Effectiveness of remote pulmonary artery pressure estimating in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Heart failure (HF) poses a significant challenge, often leading to frequent hospitalizations and compromised quality of life. Continuous pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) monitoring offers a surrogate for congestion status in ambulatory HF care. This meta-analysis examines the efficacy of PAP monitoring devices (CardioMEMS and Chronicle) in preventing adverse outcomes in HF patients, addressing gaps in prior randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Five RCTs (2572 participants) were systematically reviewed. PAP monitoring significantly reduced HF-related hospitalizations (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.6-0.87], p = 0.0006) and HF events (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75-0.99], p = 0.03), with no impact on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. Subgroup analyses highlighted the significance of CardioMEMS and blinded studies. Meta-regression indicated a correlation between prolonged follow-up and increased reduction in HF hospitalizations. The risk of bias was generally high, with evidence certainty ranging from low to moderate. PAP monitoring devices exhibit promise in diminishing HF hospitalizations and events, especially in CardioMEMS and blinded studies. However, their influence on mortality remains inconclusive. Further research, considering diverse patient populations and intervention strategies with extended follow-up, is crucial for elucidating the optimal role of PAP monitoring in HF management.

Critical re-evaluation of the identification of iron deficiency states and effective iron repletion strategies in patients with chronic heart failure.

According to current guidelines, iron deficiency is defined by a serum ferritin level <100 ng/ml or a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20% if the serum ferritin level is 100-299 µg/L. These criteria were developed to encourage the use of intravenous iron as an adjunct to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of renal anaemia. However, in patients with heart failure, these criteria are not supported by any pathophysiological or clinical evidence that they identify an absolute or functional iron deficiency state. A low baseline TSAT-but not serum ferritin level-appears to be a reliable indicator of the effect of intravenous iron to reduce major heart failure events. In randomized controlled trials, intravenous iron decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or total heart failure hospitalization in patients with a TSAT <20% (risk ratio 0.67 [0.49-0.92]) but not in patients with a TSAT ≥20% (risk ratio 0.99 [0.74-1.30]), with the magnitude of the risk reduction being proportional to the severity of hypoferraemia. Patients who were enrolled in clinical trials solely because they had a serum ferritin level <100 µg/L showed no significant benefit on heart failure outcomes, and it is noteworthy that serum ferritin levels of 20-300 µg/L lie entirely within the range of normal values for healthy adults. Current guidelines reflect the eligibility criteria of clinical trials, which inadvertently adopted unvalidated criteria to define iron deficiency. Reliance on these guidelines would lead to the treatment of many patients who are not iron deficient (serum ferritin level <100 µg/L but normal TSAT) and ignores the possibility of iron deficiency in patients with a low TSAT but with serum ferritin level of >300 µg/L. Importantly, analyses of benefit based on trial eligibility-driven guidelines substantially underestimate the magnitude of heart-failure-event risk reduction with intravenous iron in patients who are truly iron deficient. Based on all available data, we recommend a new mechanism-based and trial-tested approach that reflects the totality of evidence more faithfully than the historical process adopted by clinical investigators and by the guidelines. Until additional evidence is forthcoming, an iron deficiency state in patients with heart failure should be defined by a TSAT <20% (as long as the serum ferritin level is <400 µg/L), and furthermore, the use of a serum ferritin level <100 µg/L alone as a diagnostic criterion should be discarded.

Identification of three mechanistic pathways for iron-deficient heart failure.

