Search

Background: Although some patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction have low natriuretic peptide levels, there are no large-scale systematic studies of how common these individuals are or what happens to them., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the proportion of patients in the I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial with an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level <125 pg/mL, their clinical characteristics, and outcomes., Methods: I- PRESERVE enrolled patients with symptomatic HF and a LVEF ≥45% but who did not have NT-proBNP or body mass index inclusion/exclusion criteria. Baseline NT-proBNP was measured after enrollment but not reported to investigators. The primary outcome in this analysis was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization., Results: Overall, 808 of 3,480 patients (23.2%) had NT-proBNP <125 pg/mL. Patients with a low NT-proBNP were younger (68.6 years vs 72.6 years; P < 0.001), were less often men (36.1% vs 40.9%; P = 0.015), and had a higher body mass index (48.4% vs 38.7% obese; P < 0.001) than those with a higher NT-proBNP level. Patients with a low NT-proBNP had less atrial fibrillation (8.5% vs 35.1%; P < 0.001), myocardial infarction, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia but better kidney function. Patients with a lower NT-proBNP level had less marked echocardiographic abnormalities and were less likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization; adjusted HR: 0.35 (95% CI: 0.27-0.46; P < 0.001). However, health status was similarly impaired in patients with lower and higher NT-proBNP levels (median Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire 43 vs 43; P = 0.95)., Conclusions: Almost one-quarter of patients with HF with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction had a low NT-proBNP level. Although these patients have a favorable prognosis, compared to those with a high NT-proBNP level, they have similarly impaired health status which should be a target for treatment. (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I- PRESERVE]; NCT00095238)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Kondo has received speaker fees from Abbott, Ono Pharma, Otsuka Pharma, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Abiomed. Dr Jhund has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Alkem Metabolics, ProAdWise Communications, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Intas Pharmaceuticals; has received advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Analog Devices Inc; his employer, the University of Glasgow, has been remunerated for clinical trial work from AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk; and he is a Director of Global Clinical Trial Partners. Drs Jhund and McMurray are supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant RE/18/6/34217 and the Vera Melrose Heart Failure Research Fund. Dr Anand has received consulting fees from Amgen, ARCA Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, LivaNova, and Novartis. Dr Carson has received honoraria as a CEC member from Novartis. Dr Lam is supported by a Clinician Scientist Award from the National Medical Research Council of Singapore; has received research support from Novo Nordisk 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; and serves as cofounder and non-executive director of Us2.ai. Dr Shah has received either personal or institutional research support from AstraZeneca. Dr Vadagunathan has received research grant support, served on advisory boards, or had speaker engagements with American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; and participates on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics. Dr Zannad has received consulting fees from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cereno Scientific, Cellprothera, CEVA, CVRx, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor-Pharma; and has been a founder of CardioRenal and CVCT. Dr Zile reports research funding from Novartis; and has been a consultant for Novartis, Abbott, Boston Scientific, CVRx, EBR, Endotronics, Ironwood, Merck, Medtronic, and Myokardia V Wave. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellPro-Thera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University for work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, KBP Biosciences, and Novartis; has received personal consultancy fees from: Alnylam Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, George Clinical PTY Ltd, Ionis Pharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharma, and River 2 Renal Corporation; has received personal lecture fees from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, AstraZeneca, Blue Ocean Scientific Solutions Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge, Emcure Pharma. Ltd, Eris Lifesciences, European Academy of CME, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Imagica health, Intas Pharma, J.B. Chemicals and Pharma. Ltd, Lupin Pharma, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Sun Pharma., The Corpus, Translation Research Group, and Translational Medicine Academy; and is a Director of Global Clinical Trial Partners., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure. Although current U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling does not provide guidance regarding initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with worsening kidney function, guidelines identify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 as a contraindication to therapy., Objectives: This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of continuing sacubitril/valsartan in patients with deterioration of kidney function below an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ., Methods: The association between a deterioration in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , efficacy and safety outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor were evaluated using time updated Cox models in a post hoc parallel trial analyses of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF., Results: Among 8,346 randomized patients in PARADIGM-HF and 4,746 in PARAGON-HF, 691 (8.3%) and 613 (12.9%), respectively, had an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 at least once in follow-up. Patients experiencing such deterioration were at higher risk of the primary outcome in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. However, the incidence of the primary outcome remained lower with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, regardless of deterioration in kidney function in both PARADIGM-HF (P interaction  = 0.50) and PARAGON-HF (P interaction  = 0.64). Rates of key safety outcomes were higher among patients experiencing eGFR deterioration; however, rates were similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on treatment., Conclusions: Patients experiencing deterioration of kidney function to a value below eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 faced high risk of cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes. Continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent clinical benefit and no incremental safety risk. These data support continuation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure treatment even when eGFR declines below this threshold (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure], NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction], NCT01920711)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials were funded by Novartis. Dr Chatur is supported by the Canadian Arthur J.E. Child’s Cardiology Fellowship. Dr Beldhuis has received a grant from the Dutch Heart Foundation. Dr Claggett has received consulting fees from Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, Gilead, Myokardia, Cardurion, and Novartis. Dr McCausland has received research funding from NIDDK, Satellite Healthcare, Fifth Eye, Novartis, and Lexicon paid directly to his institution; has received consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, and Zydus Therapeutics; and has received expert witness fees from Rubin-Anders Scientific. Dr Neuen has received fees for advisory boards, steering committee roles, scientific presentations, and travel support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Cornerstone Medical Education, the Limbic, Medscape, and Janssen, with all honoraria paid to The George Institute for Global Health. Dr Desai has received research grant support from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alnylam, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alnylam, Axon Therapeutics, Avidity Biopharma, Bayer, Biofourmis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, Veristat, and Zydus. Dr Rouleau has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Zile has received fees for serving on a steering committee from Abbott and Ironwood Pharma; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific and MyoKardia; has received grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from CVRx and Medtronic; has received fees for serving on an eligibility committee from EBR Systems and V-Wave; has received fees for serving on a clinical events committee from Endotronics; and has received fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Merck. Dr Packer has received consulting fees from 89bio, Abbvie, Actavis, Alderlyx, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Attralus, Boehringer Ingelheim, Caladrius, Casana, CSL Behring, Cytokinetics, Imara, Lilly, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Reata, Regeneron, Relypsa, and Salamandra. Dr Lefkowitz is an employee of Novartis. Dr McMurray has received grants and his employer paid by AstraZeneca, Theracos, and GlaxoSmithKline during the conduct of the study; has received grants and his employer being paid by Novartis, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Abb-vie, Dal-Cor, Kidney Research UK, and Cardurion and grants from British Heart Foundation. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and Puretech Health. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support, has served on advisory boards, or has had speaker engagements with American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; and has participated on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics. Dr Pfeffer has reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The authors tested the hypothesis that physiological information from sensors within a minimally invasive, subcutaneous, insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) could be used to develop an ambulatory heart failure risk score (HFRS) to accurately identify heart failure (HF) patients, across the ejection fraction spectrum, at high risk of an impending worsening heart failure event (HFE)., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine performance of ICM-based, multiparameter, dynamic HFRS to predict HFEs in patients with NYHA functional class II/III HF., Methods: In 2 observational cohorts, HF patients were implanted with an ICM; subcutaneous impedance, respiratory rate, heart rate and variability, atrial fibrillation burden, ventricular rate during atrial fibrillation, and activity duration were combined into an HFRS to identify the probability of HFE within 30 days. Patients and providers were blinded to the data. HFRS sensitivity and unexplained detection rate were defined in 2 independent patient population data sets. HFEs were defined as hospitalization, observation unit, or emergency department visit with a primary diagnosis of HF, and intravenous diuretic treatment., Results: First data set (development): 42 patients had 19 HFE; second data set (validation): 94 patients had 19 HFE (mean age 66 ± 11 years, 63% men, 50% with LVEF ≥40%, 80% NYHA functional class III). Using a high-risk threshold = 7.5%, development and validation data sets: sensitivity was 73.7% and 68.4%; unexplained detection rate of 1.4 and 1.5 per patient-year; median 47 and 64 days early warning before HFE., Conclusions: ICM-HFRS provides a multiparameter, integrated diagnostic method with the ability to identify when HF patients are at increased risk of heart failure events. (Reveal LINQ Evaluation of Fluid [REEF]; NCT02275923, Reveal LINQ Heart Failure [LINQ HF]; NCT02758301, Algorithm Using LINQ Sensors for Evaluation and Treatment of Heart Failure [ALLEVIATE-HF]; NCT04452149)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by Medtronic. Drs Zile, Kahwash, Mehra, Fonarow, Gulati, and Butler have served as consultants to Medtronic. Drs Sarkar, Koehler, and Zielinski are employees of Medtronic. Dr Mehra has received travel support and consulting fees, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, from Abbott; fees for serving on a steering committee from Medtronic and Janssen (Johnson and Johnson); fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Mesoblast; consulting fees from Natera, Paragonix, Moderna, the Baim Institute of Clinical Research, and Broadview Ventures; and fees for serving as a scientific board member from NuPulseCV, Leviticus, Transmedics and FineHeart. Dr Fonarow has served as a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Butler has served as a consultant for Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimension, Cardior, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Element Science, Innolife, Impulse Dynamics, Imbria, Inventiva, Lexicon, Lilly, LivaNova, Janssen, Merck, Occlutech, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Pharmain, Roche, Sequana, SQ Innovation, 3live, and Vifor., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction have no overt volume overload and normal resting left atrial (LA) pressure., Objectives: This study sought to characterize patients with normal resting LA pressure (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [PCWP] <15 mm Hg) but exercise-induced left atrial hypertension (EILAH)., Methods: The REDUCE LAP-HF II (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc. IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure) trial randomized 626 patients with ejection fraction ≥40% and exercise PCWP ≥25 mm Hg to atrial shunt or sham procedure. The primary trial outcome, a hierarchical composite of death, heart failure hospitalization, intensification of diuretics, and change in health status was compared between patients with EILAH and those with heart failure and resting left atrial hypertension (RELAH)., Results: Patients with EILAH (29%) had similar symptom severity, but lower natriuretic peptide levels, higher 6-minute walk distance, less atrial fibrillation, lower left ventricular mass, smaller LA volumes, lower E/e', and better LA strain. PCWP was lower at rest, but had a larger increase with exercise in EILAH. Neither group as a whole had a significant effect from shunt therapy vs sham. Patients with EILAH were more likely to have characteristics associated with atrial shunt responsiveness (peak exercise pulmonary vascular resistance <1.74 WU) and no pacemaker (63% vs 46%; P < 0.001). The win ratio for the primary outcome was 1.56 (P = 0.08) in patients with EILAH and 1.51 (P = 0.04) in those with RELAH when responder characteristics were present., Conclusions: Patients with EILAH had similar symptom severity but less advanced myocardial and pulmonary vascular disease. This important subgroup may be difficult to diagnose without invasive exercise hemodynamics, but it has characteristics associated with favorable response to atrial shunt therapy. (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc. IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure [REDUCE LAP-HF TRIAL II]; NCT03088033)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was sponsored by Corvia Medical Inc. Dr Litwin has received research funding from the department of Veterans Affairs, Corvia, AstraZeneca, V-Wave, Axon Therapeutics, and Eli Lilly all paid to the institution; has received consulting fees from CVRx, Axon Therapeutics, Occlutech, Eli Lilly, and Rivus Pharmaceuticals; and has received travel grants, speaker fees, and advisory board honoraria from NovoNordisk and Roche. Dr Komtebedde is employed by Corvia. Dr Burkhoff has consulted for Corvia. Dr Hasenfuß has consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Servier, Vifor; has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, and Vifor; and is a co-principal investigator to Impulse Dynamics. Dr Borlaug has received research grants from Corvia, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, GlaxoSmithKline, Mesoblast, Novartis, and Tenax Therapeutics; and has received consulting fees from Actelion, Amgen, Aria, Axon Therapies, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Imbria, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and VADovations. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, DiNAQOR, Tremeau, CellProthera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, AnaCardio, and Akros. Dr Mohan has received research support from Corvia and V-Wave paid to the institution. Dr Kahwash has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Impulse Dynamics, and Cardionomic. Dr Sverdlov has received research grants from the National Heart Foundation of Australia (Future Leader Fellowships 101918 and 106025), Department of Health and Aged Care (Australia): Medical Research Future Fund (MRF2017053), New South Wales Health (Australia), Novartis Australia, Biotronik, RACE Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma; and has received personal fees from Novartis, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Corvia, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Fail has received research support paid to the institution from Corvia and Alleviant. Dr Chung has served as a consultant to Intershunt. Dr Kaye has received research support from Corvia. Dr Hummel has received research grant funding from National Institutes of Health, Veterans Affairs, American Heart Association, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Corvia, and Axon Therapies. Dr Zirlik has received personal consulting fees and honoraria for lectures from Abbott, Abiomed, AstraZeneca, Amarin, Amgen, Bayer Healthcare, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimensions, Cardiorentis, Corvia, Daichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Neucomed, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Rigel, and Stealth Peptides. Dr Hayward has received research support from Corvia, Medtronic, Abbott, Roche, and Procyrion. Dr Lewis has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01-HL 151841, R01-HL131029, R01-HL159514), American Heart Association (15GPSGC-24800006), Amgen, Cytokinetics, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and SoniVie; has received honoraria for advisory boards outside of the current study from Pfizer, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, NXT, American Regent, Cyclerion, Cytokinetics, and Amgen; and has received royalties from UpToDate for scientific content authorship related to exercise physiology. Dr Gupta