEF/AF in SSA. We highlight important differences in the demographic and aetiological profile and the management of this subpopulation, emphasizing what is currently known and, more importantly, what is still unknown about HFrEF/AF in SSA.

Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease

Heart failure (HF), diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) frequently coexist, with one comorbidity worsening the prognosis of another. β-blockers, angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors all have been shown to reduce mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, their uptake in real-world clinical practice remains low, especially among patients who have multiple other comorbidities such as CKD and diabetes. The management of HF in patients with diabetes and CKD can be especially challenging because these patients typically are older, frail, and have multiple other comorbidities, and guideline-directed medical therapy used in HF potentially can affect renal function acutely and chronically. In this article, we discuss the available evidence for each of the foundational HF therapies in patients with diabetes and CKD, emphasizing the current challenges and outlining future directions to optimize the management of HF among these high-risk patients.

The cardiovascular effects of SGLT2 inhibitors, RAS inhibitors, and ARN inhibitors in heart failure

AIMS

No studies have comprehensively compared the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor neprilysin (ARN) inhibitors based on different type of heart failure, including heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The aim of this network meta-analysis was to evaluate the relative efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), RAS inhibitor (RASi) and ARN inhibitor (ARNI) in different types of heart failure.

METHODS

A systemic literature search was performed from inception to 19 November 2022 for randomized control trials assessing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) of these drugs in HF. A network meta-analysis was performed. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were synthesized.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were selected with a total of 61 489 patients. In patients with HFrEF, ARNI led to a reduced risk of a composite outcome of CV death or HHF when compared with placebo (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.89). Similar trends were observed when focusing on the outcome of CV death or HHF alone. In patients with HFpEF, SGLT2i showed the beneficial effects on the CV death or HHF events when compared with placebo and RASi (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.92; RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.31). For CV death, all these three drugs could not show beneficial effects in HFpEF. For the incidence of HHF in HFpEF, both SGLT2i and ARNI demonstrated the beneficial effects but SGLT2i was superior to ARNI. There were no differences in the events of discontinuation under these drugs when compared with placebo or each other in either HFrEF or HFpEF patients. SGLT2i showed the least renal injury among these interventions in HFrEF and there were no differences in the incidence of renal injury of these interventions in HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Among these drugs, ARNI showed the greatest ability to lower the incidence of CV death or HHF and SGLT2i exerted the least renal injury in patients with HFrEF. In patients with HFpEF, SGLT2i was associated with a reduction in the risk of CV death or HHF. There were no differences in the incidence of renal injury of these interventions in HFpEF. The intolerance of these drugs were comparable in both HFrEF and HFpEF.

The Association Between Beta-blocker and Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor Use After Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Hospitalization and Outcomes in Older Patients

INTRODUCTION

Beta-blockers (BB) and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) are foundational for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, given the increased risk of side effects in older patients, uncertainty remains as to whether, on net, older patients benefit as much as the younger patients studied in trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked with Medicare data, overlap propensity weighted Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association between BB and RASi use at hospital discharge and 30-day and 1-year outcomes among patients with HFrEF. Among the 48,711 patients (aged ≥65 years) hospitalized with HFrEF, there were significant associations between BB and/or RASi use at discharge and lower rates of 30-day and 1-year mortality, including those over age 85 (30-day hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.70; 1-year hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.78). In addition, the magnitude of benefit associated with BB and/or RASi use after discharge did not decrease with advancing age. Even among the oldest patients, those over age 85, with hypotension, renal insufficiency or frailty, BB and/or RASi use at discharge was still associated with lower 1-year mortality or readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Among older patients hospitalized with HFrEF, BB and/or RASi use at discharge is associated with lower rates of 30-day and 1-year mortality across all age groups and the magnitude of this benefit does not seem to decrease with advancing age. These data suggest that, absent a clinical contraindication, BB and RASi should be considered in all patients hospitalized with HFrEF before or at hospital discharge, regardless of age.

Incident Stroke Events in Clinical Trials of Antihypertensive Drugs in Cardiovascular Disease Patients: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Antihypertensive drugs are commonly used in cardiovascular diseases (CVD), less is known about the comparative effectiveness of different antihypertensive drugs on stroke events in CVD patients. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trails comparing the different antihypertensive drugs for stroke events in CVD patients from inception until November, 2022. Pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed to compare of different antihypertensive drugs for the incidence of stroke events in CVD patients. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42022375038). 33 trials involving 141,217 CVD patients were included. The incidence of stroke in CVD patients for each antihypertensive drugs was placebo (3.0%), ACEI (2.4%), ARB (4.1%), CCB (1.8%), β blocker (1.3%), and diuretic (3.6%). Antihypertensive drug was significantly reducing stroke events in CVD patients when compared with placebo (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.89). Specifically, ACEI (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97), ARB (OR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98), CCB (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-to 0.87), and diuretic (OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.95) were significantly reducing stroke events in CVD patients when compared with placebo. Network meta-analysis suggested CCB and diuretic ranked the first and second in reducing the incidence of stroke events in CVD patients with the SUCRA value of 90.9% and 73.8%. CCB and diuretic had the greatest possibility to reduce the incidence of stroke events in CVD patients, while, ACEI was the worst antihypertensive agents in reducing the incidence of stroke events in CVD patients.

