Effect of Torsemide vs Furosemide After Discharge on All-Cause Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment strategies

The prevalence of HF with preserved ejection raction (HFpEF, with EF ≥50%) is increasing across all populations with high rates of hospitalization and mortality, reaching up to 80% and 50%, respectively, within a 5-year timeframe. Comorbidity-driven systemic inflammation is thought to cause coronary microvascular dysfunction and increased epicardial adipose tissue, leading to downstream friborsis and molecular changes in the cardiomyocyte, leading to increased stiffness and diastolic dynsfunction. HFpEF poses unique challenges in terms of diagnosis due to its complex and diverse nature. The diagnosis of HFpEF relies on a combination of clinical assessment, imaging studies, and biomarkers. An additional important step in diagnosing HFpEF involves excluding certain cardiac diagnoses that may be specific underlying causes of HFpEF or may be masquerading as HFpEF and require specific alternative treatment approaches. In addition to administering sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors to all patients, the most effective approach to enhance clinical outcomes may involve tailored therapy based on each patient's unique clinical profile. Exercise should be recommended for all patients to improve the quality of life. Glucagon-like peptide-1 1 agonists are a promising treatment option in obese HFpEF patients. Novel approaches targeting inflammation are also in early phase trials.

Management of cardiogenic shock: state-of-the-art

The management of cardiogenic shock is an ongoing challenge. Despite all efforts and tremendous use of resources, mortality remains high. Whilst reversing the underlying cause, restoring/maintaining organ perfusion and function are cornerstones of management. The presence of comorbidities and preexisting organ dysfunction increases management complexity, aiming to integrate the needs of vital organs in each individual patient. This review provides a comprehensive overview of contemporary literature regarding the definition and classification of cardiogenic shock, its pathophysiology, diagnosis, laboratory evaluation, and monitoring. Further, we distill the latest evidence in pharmacologic therapy and the use of mechanical circulatory support including recently published randomized-controlled trials as well as future directions of research, integrating this within an international group of authors to provide a global perspective. Finally, we explore the need for individualization, especially in the face of neutral randomized trials which may be related to a dilution of a potential benefit of an intervention (i.e., average effect) in this heterogeneous clinical syndrome, including the use of novel biomarkers, artificial intelligence, and machine learning approaches to identify specific endotypes of cardiogenic shock (i.e., subclasses with distinct underlying biological/molecular mechanisms) to support a more personalized medicine beyond the syndromic approach of cardiogenic shock.

Real world experience in effect of torsemide vs. furosemide after discharge in patients with HFpEF

AIMS

Few studies have focused on the effect of torsemide versus furosemide after discharge on prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This single-centre retrospective real-world study was conducted to evaluate the effect of torsemide versus furosemide after discharge on all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who were diagnosis with HFpEF after discharge between January 2015 and April 2018 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University and who had been treated with torsemide or furosemide were included in this study. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The second outcome was rehospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

A total of 445 patients (mean age 68.56 ± 8.07, female 55%) were divided into the torsemide group (N = 258) or furosemide group (N = 187) based on the treatment course at discharge from the hospital. During a mean follow-up of 87.67 ± 11.15 months, death occurred in 68 of 258 patients (26.36%) in the torsemide group and 60 of 187 patients (30.09%) in the furosemide group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.15, P = 0.239]. Rehospitalization for heart failure occurred in 111 of 258 patients (43.02%) in the torsemide groups and 110 of 187 patients (58.82%) in the furosemide group (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.85, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with furosemide, torsemide did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality, but there was association between torsemide and reduced rehospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFpEF.

Clinical Update in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the most recent clinical trials and data regarding epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with an emphasis on the recent trends in cardiometabolic interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction makes up approximately half of overall heart failure and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and overall burden on the healthcare system. It is a complex, heterogenous syndrome and clinical trials, to this point, have not revealed quite as many effective treatment options when compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Nevertheless, there is an expanding amount of data insight into the pathogenesis of this disease and the potential for newer therapies and management strategies. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction pathology has been found to be linked to abnormal energetics, myocyte hypertrophy, cell signaling, inflammation, ischemia, and fibrosis. These mechanisms also intricately overlap with the significant comorbidities often associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction including, but not limited to, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, obesity and coronary artery disease. Treatment of this disease, therefore, should focus on the management and strict regulation of these comorbidities by pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic means. In this review, a clinical update is provided reviewing the most recent clinical trials and data regarding epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with an emphasis on the recent trend in cardiometabolic interventions.

Combining loop with thiazide diuretics in patients discharged home after a heart failure decompensation: Association with 30-day outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of the addition of thiazide diuretic on top of loop diuretic and standard of care with short-term outcomes of patients discharged after surviving an acute heart failure (AHF) episode.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of 14,403 patients from three independent cohorts representing the main departments involved in AHF treatment for whom treatment at discharge was recorded and included loop diuretics. Patients were divided according to whether treatment included or not thiazide diuretics. Short-term outcomes consisted of 30-day all-cause mortality, hospitalization (with a separate analysis for hospitalization due to AHF or to other causes) and the combination of death and hospitalization. The association between thiazide diuretics on short-term outcomes was explored by Cox regression and expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95 % confidence intervals, which were adjusted for 18 patient-related variables and 9 additional drugs (aside from loop and thiazide diuretics) prescribed at discharge.

