Diuretics for heart failure

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and chronic kidney disease: a focus on therapies and interventions

In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the presence of concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD) predicts poorer cardiovascular outcomes, more aggravated heart failure (HF) status, and higher mortality. Physicians might be reluctant to initiate life-saving anti-HF medications out of fear of worsening renal function and a higher incidence of adverse events. Moreover, international guidelines do not give clear recommendations on managing this subgroup of patients as well as advanced CKD was always an exclusion criterion in most major HF trials. Nevertheless, in this review, we will highlight several recent clinical trials and post-hoc analyses of major trials that showed the safety and efficacy of the different therapies in HFrEF patients with CKD, besides several small-scale cohorts that tested guideline-directed medical therapies in End Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD). Regarding interventions in this subgroup of patients, we will provide up-to-date data on implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and coronary revascularization, in addition to mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair and implantable pulmonary artery pressure sensors.

Prognostic impact of outpatient loop diuretic reduction patterns in patients with chronic heart failure

Background

The relationship between patterns of outpatient oral loop diuretic (LD) dose reduction and prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) remains unclear.

Methods

We evaluated 679 patients with HF-prescribed LDs at baseline between September 2015 and August 2019. Dose reduction was defined as a change to a lower LD dose than the previous outpatient dose. Dose intensification was defined as a change to a higher LD dose than the previous outpatient dose. Patients were classified into no-reduction (no LD dose reduction during follow-up) and reduction groups (categorized into successive-reduction [≥2 successive LD dose reductions without intervening LD dose intensification] and single-reduction [LD dose reduction without successive dose reduction] groups). The primary outcomes were all-cause death, HF hospitalization (HFH), and the composite of cardiovascular death (CVD) or HFH.

Results

Within a median follow-up of 53.7 (range, 2.6-99.1) months, 156 deaths were recorded: 121 (29 %), 31 (15 %), and three (4 %) patients in the no-reduction (n = 411), single-reduction (n = 195), and successive-reduction (n = 73) groups, respectively. After adjusting for cofounders, the reduction group had a lower risk of primary outcomes than the no reduction group (all-cause death: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.65, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.44-0.96; CVD or HFH: HR=0.69, 95 %CI=0.52-0.93; HFH: HR=0.69, 95 % CI=0.52-0.93). The successive-reduction group had a lower risk of the composite of CVD or HFH (HR=0.26, 95 % CI: 0.10-0.67) and HFH (HR=0.34, 95 % CI=0.13-0.86) than the single-reduction group.

Conclusions

Outpatient LD dose reduction patterns can be indicators of good prognosis in HF patients.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Heart Failure: A Retrospective Observational Study and Medical Audit

Background: Acute Heart Failure (AHF) is a leading cause of hospitalizations and remains a significant socioeconomic burden. Despite advances in medical care, mortality and rehospitalization rates remain high. Previous AHF audits have revealed regional differences and a poor adherence to guidelines. This study aimed to assess guideline adherence in a public teaching hospital to identify areas for improvement. Methods: This retrospective observational study examined clinical routine data of patients hospitalized for AHF at a Swiss public teaching hospital between 2018 and 2019. AHF management was evaluated against the relevant guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Results: The study included 760 AHF cases of 726 patients (median age 84 years, range 45-101, 50% female). NT-pro-BNP levels were measured in 92% of the cases. Electrocardiography was performed in 95% and chest X-rays in 90% of cases. Echocardiography was conducted in 54% of all cases and in 63% of newly diagnosed AHF cases. Intravenous furosemide was initiated in 76%. In the subgroup of cases with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 86% were discharged with beta-blockers and 69% with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers. Among cases with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists were prescribed in 55%. Conclusions: We observed generally good adherence to guideline recommendations. However, several improvements are needed in initial assessment and documentation, diagnostic procedures such as echocardiography, discharge medication, and lifestyle recommendations. Compared to other studies, our diagnostic workup was more aligned with guidelines, the use of intravenous diuretics was similar, and the duration of hospital stay and mortality rates were comparable.

Comorbidity of patients with noncommunicable diseases in general practice. Eurasian guidelines

Создание руководства поддержано Советом по терапевтическим наукам отделения клинической медицины Российской академии наук.

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.

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.

Targeting Hypertension: A Review on Pathophysiological Factors and Treatment Strategies

Hypertension is one of the primary causes of cardiovascular diseases and death, with a higher prevalence in low- and middle-income countries. The pathophysiology of hypertension remains complex, with 2% to 5% of patients having underlying renal or adrenal disorders. The rest are referred to as essential hypertension, with derangements in various physiological mechanisms potentially contributing to the development of essential hypertension. Hypertension elevates the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events (coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke) and mortality. First-line therapy for hypertension is lifestyle change, which includes weight loss, a balanced diet that includes low salt and high potassium intake, physical exercise, and limitation or elimination of alcohol use. Blood pressure-lowering effects of individual lifestyle components are partially additive, enhancing the efficacy of pharmaceutical treatment. The choice to begin antihypertensive medication should be based on the level of blood pressure and the existence of a high atherosclerotic CVD risk. First-line hypertension treatment includes a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and a calcium channel blocker. Addressing hypertension will require continued efforts to improve access to diagnosis, treatment, and lifestyle interventions.