Current understanding of iron-deficient heart failure is based on blood tests that are thought to reflect systemic iron stores, but the available evidence suggests greater complexity. The entry and egress of circulating iron is controlled by erythroblasts, which (in severe iron deficiency) will sacrifice erythropoiesis to supply iron to other organs, e.g. the heart. Marked hypoferraemia (typically with anaemia) can drive the depletion of cardiomyocyte iron, impairing contractile performance and explaining why a transferrin saturation < ≈15%-16% predicts the ability of intravenous iron to reduce the risk of major heart failure events in long-term trials (Type 1 iron-deficient heart failure). However, heart failure may be accompanied by intracellular iron depletion within skeletal muscle and cardiomyocytes, which is disproportionate to the findings of systemic iron biomarkers. Inflammation- and deconditioning-mediated skeletal muscle dysfunction-a primary cause of dyspnoea and exercise intolerance in patients with heart failure-is accompanied by intracellular skeletal myocyte iron depletion, which can be exacerbated by even mild hypoferraemia, explaining why symptoms and functional capacity improve following intravenous iron, regardless of baseline haemoglobin or changes in haemoglobin (Type 2 iron-deficient heart failure). Additionally, patients with advanced heart failure show myocardial iron depletion due to both diminished entry into and enhanced egress of iron from the myocardium; the changes in iron proteins in the cardiomyocytes of these patients are opposite to those expected from systemic iron deficiency. Nevertheless, iron supplementation can prevent ventricular remodelling and cardiomyopathy produced by experimental injury in the absence of systemic iron deficiency (Type 3 iron-deficient heart failure). These observations, taken collectively, support the possibility of three different mechanistic pathways for the development of iron-deficient heart failure: one that is driven through systemic iron depletion and impaired erythropoiesis and two that are characterized by disproportionate depletion of intracellular iron in skeletal and cardiac muscle. These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and all pathways may be operative at the same time or may occur sequentially in the same patients.

Association of Reduced Left Atrial Reserve With Exercise Intolerance and Outcome in Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive heart disease (HHD) is a leading contributor to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However the mechanisms behind the transition to the symptomatic phase remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: We sought the association of the exercise response of LA mechanical function with functional capacity, symptoms and outcome across the HF spectrum in hypertension. METHODS: Echocardiography (including LA reservoir [PALS] and contractile strain [PACS], and LA stiffness index) were performed at rest and immediately post-exercise in 139 patients with HHD- 35 with stage A, 48 with stage B and 56 with stage C HFpEF. Patients were followed for HF and atrial fibrillation (AF). RESULTS: Exercise capacity was progressively worse from stage A through stage B to stage C, and accompanied by a gradual impairment of changes in PALS and PACS from rest to exercise, whereas LA stiffness reserve remained unchanged until stage C. PALS and PACS reserves were independently associated with exercise capacity(p=0.017 and 0.008, respectively). LA stiffness reserve and E/e' were the strongest associations of symptomatic HF. Over a median of 25 months, 35 patients developed HF and/or AF. PALS and PACS reserves were associated with the study endpoints after adjusting for age, diabetes, NT-proBNP, LA volume index, resting E/e' and resting PALS/PACS. CONCLUSIONS: Impaired exercise reserve of LA strain and stiffness are associated with reduced functional capacity in hypertension, and LA strain reserve is independently associated with outcome. These parameters appear to be determinants of progression to overt HF in HHD, however their contribution may differ depending on HF stage.

Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of early vs. late enrollees of the STRONG-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: The STRONG-HF trial showed that high-intensity care (HIC) consisting of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and close follow-up reduced all-cause death or heart failure (HF) readmission at 180 days compared to usual care (UC). We hypothesized that significant differences in patient characteristics, management, and outcomes over the enrolment period may exist. METHODS: Two groups of the 1,078 patients enrolled in STRONG-HF were created according to the order of enrolment within center. The early group consisted of the first 10 patients enrolled at each center (N = 342) and the late group consisted of the following patients (N = 736). RESULTS: Late enrollees were younger, had more frequently reduced ejection fraction, slightly lower NT-proBNP and creatinine levels compared with early enrollees. The primary outcome occurred less frequently in early compared to late enrollees (15% vs. 21%, aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-0.99, P = .044). No treatment-by-enrolment interaction was seen in respect to the average percentage of optimal dose of GDMT after randomization, which was consistently higher in early and late patients randomized to HIC compared to UC. The higher use of renin-angiotensin-inhibitors in the HIC arm was more pronounced in the late enrollees both after randomization (interaction-P = .013) and at 90 days (interaction-P < .001). No interaction was observed for safety events. Patients randomized late to UC displayed a trend toward more severe outcomes (26% vs. 16%, P = .10), but the efficacy of HIC showed no interaction with the enrolment group (aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.35-1.67 in early and 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.83 in late enrollees, adjusted interaction-P = .51) with similar outcomes in the HIC arm in late and early enrollees (16% vs. 13%, P = .73). CONCLUSIONS: Late enrollees have different clinical characteristics and higher event rates compared to early enrollees. GDMT implementation in the HIC arm robustly achieved similar doses with consistent efficacy in early and late enrollees, mitigating the higher risk of adverse outcome in late enrollees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412201.