RESULTS

The median age was 81 (interquartile range=73-86) years, 53 % were women, and patients were mainly discharged from the cardiology (42 %), internal medicine or geriatric department (29 %) and emergency department (19 %). There were 1,367 patients (9.5 %) discharged with thiazide and loop diuretics, while the rest (13,036; 90.5 %) were discharged with only loop diuretics on top of the remaining standard of care treatments. The combination of thiazide and loop diuretics showed a neutral effect on all outcomes: death (adjusted HR 1.149, 0.850-1.552), hospitalization (0.898, 0.770-1.048; hospitalization due to AHF 0.799, 0.599-1.065; hospitalization due to other causes 1.136, 0.756-1.708) and combined event (0.934, 0.811-1.076).

CONCLUSION

The combination of thiazide and loop diuretics was not associated with changes in risk of death, hospitalization or a combination of both.

Management of patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure are often co-existing conditions due to a shared pathophysiological process involving neurohormonal activation and hemodynamic maladaptation. A wide range of pharmaceutical and interventional tools are available to patients with CKD, consisting of traditional ones with decades of experience and newer emerging therapies that are rapidly reshaping the landscape of medical care for this population. Management of patients with heart failure and CKD requires a stepwise approach based on renal function and the clinical phenotype of heart failure. This is often challenging due to altered drug pharmacokinetics interactions with various degrees of kidney function and frequent adverse effects from the therapy that lead to poor patient tolerance. Despite a great body of clinical evidence and guidelines that have offered various treatment options for patients with heart failure and CKD, respectively, patients with CKD are still underrepresented in heart failure clinical trials, especially for those with advanced CKD and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Future studies are needed to better understand the generalizability of these therapeutic options among heart failures with different stages of CKD.

Full decongestion in acute heart failure therapy

Incomplete decongestion is the main cause of readmission in the early post-discharge period of a hospitalization for acute heart failure. Recent heart failure guidelines have highlighted initiation and rapid up-titration of quadruple therapy with angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, beta adrenergic receptor blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor to prevent hospitalizations for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, full decongestion remains the foremost therapeutic goal of hospitalization for heart failure. While early addition of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists may be helpful, the value of the other therapeutics comes after decongestion is complete.

From Hospital to Home: Evidence-Based Care for Worsening Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization in older adults. Patients are at high risk of readmission and death following hospitalization for HF. There is no standard approach of health care delivery during the hospital-to-home transition period, leaving missed opportunities in care optimization. In this review, we discuss contemporary randomized clinical trials that tested decongestion strategies, disease-modifying therapies, and health care services that inform the care of patients with worsening HF. We provide evidence-informed recommendations for optimizing therapies and improving outcomes during and following hospitalization for HF. These include adequate decongestion with loop diuretics and select sequential nephron blockade strategies based on early evaluation of diuretic response; initiation of disease-modifying pharmacotherapies prior to hospital discharge with close follow-up and optimization after discharge; cardiac rehabilitation; and transitional or palliative care referral post-hospitalization. Evidence-based implementation strategies to facilitate broad uptake include digital health tools and algorithm-driven optimization of pharmacotherapies.

Decongestion in acute heart failure: Is it time to change diuretic-centred paradigm?

Congestion is a common cause of clinical deterioration and the most common clinical presentation at admission in acute heart failure (HF). Therefore, finding effective and sustainable ways to alleviate congestion has become a crucial goal for treating HF patients. Congestion is a result of complex underlying pathophysiology; therefore, it is not a direct cause of the disease but its consequence. Any therapy that directly promotes sodium/water removal only, thus targeting only clinical symptoms, neither modifies the natural course of the disease nor improves prognosis. This review aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the current decongestive therapies and propose a new (not diuretic-centred) paradigm of long-term congestion management in HF that attempts to correct the underlying pathophysiology, thus improving congestion, preventing its development, and favourably altering the natural course of the disease rather than merely treating its symptoms.

Combinational Diuretics in Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diuretics are the cornerstone therapy for acute heart failure (HF) and congestion. Patients chronically exposed to loop diuretics may develop diuretic resistance as a consequence of nephron remodelling, and the combination of diuretics will be necessary to improve diuretic response and achieve decongestion. This review integrates data from recent research and offers a practical approach to current pharmacologic therapies to manage congestion in HF with a focus on combinational therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Until recently, combined diuretic treatment was based on observational studies and expert opinion. Recent evidence from clinical trials has shown that combined diuretic treatment can be started earlier without escalating the doses of loop diuretics with an adequate safety profile. Diuretic combination is a promising strategy for overcoming diuretic resistance in HF. Further studies aiming to get more insights into the pathophysiology of diuretic resistance and large clinical trials confirming the safety and efficacy over standard diuretics regimens are warranted.

