Prognostic impact of the updated 2018 HFA-ESC definition of advanced heart failure: results from the HELP-HF registry

Impact of malnutrition in patients with severe heart failure

AIM

The role of malnutrition among patients with severe heart failure (HF) is not well established. We evaluated the incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of malnutrition in patients with severe HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Nutritional status was measured using the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), based on body weight, height and serum albumin concentration, with malnutrition defined as GNRI ≤98. It was assessed in consecutive patients with severe HF, defined by at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker, enrolled at four Italian centres between January 2020 and November 2021. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 510 patients with data regarding nutritional status were included in the study (mean age 74 ± 12 years, 66.5% male). Among them, 179 (35.1%) had GNRI ≤98 (malnutrition). At multivariable logistic regression, lower body mass index (BMI) and higher levels of natriuretic peptides (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] > median value [685 pg/ml] or N-terminal proBNP > median value [5775 pg/ml]) were independently associated with a higher likelihood of malnutrition. Estimated rates of all-cause death at 1 year were 22.4% and 41.1% in patients without and with malnutrition, respectively (log-rank p < 0.001). The impact of malnutrition on all-cause mortality was confirmed after multivariable adjustment for relevant covariates (adjusted hazard ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval 1.43-2.89, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In a contemporary, real-world, multicentre cohort of patients with severe HF, malnutrition (defined as GNRI ≤98) was common and independently associated with an increased risk of mortality. Lower BMI and higher natriuretic peptides were identified as predictors of malnutrition in these patients.

Frailty according to the 2019 HFA-ESC definition in patients at risk for advanced heart failure: Insights from the HELP-HF registry

AIMS

Frailty is highly prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF), but a concordant definition of this condition is lacking. The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) proposed in 2019 a new multi-domain definition of frailty, but it has never been validated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to the number of HFA-ESC frailty domains fulfilled and to the cumulative deficits frailty index (FI) quintiles. Prevalence of frailty and of each domain was reported, as well as the rate of the composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization, its single components, and cardiovascular death in each group and quintile. Among 854 included patients, 37 (4.3%), 206 (24.1%), 365 (42.8%), 217 (25.4%), and 29 (3.4%) patients fulfilled zero, one, two, three, or four domains, respectively, while 179 patients had a FI < 0.21 and were considered not frail. The 1-year risk of adverse events increased proportionally to the number of domains fulfilled (for each criterion increase, all-cause death or HF hospitalization: hazard ratio [HR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.62; all-cause death: HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.46-2.02, HF hospitalizations: subHR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.31; cardiovascular death: HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.45-2.15). Consistent results were found stratifying the cohort for FI quintiles. The FI as a continuous variable demonstrated higher discriminative ability than the number of domains fulfilled (area under the curve = 0.68 vs. 0.64, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Frailty in patients at risk for advanced HF, assessed via a multi-domain approach and the FI, is highly prevalent and identifies those at increased risk of adverse events. The FI was found to be slightly more effective in identifying patients at increased risk of mortality.

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.

Clinical burden and predictors of non-cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in advanced heart failure

BACKGROUND

The changing demographic of heart failure (HF) increases the exposure to non-cardiovascular (non-CV) events. We investigated the distribution of non-CV mortality/morbidity and the characteristics associated with higher risk of non-CV events in patients with advanced HF.

METHODS

Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to the number of 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Endpoints were non-CV mortality and non-CV hospitalization. Competing risk analyses were performed assessing the association between HFA-ESC criteria and study outcomes and the additional predictors of non-CV endpoints.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred and forty-nine patients were included (median age 77 years-IQR 69-83). At 6, 12, 18 and 22 months, cumulative incidence of CV vs non-CV mortality was 13% vs 5%, 17% vs 8%, 20% vs 12%, 23% vs 12%, and of CV vs non-CV hospitalization was 26% vs 11%, 38% vs 17%, 45% vs 20%, 50% vs 21%. HFA-ESC criteria were associated with increasing adjusted risk of CV death, whereas no association was observed for CV hospitalization, non-CV death and non-CV hospitalization. Predictors of non-CV death were age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, preserved ejection fraction, >1 HF hospitalization and hemoglobin.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced HF are exposed to high, even though not predominant, burden of non-CV outcomes. HFA-ESC criteria aid to stratify the risk of CV death, but are not associated with lower competing risk of non-CV outcomes. Alternative factors can be useful to define the patients with advanced HF at risk of non-CV events in order to better select patients for treatments specifically reducing CV risk.

