Search

Background: Considering the high prevalence of mitral regurgitation (MR) and the highly subjective, variable MR severity reporting, an automated tool that could screen patients for clinically significant MR (≥ moderate) would streamline the diagnostic/therapeutic pathways and ultimately improve patient outcomes., Objectives: The authors aimed to develop and validate a fully automated machine learning (ML)-based echocardiography workflow for grading MR severity., Methods: ML algorithms were trained on echocardiograms from 2 observational cohorts and validated in patients from 2 additional independent studies. Multiparametric echocardiography core laboratory MR assessment served as ground truth. The machine was trained to measure 16 MR-related parameters. Multiple ML models were developed to find the optimal parameters and preferred ML model for MR severity grading., Results: The preferred ML model used 9 parameters. Image analysis was feasible in 99.3% of cases and took 80 ± 5 seconds per case. The accuracy for grading MR severity (none to severe) was 0.80, and for significant (moderate or severe) vs nonsignificant MR was 0.97 with a sensitivity of 0.96 and specificity of 0.98. The model performed similarly in cases of eccentric and central MR. Patients graded as having severe MR had higher 1-year mortality (adjusted HR: 5.20 [95% CI: 1.24-21.9]; P = 0.025 compared with mild)., Conclusions: An automated multiparametric ML model for grading MR severity is feasible, fast, highly accurate, and predicts 1-year mortality. Its implementation in clinical practice could improve patient care by facilitating referral to specialized clinics and access to evidence-based therapies while improving quality and efficiency in the echocardiography laboratory., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Mr Jiang is an employee of Us2.ai. Mr Hummel is an employee of Us2.ai. Mr Frost is an employee of Us2.ai. Dr Lam is supported by a Clinician Scientist Award from the National Medical Research Council of Singapore; has received research support from NovoNordisk and Roche Diagnostics; has served as consultant or on the Advisory Board/Steering Committee/Executive Committee for Alleviant Medical, Allysta Pharma, Amgen, AnaCardio AB, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, CardioRenal, Cytokinetics, Darma Inc, EchoNous Inc, Eli Lilly, Impulse Dynamics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceutical, Janssen Research and Development LLC, Medscape/WebMD Global LLC, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Prosciento Inc, Quidel Corporation, Radcliffe Group Ltd, Recardio Inc, ReCor Medical, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics and Us2.ai; has served as cofounder and non-executive director of Us2.ai; has a patent pending (PCT/SG2016/050217; Method for diagnosis and prognosis of chronic heart failure); and holds U.S. Patent No. 10,702,247 for automated clinical workflow that recognizes and analyses 2-dimensional and Doppler echo images for cardiac measurements and the diagnosis, prediction, and prognosis of heart disease. Dr Shah is supported by grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; U54 HL160273, R01 HL140731, and R01 HL149423), AstraZeneca, Corvia Medical, and Pfizer; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alleviant, Amgen, Aria CV, Axon Therapies, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cyclerion, Cytokinetics, Edwards Lifesciences, Eidos, Imara, Impulse Dynamics, Intellia, Ionis, Lilly, Merck, Metabolic Flux, MyoKardia, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Prothena, Regeneron, Rivus, Sardocor, Shifamed, Tenax, Tenaya, Ultromics, and United Therapeutics. Dr Lund is supported by Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Research Council (grant 523-2014-2336), the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation (grants 20150557, 20190310), and the Stockholm County Council (grants 20170112, 20190525); and unrelated to the present work, Dr Lund has received grants, consulting, and honoraria from Abbot, Alleviant, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biopeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pharmacosmos, Vifor Pharma; and has stock ownership in AnaCardio. Dr Stone has received Speaker or other honoraria from Cook, Terumo, QOOL Therapeutics, and Orchestra Biomed; is a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Ancora, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Vectorious, Reva, Matrizyme, Cardiomech; and has equity/options from Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix. Dr Swaminathan has received consulting fees from US2.ai. Dr Weissman is the Associate Director of an academic core laboratory with research institutional grants/agreements (MedStar Health) with Us2.ai, Ultromics, TOMTEC, GE, Caption Health, egnite, Abbott, Edwards, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Corcym, Ancora Heart, Neovasc, InnovHeart, and Polares Medical. Dr Asch is the director of an academic core laboratory with research institutional grants/agreements (MedStar Health) with Us2.ai, Ultromics, TOMTEC, GE, Caption Health, egnite, Abbott, Edwards, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Corcym, Ancora Heart, Neovasc, InnovHeart, Polares Medical, and Foldax; and is on the Scientific Advisory Board (unpaid) for Us2.ai, Ultromics, and Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The prevalence of HF with preserved ejection raction (HFpEF, with EF ≥50%) is increasing across all populations with high rates of hospitalization and mortality, reaching up to 80% and 50%, respectively, within a 5-year timeframe. Comorbidity-driven systemic inflammation is thought to cause coronary microvascular dysfunction and increased epicardial adipose tissue, leading to downstream friborsis and molecular changes in the cardiomyocyte, leading to increased stiffness and diastolic dynsfunction. HFpEF poses unique challenges in terms of diagnosis due to its complex and diverse nature. The diagnosis of HFpEF relies on a combination of clinical assessment, imaging studies, and biomarkers. An additional important step in diagnosing HFpEF involves excluding certain cardiac diagnoses that may be specific underlying causes of HFpEF or may be masquerading as HFpEF and require specific alternative treatment approaches. In addition to administering sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors to all patients, the most effective approach to enhance clinical outcomes may involve tailored therapy based on each patient's unique clinical profile. Exercise should be recommended for all patients to improve the quality of life. Glucagon-like peptide-1 1 agonists are a promising treatment option in obese HFpEF patients. Novel approaches targeting inflammation are also in early phase trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Heart failure (HF) is a growing, global public health issue. Despite advances in HF care, many challenges remain and HF outcomes are poor. Some of the major reasons for this are the lack of understanding and treatment for certain HF sub-types as well as the lack of implementation of treatment in areas where effective treatment exists. HF registries provide the opportunity to transform clinical research and patient care. Recently the registry-based randomized clinical trial has emerged as a pragmatic and inexpensive alternative to the gold standard in clinical trial design, the randomized controlled trial. Registries may also provide platforms for strategy trials, implementation trials, and screening. Using examples from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry and others, the present review provides insights into how registry-based research can address many of the unmet needs in HF., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest TP: None. PK: None related to the present work. Reports fee for lectures from Vifor and personal fee for lecture from AstraZeneca. LHL: None related to the present work. Outside the present work: Grants: AstraZeneca, Vifor, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD; Consulting: Vifor, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pharmacosmos, MSD, MedScape, Sanofi, Lexicon, Myokardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Edwards Life Sciences, Alleviant; Speaker's honoraria: Abbott, OrionPharma, MedScape, Radcliffe, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer; Patent: AnaCardio., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are few contemporary data on outcomes, costs, and treatment following a hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) in epidemiologically representative cohorts., Objectives: This study sought to describe rehospitalizations, hospitalization costs, use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors), and mortality after hHF., Methods: EVOLUTION HF (Utilization of Dapagliflozin and Other Guideline Directed Medical Therapies in Heart Failure Patients: A Multinational Observational Study Based on Secondary Data) is an observational, longitudinal cohort study using data from electronic health records or claims data sources in Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Adults with a first hHF discharge between 2018 and 2022 were included. The 1-year event rates per 100 patient-years (ERs) for death and rehospitalizations (with a primary diagnosis of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease [CKD], myocardial infarction, stroke, or peripheral artery disease) were calculated. Hospital health care costs were cumulatively summarized. Cumulative GDMT use was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates., Results: Of 263,525 patients, 28% died within the first year post-hHF (ER: 28.4 [95% CI: 27.0-29.9]). Rehospitalizations were mainly driven by HF (ER: 13.6 [95% CI: 9.8-17.4]) and CKD (ER: 4.5 [95% CI: 3.6-5.3]), whereas the ERs for myocardial infarction, stroke, and peripheral artery disease were lower. Health care costs were predominantly driven by HF and CKD. Between 2020 and 2022, use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists changed little, whereas uptake of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors increased 2- to 7-fold., Conclusions: Incident post-hHF rehospitalization risks and costs were high, and GDMT use changed little in the year following discharge, highlighting the need to consider earlier and greater implementation of GDMT to manage risks and reduce costs., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures EVOLUTION HF is funded by AstraZeneca. Dr Cleland was supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence (grant number RE/18/6/34217). Dr Bozkurt has received consulting, advisory or research support from Abbott Vascular, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Liva Nova, Relypsa, Renovacor, Roche, Sanofi, scPharmaceuticals, and Vifor. Dr Savarese has received grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, and Vifor; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Roche, Laboratoires Servier, and Vifor. Drs Adamsson Eryd, Bodegård, Khordoc, and Zhang are employees of AstraZeneca. Dr Cleland has received grants and/or personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biopeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb, Idorsia, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, MyoKardia, NI Medical, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Pharma Nord, Respicardia, Laboratoires Servier, Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Vifor, and VisCardia. Dr Thuresson is an employee of Statisticon, which has received funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Vardeny has received personal or institutional research support from AstraZeneca. Dr Lund has received grant support, lecture fees, and/or consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, Alleviant, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MyoKardia, Novartis, OrionPharma, Pharmacosmos, Sanofi, and Vifor. Dr Kishi has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous syndrome, and the specific sub-category HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF) range (HFmrEF; 41-49% EF) is only recently recognised as a distinct entity. Cluster analysis can characterise heterogeneous patient populations and could serve as a stratification tool in clinical trials and for prognostication. The aim of this study was to identify clusters in HFmrEF and compare cluster