Diuretic Treatment in Heart Failure: A Practical Guide for Clinicians

Congestion and fluid retention are the hallmarks of decompensated heart failure and the major reason for the hospitalization of patients with heart failure. Diuretics have been used in heart failure for decades, and they remain the backbone of the contemporary management of heart failure. Loop diuretics is the preferred diuretic, and it has been given a class I recommendation by clinical guidelines for the relief of congestion symptoms. Although loop diuretics have been used virtually among all patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there is still very limited clinical evidence to guide the optimized diuretics use. This is a sharp contrast to the rapidly growing evidence of the rest of the guideline-directed medical therapy of heart failure and calls for further studies. The loop diuretics possess a unique pharmacology and pharmacokinetics that lay the ground for different strategies to increase diuretic efficiency. However, many of these approaches have not been evaluated in randomized clinical trials. In recent years, a stepped and protocolized diuretics dosing has been suggested to have superior benefits over an individual clinician-based strategy. Diuretic resistance has been a major challenge to decongestion therapy for patients with heart failure and is associated with a poor clinical prognosis. Recently, therapy options have emerged to help overcome diuretic resistance to loop diuretics and have been evaluated in randomized clinical trials. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of the pharmacology and clinical use of loop diuretics in the context of heart failure, with attention to its side effects, and adjuncts, as well as the challenges and future direction.

Effects of Rapid Uptitration of Neurohormonal Blockade on Effective, Sustainable Decongestion and Outcomes in STRONG-HF

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive uptitration of neurohormonal blockade targets fundamental mechanisms underlying development of congestion and may be an additional approach for decongestion after acute heart failure (AHF).

OBJECTIVES

This hypothesis was tested in the STRONG-HF (Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Testing of Heart Failure Therapies) trial.

METHODS

In STRONG-HF, patients with AHF were randomized to the high-intensity care (HIC) arm with fast up-titration of neurohormonal blockade or to usual care (UC). Successful decongestion was defined as an absence of peripheral edema, pulmonary rales, and jugular venous pressure <6 cm.

RESULTS

At baseline, the same proportion of patients in both arms had successful decongestion (HIC 48% vs UC 46%; P = 0.52). At day 90, higher proportion of patients in the HIC arm (75%) experienced successful decongestion vs the UC arm (68%) (P = 0.0001). Each separate component of the congestion score was significantly better in the HIC arm (all, P < 0.05). Additional markers of decongestion also favored the HIC: weight reduction (adjusted mean difference: -1.36 kg; 95% CI: -1.92 to -0.79 kg), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and lower orthopnea severity (all, P < 0.001). More effective decongestion was achieved despite a lower mean daily dose of loop diuretics at day 90 in the HIC arm. Among patients with successful decongestion at baseline, those in the HIC arm had a significantly better chance of sustaining decongestion at day 90. Successful decongestion in all subjects was associated with a lower risk of 180-day HF readmission or all-cause death (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.27-0.59; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In STRONG-HF, intensive uptitration of neurohormonal blockade was associated with more efficient and sustained decongestion at day 90 and a lower risk of the primary endpoint.

Consensus on the approach to hydrosaline overload in acute heart failure. SEMI/SEC/S.E.N. recommendations

Most of the signs and symptoms of heart failure can be explained by fluid overload, which is also related to disease progression. Fluid overload is a complex phenomenon that extends beyond increased intravascular pressures and poses challenges for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment. Current recommendations advise a multiparametric approach, including clinical data (symptoms/signs), imaging tests, and biomarkers. This article proposes a practical therapeutic approach to managing hydrosaline overload in heart failure in both inpatient and outpatient settings. This document is an initiative of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) in collaboration with the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC) and the Spanish Society of Nephrology (S.E.N.).

Management of Pulmonary Hypertension in the Context of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current evidence and modalities for treating pulmonary hypertension (PH) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent years, several therapies have been developed that improve morbidity in HFpEF, though these studies have not specifically studied patients with PF-HFpEF. Multiple trials of therapies specifically targeting the pulmonary vasculature such as phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors, prostacyclin analogs, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators have also been conducted. However, these therapies demonstrated lack of consistency in improving hemodynamics or functional outcomes in PH-HFpEF. There is limited evidence to support the use of pulmonary vasculature-targeting therapies in PH-HFpEF. The mainstay of therapy remains the treatment of the underlying HFpEF condition. There is emerging evidence that newer HF therapies such as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors are associated with improved hemodynamics and quality of life of patients with PH-HFpEF. There is also a growing realization that more robust phenotyping PH and right ventricular (RV) function may hold promise for therapeutic strategies for patients with PH-HFpEF.

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF

AIM

The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic.

METHODS AND RESULTS

TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide.

CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Loop diuretic down-titration at discharge in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure

AIMS

The current literature provides limited guidance on the best diuretic strategy post-hospitalization for acute heart failure (AHF). It is postulated that the efficacy and safety of the outpatient diuretic regimen may be significantly influenced by the degree of fluid overload (FO) encountered during hospitalization. We hypothesize that in patients with more pronounced FO, reducing their regular oral diuretic dosage might be associated with an elevated risk of unfavourable clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

It was a retrospective observational study of 410 patients hospitalized for AHF in which the dose of furosemide at admission and discharge was collected. Patients were categorized across diuretic dose status into two groups: (i) the down-titration group and (ii) the stable/up-titration group. FO status was evaluated by a clinical congestion score and circulating biomarkers. The endpoint of interest was the composite of time to all-cause death and/or heart failure readmission. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model was constructed to analyse the endpoints. The median age was 86 (78-92) years, 256 (62%) were women, and 80% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. After multivariate adjustment, the down-titration furosemide equivalent dose remained not associated with the risk of the combined endpoint in the whole sample (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 0.86-2.06, P = 0.184). The risk of the combination of death and/or worsening heart failure associated with the diuretic strategy at discharge was significantly influenced by FO status, including clinical congestion scores and circulating proxies of FO like BNP and cancer antigen 125.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients hospitalized for AHF, furosemide down-titration does not imply an increased risk of mortality and/or heart failure readmission. However, FO status modifies the effect of down-titration on the outcome. In patients with severe congestion or residual congestion at discharge, down-titration was associated with an increased risk of mortality and/or heart failure readmission.