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.

Titration of Medications After Acute Heart Failure Is Safe, Tolerated, and Effective Regardless of Risk.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) decisions may be less affected by single patient variables such as blood pressure or kidney function and more by overall risk profile. In STRONG-HF (Safety, tolerability and efficacy of up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies for acute heart failure), high-intensity care (HIC) in the form of rapid uptitration of heart failure (HF) GDMT was effective overall, but the safety, tolerability and efficacy of HIC across the spectrum of HF severity is unknown. Evaluating this with a simple risk-based framework offers an alternative and more clinically translatable approach than traditional subgroup analyses. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess safety, tolerability, and efficacy of HIC according to the simple, powerful, and clinically translatable MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic) HF risk score. METHODS: In STRONG-HF, 1,078 patients with acute HF were randomized to HIC (uptitration of treatments to 100% of recommended doses within 2 weeks of discharge and 4 scheduled outpatient visits over the 2 months after discharge) vs usual care (UC). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death or first HF rehospitalization at day 180. Baseline HF risk profile was determined by the previously validated MAGGIC risk score. Treatment effect was stratified according to MAGGIC risk score both as a categorical and continuous variable. RESULTS: Among 1,062 patients (98.5%) with complete data for whom a MAGGIC score could be calculated at baseline, GDMT use at baseline was similar across MAGGIC tertiles. Overall GDMT prescriptions achieved for individual medication classes were higher in the HIC vs UC group and did not differ by MAGGIC risk score tertiles (interaction nonsignificant). The incidence of all-cause death or HF readmission at day 180 was, respectively, 16.3%, 18.9%, and 23.2% for MAGGIC risk score tertiles 1, 2, and 3. The HIC arm was at lower risk of all-cause death or HF readmission at day 180 (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.50-0.86) and this finding was robust across MAGGIC risk score modeled as a categorical (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.62-0.68 in tertiles 1, 2, and 3; interaction nonsignificant) for all comparisons and continuous (interaction nonsignificant) variable. The rate of adverse events was higher in the HIC group, but this observation did not differ based on MAGGIC risk score tertile (interaction nonsignificant). CONCLUSIONS: HIC led to better use of GDMT and lower HF-related morbidity and mortality compared with UC, regardless of the underlying HF risk profile. (Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by NT-proBNP testinG, of Heart Failure Therapies [STRONG-HF]; NCT03412201).

Dapagliflozin and quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire in patients with heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Although much is known about the usefulness of heart failure (HF)-specific instruments for assessing patient well-being, less is known about the value of generic instruments for the measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in HF. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and index scores, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in patients with HF and the effect of dapagliflozin on these scores. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a patient-level pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, which investigated the effectiveness and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF), respectively. Patients reporting higher (better) EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores had a lower prevalence of comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation and hypertension, than patients with a worse score. They were also more likely to have better investigator-reported (New York Heart Association class) and patient-self-reported (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) health status and lower median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Compared to patients with the lowest scores (Q1), those with higher EQ-5D-5L VAS scores had better outcomes: the hazard ratio for the composite of cardiovascular death or worsening HF was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.91) in Q2, 0.74 (0.65-0.84) in Q3, and 0.62 (0.54-0.72) in Q4. The risk of each component of the composite outcome, and all-cause death, was also lower in patients with better scores. Similar findings were observed for the index score. Treatment with dapagliflozin improved both EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores across the range of ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: Both higher (better) EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores were associated with better outcomes. Dapagliflozin treatment improved EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores, irrespective of ejection fraction.

Reduced congestion and improved response to a fluid/sodium challenge in chronic heart failure patients after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan: The NATRIUM-HF study.