Characteristics and Predictors of Alzheimer's Disease Resilience Phenotype

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by cognitive impairment in the presence of cerebral amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. Less is known about the characteristics and predictors of resilience to cognitive impairment in the presence of neuropathological evidence of AD, the focus of this study. Of 3170 adults age ≥65 years in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) brain autopsy cohort, 1373 had evidence of CERAD level moderate to frequent neuritic plaque density and Braak stage V-VI neurofibrillary tangles. Resilience was defined by CDR-SOB and CDR-Global scores of 0-2.5 and 0-0.5, respectively, and non-resilience, CDR-SOB and CDR-Global scores >2.5 and >0.5, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the independent associations of patient characteristics with resilience. There were 62 participants (4.8%) with resilience. Those with resilience were older (mean age, 88.3 vs. 82.4 years), more likely to be women (61.3% vs. 47.3%) and had a lower prevalence of the APOE-e4 carrier (41.9% vs. 56.2%). They also had a higher prevalence of hypertension, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diuretic use, beta-blocker use, and APOE-e2 carrier status. Greater age at death, diuretic use, and APOE-e2 were the only characteristics independently associated with higher odds of the AD resilience phenotype (adjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13; p < 0.01; 2.00 (1.04-3.87), p = 0.04, 2.71 (1.31-5.64), p < 0.01, respectively). The phenotype of resilience to cognitive impairment is uncommon in older adults who have neuropathological evidence of AD.

Practical Pharmacological Treatment of Heart Failure: Does Ejection Fraction Matter Anymore?

Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinical syndrome involving structural and/or functional abnormalities of the heart. Heart failure is often classified based on left ventricular ejection fraction, which serves as a predictor of mortality. The majority of the data supporting disease-modifying pharmacological therapies are from patients with reduced ejection fraction (less than 40%). However, with the recent results from the sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor trials, there is renewed interest in identifying potential beneficial pharmacological therapies. This review focuses on and includes pharmacological HF therapies across the spectrum of ejection fraction, providing an overview of the novel trials. We also examined the effects of the treatments on mortality, hospitalization, functional status, and biomarker levels to further investigate the interplay between ejection fraction and HF.

Time to Triple Therapy in Patients With de Novo Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: a Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Quadruple therapy is recommended for the management of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In order to provide background and identify barriers to quadruple therapy, in this study, the aim was to explore the time to initiation of triple therapy in a population-based cohort of patients with de novo HF.

METHODS

Adult patients with de novo hospital or emergency department (ED) diagnosis of HF between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2018, in Alberta, Canada, were included and were linked to echocardiography data to identify patients with HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%). Any treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ angiotensin receptor blockers/ angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was captured if prescribed for ≥ 28 days and filled at least once during the 12 months after the index episode.

RESULTS

Among 14,092 patients with de novo HF and available echocardiography data, 54.9% had HFrEF. By 1 year after diagnosis, of those in the HFrEF cohort, 9.5% had received no therapy, 27.5% monotherapy, 41.6% dual therapy, and 21.4% triple therapy. The median (interquartile range) of time to mono-, dual- and triple therapy in patients with HFrEF were 1 (0, 26), 8 (0, 44), and 14 (0, 52) days, respectively. Patients who received triple therapy were younger, more likely to be male and to have higher frequencies of coronary artery disease, higher glomerular filtration rates and lower left ventricular ejection fraction levels compared to their counterparts. Patients with triple therapy had lower rates of clinical outcomes compared to those on no, mono or dual therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.13, 0.17 for the composite outcome of death, hospitalization due to HF, or ED visit due to HF).

CONCLUSION

Despite guideline recommendations, triple therapy is underused and is slowly deployed in patients with HFrEF, even after hospitalization and ED presentation.

Mechanisms of current therapeutic strategies for heart failure: more questions than answers?

Heart failure (HF) is a complex, multifactorial and heterogeneous syndrome with substantial mortality and morbidity. Over the last few decades, numerous attempts have been made to develop targeted therapies that may attenuate the known pathophysiological pathways responsible for causing the progression of HF. However, therapies developed with this objective have sometimes failed to show benefit. The pathophysiological construct of HF with numerous aetiologies suggests that interventions with broad mechanisms of action which simultaneously target more than one pathway maybe more effective in improving the outcomes of patients with HF. Indeed, current therapeutics with clinical benefits in HF have targeted a wider range of intermediate phenotypes. Despite extensive scientific breakthroughs in HF research recently, questions persist regarding the ideal therapeutic targets which may help achieve maximum benefit. In this review, we evaluate the mechanism of action of current therapeutic strategies, the pathophysiological pathways they target and highlight remaining knowledge gaps regarding the mode of action of these interventions.

Systematic review and updated recommendations for cardiomyopathy surveillance for survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group

Survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer, previously treated with anthracycline chemotherapy (including mitoxantrone) or radiotherapy in which the heart was exposed, are at increased risk of cardiomyopathy. Symptomatic cardiomyopathy is typically preceded by a series of gradually progressive, asymptomatic changes in structure and function of the heart that can be ameliorated with treatment, prompting specialist organisations to endorse guidelines on cardiac surveillance in at-risk survivors of cancer. In 2015, the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group compiled these guidelines into a uniform set of recommendations applicable to a broad spectrum of clinical environments with varying resource availabilities. Since then, additional studies have provided insight into dose thresholds associated with a risk of asymptomatic and symptomatic cardiomyopathy, have characterised risk over time, and have established the cost-effectiveness of different surveillance strategies. This systematic Review and guideline provides updated recommendations based on the evidence published up to September, 2020.