has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, Imara, Corvia, and Astellas Pharma. Dr Cikes has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Novartis, and Pfizer; has received travel grants, speaker fees, and advisory board honoraria from Abbott, Abiomed, Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka Pharma, LivaNova, Medtronic, Novartis, Orion Corporation, Pfizer, Sanofi, Swixx BioPharma, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, all outside of the present study; and has received research support from Corvia. Dr Gustafsson has received honoraria outside the present study as a consultant for Abbott, Pfizer, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Alnylam; has received speaker fees from Novartis and Orion Pharma; and has received research support from Corvia. Dr Silvestry has received research support from Corvia. Dr Rowin has received research support from Corvia; and has served as a consultant for Cardiovascular Clinical Sciences. Dr Cutlip has received research support from Corvia paid to the institution. Dr Kitzman has received honoraria outside the present study as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Rivus, Keyto, and Novartis; has received grant funding outside the present study from Novartis, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca; owns stock in Gilead Sciences; and has received research support from Corvia. Dr Shah has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health (U54 HL160273, R01 HL107577, R01 HL127028, R01 HL140731, R01 HL149423), Actelion, AstraZeneca, Corvia, Novartis, and Pfizer; and has received personal fees from Abbott, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Aria CV, Axon Therapies, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiora, Coridea, CVRx, Cyclerion, Cytokinetics, Edwards Lifesciences, Eidos, Eisai, Imara, Impulse Dynamics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis, Ironwood, Lilly, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Prothena, Regeneron, Rivus, Sanofi, Shifamed, Tenax, Tenaya, and United Therapeutics. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anemia is common in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Renin-angiotensin system blockers lower hemoglobin and may induce anemia., Objectives: The authors investigated whether concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure)., Methods: Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men at screening. The authors investigated the effect of randomized treatment on clinical outcomes according to anemia status, change in hemoglobin from baseline, and the incidence of anemia., Results: Of 8,239 participants with a baseline hemoglobin measurement, 1,677 (20.4%) were anemic. Patients with anemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement, and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization similarly in patients with (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-1.00) and without anemia (HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87]; P value for interaction = 0.478). Between baseline and 12 months, hemoglobin decreased by 1.5 g/L (95% CI: 1.2-1.7 g/L) with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 g/L (95% CI: 2.0-2.6 g/L) with enalapril: mean difference 0.8 g/L (95% CI: 0.5-1.2 g/L; P < 0.001). Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop anemia at 12 months (321 of 2,806 [11.4%]) compared with patients randomized to enalapril (440 of 2,824 [15.6%]) (OR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.60-0.81]; P < 0.001). These findings were similar in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) (sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan). There was biomarker evidence of increased iron utilization with sacubitril/valsartan., Conclusions: Irrespective of anemia status, sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril, decreased mortality and hospitalization. Hemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anemia was lower with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF] trial; NCT01035255)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials were funded by Novartis. Drs McMurray and Adamson are supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant (RE/18/6/34217). Dr Docherty has received funding to the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom, from AstraZeneca for DAPA-HF; and has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr Jhund has received consulting fees, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from Novartis; advisory board fees from Cytokinetics; and grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Desai has received personal fees from Abbott, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Regeneron, and Relypsa; and has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alnylam, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. Drs Lefkowitz and Rizkala are employees of Novartis. Dr Rouleau has received grants and consulting fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, MyoKardia, and Sanofi. Dr Swedberg has consulted for Novartis. Dr Zile has received research funding from Novartis; and has been a consultant for Novartis, Abbott, Boston Scientific, CVRx, EBR, Endotronics, Ironwood, Merck, Medtronic, and Myokardia V Wave. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and has consulted for Abbott, Action Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boeringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, and American Regent. Dr Packer has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Akcea, Actavis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Relypsa, Sanofi, Synthetic Biologics, and Theravance. Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Theracos; and has received personal payments from Abbott, Hikma, Ionis, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Servier. Dr Curtain 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: In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, a central committee of heart failure (HF) specialists optimized guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) and documented medication and goal dose intolerances before patient enrollment., Objectives: The authors sought to assess the rates, reasons, and predictors of GDMT intolerance in the COAPT trial., Methods: Baseline use, dose, and intolerances of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were analyzed in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, in whom maximally tolerated doses of these agents as assessed by an independent HF specialist were required before enrollment., Results: A total of 464 patients had LVEF ≤40% and complete medication information. At baseline, 38.8%, 39.4%, and 19.8% of patients tolerated 3, 2, and 1 GDMT classes, respectively (any dose); only 1.9% could not tolerate any GDMT. Beta-blockers were the most frequently tolerated GDMT (93.1%), followed by ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (68.5%), and then MRAs (55.0%). Intolerances differed by GDMT class, but hypotension and kidney dysfunction were most common. Goal doses were uncommonly achieved for beta-blockers (32.3%) and ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (10.2%) due to intolerances limiting titration. Only 2.2% of patients tolerated goal doses of all 3 GDMT classes., Conclusions: In a contemporary trial population with HF, severe mitral regurgitation, and systematic HF specialist-directed GDMT optimization, most patients had medical intolerances prohibiting 1 or more GDMT classes and achieving goal doses. The specific intolerances noted and methods used for GDMT optimization provide important lessons for the implementation of GDMT optimization in future clinical trials. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Abbott Laboratories has provided funding for this paper. Dr Cox has received grants from AstraZeneca, and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals; and consulting fees from Roche. Dr Udelson has served on steering committees for Abiomed; and has received consulting fees from Imbria Pharmaceuticals. Dr Lim has received grants from Abbott, Edwards, Medtronic, and Gore; consulting fees from Abbott, Edwards, Keystone Heart, Pipeline, Siemens, Valgen, and Venus; has served on advisory boards for Ancora and Venus; and holds equity in 510Kardiac and Venus. Dr Grayburn has received grant support and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Neochord; and grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Tendyne. Dr Mack has the following nonfinancial relationships: he has served as co-primary investigator for the PARTNER Trial for Edwards Lifesciences and COAPT trial for Abbott; and has served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic. Dr Abraham has received grants and consulting fees from Abbott. Dr Stone has received honoraria from Terumo, Cook, and Infraredx; consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Reva, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Vascular Dynamics, Shockwave, V-Wave, Cardiomech, and Gore; holds equity/options for Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and MedFocus family of funds. Dr Lindenfeld has received grants from AstraZeneca; and consulting fees from Abbott, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, RESMED, Relypsa, BI, and V-Wave. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) and previous heart failure hospitalization (HFH), hemodynamic-guided HF management using a wireless pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) sensor reduces HFH, but it is unclear whether these benefits extend to patients who have not been recently hospitalized but remain at risk because of elevated natriuretic peptides (NPs)., Objectives: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of hemodynamic-guided HF management in patients with elevated NPs but no recent HFH., Methods: In the GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure) trial, 1,000 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II to IV HF and either previous HFH or elevated NP levels were randomly assigned to hemodynamic-guided HF management or usual care. The authors evaluated the primary study composite of all-cause mortality and total HF events at 12 months according to treatment assignment and enrollment stratum (HFH vs elevated NPs) by using Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Of 999 evaluable patients, 557 were enrolled on the basis of a previous HFH and 442 on the basis of elevated NPs alone. Those patients enrolled by NP criteria were older and more commonly White persons with lower body mass index, lower NYHA class, less diabetes, more atrial fibrillation, and lower baseline PAP. Event rates were lower among those patients in the NP group for both the full follow-up (40.9 per 100 patient-years vs 82.0 per 100 patient-years) and the pre-COVID-19 analysis (43.6 per 100 patient-years vs 88.0 per 100 patient-years). The effects of hemodynamic monitoring were consistent across enrollment strata for the primary endpoint over the full study duration (interaction P = 0.71) and the pre-COVID-19 analysis (interaction P = 0.58)., Conclusions: Consistent effects of hemodynamic-guided HF management across enrollment strata in GUIDE-HF support consideration of hemodynamic monitoring in the expanded group of patients with chronic HF and elevated NPs without recent HFH. (Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure [GUIDE-HF]; NCT03387813)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The GUIDE-HF trial was funded by Abbott. Dr Desai has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and is a consultant for Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Axon Therapeutics, Avidity, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Medpace, Merck, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, Roche, and Verily. Dr Maisel has been a consultant to Abbott. Dr Mehra is a consultant for Abbott, Natera, Paragonix, Moderna, Janssen, Broadview Ventures, Mesoblast, and Baim Institute for Clinical Research; has served on the Clinical Events Committee for GUIDE-HF through the Baim Institute for Clinical Research; and holds stock in NuPulseCV, Leviticus, and FineHeart. Dr Zile has been a consultant for Abbott. Dr Ducharme has been a consultant for Abbott. Dr Paul has been a consultant for Abbott. Dr Sears has received research grants from Medtronic and Zoll; is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, and Milestone Pharmaceutical; and has received personal fees from Medtronic and Zoll. Dr Smart has received research grants from Amgen; and is a consultant for Abbott. Mr Henderson is employed by Abbott. Dr Johnson is employed by Abbott. Dr Adamson is employed by Abbott. Dr Costanzo has been a consultant for Abbott. Dr Lindenfeld has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Sensible Medical, and Volumetrix; and is a consultant for Abbott, Alleviant Medical, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, and V-Wave. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Temporal characteristics of a multimetric risk score and its individual parameters before, during, and after a heart failure (HF) event have not been defined., Objectives: A large real-world patient cohort with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) defibrillators was used to define these temporal characteristics., Methods: Deidentified health records were linked to manufacturer's device database in 17,886 patients. Multimetric risk score combined daily measures of impedance, heart rate, activity, heart rate variability, and atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, AF ventricular rate, CRT pacing, and ventricular tachycardia episodes and shocks. HF event was defined as an inpatient, emergency department, or observation unit stay with primary diagnosis of HF and intravenous diuretic agents administration. Changes in risk parameters during 60 days before, during, and after an HF event were compared in patients with no HF readmissions vs patients with HF readmission., Results: A total of 1,174 patients had HF events with no HF readmission, and 282 patients had HF events with HF readmission. Diagnostic risk score was higher on all 60 days before and after a HF event in patients with HF readmission compared with patients with no readmission (P < 0.001). Change in risk score from admission to discharge was similar in patients with and without HF readmission, but the risk score fell more significantly 7 after discharge and 30 days after admission in patients without HF readmission (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Temporal characteristics of risk metrics were significantly different in patients with no HF readmissions vs patients with HF readmission; patients without HF recurrence had larger recovery of risk metrics values toward normal., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding for this study was provided by Medtronic. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hemodynamically-guided management using an implanted pulmonary artery pressure sensor is indicated to reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-III with a prior HF hospitalization or those with elevated natriuretic peptides., Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the effect of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) on treatment outcomes in the GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd management of Heart Failure) randomized trial., Methods: The GUIDE-HF randomized arm included 1,000 NYHA functional class II-IV patients (with HF hospitalization within the prior 12 months or elevated natriuretic peptides adjusted for EF and body mass index) implanted with a pulmonary artery pressure sensor, randomized 1:1 to a hemodynamically-guided management group (treatment) or a control group (control). The primary endpoint was the composite of HF hospitalizations, urgent HF visits, and all-cause mortality at 12 months. The authors assessed outcomes by EF in guideline-defined subgroups ≤40%, 41%-49%, and ≥50%, within the trial specified pre-COVID-19 period cohort., Results: There were 177 primary events (0.553/patient-year) in the treatment group and 224 events (0.682/patient-year) in the control group (HR: 0.81 [95% CI: 0.66-1.00]; P = 0.049); HF hospitalization was lower in the treatment vs control group (HR: 0.72 [95% CI: 0.57-0.92]; P = 0.0072). Within each EF subgroup, primary endpoint and HF hospitalization rates were lower in the treatment group (HR <1.0 across the EF spectrum). Event rate reduction by EF in the treatment groups was correlated with reduction in pulmonary artery pressures and medication changes., Conclusions: Hemodynamically-guided HF management decreases HF-related endpoints across the EF spectrum in an expanded patient population of patients with HF. (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd Management of Heart Failure [GUIDE-HF]; NCT03387813)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding was provided by Abbott. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Up to 20% of patients in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials are not taking diuretic agents at baseline, but little is known about them., Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine outcomes in patients with HFrEF not taking diuretic medications and after diuretic medications are started., Methods: Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients taking or not taking diuretic drugs at baseline in the ATMOSPHERE (Aliskiren Trial of Minimizing Outcomes for Patients With Heart Failure) and PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial) trials combined. Patients starting diuretic medications were also compared with those remaining off diuretic drugs during follow-up. Symptoms (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score [KCCQ-CSS]), hospitalization for worsening heart failure (HF), mortality, and kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate slope) were examined., Results: At baseline, the 3,079 of 15,415 patients (20%) not taking diuretic medications had a less severe HF profile, less neurohumoral activation, and better kidney function. They were less likely to experience the primary outcome (hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death) than patients taking diuretic agents (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.74-0.80; P < 0.001) and death of any cause. Commencement of a diuretic drug was associated with higher subsequent risk for death (adjusted HR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.99-2.11; P < 0.001) and greater decreases in KCCQ-CSS and estimated glomerular filtration rate. The 5 strongest predictors of initiation of diuretic medications were higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, higher body mass index, older age, history of diabetes, and worse KCCQ-CSS. In PARADIGM-HF, fewer patients who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan commenced diuretic agents (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58-0.88; P = 0.002)., Conclusions: Patients with HFrEF