Search

Background: In the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) trial, omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (HF) events, or cardiovascular death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. The primary aim of this prespecified analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of omecamtiv mecarbil by randomization setting, that is, whether participants were enrolled as outpatients or inpatients., Methods and Results: Patients were randomized either during a HF hospitalization or as an outpatient, within one year of a worsening HF event (hospitalization or emergency department visit). The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF event (HF hospitalization or an urgent emergency department or clinic visit) or cardiovascular death. Of the 8232 patients analyzed, 2084 (25%) were hospitalized at randomization. Hospitalized patients had higher N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations, lower systolic blood pressure, reported more symptoms, and were less frequently treated with a renin-angiotensin system blocker or a beta-blocker than outpatients. The rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome was higher in hospitalized patients (placebo group = 38.3/100 person-years) than in outpatients (23.1/100 person-years); adjusted hazard ratio 1.21 (95% confidence interval 1.12-1.31). The effect of omecamtiv mecarbil versus placebo on the primary outcome was similar in hospitalized patients (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.01) and outpatients (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.02) (interaction P = .51)., Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction had a higher rate of the primary outcome than outpatients. Omecamtiv mecarbil decreased the risk of the primary outcome both when initiated in hospitalized patients and in outpatients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest K.F.D. has received financial support to attend educational meetings from Cytokinetics during the conduct of the study, personal fees from AstraZeneca, consulting fees from Us2.ai and research grants to his institution from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. J.J.V.M. has received funding to his institution from Amgen and Cytokinetics for his participation in the Steering Committee for the ATOMIC-HF, COSMIC-HF, and GALACTIC-HF trials and meetings and other activities related to these trials; has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Dal-Cor, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos; has received personal lecture fees from the Corpus, Abbott, Hikma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier Director, and Global Clinical Trial Partners (GCTP). R.D. has received research grants and other payment or honoraria from Amgen. G.M.F. has received grant funding to his institution from American Heart Association, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL-Behring, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, and National Institutes of Health; has received consulting fees from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Myovant, Novartis, Reprieve, Sequana, Windtree Therapeutics, and WhiteSwell; and has participated on Data Safety Monitoring boards or advisory boards for EBR Systems, LivaNova, Medtronic, Siemens, Rocket Pharma, and V-Wave. M.M. has received funding to his institution from Amgen and Cytokinetics as participant to the Executive Committee during the trial and for patients’ enrolment; has received consulting fees for participation to advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received personal fees as member of Executive or Data Monitoring Committees of sponsored clinical trials from LivaNova and Vifor Pharma; has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Therapeutics for speeches at sponsored meetings; and has participated on Data Safety Monitoring boards for Actelion. S.D.S. has received grant funding to his institution from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bellerophon, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, American Regent, Amgen, Anacardio, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimensions, Cardior, Cardurion, CellProthera, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Dinaqor, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Merck, Moderna, Myokardia, Novartis, Puretech Health, Quantum Genomics, Roche, Sanofi Pasteur, Sarepta, Tenaya, Theracos, and Tremeau. K.F.A. has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Eli Lilly USA, LivaNova USA, Merck, Novartis, and Otsuka; acted as a consultant to Amgen, Cytokinetics, Inc., Novartis, Roche Diagnostics, Relypsa, and Windtree Therapeutics. M.B. has received funds from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation; TTR 219, project No. 322900939) and personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Novartis, ReCor, Servier, Vifor Pharma, and Boehringer Ingelheim. A.R.G. reports consulting fees for clinical trials from Amgen, Novartis, KOWA, and Bayer outside the submitted work; personal payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and leadership or fiduciary role as President, Bulgarian Society of Cardiology 2020-22. J.G.H. has received grants and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; and is Co-Chair of the Heart Failure Pathway Group of the Province of Alberta, Heart Failure lead at University of Calgary, and in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines and Development Committees. M.L. has received grant funding and personal fees from Amgen; has received honoraria from Novartis; and has served as the New Zealand Chairperson for Cardiac Society Australia and New Zealand. P.P. has received research grants to his institution from Amgen and Vifor Pharma; and has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cibiem, Coridea, Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, Renal Guard Solutions, Servier, and Vifor Pharma. M.B.Y. reports funding to his institution from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, and Dalcor Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. F.Z. reports consulting fees from Cardior, Cereno pharmaceutical, Cellprothera, Owkin, Novo Nordisk, Vifor, and Fresenius; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Boehringer and Bayer; payment for expert testimony from Cardiorentis; stock or stock options in Cereno pharmaceutical; and steering committee personal fees from Applied Therapeutics, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer, CVRx, Novartis, and Merck. B.L.C. has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cardurion, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis. Z.M.M. has no conflicts of interest to disclose. S.A.A. is an employee and shareholder of Amgen. P.H.D., S.B.H., S.K., and F.I.M. are employees and shareholders of Cytokinetics. J.R.T. has received personal fees as Chairperson of the GALACTIC-HF Executive Committee from Amgen and Cytokinetics; has received personal fees for research contracts and/or consulting fees from 3ive Labs, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Verily, ViCardia, and Windtree Therapeutics; has served as Secretary and Treasurer of Heart Failure Society of America; and is currently President-Elect of the Heart Failure Society of America. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Left ventricular (LV) circumferential and longitudinal strain provide important insight into LV mechanics and function, each contributing to volumetric changes throughout the cardiac cycle. We sought to explore this strain-volume relationship in more detail, by mathematically integrating circumferential and longitudinal strain and strain rate to predict LV volume and volumetric rates of change., Methods: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging from 229 participants from the Alberta HEART Study (46 healthy controls, 77 individuals at risk for developing heart failure [HF], 70 patients with diagnosed HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF], and 36 patients with diagnosed HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]) were evaluated. LV volume was assessed by the method of disks and strain/strain rate were assessed by CMR feature tracking., Results: Integrating endocardial circumferential and longitudinal strain provided a close approximation of LV ejection fraction (EF Strain ), when compared to gold-standard volumetric assessment (EF Volume : r = 0.94, P < 0.0001). Likewise, integrating circumferential and longitudinal strain rate provided a close approximation of peak ejection and peak filling rates (PER Strain and PFR Strain , respectively) compared to their gold-standard volume-time equivalents (PER Volume , r = 0.73, P < 0.0001 and PFR Volume , r = 0.78, P < 0.0001, respectively). Moreover, each integrated strain measure differentiated patients across the HF continuum (all P < 0.01), with the HFrEF group having worse EF Strain , PER Strain , and PFR Strain compared to all other groups, and HFpEF having less favorable EF Strain and PFR Strain compared to both at-risk and control groups., Conclusions: The data herein establish the theoretical framework for integrating discrete strain components into volumetric measurements across the cardiac cycle, and highlight the potential benefit of this approach for differentiating patients along the heart failure continuum., (© 2023. Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.)