Does the Measurement of Ejection Fraction Still Make Sense in the HFpEF Framework? What Recent Trials Suggest

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is universally accepted as a cardiac systolic function index and it provides intuitive interpretation of cardiac performance. Over the last two decades, it has erroneously become the leading feature used by clinicians to characterize the left ventricular function in heart failure (HF). Notably, LVEF sets the basis for structural and functional HF phenotype classification in current guidelines. However, its diagnostic and prognostic role in patients with preserved or mildly reduced contractile function is less clear. This is related to several concerns due to intrinsic technical, methodological and hemodynamic limitations entailed in LVEF measurement that do not describe the chamber's real contractile performance as expressed by pressure volume loop relationship. In patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it does not reflect the effective systolic function because it is prone to preload and afterload variability and it does not account for both longitudinal and torsional contraction. Moreover, a repetitive measurement could be assessed over time to better identify HF progression related to natural evolution of disease and to the treatment response. Current gaps may partially explain the causes of negative or neutral effects of traditional medical agents observed in HFpEF. Nevertheless, recent pooled analysis has evidenced the positive effects of new therapies across the LVEF range, suggesting a potential role irrespective of functional status. Additionally, a more detailed analysis of randomized trials suggests that patients with higher LVEF show a risk reduction strictly related to overall cardiovascular (CV) events; on the other hand, patients experiencing lower LVEF values have a decrease in HF-related events. The current paper reports the main limitations and shortcomings in LVEF assessment, with specific focus on patients affected by HFpEF, and it suggests alternative measurements better reflecting the real hemodynamic status. Future investigations may elucidate whether the development of non-invasive stroke volume and longitudinal function measurements could be extensively applied in clinical trials for better phenotyping and screening of HFpEF patients.

Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiographic screening for left ventricular systolic dysfunction and mortality risk prediction

Background

Left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) characterized by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is associated with adverse patient outcomes. We aimed to build a deep neural network (DNN)-based model using standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) to screen for LVSD and stratify patient prognosis.

Methods

This retrospective chart review study was conducted using data from consecutive adults who underwent ECG examinations at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan between October 2007 and December 2019. DNN models were developed to recognize LVSD, defined as LVEF <40%, using original ECG signals or transformed images from 190,359 patients with paired ECG and echocardiogram within 14 days. The 190,359 patients were divided into a training set of 133,225 and a validation set of 57,134. The accuracy of recognizing LVSD and subsequent mortality predictions were tested using ECGs from 190,316 patients with paired data. Of these 190,316 patients, we further selected 49,564 patients with multiple echocardiographic data to predict LVSD incidence. We additionally used data from 1,194,982 patients who underwent ECG only to assess mortality prognostication. External validation was performed using data of 91,425 patients from Tri-Service General Hospital, Taiwan.

Results

The mean age of patients in the testing dataset was 63.7 ± 16.3 years (46.3% women), and 8,216 patients (4.3%) had LVSD. The median follow-up period was 3.9 years (interquartile range 1.5-7.9 years). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity of the signal-based DNN (DNN-signal) to identify LVSD were 0.95, 0.91, and 0.86, respectively. DNN signal-predicted LVSD was associated with age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of 2.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.53-2.62) for all-cause mortality and 6.09 (5.83-6.37) for cardiovascular mortality. In patients with multiple echocardiograms, a positive DNN prediction in patients with preserved LVEF was associated with an adjusted HR (95% CI) of 8.33 (7.71 to 9.00) for incident LVSD. Signal- and image-based DNNs performed equally well in the primary and additional datasets.

Conclusion

Using DNNs, ECG becomes a low-cost, clinically feasible tool to screen LVSD and facilitate accurate prognostication.

Reflecting on the advancements of HFrEF therapies over the last two decades and predicting what is yet to come

What was once considered a topic best avoided, managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has become the focus of many drug and device therapies. While the four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapies have successfully reduced heart failure hospitalizations, and some have even impacted cardiovascular mortality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcomes have emerged as important endpoints that merit greater emphasis in future studies. The prospect of an oral inotrope seems more probable now as targets for drug therapies have moved from neurohormonal modulation to intracellular mechanisms and direct cardiac myosin stimulation. While we have come a long way in safely providing durable mechanical circulatory support to patients with advanced HFrEF, several percutaneous device therapies have emerged, and many are under investigation. Biomarkers have shown promise in not only improving our ability to diagnose incident heart failure but also our potential to implicate specific pathophysiological pathways. The once-forgotten concept of discordance between pressure and volume, the forgotten splanchnic venous and lymphatic compartments, have all emerged as promising targets for diagnosing and treating heart failure in the not-so-distant future. The increase in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (CS) has revived interest in defining optimal perfusion targets and designing RCTs in CS. Rapid developments in remote monitoring, telemedicine, and artificial intelligence promise to change the face of heart failure care. In this state-of-the-art review, we reminisce about the past, highlight the present, and predict what might be the future of HFrEF therapies.