AIMS: The effects of initiating sacubitril/valsartan in patients with stable heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on response to fluid and sodium expansion are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We have explored changes in natriuresis, diuresis, and congestion in response to the administration of intravenous fluid/sodium load in patients with HFrEF before as compared to after the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. At baseline (before sacubitril/valsartan initiation) and 2 and 3 months after the initiation, patients underwent an evaluation that consisted of three phases of 3 h: the rest phase (0-3 h), the load phase (3-6 h) in which 1 L of intravenous Ringer solution was administered, and the diuretic phase (6-9 h) at the beginning of which furosemide was administered. Overall, 216 patients completed the study. In comparison to baseline values, at 2 and 3 months after sacubitril/valsartan initiation, patients' diuresis and natriuresis in response to Ringer administration significantly increased (mean difference: 38.8 [17.38] ml, p = 0.0040, and 9.6 [2.02] mmol, p < 0.0001, respectively). Symptoms and signs of congestion after the fluid/sodium challenge were significantly decreased at months 2 and 3 compared to baseline. Compared to baseline, there was also an increment of natriuresis after furosemide administration on sacubitril/valsartan (9.8 [5.13] mmol, p = 0.0167). There was a significant decrease in body weight in subsequent visits when compared to baseline values (-0.50 [-12.7, 7.4] kg at 2 months, and -0.75 [-15.9, 7.5] kg at 3 months; both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF patients was associated with improvements in natriuresis, diuresis, and weight loss and better clinical adaptation to potentially decongestive stressors.

Dapagliflozin and Timing of Prior Heart Failure Hospitalization: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

BACKGROUND: Patients recently hospitalized for heart failure (HF) are at a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, but they may experience a greater absolute and relative benefit from effective therapies than individuals who are considered more "stable." OBJECTIVES: The authors examined the effects of dapagliflozin according to the timing of prior HF hospitalization in a patient-level pooled analysis of DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure). METHODS: A total of 11,007 patients were randomized in DAPA-HF and DELIVER. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: In total, 12.4% were hospitalized for HF within 3 months of randomization, 14.2% between 3 and 12 months, and 16.8% more than 1 year before randomization, whereas 56.5% had not been hospitalized. The risk of the primary endpoint was inversely associated with time from prior HF hospitalization, and patients with a recent HF hospitalization had the highest risk. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome across HF hospitalization category (0-3 months, HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.55-0.81]; 3-12 months, HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.59-0.90]; >1 year, HR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.74-1.12]; and no prior hospitalization, HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.73-0.94]; Pinteraction = 0.09). The number of patients needed to treat with dapagliflozin to prevent 1 event over the median follow-up of 22 months was 13, 20, 23, and 28, respectively. The beneficial effect was consistent across the range of LVEF regardless of HF hospitalization category. CONCLUSIONS: The relative benefits of dapagliflozin were consistent across the range of LVEF regardless of the timing of the most recent HF hospitalization with a greater absolute benefit in patients with recent hospitalization.

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Treatment effects of empagliflozin in hospitalized heart failure patients across the range of left ventricular ejection fraction - Results from the EMPULSE trial.

AIM: The EMPULSE (EMPagliflozin in patients hospitalised with acUte heart faiLure who have been StabilizEd) trial showed that, compared to placebo, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/day) improved clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF). We investigated whether efficacy and safety of empagliflozin were consistent across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 530 patients hospitalized for acute de novo or decompensated HF were included irrespective of LVEF. For the present analysis, patients were classified as HF with reduced (HFrEF, LVEF ≤40%), mildly reduced (HFmrEF, LVEF 41-49%) or preserved (HFpEF, LVEF ≥50%) ejection fraction at baseline. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical outcome of death, worsening HF events (HFE) and quality of life over 90 days, assessed by the win ratio. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the primary endpoint and safety. Out of 523 patients with baseline data, 354 (67.7%) had HFrEF, 54 (10.3%) had HFmrEF and 115 (22.0%) had HFpEF. The clinical benefit (hierarchical composite of all-cause death, HFE and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score) of empagliflozin at 90 days compared to placebo was consistent across LVEF categories (≤40%: win ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.75]; 41-49%: win ratio 1.25 [0.66, 2.37)] and ≥50%: win ratio 1.40 [0.87, 2.23], pinteraction = 0.96) with a favourable safety profile. Results were consistent across individual components of the hierarchical primary endpoint. CONCLUSION: The clinical benefit of empagliflozin proved consistent across LVEF categories in the EMPULSE trial. These results support early in-hospital initiation of empagliflozin regardless of LVEF.

Randomized investigation of the MitraClip device in heart failure: Design and rationale of the RESHAPE-HF2 trial design.

