Drug Layering in Heart Failure: Phenotype-Guided Initiation

How to tackle therapeutic inertia in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) reduces morbidity and mortality, but its implementation is often poor in daily clinical practice. Barriers to implementation include clinical and organizational factors that might contribute to clinical inertia, i.e. avoidance/delay of recommended treatment initiation/optimization. The spectrum of strategies that might be applied to foster GDMT implementation is wide, and involves the organizational set-up of heart failure care pathways, tailored drug initiation/optimization strategies increasing the chance of successful implementation, digital tools/telehealth interventions, educational activities and strategies targeting patient/physician awareness, and use of quality registries. This scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC provides an overview of the current state of GDMT implementation in HFrEF, clinical and organizational barriers to implementation, and aims at suggesting a comprehensive framework on how to overcome clinical inertia and ultimately improve implementation of GDMT in HFrEF based on up-to-date evidence.

The burden of frailty in heart failure: Prevalence, impacts on clinical outcomes and the role of heart failure medications

BACKGROUND

Frailty often coexists with heart failure (HF), which significantly aggravates the clinical outcomes of older adults. However, studies investigating the interplay between frailty and HF in older adults are scarce. We aimed to assess the prevalence of frailty using the cumulative deficit approach and evaluate the impacts of frailty on health utilization, use of HF-related medications and adverse clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, all-cause readmissions and HF readmissions) among older HF patients.

METHODS

A total of 38 843 newly admitted HF patients were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and categorized into three frailty subgroups (fit, mild frailty and severe frailty) based on the multimorbidity frailty index. Cox regression models and Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard models were used to estimate the impacts of frailty on clinical outcomes at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Generalized estimating equation models were further conducted to evaluate the associations between longitudinal and time-varying use of HF-related medications and clinical outcomes among distinct frailty subgroups.

RESULTS

Of 38 843 older HF patients (mean age 80.4 ± 8.5 years, 52.3% females) identified, 68.3% were categorized as frail (47.5% of mild frailty and 20.8% of severe frailty). The median number of readmissions (fit: 1 [inter-quartile range-IQR 2], mild frailty: 1 [IQR 2] and severe frailty: 2 [IQR 3]) increased with the severity of frailty. Only 27.3% of HF patients died of cardiovascular diseases regardless of their frailty status. Compared with the fit group, the severe frailty group was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.21), all-cause readmissions (subdistributional hazard ratio (sHR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.16-1.25) and HF-related readmissions (sHR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09-1.20) at 2 years of follow-up. Those who used triple or more HF-related medications were at lower risk for all-cause readmissions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49, 95% CI 0.44-0.54) and HF-related readmissions (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37-0.47) at 2 years of follow-up even in the severe frailty group.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty is highly prevalent and associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, all-cause readmissions and HF readmissions among older HF patients. Those who were using triple or more HF-related medications were at lower risk of adverse clinical outcomes across distinct frailty subgroups. Further studies are needed to optimize the treatment strategies for older HF patients with distinct frailty status.

Patient phenotype profiling using echocardiography and natriuretic peptides to personalise heart failure therapy

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive condition with a clinical picture resulting from reduced cardiac output (CO) and/or elevated left ventricular (LV) filling pressures (LVFP). The original Diamond-Forrester classification, based on haemodynamic data reflecting CO and pulmonary congestion, was introduced to grade severity, manage, and risk stratify advanced HF patients, providing evidence that survival progressively worsened for those classified as warm/dry, cold/dry, warm/wet, and cold/wet. Invasive haemodynamic evaluation in critically ill patients has been replaced by non-invasive haemodynamic phenotype profiling using echocardiography. Decreased CO is not infrequent among ambulatory HF patients with reduced ejection fraction, ranging from 23 to 45%. The Diamond-Forrester classification may be used in combination with the evaluation of natriuretic peptides (NPs) in ambulatory HF patients to pursue the goal of early identification of those at high risk of adverse events and personalise therapy to antagonise neurohormonal systems, reduce congestion, and preserve tissue/renal perfusion. The most benefit of the Guideline-directed medical treatment is to be expected in stable patients with the warm/dry profile, who more often respond with LV reverse remodelling, while more selective individualised treatments guided by echocardiography and NPs are necessary for patients with persisting congestion and/or tissue/renal hypoperfusion (cold/dry, warm/wet, and cold/wet phenotypes) to achieve stabilization and to avoid further neurohormonal activation, as a result of inappropriate use of vasodilating or negative chronotropic drugs, thus pursuing the therapeutic objectives. Therefore, tracking the haemodynamic status over time by clinical, imaging, and laboratory indicators helps implement therapy by individualising drug regimens and interventions according to patients' phenotypes even in an ambulatory setting.