not taking diuretic medications and those who remained off them had better outcomes than patients treated with diuretic agents or who commenced them., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials were funded by Novartis. All authors (except Drs Curtain, Campbell, and Jackson) or their institutions were paid by Novartis for their participation in one or both of these trials. Dr Petrie has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, SQ Innovations, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Pharmacosmos; and is a consultant and endpoint committee member for Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, AbbVie, Bayer, Takeda, Cardiorentis, and Pharmacosmos. Dr Abraham has received research support from Abbott Vascular; and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular. Dr Desai has received research grant support from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biofourmis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Lupin Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Relypsa, Regeneron, and Sun Pharma. Dr Dickstein has served as a member of the executive steering committee for the ATMOSPHERE trial. Dr Kober has received honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer, Novo, and AstraZeneca. Dr Rouleau has received grants and consulting fees from Novartis; and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Swedberg has received consulting for Novartis. Dr Zile has received research funding from Novartis and has been a consultant for Novartis, Abbott, Boston Scientific, CVRx, EBR, Endotronics, Ironwood, Merck, Medtronic, and Myokardia V Wave. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi-Pasteur, and Theracos; and has consulted for Abbott, Action Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, and American Regent. Dr Jhund has received consulting, advisory board, and speaker fees from Novartis; has received advisory board fees from Cytogenetics; and a has received grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr McMurray has received support from British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant RE/18/6/34217; has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos; and has received personal payments from Abbott, Hikma, Ionis, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Servier. 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.)

Objectives: In this study, the authors sought to assess the relationship between AFF and outcomes, the treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan and first-detected AFF in patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial., Background: Atrial fibrillation and flutter (AFF) are common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and increase the risk of adverse outcomes., Methods: A total of 4,776 patients formed 3 groups: those with AFF according to electrocardiography (ECG) at enrollment (n = 1,552; 33%), those with history of AFF but without AFF on ECG at enrollment (n = 1,005; 21%), and those without history of AFF or AFF on ECG at enrollment (n = 2,219, 46%). We assessed outcomes, treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in each group, and the risk associated with first-detected AFF in patients without any known AFF. The primary outcome was a composite of total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death., Results: History of AFF and AFF at enrollment were associated with higher risk of the primary outcome (risk ratio [RR]: 1.36 [95% CI: 1.12-1.65] and RR: 1.31 [1.11-1.54], respectively), than no AFF. Neither history of AFF nor AFF at enrollment modified the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan. Post randomization AFF occurred in 12% of patients without previous AFF and was associated with 2.8-fold higher risk of the primary outcome, but it was not influenced by sacubitril/valsartan., Conclusions: History of AFF and AFF on ECG at enrollment were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome. First-detected AFF was not influenced by sacubitril/valsartan, yet it was associated with increased risk of all subsequent outcomes and may represent a potential target for future HFpEF trials. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARAGON-HF study was sponsored by Novartis; no additional funding was provided for this analysis. Dr Cikes has received institutional grants or contracts from Novartis, Abbott, and Corvia; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, Speakers Bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Sanofi, and LivaNova; and participation on advisory boards for Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr Planinc has received an educational grant from Boehringer Ingelheim; has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, Speakers Bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Sanofi Aventis, Pfizer, Bayer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Krka-Farma, Servier-Pharma, Sandoz, Mylan, and AstraZeneca; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Pfizer, Bayer, and Abbott; and has participated on advisory boards for Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Claggett has received consulting fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis. Dr Cunningham has received grant support from the United States National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (T32HL094301). Dr Sweitzer has received salary support from Novartis for work as PARAGON-HF national leader, Merck for work as national leader, and the American Heart Association for work as journal editorship; and has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. Dr Shah has received institutional grants from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Corvia, Pfizer, and Novartis; has received royalties or licenses from UpToDate; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Axon Therapies, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardiora, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Ironwood, Lilly, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi, Shifamed, Tenax, and United Therapeutics. Dr Packer has received consulting fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Amarin, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Casana, CSL Behring, Cytokinetics, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Moderna, Novartis, ParatusRx, Pfizer, Relypsa, Salamandra, Synthetic Biologics, and Theravance; has received payment for expert testimony from Actavis; and has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Pfeffer has received institutional research grant support from Novartis for serving on the PARAGON-HF Steering Committee and as Study Chair of PARADISE-MI; has received personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, CinCor, Corvidia, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Innovative Science Solutions, Jazz, Lexicon, MyoKardia, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute CONNECTs (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, Pfizer, Pharmascience, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and A+ (third party to AstraZeneca); and has received stock options from DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr Zile has received grants, consulting fees and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board as part of the committees for the PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM trials. Dr Anand has received consulting fees from Novartis, Amgen, ARCA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and LivaNova; and has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Boston Scientific. Dr Chiang is a Novartis employee receiving wages and stocks from Novartis as part of an annual wage package. Dr Lam has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, and Roche Diagnostics; has received consulting fees from Actelion, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Darma Inc, Janssen R & D, Medscape/WebMD Global, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, St Luke, and Us2.ai; has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, Speakers Bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medscape/WebMD Global, Novartis, Radcliffe, and Roche Diagnostics; has a patent pending PCT/SG2016/050217; has a patent application number 16/216,929; has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche Diagnostics; and has nonexecutive director role and stock or stock options for Us2.ai. Dr Redfield has received steering committee membership for PARAGON-HF without personal compensation. Dr Desai has received institutional research grant support from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alnylam, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received personal consulting fees from Abbott, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biofourmis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, DalCor Pharma, Lupin Pharma, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Relypsa, Regeneron, and Sun Pharma. Dr McMurray has received institutional support from Novartis; has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, Speakers Bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Eris Lifesciences, Hikma, Lupin, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier, and The Corpus; and has received other institutional funding from Cytokinetics, KBP Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Theracos, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, DalCor, Glaxo Smith Kline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardurion, and