NT-proBNP Response to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction: TRANSITION Study

In-hospital initiation of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in acute heart failure: the PREMIER trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The efficacy and safety of early sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) initiation after acute heart failure (AHF) has not been demonstrated outside North America. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of in-hospital Sac/Val therapy initiation after an AHF episode on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level in Japanese patients.

METHODS

This was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint pragmatic trial. After haemodynamic stabilization within 7 days after hospitalization, eligible inpatients were allocated to switch from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker to Sac/Val (Sac/Val group) or to continue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (control group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the 8-week proportional change in geometric means of NT-proBNP levels.

RESULTS

A total of 400 patients were equally randomized, and 376 (median age 75 years, 31.9% women, de novo heart failure rate 55.6%, and median left ventricular ejection fraction 37%) were analysed. The per cent changes in NT-proBNP level geometric means at Weeks 4/8 were -35%/-45% (Sac/Val group) and -18%/-32% (control group), and their group ratio (Sac/Val vs. control) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.94; P = .008) at Week 4 and 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.95; P = .012) at Week 8, respectively. In the pre-specified subgroup analyses, the effects of Sac/Val were confined to patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction < 40% and were more evident in those in sinus rhythm and taking mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. No adverse safety signal was evident.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital Sac/Val therapy initiation in addition to contemporary recommended therapy triggered a greater NT-proBNP level reduction in Japanese patients hospitalized for AHF. These findings may expand the evidence on Sac/Val therapy in this clinical situation outside North America.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05164653) and Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs021210046).

Looking for the ideal medication for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a narrative review

The main goals of the pharmacological treatment of Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are the reduction of mortality and the prevention of hospitalizations. However, other outcomes such as improvements in cardiac remodeling and clinical status, functional capacity and quality of life, should be taken into account. Also, given the significant inter-individual and intra-individual variability of HF, and the fact that patients usually present with comorbidities, an appropriate treatment for HFrEF should exert a clinical benefit in most patient profiles irrespective of their characteristics or the presence of comorbidities, while providing organ protection beyond the cardiovascular system. The aim of this narrative review is to determine which are the proven effects of the guideline-directed treatments for HFrEF on five key clinical outcomes: cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization due to HF, sudden death, reverse cardiac remodeling, renal protection and evidence in hospitalized patients. Publications that fulfilled the pre-established selection criteria were selected and reviewed. Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, namely angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) show a benefit in terms of mortality and hospitalization rates. ARNI, BB, and MRA have demonstrated a significant positive effect on the incidence of sudden death. ARB, ARNI, BB and SGLT2i have been associated with clear benefits in reverse cardiac remodeling. Additionally, there is consistent evidence of renal protection from ARB, ARNI, and SGLT2i in renal protection and of benefits for hospitalized patients from ARNI and SGLT2i. In conclusion, the combination of drugs that gather most beneficial effects in HFrEF, beyond cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization, would be ideally pursued.

Early Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Renal Dysfunction: An Analysis of the TRANSITION Study

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval 2.2-6.1, P < .001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, -28.6% vs -44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T -20.3% vs -33.9%) (P < .001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P = .029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02661217.

NT-proBNP and high intensity care for acute heart failure: the STRONG-HF trial

AIMS

STRONG-HF showed that rapid up-titration of guideline-recommended medical therapy (GRMT), in a high intensity care (HIC) strategy, was associated with better outcomes compared with usual care. The aim of this study was to assess the role of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at baseline and its changes early during up-titration.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1077 patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF) and with a >10% NT-proBNP decrease from screening (i.e. admission) to randomization (i.e. pre-discharge), were included. Patients in HIC were stratified by further NT-proBNP changes, from randomization to 1 week later, as decreased (≥30%), stable (<30% decrease to ≤10% increase), or increased (>10%). The primary endpoint was 180-day HF readmission or death. The effect of HIC vs. usual care was independent of baseline NT-proBNP. Patients in the HIC group with stable or increased NT-proBNP were older, with more severe acute HF and worse renal and liver function. Per protocol, patients with increased NT-proBNP received more diuretics and were up-titrated more slowly during the first weeks after discharge. However, by 6 months, they reached 70.4% optimal GRMT doses, compared with 80.3% for those with NT-proBNP decrease. As a result, the primary endpoint at 60 and 90 days occurred in 8.3% and 11.1% of patients with increased NT-proBNP vs. 2.2% and 4.0% in those with decreased NT-proBNP (P = 0.039 and P = 0.045, respectively). However, no difference in outcome was found at 180 days (13.5% vs. 13.2%; P = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with acute HF enrolled in STRONG-HF, HIC reduced 180-day HF readmission or death regardless of baseline NT-proBNP. GRMT up-titration early post-discharge, utilizing increased NT-proBNP as guidance to increase diuretic therapy and reduce the GRMT up-titration rate, resulted in the same 180-day outcomes regardless of early post-discharge NT-proBNP change.