Prognostic role of mitral regurgitation in patients with advanced heart failure

AIM

The impact of mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) is poorly known. We aimed to evaluate the impact of MR on clinical outcomes of a real-world, contemporary, multicentre population with advanced HF.

METHODS

The HELP-HF registry enrolled patients with HF and at least one "I NEED HELP" criterion, at four Italian centres between January 2020 and November 2021. The population was stratified by none/mild MR vs. moderate MR vs. severe MR. Outcomes of interest were all-cause, cardiovascular (CV) death, the composite of all-cause death or first HF hospitalization, first HF hospitalization and recurrent HF hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Among 1079 patients, 429 (39.8%) had none/mild MR, 443 (41.1%) had moderate MR and 207 (19.2%) had severe MR. Patients with severe MR were most likely to be inpatients, present with cardiogenic shock, need intravenous loop diuretics and inotropes/vasopressors, have lower ejection fraction and higher natriuretic peptides. Estimated rates of all-cause death, CV death, and the composite of all-cause death or first HF hospitalization at 1 year increased with increasing MR severity. Compared with no/mild MR, severe MR was independently associated with an increased risk of CV death (adjusted HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.04-2.51, p = 0.033) and recurrent HF hospitalizations (adjusted HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08-2.06, p = 0.015), but not with and increased risk of all-cause death, first HF hospitalization and composite outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In unselected patients with advanced HF, severe MR was common and independently associated with an increased risk of CV death and of recurrent HF hospitalizations.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation and advanced heart failure

AIMS

To evaluate the role of tricuspid regurgitation in advanced heart failure.

METHODS

The multicenter observational HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with heart failure and at least one 'I NEED HELP' criterion evaluated at four Italian centers between January 2020 and November 2021. Patients with no data on tricuspid regurgitation and/or receiving tricuspid valve intervention during follow-up were excluded. The population was stratified by no/mild tricuspid regurgitation vs. moderate tricuspid regurgitation vs. severe tricuspid regurgitation. Variables independently associated with tricuspid regurgitation, as well as the association between tricuspid regurgitation and clinical outcomes were investigated. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Among the 1085 patients included in this study, 508 (46.8%) had no/mild tricuspid regurgitation, 373 (34.4%) had moderate tricuspid regurgitation and 204 (18.8%) had severe tricuspid regurgitation. History of atrial fibrillation, any prior valve surgery, high dose of furosemide, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, moderate/severe mitral regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension were found to be independently associated with an increased likelihood of severe tricuspid regurgitation. Estimated rates of 1-year all-cause death were of 21.4, 24.5 and 37.1% in no/mild tricuspid regurgitation, moderate tricuspid regurgitation and severe tricuspid regurgitation, respectively (log-rank P  < 0.001). As compared with nonsevere tricuspid regurgitation, severe tricuspid regurgitation was independently associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.88, P  = 0.042), whereas moderate tricuspid regurgitation did not.

CONCLUSION

In a contemporary, real-world cohort of patients with advanced heart failure, several clinical and echocardiographic characteristics are associated with an increased likelihood of severe tricuspid regurgitation. Patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation have an increased risk of mortality.

The role and application of current pharmacological management in patients with advanced heart failure

In the last decades, several classifications and definitions have been proposed for advanced heart failure (ADVHF) patients, including clinical, functional, hemodynamic, imaging, and electrocardiographic features. Despite different inclusion criteria, ADVHF is characterized by some common items, such as drug intolerance, low arterial pressure, multiple organ dysfunction, chronic kidney disease, and diuretic use dependency. Additional features include fatigue, hypotension, hyponatremia, and unintentional weight loss associated with a specific laboratory profile reflecting systemic multiorgan dysfunction. Notably, studies evaluating guideline-directed medical therapy recently endorsed by guidelines in stable HF, including the 4 drug classes all together (i.e., betablocker, mineral corticoid antagonist, renin angiotensin inhibitors/neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium glucose transporter inhibitors), remain scarcely analyzed in ADVHF and New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class IV. Additionally, due to the common conditions associated with advanced stages, the balance between drug tolerance and potential benefits of the contemporary use of all agents is questioned. Therefore, less hard endpoints, such as exercise tolerance, quality of life (QoL) and self-competency, are not clearly demonstrated. Specific analyses evaluating outcome and rehospitalization of each drug provided conflicting results and are often limited to subjects with stable conditions and less advanced NYHA class. Current European Society of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ESC/AHA) Guidelines do not indicate the type of treatment, dosage, and administration modalities, and they do not suggest specific indications for ADVHF patients. Due to these concerns, there is an impelling need to understand what drugs may be used as the first line, what management leads to the better outcome, and what is the best treatment algorithm in this setting. In this paper, we summarize the most common pitfalls and limitations for the use of the traditional agents, and we propose a personalized approach aiming at preserve drug tolerance and maintaining adverse event protection and satisfactory QoL.