Aims: To compare the cost-effectiveness of immediate and 12-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin treatment in patients with a history of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) from the UK, Canadian, German, and Spanish healthcare perspectives., Methods and Results: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a decision-analytic Markov model with health states defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, type 2 diabetes mellitus status and incidence of heart failure (HF) events. Patient-level data for patients with prior HHF from the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial were used to inform the model inputs on clinical events and utility values. Healthcare costs were sourced from the relevant national reference databases and the published literature. Compared to standard therapy, immediate initiation of dapagliflozin decreased HHF (187 events), urgent HF visits (32 events) and cardiovascular mortality (18 events). Standard therapy was associated with lifetime costs of £13 224 and 4.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Twelve-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin was associated with total discounted lifetime costs and QALYs of £16 660 and 4.61, respectively, compared to £16 912 and 4.66, respectively, for immediate initiation. Compared to standard therapy, immediate and 12-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5779 and £5821, respectively. Compared to 12-month delayed initiation, immediate initiation of dapagliflozin had an ICER of £5263. Results were similar from the Canadian, German, and Spanish healthcare perspectives., Conclusion: Both immediate and 12-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin are cost-effective. However, immediate initiation provides greater clinical benefits, with almost 10% additional QALYs gain, compared to 12-month delayed initiation of dapagliflozin and should be considered standard of care., (© 2023 Health Economics and Outcomes Research, AstraZeneca and The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) have high mortality, hospitalizations, and poorly tolerate evidence-based medical treatment. Omecamtiv mecarbil may be particularly helpful in such patients. This study examined its efficacy and tolerability in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF)., Methods and Results: The GALACTIC-HF enrolled patients with baseline SBP ≥85 mmHg with a primary outcome of time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure event. In this analysis, patients were divided according to their baseline SBP (≤100 vs. >100 mmHg). Among the 8232 analysed patients, 1473 (17.9%) had baseline SBP ≤100 mmHg and 6759 (82.1%) had SBP >100 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 715 (48.5%) and 2415 (35.7%) patients with SBP ≤100 and >100 mmHg, respectively. Patients with lower SBP were at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, appeared to be more effective in reducing the primary composite endpoint in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.94] compared with those with SBP >100 mmHg (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; P-value for interaction = 0.051). In both groups, omecamtiv mecarbil did not change SBP values over time and did not increase the risk of adverse events, when compared with placebo., Conclusion: In GALACTIC-HF, risk reduction of heart failure outcomes with omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo was large and significant in patients with low SBP. Omecamtiv mecarbil did not affect SBP and was well tolerated independent of SBP values., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.M. has received funding to his institution from Amgen and Cytokinetics as participant to the Executive Committee during the trial and for patients’ enrolment; has received consulting fees for participation to advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received personal fees as member of Executive or Data Monitoring Committees of sponsored clinical trials from LivaNova and Vifor Pharma; has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Therapeutics for speeches at sponsored meetings; and has participated on Data Safety Monitoring boards for Actelion. B.L.C. has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cardurion, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis. R.D. has received research grants and other payment or honoraria from Amgen. G.M.F. has received grant funding to his institution from American Heart Association, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL-Behring, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, and National Institutes of Health; has received consulting fees from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Myovant, Novartis, Reprieve, Sequana, Windtree Therapeutics, and WhiteSwell; and has participated on Data Safety Monitoring boards or advisory boards for EBR Systems, LivaNova, Medtronic, Siemens, Rocket Pharma, and V-Wave. J.J.V.M. has received funding to his institution from Amgen and Cytokinetics for his participation in the Steering Committee for the ATOMIC-HF, COSMIC-HF, and GALACTIC-HF trials and meetings and other activities related to these trials; has received personal fees from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Eris Lifesciences, Hikma, Lupin, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and The Corpus; and has received funding paid to his institution for activities related to trials or other activities from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, and Theracos. S.D.S. has received grant funding to his institution from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bellerophon, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, US2.AI; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, American Regent, Amgen, Anacardio, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimensions, Cardior, Cardurion, CellProthera, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Dinaqor, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Merck, Moderna, Myokardia, Novartis, Puretech Health, Quantum Genomics, Roche, Sanofi Pasteur, Sarepta, Tenaya, Theracos, and Tremeau. D.B. has received research grants from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, SOBI, and Zoll; has received consulting fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, SOBI, and Zoll; has received speaker fees or honoraria and support for attending meetings and/or travels from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, SOBI, and Zoll; and is in the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation and Right Ventricular Function. J.C.F. has served on the Board of Directors for the Heart Failure Society of America. C.F. has received personal fees for consulting from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; has received honoraria for lectures and educational events from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; has received honoraria for lectures from Novartis; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bayer, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; has participated on advisory boards for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Vifor Pharma; and has received grants for medical writing from Merck Serono and Roche. E.G. has received consulting fees from AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Servier; has received personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier; and is the President of the Slovak Society of Cardiology. J.G.H. has received grants and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; and is Co-Chair of the Heart Failure Pathway Group of the Province of Alberta, Heart Failure lead at University of Calgary, and in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines and Development Committees. J.L. has received research agreements from Amgen during the conduct of the study through the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases. E.O. has received support to her institution (Montreal Heart Institute) for being local Principal Investigator and member of the Steering Committee of the GALACTIC-HF trial from Amgen and Cytokinetics; has received grant funding to her institution (Montreal Heart Institute) for clinical trials from AstraZeneca, American Regent, Cardurion, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Janssen; has received speaker fees or other honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has participated on Data Safety Monitoring boards or advisory boards for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and the independent COLpEF trial. S.A.A. is an employee and shareholder of Amgen. S.B.H., S.K., and F.I.M. are employees and shareholders of Cytokinetics. J.R.T. has received personal fees as Chairperson of the GALACTIC-HF Executive Committee from Amgen and Cytokinetics; has received personal fees for research contracts and/or consulting fees from 3ive Labs, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Verily, ViCardia, and Windtree Therapeutics; has served as Secretary and Treasurer of Heart Failure Society of America; and is currently President-Elect of the Heart Failure Society of America. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Introduction: Heart failure (HF), and especially HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), remains a challenging condition to define. The heterogenous nature of this population may be related to a variety of underlying etiologies interacting myocardial dysfunction., Method: Alberta HEART study was a prospective, observational cohort that enrolled participants along the spectrum of heart failure including: healthy controls, people at risk of HF, and patients with HF and preserved (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to explore phenotypes of patients with HF and at-risk of developing HF. Utilising 27 detailed clinical, echocardiographic and biomarker variables, latent class analysis with and without multiple imputation was undertaken to identify distinct clinical phenotypes., Results: Of 621 participants, 191 (30.8%) and 169 (27.2%) were adjudicated by cardiologists to have HFpEF and HFrEF respectively. In the overall cohort, latent class analysis identified four distinct phenotypes. Phenotype A (n=152, 24.5%) was a healthy and low risk group. Phenotype B (n=129, 20.8%) demonstrated increased left ventricular mass and end-diastolic volumes, with elevated natriuretic peptides and clinical features of congestion. Phenotype C (n=128, 20.6%) was primarily characterised by obesity (80%) and normal indexed cardiac chamber sizes, low natriuretic peptide levels and minimal features of congestion.  Phenotype D (n=212, 34.1%) consisted of elderly patients with clinical features of congestions. Phenotypes B and D demonstrated the highest risk of mortality and hospitalization over a median follow-up of 3.7 years., Conclusion: Phenotypes with congestive features demonstrated increased risk profiles. Heart failure is a heterogenous classification which requires further work to appropriately categorise patients based on the underlying etiology or mechanism of impairment., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging., Methods and Results: Patients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Amongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Among patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), those with atrial fibrillation (AF) may respond differently to certain treatments than patients without AF. We investigated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF with and without AF in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF). We also examined the effect of dapagliflozin on new-onset AF., Methods and Results: The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening HF (HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death. Of the 4744 patients randomized, 1910 (40.3%) had 'any AF' (history of AF or AF on enrolment electrocardiogram). Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death to a similar extent in patients with and without any AF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.92 and 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.88, respectively; p for interaction = 0.88]. Consistent benefits were observed for the components of the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and improvement of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. Among patients without AF at baseline, dapagliflozin did not significantly reduce the risk of new-onset AF compared with placebo (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60-1.22). However, patients with new-onset AF had a 5 to 6-fold higher risk of adverse outcomes when compared to those without incident AF., Conclusions: Dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of worsening HF events, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, and improved symptoms, in patients with and without AF. Dapagliflozin did not reduce the risk of new-onset AF., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Importance: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a progressive clinical syndrome, and many patients' condition worsen over time despite treatment. Patients with more severe disease are often intolerant of available medical therapies., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil for the treatment of patients with severe heart failure (HF) enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) randomized clinical trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: The GALACTIC-HF study was a global double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial that was conducted at multiple centers between January 2017 and August 2020. A total of 8232 patients with symptomatic HF (defined as New York Heart Association symptom class II-IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less were randomized to receive omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo and followed up for a median of 21.8 months (range, 15.4-28.6 months). The current post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients classified as having severe HF compared with patients without severe HF. Severe HF was defined as the presence of all of the following criteria: New York Heart Association symptom class III to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and hospitalization for HF within the previous 6 months., Interventions: Participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first HF event or cardiovascular (CV) death. Secondary end points included time to CV death and safety and tolerability., Results: Among 8232 patients enrolled in the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, 2258 patients (27.4%; mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.6] years; 1781 men [78.9%]) met the specified criteria for severe HF. Of those, 1106 patients were randomized to the omecamtiv mecarbil group and 1152 to the placebo group. Patients with severe HF who received omecamtiv mecarbil experienced a significant treatment benefit for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), whereas patients without severe HF had no significant treatment benefit (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .005 for interaction). For CV death, the results were similar (HR for patients with vs without severe HF: 0.88 [95% CI, 0.75-1.03] vs 1.10 [95% CI, 0.97-1.25]; P = .03 for interaction). Omecamtiv mecarbil therapy was well tolerated in patients with severe HF, with no significant changes in blood pressure, kidney function, or potassium level compared with placebo., Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of data from the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, omecamtiv mecarbil therapy may have provided a clinically meaningful reduction in the composite end point of time to first HF event or CV death among patients with severe HF. These data support a potential role of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients for whom current treatment options are limited., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929329.