Growth Differentiation Factor 15 (GDF-15), a New Biomarker in Heart Failure Management

The emergence of biomarkers across medicine's subspecialties continues to evolve. In essence, a biomarker is a biological observation that clearly substitutes a clinical endpoint or intermediate outcome not only are more difficult to observe but also, biomarkers are easier, less expensive and could be measured over shorter periods. In general, biomarkers are versatile and not only used for disease screening and diagnosis but, most importantly, for disease characterization, monitoring, and determination of prognosis as well as individualized therapeutic responses. Obviously, heart failure (HF) is no exception to the use of biomarkers. Currently, natriuretic peptides are the most used biomarkers for both diagnosis and prognostication, while their role in the monitoring of treatment is still debatable. Although several other new biomarkers are currently under investigation regarding diagnosis and determination of prognosis, none of them are specific for HF, and none are recommended for routine clinical use at present. However, among these emerging biomarkers, we would like to highlight the potential for growth differentiation factor (GDF)-15 as a plausible new biomarker that could be helpful in providing prognostic information regarding HF morbidity and mortality.

Influence of diabetes on sacubitril/valsartan titration and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for heart failure

AIMS

Diabetes mellitus is associated with worse outcomes and lower attainment of disease-modifying therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This post hoc analysis of TRANSITION compared the patterns of tolerability and uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF stabilized after hospital admission due to acute decompensated HF depending on the presence or absence of diabetes as a co-morbidity.

METHODS

TRANSITION, a randomized, open-label study compared sacubitril/valsartan initiation pre-discharge vs. post-discharge (up to14 days) in 991 patients hospitalized for acutely decompensated HFrEF. The impact of diabetes status on tolerability and safety was studied at 10-week and 26-week post-randomization.

RESULTS

Among the 991 patients analysed at baseline, 460 (46.4%) had diabetes and exhibited a higher risk profile. At 10 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan target dose (97/103 mg bid) was achieved in a similar proportion of patients in each subgroup, when initiated pre-discharge or post-discharge respectively [diabetes subgroup: 47% (n = 105/226) vs. 50% (n = 115/228); relative risk ratio (RRR), 0.923; P = 0.412; non-diabetes subgroup: 45% (n = 119/267) vs. 51% (n = 133/261); RRR, 0.878; P = 0.155]. The proportions of patients achieving and maintaining either 49/51 mg or 97/103 mg bid [diabetes subgroup: 61.1% (n = 138/226) vs. 67.5% (n = 154/228); RRR, 0.909; P = 0.175; non-diabetes subgroup: 62.9% [n = 168/267] vs 69.3% [n = 181/261]; RRR, 0.906; P = 0.118] or any dose for ≥2 weeks leading to Week 10 [diabetes subgroup: 85% (n = 192/226) vs. 88.2% (n = 201/228); RRR, 0.966; P = 0.356; non-diabetes subgroup: 86.9% (n = 232/267) vs. 90.8% (n = 237/261); RRR, 0.963; P = 0.215] were also similar in each subgroup, when initiated pre-discharge or post-discharge, respectively. At 10 weeks, hypotension and renal dysfunction rates were similar, although hyperkalaemia was higher among patients with diabetes (15.9% vs. 9.5%). The rate of permanent discontinuation due to adverse events was similar in the diabetes and non-diabetes subgroups at 10 weeks, respectively: pre-discharge (7.5% vs. 7.1%) or post-discharge (5.7% vs. 4.2%). Similar patterns of uptitration and tolerability were observed at 26 weeks. Cardiac biomarkers including NT-proBNP (P < 0.005) and hs-TnT (P < 0.005) reduced significantly from baseline levels in both subgroups at Weeks 4 and 10; however, the response was greater among patients without diabetes. Mortality (diabetes vs. non-diabetes subgroups: 3.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.438) and HF rehospitalization (diabetes vs. non-diabetes subgroups: 36.3% vs. 33.0%; P = 0.295) did not differ between the groups at 26 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a higher risk profile among patients with diabetes, sacubitril/valsartan initiation either before or shortly after discharge in hospitalized patients with HFrEF resulted in comparable rates of dose up-titration and tolerability as in those without diabetes.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac reverse remodeling and cardiac resynchronization in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Introduction