Adverse Events After Initiating Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Therapy in Individuals with Heart Failure and Multimorbidity

BACKGROUND

Current clinical practice guidelines recommend routine kidney function and serum potassium testing within 30 days of initiating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) therapy. However, evidence is lacking on whether routine follow-up testing reduces therapy-related adverse events in adults with heart failure and if multimorbidity influences the association between laboratory testing and these adverse events.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults with heart failure from 4 US integrated health care delivery systems. Multimorbidity was defined using counts of chronic conditions. Patients with outpatient serum creatinine and potassium tests in the 30 days after starting ACEI or ARB therapy were matched 1:1 to patients without follow-up tests. We evaluated the association of follow-up testing with 30-day all-cause mortality and hospitalization with acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia using Cox regression.

RESULTS

We identified 3629 matched adults with heart failure initiating ACEI or ARB therapy between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2012. Follow-up testing was not significantly associated with 30-day all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14; 1.39) and hospitalization with hyperkalemia (aHR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.33; 1.61). However, follow-up testing was significantly associated with hospitalization with acute kidney injury (aHR, 1.40, 95% CI, 1.01; 1.94). Interaction between multimorbidity burden and follow-up testing was not statistically significant in any of the outcome models examined.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine laboratory monitoring after ACEI or ARB therapy initiation was not associated with risk of 30-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization with hyperkalemia across the spectrum of multimorbidity burden in a cohort of patients with heart failure.

Physicians and Machine-Learning Algorithm Performance in Predicting Left-Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction from a Standard 12-Lead-Electrocardiogram

Early detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) may prompt early care and improve outcomes for asymptomatic patients. Standard 12-lead ECG may be used to predict LVSD. We aimed to compare the performance of Machine Learning Algorithms (MLA) and physicians in predicting LVSD from a standard 12-lead ECG. By utilizing a dataset of 13,820 pairs of ECGs and echocardiography, a deep residual convolutional neural network was trained for predicting LVSD (ejection fraction (EF) < 50%) from ECG. The ECGs of the test set (n = 850) were assessed for LVSD by the MLA and six physicians. The performance was compared using sensitivity, specificity, and C-statistics. The interobserver agreement between the physicians for the prediction of LVSD was moderate (κ = 0.50), with average sensitivity and specificity of 70%. The C-statistic of the MLA was 0.85. Repeating this analysis with LVSD defined as EF < 35% resulted in an improvement in physicians’ average sensitivity to 84% but their specificity decreased to 57%. The MLA C-statistic was 0.88 with this threshold. We conclude that although MLA outperformed physicians in predicting LVSD from standard ECG, prior to robust implementation of MLA in ECG machines, physicians should be encouraged to use this approach as a simple and readily available aid for LVSD screening.

Use of guideline-recommended medical therapy in patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease: from physician's prescriptions to patient's dispensations, medication adherence and persistence

AIM

Half of heart failure (HF) patients have chronic kidney disease (CKD) complicating their pharmacological management. We evaluated physicians' and patients' patterns of use of evidence-based medical therapies in HF across CKD stages.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied HF patients with reduced (HFrEF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) ejection fraction enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry in 2009-2018. We investigated the likelihood of physicians to prescribe guideline-recommended therapies to patients with CKD, and of patients to fill the prescriptions within 90 days of incident HF (initiating therapy), to adhere (proportion of days covered ≥80%) and persist (continued use) on these treatments during the first year of therapy. We identified 31 668 patients with HFrEF (median age 74 years, 46% CKD). The proportions receiving a prescription for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ACEi/ARB/ARNi) were 96%, 92%, 86%, and 68%, for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60, 45-59, 30-44, and <30 ml/min/1.73 m² , respectively; for beta-blockers 94%, 93%, 92%, and 92%, for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) 45%, 44%, 37%, 24%; and for triple therapy (combination of ACEi/ARB/ARNi + beta-blockers + MRA) 38%, 35%, 28%, and 15%. Patients with CKD were less likely to initiate these medications, and less likely to adhere to and persist on ACEi/ARB/ARNi, MRA, and triple therapy. Among stoppers, CKD patients were less likely to restart these medications. Results were consistent after multivariable adjustment and in patients with HFmrEF (n = 15 114).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HF and CKD are less likely to be prescribed and to fill prescriptions for evidence-based therapies, showing lower adherence and persistence, even at eGFR categories where these therapies are recommended and have shown efficacy in clinical trials.

Optimization of Drug Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Based on Gender

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the last decades, several classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Their use has been supported by randomized controlled trials that have demonstrated improved patient outcomes. However, these trials enrolled a small number of female patients and sometimes have reported gender-related differences regarding the efficacy of the treatments. The aim of this review is to revise the available data about the influence of gender on the optimal treatment and drug dose in patients with HFrEF.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several gender-related differences in terms of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the drugs have been described. These characteristics could be responsible for a different response and tolerability in men and women also when current recommended treatment of HFrEF is considered. Some studies have shown that, in women, lower doses of beta-blockers and inhibitors of renin angiotensin aldosterone system could be equally effective than higher doses in men, whereas sacubitril/valsartan could exert its favorable effect at greater values of left ventricular ejection fraction. Although there is evidence about differences in the response to treatment of HFrEF in men and women, this has not been sufficient for differentiating current recommended therapy. Further studies should better clarify if the treatment of HFrEF should be based also on the patients' gender.