AIMS: The safety and effectiveness of the MitraClip device to treat functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) has been tested in previous clinical trials yielding somewhat heterogeneous results in heart failure (HF) patients. Over time, the MitraClip device system has been modified and clinical practice evolved to consider also less severely diseased HF patients with FMR for this therapeutic option. The RESHAPE-HF2 trial aims to assess the safety and effectiveness of the MitraClip device system on top of medical therapy considered optimal in the treatment of clinically significant FMR in symptomatic patients with chronic HF. METHODS: The RESHAPE-HF2 is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, multicentre trial designed to evaluate the use of the MitraClip device (used in the most up-to-date version as available at sites) plus optimal standard of care therapy (device group) compared to optimal standard of care therapy alone (control group). Eligible subjects have signs and symptoms of HF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class II-IV despite optimal therapy), and have moderate-to-severe or severe FMR, as confirmed by a central echocardiography core laboratory; have an ejection fraction between ≥20% and ≤50% (initially 15-35% for NYHA class II patients, and 15-45% for NYHA class III/IV patients); have been adequately treated per applicable standards, and have received appropriate revascularization and cardiac resynchronization therapy, if eligible; had a HF hospitalization or elevated natriuretic peptides (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥300 pg/ml or N-terminal proBNP ≥1000 pg/ml) in the last 90 days; and in whom isolated mitral valve surgery is not a recommended treatment option. The trial has three primary endpoints, which are these: (i) the composite rate of total (first and recurrent) HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death during 24 months of follow-up, (ii) the rate of total (i.e. first and recurrent) HF hospitalizations within 24 months, and (iii) the change from baseline to 12 months in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall score. The three primary endpoints will be analysed using the Hochberg procedure to control the familywise type I error rate across the three hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: The RESHAPE-HF2 trial will provide sound evidence on the MitraClip device and its effects in HF patients with FMR. The recruitment was recently completed with 506 randomized patients.

Left Ventricular Function, Congestion, and Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Risk After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality when started within 14 days of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), congestion, or both, with outcomes and the impact of empagliflozin in reducing HF risk post-AMI. METHODS: In the EMPACT-MI (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, patients were randomized within 14 days of an AMI complicated by either newly reduced LVEF<45%, congestion, or both, to empagliflozin (10 mg daily) or placebo and were followed up for a median of 17.9 months. RESULTS: Among 6,522 patients, the mean baseline LVEF was 41 ± 9%; 2,648 patients (40.6%) presented with LVEF <45% alone, 1,483 (22.7%) presented with congestion alone, and 2,181 (33.4%) presented with both. Among patients in the placebo arm of the trial, multivariable adjusted risk for each 10-point reduction in LVEF included all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.31-1.69; P < 0.0001), first HF hospitalization (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.37-1.96; P < 0.0001), and total HF hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.51-2.36; P < 0.0001). The presence of congestion was also associated with a significantly higher risk for each of these outcomes (HR: 1.52, 1.94, and RR: 2.03, respectively). Empagliflozin reduced the risk for first (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and total (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.89) HF hospitalizations, irrespective of LVEF or congestion, or both. The safety profile of empagliflozin was consistent across baseline LVEF and irrespective of congestion status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI, the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the presence of congestion was associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced first and total HF hospitalizations across the range of LVEF with and without congestion. (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction [EMPACT-MI]; NCT04509674).

Heart failure care in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region: status, barriers, and routes to improvement.