In 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) has shown that sacubitril/valsartan can reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than enalapril (an ACEI) in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Similarly, the PARADIGM-HF trial (Comparison of Sacubitril-Valsartan vs. Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized from an Acute Heart Failure Episode) came to similar conclusions and extended the PARADIGM-HF trial results in 2019. Since then, numerous new studies have provided further insight in HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan can reduce N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, increase left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), reverse ventricular remodeling, and reduce other non-fatal manifestations of clinical deterioration as compared to ACEI/ARB. However, few trials have compared the effects of these drugs in patients shortly after AMI. Therefore, it is necessary to further explore the clinical efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with AMI.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial to determine the superiority in ameliorating ventricular remodeling and preventing of heart failure in patients with AMI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 148 patients were randomly assigned (85 to sacubitril/valsartan and 63 to valsartan).

Results

LAV, LVDV, and LVSV were all decreased in the sacubitril/valsartan group when compared with before treatment, but there was no difference between the sacubitril/valsartan group and the valsartan group. In addition, compared with before treatment in the sacubitril/valsartan group, the heart global work index (GWI) and the global work efficiency (GWE) increased, while the heart global wasted work (GWW) decreased. Patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group have similar MACE and adverse side effects to those in the valsartan group.

Conclusion

Sacubitril/valsartan has the same performance as valsartan in inhibiting ventricular remodeling and preventing heart failure after PCI in patients with AMI, and its clinical application is safe. It provides a clinical foundation for the application of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with AMI.

Contemporary Data on the Status and Medical Management of Acute Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute heart failure (AHF) is among the leading causes for unplanned hospital admission. Despite advancements in the management of chronic heart failure, the prognosis of AHF remains poor with high in-hospital mortality and increased rates of unfavorable post-discharge outcomes. With this review, we aim to summarize current data on AHF epidemiology, focus on the different patient profiles and classifications, and discuss management, including novel therapeutic options in this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is significant heterogeneity among patients admitted for AHF in their baseline characteristics, heart failure (HF) aetiology and precipitating factors leading to decompensation. A novel classification scheme based on four distinct clinical scenarios has been included in the most recent ESC guidelines, in an effort to better risk stratify patients and guide treatment. Intravenous diuretics, vasodilators, and inotropes remain the cornerstone of management in the acute phase, and expansion of use of mechanical circulatory support has been noted in recent years. Meanwhile, many treatments that have proved their value in chronic heart failure demonstrate promising results in the setting of AHF and research in this field is currently ongoing. Acute heart failure remains a major health challenge with high in-hospital mortality and unfavorable post-discharge outcomes. Admission for acute HF represents a window of opportunity for patients to initiate appropriate treatment as soon as possible after stabilization. Future studies are needed to elucidate which patients will benefit the most by available therapies and define the optimal timing for treatment implementation.

The Relationship between Angiotensin–Neprilysin Treatment, Echocardiographic Parameters, and NT-proBNP Levels in HFpEF Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Background

The valsartan-sacubitril therapy improved the outcomes of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) of a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In ADHF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it is not yet clear whether the same treatment regimen may be safely used to treat ADHF.

Methods

For this study, HFpEF patients hospitalized due to ADHF were enrolled. Following hemodynamic stabilization, patients were randomized into two groups that were treated with enalapril or sacubitril-valsartan. In this trial, the primary efficacy outcomes were changes in echocardiographic parameters and NT-proBNP levels from baseline to 8 weeks treatment.

Results

ARNI treatment resulted in a significant decrease in NT-proBNP levels and an increase in LVEF in patients with HFpEF. However, HFpEF patients that underwent ARNI treatment achieved better outcomes than did patients that underwent ACEI treatment.