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

IMPORTANCE

Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Loop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide.

RESULTS

TRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Safety and efficacy of ultrafiltration versus diuretics in patients with decompensated heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ultrafiltration (UF) is used for fluid removal patients with acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) refractory to diuretics. However, data on the relative merits of UF and diuretics are limited.

METHODS

Online databases were queried to identify clinical trials on the comparison of UF and diuretics. The major adverse cardiovascular (MACE) and its components (mortality and re-hospitalizations) were compared using the random-effects model to calculate the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 10 clinical trials comprising 838 patients (413 UF, 425 diuretics) were included in the analysis. At a median follow-up of 90 days, there was no significant difference in the odds of MACE (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.07) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77-1.52) between patients undergoing UF compared with those receiving diuretics therapy. The need for emergency department visits (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.38-2.90), all-cause admissions (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.30) and heart failure-related re-hospitalization (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21-1.02) was also similar between the two groups. The in-hospital risk for hypotension (OR 0.49, 0.23-1.04) and post-therapy creatinine rise>0.3 mg/dL (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74-1.89) was also not significantly different between the UF and diuretics arms. A sensitivity analysis of MACE and mortality did not show any deviation from the pooled outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFrEF, UF appears to be safe but might not provide significant benefits in terms of reducing the risk of mortality or readmission rates compared with those treated with diuretics.

Loop Diuretic Use is Associated With Adverse Clinical Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients With Low Volume Status: Loop diuretics in AMI patient

BACKGROUND

Little information is available on the difference in the prognostic impact of loop diuretics in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) based on plasma volume status.

METHODS

A total of 3,364 survivors of AMI who were registered in the large database of the Osaka Acute Coronary Insufficiency Study (OACIS) were studied. Plasma volume status was assessed by the estimated plasma volume status (ePVS) that was calculated based on a weight- and hematocrit-based formula at discharge. The endpoint was a composite endpoint of all-cause death and rehospitalization due to heart failure for 5 years.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 1.9 years, 90 and 223 patients had events in the groups with low ePVS (<median value of 4.07%) and high ePVS (≥4.07%), respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that loop diuretics use was independently associated with an increased risk of the composite endpoint in the low ePVS group (hazard ratio [HR], 2.572; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.386-4.771; p=0.002), but not in the high ePVS group (HR, 1.028; 95% CI, 0.698-1.512; p=0.890). These results were unchanged even in the propensity-score matched cohorts. There was no heterogeneity in the increased risk of the primary endpoints between various patient characteristics and loop diuretic use in the matched cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Prescription of loop diuretics at discharge was associated with increased risk of poor long-term prognosis in patients with AMI without PV expansion, but not with PV expansion. Therefore, careful observation is needed when loop diuretics are prescribed for AMI patients without PV expansion.

HFA-PEFF scores: prognostic value in heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The Heart Failure Association (HFA)-PEFF score is recognized as a simple method to diagnose heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between HFA-PEFF scores and cardiovascular outcomes in HFpEF patients.

METHODS

A total of 502 consecutive HFpEF patients were prospectively observed for up to 1,500 days. Cardiovascular outcomes were compared between two groups of patients, defined by their HFA-PEFF scores: those who scored 2-4 (the intermediate-score group) and those who scored 5-6 group (the high-score group). Overall, 236 cardiovascular events were observed during the follow-up period (median, 1,159 days).

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that there were significant differences in composite cardiovascular events and HF-related events between the intermediate-score group and the high-score group (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that the HFA-PEFF scores significantly predicted future HF-related events (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.50; p = 0.014); receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed this relationship (area under the curve, 0.633; 95% CI, 0.574 to 0.692; p < 0.001). The cutoff HFA-PEFF score for the identification of HF-related events was 4.5. Decision curve analysis revealed that combining the HFA-PEFF score with conventional prognostic factors improved the prediction of HF-related events.

CONCLUSION

HFA-PEFF scores may be useful for predicting HF-related events in HFpEF patients.

Synthesis and Biological Activity of the Pyridine-Hexacyclic-Steroid Derivative on a Heart Failure Model

BACKGROUND

Several drugs with inotropic activity have been synthesized; however, there is very little information on biological activity exerted by steroid derivatives in the cardiovascular system.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this research was to prepare a steroid-pyridine derivative to evaluate the effect it exerts on left ventricular pressure and characterize its molecular interaction.

METHODS

The first stage was carried out through the synthesis of a steroid-pyridine derivative using some chemical strategies. The second stage involved the evaluation of the biological activity of the steroid-pyridine derivative on left ventricular pressure using a model of heart failure in the absence or presence of the drugs, such as flutamide, tamoxifen, prazosin, metoprolol, indomethacin, and nifedipine.