Discontinuation of Loop Diuretics in Older Patients with Chronic Stable Heart Failure: A Narrative Review

Loop diuretics (LDs) represent the cornerstone treatment for relieving pulmonary congestion in patients with heart failure (HF). Their benefit is well-recognized in the short term because of their ability to eliminate fluid retention. However, long term, they could adversely influence prognosis due to activation of the neurohumoral mechanism, particularly in older, frail patients. Moreover, the advent of new drugs capable of improving outcomes and reducing pulmonary and systemic congestion signs in HF emphasizes the possibility of a progressive reduction and discontinuation of LD treatment. Nevertheless, few studies were aimed at investigating the safety of LDs withdrawal in older patients with chronic stable HF. This current review aims to approach current evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of LDs discontinuation in patients with chronic stable HF, and is based on the material obtained via the PubMed and Scopus databases from January 2000 to November 2022. Our search yielded five relevant studies, including two randomized controlled trials. All participants presented stable HF at the time of study enrolment. Apart from one study, all the investigations were conducted in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. The most common outcomes examined were the need for diuretic resumption or the event of death and rehospitalization after diuretic withdrawal. As a whole, although based on a few investigations with a low grade of evidence, diuretic therapy discontinuation might be a safe strategy that deserves consideration for patients with stable HF. However, extensive investigations in older adults, accounting for frailty status, are warranted to confirm these data in this peculiar class of patients.

Associations between baseline heart rate and blood pressure and time to events in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients: Data from the QUALIFY international registry

AIMS

A high resting heart rate (RHR) and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) are a risk factor and a risk indicator, respectively, for poor heart failure (HF) outcomes. This analysis evaluated the associations between baseline RHR and SBP with outcomes and treatment patterns in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the QUALIFY (QUality of Adherence to guideline recommendations for LIFe-saving treatment in heart failure surveY) international registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between September 2013 and December 2014, 7317 HFrEF patients with a previous HF hospitalization within 1-15 months were enrolled in the QUALIFY registry. Complete follow-up data were available for 5138 patients. The relationships between RHR and SBP and outcomes were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model and were analysed according to baseline values as high RHR (H-RHR) ≥75 bpm versus low RHR (L-RHR) <75 bpm and high SBP (H-SBP) ≥110 mmHg versus low SBP (L-SBP) <110 mmHg and analysed according to each of the following four phenotypes: H-RHR/L-SBP, L-RHR/L-SBP, H-RHR/H-SBP and L-RHR/H-SBP (reference group). Compared to the reference group, H-RHR/L-SBP was associated with the worst outcomes for the combined primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51-2.21, p < 0.001), cardiovascular death (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.69-4.33, p < 0.001), and HF hospitalization (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.30-2.01, p < 0.001). Low-risk patients with L-RHR/H-SBP achieved more frequently ≥50% of target doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and beta-blockers (BBs) than the other groups. However, 48% and 46% of low-risk patients were not well treated with ACEIs and BBs, respectively (≤50% of target dose or no treatment).

CONCLUSION

In patients with HFrEF and recent hospitalization, elevated RHR and lower SBP identify patients at increased risk for cardiovascular endpoints. While SBP and RHR are often recognized as barriers that deter physicians from treating with high doses of recommended drugs, they are not the only reason leaving many patients suboptimally treated.