Conclusion

Sacubitril-valsartan treatment, which lowered NT-proBNP levels and improved cardiac function, was more effective in HFpEF patients with acute decompensated heart failure than enalapril.

New therapeutic options for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and acute decompensated heart failure

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) are at severe risk of death and rehospitalization. Several clinical studies have been designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new molecules administered before discharge or shortly after ADHF. The aim of this article is to summarize current knowledge on recently published findings on treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ADHF.

METHODS

We performed a thorough search for literature pertaining to our review via the PubMed database.

RESULTS

In this review, we summarize original papers concerning the efficacy and safety of new molecules in patients with HFrEF and ADHF.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-discharge initiation of treatment with new molecules is possible and safe for patients with HFrEF and ADHF. New molecules, if administered before discharge or shortly after, reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure within the vulnerable phase, and are also nephroprotective.

Real-World Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Women and Men With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) is a novel and effective therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Despite several sex-specific particularities that may influence drug effects, there has been no prior study evaluating the safety of SV in women with HFrEF in the "real-world."

METHODS

We performed a literature search to identify observational studies evaluating SV. We contacted all authors to obtain sex-specific data on major adverse outcomes. We compared all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) deaths, heart failure hospitalizations, hyperkalemia, and hypotension in men and women.

RESULTS

We identified five cohort studies enrolling 8,981 patients; 6,092 men (67.8%) and 2,889 women (32.2%). The mean age was 67 years in both sexes. The rates for all-cause mortality, CV mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, hypotension, and hyperkalemia were similar between women and men. Although the unadjusted aggregate rates of all-cause and CV mortalities were numerically higher in men than in women, these differences did not reach statistical differences.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis showed similar rates of major adverse events in men and women with HFrEF treated with SV. Larger observational studies with longer duration and a higher number of women are needed to confirm the long-term safety of SV in women in the clinical practice.

Sacubitril-Valsartan, Clinical Benefits and Related Mechanisms of Action in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. A Review

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome characterized by the presence of dyspnea or limited exertion due to impaired cardiac ventricular filling and/or blood ejection. Because of its high prevalence, it is a major health and economic burden worldwide. Several mechanisms are involved in the pathophysiology of HF. First, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is over-activated, causing vasoconstriction, hypertension, elevated aldosterone levels and sympathetic tone, and eventually cardiac remodeling. Second, an endogenous compensatory mechanism, the natriuretic peptide (NP) system is also activated, albeit insufficiently to counteract the RAAS effects. Since NPs are degraded by the enzyme neprilysin, it was hypothesized that its inhibition could be an important therapeutic target in HF. Sacubitril/valsartan is the first of the class of dual neprilysin and angiotensin receptor inhibitors (ARNI). In patients with HFrEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan has demonstrated to significantly reduce mortality and the rates of hospitalization and rehospitalization for HF when compared to enalapril. This communication reviews in detail the demonstrated benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of patients with HFrEF, including reduction of mortality and disease progression as well as improvement in cardiac remodeling and quality of life. The hemodynamic and organic effects arising from its dual mechanism of action, including the impact of neprilysin inhibition at the renal level, especially relevant in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, are also reviewed. Finally, the evidence on the demonstrated safety and tolerability profile of sacubitril/valsartan in the different subpopulations studied has been compiled. The review of this evidence, together with the recommendations of the latest clinical guidelines, position sacubitril/valsartan as a fundamental pillar in the treatment of patients with HFrEF.

ARNI versus ACEI/ARB in Reducing Cardiovascular Outcomes after Myocardial Infarction

Aims

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) therapy for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Methods and results

Data were collected from the Biobank of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University between January 2016 and December 2020. A total of 7556 AMI patients were screened for eligibility. Propensity score matching based on age, sex, blood pressure, kidney function, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and cardiovascular medication were conducted, resulting in 291 patients with AMI being assigned to ARNI, ACEI, and ARB group, respectively. Patients receiving ARNI had significantly lower rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome than ACEI {hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27–0.95], P = 0.02}, and ARB users [HR 0.47, (95%CI, 0.24–0.90), P = 0.02]. Patients receiving ARNI showed lower rates of cardiovascular death than ACEI [HR 0.37, (95%CI, 0.18–0.79), P = 0.01] and ARB users [HR 0.41, (95%CI, 0.18–0.95), P = 0.04]. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with LVEF no more than 40% tend to benefit more from ARNI as compared with ACEI [HR 0.30, (95%CI, 0.11–0.86), P = 0.01] or ARB [HR 0.21, (95%CI, 0.04–1.1), P = 0.05]. Patients aged no more than 60 years exhibited reduced composite endpoints [HR for ARNI vs. ARB: 0.11, (95%CI, 0.03–0.46), P = 0.002].