2024 update in heart failure

In the last years, major progress has occurred in heart failure (HF) management. The 2023 ESC focused update of the 2021 HF guidelines introduced new key recommendations based on the results of the last years of science. First, two drugs, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and finerenone, a novel nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), are recommended for the prevention of HF in patients with diabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD). Second, SGLT2 inhibitors are now recommended for the treatment of HF across the entire left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum. The benefits of quadruple therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are well established. Its rapid and early up-titration along with a close follow-up with frequent clinical and laboratory re-assessment after an episode of acute HF (the so-called 'high-intensity care' strategy) was associated with better outcomes in the STRONG-HF trial. Patients experiencing an episode of worsening HF might require a fifth drug, vericiguat. In the STEP-HFpEF-DM and STEP-HFpEF trials, semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly administered for 1 year decreased body weight and significantly improved quality of life and the 6 min walk distance in obese patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with or without a history of diabetes. Further data on safety and efficacy, including also hard endpoints, are needed to support the addition of acetazolamide or hydrochlorothiazide to a standard diuretic regimen in patients hospitalized due to acute HF. In the meantime, PUSH-AHF supported the use of natriuresis-guided diuretic therapy. Further options and most recent evidence for the treatment of HF, including specific drugs for cardiomyopathies (i.e., mavacamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and tafamidis in transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis), device therapies, cardiac contractility modulation and percutaneous treatment of valvulopathies, with the recent finding from the TRILUMINATE Pivotal trial, are also reviewed in this article.

New pharmacological agents and novel cardiovascular pharmacotherapy strategies in 2023

Although cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide, their pharmacotherapy remains suboptimal. Thus, there is a clear unmet need to develop more effective and safer pharmacological strategies. In this review, we summarize the most relevant advances in cardiovascular pharmacology in 2023, including the approval of first-in-class drugs that open new avenues for the treatment of atherosclerotic CVD and heart failure (HF). The new indications of drugs already marketed (repurposing) for the treatment of obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, hypercholesterolaemia, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and HF; the impact of polypharmacy on guideline-directed drug use is highlighted as well as results from negative clinical trials. Finally, we end with a summary of the most important phase 2 and 3 clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of cardiovascular drugs under development for the prevention and treatment of CVDs.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF

AIM

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously.

CONCLUSION

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

Decongestion (instead of ultrafiltration?)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the contemporary evidence on decongestion strategies in patients with acute heart failure (AHF).

RECENT FINDINGS

While loop diuretic therapy has remained the backbone of decongestive treatment in AHF, multiple randomized clinical trials suggest that early combination with other diuretic classes or molecules with diuretic properties should be considered. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors are disease-modifying drugs in heart failure that favourably influence prognosis early on, advocating their start as soon as possible in the absence of any compelling contraindications. Short-term upfront use of acetazolamide in adjunction to intravenous loop diuretic therapy relieves congestion faster, avoids diuretic resistance, and may shorten hospitalization length. Thiazide-like diuretics remain a good option to break diuretic resistance. Currently, ultrafiltration in AHF remains mainly reserved for patient with an inadequate response to pharmacological treatment.

SUMMARY

In most patients with AHF, decongestion can be achieved effectively and safely through combination diuretic therapies. Appropriate diuretic therapy may shorten hospitalization length and improve quality of life, but has not yet proven to reduce death or heart failure readmissions. Ultrafiltration currently has a limited role in AHF, mainly as bail-out strategy, but evidence for a more upfront use remains inconclusive.

Remote Follow-up in a Heart Failure Pragmatic Trial: Insights From the CONNECT-HF

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials typically require study-specific visits, which can burden participants and sites. Remote follow-up, such as centralized call centers for participant-reported or site-reported, holds promise for reducing costs and enhancing the pragmatism of trials. In this secondary analysis of the CONNECT-HF (Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement For HF) trial, we aimed to evaluate the completeness and validity of the remote follow-up process.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The CONNECT-HF trial evaluated the effect of a post-discharge quality-improvement intervention for heart failure compared to usual care for up to 1 year. Suspected events were reported either by participants or by health care proxies through a centralized call center or by sites through medical-record queries. When potential hospitalization events were suspected, additional medical records were collected and adjudicated. Among 5942 potential hospitalizations, 18% were only participant-reported, 28% were reported by both participants and sites, and 50% were only site-reported. Concordance rates between the participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalization were high: 87% participant-reported, 86% both, and 86% site-reported. Rates of adjudicated heart failure hospitalization events among adjudicated all-cause hospitalization were lower but also consistent: 45% participant-reported, 50% both, and 50% site-reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Participant-only and site-only reports missed a substantial number of hospitalization events. We observed similar concordance between participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalizations. Combining participant-reported and site-reported outcomes data is important to capture and validate hospitalizations effectively in pragmatic heart failure trials.