prognosis., Methods and Results: Latent class analysis to cluster HFmrEF patients based on their characteristics was performed in the Swedish HF registry (n = 7316). Identified clusters were validated in a Dutch cross-sectional HF registry-based dataset CHECK-HF (n = 1536). In Sweden, mortality and hospitalisation across the clusters were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model, with a Fine-Gray sub-distribution for competing risks and adjustment for age and sex. Six clusters were discovered with the following prevalence and hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals (HR [95%CI]) vs. cluster 1: 1) low-comorbidity (17%, reference), 2) ischaemic-male (13%, HR 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1]), 3) atrial fibrillation (20%, HR 1.5 [95% CI 1.2-1.9]), 4) device/wide QRS (9%, HR 2.7 [95% CI 2.2-3.4]), 5) metabolic (19%, HR 3.1 [95% CI 2.5-3.7]) and 6) cardio-renal phenotype (22%, HR 2.8 [95% CI 2.2-3.6]). The cluster model was robust between both datasets., Conclusion: We found robust clusters with potential clinical meaning and differences in mortality and hospitalisation. Our clustering model could be valuable as a clinical differentiation support and prognostic tool in clinical trial design., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Approximately 25% of patients admitted to hospitals for worsening heart failure (WHF) are readmitted within 30 days., Objectives: The authors conducted a post hoc analysis of the SOLOIST-WHF (Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Post-WHF) trial to evaluate the efficacy of sotagliflozin versus placebo to decrease mortality and HF-related events among patients who began study treatment on or before discharge from their index hospitalization., Methods: The main endpoint of interest was cardiovascular death or HF-related event (HF hospitalization or urgent care visit) occurring within 90 and 30 days after discharge for the index WHF hospitalization. Treatment comparisons were by proportional hazards models, generating HRs, 95% CIs, and P values., Results: Of 1,222 randomized patients, 596 received study drug on or before their date of discharge. Sotagliflozin reduced the main endpoint at 90 days after discharge (HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.35-0.82]; P = 0.004) and at 30 days (HR: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.27-0.91]; P = 0.023) and all-cause mortality at 90 days (HR: 0.39 [95% CI: 0.17-0.88]; P = 0.024). In subgroup analyses, sotagliflozin reduced the 90-day main endpoint regardless of sex, age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, left ventricular ejection fraction, or mineralocorticoid receptor agonist use. Sotagliflozin was well-tolerated but with slightly higher rates of diarrhea and volume-related events than placebo., Conclusions: Starting sotagliflozin before discharge in patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized for WHF significantly decreased cardiovascular deaths and HF events through 30 and 90 days after discharge, emphasizing the importance of beginning sodium glucose cotransporter treatment before discharge., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was supported by Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr Pitt has received consulting fees from Lexicon, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Phasebio; has received consulting fees and/or stock options from Viror, KBP Biosciences, Cereno Scientific, Tricida, SCPharmaceuticals, SQinnovatiions, G-3 Pharmaceuticals, Protonintel, and Brainstorm medical; holds U.S. Patent 9931412 on site specific delivery of eplerenone to the myocardium; and U.S. Patent pending 63/045,783 on histone-modulating agents for the protection and treatment of organ damage. Dr Bhatt is the Chair of SOLOIST with research funding paid by Lexicon to Brigham and Women’s Hospital; he is on the Advisory Board for AngioWave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; is on the Board of Directors for AngioWave (stock options), Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; is Inaugural Chair for the American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; is a consultant for Broadview Ventures; is on the Data Monitoring Committees for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); has received honoraria from American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol-Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; is on the RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; is on the AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee); Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); Patent: Sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned it to Lexicon; neither he nor Brigham and Women’s Hospital receive any income from this patent); has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); is site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, Vascular Solutions; is a trustee for the American College of Cardiology; and has done unfunded research for FlowCo and Takeda. Dr Szarek has received salary support from CPC, a nonprofit academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado, that receives research grant/consulting funding from Abbott, Agios, Alexion Pharma, Alnylam, Amgen, Angionetics, ARCA Biopharma, Array, AstraZeneca, Atentiv, Audentes, Bayer, Better Therapeutics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardiol Therapeutics, CellResearch, Cook Medical, Cook, CSL Behring, Eidos Therapeutics, EP Trading Co, Esperion Therapeutics, Everly Health, Faraday, Fortress Biotech, HDL Therapeutics, Heartflow, Hummingbird Bioscience, Insmed, Janssen, Kowa Research, Lexicon, Merck, MedPace, Medtronic, Moderna, Novate Medical, NovoNordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PPD Development, Prairie Education and Research, Prothena Biosciences, Regeneron, Regio Biosciences, Sanifit Therapeutics, Sanofi, Smith and Nephew, Stealth BioTherapeutics, University of Colorado, University of Pittsburgh, Worldwide Clinical Trials, Wraser, and the Yale Cardiovascular Research Group; has received fees for performing analyses, steering committee fees, and travel support from Sanofi and Regeneron; has received consulting fees from CiVi, Esperion, and Amarin; has received Data Safety and Monitoring Board membership fees from Resverlogix and Janssen; and is a member of the JACC editorial board. Dr Cannon has received research grants from Amgen, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer; consulting fees from Aegerion/Amryt, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Ascendia, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Pfizer, Rhoshan, and Sanofi; and service on the Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for the Veteran’s Administration, Applied Therapeutics, and NovoNordisk. Dr Leiter has received research funding from, has provided CME on behalf of, and/or has acted an adviser to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr McGuire has received honoraria for trial leadership from Lexicon, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck & Co, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Esperion, Lilly USA, CSL Behring; and has received honoraria for consultancy from Lilly USA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, CSL Behring, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Lexicon. Dr Lewis has received consultant fees from Sanofi. Dr Riddle has received honoraria for consulting from Adocia, Anji, Xeris, DalCor, and Theracos. Dr Voors has received consultancy and speaker fees and research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cyrokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, NooNordisk, and Roche diagnostics. Dr Metra has received personal fees from Actelion, Amgen, Livanova, and Vifor pharma as a member of Executive or Data Monitoring Committees of sponsored clinical trials; from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boheringer Ingelhelm, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis for participation in advisory boards and/or speeches at sponsored meetings. Dr Lund has received support from the Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Research Council [grant 523-2014-2336], and the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation [grants 20150557, 20190310] and grants from AstraZeneca, Vifor, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and MSD; consulting honoraria from Vifor, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pharmacosmos, MSD, MedScape, Sanofi, Lexicon, Myokardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Edwards Lifesciences, and Alleviant; and speaker honoraria from Abbott, OrionPharma, MedScape, Radcliffe, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bayer; and has patents with AnaCardio and stock ownership in AnaCardio. Dr Komajda has received honoraria from Servier, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Sanofi as adviser/member of clinical trials committees. Dr Testani has received grants and/or personal fees from 3ive labs, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Cardionomic, MagentaMed, Reprieve Inc, FIRE1, W. L. Gore & Associates, Sanofi, Sequana Medical, Otsuka, Abbott, Merck, Windtree Therapeutics, Lexicon pharmaceuticals, Precardia, Relypsa, Regeneron, BD, Edwards Lifesciences, and Lilly; and has a patent treatment of diuretic resistance issued to Yale and Corvidia Therapeutics Inc, a patent methods for measuring Renalase issued to Yale, and a patent treatment of diuretic resistance pending with Reprieve Inc. Dr Ponikowski has received consultancy fees and speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, Amgen, Servier, Novartis, Bayer, MSD, Pfizer, Impulse Dynamics, Renal Guard Solutions, BMS, AbbottVascular, and the Radcliffe Group. Dr Lopes has received research grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis; funding for educational activities or lectures from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Novo Nordisk; and funding for consulting or other services from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk. Dr Ezekowitz has received research support for trial leadership from Bayer, Merck & Co, Novo Nordisk, Cytokinetics, Applied Therapeutics, American Regent; and honoraria for consultancy from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr Davies and Mr Sun are employed by and may have stock or stock options in Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr Verma has received research and/or speaking honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CMS, HLS, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, and Sanofi; and is the President of the Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group and holds the Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Cardiovascular Surgery. Dr Kosiborod has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; served as a consultant or advisory board member for Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma; has received other research support from AstraZeneca; and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Steg has received research grants from Amarin, Bayer, Sanofi, and Servier; speaker or consultant fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Janssen, Kowa, Idorsia, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier; and is a Senior Associate Editor of Circulation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Systemic microvascular dysfunction and inflammation are postulated to play a pathophysiologic role in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Objectives: This study aimed to identify biomarker profiles associated with clinical outcomes in HFpEF and investigate how inhibition of the neutrophil-derived reactive oxygen species-producing enzyme, myeloperoxidase, affects these biomarkers., Methods: Using supervised principal component analyses, the investigators assessed the associations between baseline plasma proteomic Olink biomarkers and clinical outcomes in 3 independent observational HFpEF cohorts (n = 86, n = 216, and n = 242). These profiles were then compared with the biomarker profiles discriminating patients treated with active drug vs placebo in SATELLITE (Safety and Tolerability Study of AZD4831 in Patients With Heart Failure), a double-blind randomized 3-month trial evaluating safety and tolerability of the myeloperoxidase inhibitor AZD4831 in HFpEF (n = 41). Pathophysiological pathways