The different risk of new-onset, chronic, worsening, and advanced heart failure: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic and progressive syndrome associated with a poor prognosis. While it may seem intuitive that the risk of adverse outcomes varies across the different stages of HF, an overview of these risks is lacking. This study aims to determine the risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations associated with new-onset HF, chronic HF (CHF), worsening HF (WHF), and advanced HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review of observational studies from 2012 to 2022 using five different databases. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality, as well as 1-year HF hospitalization. Studies were pooled using random effects meta-analysis, and mixed-effects meta-regression was used to compare the different HF groups. Among the 15 759 studies screened, 66 were included representing 862 046 HF patients. Pooled 30-day mortality rates did not reveal a significant distinction between hospital-admitted patients, with rates of 10.13% for new-onset HF and 8.11% for WHF (p = 0.10). However, the 1-year mortality risk differed and increased stepwise from CHF to advanced HF, with a rate of 8.47% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.24-9.89) for CHF, 21.15% (95% CI 17.78-24.95) for new-onset HF, 26.84% (95% CI 23.74-30.19) for WHF, and 29.74% (95% CI 24.15-36.10) for advanced HF. Readmission rates for HF at 1 year followed a similar trend.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis of observational studies confirms the different risk for adverse outcomes across the distinct HF stages. Moreover, it emphasizes the negative prognostic value of WHF as the first progressive stage from CHF towards advanced HF.

Role of ejection fraction in patients at risk for advanced heart failure: insights from the HELP-HF registry

AIMS

Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HFrEF), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF), and preserved EF (HFpEF) may all progress to advanced HF, but the impact of EF in the advanced setting is not well established. Our aim was to assess the prognostic impact of EF in patients with at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with HF and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' criterion from four centres were included in this analysis. Outcomes were assessed in patients with HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%), HFmrEF (EF 41-49%), and HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%) and with EF analysed as a continuous variable. The prognostic impact of medical therapy for HF in patients with EF < 50% and EF > 50% was also evaluated. All-cause death was the primary endpoint, and cardiovascular death was a secondary endpoint. Among 1149 patients enrolled [mean age 75.1 ± 11.5 years, 67.3% males, 67.6% hospitalized, median follow-up 260 days (inter-quartile range 105-390 days)], HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF were observed in 699 (60.8%), 122 (10.6%), and 328 (28.6%) patients, and 1 year mortality was 28.3%, 26.2%, and 20.1, respectively (log-rank P = 0.036). As compared with HFrEF patients, HFpEF patients had a lower risk of all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj ) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.94, P = 0.022], whereas no difference was noted for HFmrEF patients. After multivariable adjustment, a lower risk of all-cause death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99, P = 0.017) and cardiovascular death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-1.00, P = 0.049) was observed at higher EF values. Beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or sacubitril/valsartan were associated with lower mortality in both EF < 50% and EF ≥ 50% groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF, left ventricular EF is still of prognostic value.

Guideline-directed medical therapy in severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An analysis from the HELP-HF registry

AIM

Persistent symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and poor tolerance of GDMT are hallmarks of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, real-world data on GDMT use, dose, and prognostic implications are lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 699 consecutive patients with HFrEF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF enrolled in a multicentre registry. Beta-blockers (BB) were administered to 574 (82%) patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ACEi/ARB/ARNI) were administered to 381 (55%) patients and 416 (60%) received mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA). Overall, ≥50% of target doses were reached in 41%, 22%, and 56% of the patients on BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively. Hypotension, bradycardia, kidney dysfunction and hyperkalaemia were the main causes of underprescription and/or underdosing, but up to a half of the patients did not receive target doses for unknown causes (51%, 41%, and 55% for BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and MRA, respectively). The proportions of patients receiving BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were lower among those fulfilling the 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI were associated with a lower risk of death or HF hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.84, and HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, real-world, contemporary cohort of patients with severe HFrEF, with at least one marker for advanced HF, prescription and uptitration of GDMT remained limited. A significant proportion of patients were undertreated due to unknown reasons suggesting a potential role of clinical inertia either by the prescribing healthcare professional or by the patient. Treatment with BB and ACEi/ARB/ARNI was associated with lower mortality/morbidity.