Recent advances in the pharmacological therapy of chronic heart failure: Evidence and guidelines

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and associated with elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. It is classified according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) with an LVEF of ≤40%, HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF) with an LVEF of 41 to 49%, HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) with an LVEF of ≥50%, and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF) with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥ 10% increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%. Despite the remarkable progress in the management of HF over the past decades, its prognosis is still poor with higher rates of mortality and hospitalization due to worsening HF. Therefore, the development of novel strategies including pharmacologic therapy is needed to further improve its prognosis. Recent large-scale clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of newer pharmacological agents including angiotensin II receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril/valsartan, type 2 sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT2) inhibitors, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin and sotagliflozin, and soluble guanylyl cyclase (sGC) stimulator, vericiguat, and cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil. This review focuses the recent advances in the pharmacological agents for treatment of chronic heart failure, including their mechanisms of action, the evidence based on the clinical trials, and the guideline recommendations for their use.

Edema formation in congestive heart failure and the underlying mechanisms

Congestive heart failure (HF) is a complex disease state characterized by impaired ventricular function and insufficient peripheral blood supply. The resultant reduced blood flow characterizing HF promotes activation of neurohormonal systems which leads to fluid retention, often exhibited as pulmonary congestion, peripheral edema, dyspnea, and fatigue. Despite intensive research, the exact mechanisms underlying edema formation in HF are poorly characterized. However, the unique relationship between the heart and the kidneys plays a central role in this phenomenon. Specifically, the interplay between the heart and the kidneys in HF involves multiple interdependent mechanisms, including hemodynamic alterations resulting in insufficient peripheral and renal perfusion which can lead to renal tubule hypoxia. Furthermore, HF is characterized by activation of neurohormonal factors including renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), sympathetic nervous system (SNS), endothelin-1 (ET-1), and anti-diuretic hormone (ADH) due to reduced cardiac output (CO) and renal perfusion. Persistent activation of these systems results in deleterious effects on both the kidneys and the heart, including sodium and water retention, vasoconstriction, increased central venous pressure (CVP), which is associated with renal venous hypertension/congestion along with increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). The latter was shown to reduce renal blood flow (RBF), leading to a decline in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Besides the activation of the above-mentioned vasoconstrictor/anti-natriuretic neurohormonal systems, HF is associated with exceptionally elevated levels of atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). However, the supremacy of the deleterious neurohormonal systems over the beneficial natriuretic peptides (NP) in HF is evident by persistent sodium and water retention and cardiac remodeling. Many mechanisms have been suggested to explain this phenomenon which seems to be multifactorial and play a major role in the development of renal hyporesponsiveness to NPs and cardiac remodeling. This review focuses on the mechanisms underlying the development of edema in HF with reduced ejection fraction and refers to the therapeutic maneuvers applied today to overcome abnormal salt/water balance characterizing HF.

Reviewing the Modern Therapeutical Options and the Outcomes of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) is a pharmaceutical strategy that increases natriuretic peptide levels by inhibiting neprilysin and regulating the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone pathway, blocking AT1 receptors. The data for this innovative medication are mainly based on the PARADIGM-HF study, which included heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)-diagnosed patients and indicated a major improvement in morbidity and mortality when S/V is administrated compared to enalapril. A large part of the observed favorable results is related to significant reverse cardiac remodeling confirmed in two prospective trials, PROVE-HF and EVALUATE-HF. Furthermore, according to a subgroup analysis from the PARAGON-HF research, S/V shows benefits in HFrEF and in many subjects having preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which indicated a decrease in HF hospitalizations among those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 57%. This review examines the proven benefits of S/V and highlights continuing research in treating individuals with varied HF characteristics. The article analyses published data regarding both the safeness and efficacy of S/V in patients with HF, including decreases in mortality and hospitalization, increased quality of life, and reversible heart remodeling. These benefits led to the HF guidelines recommendations updating and inclusion of S/V combinations a key component of HFrEF treatment.

Starting Neurohormonal Antagonists in Patients With Acute Heart Failure With Mid-Range and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of neurohormonal antagonists for patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF and HFpEF) are uncertain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study analyzed 858 consecutive patients with HFmrEF (EF: 40-49%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%), who were hospitalized for acute HF, and who were discharged alive, and were not taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE)-I/ angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) or β-blockers at admission. The study population was classified into 4 groups according to the status of prescription of ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker at discharge: no neurohormonal antagonist (n=342, 39.9%), ACE-I/ARB only (n=128, 14.9%), β-blocker only (n=189, 22.0%), and both ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker (n=199, 23.2%) groups. The primary outcome measure was a composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization. The cumulative 1-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was 41.2% in the no neurohormonal antagonist group, 34.0% in the ACE-I/ARB only group, 28.6% in the β-blocker only group, and 16.4% in the both ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker group (P<0.001). Compared with the no neurohormonal antagonist group, both the ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker groups were associated with a significantly lower risk for a composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28-0.76, P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, starting both ACE-I/ARB and a β-blocker was associated with a reduced risk of the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization compared with patients not starting on an ACE-I/ARB or β-blocker.

Death without Previous Hospital Readmission in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction-A New Endpoint from Old Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Most of the drugs approved and registered for use in heart failure (HF) therapy were examined in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with the primary composite endpoint of death or hospital readmission. This study aimed to analyze the rates of the newly calculated event: death without prior hospital readmission, in HFrEF patients in large RCTs to show that the newly defined endpoint probably delivers additional data on the structure of the composite endpoint and helps to interpret the results of interventional studies.