Optimisation of treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in routine practice: a position statement from a panel of experts

Major international practice guidelines recommend the use of a combination of 4 medication classes in the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but do not specify how these treatments should be introduced and up-titrated. Consequently, many patients with HFrEF do not receive an optimized treatment regimen. This review proposes a pragmatic algorithm for treatment optimization designed to be easily applied in routine practice. The first goal is to ensure that all 4 recommended medication classes are initiated as early as possible to establish effective therapy, even at a low dose. This is considered preferable to starting fewer medications at a maximum dose. The second goal is to ensure that the intervals between the introduction of different medications and between different titration steps are as short as possible to ensure patient safety. Specific proposals are made for older patients (> 75 years) who are frail, and for those with cardiac rhythm disorders. Application of this algorithm should allow an optimal treatment protocol to be achieved within 2-months in most patients, which should the treatment goal in HFrEF.

Efficacy of ivabradine in heart failure patients with a high-risk profile (analysis from the SHIFT trial)

AIMS

Early start and patient profile-oriented heart failure (HF) management has been recommended. In this post hoc analysis from the SHIFT trial, we analysed the treatment effects of ivabradine in HF patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 110 mmHg, resting heart rate (RHR) ≥ 75 b.p.m., left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 25%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III/IV, and their combination.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SHIFT trial enrolled 6505 patients (LVEF ≤ 35% and RHR ≥ 70 b.p.m.), randomized to ivabradine or placebo on the background of guideline-defined standard care. Compared with placebo, ivabradine was associated with a similar relative risk reduction of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) in patients with SBP < 110 and ≥110 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.08 vs. HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89, P interaction = 0.34], LVEF ≤ 25% and >25% (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.01 vs. HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.90, P interaction = 0.53), and NYHA III-IV and II (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.94 vs. HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, P interaction = 0.79). The effect was more pronounced in patients with RHR ≥ 75 compared with <75 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85 vs. HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-0.1.16, P interaction = 0.02). When combining these profiling parameters, treatment with ivabradine was also associated with risk reductions comparable with patients with low-risk profiles for the primary endpoint (relative risk reduction 29%), cardiovascular death (11%), HF death (49%), and HF hospitalization (38%; all P values for interaction: 0.40). No safety concerns were observed between study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that RHR reduction with ivabradine is effective and improves clinical outcomes in HF patients across various risk indicators such as low SBP, high RHR, low LVEF, and high NYHA class to a similar extent and without safety concern.

Time to benefit of heart rate reduction with ivabradine in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

In the SHIFT (Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial, ISRCTN70429960) study, ivabradine reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in sinus rhythm and with a heart rate (HR) ≥70 bpm. In this study, we sought to determine the clinical significance of the time durations of HR reduction and the significant treatment effect on outcomes among patients with HFrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The time to statistically significant reduction of the primary outcome (HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death) and its components, all-cause death, and HF death, were assessed in a post-hoc analysis of the SHIFT trial in the overall population (HR ≥70 bpm) and at HR ≥75 bpm, representing the approved label in many countries. Compared to placebo, the primary outcome and HF hospitalizations were significantly reduced at 102 days, while there was no effect on cardiovascular death, all-cause death, and HF death at HR ≥70 bpm. In the population with a baseline HR ≥75 bpm, a reduction of the primary outcome occurred after 67 days, HF hospitalization after 78 days, cardiovascular death after 169 days, death from HF after 157 days and all-cause death after 169 days.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with ivabradine should not be deferred in patients in sinus rhythm with a HR of ≥70 bpm to reduce the primary outcome and HF hospitalizations, in particular in patients with HR ≥75 bpm. At HR ≥75 bpm, the time to risk reduction was shorter for reduction of hospitalization and mortality outcomes in patients with HFrEF after initiation of guideline-directed medication, including beta-blockers at maximally tolerated doses.

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.