were inferred from the biomarker profiles by interrogation of the Ingenuity Knowledge Database., Results: TNF-R1, TRAIL-R2, GDF15, U-PAR, and ADM were the top individual biomarkers associated with heart failure hospitalization or death, and FABP4, HGF, RARRES2, CSTB, and FGF23 were associated with lower functional capacity and poorer quality of life. AZD4831 downregulated many markers (most significantly CDCP1, PRELP, CX3CL1, LIFR, VSIG2). There was remarkable consistency among pathways associated with clinical outcomes in the observational HFpEF cohorts, the top canonical pathways being associated with tumor microenvironments, wound healing signaling, and cardiac hypertrophy signaling. These pathways were predicted to be downregulated in AZD4831 relative to placebo-treated patients., Conclusions: Biomarker pathways that were most strongly associated with clinical outcomes were also the ones reduced by AZD4831. These results support the further investigation of myeloperoxidase inhibition in HFpEF., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The KaRen study was supported by grants from the Fédération Française de Cardiologie/Société Française de Cardiologi and Medtronic Bakken Research Center. The PROMIS-HFpEF and SATELLITE studies were funded by AstraZeneca. Drs Michaëlsson, Gabrielsen, and Garkaviy are employees of and Dr Gan is a former employee of and hold shares in AstraZeneca, which is developing AZD4831 for the treatment of HFpEF. Dr Lund has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor-Fresenius, and Boston Scientific; has received consulting or speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor-Fresenius, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Myokardia, Orion Pharma, MedScape, Radcliffe Cardiology, Lexicon, and Respicardia, and has stock ownership in AnaCardio, outside the submitted work. Dr Hage has received consulting fees from Novartis, Roche Diagnostics, and AnaCardio; and has received speaker fees from Novartis and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr Shah has received research grant funding and consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The employer of Dr Voors (Univeristy of Groningen) received consultancy fees from Anacardio, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Eli Lilly, Moderna, Roche Diagnostics; and has received research support from NovoNordisk and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Saraste has received speaker or consulting fees from Abbot, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Dr Grove has received speaker or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lundbeck Pharma, and Organon; is an investigator in clinical studies sponsored by AstraZeneca or Bayer; and has received unrestricted research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Richards has received research support from Boston Scientific, Bayer, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Sphingotec, and Medtronic; has served as consultant to Roche Diagnostics and on the Advisory Board/ Steering Committee/Executive Committee for Roche Diagnostics, Critical Diagnostics, Pfizer, and Novartis. Dr Svedlund has received research grant funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Lam has received research support from NovoNordisk and Roche Diagnostics; has received consulting fees from Alleviant Medical, Allysta Pharma, Amgen, AnaCardio AB, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, CardioRenal, Cytokinetics, Darma Inc, EchoNous Inc, Eli Lilly, Impulse Dynamics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceutical, Janssen Research & Development LLC, Medscape/WebMD Global LLC, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Prosciento Inc, Quidel Corporation, Radcliffe Group Ltd, Recardio Inc, ReCor Medical, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, and Us2.ai; and is a co-founder and nonexecutive director of Us2.ai. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vericiguat reduced the risk of cardiovascular death (CVD) or hospitalization for heart failure (HF) in patients with worsening HF and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)., Objectives: The authors assessed the association of LVEF with biomarker levels, risk of outcome, and whether the effect of vericiguat was homogeneous across LVEF in the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial., Methods: Patients were grouped by LVEF tertiles (≤24%, 25%-33%, and >33%). Patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and efficacy and safety of vericiguat were examined by tertile. Prespecified biomarkers including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, cardiac troponin T, growth differentiation factor 15, interleukin 6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and cystatin C were examined., Results: The mean LVEF was 29% ± 8% (range: 5%-45%). A pattern of higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and interleukin 6 was evident in patients in the lowest LVEF tertile vs the other tertiles. Patients with lower LVEF experienced higher rates of the composite outcome (41.7%, 36.3%, and 33.4% for LVEF ≤24, 25-33, and >33; P < 0.001). There was no significant treatment effect heterogeneity of vericiguat across LVEF groups (adjusted HR from lowest to highest tertiles: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.68-0.94]; 0.95 [95% CI: 0.82-1.11]; 0.94 [95% CI: 0.79-1.11]; P for interaction = 0.222), although the HR was numerically lower in the lowest tertile. There was also no heterogeneity of effect for CVD and HF hospitalization individually (P interaction for CVD = 0.964; HF hospitalization = 0.438). Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events, symptomatic hypotension, or syncope was consistent across the range of LVEF., Conclusions: Patients with lower LVEF had a distinctive biomarker profile and a higher risk for adverse clinical outcomes vs those with a higher LVEF. There was no significant interaction for the benefit of vericiguat across LVEF tertiles, although the largest signal for benefit in both the primary outcome and HF hospitalizations was noted in tertile 1 (LVEF ≤24%). (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [VICTORIA]; NCT02861534)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The VICTORIA trial was funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck and Co Inc, and Bayer AG. Dr Butler has received consulting fees from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Vifor. Dr Lund is a consultant for Bayer/Merck; has received grants unrelated to the present work from AstraZeneca, Vifor, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; has received consulting fees from Merck, Vifor, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pharmacosmos, MedScape, Sanofi, Lexicon, Myokardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier; has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, MedScape, Radcliffe, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and patent AnaCardio; and has stock ownership in AnaCardio. Dr deFilippi has received institutional research grants from Abbott Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthineers, and Ortho Diagnostics; and has received consulting fees from FujiRebio, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthineers, and Ortho Diagnostics. Dr Blaustein is an employee of Merck and Co, Inc. Mr Ezekowitz has received research grants and consulting fees from Bayer, Merck, Servier, Amgen Sanofi, Novartis, Cytokinetics, American Regent, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr Freitas is an employee of Bayer AG. Dr Hernandez has received research grants from Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Verily; and has received honoraria from Merck, Bayer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr O’Connor has received research grants from Merck; and has received consulting fees from Bayer, Dey LP, and Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation. Dr Voors has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche Diagnostics; and has received consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Myokardia, Novartis, Servier, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Westerhout has received consulting fees from Bayer. Dr Lam has received research grants from Bayer and Roche Diagnostics; has received consulting fees from Abbott, Actelion, Alleviant Medical, Allysta Pharma, Amgen, AnaCardio AB, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Darma Inc, EchoNous Inc, Impulse Dynamics, Ionis Pharmaceutical, Janssen Research and Development LLC, Medscape/WebMD Global LLC, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Prosciento Inc, Radcliffe Group Ltd, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, and Us2.ai; and is a cofounder and nonexecutive director of Us2.ai. Dr Armstrong has received research grants from Merck, Bayer, Sanofi-Aventis Recherche and Développement, Boehringer Ingelheim, and CSL Limited; and has received consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Novartis., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: We tested the hypothesis that initiation versus non-initiation of sacubitril/valsartan is associated with a more favorable subsequent change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a real-world setting., Methods: A prospective, non-randomized, double-arm, open-label, cohort study had been conducted across 687 centers in 17 European countries enrolling HFrEF patients aged ≥18 years with symptoms of HF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] II-IV) and "reduced LVEF". For the current analysis, 2602 patients with LVEF measured at baseline and follow-up were chosen, of which 860 (33%, mean age 67 years, 26% women) were started on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline and 1742 (67%, 68 years, 23% women) were not. Patients started on sacubitril/valsartan had higher NYHA class and lower LVEF., Results: LVEF increased from mean 32.7% to 38.1% in the sacubitril/valsartan group versus from 35.9% to 38.7% in the non-sacubitril/valsartan group (mean difference in increase 2.6%, p < 0.001). LVEF increased from baseline in 64% versus 53% of patients and increased by ≥5% (absolute %) in 50% versus 35% of patients in the sacubitril/valsartan versus non-sacubitril/valsartan groups, respectively. In the overall cohort, initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with any increase in LVEF (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.49 [1.26-1.75]) and with increase by ≥5% (OR 1.65 [1.39-1.95])., Conclusion: Initiating versus not initiating sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with a greater subsequent increase in LVEF in this real-world setting. Reverse cardiac remodeling may be one mechanism of benefit of sacubitril/valsartan., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest LHL reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor-Fresenius, and Boston Scientific; consulting or speaker's honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor-Fresenius, Bayer, Pharmacosmos, Abbott, Sanofi, Merck, Myokardia, Orion Pharma, MedScape, Radcliffe Cardiology, Lexicon, and Respicardia; and stock ownership in AnaCardio; outside the submitted work. UZ has received research funding as well as speaker and consulting honoraria from Novartis. ALC has received funding for travel to meetings from Novartis as well as unrestricted grants for the support of his department. VB has received funding for travel to meetings from Novartis as well as fees for lectures and unrestricted grants for clinical research. JD has received honoraria for participation in committees of studies sponsored by Novartis. CF has received speaker fees and honoraria for consulting from Novartis, Servier, Bayer, OMPharma, and Daiichi Sankyo. SK is an employee of GKM (clinical research organization) contracted for data analysis by Novartis. PCF and CK are employees of Novartis. APM has received personal fees for participation in study committees of trials funded by Novartis, Bayer, Cardiorentis, and Fresenius., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines recommend early initiation of multiple guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) to reduce mortality/rehospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Understanding GDMT use is critical to improving clinical practice., Objectives: This study sought to describe GDMT use in Japan, Sweden, and