METHODS

This study included RCTs on therapeutic interventions in HF patients. A literature search was performed, and 31 trials in which death without hospital admission could be calculated were included in the analyses. The death without a prior hospital admission endpoint was calculated as the difference between the composite endpoint rate (death or hospital readmission) and the readmission rate. The differences in the new endpoint between the study groups were calculated.

RESULT

The death rates without prior hospital admission were lower in the intervention groups in five trials. In the SENIORS study, significant differences were found in the primary (composite) and death without previous hospital admission endpoints. In the ACCLAIM, VEST, and GISSI-HF STATIN trials, death without previous hospital admission was the only endpoint with a significant difference between the study groups. Moreover, the new endpoint rates were higher in the intervention group in the latter two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The new endpoint describing patients who died without prior hospital admission might be useful in previous and future interventional studies to provide additional data on the structure of the composite endpoint. Some therapies might reduce death without previous hospital admission rates, which could be beneficial, even without a reduction in overall long-term mortality.

Optimal effectiveness of heart failure management - an umbrella review of meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce (re)hospitalizations in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a major health concern, which accounts for 1-2% of all hospital admissions. Nevertheless, there remains a knowledge gap concerning which interventions contribute to effective prevention of HF (re)hospitalization. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to systematically review meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, and Medline to identify eligible studies published in the English language in the past 10 years. Primarily, to synthesize the meta-analyzed data, a best-evidence synthesis was used in which meta-analyses were classified based on level of validity. Secondarily, all unique RCTS were extracted from the meta-analyses and examined. A total of 44 meta-analyses were included which encompassed 186 unique RCTs. Strong or moderate evidence suggested that catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy, cardiac rehabilitation, telemonitoring, and RAAS inhibitors could reduce (re)hospitalization. Additionally, limited evidence suggested that multidisciplinary clinic or self-management promotion programs, beta-blockers, statins, and mitral valve therapy could reduce HF hospitalization. No, or conflicting evidence was found for the effects of cell therapy or anticoagulation. This umbrella review highlights different levels of evidence regarding the effectiveness of several interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. It could guide future guideline development in optimizing care pathways for heart failure patients.

Targets and management of hypertension in heart failure: focusing on the stages of heart failure

Hypertension is highly prevalent worldwide and is the major risk factor for heart failure (HF). More than half of the patients with HF in Asia suffer from hypertension. According to the 2022 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America HF guideline, there are four stages of HF, including at risk for HF (stage A), pre-HF (stage B), symptomatic HF (stage C), and advanced HF (stage D). Given the high prevalence of hypertension as well as HF and the stronger association between hypertension and cardiovascular diseases in Asians compared to the west, measures to prevent and alleviate the progression to clinical HF, especially controlling the blood pressure (BP), are of priority for Asian populations. After reviewing evidence-based studies, we propose a BP target of less than 130/80 mmHg for patients at stages A, B, and C. However, relatively higher BP may represent an opportunity to maximize guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), which could potentially result in a better prognosis for patients at stage D. Traditional antihypertensive drugs are the cornerstones for the management of hypertension at stages A and B. Notably, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are inferior to other drug classes for the preventing of HF, whereas diuretics are superior to others. For patients at stage C, GDMT is essential which also helps the control of BP. In particular, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are newer therapies recommended for the treatment of HF and presumably even in hypertension to prevent HF. Regarding patients at stage D, GDMT is also recommended if tolerable and measures should be taken to improve hemodynamics.

Evaluating the Application of Chronic Heart Failure Therapies and Developing Treatments in Individuals With Recent Myocardial Infarction: A Review

Importance

Despite advances in cardiac care, patients remain at a high risk of death and the development of heart failure (HF) following myocardial infarction (MI). These risks are highest in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) or signs of HF immediately after MI. Drugs to mitigate these risks have been identified through the systematic evaluation of therapies with proven efficacy in patients with HF and reduced EF (HFrEF).

Observations

Although landmark studies in patients with HFrEF consistently exclude patients with recent MI, dedicated post-MI trials of these drugs have led to multiple therapies with proven benefit in these patients. However, not all therapies with proven efficacy in patients with chronic HF have been shown to provide benefit in the post-MI population, as recently evidenced by the discrepant results between chronic HF and post-MI trials of sacubitril-valsartan. Similarly, multiple trials of early and aggressive use of therapies effective in chronic heart failure immediately post-MI failed to demonstrate benefit or were associated with harm, emphasizing the vulnerability of the post-MI population.

Conclusions and Relevance

Trials of patients at high risk of HF following MI have emphasized the differences between the post-MI and HFrEF populations and the necessity for dedicated trials in the post-MI population. This review summarizes trials studying the use of these therapies for at-risk patients following MI from therapies used in patients with HFrEF and exploring new potential therapies for this high-risk population.