Objectives: This study sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in Black and White patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) enrolled in DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure)., Background: Black patients may respond differently to certain treatments for HFrEF than White patients., Methods: Patients with New York Heart Association functional class II to IV with an ejection fraction of ≤40% and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were eligible for DAPA-HF. Because >99% of Black patients were randomized in the Americas, this post hoc analysis considered Black and White patients enrolled only in North and South America. The primary outcome was the composite of a worsening HF event (HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death., Results: Of the 4,744 patients randomized in DAPA-HF, 1,494 (31.5%) were enrolled in the Americas. Of these, 1,181 (79.0%) were White, and 225 (15.1%) were Black. Black patients had a higher rate of worsening HF events, but not mortality, compared with White patients. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary endpoint similarly in Black patients (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.37-1.03) and White patients (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.52-0.90; P-interaction = 0.70). Consistent benefits were observed for other prespecified outcomes, including the composite of total (first and repeat) HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (P-interaction = 0.43) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. Study drug discontinuation and serious adverse events were not more frequent in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group in either Black or White patients., Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF and cardiovascular death, and it improved symptoms, similarly in Black and White patients without an increase in adverse events. (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [DAPA-HF]; NCT03036124)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures DAPA-HF was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr McMurray is supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant (RE/18/6/34217). Dr Docherty’s employer (University of Glasgow) has been remunerated by AstraZeneca for involvement in the DAPA-HF trial; and he has also received speaker fees from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr Ogunniyi has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Zoll and Advisory Board fees from Pfizer. Dr Desai has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbott, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor Pharma, Relypsa, Regeneron, and Merck; grants and personal fees from Alnylam and Novartis; and personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Dr Diez has received personal fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Howlett has received research grants from University Hospital Foundation, Pfizer, and Novartis; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Otsuka, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Akcea, Alnylam, and Pfizer; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer; and has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Medtronic. Dr Nicolau has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma (National Lead Investigator [NLI]/Steering Committee [SC] member for AFFIRM); research grants from AstraZeneca (NLI), Bayer (Principal Investigator [PI] Compass), Esperion and CLS Behring (NLI/SC member), DalCor (NLI), Janssen (NLI/SC member), Novartis (PI, consultant), Novo Nordisk (PI), and Sanofi (NLI, PI, Advisory Board); and personal fees from Amgen (consultant), Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo (speaker), Novartis, Sanofi, and Servier (speaker, Advisory Board). Dr O’Meara or her institution has received financial support for clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Novartis; has served as a consultant or speaker for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. Dr Verma has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Toronto Knowledge Translation Working Group during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck; grants from Bristol Myers Squibb; and personal fees from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr Inzucchi has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi/Lexicon, Merck, VTV Therapeutics, and Abbott/Alere; and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Zafgen. Dr Køber has received financial from AstraZeneca; and personal fees from Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb as a speaker. Dr Kosiborod has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Vifor Pharma; grants, personal fees, and other from AstraZeneca; grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and personal fees from Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck (Diabetes), Janssen, Bayer, Applied Therapeutics, and Eli Lilly. Dr Lindholm is an employee of AstraZeneca. Dr Martinez has received personal fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Bengtsson is an employee of AstraZeneca. Dr Ponikowski has received personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cibiem, Novartis, and RenalGuard; personal fees from Pfizer, Servier, Respicardia, and Berlin-Chemie; financial support from Amgen; and grants, personal fees, and other from Vifor Pharma. Dr Sabatine has received grants from Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Poxel, Quark Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda; grants and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Janssen Research and Development, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, and Novartis; and personal fees from Anthos Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, Dal-Cor, Dyrnamix, Esperion, IFM Therapeutics, and Ionis; and is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has also received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Aralez, Roche, and Zora Biosciences. Dr Sjöstrand is an employee of AstraZeneca. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. Dr Langkilde is an employee of AstraZeneca. Dr Jhund’s employer (University of Glasgow) has been remunerated by AstraZeneca for involvement in the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials; has received speaker and Advisory Board fees from Novartis; and Advisory Board fees and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, has been remunerated by AstraZeneca for working on the DAPA-HF, DELIVER, and DETERMINE trials as well as Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Theracos, and Novartis; has received other support from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, KBP Biosciences, Ionis, and Alnylam; has received speaker fees from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Eris Lifesciences, Hikma, Lupin, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier, and the Corpus; and is director of Global Clinical Trial Partners Ltd., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Surveillance imaging is often used to detect remodelling, a change in cardiac geometry, and/or function; however, there are limited data in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). We sought to characterize cardiac remodelling in patients with chronic HF and evaluate its association with outcome., Methods and Results: A prospective cohort of patients at risk for HF or with chronic HF underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) at baseline and 1 year. Ventricular function, volumes, mass, left atrial volume, global longitudinal strain, and myocardial scar were measured. The primary outcome was a composite of death or cardiovascular hospitalization up to 5 years from the 1 year scan. Cox regression was used to identify 1 year CMR predictors of outcome after adjusting for baseline risk. A total of 262 patients (median age 68 years, 57% males) including 96 at risk for HF, 97 with HF and preserved ejection fraction, and 69 with HF and reduced ejection fraction were included. In the patients with HF, 55 events were identified during follow-up. After adjustment for baseline clinical risk, Cox proportion hazard regressions only identified 1 year change in left ventricular (LV) mass index as a CMR predictor of outcome, adjusted hazard ratio 1.21 (1.02, 1.44) per 10% increase, P = 0.031. Cardiac remodelling defined as a 1 year change in LV mass index ≥15% was observed in 35% of patients with HF. Patients with adverse remodelling of LV mass index had more events on Kaplan-Meier analyses compared to those with no remodelling, log-rank P = 0.004 for overall cohort, P = 0.035 for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and P = 0.035 for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction., Conclusions: Cardiac remodelling is common during serial CMR assessment of patients with chronic HF. Change in LV mass predicted long-term outcomes whereas change in left ventricular ejection fraction did not., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