the United States in contemporary real-world settings., Methods: EVOLUTION HF (Utilization of Dapagliflozin and Other Guideline Directed Medical Therapies in Heart Failure Patients: A Multinational Observational Study Based on Secondary Data) is an observational cohort study using routine-care databases. Patients initiating any GDMT within 12 months of a hospitalization for heart failure (hHF) discharge were included. Dapagliflozin (the only sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor approved at study onset), sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were considered separately. Doses and discontinuation were assessed in the 12 months following initiation. Target dose was defined as ≥100% of the guideline-recommended dose., Results: Overall, 266,589 patients were included. Mean times from hHF to GDMT initiation were longer for novel GDMTs (dapagliflozin or sacubitril/valsartan) than for other GDMTs: 39 and 44 vs 12 to 13 days (Japan), 44 and 33 vs 22 to 31 days (Sweden), and 33 and 19 vs 18 to 24 days (United States). Pooled across countries, proportions of patients who discontinued therapy (not including switches from ACE inhibitor or ARB to sacubitril/valsartan) within 12 months were 23.5% (dapagliflozin), 26.4% (sacubitril/valsartan), 38.4% (ACE inhibitors), 33.4% (ARBs), 25.2% (beta-blockers), and 42.2% (MRAs). Corresponding target dose achievements were 75.7%, 28.2%, 20.1%, 6.7%, 7.2%, and 5.1%, respectively., Conclusions: Initiation of novel GDMTs is delayed compared with other GDMTs. Few patients received target doses of GDMTs requiring uptitration. Persistence was higher for dapagliflozin than other GDMTs., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures EVOLUTION HF is funded by AstraZeneca. Dr Savarese has received grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, and Vifor; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Pharmacosmos, Roche, Servier, and Vifor. Dr Vardeny has received personal or institutional research support from AstraZeneca. Drs Adamsson Eryd and Bodegård are employees of AstraZeneca. Dr Lund has received grant support, lecture fees, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Thuresson is an employee of Statisticon, which has received funding from AstraZeneca. Dr Bozkurt has received consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, scPharmaceuticals, Baxter, Sanofi, Relypsa, Vifor, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served on the steering committees of Relypsa and Renovacor; has served on a Clinical Event Committee for Abbott Pharmaceuticals; and has served on the Data Safety Monitoring Board for LivaNova Pharmaceuticals. Dr Kishi has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The effect of vericiguat on sequential N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and influence of this relationship on clinical outcomes is unknown., Objectives: This study assessed the relationship between changes in NT-proBNP and the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization); evaluated the effect of vericiguat on changes in NT-proBNP; and explored the association between the efficacy of vericiguat and changes in NT-proBNP., Methods: NT-proBNP was measured at randomization and at 16, 32, 48, and 96 weeks in 4,805 of 5,050 patients. The association between NT-proBNP change at week 16 and the primary outcome was assessed. The relationship between changes in NT-proBNP and the primary outcome according to treatment group was assessed by using joint modeling and mediation analysis., Results: A significant and sustained decline in NT-proBNP levels was seen in both treatment groups. After week 16, NT-proBNP levels decreased more with vericiguat vs placebo (any reduction: odds ratio [OR]: 1.45 [95% CI: 1.28-1.65]; P < 0.001; ≥50% reduction: OR: 1.27 [95% CI: 1.10-1.47]; P = 0.001) and were less likely to increase (≥20% increase: OR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.59-0.78]; P < 0.001; ≥50% increase: OR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.59-0.82]; P < 0.001). The treatment effect related to serial NT-proBNP on the primary composite outcome was HR: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99) at week 16, which increased to HR: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85-0.96) at week 48; the average extent of mediation of the composite outcome related to NT-proBNP was 45%., Conclusions: In patients with worsening HFrEF, vericiguat significantly decreased NT-proBNP levels compared with placebo. This change appeared associated with a modest relative improvement in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [VICTORIA]; NCT02861534)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The VICTORIA trial was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, and Bayer AG. Dr Armstrong has received research grants from Merck, Bayer, Sanofi-Aventis Recherche & Développement, Boehringer Ingelheim, and CSL Limited; and consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr Troughton has received research grants and personal fees from Merck and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Lund has received consulting honoraria from Bayer/Merck; and unrelated to this present work, he has received grants from AstraZeneca, Vifor, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; he has received consulting fees from Merck, Vifor, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pharmacosmos, MedScape, Sanofi, Lexicon, Myokardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier; he has received speaker's honoraria from Abbott, MedScape, Radcliffe, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; and he has a patent and stock ownership with AnaCardio. Dr Lam has received research grants from Bayer, National Medical Research Council of Singapore, Boston Scientific, Roche Diagnostic, Medtronic, Vifor Pharma, and AstraZeneca; and consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Roche Diagnostic, Vifor Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Janssen Research & Development LLC, Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott Diagnostics, Corvia, Stealth BioTherapeutics, Novo Nordisk, JanaCare, Biofourmis, Darma, Applied Therapeutics, MyoKardia, Cytokinetics, WebMD Global LLC, Radcliffe Group Ltd, and Corpus. Dr Lam also has patent PCT/SG2016/050217 pending and patent 16/216929 pending and is co-founder and non-executive director of eKo.ai. Dr Westerhout has received consulting fees from Bayer Canada. Dr Blaustein is an employee of Merck & Co. Dr Butler has received consulting fees from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Vifor. Dr Hernandez has received research grants from Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Verily; and honoraria from Merck, Bayer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr Roessig is an employee of Bayer AG. Dr O’Connor has received research funding from Merck; and consulting fees from Bayer, Dey LP, and Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation. Dr Voors has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, MyoKardia, Novartis, Servier, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Ezekowitz has received research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, Amgen Sanofi, Novartis, Cytokinetics, American Regent, and Applied Therapeutics; and consulting fees from Bayer, Merck, Servier, Amgen, Sanofi, Novartis, Cytokinetics, American Regent, and Applied Therapeutics. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypertension is common in patients with heart failure (HF), but less is known about resistant hypertension., Objectives: This study sought to investigate apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) in patients with HF in the SwedeHF (Swedish Heart Failure Registry), across the spectrum of HF phenotypes (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF], heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction [HFmrEF], and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF])., Methods: aTRH was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg (≥135 mm Hg in diabetes) despite treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or sacubitril-valsartan, as well as a calcium-channel blocker and a diuretic; non-treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) was defined as systolic blood pressure above these thresholds but not on the 3-drug combination; and normal blood pressure was defined as under these thresholds. In each left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) category, patient factors associated with aTRH and non-TRH and outcomes (HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death composite, its components, and all-cause death) according to hypertension category were examined., Results: Among 46,597 patients, aTRH was present in 2,693 (10%), 1,514 (14%), and 1,450 (17%) patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively. Older age, obesity, diabetes, and kidney disease were associated with a greater likelihood of aTRH and non-TRH (vs normal blood pressure). Associations were generally similar irrespective of LVEF category. Compared with normal blood pressure, aTRH was associated with a lower adjusted risk of the composite outcome in HFrEF and HFmrEF (HR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.74-0.85] and HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.77-0.96]) but not in HFpEF (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.84-1.04])., Conclusions: aTRH was most common in HFpEF and least common in HFrEF. Associated patient characteristics were similar irrespective of LVEF category. aTRH (vs normal blood pressure) was associated with a lower risk of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death in HFrEF and HFmrEF but not in HFpEF., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures SwedeHF is funded by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, the Swedish Society of Cardiology, and the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. No funding agency had any role in the design, conduct, or decision or approval to publish this study. Dr Lund is supported by Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Research Council (grant 523-2014-2336), the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation (grants 20150557 and 20190310), and the Stockholm County Council (grants 20170112 and 20190525). Dr Jackson is supported by a British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Training Fellowship (FS/18/14/33330). Drs McMurray and Petrie are supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant (RE/18/6/34217). Dr Petrie has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly; personal fees from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, NAPP Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Alnylam, Bayer, Resverlogix, and Cardiorentis; and grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis. Dr Jhund has received personal fees from Novartis and AstraZeneca; personal fees and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim; and his employer, the University of Glasgow, has received remuneration from AstraZeneca for work on the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. Mr Dahlström has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Vifor Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics; and consulting honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer all outside of the submitted work. Ms Hage has received consulting fees from Novartis and Roche Diagnostics; and speaker and honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, and is supported by the Swedish Research Council (grant 20180899). Mr Savarese has received grants and personal fees from Vifor; grants and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from Società Prodotti Antibiotici; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca; personal fees from Roche, Servier, GENESIS, Cytokinetics, and Medtronic; and grants from Novartis, Boston Scientific, PHARMACOSMOS, and Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr McMurray reports that his employer, Glasgow University, has been paid by Novartis for his serving as an executive committee member and co–principal investigator of the ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM-HF, and PARAGON-HF trials and as an executive/steering committee member of the PARADISE-MI and PERSPECTIVE trials (with sacubitril-valsartan) and for meetings/presentations