Sacubitril/valsartan vs ACEi/ARB at hospital discharge and 5-year survival in older patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A decision analysis approach

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials, sacubitril/valsartan has demonstrated significant survival benefits compared to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB). Whether older patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) benefit as much, due to higher rates of comorbidities, frailty and drug discontinuation, is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with HFrEF between 2016 and 2018, we determined all-cause mortality and HF-readmission rates among patients not given ACEi/ARB or sacubitril/valsartan at hospital discharge, by age. We then used risk reductions from the SOLVD, PARADIGM-HF and PIONEER-HF trials to estimate the benefits of ACEi/ARB and sacubitril/valsartan. We then incorporated age-specific estimates of drug discontinuation from Medicare. A Markov decision process model was used to simulate 5-year survival and estimate number needed to treat, comparing discharge on ACEi/ARB vs sacubitril/valsartan by age. After accounting for drug discontinuation rates, which were surprisingly slightly higher among those discharged on ACEi/ARB (2.3%/month vs 1.9%/month), there was a small but significant survival advantage to discharge on sacubitril/valsartan over 5 years (+0.81 months [95% CI 0.80, 0.81]). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over ACEi/ARB did not decrease with increasing age - the number needed to treat among 66 to 74-year-old patients was 84 and among 85+ year-old patients was 67.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after accounting for "real world" rates of drug discontinuation, discharge on sacubitril/valsartan after conferred a small, but significant, survival advantage which does not appear to wane with increasing age.

Management of Atrial Fibrillation Across the Spectrum of Heart Failure With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia among patients with heart failure (HF), and HF is the most common cause of death for patients presenting with clinical AF. AF is frequently associated with pathological atrial myocardial dysfunction and remodeling, a triad that has been called atrial myopathy. AF can be the cause or consequence of clinical HF, and the directionality varies between individual patients and across the spectrum of HF. Although initial trials suggested no advantage for a systematic rhythm control strategy in HF with reduced ejection fraction, recent data suggest that select patients may benefit from attempts to maintain sinus rhythm with catheter ablation. Preliminary data also show a close relationship among AF, left atrial myopathy, mitral regurgitation, and HF with preserved ejection, with potential clinical benefits to catheter ablation therapy. The modern management of AF in HF also requires consideration of the degree of atrial myopathy and chronicity of AF, in addition to the pathogenesis and phenotype of the underlying left ventricular HF. In this review, we summarize the contemporary management of AF and provide practical guidance and areas in need of future investigation.

Rationale and Design of the Cardiac CARE Trial: A Randomized Trial of Troponin-Guided Neurohormonal Blockade for the Prevention of Anthracycline Cardiotoxicity

BACKGROUND

Anthracyclines are effective cytotoxic drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer and lymphoma but are associated with myocardial injury, left ventricular dysfunction, and heart failure. Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity is highly variable in severity and without a proven therapeutic intervention. β-Adrenergic receptor blockers and renin-angiotensin-system inhibitor therapies have been associated with modest cardioprotective effects in unselected patients.

METHODS

The Cardiac CARE trial is a multicentre prospective randomized open-label blinded end point trial of combination β-adrenergic receptor blocker and renin-angiotensin-system inhibitor therapy in patients with breast cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving anthracycline chemotherapy that is associated with myocardial injury. Patients at higher risk of cardiotoxicity with plasma high-sensitivity cTnI (cardiac troponin I) concentrations in the upper tertile at the end of chemotherapy are randomized to standard of care plus combination candesartan and carvedilol therapy or standard of care alone. All patients undergo cardiac magnetic resonance imaging before and 6 months after anthracycline treatment. The primary end point is the change in left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 months after chemotherapy. In low-risk nonrandomized patients, left ventricular ejection fraction before and 6 months after anthracycline will be compared with define the specificity of the high-sensitivity cTnI assay for identifying low-risk participants who do not develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

DISCUSSION

Cardiac CARE will examine whether cardiac biomarker monitoring identifies patients at risk of left ventricular dysfunction following anthracycline chemotherapy and whether troponin-guided treatment with combination candesartan and carvedilol therapy prevents the development of left ventricular dysfunction in these high-risk patients.

Procedural results and in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Sub-analysis of the Japanese CTO-PCI Expert Registry

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the procedural results and in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

BACKGROUND

While the technical success of general CTO-PCI has improved, CTO-PCI patients with reduced LVEF remain at high-risk for adverse events.

METHODS

The data of 820 patients with LVEF ≤ 35% (Group 1), 1816 patients with LVEF = 35%-50% (Group 2), and 5503 patients with LVEF ≥ 50% (Group 3), registered in the Japanese CTO-PCI Expert Registry from January 2014 to December 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), including death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, and emergent revascularization. Secondary endpoints included procedural details, guidewire success, and technical success.

RESULTS

There were no differences in guidewire and technical success rates between the groups. In-hospital MACCEs was significantly higher in Group 1 (Group 1 vs. Group 2 vs. Group 3: 3.4% vs. 1.7% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.001) and was especially driven by death (1.3% vs. 0.3% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001) and stroke (0.7% vs. 0.2% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis showed that LVEF ≤ 35% (odds ratio [OR]; 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.04-2.41, p = 0.03) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class ≥ 3 (OR; 2.01, 95% CI; 1.03-3.93, p = 0.04) were predictors of in-hospital MACCEs.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital MACCEs were significantly higher in patients with LVEF ≤ 35%. LVEF ≤;35% and NYHA class ≥ 3 were predictors of in-hospital MACCEs after CTO-PCI.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

SGLT-2 Inhibitors on Top of Current Pharmacological Treatments for Heart Failure: A Comparative Review on Outcomes and Cost Effectiveness

Heart failure (HF) represents a major global health and economic burden with still unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rates. In recent decades, novel therapeutic opportunities with a significant impact on HF outcomes have been introduced in addition to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. These include drugs such as ivabradine, sacubitril-valsartan, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors. The availability of an extremely large pharmacological armamentarium to face this chronic global disease highlights the importance of assessing cost effectiveness to promote sustainable healthcare. In light of the recent approval of SGLT-2 inhibitors for the treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction, including in individuals without type 2 diabetes mellitus, the aim of this review was to provide an updated comparative evaluation of the efficacy and cost effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments for the prevention (stage A) and treatment of asymptomatic (stage B) and symptomatic (stages C-D) left ventricular dysfunction.