Conclusions

In patients with AMI, ARNI was superior to ACEI/ARB in reducing the long‐term adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Subgroup analysis further indicates that ARNI is more likely to benefit patients with LVEF less than 40% and aged less than 60 years.

Management of Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and Diabetes Mellitus

Chronic heart failure (CHF) occurs in 4.3-28% of patients with diabetes mellitus and is most often associated with the presence of coronary heart disease, arterial hypertension and the direct adverse effects of insulin-resistance, hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia on the myocardium. Diabetes mellitus occurs in 12-47% of patients with CHF and can develop within several years after a diagnosis of HF in 22% of patients due to insulin-resistance of failure tissues. The presence of diabetes mellitus leads to a greater severity of clinical symptoms and hospitalization rate, worsening of quality of life and prognosis in CHF. A decreased left ventricular ejection fraction is an independent predictor of the poor prognosis in the patients with diabetes mellitus. The algorithm of the treatment of CHF in the patients with and without diabetes mellitus is not fundamentally different, but it requires taking into account the metabolic effects of the prescribed drugs. Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor are increasingly used in clinical practice and are gradually replacing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and sartans in CHF both without diabetes mellitus and in its presence. Recently, the effectiveness of type 2 sodium glucose cotransporter inhibitors has been proven in patients with CHF with and without diabetes mellitus. This review is devoted to the relationship of diabetes mellitus and CHF, as well as the approaches to the management of such comorbid patients.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: an expert consensus position paper

The short-term mortality and rehospitalization rates after admission for acute heart failure (AHF) remain high, despite the high level of adherence to contemporary practice guidelines. Observational data from non-randomized studies in AHF strongly support the in-hospital administration of oral evidence-based modifying chronic heart failure (HF) medications (i.e., b-blockers, ACE inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) to reduce morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, a well-designed prospective randomized multicenter study (PIONEER-HF) showed an improved clinical outcome and stress/injury biomarker profile after in-hospital administration of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) as compared to enalapril, in hemodynamically stable patients with AHF. However, sac/val implementation during hospitalization remains suboptimal due to the lack of an integrated individualized plan or well-defined appropriateness criteria for transition to oral therapies, an absence of specific guidelines regarding dose selection and the up-titration process, and uncertainty regarding patient eligibility.

In the present expert consensus position paper, clinical practical recommendations are proposed, together with an action plan algorithm, to encourage and facilitate sac/val administration during hospitalization after an AHF episode with the aim of improving efficiencies of care and resource utilization.

CCS/CHFS Heart Failure Guidelines Update: Defining a New Pharmacologic Standard of Care for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

In this update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure (HF) guidelines, we provide comprehensive recommendations and practical tips for the pharmacologic management of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since the 2017 comprehensive update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of HF, substantial new evidence has emerged that has informed the care of these patients. In particular, we focus on the role of novel pharmacologic therapies for HFrEF including angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitors, and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in conjunction with other long established HFrEF therapies. Updated recommendations are also provided in the context of the clinical setting for which each of these agents might be prescribed; the potential value of each therapy is reviewed, where relevant, for chronic HF, new onset HF, and for HF hospitalization. We define a new standard of pharmacologic care for HFrEF that incorporates 4 key therapeutic drug classes as standard therapy for most patients: an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (as first-line therapy or after angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker titration); a β-blocker; a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; and a sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitor. Additionally, many patients with HFrEF will have clinical characteristics for which we recommended other key therapies to improve HF outcomes, including sinus node inhibitors, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, hydralazine/nitrates in combination, and/or digoxin. Finally, an approach to management that integrates prioritized pharmacologic with nonpharmacologic and invasive therapies after a diagnosis of HFrEF is highlighted.