Identifying the patient with heart failure to be treated with vericiguat

The pathophysiology of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a complex process in which a number of neurohormonal systems are involved. Targeting only some of these systems, but not all, translates into a partial benefit of HF treatment. The nitric oxide-soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC)-cGMP pathway is impaired in HF, leading to cardiac, vascular and renal disturbances. Vericiguat is a once-daily oral stimulator of sGC that restores this system. No other disease-modifying HF drugs act on this system. Despite guidelines recommendations, a substantial proportion of patients are not taking all recommended drugs or when taking them, they do so at low doses, limiting their potential benefits. In this context, treatment should be optimized considering different parameters, such as blood pressure, heart rate, renal function, or potassium, as they may interfere with their implementation at the recommended doses. The VICTORIA trial showed that adding vericiguat to standard therapy in patients with HFrEF significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization by 10% (NNT 24). Furthermore, vericiguat does not interfere with heart rate, renal function or potassium, making it particularly useful for improving the prognosis of patients with HFrEF in specific settings and clinical profiles.

A Review of the Mechanism of Action of Drugs Used in Congestive Heart Failure in Pediatrics

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a complex, heterogeneous medically ill condition that can occur due to diverse primary (cardiomyopathies, coronary artery diseases, and hypertension) and secondary causes (high salt intake and noncompliance toward treatment) and leads to significant morbidity and mortality. The approach toward managing the patient of CHF in the pediatric age group is more complex than in the adult population. Currently, in the adult group of the population of CHF, there are well-established guidelines for managing these patients, but in the case of children, there are no well-established guidelines; therefore, this systematic review gives more ideas for managing the pediatric population undergoing CHF. Treatment of the underlying cause, rectification of any advancing event, and management of pulmonary or systemic obstruction are the principles for management. The most widely used drugs are diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, whereas beta-blockers are less commonly used in children than in adults. ACE inhibitors such as captopril, enalapril, and cilazapril are widely used in the pediatric age group. ACE inhibitors act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) similar to those in the adult population. In children with heart failure (HF), ACE inhibitors reduce the pressure in the aorta, resistance in the systemic blood vessels, and upper left and right chamber pressures but do not appreciably influence pulmonary vascular resistance. We use a patient's initial perfusion and volume status assessment to decide further action for the supervision of acute HF. This paradigm was adopted from adult studies that showed higher rates of morbidity and mortality in patients with HF whose hemodynamic or volume status assessment results were stable with a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure >18 mmHg and a combined index (CI) of 2.2 L/minute/m². ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and spironolactone are the most widely prescribed drugs for the chronic condition of CHF. This study shows the current status of medical therapy for critical as well as persistent pediatric HF.

Efficacy of new medical therapies in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease already receiving neurohormonal inhibitors: a network meta-analysis

AIMS

We assessed the efficacy of the drugs developed after neurohormonal inhibition (NEUi) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The literature was systematically searched for phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving ≥90% patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <45%, of whom <30% were acutely decompensated, and with published information about the subgroup of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Six RCTs were included in a study-level network meta-analysis evaluating the effect of NEUi, ivabradine, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat, and omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) on a composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF. In a fixed-effects model, SGLT2i [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.69-0.89], ARNI (HR 0.79, 95% CrI 0.69-0.90), and ivabradine (HR 0.82, 95% CrI 0.69-0.98) decreased the risk of the composite outcome vs. NEUi, whereas OM did not (HR 0.98, 95% CrI 0.89-1.10). A trend for improved outcome was also found for vericiguat (HR 0.90, 95% CrI 0.80-1.00). In indirect comparisons, both SLGT2i (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.68-0.94) and ARNI (HR 0.80, 95% CrI 0.68-0.95) reduced the risk vs. OM; furthermore, there was a trend for a greater benefit of SGLT2i vs. vericiguat (HR 0.88, 95% CrI 0.73-1.00) and ivabradine vs. OM (HR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.68-1.00). Results were comparable in a random-effects model and in sensitivity analyses. Surface under the cumulative ranking area scores were 81.8%, 80.8%, 68.9%, 44.2%, 16.6%, and 7.8% for SGLT2i, ARNI, ivabradine, vericiguat, OM, and NEUi, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Expanding pharmacotherapy beyond NEUi improves outcomes in HFrEF with CKD.