Diuretic Treatment in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Directions - Part I: Loop Diuretics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Fluid retention or congestion is a major cause of symptoms, poor quality of life, and adverse outcome in patients with heart failure (HF). Despite advances in disease-modifying therapy, the mainstay of treatment for congestion-loop diuretics-has remained largely unchanged for 50 years. In these two articles (part I: loop diuretics and part II: combination therapy), we will review the history of diuretic treatment and the current trial evidence for different diuretic strategies and explore potential future directions of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

We will assess recent trials including DOSE, TRANSFORM, ADVOR, CLOROTIC, OSPREY-AHF, and PUSH-AHF amongst others, and assess how these may influence current practice and future research. There are few data on which to base diuretic therapy in clinical practice. The most robust evidence is for high dose loop diuretic treatment over low-dose treatment for patients admitted to hospital with HF, yet this is not reflected in guidelines. There is an urgent need for more and better research on different diuretic strategies in patients with HF.

Contemporary Decongestive Strategies in Acute Heart Failure

Congestion is the primary driver of hospital admissions in patients with heart failure and the key determinant of their outcome. Although intravenous loop diuretics remain the predominant agents used in the setting of acute heart failure, the therapeutic response is known to be variable, with a significant subset of patients discharged from the hospital with residual hypervolemia. In this context, urinary sodium excretion has gained attention both as a marker of response to loop diuretics and as a marker of prognosis that may be a useful clinical tool to guide therapy. Several decongestive strategies have been explored to improve diuretic responsiveness and removal of excess fluid. Sequential nephron blockade through combination diuretic therapy is one of the most used methods to enhance natriuresis and counter diuretic resistance. In this article, I provide an overview of the contemporary decongestive approaches and discuss the clinical data on the use of add-on diuretic therapy. I also discuss mechanical removal of excess fluid through extracorporeal ultrafiltration with a brief review of the results of landmark studies. Finally, I provide a short overview of the strategies that are currently under investigation and may prove helpful in this setting.

New insights in acute heart failure

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a clinical complex disease and a worldwide issue due to its inconsistent diagnosis and poor prognosis. The cornerstone of pathophysiology of AHF is systemic venous congestion, which is led by the underlying structural and functional cardiac condition. Systemic venous congestion is a major target for AHF management because it causes symptoms and organs dysfunction, and is associated with poor prognosis. The mainstay of decongestive therapy is diuresis with intravenous loop diuretics combined with other diuretics including thiazides when necessary, and non-invasive ventilation. The presence of unresolved congestion at discharge can lead heart failure related rehospitalization, and careful follow-up is required especially during "vulnerable phase", several months after discharge. The updated recommendation for management of AHF has been provided by latest guidelines from European Society of Cardiology and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America. Several large studies have currently demonstrated the benefits of guideline-directed oral medical therapies, and trials are ongoing on medication such as selective sodium-glucose transport proteins 2 inhibitors and protocols for congestive therapy. This review aimed to summarize the latest insights in AHF, based primarily on the most recent guidelines and large randomized controlled trials.

Diuretic use and outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Insights from the VICTORIA trial

AIMS

In VICTORIA, vericiguat compared with placebo reduced the risk of cardiovascular death (CVD) and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) in patients enrolled after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event. We examined clinical outcomes and efficacy of vericiguat as it relates to background use of loop diuretics in patients with WHF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We calculated the total daily loop diuretic dose equivalent to furosemide dosing at randomization and categorized these as: no loop diuretic, 1-39, 41-80, 40, and >80 mg total daily dose (TDD). The primary composite outcome of CVD/HFH and its components were evaluated based on TDD loop diuretic and expressed as adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Post-randomization rates of change in TDD were also examined. Of 4974 patients (98% of the trial) with diuretic dose information available at randomization, 540 (10.8%) were on no loop diuretic, 647 (13.0%) were on 1-39, 1633 (32.8%) were on 40, 1185 (23.8%) were on 41-80, and 969 (19.4%) were on >80 mg TDD. Patients with higher TDD had a higher rate of primary and secondary clinical outcomes. There were no significant interactions with TDD at randomization and efficacy of vericiguat versus placebo for any outcome (all pinteraction > 0.5). Post-randomization diuretic dose changes for vericiguat and placebo showed similar rates of up-titration (19.6 and 20.2/100 person-years), down-titration (16.8 and 18.1/100 person-years), and stopping diuretics (22.9 and 24.2/100 person-years).

CONCLUSIONS

Loop diuretic TDD at randomization was independently associated with worse outcomes in this high-risk population. The efficacy of vericiguat was consistent across the range of diuretic doses.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF

BACKGROUND

The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups.

METHODS

We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score.