related to these trials, aliskiren, and sacubitril-valsartan. Novartis has also paid for his travel and accommodation for some of these meetings. Glasgow University has also been paid by Novartis for Dr McMurray serving on an advisory board; by Bayer for serving as a steering committee member of the PANACHE trial using neladenoson bialanate (BAY 1067197); by Cardiorentis for serving as a steering committee member and endpoint committee chair for the TRUE-AHF trial and attending meetings related to this trial; by Cardiorentis for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by Amgen for serving as a steering committee member for the ATOMIC-HF and COSMIC-HF trials and attending meetings related to these trials; by Amgen for travel and accommodation for some of these meetings; by Oxford University (which received a grant from Bayer, which manufactures acarbose) for serving as a steering committee member for the ACE (Acarbose Cardiovascular Evaluation) trial (using acarbose) and attending meetings related to this trial; by Theracos for serving as principal investigator for the BEST trial and attending meetings related to this trial; by Theracos for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by AbbVie (which manufactures atrasentan) for serving as a steering committee member for the SONAR trial (using atrasentan) and to attend meetings related to this trial; by AbbVie for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by DalCor Pharmaceuticals for serving as a steering committee member for the Dal-GenE trial and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Pfizer for serving on the data safety monitoring committee for the SPIRE trial and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Merck for serving on the data safety monitoring committee for the MK-3102 program for the VICTORIA trial and for attending meetings related to this trial; by AstraZeneca (which markets dapagliflozin) for serving as principal investigator of DAPA-HF and co–principal investigator of DELIVER and to attend meetings related to these trials; by AstraZeneca for travel and accommodation to attend meetings; by GlaxoSmithKline for serving as co–principal investigator and steering committee member, respectively, for the Harmony-Outcomes trial (albiglutide) and 2 trials, ASCEND-D and ASCEND-ND, using daprodustat, and to attend meetings related to these trials; by GlaxoSmithKline for travel and accommodation to attend some of the meetings; by Bristol Myers Squibb for serving as a steering committee member for the STAND-UP clinical trial (using an HNO donor) on heart failure and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Kings College Hospital (which has received a grant from KRUK and Vifor-Fresenius, which manufacture intravenous iron) for serving as a steering committee member for the PIVOTAL trial (using intravenous iron) and for running the endpoint adjudication committee for this trial; and to attend meetings related to PIVOTAL and for travel and accommodation to attend some of the meetings. All payments were made through consultancies with Glasgow University, and Dr McMurray has not received any personal payments in relation to the trials or drugs. Dr Lund has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Vifor Pharma, Relypsa, and Pharmacosmos; and consulting/speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer, Vifor Pharma, Sanofi, Lexicon, MyoKardia, Orion Pharma, Merck/Merck Sharp & Dohme, Respicardia, and Medscape. Ms Benson has reported that she has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are often cared for by non-cardiologists. The implications are unknown., Methods: In a nationwide HF cohort with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we compared demographics, clinical characteristics, guideline-based therapy use and outcomes in non-cardiology vs. cardiology in-patient and out-patient care., Results: Between 2000 and 2016, 36,076 patients with HFrEF were enrolled in the Swedish HF registry (19,337 [54%] in-patients overall), with 44% of in-patients and 45% of out-patients managed in non-cardiology settings. Predictors of treatment in non-cardiology were age > 75 years (adjusted odds ratio for non-cardiology 1.20; 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.27), lower education level (0.71; 0.66-0.76 for university vs. compulsory), valve disease (1.24; 1.18-1.31) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) >120 mmHg (1.05; 1.00-1.10). Non-cardiology care was significantly associated with lower use of beta-blockers (0.80; 0.74-0.86) and devices (intracardiac defibrillator [ICD] and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]: 0.63; 0.56-0.71), and less frequent specialist follow-up (0.61; 0.57-0.65). Over 1-year follow-up the risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.09; 1.03-1.15) was higher but the risk of first HF (re-) hospitalization was lower (0.93; 0.89-0.97) in non-cardiology vs. cardiology care., Conclusions: In HFrEF, non-cardiology care was independently associated with older ageand lower education. After covariate adjustment, non-cardiology care was associated with lower use of beta-blockers and devices, higher mortality, and lower risk of HF hospitalization. Access to cardiology care may not be equitable and this may have implications for use of guideline-based care and outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Accurate non-invasive estimation of right atrial pressure (RAP) is essential to assess volume status and optimize therapy in heart failure (HF). This study aimed to evaluate the utility of right atrial reservoir strain (RASr) assessed by speckle-tracking echocardiography to identify elevated RAP in HF and compare diagnostic performance with estimated RAP employing inferior vena cava size and collapsibility (RAP IVC ), in addition to RA area., Method: Association between RASr and invasive RAP (RAP Invasive ) was examined in 103 HF subjects that underwent standard echocardiography with speckle-tracking strain analysis directly followed by right heart catheterization. The discriminatory ability of RASr to identify RAP Invasive  > 7 mmHg was evaluated and compared with RAP IVC and RA area., Results: RASr demonstrated association with RAP Invasive (β = -0.41, p < 0.001) and was an independent predictor when adjusted for potential confounders (β = -0.25, p < 0.001). Further, RASr showcased strong discriminatory ability to identify subjects with RAP Invasive  > 7 mmHg (AUC = 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-0.87; p < 0.001). At a cut-off value of -15%, RASr displayed 78% sensitivity and 72% specificity to identify elevated RAP Invasive. In comparison, RAP IVC (AUC = 0.71; 95% CI 0.61-0.81; p < 0.001) demonstrated 89% sensitivity and 32% specificity with high false positive rate. RA area (AUC = 0.66; 95% CI 0.55-0.76, p = 0.005) displayed 64% sensitivity and 53% specificity., Conclusions: RASr demonstrates good ability to identify elevated RAP and relatively stronger diagnostic performance when compared with conventional non-invasive measures. RASr may be useful as a novel noninvasive estimate of RAP in HF management., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Comorbidities may differently affect treatment response and cause-specific outcomes in heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) vs. mid-range/mildly-reduced (HFmrEF) vs. reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (EF), complicating trial design. In patients with HF, we performed a comprehensive analysis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), atrial fibrillation (AF) chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cause-specific outcomes., Methods and Results: Of 42,583 patients from the Swedish HF registry (23% HFpEF, 21% HFmrEF, 56% HFrEF), 24% had T2DM, 51% CKD, 56% AF, and 8% all three comorbidities. HFpEF had higher prevalence of CKD and AF, HFmrEF had intermediate prevalence of AF, and prevalence of T2DM was similar across the EF spectrum. Patients with T2DM, AF and/or CKD were more likely to have also other comorbidities and more severe HF. Risk of cardiovascular (CV) events was highest in HFrEF vs. HFpEF and HFmrEF; non-CV risk was highest in HFpEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFrEF. T2DM increased CV and non-CV events similarly but less so in HFpEF. CKD increased CV events somewhat more than non-CV events and less so in HFpEF. AF increased CV events considerably more than non-CV events and more so in HFpEF and HFmrEF., Conclusion: HFpEF is distinguished from HFmrEF and HFrEF by more comorbidities, non-CV events, but lower effect of T2DM and CKD on events. CV events are most frequent in HFrEF. To enrich for CV vs. non-CV events, trialists should not exclude patients with lower EF, AF and/or CKD, who report higher CV risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest GS reports grants and personal fees from Vifor, non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Societa´ Prodotti Antibiotici, grants from MSD, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Servier, grants from Novartis, personal fees from GENESIS, personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Cytokinetics, outside the submitted work. LHL reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Vifor-Fresenius, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Relypsa, personal fees from Bayer, grants from Boston Scientific, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pharmacosmos, personal fees from Abbott, grants and personal fees from Mundipharma, personal fees from Medscape, outside the submitted work. CS, BS, TT, IL, US, LB, FC, FA: None related with the current study. AM, SFF, MB, KGB and OV are employed by Boehringer Ingelheim., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of anemia in heart failure with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF, EF 40-49% and HFpEF, EF ≥50%) is unknown. We aimed to compare prevalence of, associations with, and prognostic role of anemia in HF across the EF spectrum., Methods: In patients from the Swedish HF Registry, we assessed the associations between clinical characteristics and anemia (hemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men) by multivariable logistic regression, and between anemia, composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization and all-cause death alone by multivariable Cox regression., Results: Of 49,985 patients with HF (anemia = 34%), 23% had HFpEF (anemia = 41%), 21% had HFmrEF (anemia = 35%) and 55% had HFpEF (anemia = 32%). Higher EF was independently associated with higher likelihood of concomitant anemia. Important predictors of anemia across the EF spectrum were male sex, older age, worse New York Heart Association class and renal function, lower systolic blood pressure, higher N-Terminal B-type natriuretic peptides levels, diabetes, valvular disease and in-patient status. Anemia had adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for mortality or HF hospitalization 1.24 (1.18-1.30) in HFpEF, 1.26 (1.19-1.34) in HFmrEF and 1.14 (1.10-1.19) in HFrEF; p interaction EF = 0.003; and for mortality 1.28 (1.20-1.36) in HFpEF, 1.21 (1.13-1.29) in HFmrEF, and 1.30 (1.24-1.35) in HFrEF; p interaction EF = 0.22., Conclusions: In this nation-wide registry, prevalence of anemia was higher in HFpEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFrEF, but was associated with a similarly increased risk of death across the EF spectrum, with greater risk of death or HF hospitalization in HFpEF and HFmrEF vs. HFrEF., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The distinction between pre-capillary and post-capillary pulmonary hypertension (PH) is central to accurate diagnosis and appropriate therapy. We aimed to investigate the ability of the novel echocardiographic pulmonary to left atrial global strain ratio (ePLAGS) to distinguish pre-capillary from post-capillary PH and compare its discriminatory strength with the echocardiographic pulmonary to left atrial ratio (ePLAR)., Methods: Consecutive subjects with unexplained dyspnea or heart failure underwent echocardiography immediately followed by right heart catheterization. Subjects who did not satisfy the ESC/ERS criteria for PH, in atrial fibrillation or under pacemaker therapy, or with significant concomitant valvular disease were excluded. ePLAGS was calculated as peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity divided by left atrial global reservoir