RESULTS

The results showed that steroid-pyridine derivative increased left ventricular pressure in a dose-dependent manner (0.001-100 nM); however, this phenomenon was significantly inhibited only by nifedipine at a dose of 1 nM. These results indicate that positive inotropic activity produced by the steroid-pyridine derivative was via calcium channel activation. Furthermore, the biological activity exerted by the steroid-pyridine derivative on the left ventricle produces changes in cAMP concentration.

CONCLUSION

It is noteworthy that positive inotropic activity produced by this steroid-pyridine derivative involves a different molecular mechanism compared to other positive inotropic drugs. Therefore, this steroid could be a good candidate for the treatment of heart failure.

Proteomic Analysis Reveals the Protective Effects of Yiqi Fumai Lyophilized Injection on Chronic Heart Failure by Improving Myocardial Energy Metabolism

Yiqi Fumai lyophilized injection (YQFM) is the recombination of Sheng mai san (SMS).YQFM has been applied clinically to efficaciously and safely treat chronic heart failure (CHF). However, the mechanism of YQFM is still not fully elucidated. The purpose of our study was to investigate the protective mechanism of YQFM against abdominal aortic coarctation (AAC) in rats by proteomic methods. After YQFM treatment, the cardiac function were obviously meliorated. One hundred and fifty-seven important differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) were identified, including 109 in model rat compared with that in control rat (M:C) and 48 in YQFM-treated rat compared with that in model rat (T:M) by iTRAQ technology to analyze the proteomic characteristics of heart tissue. Bioinformatics analysis showed that DEPs was mainly involved in the body’s energy metabolism and was closely related to oxidative phosphorylation. YQFM had also displayed efficient mitochondrial dysfunction alleviation properties in hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂)-induced cardiomyocyte damage by Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM), Metabolic assay, and Mitotracker staining. What’s more, the levels of total cardiomyocyte apoptosis were markedly reduced following YQFM treatment. Furthermore, Western blot analysis showed that the expressions of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor co-activator-1α(PGC-1α) (p < 0.01 or p < 0.001), perixisome proliferation-activated receptor alpha (PPAR-α) (p < 0.001)and retinoid X receptor alpha (RXR-α) were upregulated (p < 0.001), PGC-1α as well as its downstream effectors were also found to be upregulated in cardiomyocytes after YQFM treatment(p < 0.001).These results provided evidence that YQFM could enhance mitochondrial function of cardiomyocytes to play a role in the treatment of CHF by regulating mitochondrial biogenesis-related proteins.

Current concept in the diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of patients with congestive heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem with a prevalence of 1%-2% in developed countries. The underlying pathophysiology of HF is complex and as a clinical syndrome is characterized by various symptoms and signs. HF is classified according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and falls into three groups: LVEF ≥ 50% - HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), LVEF < 40% - HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), LVEF 40%-49% - HF with mid-range ejection fraction. Diagnosing HF is primarily a clinical approach and it is based on anamnesis, physical examination, echocardiogram, radiological findings of the heart and lungs and laboratory tests, including a specific markers of HF - brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide as well as other diagnostic tests in order to elucidate possible etiologies. Updated diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF have been recommended (H2FPEF, HFA-PEFF). New therapeutic options improve clinical outcomes as well as functional status in patients with HFrEF (e.g., sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 - SGLT2 inhibitors) and such progress in treatment of HFrEF patients resulted in new working definition of the term “HF with recovered left ventricular ejection fraction”. In line with rapid development of HF treatment, cardiac rehabilitation becomes an increasingly important part of overall approach to patients with chronic HF for it has been proven that exercise training can relieve symptoms, improve exercise capacity and quality of life as well as reduce disability and hospitalization rates. We gave an overview of latest insights in HF diagnosis and treatment with special emphasize on the important role of cardiac rehabilitation in such patients.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with systolic heart failure: pathophysiology mechanisms and management

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) demonstrate a constantly increasing prevalence during the 21^st century worldwide, as a result of the aging population and the successful interventions of the clinical practice in the deterioration of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. HF and AF share common risk factors and pathophysiological mechanisms, creating the base of a constant interrelation. AF impairs systolic and diastolic function, resulting in the increasing incidence of HF, whereas the structural and neurohormonal changes in HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction increase the possibility of the AF development. The temporal relationship of the development of either condition affects the diagnostic algorithms, the prognosis and the ideal therapeutic strategy that leads to euvolaemia, management of non-cardiovascular comorbidities, control of heart rate or restoration of sinus rate, ventricular synchronization, prevention of sudden death, stroke, embolism, or major bleeding and maintenance of a sustainable quality of life. The indicated treatment for the concomitant HF and AF includes rate or/and rhythm control as well as thromboembolism prophylaxis, while the progress in the understanding of their pathophysiological interdependence and the introduction of the genetic profiling, create new paths in the diagnosis, the prognosis and the prevention of these diseases.

Diuretic therapy as prognostic enrichment factor for clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Loop diuretics are the mainstay of congestion treatment in patients with heart failure (HF). We assessed the association between baseline loop diuretic use and outcome. We also compared the increment in risk related to diuretic dose with conventional prognostic enrichment criteria used in the EMPHASIS-HF trial, which included patients with systolic HF and mild symptoms, such as prior hospitalization and elevated natriuretic peptides.