The advent of newly available medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has resulted in many potential therapeutic combinations, increasing treatment complexity. Publication of expert consensus guidelines and initiatives aimed to improve implementation of treatment has emphasized sequential stepwise initiation and titration of medical therapy, which is labour intensive. Data taken from heart failure registries show suboptimal use of medications, prolonged titration times, and consequently little change in dose intensity, all of which indicate therapeutic inertia. Recently published evidence indicates that 4 medication classes-renin-angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors-which we refer to as Foundational Therapy, confer rapid and robust reduction in both morbidity and mortality in most patients with HFrEF and that they work in additive fashion. Additional morbidity and mortality may be observed following addition of several personalized therapies in specific subgroups of patients. In this review, we discuss mechanisms of action of these therapies and propose a framework for their implementation, based on several principles. These include the critical importance of rapid initiation of all 4 Foundational Therapies followed by their titration to target doses, emphasis on multiple simultaneous drug changes with each patient encounter, attention to patient-specific factors in choice of medication class, leveraging inpatient care, use of the entire health care team, and alternative (ie, virtual visits) modes of care. We have incorporated these principles into a Cluster Scheme designed to facilitate timely and optimal medical treatment for patients with HFrEF., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The EMPERIAL (Effect of EMPagliflozin on ExeRcise ability and HF symptoms In patients with chronic heArt faiLure) trials evaluated the effects of empagliflozin on exercise ability and patient-reported outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (EF), with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D), reporting, for the first time, the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibition in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)., Methods and Results: HF patients with reduced EF (HFrEF) (≤40%, N = 312, EMPERIAL-Reduced) or preserved EF (>40%, N = 315, EMPERIAL-Preserved), with and without T2D, were randomized to empagliflozin 10 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-minute walk test distance (6MWTD) change to Week 12. Key secondary endpoints included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score (KCCQ-TSS) and Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire Self-Administered Standardized format (CHQ-SAS) dyspnoea score. 6MWTD median (95% confidence interval) differences, empagliflozin vs. placebo, at Week 12 were -4.0 m (-16.0, 6.0; P = 0.42) and 4.0 m (-5.0, 13.0; P = 0.37) in EMPERIAL-Reduced and EMPERIAL-Preserved, respectively. As the primary endpoint was non-significant, all secondary endpoints were considered exploratory. Changes in KCCQ-TSS and CHQ-SAS dyspnoea score were non-significant. Improvements with empagliflozin in exploratory pre-specified analyses of KCCQ-TSS responder rates, congestion score, and diuretic use in EMPERIAL-Reduced are hypothesis generating. Empagliflozin adverse events were consistent with those previously reported., Conclusion: The primary outcome for both trials was neutral. Empagliflozin was well tolerated in HF patients, with and without T2D, with a safety profile consistent with that previously reported in T2D. Hypothesis-generating improvements in exploratory analyses of secondary endpoints with empagliflozin in HFrEF were observed., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is being tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC-HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials., Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class ≥II, ejection fraction ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for heart failure or history of hospitalization/emergency department visit for heart failure within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic-guided dosing: 25, 37.5, or 50 mg bid). A total of 8256 patients [male (79%), non-white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean ejection fraction 27%, ischaemic aetiology in 54%, NYHA class II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide 1971 pg/mL. Heart failure therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary heart failure trials. GALACTIC-HF randomized patients representative of recent heart failure registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril/valsartan at baseline (n = 1594)., Conclusions: GALACTIC-HF enrolled a well-treated, high-risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The aim of this study is to determine factors associated with long-term recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF) and if further recovery also occurs in this group., Methods and Results: Among 621 participants enrolled in the Alberta Heart Failure Etiology and Analysis Team (HEART) Study, 316 with Stage C HF underwent comprehensive imaging and biomarker testing at enrolment and at 1-year follow up. Using pre-enrolment data, HF with recovered EF (HFrecEF) was defined as an absolute improvement ≥5% in LVEF from the prior lowest LVEF value, with a final LVEF value > 35% at or prior to study baseline. Participants with all LVEF > 40% were included for comparison. Hospitalization-free survival to 5 years was performed. The median cohort age was 66 years, and time from diagnosis was 4 years; 82% were male patients. Of the 316 patients, 95 (30%) patients had HFrecEF and 56 (18%) patients pHFrEF. On multivariate analysis, only shorter duration of HF was predictive of HFrecEF status. Over 1 year, LVEF increased in the HFrecEF group 4.0% (0.15-7.90, P = 0.042) as compared with persistent HFrEF, who in turn demonstrated higher baseline serum high sensitivity Troponin-T with further increase at follow up 0.55(0.33-0.86, P = 0.011). No change in any parameter in the HFpEF/HFmrEF group at follow up was observed., Conclusions: Patients with HFrecEF demonstrate evidence of additional late improvement in LVEF and unchanged troponin levels, in contrast to those with persistent HFrEF, where LVEF does not improve and serum troponin rises over time. These data help to inform mechanisms relating to late LV remodelling., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Concern about hypotension often leads to withholding of beneficial therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, which lowers systolic blood pressure (SBP),according to baseline SBP in Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF)., Methods and Results: Key inclusion criteria were: New York Heart Association Class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and SBP ≥95 mmHg. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were examined using SBP as both a categorical and continuous variable. A total of 1205 patients had a baseline SBP <110 mmHg; 981 ≥ 110 < 120; 1149 ≥ 120 < 130; and 1409 ≥ 130 mmHg. The placebo-corrected reduction in SBP from baseline to 2 weeks with dapagliflozin was -2.54 (-3.33 to -1.76) mmHg (P < 0.001), with a smaller between-treatment difference in patients in the lowest compared to highest SBP category. Patients in the lowest SBP category had a much higher rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome [20.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.6-24.2] than those in the highest SBP category (13.8, 11.7-16.4). The benefit and safety of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of SBP; hazard ratio (95% CI) in each SBP group, lowest to highest: 0.76 (0.60-0.97), 0.76 (0.57-1.02), 0.81 (0.61-1.08), and 0.67 (0.51-0.87), P interaction = 0.78. Study drug discontinuation did not differ between dapagliflozin and placebo across the SBP categories examined., Conclusion: Dapagliflozin had a small effect on SBP in patients with HFrEF and was superior to placebo in improving outcomes, and well tolerated, across the range of SBP included in DAPA-HF., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03036124., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure), the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure and death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined the efficacy and tolerability of dapagliflozin in relation to background diuretic treatment and change in diuretic therapy after randomization to dapagliflozin or placebo., Methods: We examined the effects of study treatment in the following subgroups: no diuretic and diuretic dose equivalent to furosemide <40, 40, and >40 mg daily at baseline. We examined the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or a worsening heart failure event and its components, all-cause death and symptoms., Results: Of 4616 analyzable patients, 736 (15.9%) were on no diuretic, 1311 (28.4%) were on <40 mg, 1365 (29.6%) were on 40 mg, and 1204 (26.1%) were taking >40 mg. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary end point across each of these subgroups: hazard ratios were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36-0.92), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.63-1.10), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.60-0.99), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.97), respectively ( P for interaction=0.61). The hazard ratio in patients taking any diuretic was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90). Improvements in symptoms and treatment toleration were consistent across the diuretic subgroups. Diuretic dose did not change in most patients during follow-up, and mean diuretic dose did not differ between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups after randomization., Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were consistent across the diuretic subgroups examined in DAPA-HF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Aims: In the DAPA-HF trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (HF) and death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. We examined whether this benefit was consistent in relation to background HF therapy., Methods and Results: In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effect of study treatment in the following yes/no subgroups: diuretic, digoxin, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, implanted cardioverter-defibrillating (ICD) device, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. We also examined the effect of study drug according to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker dose, beta-blocker (BB) dose, and MRA (≥50% and <50% of target dose). We analysed the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or a worsening HF event. Most randomized patients (n = 4744) were treated with a diuretic (84%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (94%), and BB (96%); 52% of those taking a BB and 38% taking a RAS blocker were treated with ≥50% of the recommended dose. Overall, the dapagliflozin vs. placebo hazard ratio (HR) was 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.85] for the primary composite endpoint (P < 0.0001). The effect of dapagliflozin was consistent across all subgroups examined: the HR ranged from 0.57 to 0.86 for primary endpoint, with no significant randomized treatment-by-subgroup interaction. For example, the HR in patients taking a RAS blocker, BB, and MRA at baseline was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.86) compared with 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.94) in those not on all three of these treatments (P-interaction 0.64)., Conclusion: The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent regardless of background therapy for HF., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