Alnylam. Dr Solomon has received an institutional grant from Novartis for conduct of the PARAGON trial; has received institutional grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boeringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II-IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation., Methods: The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II-IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813., Findings: Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·74-1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (p interaction =0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70-1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61-0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications., Interpretation: Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group., Funding: Abbott., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JL has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Sensible Medical, and Volumetrix and is a consultant for Abbott, Alleviant Medical, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Edwards, Impulse Dynamics, and VWave. ASD has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis, is a consultant for Abbott and Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, DalCor Pharma, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Relypsa, and Regeneron, and has received personal fees from Lupin Pharma and Sun Pharma. KB is a consultant for Abbott and has received personal fees from Pfizer and Novartis. DH is a consultant for Abbott, has received personal fees from Abbott, and has served on advisory boards for Abbott. SRK is a consultant for Abbott and CareDx and has received personal fees from Abbott and CareDx. MRM is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, Janssen, Portola, Bayer, Triple Gene, and Baim Institute for Clinical Research, has served on advisory boards for Abbott and Mesoblast, has served on the Clinical Events Committee for GUIDE-HF through the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, and has stock in NuPulseCV, Leviticus, and FineHeart. SFS has received research grants from Medtronic and Zoll, is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and has received personal fees from Medtronic and Zoll. AJS is a consultant for Abbott and has received personal fees from Abbott. FS has received research grants from Amgen and is a consultant for Abbott. MRZ, AD, AM, SP, and MRC are consultants for Abbott. NJ, PS, GG, JH, and PBA are employees of Abbott. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The authors investigated the relationship between past or incident myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular (CV) events in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Background: MI and HFpEF share some common risk factors. The prognostic significance of MI in patients with HFpEF is uncertain., Methods: The authors pooled data from 3 trials-CHARM Preserved (Candesartan Cilexietil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity), I-Preserve (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function), and the Americas region of TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist) (N = 8,916)-and examined whether MI before or following enrollment independently predicted CV death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization., Results: At baseline, 2,668 patients (30%) had history of MI. Prior MI was independently associated with greater risk of CV death (4.7 vs. 3.5 events/100 patient-years [py], adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.42 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23 to 1.64]; p < 0.001). Excess sudden death drove this difference (1.9 vs. 1.2 events/100 py, adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.23 to 1.97]; p < 0.001). There was no difference in HF hospitalization (5.9 vs. 5.5 events/100 py, adjusted HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.19) or HF death by prior MI. During follow-up, MI occurred in 336 patients (3.8%). Risk of CV death increased 31-fold in the first 30 days after first post-enrollment MI, and remained 58% higher beyond 1 year after MI. Risk of first or recurrent HF hospitalization increased 2.4-fold after MI., Conclusions: Prior MI in HFpEF is associated with greater CV and sudden death but similar risk of HF outcomes. Patients with HFpEF who experience MI are at high risk of subsequent CV death and HF hospitalization. These data highlight the importance of primary and secondary prevention of MI in patients with HFpEF. (Candesartan Cilexietil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity [CHARM Preserved]; NCT00634712; Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I-Preserve]; NCT00095238; and Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), whether NT-proBNP modified the treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan, and the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan on NT-proBNP overall and in key subgroups., Background: Sacubitril/valsartan reduces NT-proBNP in heart failure (HF) with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction (EF), but did not significantly reduce total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan in patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)., Methods: In the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial, 4,796 patients with HFpEF and elevated NT-proBNP were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. NT-proBNP was measured at screening in all patients and at 5 subsequent times in >2,700 patients: before, between, and after sequential valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan run-in periods, and 16 and 48 weeks post-randomization., Results: Median NT-proBNP was 911 pg/ml (interquartile range: 464 to 1,613 pg/ml) at screening. Screening NT-proBNP was strongly associated with the primary endpoint, total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (rate ratio [RR]: 1.68 per log increase in NT-proBNP, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 1.85; p < 0.001). This relationship was stronger in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted RR: 2.33 [95% CI: 1.89 to 2.87] vs. 1.58 [95% CI: 1.42 to 1.75] in patients without atrial fibrillation; p interaction <0.001) and weaker in obese patients (adjusted RR: 1.50 [95% CI: 1.31 to 1.71] vs. 1.92 [95% CI: 1.70 to 2.17] in nonobese patients; p interaction <0.001). Screening NT-proBNP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (p interaction = 0.96). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP by 19% (95% CI: 14% to 23%; p < 0.001) compared with valsartan 16 weeks post-randomization, with similar reductions in men (20%) and women (18%), and in patients with left ventricular EF ≤57% (20%) and >57% (18%). Decreases in NT-proBNP predicted lower subsequent risk of the primary endpoint., Conclusions: Baseline NT-proBNP predicted HF events but did not modify the sacubitril/valsartan treatment effect in patients with HFpEF. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP consistently in men and women, and in patients with lower or higher EF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711)., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study investigated the use of natriuretic peptides as inclusion criteria and to develop recommendations regarding their use. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are commonly used as inclusion criteria for heart failure (HF) clinical trials, but no consensus exists regarding their optimal use for this purpose. A comprehensive search of the Aggregate Analysis of ClincalTrials.gov database identified 3,446 HF trials. Of these, 365 recently completed or ongoing HF clinical trials (10.6%) used either BNP or NT-proBNP as inclusion criteria. A panel of experts discussed current practices and a path forward for the use of natriuretic peptides as inclusion criteria for HF trials. Significant variations existed across trials regarding which natriuretic peptide and which cutoff value were used. Overall, 43% used both natriuretic peptides, 33% used only NT-proBNP, and 24% used only BNP in determining eligibility. Studies using BNP and NT-proBNP concentrations as inclusion criteria had higher cardiovascular event rates and higher concentrations for study entry and were generally associated with higher event rates. Areas of uncertainty included use in certain patient populations in which natriuretic peptides are historically lower (e.g., black patients, obese patients, patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction) or higher (older patients, patients with atrial fibrillation). This paper discusses best practices regarding use of BNP or NT-proBNP in clinical trials and identification of gaps in medical literature, including importance of documentation in ClinicalTrials.gov studies to inform future research efforts., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Symptoms of heart failure (HF) are due in large part to elevation of left and/or right ventricular filling pressures. Although abnormal diastolic function is difficult to define, it contributes to the elevation of filling pressures. Tests that characterize aspects of diastolic function or structural changes associated with diastolic dysfunction, may help in establishing a diagnosis of HF, assessing prognosis, and guiding treatments. Individual echocardiographic parameters correlate weakly with LV (LV) filling pressures measured directly. However, a combination of multiple parameters improves accuracy for detection