METHODS

Individual analyses were performed according to baseline loop diuretic usage (furosemide-equivalent dose > 40 mg, 1-40 mg, and no furosemide), and according to enrichment criteria adopted in the trial [i.e. recent hospitalization (< 30 days or 30 to 180 days prior to randomization) due to HF or other cardiovascular cause, or elevated natriuretic peptides]. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

Loop diuretic usage at baseline (HR for > 40 mg furosemide-equivalent dose = 3.16, 95% CI 2.43-4.11; HR for 1-40 mg = 2.06, 95% CI 1.60-2.65) was significantly associated with a higher risk for the primary endpoint in a stepwise manner when compared to no baseline loop diuretic usage. In contrast, the differences in outcome rates were more modest when using history of hospitalization and/or BNP: all HR ranged from 1 (reference, non-HF related CV hospitalization > 30 days) to 2.04 (HF hospitalization < 30 days). The effect of eplerenone on the primary endpoint was consistent across subgroups in both analyses (P for interaction ≥ 0.2 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Loop diuretic usage (especially at doses > 40 mg) identified patients at higher risk than history of HF hospitalization and/or high BNP blood concentrations.

Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with canagliflozin according to baseline diuretic use: a post hoc analysis from the CANVAS Program

Aims

The CANVAS Program identified the effect of canagliflozin on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) differed according to whether participants were using diuretics at study commencement. We sought to further evaluate this finding related to baseline differences, treatment effects, safety, and risk factor changes.

Methods and results

The CANVAS Program enrolled 10 142 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk. Participants were randomized to canagliflozin or placebo and followed for a mean of 188 weeks. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included multiple cardiovascular, renal, and safety events. In this post hoc subgroup analysis, participants were categorized according to baseline use of any diuretic. The effect on outcomes was compared using Cox proportional hazards models, while risk factor changes were compared using mixed‐effect models. At baseline, 4490 (44.3%) participants were using a diuretic. Compared with those not using a diuretic, participants using a diuretic were more likely to be older (mean age ± standard deviation, 64.3 ± 8.0 vs. 62.5 ± 8.3), be female (38.9% vs. 33.4%), and have heart failure (19.6% vs. 10.3%) (all P_difference < 0.0001). The effect of canagliflozin on major cardiovascular events was greater for those using diuretic at baseline than for those who were not [adjusted hazard ratio 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.54–0.78) vs. adjusted hazard ratio 1.13 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.36), P_{heterogeneity} < 0.0001]. Changes in most risk factors, including blood pressure, body weight, and urine albumin‐to‐creatinine ratio, were similar between groups (all P_difference > 0.11), although the effect of canagliflozin on haemoglobin A1c reduction was slightly weaker in participants using compared with not using diuretics at baseline (−0.52% vs. −0.64%, P_{heterogeneity} = 0.0007). Overall serious adverse events and key safety outcomes, including adverse renal events, were also similar (all P_{heterogeneity} > 0.07).

Conclusions

Participants on baseline diuretics derived a greater benefit for major cardiovascular events from canagliflozin, which was not fully explained by differences in participant characteristics nor risk factor changes.

COVID-19-The Potential Beneficial Therapeutic Effects of Spironolactone during SARS-CoV-2 Infection

In March 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). The clinical course of the disease is unpredictable but may lead to severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) and pneumonia leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It has been shown that pulmonary fibrosis may be one of the major long-term complications of COVID-19. In animal models, the use of spironolactone was proven to be an important drug in the prevention of pulmonary fibrosis. Through its dual action as a mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) antagonist and an androgenic inhibitor, spironolactone can provide significant benefits concerning COVID-19 infection. The primary effect of spironolactone in reducing pulmonary edema may also be beneficial in COVID-19 ARDS. Spironolactone is a well-known, widely used and safe anti-hypertensive and antiandrogenic medication. It has potassium-sparing diuretic action by antagonizing mineralocorticoid receptors (MRs). Spironolactone and potassium canrenoate, exerting combined pleiotropic action, may provide a therapeutic benefit to patients with COVID-19 pneumonia through antiandrogen, MR blocking, antifibrotic and anti-hyperinflammatory action. It has been proposed that spironolactone may prevent acute lung injury in COVID-19 infection due to its pleiotropic effects with favorable renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) and ACE2 expression, reduction in transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) activity and antiandrogenic action, and therefore it may prove to act as additional protection for patients at highest risk of severe pneumonia. Future prospective clinical trials are warranted to evaluate its therapeutic potential.