In this update, we focus on selected topics of high clinical relevance for health care providers who treat patients with heart failure (HF), on the basis of clinical trials published after 2017. Our objective was to review the evidence, and provide recommendations and practical tips regarding the management of candidates for the following HF therapies: (1) transcatheter mitral valve repair in HF with reduced ejection fraction; (2) a novel treatment for transthyretin amyloidosis or transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis; (3) angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); and (4) sodium glucose cotransport inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of HF in patients with and without type 2 diabetes. We emphasize the roles of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy and of multidisciplinary teams when considering transcatheter mitral valve repair, to ensure excellent evaluation and care of those patients. In the presence of suggestive clinical indices, health care providers should consider the possibility of cardiac amyloidosis and proceed with proper investigation. Tafamidis is the first agent shown in a prospective study to alter outcomes in patients with transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis. Patient subgroups with HFpEF might benefit from use of sacubitril/valsartan, however, further data are needed to clarify the effect of this therapy in patients with HFpEF. Sodium glucose cotransport inhibitors reduce the risk of incident HF, HF-related hospitalizations, and cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. A large clinical trial recently showed that dapagliflozin provides significant outcome benefits in well treated patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%), with or without type 2 diabetes., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) reduce the risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure, possibly through glucose-independent mechanisms. More data are needed regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes., Methods: In this phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 4744 patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy for heart failure) or cardiovascular death., Results: Over a median of 18.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). A first worsening heart failure event occurred in 237 patients (10.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 227 patients (9.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 273 patients (11.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98); 276 patients (11.6%) and 329 patients (13.9%), respectively, died from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97). Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes. The frequency of adverse events related to volume depletion, renal dysfunction, and hypoglycemia did not differ between treatment groups., Conclusions: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DAPA-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036124.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: The authors investigated the impact of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on first and recurrent hospitalization in this population., Background: In the STICH (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) trial, CABG reduced all-cause death and hospitalization in patients with and ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular ejection fraction <35%., Methods: A total of 1,212 patients were randomized (610 to CABG + optimal medical therapy [CABG] and 602 to optimal medical therapy alone [MED] alone) and followed for a median of 9.8 years. All-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations were analyzed as time-to-first-event and as recurrent event analysis., Results: Of the 1,212 patients, 757 died (62.4%) and 732 (60.4%) were hospitalized at least once, for a total of 2,549 total all-cause hospitalizations. Most hospitalizations (66.2%) were for cardiovascular causes, of which approximately one-half (907 or 52.9%) were for heart failure. More than 70% of all hospitalizations (1,817 or 71.3%) were recurrent events. The CABG group experienced fewer all-cause hospitalizations in the time-to-first-event (349 CABG vs. 383 MED, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74 to 0.98; p = 0.03) and in recurrent event analyses (1,199 CABG vs. 1,350 MED, HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.94; p < 0.001). This was driven by fewer total cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations (744 vs. 968; p < 0.001, adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.81; p = 0.001), the majority of which were due to HF (395 vs. 512; p < 0.001, adjusted HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005). We did not observe a difference in non-CV events., Conclusions: CABG reduces all-cause, CV, and HF hospitalizations in time-to-first-event and recurrent event analyses. (Comparison of Surgical and Medical Treatment for Congestive Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease [STICH]; NCT00023595)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

A 58-year-old man with previous mitral/aortic mechanical-valve replacement, aortic root repair, and coronary disease developed severe left-ventricular dysfunction following AV-node ablation/single-chamber pacemaker implantation for management of atrial fibrillation. He then underwent an upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator. To manage his heart failure better, angiotensin-receptor blocker therapy was changed to sacubitril/valsartan, after which symptomatic palpitations with T-wave oversensing occurred. The resolved T-wave oversensing and palpitations stopped upon discontinuation of sacubitril/valsartan and recurred upon rechallenge, requiring a switch back to valsartan monotherapy. Our report presents the first known case of T-wave oversensing due to sacubitril/valsartan., (Crown Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Since the inception of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure (HF) guidelines in 2006, much has changed in the care for patients with HF. Over the past decade, the HF Guidelines Committee has published regular updates. However, because of the major changes that have occurred, the Guidelines Committee believes that a comprehensive reassessment of the HF management recommendations is presently needed, with a view to producing a full and complete set of updated guidelines. The primary and secondary Canadian Cardiovascular Society HF panel members as well as external experts have reviewed clinically relevant literature to provide guidance for the practicing clinician. The 2017 HF guidelines provide updated guidance on the diagnosis and management (self-care, pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, device, and referral) that should aid in day-to-day decisions for caring for patients with HF. Among specific issues covered are risk scores, the differences in management for HF with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, exercise and rehabilitation, implantable devices, revascularization, right ventricular dysfunction, anemia, and iron deficiency, cardiorenal syndrome, sleep apnea, cardiomyopathies, HF in pregnancy, cardio-oncology, and myocarditis. We devoted attention to strategies and treatments to prevent HF, to the organization of HF care, comorbidity management, as well as practical issues around the timing of referral and follow-up care. Recognition and treatment of advanced HF is another important aspect of this update, including how to select advanced therapies as well as end of life considerations. Finally, we acknowledge the remaining gaps in evidence that need to be filled by future research., (Copyright © 2017 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rehospitalizations within 7 days after discharge may reflect the quality of hospital care., Objective: We examined factors associated with 7-day readmissions after discharge for heart failure (HF)., Methods: Using a matched pair case-control design, we examined health records for sociodemographic, clinical, and health system factors for patients with a primary diagnosis of HF (ICD-10 I50) discharged alive from all acute care hospitals in Calgary, Alberta, from 2004 to 2012. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with 7-day all-cause readmission., Results: We included 382 patients, or 191 in matched pairs, with 41% of readmissions due to HF. Frailty (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-3.76) and attending physician as specialist (aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.32-3.42) were associated with increased likelihood of readmission. Reduced likelihood of readmission was associated with documented instructions for follow-up with a family physician within 1 week of discharge (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.88). All 3 factors were easily abstracted from all patient records, including frailty, which was defined as all 3 of age older than 75 years, 3 or more comorbid conditions, and requiring assistance with activities of daily living., Conclusion: Very early readmission to hospital after HF admission is associated with 3 factors that may be easily identified in patient records.

A continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) benefits patients with advanced heart failure as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. However, unanticipated complications may occur. We report a patient with end-stage heart failure and longstanding diabetes who experienced functionally debilitating orthostatic hypotension from autonomic insufficiency after CF-LVAD implantation. This case demonstrates a role for comprehensive autonomic function testing in the workup of orthostatic hypotension after LVAD implantation., (Copyright © 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Measurement of heart rate (HR) and rhythm is used to identify patients at increased risk of disease progression, guide selection of treatments and gauge response to therapy., Recent Findings: Lowering HR with a pure HR lowering agent (ivabradine) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and sinus rate more than 70 beats/min despite beta blockade has been shown to improve outcomes. Additionally, coadministration of ivabradine and beta blockade may enhance symptoms and HR control. In the case of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), or with paced rhythm, optimal HR control is not known. Also, in atrial fibrillation the relationship between HR and outcomes is not clear and minimal evidence for HR reduction to less than 100 beats/min exists. Reasons for this disconnect between atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm are not known., Summary: HR continues to be a critical vital sign in assessment and forms the basis for a treatment target in patients with HFrEF at rates more than 70 beats/min. The target for HR patients with HFpEF and those who are paced continuously or in atrial fibrillation is less clear and at present is recommended to be in the 60-100 beats/min range at rest. Further study is needed to refine treatment strategies in these latter patients.

A growing number of countries and geographical regions are involved in major clinical trials. Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure is the largest trial in acutely decompensated heart failure (HF) with patients from 5 geographical regions: North America (NA), Latin America (LA), Western Europe (WE), Central Europe (CE), and Asia-Pacific (AP). Data from the 5 geographical areas were compared including baseline characteristics, medications, 30-day outcomes (mortality and mortality or HF hospitalization), and 180-day mortality. Of the 7,141 study patients, 3,243 (45.4%) were from NA (average of 15.2 patients/site), 1,762 (24.7%) from AP (28.4 patients/site), 967 (13.5%) from CE (20.2 patients/site), 665 (9.3%) from LA (17.1 patients/site), and 504 (7.1%) from WE (14.4 patients/site). There were marked differences in co-morbidities, clinical profile, medication use, length of stay, 30-day event rates, and 180-day mortality by region. Compared with NA, the adjusted risk for death or HF hospitalization at 30 days was significantly lower in CE (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.64), WE (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.35 to 0.75), and AP (OR 0.62 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79) and numerically lower in LA (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.04) with similar results for 180-day mortality. In conclusion, in patients with acutely decompensated HF, major differences in baseline characteristics, treatments, length of the hospital stay, and 30-day HF rehospitalization rates, and 180-day mortality were found in patients enrolled from different geographical areas., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society Heart Failure (HF) Guidelines Program has generated annual HF updates, including formal recommendations and supporting Practical Tips since 2006. Many clinicians indicate they routinely use the Canadian Cardiovascular Society HF Guidelines in their daily practice. However, many questions surrounding the actual implementation of the Guidelines into their daily practice remain. A consensus-based approach was used, including feedback from the Primary and Secondary HF Panels. This companion is intended to answer several key questions brought forth by HF practitioners such as appropriate timelines for initial assessments and subsequent reassessments of patients, the order in which medications should be added, how newer medications should be included in treatment algorithms, and when left ventricular function should be reassessed. A new treatment algorithm for HF with reduced ejection fraction is included. Several other practical issues are addressed such as an approach to management of hyperkalemia/hypokalemia, treatment of gout, when medications can be stopped, and whether a target blood pressure or heart rate is suggested. Finally, elements and teaching of self-care are described. This tool will hopefully function to allow better integration of the HF Guidelines into clinical practice., (Copyright © 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In North America and other industrialized countries, heart failure (HF) has become a national public health priority. Studies indicate there is significant heterogeneity in approaches to treat and manage HF and suggest targeted changes in health care delivery are needed to reduce unnecessary health care utilization and to optimize patient outcomes. Most recent published studies have reported on the care of HF patients in tertiary care hospitals and the perspective of non-specialist stakeholders on HF management, such as general practitioners and clinics or hospital administrators is rarely considered. This study explores the current state of community-based HF care in Canada as experienced by various healthcare stakeholders providing or coordinating care to HF patients., Methods: This study employed a qualitative exploratory research design consisting of semi-structured telephone interviews conducted with health care providers and health care administrators working outside of tertiary care in the four most populous Canadian provinces. A modified thematic analysis process was used and the different data sources were triangulated. Findings were collectively interpreted by the authors., Results: Twenty-eight participants were recruited in the study: eight cardiologists, five general practitioners/family physicians, eight nurse practitioners/registered nurses, four hospital pharmacists and three health care administrators/directors. Participants reported a lack of stakeholder engagement throughout the continuum of care, which hinders the implementation of a coordinated approach to quality HF care. Four substantive themes emerged that indicated challenges and gaps in the optimal treatment and management of HF in community settings: 1) challenges in the risk assessment and early diagnosis of HF, 2) challenges in ensuring efficient and consistent transition from acute care setting to the community, 3) challenges of primary care providers to optimally treat and manage HF patients, and 4) challenges in promoting a holistic approach in HF management., Conclusions: As health systems evolve from tertiary-based care to community-based outpatient services for the management of chronic diseases, this study's findings pinpoint challenges that have been observed in the Canadian context and can stimulate and orient dialogue toward solutions for a more coordinated approach to improve the care of HF patients and reduce pressure on the healthcare system.

Background: There is little data regarding use of mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs) for patients reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF) following acute myocardial infarction (MI). We determined the frequency and temporal trends of MRA use in these patients., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all cases of acute MI between June 1, 2010 and April 1, 2012. Patients were considered eligible for MRA therapy if they were admitted with acute MI with LVEF ≤ 40 % and had heart failure symptoms or a history of diabetes., Results: Of 3910 cases of acute MI, 332 patients were considered eligible for MRA therapy. MRA therapy was prescribed for 92/332 (28 %) eligible patients, while 66 of 1142 (6 %) of ineligible patients were so treated. Over the study period, usage in eligible and ineligible patients rose significantly (22 to 30 %, p = 0.08 and 4 to 7 %, p = 0.04 respectively)., Conclusions: Prescription of MRAs for eligible patients occurred in a minority of patients, and demonstrated a modest increase over time. In patients without an indication for MRAs, a similar trend was observed. Further study is required to better understand barriers to appropriate use of MRAs in this patient population.