RESULTS

Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Rationale and protocol of the LAQUA-HF trial: a factorial randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of neurohormonal and diuretic agents on health-status reported outcomes in heart failure patients

INTRODUCTION

The current guidelines strongly recommend early initiation of multiple classes of cardioprotective drugs for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to improve prognosis and health status. However, evidence on the optimal sequencing of approved drugs is scarce, highlighting the importance of individualised treatment plans. Registry data indicate that only a portion of these patients can tolerate all four recommended classes, underscoring the need to establish the favoured sequence when using these drugs. Additionally, the choice between long-acting and short-acting loop diuretics in the present era remains uncertain. This is particularly relevant given the frequent use of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, both of which potentiate natriuretic effects.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint method, LAQUA-HF (Long-acting vs short-acting diuretics and neurohormonal Agents on patients' QUAlity-of-life in Heart Failure patients) will be a 2×2 factorial design, with a total of 240 patients randomised to sacubitril/valsartan versus dapagliflozin and torsemide versus furosemide in a 1:1 ratio. Most enrolment sites have participated in an ongoing observational registry for consecutive patients hospitalised for heart failure involved dedicated study coordinators, and used the same framework to enrol patients. The primary endpoint is the change in patients' health status over 6 months, defined by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Additionally, clinical benefit at 6 months defined as a hierarchical composite endpoint will be assessed by the win ratio as the secondary endpoint.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The medical ethics committee Keio University in Japan has approved this trial. All participants provide written informed consent prior to study entry. The results of this trial will be disseminated in one main paper and additional papers on secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000045229.

Natural Language Processing for Adjudication of Heart Failure in a Multicenter Clinical Trial: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The gold standard for outcome adjudication in clinical trials is medical record review by a physician clinical events committee (CEC), which requires substantial time and expertise. Automated adjudication of medical records by natural language processing (NLP) may offer a more resource-efficient alternative but this approach has not been validated in a multicenter setting.

Objective

To externally validate the Community Care Cohort Project (C3PO) NLP model for heart failure (HF) hospitalization adjudication, which was previously developed and tested within one health care system, compared to gold-standard CEC adjudication in a multicenter clinical trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective analysis of the Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure (INVESTED) trial, which compared 2 influenza vaccines in 5260 participants with cardiovascular disease at 157 sites in the US and Canada between September 2016 and January 2019. Analysis was performed from November 2022 to October 2023.

Exposures

Individual sites submitted medical records for each hospitalization. The central INVESTED CEC and the C3PO NLP model independently adjudicated whether the cause of hospitalization was HF using the prepared hospitalization dossier. The C3PO NLP model was fine-tuned (C3PO + INVESTED) and a de novo NLP model was trained using half the INVESTED hospitalizations.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Concordance between the C3PO NLP model HF adjudication and the gold-standard INVESTED CEC adjudication was measured by raw agreement, κ, sensitivity, and specificity. The fine-tuned and de novo INVESTED NLP models were evaluated in an internal validation cohort not used for training.

Results

Among 4060 hospitalizations in 1973 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [13.2] years; 514 [27.4%] female and 1432 [72.6%] male]), 1074 hospitalizations (26%) were adjudicated as HF by the CEC. There was good agreement between the C3PO NLP and CEC HF adjudications (raw agreement, 87% [95% CI, 86-88]; κ, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.72]). C3PO NLP model sensitivity was 94% (95% CI, 92-95) and specificity was 84% (95% CI, 83-85). The fine-tuned C3PO and de novo NLP models demonstrated agreement of 93% (95% CI, 92-94) and κ of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77-0.86) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87), respectively, vs the CEC. CEC reviewer interrater reproducibility was 94% (95% CI, 93-95; κ, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.80-0.89]).

Conclusions and Relevance

The C3PO NLP model developed within 1 health care system identified HF events with good agreement relative to the gold-standard CEC in an external multicenter clinical trial. Fine-tuning the model improved agreement and approximated human reproducibility. Further study is needed to determine whether NLP will improve the efficiency of future multicenter clinical trials by identifying clinical events at scale.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF).

Objectives

To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023.

Exposure

Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS).

Results

Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Novel Trial Designs in Heart Failure: Using Digital Health Tools to Increase Pragmatism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure is an important clinical and public health issue. There is an urgent need to improve the efficiency of clinical trials in heart failure to rapidly identify new therapies and evidence-based implementation strategies for currently existing therapies. Electronic health (eHealth) platforms and digital health tools are being integrated into heart failure care. In this manuscript, we review opportunities to use these tools to potentially improve the design of and reduce the complexity of clinical trials in heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

The PRECIS-2 tool outlines clinical trial design domains that are targets for pragmatism. We believe incorporating pragmatic design elements with the aid of eHealth platforms and digital health tools into clinical trials may help address the current complexity of clinical trials in heart failure and improve efficiency. In the manuscript, we provide examples from recent clinical trials across clinical trial design domains. We believe the current adoption of eHealth platforms and digital health tools is an opportunity improve the design of heart failure clinical trials. We specifically believe these tools can enhance pragmatism in clinical trials and reduce delays in generating high-quality evidence for new heart failure therapeutics.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Current Approaches to Worsening Heart Failure: Pathophysiological and Molecular Insights