strain., Results: One hundred and thirty PH subjects, as defined by right heart catheterization, were included in the analysis (pre-capillary: n = 64, post-capillary: n = 66). ePLAGS was lower in pre-capillary compared with post-capillary PH (0.19 ± 0.14 vs. 0.45 ± 0.58 m/s/%; p = 0.02) and significantly different between combined post- and pre-capillary PH (Cpc-PH) and isolated post-capillary PH (Ipc-PH) (0.62 ± 0.85 vs. 0.32 ± 0.19 m/s/%; p = 0.04). ePLAR was higher in pre-capillary as compared with post-capillary PH (0.37 ± 0.16 vs. 0.20 ± 0.08; p < 0.001) but did not differ between Ipc-PH and Cpc-PH. ePLAGS demonstrated stronger discriminating power than ePLAR to distinguish pre-capillary from post-capillary PH (AUC = 0.80 vs. 0.70). In the setting of post capillary PH, ePLAGS showed reasonable ability to distinguish Ipc-PH from Cpc-PH (AUC = 0.65). ePLAR, however, did not differentiate these two groups (AUC = 0.49; p > 0.05)., Conclusions: ePLAGS accurately differentiates pre-capillary from post-capillary PH and demonstrates higher diagnostic ability than ePLAR., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim was to assess sex-specific differences in N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) regarding concentrations, predictors of high concentrations, and prognostic role, in a large and unselected population with chronic heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: In 9847 outpatients with HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF (49 vs. 35 vs. 25% females, respectively) from the Swedish HF Registry, median NT-proBNP concentrations were 1598 ng/L in females vs. 1310 ng/L in males in HFpEF, 1764 vs. 1464 ng/L in HFmrEF, and 2543 vs. 2226 ng/L in HFrEF (p < 0.05 for all). The differences persisted after multiple adjustment. The largest sex-difference in NT-proBNP levels was observed in HFpEF with sinus rhythm, where median concentrations were 1.4 folds higher in females (923 vs. 647 ng/L). Independent predictors of NT-proBNP levels (defined as above the different medians according to sex and HF phenotype) were overall consistent across sexes and EF. NT-proBNP levels were similarly associated with risk of all-cause death/HF hospitalization in both sexes regardless of EF., Conclusion: Concentrations of NT-proBNP were higher in females across the EF spectrum, with larger relative differences in HFpEF with sinus rhythm. However, similar predictors of high levels were observed in both sexes. There were no sex-differences in the prognostic role of NT-proBNP. These findings support the use of NT-proBNP for prognostic purposes in chronic HF, regardless of sex., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the incidence, the predictors, and the associations with outcomes of changes in ejection fraction (EF) in heart failure (HF) patients., Background: EF determines therapy in HF, but information is scarce about incidence, determinants, and prognostic implications of EF change over time., Methods: Patients with ≥2 EF measurements were made in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry were categorized as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (EF ≥50%), heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) (EF 40% to 49%), or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF <40%). Changes among categories were recorded, and associations among EF changes, predictors, and all-cause mortality and/or HF hospitalizations were analyzed using logistic and Cox regressions., Results: Of 4,942 patients at baseline, 18% had HFpEF, 19% had HFmrEF, and 63% had HFrEF. During follow-up, 21% and 18% of HFpEF patients transitioned to HFmrEF and HFrEF, respectively; 37% and 25% of HFmrEF patients transitioned to HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively; and 16% and 10% of HFrEF patients transitioned to HFmrEF and HFpEF, respectively. Predictors of increased EF included female sex, cases of less severe HF, and comorbidities. Predictors of decreased EF included diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and cases of more severe HF. Use of renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors was associated with lower likelihood of EF increase, but not with EF decrease, i.e., stable EF. Increased EF was associated with a lower risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55 to 0.69) and decreased EF with a higher risk (HR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.30) of mortality and/or HF hospitalizations. Prognostic implications were most evident for transitions to and from HFrEF., Conclusions: Increases in EF occurred in one-fourth of HFrEF and HFmrEF patients, and decreases occurred in more than one-third of patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. EF change was associated with a wide range of important clinical and organizational factors as well as with outcomes, particularly transitions to and from HFrEF., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Recipient age and donor age are well-known prognostic factors in adult heart transplantation. However, the association between donor age and recipient age and their interaction and short- and long-term mortality is unknown., Methods: We studied 64,354 heart transplants to adult recipients between 1988 and 2013 in the ISHLT Registry. Donor age and recipient age were analyzed as continuous and categorical variables and restricted cubic spline functions to assess non-linear associations and interactions. The end-point was all-cause mortality., Results: In the multivariable analysis, the odds ratio for 30-day mortality per 10-year increase in recipient age was 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 1.08, p = 0.009) compared with 1.19 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.22, p < 0.001) for donor age. In the first year, the hazard ratio for mortality was 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.07, p < 0.001) for a 10-year increase in recipient age and 1.16 (1.14 to 1.18, p < 0.001) for donor age. In Years 1 to 3, 3 to 5, and 5 to 10 post-transplant, the hazard ratio was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.92, p < 0.001), 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02, p = 0.266), and 1.14 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.17, p < 0.001) for recipient age, and 1.12 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.14, p < 0.001), 1.07 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.10, p < 0.001), and 1.07 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.10, p < 0.001) for donor age, respectively. There was no interaction of recipient age and donor age with survival at any follow-up time-point., Conclusions: At 30 days, both higher donor age and recipient age were associated with higher mortality. At 1 to 10 years, older donor age was associated with higher mortality at all follow-up time-points, but the hazard was greater in the short term, and recipient age was associated only with longer term mortality. The risk from donor age appears equal across recipient age groups., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study investigated 1-year incidence and predictors of dyskalemia (dysK) and its outcome associations in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF)., Background: DysK in real-world HF is insufficiently characterized. Fear of dyskalemia may lead to underuse or underdosing of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors., Methods: Patients enrolled in the SwedeHF (Swedish Heart Failure) Registry from 2006 to 2011 in Stockholm, Sweden were included in the analyses. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified independent predictors of dysK within 1 year. Time-dependent Cox models assessed outcomes associated with incident dysK (all-cause death, HF, and other cardiovascular disease [CVD] hospitalizations) within 1 year from baseline., Results: Of 5,848 patients, 24.4% experienced hyperkalemia (hyperK [K >5.0 mmol/l]) at least once, and 10.2% had moderate or severe hyperK (K >5.5 mmol/l). Adjusted risk of moderate or severe hyperK was highest in HFpEF and HFmrEF. Similarly, 20.3% of patients had at least one episode of hypokalemia (hypoK [<3.5 mmol/l]), and 3.7% had severe hypoK (<3.0 mmol/l). Adjusted risk of any hypoK was highest in HFpEF. Independent predictors of both hyperK and hypoK were sex, baseline potassium and estimated glomerular filtration rate, low hemoglobin, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inpatient status, and higher New York Heart Association functional class. Incident dysK was associated with increased risk of mortality. Furthermore, hypoK was associated with increased CVD hospitalizations (HF-related excluded). There was no association between dysK and HF hospitalization risk, regardless of EF., Conclusions: DysK is common in HF and is associated with increased mortality. Risk of moderate or severe hyperK was highest in HFpEF and HFmrEF, whereas risk of hypoK was highest in HFpEF. HF severity, low hemoglobin, COPD, baseline high and low potassium, and low eGFR were relevant predictors of dysK occurrence., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To study prevalence and prognostic importance of diagnostic echocardiographic variables in patients with suspected heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the prospective KaRen register study., Methods and Results: KaRen patients were included following an acute HF-presentation, using Framingham criteria, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) >100 ng/L or N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-pro-BNP) >300 ng/L, and left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ≥45%. Echocardiography was performed after 4-8 weeks and analyzed at a core laboratory. In this substudy HFpEF was diagnosed according to the ESC guidelines for heart failure 2016. A total of 539 patients were included with a follow-up after 4-8 weeks in 438 patients. Complete echocardiography and ECG were available in 356 patients. At least two abnormal echocardiographic criteria for HFpEF were found in 94% (n = 333). Echocardiographic signs of structural heart disease and diastolic dysfunction according to 4 criteria by ESC were found in 76% (n = 270). Diastolic dysfunction was graded as mild in 30% (n = 107), moderate in 27% (n = 97) or severe in 35% (n = 124). After multivariate analyses with adjustment for age, gender, EF and natriuretic peptides we found two independent predictors of worse prognosis: presence of moderate and severe diastolic dysfunction (HR 1.8, CI 1.2-2.7, p = 0.0037) and presence of a high number (≥4) of abnormal diastolic parameters (HR 2.0, CI 1.3-3.1, p = 0.0033)., Conclusion: The majority of KaRen patients with suspected HFpEF had diagnostic echocardiographic criteria for HFpEF according to ESC Guidelines. Our findings support using 2016 ESC HF guidelines for risk prediction in HFpEF., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: We studied the association between heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF) and the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG)., Methods: We included all patients who underwent isolated CABG in Sweden 2003 to 2013. AKI was defined according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes definition, as an increase in postoperative serum creatinine concentration by ≥26 μmol/L or ≥50%, compared to preoperative values. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for AKI were calculated using logistic regression for patients with and without heart failure, and among patients with heart failure, by EF categories (<30% severely reduced; 30-40% moderately reduced; ≥50% preserved)., Results: Included were 36,403 patients of whom 3914 (11%) had heart failure. In patients with heart failure, 26% developed AKI compared with 14% in patients without heart failure. After adjustment for background characteristics, including preoperative kidney function and EF, the OR for AKI was 1.12 (95% CI 1.02-1.23) in patients with heart failure compared with no heart failure. Among patients with heart failure, the adjusted OR for AKI among patients with EF <30% vs. ≥50% was 1.32 (95% CI 1.06-1.65) and for 30-49% vs. ≥50% 1.06 (95% CI 0.87-1.28), respectively., Conclusion: Patients with heart failure who underwent CABG had an increased risk for AKI postoperatively even after adjustment for comorbidity such as EF. Among patients with heart failure, having a severely reduced EF was associated with AKI compared to patents with preserved EF., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited data exist describing impact of body mass index (BMI) on post‒left ventricular assist device (post-LVAD) outcomes. We sought to define the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and adverse events (AEs) after LVAD implantation by examining the ISHLT Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (IMACS) registry., Methods: Patients implanted with a contemporary continuous flow (CF)-LVAD were stratified into 4 groups using pre-operative BMI: underweight (UW; BMI ≤18.5 kg/m 2 ); non-obese (NO; BMI >18.5 to <30 kg/m 2 ); obese (OB; BMI ≥30 to <40 kg/m 2 ); and morbidly obese (MO; BMI ≥40 kg/m 2 ). Freedom from AEs was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and risk factors for development of first AE were identified using multiphase parametric hazard modeling. AEs included infection, thromboembolic events, bleeding, device malfunction, and neurologic dysfunction., Results: Between 2013 and 2015, a total of 9,408 patients underwent implantation of a CF-LVAD, which consisted of 368 (4%) UW, 5,719 (61%) NO, 2,770 (29%) OB, and 444 (5%) MO patients. Survival among the 4 BMI cohorts was similar at 2years (70.8% to 75.8%, p = 0.24). MO patients were less likely to be free from a non‒VAD-related infection (p < 0.0001) or device-related infection (p = 0.0014) at 2years (50.3%, 70.7%) when compared with OB (58.3%, 78.7%), NO (65.2%, 81.4%), and UW (68.9%, 77.4%) patients. UW (81.5%) and NO (81.3%) patients were more likely to be free from device malfunction at 2years when compared with OB (78.3%) and MO (72.6%) (p = 0.0006). Thromboembolic events were rare and more common in the UW cohort (p = 0.026)., Conclusions: Although BMI was not correlated with 2-year mortality, an increased rate of infectious and device-related AEs was noted in OB and MO LVAD patients. In a group with few options for transplant, the event morbidity in obese patients can be expected to impact morbidity with longer support durations., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with poor quality of life (QoL), or patient reported outcome (PRO). Despite female predominance in HFpEF, sex-specific differences in PROs remain poorly studied. We assessed PRO measures and their association with HF-severity and outcome in HFpEF by sex., Methods and Results: In 378 patients with HFpEF from the KaRen study, EQ-5D-3L® and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire® (MLHFQ) were assessed. Characteristics and comorbidities were largely similar in women (n = 212, 57%) and men. Women expressed worse QoL in EQ-5D-3L®(EQ-VAS), independent of age and HF-severity, mean (SD), 57 (20) vs. 61 (19), p = 0.010. There was no difference in MLHFQ, 31 (21) vs. 29 (21), p = 0.269. Spearman's correlations with HF-severity (NYHA-class) were for MLHFQ in women r s 0.37 vs. men 0.41, p for both <0.001, and for EQ-VAS r s -0.28, p = 0.001 vs. -0.45, p < 0.001. Correlations with natriuretic peptides were for MLHFQ r s 0.21, p = 0.003 in women vs. men 0.27, p < 0.001, and for EQ-VAS r s -0.17 vs. -0.27, p both < 0.001. Associations between PRO and the composite of HF hospitalisation or all-cause death were present in men only, adjusted HR per 5 units increase in MLHFQ 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.11, p = 0.02 and EQ-VAS, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98, p = 0.010., Conclusion: In HFpEF, women had worse general but similar disease specific QoL compared to men. QoL was more strongly associated with HF-severity in men, and associated with outcomes only in men. In women with HFpEF, QoL appears less determined by HF itself and potentially more by other unknown factors., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: We used multicenter international data from the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation Mechanically Assisted Circulation Support (IMACS) registry to determine bloodstream infection (BSI) event rate, independent risk factors, and association with mortality., Methods: Included were patients registered in IMACS from January 2013 through December 2015, assessed BSI event rate of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and non-MCS-related BSIs, and conducted univariate and multivariate analyses between BSI with baseline characteristics and mortality., Results: We documented 1,606 BSIs in 1,231 of 10,171 MCS recipients (12%), with an event rate of 2.43 BSIs/100 patient-months within 3 months after implant (early onset) and 1.03 BSIs/100 patient-months after 3 months (late onset). Of these episodes, 1,378 (85.8%) were non- MCS-related BSI. Increasing body mass index and bilirubin were independent correlates of MCS-related BSI. Independent correlates of non-MCS-related BSI included older age, higher body mass index, previous cardiac surgery, baseline chronic renal disease and dialysis, pre-implant frailty, presence of biventricular assist device, total artificial heart or right ventricular assist device, and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support category 1. Survival after 3 months after implant of patients who developed early-onset BSI was 56.9% at 24 months vs 77.4% in patients without early-onset BSI (p < 0.001). Early-onset BSI was an independent correlate of mortality at 3 months after implantation (hazard ratio, 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-3.15; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Early-onset BSI was associated with significantly increased 24-month mortality. More than 85% of these BSIs were not device related. There is an opportunity for infection prevention practices to decrease the BSI event rate, which may affect 24-month survival. These data can also serve as benchmarking for individual institutions., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for the Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives/background: In heart failure (HF), pulse pressure (PP) may reflect both vascular stiffness and left ventricular function, but its prognostic role in relation to ejection fraction (EF) is poorly understood., Methods: In the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, we investigated the association between PP and 1-year mortality in patients with HF and reduced (HFrEF, <40%), mid-range (HFmrEF, 40-49%) and preserved EF (HFpEF, ≥50%), using multivariable logistic regression and restricted cubic splines., Results: Among 36,770 patients discharged alive or enrolled as out-patients with 1-year follow-up (mean age 74±12years, 63% men, 56% HFrEF, 21% HFmrEF, 23% HFpEF), crude one-year mortality was 18%. Mean PP increased across EF groups: 51±16 in HFrEF, 57±18 in HFmrEF, 60±19mmHg in HFpEF. In crude regression splines, the association between PP and mortality was U-shaped in HFmrEF and HFpEF, but curvilinear with only low PP associated with mortality in HFrEF. In multivariable analyses, a significant interaction by EF group and PP was observed (p interaction =0.015): low PP was associated with higher mortality in HFrEF (adjusted OR [1st vs. 4th quintile]=1.40, 95% CI 1.18-1.67) and HFpEF (1.43, 1.14-1.81) but only by trend in HFmrEF; high PP had a trend towards higher mortality in HFmrEF (5th vs. 3rd quintile=1.30, 1.00-1.69) and HFpEF (1.25, 0.98-1.61)., Conclusions: The association between PP and mortality in HF was influenced by EF. Low PP was independently associated with mortality in HFrEF and HFpEF and by trend in HFmrEF. High PP was independently associated with mortality by trend in HFmrEF and HFpEF., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the association between N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and cardiovascular (CV) versus non-CV events and between NT-proBNP and potential treatment effects in heart failure (HF) with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF, respectively) and clinically relevant subgroups., Background: Optimizing patient eligibility criteria in HF trials requires biomarkers that enrich for CV but not for non-CV events and select patients most likely to respond to the tested intervention., Methods: In the Swedish HF registry population stratified by EF category, we used Kaplan-Meier curves to estimate unadjusted CV and non-CV risks (mortality or hospitalization); Poisson regressions to calculate crude event rates of CV and non-CV events according to NT-proBNP levels; and Cox regressions to calculate the adjusted hazard ratios for HF therapies according to NT-proBNP ≤ or > median., Results: In a cohort of 15,849 patients (23% HFpEF, 21% HFmrEF, 56% HFrEF), median NT-proBNP was 2,037, 2,192, and 3,141 pg/ml, respectively. With increasing NT-proBNP, CV event rates increased more steeply than non-CV rates (range 20 to 160 and 30 to 100 per 100 patient-years in HFpEF; 20 to 130 and 20 to 100 in HFmrEF; and 20 to 110 and 20 to 50 in HFrEF, respectively). The CV-to-non-CV ratio increased with increasing NT-proBNP in HFpEF and HFrEF, but only in the lower range in HFmrEF. The association between treatments (e.g., angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, and beta-blockers) and outcomes was consistent in NT-proBNP ≤ and > median., Conclusions: In HF trial design in different EF categories, NT-proBNP may be a useful tool for eligibility and enrichment for CV events, but its role in predicting a potential treatment response remains unclear., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The study sought to assess the independent risk factors for, consequences of, and outcomes with atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with sinus rhythm (SR) in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) versus HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) versus HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Background: AF is common in HF, but most data are from HFrEF. The importance of AF in HFpEF and HFmrEF is less well known., Methods: In patients from 2000 to 2012 in the SwedeHF (Swedish Heart Failure Registry) registry, enriched with patient-level data from national health care registries, the authors assessed prevalence of, associations with, and prognostic impact of AF in HFpEF versus HFmrEF versus HFrEF., Results: Of 41,446 patients, 23% had HFpEF, 22% had HFmrEF, and 55% had HFrEF. The prevalence of AF was 65%, 60%, and 53% in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF, respectively. Independent associations with AF were similar in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF and included greater age, male, duration of HF, prior myocardial infarction, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). The adjusted hazard ratios for AF versus SR in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF were the following: for death, 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.21), 1.22 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.33), and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.11 to 1.23); for HF hospitalization or death, 1.17 (95% CI: 1.09 to 1.26), 1.29 (95% CI: 1.20 to 1.40), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.20); and for stroke or TIA or death, 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.25), 1.23 (95% CI: 1.13 to 1.34), and 1.19 (95% CI: 1.14 to 1.26)., Conclusions: AF was progressively more common with increasing ejection fraction, but was associated with similar clinical characteristics in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF. AF was associated with similarly increased risk of death, HF hospitalization, and stroke or TIA in all ejection fraction groups. In contrast, AF and SR populations were considerably different regarding associated patient characteristics and outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Survival beyond 1 year after heart transplantation has remained without significant improvement for the last 2 decades. A more individualized approach to post-transplant care could result in a reduction of long-term mortality. Although recipient age has been associated with an increased incidence of certain post-transplant morbidities, its effect on cause-specific mortality has not been established., Methods: We analyzed overall and cause-specific mortality of heart transplant recipients registered in the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry between 1995 and 2011. Patients were grouped by recipient age: 18 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and ≥ 70 years. Multivariable regression models were used to examine the association