Clinical and prognostic implications of heart failure hospitalization in patients with advanced heart failure

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization is associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure, but its prognostic role in advanced heart failure is still unsettled. We evaluated the prognostic role of heart failure hospitalization in patients with advanced heart failure.

METHODS

The multicenter HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with heart failure and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker. Characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients who were hospitalized for decompensated heart failure (inpatients) or not (outpatients) at the time of enrolment. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or first heart failure hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among the 1149 patients included [mean age 75.1 ± 11.5 years, 67.3% men, median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 35% (IQR 25-50%)], 777 (67.6%) were inpatients at the time of enrolment. As compared with outpatients, inpatients had lower LVEF, higher natriuretic peptides and a worse clinical profile. The 1-year rate of the primary endpoint was 50.9% in inpatients versus 36.8% in outpatients [crude hazard ratio 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39-2.07, P < 0.001]. At multivariable analysis, inpatient status was independently associated with a higher risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio 1.54, 95% CI 1.23-1.93, P < 0.001). Among inpatients, the independent predictors of the primary endpoint were older age, lower SBP, heart failure association criteria for advanced heart failure and glomerular filtration rate 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 or less.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalization for heart failure in patients with at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker is associated with an extremely poor prognosis supporting the need for specific interventions, such as mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation.

Detailed Assessment of the "I Need Help" Criteria in Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From the HELP-HF Registry

BACKGROUND

The "I Need Help" markers have been proposed to identify patients with advanced heart failure (HF). We evaluated the prognostic impact of these markers on clinical outcomes in a real-world, contemporary, multicenter HF population.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients with HF and at least 1 high-risk "I Need Help" marker from 4 centers. The impact of the cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria and that of each individual "I Need Help" criterion was evaluated. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among 1149 patients enrolled, the majority had 2 (30.9%) or 3 (22.6%) "I Need Help" criteria. A higher cumulative number of "I Need Help" criteria was independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio for each criterion increase, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.11-1.27]; P<0.001), and patients with >5 criteria had the worst prognosis. Need of inotropes, persistently high New York Heart Association classes III and IV or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, >1 HF hospitalization in the last year, persisting fluid overload or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure were the individual criteria independently associated with a higher risk of the primary end point.

CONCLUSIONS

In our HF population, a higher number of "I Need Help" criteria was associated with a worse prognosis. The individual criteria with an independent impact on mortality or HF hospitalization were need of inotropes, New York Heart Association class or natriuretic peptides, end-organ dysfunction, multiple HF hospitalizations, persisting edema or escalating diuretics, and low blood pressure.

Importance of heart failure duration for development of pulmonary hypertension in advanced heart failure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is critical when evaluating candidacy for advanced heart failure (HF) therapies, but risk factors for elevated PVR are not well studied. We hypothesized that HF duration would be associated with elevated PVR.

METHODS

Danish single-center registry of consecutive in- and outpatients undergoing right heart catheterization as part of advanced HF work up. The relation between HF duration and PVR was estimated by regression analysis. Finally, the relation between PVR and long-term mortality was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 549 patients (77% men, median age 54 (43-61) years, median HF duration 1.6 years (0.1-7.1)) were included. Univariate linear regression displayed an association between longer HF duration and increasing PVR (p = 0.014). PVR > 3 WU was present in 92 patients (17%) who were older (median p < 0.001) and had longer HF duration (p = 0.03). HF duration (per 1 year increase) did not predict PVR > 3 WU after adjustment for covariables (OR 1.00; p = 0.99). During a mean follow-up time of 4.5 years, there were 240 (44%) deaths. Increasing PVR was associated with elevated all-cause mortality risk (adjusted HR 1.24; p < 0.001). PVR > 3 WU was associated with higher mortality (adjusted HR 1.49; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Longer duration of HF was associated with higher PVR in patients with advanced HF, but this association disappeared in multivariate analyses. Longer HF duration per se likely does not cause elevated PVR and should not discourage evaluation for heart transplantation.