Old and new equations for maximal heart rate prediction in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction on beta-blockers treatment: results from the MECKI score data set

AIMS

Predicting maximal heart rate (MHR) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) still remains a major concern. In such a context, the Keteyian equation is the only one derived in a HFrEF cohort on optimized β-blockers treatment. Therefore, using the Metabolic Exercise combined with Cardiac and Kidney Indexes (MECKI) data set, we looked for a possible MHR equation, for an external validation of Keteyien formula and, contextually, for accuracy of the historical MHR formulas and their relationship with the HR measured at the anaerobic threshold (AT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 3487 HFrEF outpatients on optimized β-blockers treatment from the MECKI data set were analyzed. Besides excluding all possible confounders, the new equation was derived by using HR data coming from maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test. The simplified derived equation was [109-(0.5*age) + (0.5*HR rest) + (0.2*LVEF)-(5 if haemoglobin <11 g/dL)]. The R2 and the standard error of the estimate were 0.24 and 17.5 beats min-1 with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) = 11.9%. The Keteyian equation had a slightly higher MAPE = 12.3%. Conversely, the Fox and Tanaka equations showed extremely higher MAPE values. The range 75-80% of MHR according to the new and the Keteyian equations was the most accurate in identifying the HR at the AT (MAPEs = 11.3-11.6%).

CONCLUSION

The derived equation to estimate the MHR in HFrEF patients, by accounting also for the systolic dysfunction degree and anaemia, improved slightly the Keteyian formula. Both formulas might be helpful in identifying the true maximal effort during an exercise test and the intensity domain during a rehabilitation programme.

Establishing a Cardiac ICU Recovery Clinic: Characterizing a Model for Continuity of Cardiac Critical Care

BACKGROUND

Care in the cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) has become increasingly intricate due to a temporal rise in noncardiac diagnoses and overall clinical complexity with high risk for short-term rehospitalization and mortality. Survivors of critical illness are often faced with debility and limitations extending beyond the index hospitalization. Comprehensive ICU recovery programs have demonstrated some efficacy but have primarily targeted survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome or sepsis. The efficacy of dedicated ICU recovery programs on the CICU population is not defined.

METHODS

We aim to describe the design and initial experience of a novel CICU-recovery clinic (CICURC). The primary outcome was death or rehospitalization in the first 30 days following hospital discharge. Self-reported outcome measures were performed to assess symptom burden and independence in activities of daily living.

RESULTS

Using standardized criteria, 41 patients were referred to CICURC of which 78.1% established care and were followed for a median of 88 (56-122) days. On intake, patients reported a high burden of heart failure symptoms (KCCQ overall summary score 29.8 [18.0-47.5]), and nearly half (46.4%) were dependent on caretakers for activities of daily living. Thirty days postdischarge, no deaths were observed and the rate of rehospitalization for any cause was 12.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

CICU survivors are faced with significant residual symptom burden, dependence upon caretakers, and impairments in mental health. Dedicated CICURCs may help prioritize treatment of ICU related illness, reduce symptom burden, and improve outcomes. Interventions delivered in ICU recovery clinic for patients surviving the CICU warrant further investigation.

Individualizing the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a journey from hospitalization to long-term outpatient care

INTRODUCTION

: Despite the relevant advances achieved thanks to the traditional step-by-step therapeutic approach, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The pathogenesis of HFrEF is complex, with the implication of various neurohormonal systems, including activation of deleterious pathways (i.e. renin-angiotensin-aldosterone, sympathetic, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] systems) and the inhibition of protective pathways (i.e. natriuretic peptides and the guanylate cyclase system). Therefore, the burden of HF can only be reduced through a comprehensive approach that involves all evidence-based use of available HF drugs targeting the neurohormonal systems involved.

AREAS COVERED

: We performed a critical analysis of evidence from recent clinical trials and assessed the effects of HF therapies on hemodynamics and renal function.

EXPERT OPINION

: HF therapy must be adapted to the clinical profile (i.e. congestion, blood pressure, heart rate, renal function, and electrolytes). Consequently, blood pressure is reduced by beta blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, and, minimally, by SGLT2 inhibitors and vericiguat; heart rate decreases with beta blockers and ivabradine; and renal function is impaired and potassium are levels increased with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and sacubitril/valsartan. Practical recommendations on how to individualize HF therapy according to patient profile are provided.