Worsening heart failure (WHF) is a severe and dynamic condition characterized by significant clinical and hemodynamic deterioration. It is characterized by worsening HF signs, symptoms and biomarkers, despite the achievement of an optimized medical therapy. It remains a significant challenge in cardiology, as it evolves into advanced and end-stage HF. The hyperactivation of the neurohormonal, adrenergic and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system are well known pathophysiological pathways involved in HF. Several drugs have been developed to inhibit the latter, resulting in an improvement in life expectancy. Nevertheless, patients are exposed to a residual risk of adverse events, and the exploration of new molecular pathways and therapeutic targets is required. This review explores the current landscape of WHF, highlighting the complexities and factors contributing to this critical condition. Most recent medical advances have introduced cutting-edge pharmacological agents, such as guanylate cyclase stimulators and myosin activators. Regarding device-based therapies, invasive pulmonary pressure measurement and cardiac contractility modulation have emerged as promising tools to increase the quality of life and reduce hospitalizations due to HF exacerbations. Recent innovations in terms of WHF management emphasize the need for a multifaceted and patient-centric approach to address the complex HF syndrome.

Interpretable machine learning models for predicting in-hospital and 30 days adverse events in acute coronary syndrome patients in Kuwait

The relationships between acute coronary syndromes (ACS) adverse events and the associated risk factors are typically complicated and nonlinear, which poses significant challenges to clinicians' attempts at risk stratification. Here, we aim to explore the implementation of modern risk stratification tools to untangle how these complex factors shape the risk of adverse events in patients with ACS. We used an interpretable multi-algorithm machine learning (ML) approach and clinical features to fit predictive models to 1,976 patients with ACS in Kuwait. We demonstrated that random forest (RF) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB) algorithms, remarkably outperform traditional logistic regression model (AUCs = 0.84 & 0.79 for RF and XGB, respectively). Our in-hospital adverse events model identified left ventricular ejection fraction as the most important predictor with the highest interaction strength with other factors. However, using the 30-days adverse events model, we found that performing an urgent coronary artery bypass graft was the most important predictor, with creatinine levels having the strongest overall interaction with other related factors. Our ML models not only untangled the non-linear relationships that shape the clinical epidemiology of ACS adverse events but also elucidated their risk in individual patients based on their unique features.

Decongestion in Acute Heart Failure-Time to Rethink and Standardize Current Clinical Practice?

Most episodes of acute heart failure (AHF) are characterized by increasing signs and symptoms of congestion, manifested by edema, pleura effusion and/or ascites. Immediately and repeatedly administered intravenous (IV) loop diuretics currently represent the mainstay of initial therapy aiming to achieve adequate diuresis/natriuresis and euvolemia. Despite these efforts, a significant proportion of patients have residual congestion at discharge, which is associated with a poor prognosis. Therefore, a standardized approach is needed. The door to diuretic time should not exceed 60 min. As a general rule, the starting IV dose is 20-40 mg furosemide equivalents in loop diuretic naïve patients or double the preexisting oral home dose to be administered via IV. Monitoring responses within the following first hours are key issues. (1) After 2 h, spot urinary sodium should be ≥50-70 mmol/L. (2) After 6 h, the urine output should be ≥100-150 mL/hour. If these target measures are not reached, the guidelines currently recommend a doubling of the original dose to a maximum of 400-600 mg furosemide per day and in patients with severely impaired kidney function up to 1000 mg per day. Continuous infusion of loop diuretics offers no benefit over intermittent boluses (DOSE trial). Emerging evidence by recent randomized trials (ADVOR, CLOROTIC) supports the concept of an early combination diuretic therapy, by adding either acetazolamide (500 mg IV once daily) or hydrochlorothiazide. Acetazolamide is particularly useful in the presence of a baseline bicarbonate level of ≥27 mmol/L and remains effective in the presence of preexisting/worsening renal dysfunction but should be used only in the first three days to prevent severe metabolic disturbances. Patients should not leave the hospital when they are still congested and/or before optimized long-term guideline-directed medical therapy has been initiated. Special attention should be paid to AHF patients during the vulnerable post-discharge period, with an early follow-up visit focusing on up-titrate treatments of recommended doses within 2 weeks (STRONG-HF).

2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Jozef Bartunek (Belgium), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Sergio Buccheri (Sweden), Elisabetta Cerbai (Italy), Erwan Donal (France), Frank Edelmann (Germany), Gloria Färber (Germany), Bettina Heidecker (Germany), Borja Ibanez (Spain), Stefan James (Sweden), Lars Køber (Denmark), Konstantinos C. Koskinas (Switzerland), Josep Masip (Spain), John William McEvoy (Ireland), Robert Mentz (United States of America), Borislava Mihaylova (United Kingdom), Jacob Eifer Møller (Denmark), Wilfried Mullens (Belgium), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Jens Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Agnes A. Pasquet (Belgium), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Bianca Rocca (Italy), Xavier Rossello (Spain), Leyla Elif Sade (United States of America/Türkiye), Hannah Schaubroeck (Belgium), Elena Tessitore (Switzerland), Mariya Tokmakova (Bulgaria), Peter van der Meer (Netherlands), Isabelle C. Van Gelder (Netherlands), Mattias Van Heetvelde (Belgium), Christiaan Vrints (Belgium), Matthias Wilhelm (Switzerland), Adam Witkowski (Poland), and Katja Zeppenfeld (Netherlands) All experts involved in the development of this Focused Update have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and simultaneously published in a supplementary document to the Focused Update. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines See the European Heart Journal online for supplementary documents that include evidence tables.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence

BACKGROUND

More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension.