Relationship between Soluble (pro)Renin Receptor and Renin Activity in Patients with Severe Heart Failure

The (pro)renin receptor ((P)RR), which evokes renin activity with prorenin, is secreted extracellularly as soluble (P)RR (s(P)RR) and may participate in tissue renin-angiotensin system (RAS) activity in severe heart failure (HF) patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether s(P)RR is an adequate marker in severe HF patients treated with RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and tolvaptan. We enrolled 11 patients with severe HF between May 2013 and June 2014. First of all, furosemide of all patients was changed to tolvaptan with hydrochlorothiazide and then the treatment had been changed according to the patient's condition. After 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, the variance of s(P)RR, plasma renin activity (PRA), plasma renin concentration (PRC), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and their association was investigated. Furosemide was restarted in five patients and two patients suffered cardiac death. PRA/PRC and s(P)RR were unchanged (PRA: 10.7 ± 13.9 to 12.8 ± 8.5 ng/mL/h; PRC: 347.1 ± 577.5 to 148.3 ± 123.8 pg/mL; s(P)RR: 28.2 ± 19.3 to 33.4 ± 22.4 ng/mL) and had no significant correlations (PRA and s(P)RR: p = 0.36; PRC and s(P)RR: p = 0.35). There was a significant positive correlation with a high correlation coefficient (CC) between PRA and PRC (p < 0.0001, CC = 0.76), and a negative correlation with weak CC between BNP and s(P)RR (p = 0.01, CC = -0.45). In conclusion, s(P)RR was always high and had no correlations with disease state and PRA/PRC in severe HF patients.

Congestion and Diuretic Resistance in Acute or Worsening Heart Failure

Hospitalisation for acute heart failure (AHF) is associated with high mortality and high rehospitalisation rates. In the absence of evidence-based therapy, treatment is aimed at stabilisation and symptom relief. The majority of AHF patients have signs and symptoms of fluid overload, and, therefore, decongestion is the number one treatment goal. Diuretics are the cornerstone of therapy in AHF, but the treatment effect is challenged by diuretic resistance and poor diuretic response throughout the spectrum of chronic to worsening to acute to post-worsening HF. Adequate dosing and monitoring and evaluation of diuretic effect are important for treatment success. Residual congestion at discharge is a strong predictor of worse outcomes. Therefore, achieving euvolaemia is crucial despite transient worsening renal function.

Outcomes of diuretics in rheumatic heart disease with compensated chronic heart failure: a retrospective study

Aims

The purpose of this retrospective propensity score‐matched study was to evaluate the superiority of different application approaches [continuous diuretics use (CDU) vs. intermittent diuretics use (IDU)] and types [loop diuretics (LDs) vs. thiazide diuretics (TDs)] of diuretics on long‐term outcomes for rheumatic heart disease (RHD) patients with compensated chronic heart failure (CHF).

Methods and results

A total of 494 RHD patients with compensated CHF were analysed after propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to investigate the associations of different diuretic application approaches and types with all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular death (CVD), and cerebrovascular death. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations of different diuretic application approaches and types with 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year heart failure (HF) re‐hospitalization as well as new‐onset atrial fibrillation (AF). In the comparison between IDU and CDU strategies for RHD patients with compensated CHF, CDU was associated with increased risks of all‐cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54–3.97, P < 0.001] and CVD (adjusted HR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.95–6.89, P < 0.001) except cerebrovascular death (adjusted HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.34–3.41, P = 0.905). CDU was also associated with increased risks of 3‐year [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.09–2.96, P = 0.022] and 5‐year (adjusted OR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.18–3.45, P = 0.010) HF re‐hospitalization risk and new‐onset AF (adjusted OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.31–4.20, P = 0.004) except 1‐year HF re‐hospitalization risk (adjusted OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.88–2.70, P = 0.130). In the comparison between TDs and LDs among study participants receiving IDU strategy, LDs were only associated with decreased 1‐year HF re‐hospitalization risk (adjusted OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12–0.77, P = 0.012) rather than all‐cause mortality, CVD, cerebrovascular death, 3‐ and 5‐year HF re‐hospitalization, and new‐onset AF (all adjusted P > 0.05). In the comparison between TDs and LDs among study participants receiving CDU strategy, LDs were not associated with cerebrovascular death and 1‐year HF re‐hospitalization (both adjusted P > 0.05) but with increased risks of all‐cause mortality (adjusted HR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.09–2.99, P = 0.023), CVD (adjusted HR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.04–3.44, P = 0.037), 3‐year (adjusted OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.06–3.43, P = 0.031) and 5‐year (adjusted OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.12–4.19, P = 0.022) HF re‐hospitalization, and new‐onset AF (adjusted OR = 2.66, 95% CI: 1.25–5.68, P = 0.012).

Conclusions

Continuous diuretics use (especially LDs) was associated with increased risks of all‐cause mortality, CVD, medium‐term/long‐term HF re‐hospitalization, and new‐onset AF in RHD patients with compensated CHF.

Systematizing Heart Failure Population Health

Population health and population health management of patients with heart failure aim to identify all patients with the condition in a population, to characterize and risk stratify subgroups of patients, to improve care delivery by leveraging technology and data so providers can improve care coordination, to engage disease management programs, and to create cost-effective health systems that reduce financial burden on patients and providers. This requires a shift in our treatment paradigm from reactive treatment to proactive primary and secondary prevention. Shifts from fee-for-service to value-based payment models promise to encourage population health.