Background: New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class provides important prognostic information and is often used to select patients for cardiovascular therapies, yet, the effect of NYHA class on therapeutic efficacy has not been systematically studied., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis we compared the relative and absolute mortality benefit of 5 common heart failure interventions (angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs], implantable cardioverter defibrillator [ICD], and cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]) across NYHA class. We included 26 randomized clinical trials of these interventions that reported all-cause mortality stratified according to baseline NYHA class in 36,406 patients., Results: Pooled relative risk for NYHA I/II vs. III/IV strata were similar for ACE inhibitors (0.90 vs. 0.88), β-blockers (0.72 vs. 0.79), MRA (0.79 vs. 0.75), and CRT (0.80 vs. 0.80), with all heterogeneity P > 0.8. Conversely, ICD efficacy was greater for class I/II (relative risk, 0.65 vs 0.86, heterogeneity P = 0.02). The pooled absolute risk difference was smaller for NYHA I/II vs III/IV with ACE inhibitors (-0.02 vs. -0.06, P = 0.12), β-blockers (-0.02 vs. -0.05, P = 0.047), MRA (-0.03 vs. -0.11, P = 0.001), and CRT (-0.01 vs. -0.04, P = 0.036), but was similar across NYHA class for the ICD (-0.07 vs. -0.05; P = 0.27)., Conclusions: Relative mortality reductions with most interventions were independent of baseline NYHA class. However, ICD efficacy was greater with NYHA I/II vs. III/IV limitation, and absolute benefit was greater with higher NYHA class. For interventions other than the ICD, there is little evidence supporting use of NYHA class as a rigid criterion for selecting heart failure therapies., (Copyright © 2015 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The 2014 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Heart Failure Management Guidelines Update provides discussion on the management recommendations on 3 focused areas: (1) anemia; (2) biomarkers, especially natriuretic peptides; and (3) clinical trials that might change practice in the management of patients with heart failure. First, all patients with heart failure and anemia should be investigated for reversible causes of anemia. Second, patients with chronic stable heart failure should undergo natriuretic peptide testing. Third, considerations should be given to treat selected patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and to treat patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with an angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor, when the drug is approved. As with updates in previous years, the topics were chosen in response to stakeholder feedback. The 2014 Update includes recommendations, values and preferences, and practical tips to assist the clinicians and health care workers to best manage patients with heart failure., (Copyright © 2015 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The STICH (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) trial compared a strategy of routine coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with guideline-based medical therapy for patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction., Objective: To describe treatment-related quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, a major prespecified secondary end point in the STICH trial., Design: Randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00023595)., Setting: 99 clinical sites in 22 countries., Patients: 1212 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.35 or less and coronary artery disease., Intervention: Random assignment to medical therapy alone (602 patients) or medical therapy plus CABG (610 patients)., Measurements: A battery of QOL instruments at baseline (98.9% complete) and 4, 12, 24, and 36 months after randomization (collection rates were 80% to 89% of those eligible). The principal prespecified QOL measure was the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, which assesses the effect of heart failure on patients' symptoms, physical function, social limitations, and QOL., Results: The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score was consistently higher (more favorable) in the CABG group than in the medical therapy group by 4.4 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 7.0 points) at 4 months, 5.8 points (CI, 3.1 to 8.6 points) at 12 months, 4.1 points (CI, 1.2 to 7.1 points) at 24 months, and 3.2 points (CI, 0.2 to 6.3 points) at 36 months. Sensitivity analyses to account for the effect of mortality on follow-up QOL measurement were consistent with the primary findings., Limitation: Therapy was not masked., Conclusion: In this cohort of symptomatic high-risk patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction and multivessel coronary artery disease, CABG plus medical therapy produced clinically important improvements in quality of life compared with medical therapy alone over 36 months., Primary Funding Source: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Background: Nationally, symptomatic heart failure affects 1.5-2% of Canadians, incurs $3 billion in hospital costs annually and the global burden is expected to double in the next 1-2 decades. The current one-year mortality rate after diagnosis of heart failure remains high at >25%. Consequently, new therapeutic strategies need to be developed for this debilitating condition., Methods/design: The objective of the Alberta HEART program (http://albertaheartresearch.ca) is to develop novel diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic approaches to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. We hypothesize that novel imaging techniques and biomarkers will aid in describing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Furthermore, the development of new diagnostic criteria will allow us to: 1) better define risk factors associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; 2) elucidate clinical, cellular and molecular mechanisms involved with the development and progression of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; 3) design and test new therapeutic strategies for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Additionally, Alberta HEART provides training and education for enhancing translational medicine, knowledge translation and clinical practice in heart failure. This is a prospective observational cohort study of patients with, or at risk for, heart failure. Patients will have sequential testing including quality of life and clinical outcomes over 12 months. After that time, study participants will be passively followed via linkage to external administrative databases. Clinical outcomes of interest include death, hospitalization, emergency department visits, physician resource use and/or heart transplant. Patients will be followed for a total of 5 years., Discussion: Alberta HEART has the primary objective to define new diagnostic criteria for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. New criteria will allow for targeted therapies, diagnostic tests and further understanding of the patients, both at-risk for and with heart failure., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02052804.

Background: Determination of factors increasing the likelihood of early readmission after hospitalization for heart failure (HF) is fundamental for identifying potential targets for intervention. Thus, we studied the characteristics of patients readmitted within 7 and 30 days after hospitalization for HF in Alberta, Canada., Methods: Using hospital discharge abstract data, we followed patients with incident HF discharged from April 2004-March 2012 and determined their readmission status within 7 and 30 days after an index hospitalization. Logistic regression was used to determine variables associated with readmission., Results: Of 18,590 patients with HF (49.8% women; mean age 76.4 years), 5.6% were readmitted within 7 days and 18% were readmitted within 30 days. Readmission rates within 7 and 30 days increased significantly with age. Seven-day all-cause readmissions were associated with history of kidney disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.53), and 30-day all-cause readmissions were associated with cancer, pulmonary, liver, and kidney disease. Discharge with home care services at the time of discharge was a risk factor for readmission within 7 days (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49) and 30 days (aOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35). Discharge from a hospital with HF services was associated with lower readmission at both 7 days (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.74) and 30 days (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77)., Conclusions: Several factors were associated with increased risk of readmission, whereas patients discharged from hospitals with HF services had a lower risk of readmission within 7 and 30 days of discharge. The interaction of provision of home care and higher early readmission deserves further study., (Copyright © 2014 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)