METHODS

HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

RESULTS

For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Comparative Effect of Loop Diuretic Prescription on Mortality and Heart Failure Readmission

Loop diuretics are a standard pharmacologic therapy in heart failure (HF) management. Although furosemide is most frequently used, torsemide and bumetanide are increasingly prescribed in clinical practice, possibly because of superior bioavailability. Few real-world comparative effectiveness studies have examined outcomes across all 3 loop diuretics. The study goal was to compare the effects of loop diuretic prescribing at HF hospitalization discharge on mortality and HF readmission. We identified patients in Medicare claims data initiating furosemide, torsemide, or bumetanide after an index HF hospitalization from 2007 to 2017. We estimated 6-month risks of all-cause mortality and a composite outcome (HF readmission or all-cause mortality) using inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for relevant confounders. We identified 62,632 furosemide, 1,720 torsemide, and 2,389 bumetanide initiators. The 6-month adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lowest for torsemide (13.2%), followed by furosemide (14.5%) and bumetanide (15.6%). The 6-month composite outcome risk was 21.4% for torsemide, 24.7% for furosemide, and 24.9% for bumetanide. Compared with furosemide, the 6-month all-cause mortality risk was 1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.7, 1.0) lower for torsemide and 1.0% (95% CI: -1.2, 3.2) higher for bumetanide, and the 6-month composite outcome risk was 3.3% (95% CI: -6.3, -0.3) lower for torsemide and 0.2% (95% CI: -2.5, 2.9) higher for bumetanide. In conclusion, the findings suggested that the first prescribed loop diuretic following HF hospitalization is associated with clinically important differences in morbidity in older patients receiving torsemide, bumetanide, or furosemide. These differences were consistent for the effect of all-cause mortality alone, but were not statistically significant.

Diuretic resistance and the role of albumin in congestive heart failure

Diuresis with loop diuretics is the mainstay treatment for volume optimization in patients with congestive heart failure, in which perfusion and volume expansion play a crucial role. There are robust guidelines with extensive evidence for the management of heart failure; however, clear guidance is needed for patients who do not respond to standard diuretic treatment. Diuretic resistance (DR) can be defined as an insufficient quantity of natriuresis with proper diuretic therapy. A combination of diuretic regimens is used to overcome DR and, more recently, SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to improve diuresis. Despite DR being relatively common, it is challenging to treat and there remains a notable lack of substantial data guiding its management. Moreover, DR has been linked with poor prognosis. This review aims to expose the multiple approaches for treatment of patients with DR and the importance of intravascular volume expansion in the response to therapy.

Congestion in Heart Failure: From the Secret of a Mummy to Today's Novel Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches: A Comprehensive Review

This review paper presents a review of the evolution of this disease throughout the centuries, describes and summarizes the pathophysiologic mechanisms, briefly discusses the mechanism of action of diuretics, presents their role in decongesting heart failure in patients, and reveals the data behind ultrafiltration in the management of acutely or chronically decompensated heart failure (ADHF), focusing on all the available data and advancements in this field. Acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) presents a critical clinical condition characterized by worsening symptoms and signs of heart failure, necessitating prompt intervention to alleviate congestion and improve cardiac function. Diuretics have traditionally been the mainstay for managing fluid overload in ADHF. Mounting evidence suggests that due to numerous causes, such as coexisting renal failure or chronic use of loop diuretics, an increasing rate of diuretic resistance is noticed and needs to be addressed. There has been a series of trials that combined diuretics of different categories without the expected results. Emerging evidence suggests that ultrafiltration may offer an alternative or adjunctive approach.

Management Strategies in Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy across the Spectrum of Ventricular Involvement

Improved disease recognition through family screening and increased life expectancy with appropriate sudden cardiac death prevention has increased the burden of heart failure in arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM). Heart failure management guidelines are well established but primarily focus on left ventricle function. A significant proportion of patients with ACM have predominant or isolated right ventricle (RV) dysfunction. Management of RV dysfunction in ACM lacks evidence but requires special considerations across the spectrum of heart failure regarding the initial diagnosis, subsequent management, monitoring for progression, and end-stage disease management. In this review, we discuss the unique aspects of heart failure management in ACM with a special focus on RV dysfunction.

Eliminating Health Disparities in Atrial Fibrillation, Heart Failure, and Dyslipidemia: A Path Toward Achieving Pharmacoequity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pharmacoequity refers to the goal of ensuring that all patients have access to high-quality medications, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, or other characteristics. The goal of this article is to review current evidence on disparities in access to cardiovascular drug therapies across sociodemographic subgroups, with a focus on heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and dyslipidemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Considerable and consistent disparities to life-prolonging heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and dyslipidemia medications exist in clinical trial representation, access to specialist care, prescription of guideline-based therapy, drug affordability, and pharmacy accessibility across racial, ethnic, gender, and other sociodemographic subgroups. Researchers, health systems, and policy makers can take steps to improve pharmacoequity by diversifying clinical trial enrollment, increasing access to inpatient and outpatient cardiology care, nudging clinicians to increase prescription of guideline-directed medical therapy, and pursuing system-level reforms to improve drug access and affordability.