of elevated filling pressures. Serum natriuretic peptide levels are related to ventricular filling pressures and, when elevated, are a key diagnostic criterion for HF. Currently available evidence is not adequate to recommend serial echocardiographic studies or natriuretic peptide level measurements to assess changes in filling pressures or to guide HF therapy. Measurements of inferior vena cava size and dynamics have potential for identifying inadequate decongestion during episodes of acute decompensated HF but have not yet demonstrated utility in improving HF outcomes. Direct measurement of LV filling pressures using implanted pressure sensors is the only "diastolic assessment" thus far that has proven efficacy in reducing HF hospitalization rates., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to describe baseline health-related quality of life (HRQL) in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, the largest heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) trial to date., Background: There are limited data characterizing HRQL in patients with HFpEF using validated metrics., Methods: The PARAGON-HF trial randomized symptomatic patients with HFpEF (≥45%) ≥50 years of age to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. The study reports comprehensive baseline HRQL using Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) administered at randomization after active run-in period. The study then compares baseline HRQL with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (≤40%) enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. Forward multivariable stepwise regression modeling was performed separately in both trials to identify independent clinical correlates of KCCQ-Overall Summary (KCCQ-OS) score. PARADIGM-HF trial patients <50 years of age were excluded to enable comparison., Results: In the PARAGON-HF trial, 4,735 of 4,822 patients (mean age 73 ± 8 years; 48% men) completed baseline KCCQ at randomization. Mean KCCQ-OS score was 71. Women had worse mean KCCQ-OS score than men did. Patients in the PARAGON-HF trial reported lower KCCQ scores in nearly all domains when compared with the PARADIGM-HF trial (KCCQ-OS score 71 ± 19 vs. 73 ± 19; p < 0.001). The strongest independent clinical correlates of adverse HRQL in both the PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials were New York Heart Association functional class, female gender, lower extremity edema, body mass index, angina, dyspnea, and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea. After accounting for these clinical correlates of adverse HRQL that were common to both HFpEF and HFrEF patients, KCCQ-OS score did not differ significantly., Conclusions: HRQL was largely worse in women and was similar in HFpEF and HFrEF after accounting for variation in demographics, functional status, and symptom burden. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF [PARAGON-HF] NCT01920711; Prospective Comparison of ARNI with an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Podocytes have limited ability to recover from injury. Here, we demonstrate that increased mitochondrial biogenesis, to meet the metabolic and energy demand of a cell, accelerates podocyte recovery from injury. Analysis of events induced during podocyte injury and recovery showed marked upregulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator-1α (PGC-1α), a transcriptional co-activator of mitochondrial biogenesis, and key components of the mitochondrial electron transport chain. To evaluate our hypothesis that increasing mitochondrial biogenesis enhanced podocyte recovery from injury, we treated injured podocytes with formoterol, a potent, specific, and long-acting β2-adrenergic receptor agonist that induces mitochondrial biogenesis in vitro and in vivo. Formoterol increased mitochondrial biogenesis and restored mitochondrial morphology and the injury-induced changes to the organization of the actin cytoskeleton in podocytes. Importantly, β2-adrenergic receptors were found to be present on podocyte membranes. Their knockdown attenuated formoterol-induced mitochondrial biogenesis. To determine the potential clinical relevance of these findings, mouse models of acute nephrotoxic serum nephritis and chronic (Adriamycin [doxorubicin]) glomerulopathy were used. Mice were treated with formoterol post-injury when glomerular dysfunction was established. Strikingly, formoterol accelerated the recovery of glomerular function by reducing proteinuria and ameliorating kidney pathology. Furthermore, formoterol treatment reduced cellular apoptosis and increased the expression of the mitochondrial biogenesis marker PGC-1α and multiple electron transport chain proteins. Thus, our results support β2-adrenergic receptors as novel therapeutic targets and formoterol as a therapeutic compound for treating podocytopathies., (Copyright © 2019 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes (and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan) according to etiology in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI] with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor [ACEI] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial., Background: Etiology of heart failure (HF) has changed over time in more developed countries and is also evolving in non-Western societies. Outcomes may vary according to etiology, as may the effects of therapy., Methods: We examined outcomes and the effect of sacubtril/valsartan according to investigator-reported etiology in PARADIGM-HF. The outcomes analyzed were the primary composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, and components, and death from any cause. Outcomes were adjusted for known prognostic variables including N terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide., Results: Among the 8,399 patients randomized, 5,036 patients (60.0%) had an ischemic etiology. Among the 3,363 patients (40.0%) with a nonischemic etiology, 1,595 (19.0% of all patients; 47% of nonischemic patients) had idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, 968 (11.5% of all patients; 28.8% of nonischemic patients) had a hypertensive cause, and 800 (9.5% of all patients, 23.8% of nonischemic patients) another cause (185 infective/viral, 158 alcoholic, 110 valvular, 66 diabetes, 30 drug-related, 14 peripartum-related, and 237 other). Whereas the unadjusted rates of all outcomes were highest in patients with an ischemic etiology, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were not different from patients in the 2 major nonischemic etiology categories; for example, for the primary outcome, compared with ischemic (HR: 1.00), hypertensive 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.02), idiopathic 0.92 (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.04) and other 1.00 (95% CI: 0.85 to 1.17). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across etiologic categories (interaction for primary outcome; p = 0.11)., Conclusions: Just under one-half of patients in this global trial had nonischemic HF with reduced ejection fraction, with idiopathic and hypertensive the most commonly ascribed etiologies. Adjusted outcomes were similar across etiologic categories, as was the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure; NCT01035255)., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study examined the relationship between prior pacemaker implantation and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Background: Conventional right ventricular pacing causes electrical and mechanical left ventricular dyssynchrony and may worsen left ventricular systolic dysfunction and HF. Whether conventional pacing is also associated with worse outcomes in HFpEF is unknown., Methods: Patient data were pooled from the CHARM-Preserved (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity), I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction), and TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist trial) studies and were examined for the association between having a pacemaker and the risk of the primary composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, the individual components of the composite, the 2 main modes of cardiovascular death (i.e., sudden death and pump failure death), and all-cause death in unadjusted and adjusted analyses., Results: Of the 8,466 patients included, 682 patients (8%) had a pacemaker. Pacemaker patients were older and more often men and had lower body mass indexes, estimated glomerular filtration rates, and blood pressures but higher concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide than those without a pacemaker. The rate of the primary composite outcome in pacemaker patients was almost twice that in patients without a pacemaker (13.6 vs. 7.6 per 100 patient-years of follow up, respectively), with a similar finding for HF hospitalizations (10.8 vs. 5.1 per 100 patient-years, respectively). This risk rate persisted after adjusting for other prognostic variables (hazard ratio [HR] for the composite outcome: 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.33; p = 0.026), driven mainly by HF hospitalization (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.60; p < 0.001). The risk of death was not significantly higher in pacemaker patients in the adjusted analyses., Conclusions: These findings raise the possibility that right ventricular pacing-induced left ventricular dyssynchrony may be detrimental in HFpEF patients., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study examined the relationship between income inequality and