Optimizing Foundational Therapies in Patients With HFrEF

•

Clinical practice guidelines emphasize the need for guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

•

Recently, international guidelines and the American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus Decision Pathway recommended quadruple therapy for these patients, including angiotensin receptor blockers/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors.

•

Strategies to optimize use of novel therapies, achieving target doses and management of side effects and tolerability, are needed to achieve this goal.

•

Future prospective studies aimed at guiding optimal implementation of quadruple therapy are needed.

Given the high risk of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there is an urgent need for the initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) that can reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality. Clinical practice guidelines are now emphasizing the need for early and rapid initiation of therapies that have cardiovascular benefit. Recognizing that there are many barriers to GDMT initiation and optimization, health care providers should aim to introduce the 4 pillars of quadruple therapy now recommended by most clinical practice guidelines: angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. A large proportion of patients with HFrEF do not have clinical contraindications to GDMT but are not treated with these therapies. Early initiation of low-dose combination therapy should be tolerated by most patients. However, patient-related factors such as hemodynamics, frailty, and laboratory values will need consideration for maximum tolerated GDMT. GDMT initiation in acute heart failure hospitalization represents another important avenue to improve use of GDMT. Finally, removal of therapies that do not have clear cardiovascular benefit should be considered to lower polypharmacy and reduce the risk of adverse side effects. Future prospective studies aimed at guiding optimal implementation of quadruple therapy are warranted to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with HFrEF.

Accelerated and personalized therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Previously, guidelines recommended initiating therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a sequence that follows the chronological order in which trials were conducted, with cautious up-titration of each treatment. It remains unclear whether this historical approach is optimal and alternative approaches may improve patient outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The potential reductions in events that might result from (i) more rapid up-titration of therapies used in the conventional order (based on the chronology of the trials), and (ii) accelerated up-titration and using treatments in different orders than is conventional were modelled using data from six pivotal trials in HFrEF. Over the first 12 months from starting therapy, using a rapid up-titration schedule led to 23 fewer patients per 1000 patients experiencing the composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death and seven fewer deaths from any cause. In addition to accelerating up-titration of treatments, optimized alternative ordering of the drugs used resulted in a further reduction of 24 patients experiencing the composite outcome and six fewer deaths at 12 months. The optimal alternative sequences included sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist as the first two therapies.

CONCLUSION

Modelling of accelerated up-titration schedule and optimized ordering of treatment suggested that at least 14 deaths and 47 patients experiencing the composite outcome per 1000 treated might be prevented over the first 12 months after starting therapy. Standard treatment guidance may not lead to the best patient outcomes in HFrEF, though these findings should be tested in clinical trials.

Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Electrocardiogram Predicted Left Ventricle Diameter as an Independent Risk Factor of Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcome in Patients With Normal Ejection Fraction

Background

Heart failure (HF) is a global disease with increasing prevalence in an aging society. However, the survival rate is poor despite the patient receiving standard treatment. Early identification of patients with a high risk of HF is important but challenging. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LV-D) increase was an independent risk factor of HF and adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. In this study, we aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) enabled electrocardiogram (ECG) system to detect LV-D increase early.

Objective

We developed a deep learning model (DLM) to predict left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic diameter (LV-D and LV-S) with internal and external validations and investigated the relationship between ECG-LV-D and echocardiographic LV-D and explored the contributions of ECG-LV-D on future CV outcomes.

Methods

Electrocardiograms and corresponding echocardiography data within 7 days were collected and paired for DLM training with 99,692 ECGs in the development set and 20,197 ECGs in the tuning set. The other 7,551 and 11,644 ECGs were collected from two different hospitals to validate the DLM performance in internal and external validation sets. We analyzed the association and prediction ability of ECG-LVD for CV outcomes, including left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, CV mortality, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and coronary artery disease (CAD).

Results

The mean absolute errors (MAE) of ECG-LV-D were 5.25/5.29, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUCs) were 0.8297/0.8072 and 0.9295/0.9148 for the detection of mild (56 ≦ LV-D < 65 mm) and severe (LV-D ≧ 65 mm) LV-D dilation in internal/external validation sets, respectively. Patients with normal ejection fraction (EF) who were identified as high ECHO-LV-D had the higher hazard ratios (HRs) of developing new onset LV dysfunction [HR: 2.34, 95% conference interval (CI): 1.78–3.08], CV mortality (HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.05–5.05), new-onset AMI (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.36–3.29), and CAD (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.26–2.00) in the internal validation set. In addition, the ECG-LV-D presents a 1.88-fold risk (95% CI 1.47–2.39) on new-onset LV dysfunction in the external validation set.

Conclusion

The ECG-LV-D not only identifies high-risk patients with normal EF but also serves as an independent risk factor of long-term CV outcomes.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.