Despite improvements over recent years, morbidity and mortality associated with heart failure (HF) are higher in countries in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region than in Western Europe. With the goal of improving the standard of HF care and patient outcomes in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region, this review aimed to identify the main barriers to optimal HF care and potential areas for improvement. This information was used to suggest methods to improve HF management and decrease the burden of HF in the region that can be implemented at the national and regional levels. We performed a literature search to collect information about HF epidemiology in 11 countries in the region (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia). The prevalence of HF in the region was 1.6-4.7%, and incidence was 3.1-6.0 per 1000 person-years. Owing to the scarcity of published data on HF management in these countries, we also collected insights on local HF care and management practices via two surveys of 11 HF experts representing the 11 countries. Based on the combined results of the literature review and surveys, we created national HF care and management profiles for each country and developed a common patient pathway for HF for the region. We identified five main barriers to optimal HF care: (i) lack of epidemiological data, (ii) low awareness of HF, (iii) lack of national HF strategies, (iv) infrastructure and system gaps, and (v) poor access to novel HF treatments. To overcome these barriers, we propose the following routes to improvement: (i) establish regional and national prospective HF registries for the systematic collection of epidemiological data; (ii) establish education campaigns for the public, patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals; (iii) establish formal HF strategies to set clear and measurable policy goals and support budget planning; (iv) improve access to quality-of-care centres, multidisciplinary care teams, diagnostic tests, and telemedicine/telemonitoring; and (v) establish national treatment monitoring programmes to develop policies that ensure that adequate proportions of healthcare budgets are reserved for novel therapies. These routes to improvement represent a first step towards improving outcomes in patients with HF in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region by decreasing disparities in HF care within the region and between the region and Western Europe.

Impact of Rapid Up-Titration of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies on Quality of Life: Insights From the STRONG-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: This analysis provides details on baseline and changes in quality of life (QoL) and its components as measured by EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, as well as association with objective outcomes, applying high-intensity heart failure (HF) care in patients with acute HF. METHODS: In STRONG-HF trial (Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by NT-proBNP Testing, of Heart Failure Therapies) patients with acute HF were randomized just before discharge to either usual care or a high-intensity care strategy of guideline-directed medical therapy up-titration. Patients ranked their state of health on the EQ-5D visual analog scale score ranging from 0 (the worst imaginable health) to 100 (the best imaginable health) at baseline and at 90 days follow-up. RESULTS: In 1072 patients with acute HF with available assessment of QoL (539/533 patients assigned high-intensity care/usual care) the mean baseline EQ-visual analog scale score was 59.2 (SD, 15.1) with no difference between the treatment groups. Patients with lower baseline EQ-visual analog scale (meaning worse QoL) were more likely to be women, self-reported Black and non-European (P<0.001). The strongest independent predictors of a greater improvement in QoL were younger age (P<0.001), no HF hospitalization in the previous year (P<0.001), lower NYHA class before hospital admission (P<0.001) and high-intensity care treatment (mean difference, 4.2 [95% CI, 2.5-5.8]; P<0.001). No statistically significant heterogeneity in the benefits of high-intensity care was seen across patient subgroups of different ages, with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below 40%, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and systolic blood pressure above or below the median value. The treatment effect on the primary end point did not vary significantly across baseline EQ-visual analog scale (Pinteraction=0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Early up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy significantly improves all dimensions of QoL in patients with HF and improves prognosis regardless of baseline self-assessed health status. The likelihood of achieving optimal doses of HF medications does not depend on baseline QoL. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03412201.

Blood pressure and intensive treatment up-titration after acute heart failure hospitalization: Insights from the STRONG-HF trial.

AIMS: A high-intensity care (HIC) strategy with rapid guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) up-titration and close follow-up visits improved outcomes, compared to usual care (UC), in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). Hypotension is a major limitation to GDMT implementation. We aimed to assess the impact of baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) on the effects of HIC versus UC and the role of early SBP changes in STRONG-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1075 patients hospitalized for AHF with SBP ≥100 mmHg were included in STRONG-HF. For the purpose of this post-hoc analysis, patients were stratified by tertiles of baseline SBP (<118, 118-128, and ≥129 mmHg) and, in the HIC arm, by tertiles of changes in SBP from the values measured before discharge to those measured at 1 week after discharge (≥2 mmHg increase, ≤7 mmHg decrease to <2 mmHg increase, and ≥8 mmHg decrease). The primary endpoint was 180-day heart failure rehospitalization or death. The effect of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint was independent of baseline SBP evaluated as tertiles (pinteraction = 0.77) or as a continuous variable (pinteraction = 0.91). In the HIC arm, patients with increased, stable and decreased SBP at 1 week reached 83.5%, 76.2% and 75.3% of target doses of GDMT at day 90. The risk of the primary endpoint was not significantly different between patients with different SBP changes at 1 week (adjusted p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: In STRONG-HF, the benefits of HIC versus UC were independent of baseline SBP. Rapid GDMT up-titration was performed also in patients with an early SBP drop, resulting in similar 180-day outcome as compared to patients with stable or increased SBP.