READY: relative efficacy of loop diuretics in patients with chronic systolic heart failure-a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

The majority of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) receive long-term treatment with loop diuretics. The comparative effectiveness of different loop diuretics is unknown. We searched PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the European Union Clinical Trials Register for randomised clinical trials exploring the efficacy of the loop diuretics azosemide, bumetanide, furosemide or torasemide in patients with HF. Comparators included placebo, standard medical care or any other active treatment. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular mortality, HF-related hospitalisation and any combined endpoint thereof. Hypokalaemia and acute renal failure were defined as additional safety endpoints. Evidence was synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). Thirty-four trials reporting on 2647 patients were included. The overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate. NMA demonstrated no significant differences between loop diuretics with respect to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or hypokalaemia. In contrast, torasemide ranked best in terms of HF hospitalisation, and there was a trend towards benefits with torasemide with regard to occurrence of acute renal failure. Sensitivity analyses excluding trials with a follow-up < 6 months, trials with a cross-over design and those including < 25 patients confirmed the main results. We found no significant superiority of either loop diuretic with respect to mortality and safety endpoints. However, clinicians may prefer torasemide, as it was associated with fewer HF-related hospitalisations.

Right Heart Failure and Cardiorenal Syndrome

Cardiorenal syndrome is a complex interplay of dysregulated heart and kidney interaction that leads to multiorgan system dysfunction, which is not an uncommon occurrence in the setting of right heart failure. The traditional concept of impaired perfusion and forward flow recently has been modified to include the recognition of systemic venous congestion as a contributor, with direct and indirect mechanisms, including elevated renal venous pressure, reduced renal perfusion pressure, increased renal interstitial pressure, tubular dysfunction, splanchnic congestion, and neurohormonal and inflammatory activation. Treatment options beyond diuretics and vasoactive drugs remain limited and lack supportive evidence.

Contemporary approach to treating heart failure

Over the past several decades, important advances have been made in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF). Whereas in the past, the main goal of drug therapy was to relieve congestion, there is now compelling evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showing that several classes of drugs, most of which work predominantly by blocking or modulating neurohormonal activity, can substantially reduce morbidity and mortality as well as improve quality of life in patients with HF. Most of these trials, however, separated patients according to whether their ejection fraction (EF) was reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) and for the most part, favorable effects on clinical outcomes were demonstrated only in patients with HFrEF. In addition to the paucity of effective agents for managing patients with HFpEF, it has become apparent that underutilization of available therapies has greatly limited the overall impact of medical therapy on outcomes. This review provides an overview of current medical management of HF across the spectrum of EF, including the underutilization of treatment modalities. The focus is to provide clinicians the rationale for the use of specific agents and to present a practical approach for patient management. The strategies discussed are based on results of RCTs, guideline recommendations and the authors' own experience in managing patients with HF over the years.

Loop Diuretics-Analysis of Efficacy Data for the Perioperative Clinician

HEART FAILURE (HF) is one of the most common causes of hospitalization in the United States. Loop diuretics (LD) are the mainstay of treatment in the management of acute and chronic HF. Although they generally are effective in relieving symptoms and reducing congestion, LD have not been shown to significantly affect morbidity and mortality. The initial decongestion strategy for management of HF is likely to be an LD, with evidence suggesting that an initial "high-dose" strategy either by twice-daily bolus injection or by continuous infusion is likely to be more successful than an initial lower dose in respect to relief of symptoms but at the expense of increased worsening of renal function. This review focuses on the current state of evidence of different strategies related to the use of LD in the treatment of congestive symptoms in critically ill patients and presents a summary of the body of evidence regarding dosages, timing, and different diuretic agents.

Digoxin Use and Associated Adverse Events Among Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Over the past 2 decades, guidelines for digoxin use have changed significantly. However, little is known about the national-level trends of digoxin use, hospitalizations for toxicity, and subsequent outcomes over this time period.

METHODS

To describe digoxin prescription trends, we conducted a population-level, cohort study using data from IQVIA, Inc.'s National Prescription Audit (2007-2014) for patients aged ≥65 years. Further, in a national cohort of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years in the United States, we assessed temporal trends of hospitalizations associated with digoxin toxicity and the outcomes of these hospitalizations between 1999 and 2013.

RESULTS

From 2007 through 2014, the number of digoxin prescriptions dispensed decreased by 46.4%; from 8,099,856 to 4,343,735. From 1999 through 2013, the rate of hospitalizations with a principal or secondary diagnosis of digoxin toxicity decreased from 15 to 2 per 100,000 person-years among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates associated with hospitalization for digoxin toxicity decreased significantly among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries; from 6.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-6.8) to 3.7% (95% CI, 2.2-5.7) and from 14.0% (95% CI, 13.0-15.2) to 10.1% (95% CI, 7.6-13.0), respectively. Rates of 30-day readmission for digoxin toxicity decreased from 23.5% (95% CI, 22.1-24.9) in 1999 to 21.7% (95% CI, 18.0-25.4) in 2013 (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

While digoxin prescriptions have decreased, it is still widely prescribed. However, the rate of hospitalizations for digoxin toxicity and adverse outcomes associated with these hospitalizations have decreased. These findings reflect the changing clinical practice of digoxin use, aligned with the changes in clinical guidelines.

[Heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction]

Heart failure remains the number one diagnosis among patients receiving inpatient treatment in Germany. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) needs to be verified by signs and symptoms of HF, echocardiographic parameters as well as cardiac biomarkers. Based on etiological and pathophysiological considerations, a classification into systolic and diastolic heart failure and later heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HFpEF was proposed. The inhomogeneous group of patients with HFpEF accounts for half of all heart failure cases in the population. Effective treatment options are limited. This article discusses which verified treatments may help or may even be harmful. A glimpse is taken into the future and those substances that are in advanced stages of clinical trials are described.

Saudi Heart Association (SHA) guidelines for the management of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and negatively impacts quality of life, healthcare costs, and longevity. Although data on HF in the Arab population are scarce, recently developed regional registries are a step forward to evaluating the quality of current patient care and providing an overview of the clinical picture. Despite the burden of HF in Saudi Arabia, there are currently no standardized protocols or guidelines for the management of patients with acute or chronic heart failure. Therefore, the Heart Failure Expert Committee, comprising 13 local specialists representing both public and private sectors, has developed guidelines to address the needs and challenges for the diagnosis and treatment of HF in Saudi Arabia. The ultimate aim of these guidelines is to assist healthcare professionals in delivering optimal care and standardized clinical practice across Saudi Arabia.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction and with preserved ejection fraction

The annual "heart report" published by the German Heart Foundation (Deutsche Herzstiftung) in December 2017 indicates that heart failure (ICD I50) remains the number one diagnosis of in-hospital-treated patients throughout Germany. For some time, the clinical diagnosis of heart failure has been verified by echocardiographic parameters as well as cardiac biomarkers that assist the clinician to rule in or rule out the presence of a failing heart, when used wisely. By introducing the term "heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction" (HFmrEF), the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) heart failure guidelines established a third heart failure entity, which was not necessarily seen as an improvement by the heart failure community. Nevertheless, half of all patients suffering from heart failure are now classified as having HFmrEF or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but the etiology and treatment options differ substantially. To elucidate this issue, the current review aims to highlight the key findings published to date. This should minimize the confusion that may have been generated by the new term "HFmrEF".

[Stability of chronic heart failure from the position of a doctor and a patient: in search of contact points]

Actuality. The results of the EPOCH study showed that in 16 years in the Russian Federation the number of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) of I-IV FC increased significantly. The main objectives of the treatment of CHF are the stabilization of the patient's condition and the reduction of the risks of cardiovascular mortality, decompensation and repeated hospitalizations for heart failure. But a single concept of "stable" CHF does not exist either in Russian or in foreign recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how ofen the subjective assessment of a doctor regarding the stability of a patient with CHF coincides with the subjective opinion of the patient with CHF regarding the stability of his condition; and to identify those parametrs that have a leading influence on the assessment of the stability of the state from the point of view of the physician and the patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data collection was carried out in the form of interviews among general practitioners and cardiologists in outpatient clinics (OC) of Nizhny Novgorod, which were randomly selected by the method of blind envelopes. In parallel, a survey was conducted of patients with CHF who applied for outpatient medical care about this syndrome to this OC, which the doctors were not informed about, because patient interviews were conducted after the end of outpatient admission in a separate room. Answers of doctors about a patient with CHF were compared with the answers of the corresponding patient; for this, a single code was assigned to both questionnaires. The study included 211 patients with CHF of any etiology older than 18 years. The study involved 25 doctors. The study was conducted from 11/01/17 to 11/30/17.

RESULTS

Analysis of the data suggests that the doctor is more likely to consider the patient more stable in cases when the patient notes a decrease in the severity of shortness of breath, weakness and does not detect edema, while the fact of therapy with loop diuretics (LD) or an increase in them did not affect assessment of stability from the point of view of the doctor. From the point of view of the patient, the absence of the first three signs also testifies to the stability of the condition, however, unlike doctors, patients more often (p &lt;0.001) considered themselves unstable in those cases when they needed LD therapy or an increase in LD dose. A logit regression analysis and ROC analysis based on selected signs and symptoms of CHF confirmed that a model that combines questions about persistent weakness and edema is best suited to predict the patient's subjective assessment of patient's stability from a doctor's point of view (61.8% of the results can be correctly predicted), and at the cutoff threshold of 0.5, it has the highest sensitivity of 64.9%. To predict the subjective assessment of stability in relation to the patient, the optimal model turned out to be the one that includes answers to the questions of "shortness of breath", "weakness" and "intake of loop diuretics", which allows to predict 66.7% of the results correctly at the cut‑off threshold 0, 5 has a better balance of sensitivity and specificity (54.9 and 78.6, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Reducing the severity of dyspnea, weakness and lack of edema of the lower extremities are important signs of the stability of the condition, both in the opinion of the doctor and in the opinion of the patient. Unlike the doctor, the patient is more likely to be classified as unstable in those cases when he is forced to receive therapy with loop diuretics at the outpatient stage or to increase their dose. The model for assessing the stability of a patient with CHF from the point of view of a physician more often allows one to confirm the patient's stable condition, while the model used by patients more often allows to identify patient instability and worsening of the course of CHF.