Ischemic Etiology in Advanced Heart Failure: Insight from the HELP-HF Registry

In patients with advanced heart failure (HF), defined according to the presence of at least one I-NEED-HELP criterium, the updated 2018 Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) criteria for advanced HF identify a subgroup of patients with HF with worse prognosis, but whether ischemic etiology has a relevant prognostic impact in this very high-risk cohort is unknown. Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to ischemic etiology and presence of advanced HF based on 2018 HFA-ESC criteria. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization at 1 year. Secondary end points were all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and cardiovascular death at 1 year. Ischemic etiology was a leading cause of HF, in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (46.1% and 42.4%, respectively, p = 0.337). The risk of the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 to 1.58) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.76) was increased in ischemic as compared with nonischemic patients. The risk of the primary end point was consistently higher in ischemic patients in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (advanced HF, HR 1.50 95% CI 1.04 to 2.16; nonadvanced HF, HR 1.25 95% CI 1.01 to 1.56, pinteraction = 0.333), driven by an increased risk of mortality, mainly because of cardiovascular causes. In conclusion, ischemic etiology is the most common cause of HF in patients with at least one I-NEED-HELP marker and with or without advanced HF as defined by the 2018 HFA-ESC definition. In both patients with advanced and not-advanced HF, ischemic etiology carried an increased risk of worse prognosis.

Pre-discharge and early post-discharge management of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure: A scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC

Acute heart failure is a major cause of urgent hospitalizations. These are followed by marked increases in death and rehospitalization rates, which then decline exponentially though they remain higher than in patients without a recent hospitalization. Therefore, optimal management of patients with acute heart failure before discharge and in the early post-discharge phase is critical. First, it may prevent rehospitalizations through the early detection and effective treatment of residual or recurrent congestion, the main manifestation of decompensation. Second, initiation at pre-discharge and titration to target doses in the early post-discharge period, of guideline-directed medical therapy may improve both short- and long-term outcomes. Third, in chronic heart failure, medical treatment is often left unchanged, so the acute heart failure hospitalization presents an opportunity for implementation of therapy. The aim of this scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology is to summarize recent findings that have implications for clinical management both in the pre-discharge and the early post-discharge phase after a hospitalization for acute heart failure.

Updates in heart failure: sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and beyond – major changes are coming

Prevalence of heart failure is increasing worldwide mainly due to the ageing of the population and the improvement in diagnosis and treatment. In recent years, huge progress has been made in the management of heart failure patients. A new definition of chronic heart failure based on left ventricular ejection fraction and its possible trajectories has been reported. New drug classes have been introduced for the treatment of chronic heart failure. In particular, the prognostic benefit of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors was demonstrated across all the heart failure phenotypes. Therapies for patients with advanced heart failure (long-term mechanical circulatory supports and heart transplantation) are now indicated also in the case of mild-to-moderate symptoms but with high risk of progression. In patients with acute heart failure, monitoring of urinary sodium and the use of acetazolamide may lead to better decongestion. Importantly, pre- and postdischarge assessment should lead to optimal treatment. Devices and telemonitoring can also be of help. Cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities are major determinants of the clinical course and need proper management. This review will summarize these important advances.

Heart failure: an update from the last years and a look at the near future

In the last years, major progress occurred in heart failure (HF) management. Quadruple therapy is now mandatory for all the patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Whilst verciguat is becoming available across several countries, omecamtiv mecarbil is waiting to be released for clinical use. Concurrent use of potassium-lowering agents may counteract hyperkalaemia and facilitate renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor implementations. The results of the EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trial were confirmed by the Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction (DELIVER) trial, and we now have, for the first time, evidence for treatment of also patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. In a pre-specified meta-analysis of major randomized controlled trials, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and HF hospitalization in the patients with HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction. Other steps forward have occurred in the treatment of decompensated HF. Acetazolamide in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) trial showed that the addition of intravenous acetazolamide to loop diuretics leads to greater decongestion vs. placebo. The addition of hydrochlorothiazide to loop diuretics was evaluated in the CLOROTIC trial. Torasemide did not change outcomes, compared with furosemide, in TRANSFORM-HF. Ferric derisomaltose had an effect on the primary outcome of CV mortality or HF rehospitalizations in IRONMAN (rate ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.02; P = 0.070). Further options for the treatment of HF, including device therapies, cardiac contractility modulation, and percutaneous treatment of valvulopathies, are summarized in this article.