Network meta-analysis of medical therapy efficacy in more than 90,000 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Following the availability of new drugs for chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we sought to provide an updated and comparative synthesis of the evidence on HFrEF pharmacotherapy efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy in HFrEF patient cohorts with more than 90% of the participants with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 45% and all-cause mortality reported.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine RCTs, accounting for 91,741 subjects, were evaluated. The step-wise introduction of new drugs progressively decreased the risk of all-cause death, up to reaching a random-effects hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (95% credible intervals [CrI] 0.27-0.63) with beta blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) versus placebo. The risk was further reduced by adding sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i; HR 0.38, 95% CrI 0.22-0.60), ivabradine (HR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.21-0.64), or vericiguat (HR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.22-0.65) to neurohormonal inhibitors, and by angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), BB, and MRA (HR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.20-0.60). In a sensitivity analysis considering the ARNI and non-ARNI subgroups of SGLT2i RCTs, the combination SGLT2i + ARNI + BB + MRA was associated with the lowest HR (0.28, 95% CrI 0.16-0.45 vs. 0.40, 95% CrI 0.24-0.60 for SGLT2i + BB + ACEi + MRA). Consistent results were obtained in sensitivity analyses and by calculating surface under the cumulative ranking area, as well as for cardiovascular mortality (information available for 56 RCTs), HF hospitalization (45 RCTs), and all-cause hospitalization (26 RCTs).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination medical therapy including neurohormonal inhibitors and newer drugs, especially ARNI and SGLT2i, confers the maximum benefit with regard to HFrEF prognosis.

[A practical approach to guideline-directed pharmacological treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction]

The 2021 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure recommend the early implementation of all four mortality-lowering drug classes for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), i. e. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor II blocker-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), betablocker (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor-antagonists (MRA), and sodium-glucose linked transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). This article aims to give a practical compendium supporting physicians to enable safe and efficacious treatment for patients with HFrEF.

A multidisciplinary approach to heart failure care in the hospital: improving the patient journey

Despite advancements in care for patients with heart failure (HF), morbidity and mortality remain high. Hospitalizations and readmissions for HF have been the focus of significant attention among health care providers and payers, with an eye towards reducing health care costs. However, considerable variability exists with regard to inpatient workflows and management for patients with HF, which represents a significant opportunity to improve care. Here we provide a summary of optimal inpatient management strategies for HF, focusing on the multidisciplinary team of emergency medicine providers, admitting hospitalists, cardiovascular consultants, pharmacists, nurses, and social workers. The patient journey serves as the template for this review article, from the initial presentation in the emergency department, to decongestion and stabilization, optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy, and discharge and appropriate disposition. Lastly, this review aims not to be proscriptive but rather to provide best practices that are clinically relevant and actionable, with the goal of improving care for patients during the sentinel hospitalization for HF.

Evolving therapeutic strategies for patients hospitalized with new or worsening heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic, progressive, and increasingly prevalent syndrome characterized by stepwise declines in health status and residual lifespan. Despite significant advancements in both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management approaches for chronic HF, the burden of HF hospitalization-whether attributable to new-onset (de novo) HF or worsening of established HF-remains high and contributes to excess HF-related morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditures. Owing to a paucity of evidence to guide tailored interventions in this heterogeneous group, management of acute HF events remains largely subject to clinician discretion, relying principally on alleviation of clinical congestion, as-needed correction of hemodynamic perturbations, and concomitant reversal of underlying trigger(s). Following acute stabilization, the subsequent phase of care primarily involves interventions known to improve long-term outcomes and rehospitalization risk, including initiation and optimization of disease-modifying pharmacotherapy, targeted use of adjunctive therapies, and attention to contributing comorbid conditions. However, even with current standards of care many patients experience recurrent HF hospitalization, or after admission incur worsening clinical trajectories. These patterns highlight a persistent unmet need for evidence-based approaches to inform in-hospital HF care and call for renewed focus on urgent implementation of interventions capable of ameliorating risk of worsening HF. In this review, we discuss key contemporary and emerging therapeutic strategies for patients hospitalized with de novo or worsening HF.