Adherence to Treatment Guidelines in Heart Failure Patients in the Top End Region of Northern Territory

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and recurrent hospitalisations, particularly in the Indigenous Australians of the Northern Territory. In remote Northern Australia, the epidemiology is less clear but anecdotal evidence suggests it may be worse. In addition, some anecdotal evidence suggests that prognostic pharmacological therapy could also be underutilised. Minimal HF data exists in the remote and Indigenous settings, making this study unique.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort review of pharmacological management of 99 patients from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014 was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine (99) patients were identified. 59.6% were non-Indigenous vs 40.4% Indigenous. The majority was male (69.7%). Indigenous patients were younger; median age was 51.4 (43.4-60.6) vs 70.5 (62.2-77.0), p<0.001. Major causes of HF were coronary artery disease (61%) and dilated cardiomyopathy (27%). Associated comorbidities included hypertension (52%), dyslipidaemia (38%), diabetes mellitus (40%) and atrial fibrillation (25%). The use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) and β-blocker was 68% and 87%, respectively. Forty-one (41) patients not on an ACEI/ARB and/or β-blocker were identified. Seventeen (17) of those patients (42%) did not receive an ACEI/ARB because of renal failure. Four (4) patients (10%) did not take a β-blocker due to hypotension. Fourteen (14) patients (34%) were not prescribed an ACEI/ARB and/or β-blocker had no identifiable contraindications.

CONCLUSIONS

Indigenous patients are over-represented at a younger age demonstrating the alarming rate of disease burden in NT's young Indigenous population. Generally, ACEI/ARBs were underutilised compared to β-blockers with renal impairment being the primary contraindication. There is a need to develop processes to further improve the use of heart failure medications and setting up a HF database could be the first step in progress.

Comparative effectiveness of loop diuretics on mortality in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure - A multicenter propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Loop diuretics are given to the majority of patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Whether the different pharmacological properties of the three guideline-recommended loop diuretics result in differential effects on survival is unknown.

METHODS

6293 patients with chronic HF using either bumetanide, furosemide or torasemide were identified in three European HF registries. Patients were individually matched on both the respective propensity scores for receipt of the individual drug and dose-equivalents thereof.

RESULTS

During a follow-up of 35,038 patient-years, 652 (53.7%), 2179 (51.9%), and 268 (30.4%) patients died amongst those prescribed bumetanide, furosemide, and torasemide, respectively. In univariable analyses of the general sample, bumetanide and furosemide were both associated with higher mortality as compared with torasemide treatment (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.31-1.73, p < 0.001, and HR 1.34, CI 1.18-1.52, p < 0.001, respectively). Mortality was higher in bumetanide users when compared to furosemide users (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20, p = 0.01). However, there was no significant association between loop diuretic choice and all-cause mortality in any of the matched samples (bumetanide vs. furosemide, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14, p = 0.53; bumetanide vs. torasemide, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78-1.24, p = 0.89; furosemide vs. torasemide, HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.24, p = 0.82). The results were confirmed in subgroup analyses with respect to age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, NYHA functional class, cause of HF, rhythm, and systolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF, mortality is not affected by the choice of individual loop diuretics.

The Effect of Chinese Herbal Medicine on Quality of Life and Exercise Tolerance in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has a good effect of alleviating symptoms and improving quality of life and exercise tolerance in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but it wasn't sufficiently valued and promoted because of the lack of evidence-based medical evidence. Aim: To systematically review the effect of CHM on quality of life and exercise tolerance in patients with HFpEF. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search for Chinese and English studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, Wanfang Data, and China Science and Technology Journal Database. Databases were searched using terms relating to or describing CHM, HFpEF and randomized controlled trials, without any exclusion criteria for other types of diseases or disorders. Literature retrieval, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two investigators. Differences were resolved by consensus. RevMan 5.3.0 was used for data analysis. Quantitative synthesis was used when the included studies were sufficiently homogeneous and subgroup analyses were performed for studies with different sample sizes and blind methods. GRADEpro was used to grade the available evidence to minimize bias in our findings. Results: Seventeen studies with 2,724 patients were enrolled in this review. ROB assessments showed a relatively high selection and performance bias. Meta-analyses showed that compared with conventional western medicine, combined CHM and conventional western medicine could significantly improve 6-min walk distance (MD = 52.13, 95% CI [46.91, 57.34], P < 0.00001), and it seemed to be more effective as compared with combined placebo and conventional western medicine. Similar results were observed for quality of life and the results were better in a larger sample. The GRADEpro showed a very low to moderate level of the available evidence. Conclusion: Combined CHM and conventional western medicine might be effective to improve exercise tolerance and quality of life in HFpEF patients, but new well-designed studies with larger sample size, strict randomization, and clear description about detection and reporting processes are needed to further strengthen this evidence.