between recipient age and leading causes of post-transplant mortality. We also compared immunosuppression (IS) use among the different recipient age groups., Results: There were 52,995 recipients (78% male; median age [5th, 95th percentile]: 54 [27, 66] years). Survival through 10 years after transplant was lower in heart transplant recipients in the 2 more advanced age groups: 49% for 60 to 69 years and 36% for ≥ 70 years (p < 0.01 for pairwise comparisons with remaining groups). The risk of death caused by acute rejection (hazard ratio [HR], 4.11; p < 0.01), cardiac allograft vasculopathy (HR, 2.85; p < 0.01), and graft failure (HR, 2.29; p < 0.01) was highest in the youngest recipients (18-29 years) compared with the reference group (50-59 years). However, the risk of death caused by infection (HR, 2.10; p < 0.01) and malignancy (HR, 2.23; p < 0.01) was highest in older recipients (≥ 70 years). Similarly, the risk of death caused by renal failure was lower in younger recipients than in the reference group (HR, 0.53; p < 0.01 for 18-49 years vs 50-59 years). The use of induction IS was similar among the different recipient age groups, and differences in maintenance IS were not clinically important., Conclusions: Causes of death in this large cohort of heart transplant recipients varied significantly with recipient age at the time of transplant, with cause-specific mortality profiles suggesting a possible effect of inadequate IS in younger recipients and over-IS in older recipients. Thus, a more personalized approach, possibly including different IS strategies according to recipient age, might result in improved post-transplant survival., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Numerous cohort analyses suggest rapidly increasing use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx), but the role of age in selection for MCS remains unknown., Methods: We assessed adult HTx in the International Society for Heart And Lung Transplantation Registry between 2005 and 2013 and we determined MCS use by recipient age group and transplant year. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to identify variables associated with continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) use within each age group., Results: Among 16,480 HTx recipients the percentage of overall MCS use increased from 23% to 38%, 21% to 41%, and 17% to 42% in age groups 18-39 years, 40-59 years and over 60 years, respectively. This effect was mainly due to an increase in CF LVAD use and primarily in HTx recipients aged over 60. In multivariable analyses, male gender and blood group O were significantly associated with CF LVAD use in all age groups., Conclusions: Bridge to transplant MCS use increased dramatically between 2005 and 2013 primarily due to increased use of CF LVAD and primarily in higher ages. Pre-HTx CF LVAD use was more frequent in men and blood group O., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) exhibits a "reverse metabolic profile". Whether this profile exists in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that HFpEF and HFrEF are similar regarding concentrations of and prognostic impact of leptin and adiponectin., Methods: In patients with HFpEF(n=79), HFrEF(n=84), and controls(n=71), we analyzed serum leptin and adiponectin concentrations, their correlations, and associations with outcome., Results: Leptin levels in HFpEF and HFrEF were increased (p<0.05) compared to controls; with the highest levels in HFpEF, median (IQR), 23.1 (10.2-51.0), vs. HFrEF 15.0 (6.2-33.2), and vs. controls 10.8 (5.4-18.9) ng/mL.There was no difference between HFpEF and HFrEF p=0.125 (adjusted for gender, BMI and age). Leptin was inversely associated with NT-proBNP (r=-0.364 p=0.001) and associated with better outcome in HFrEF (HR per ln increase of leptin 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99, p=0.044) but not in HFpEF. Crude levels of adiponectin were similar in HFpEF: 11.8 (7.9-20.1), HFrEF: 13.7 (7.0-21.1), and controls: 10.5 (7.4-15.1) μg/L. In men, adjusted similarly as leptin, there was no difference between HFpEF and HFrEF, p=0.310 but, compared to controls, higher levels in HFpEF (p=0.044) and HFrEF (p=0.001). Adiponectin correlated positively with NT-proBNP; r=0.396 p<0.001 and higher levels were associated with adverse outcome only in HFrEF (HR per ln increase 2.88 (95% CI 1.02-8.14, p=0.045)., Conclusion: HFpEF and HFrEF share elevated levels of leptin and adiponectin. However, the concept of reverse metabolic profile could not be confirmed in HFpEF, suggesting that HFpEF might have a conventional metabolic profile, rather than a distinct HF syndrome., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pre-transplant amiodarone use has been postulated as a risk factor for morbidity and mortality after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). We assessed pre-OHT amiodarone use and tested the hypothesis that it is associated with impaired post-OHT outcomes., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of adult OHT recipients from the registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). All patients had been transplanted between 2005 and 2013 and were stratified by pre-OHT amiodarone use. We derived propensity scores using logistic regression with amiodarone use as the dependent variable, and assessed the associations between amiodarone use and outcomes with Kaplan-Meier analysis after matching patients 1:1 based on propensity score, and with Cox regression with adjustment for propensity score., Results: Of the 14,944 OHT patients in the study cohort, 32% (N = 4,752) received pre-OHT amiodarone. Amiodarone use was higher in recent years (29% in 2005 to 2007, 32% in 2008 to 2010, 35% in 2011 to 2013). Amiodarone-treated patients were older and more frequently had a history of sudden cardiac death (27% vs 13%) and pre-OHT mechanical circulatory support. Key donor characteristics and allograft ischemia times were similar between groups. In propensity-matched analyses, amiodarone-treated patients had higher rates of cardiac reoperation (15% vs 13%) and permanent pacemaker (5% vs 3%) after OHT and before discharge. Amiodarone-treated patients also had higher 1-year mortality (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.30), but the risks of early graft failure, retransplantation and rehospitalization were similar between groups., Conclusions: Amiodarone use before OHT was independently associated with increased 1-year mortality. The need for amiodarone therapy should be carefully and continuously assessed in patients awaiting OHT., (Copyright © 2016 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The study sought to compare the prevalence, clinical correlates and prognostic impact of diabetes in Southeast Asian versus white patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved or reduced ejection fraction., Background: Diabetes mellitus is common in HF and is associated with impaired prognosis. Asia is home to the majority of the world's diabetic population, yet data on the prevalence and clinical significance of diabetes in Asian patients with HF are sparse, and no studies have directly compared Asian and white patients., Methods: Two contemporary population-based HF cohorts were combined: from Singapore (n = 1,002, median [25th to 75th percentile] age 62 [54 to 70] years, 76% men, 19.5% obesity) and Sweden (n = 19,537, 77 [68 to 84] years, 60% men, 24.8% obesity). The modifying effect of ethnicity on the relationship between diabetes and clinical correlates or prognosis (HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality) was examined using interaction terms., Results: Diabetes was present in 569 (57%) Asian patients versus 4,680 (24%) white patients (p < 0.001). Adjusting for clinical covariates, obesity was more strongly associated with diabetes in white patients (odds ratio [OR]: 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.86 to 4.17) than in Asian patients (OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.96; p interaction  = 0.026). Diabetes was more strongly associated with increased HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality in Asian patients (hazard ratio: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.87) than in white patients (hazard ratio: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.36; p interaction  = 0.045)., Conclusions: Diabetes was 3-fold more common in Southeast Asian compared to white patients with HF, despite younger age and less obesity, and more strongly associated with poor outcomes in Asian patients than white patients. These results underscore the importance of ethnicity-tailored aggressive strategies to prevent diabetes and its complications., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) there are no surrogate endpoints for early phase trials. The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether a reduction in natriuretic peptides (NP) between acute hospital presentation to stable follow-up is associated with improved mortality and morbidity., Methods: Patients presenting acutely to the hospital for ADHF with HFpEF enrolled in the Karolinska Rennes (KaRen) study and reporting N-terminal pro-B-type NP or B-type NP assessment at baseline hospital presentation and at 4-8weeks follow-up were prospectively studied. Logistic regression analyses were performed to detect the predictors of baseline and changes in NPs. Cox regression models were performed to assess the impact of NP reductions on mortality and the composite of mortality and HF hospitalization., Results: Of 361 patients (median follow-up 585days), 267 (74%) reported an improvement in NPs, while 94 (26%) reported worsening. At baseline, the independent predictors of lower NPs were higher glomerular filtration rate (Odds Ratio [OR] per unit: 1.013; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.005-1.021) and younger age (OR per year: 0.972; CI: 0.947-0.998). Improvement in NPs at follow-up was predicted by higher heart rate at baseline (OR per bpm: 1.014; CI: 1.003-1.025). After adjustments, the hazard ratio for all-cause death was 0.730 (CI: 0.456-1.169) and for the composite outcome 0.814 (CI: 0.582-1.139) for patients who improved vs. worsened in NP levels., Conclusions: In patients presenting acutely to the hospital with HFPEF, an improvement in NP levels did not independently and significantly predict improved mortality and/or morbidity. NPs as surrogate endpoints in acute HFpEF require further study., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) by a meta-analysis., Background: AF is quite prevalent in patients with HF., Methods: Four phase III clinical trials comparing NOACs to warfarin in patients with AF were included. Each patient was defined as affected by HF according to the criteria of the trial in which the patient was enrolled. Pre-specified outcomes were the composite of stroke/systemic embolism (SSE); major, intracranial, and any bleeding; and cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause death., Results: A total of 55,011 patients were enrolled, 26,384 (48%) with HF, and 28,627 (52%) without HF; 27,518 receiving NOACs and 27,493 receiving warfarin (median, 70 years of age; 36% females; follow-up: 1.5 to 2.8 years). Rates of SSE (relative risk [RR]: 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.07]; p = 0.68) and major bleeding (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.03; p = 0.21) were comparable in patients with and without HF. HF patients had reduced rates of any (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.91; p < 0.01) and intracranial (RR: 0.74 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.88; p < 0.01) bleeding but increased rates of all-cause (RR: 1.70 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.19; p < 0.01) and CV death (RR: 2.05 95% CI: 1.66 to 2.55; p < 0.01). NOACs, compared with warfarin significantly reduced SSE and major, intracranial, and any bleeding, regardless of the presence or absence of HF (p interaction > 0.05 for each)., Conclusions: Patients with AF and HF had increased mortality but reduced rates of intracranial and any bleeding compared with the no-HF patients, with no differences in rates of SSE and major bleeding. NOACs significantly reduced SSE, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage in HF patients. No interactions in efficacy and safety of NOACs were observed between AF patients with and without HF., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)