Insights into foundational therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

In this review, we discuss what is meant by "foundational" therapy for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and the evidence supporting the use of the five agents that comprise this group of drugs i.e., sacubitril/valsartan, a beta-blocker, an aldosterone or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor. We review the conventional approach to sequencing these therapies in HFrEF and proposed new rapid sequencing strategies. We review a recent modelling study suggesting the optimal sequence of treatment includes a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition and an MRA as the first two therapies. Finally, we review the important opportunity offered by hospitalization for worsening heart failure to initiate and optimize foundational therapies in patients at high risk of early adverse outcomes.

Association between dosing and combination use of medications and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

To assess the association between combination, dose and use of current guideline-recommended target doses (TD) of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) and β-blockers, and outcomes in a large and unselected contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 17 809 outpatients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) from May 2000 to December 2018, with ejection fraction <40% and duration of HF ≥90 days were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization. Compared with no use of RASi or ARNi, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.76-0.91) with <50% of TD, 0.78 (0.71-0.86) with 50%-99%, and 0.73 (0.67-0.80) with ≥100% of TD. Compared with no use of β-blockers, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.76-0.91), 0.81 (0.74-0.89) and 0.74 (0.68-0.82) with <50%, 50%-99% and ≥100% of TD, respectively. Patients receiving both an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNi and a β-blocker at 50%-99% of TD had a lower adjusted risk of the primary outcome compared with patients only receiving one drug, i.e. ACEi/ARB/ARNi or β-blocker, even if this was at ≥100% of TD.

CONCLUSION

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients using higher doses of RASi or ARNi and β-blockers had lower risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Use of two drug classes at 50%-99% of TD dose was associated with lower risk than one drug class at 100% of TD.

Accelerated and personalized therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Previously, guidelines recommended initiating therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a sequence that follows the chronological order in which trials were conducted, with cautious up-titration of each treatment. It remains unclear whether this historical approach is optimal and alternative approaches may improve patient outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The potential reductions in events that might result from (i) more rapid up-titration of therapies used in the conventional order (based on the chronology of the trials), and (ii) accelerated up-titration and using treatments in different orders than is conventional were modelled using data from six pivotal trials in HFrEF. Over the first 12 months from starting therapy, using a rapid up-titration schedule led to 23 fewer patients per 1000 patients experiencing the composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death and seven fewer deaths from any cause. In addition to accelerating up-titration of treatments, optimized alternative ordering of the drugs used resulted in a further reduction of 24 patients experiencing the composite outcome and six fewer deaths at 12 months. The optimal alternative sequences included sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist as the first two therapies.

CONCLUSION

Modelling of accelerated up-titration schedule and optimized ordering of treatment suggested that at least 14 deaths and 47 patients experiencing the composite outcome per 1000 treated might be prevented over the first 12 months after starting therapy. Standard treatment guidance may not lead to the best patient outcomes in HFrEF, though these findings should be tested in clinical trials.

Drug therapy for HFrEF: What is the "right" dose?

New guidelines have emphasized the primacy of starting the four key life‐saving therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction as quickly as possible, with titration to ‘target dose’ of these, as secondary consideration. In this article, we examine the reasons for this change in emphasis and revisit the evidence regarding the dosing of pharmacological therapy in heart failure. We demonstrate the early benefits obtained with even low doses of most of the foundational therapies for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We also clarify that the ‘target dose’ of those therapies requiring titration was a goal based on tolerability and often not reached in trials, i.e. the proven benefits of our foundational therapies were demonstrated with an average dose that was less than target and many patients in these trials were treated with sub‐target doses.

In-hospital Initiation and Up-titration of Guideline-directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure is suboptimal. The use of guideline-directed medical therapy improves minimally after heart failure hospitalisation, despite this event clearly indicating increased risk of further hospitalisation and death. In-hospital initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapies is one potential strategy to fill these gaps in care, both in the acute vulnerable period after hospital discharge and in the long term. The purpose of this article is to review the knowledge gaps in best practices of in-hospital initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies, the benefits and risks of in-hospital initiation and post-discharge focused titration of guideline-directed medical therapies, the recent literature evaluating these practices, and propose strategies to apply these principles to the care of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.