heart failure outcomes., Background: The income inequality hypothesis postulates that population health is influenced by income distribution within a society, with greater inequality associated with worse outcomes., Methods: This study analyzed heart failure outcomes in 2 large trials conducted in 54 countries. Countries were divided by tertiles of Gini coefficients (where 0% represented absolute income equality and 100% represented absolute income inequality), and heart failure outcomes were adjusted for standard prognostic variables, country per capita income, education index, hospital bed density, and health worker density., Results: Of the 15,126 patients studied, 5,320 patients lived in Gini coefficient tertile 1 countries (coefficient: <33%), 6,124 patients lived in tertile 2 countries (33% to 41%), and 3,772 patients lived in tertile 3 countries (>41%). Patients in tertile 3 were younger than tertile 1 patients, were more often women, and had less comorbidity and several indicators of less severe heart failure, yet the tertile 3-to-1 hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization were 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38 to 1.79) and 1.48 for all-cause death (95% CI: 1.29 to 1.71) after adjustment for recognized prognostic variables. After additional adjustments were made for per capita income, education index, hospital bed density, and health worker density, these HRs were 1.46 (95% CI: 1.25 to 1.70) and 1.30 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.53), respectively., Conclusions: Greater income inequality was associated with worse heart failure outcomes, with an impact similar to those of major comorbidities. Better understanding of the societal and personal bases of these findings may suggest approaches to improve heart failure outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In a randomized trial, baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) improved exercise capacity, quality of life and NT-proBNP in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In view of different mechanisms underlying HFrEF, we performed a post-hoc subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety of BAT in patients with and without coronary artery disease (CAD)., Methods and Results: Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <35% and NYHA Class III were randomized 1:1 to guideline-directed medical and device therapy alone or plus BAT. Patients with a history of CAD, prior myocardial infarction or coronary artery bypass graft were assigned to the CAD group with all others assigned to the no-CAD group. Of 71 BAT treated patients, 52 had CAD and 19 had no CAD. In the control group, 49 of 69 patients had CAD and 20 had no CAD. The system- or procedure-related major adverse neurological or cardiovascular event rate was 3.8% in the CAD group vs. 0% in the no-CAD group (p = 1.0). In the whole cohort, NYHA Class, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score, 6-minute hall walk distance and NTproBNP were improved in BAT treated patients compared with controls. Statistical analyses revealed no interaction between the presence of CAD and effect of BAT (all p > 0.05)., Conclusion: No major differences were found in BAT efficacy or safety between patients with and without CAD, indicating that BAT improves exercise capacity, quality of life and NTproBNP in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT01471860 and NCT01720160., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine whether treatment-related changes in natriuretic peptides (NPs) predict longer-term therapeutic effects in clinical trials of heart failure (HF)., Background: The lack of reliable predictors of efficacy of drugs and devices in HF has presented a major hurdle to the development and evaluation of novel therapies., Methods: The study conducted a trial-level analysis of 16 phase III chronic HF trials completed between 1987 and 2013 studying 18 therapeutic comparisons in 48,844 patients. Weighted Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between average control- or placebo-corrected changes in NPs and longer-term treatment effects on clinical endpoints (expressed as log-transformed hazard ratios)., Results: Median follow-up for clinical endpoints was 28 (25th to 75th percentile range: 18 to 36) months. NPs were available in a median of 748 (25th to 75th percentile range: 270 to 1,868) patients and measured at a median of 4 (25th to 75th percentile range: 3 to 6) months after randomization. Treatment-related changes in NPs were not correlated with longer-term treatment effects on all-cause mortality (r = 0.12; p = 0.63), but were correlated with HF hospitalization (r = 0.63; p = 0.008). Correlation with HF hospitalization improved when analyses were restricted to trials completed in the last decade (>2010; r = 0.92; p = 0.0095), using N-terminal pro-B-type NP assays (r = 0.65; p = 0.06), and evaluating inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (r = 0.97; p = 0.0002)., Conclusions: When examining a broad range of interventions, therapy-related changes in NPs appeared modestly correlated with longer-term therapeutic effects on hospitalization for HF, but not with effects on all-cause mortality. These observations raise important caveats regarding the use of NPs in phase II trials for decision making regarding phase III trials., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the renal effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction., Background: Renal function is frequently impaired in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and may deteriorate further after blockade of the renin-angiotensin system., Methods: In the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibition to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, 8,399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was available for all patients, and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was available in 1872 patients, at screening, randomization, and at fixed time intervals during follow-up. We evaluated the effect of study treatment on change in eGFR and UACR, and on renal and cardiovascular outcomes, according to eGFR and UACR., Results: At screening, the eGFR was 70 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m 2 and 2,745 patients (33%) had chronic kidney disease; the median UACR was 1.0 mg/mmol (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.4 to 3.2 mg/mmol) and 24% had an increased UACR. The decrease in eGFR during follow-up was less with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (-1.61 ml/min/1.73 m 2 /year; [95% confidence interval: -1.77 to -1.44 ml/min/1.73 m 2 /year] vs. -2.04 ml/min/1.73 m 2 /year [95% CI: -2.21 to -1.88 ml/min/1.73 m 2 /year ]; p < 0.001) despite a greater increase in UACR with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril (1.20 mg/mmol [95% CI: 1.04 to 1.36 mg/mmol] vs. 0.90 mg/mmol [95% CI: 0.77 to 1.03 mg/mmol]; p < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization was not modified by eGFR, UACR (p interaction = 0.70 and 0.34, respectively), or by change in UACR (p interaction = 0.38)., Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a slower rate of decrease in the eGFR and improved cardiovascular outcomes, even in patients with chronic kidney disease, despite causing a modest increase in UACR., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial is designed to determine the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Background: HFpEF is highly prevalent, associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, and in need of effective therapies that improve outcomes. The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan, which has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, demonstrated favorable physiologic effects in a phase II HFpEF trial., Methods: The PARAGON-HF trial is a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, active-controlled, event-driven trial comparing the long-term efficacy and safety of valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%), New York Heart Association functional class II to IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptides, and evidence of structural heart disease. Before randomization, all patients entered sequential single-blind run-in periods to ensure tolerability of both drugs at half the target doses (i.e., valsartan titrated to 80 mg bid followed by sacubitril/valsartan 49/51 mg [100 mg] bid). The primary outcome is the composite of cardiovascular death and total (first and recurrent) HF hospitalizations., Conclusions: PARAGON-HF will determine whether sacubitril/valsartan is superior to angiotensin receptor blockade alone in patients with chronic symptomatic HFpEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study assessed whether the benefit of sacubtril/valsartan therapy varied with clinical stability., Background: Despite the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan therapy shown in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, it has been suggested that switching from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker should be delayed until occurrence of clinical decompensation., Methods: Outcomes were compared among patients who had prior hospitalization within 3 months of screening (n = 1,611 [19%]), between 3 and 6 months (n = 1,009 [12%]), between 6 and 12 months (n = 886 [11%]), >12 months (n = 1,746 [21%]), or who had never been hospitalized (n = 3,125 [37%])., Results: Twenty percent of patients without prior HF hospitalization experienced a primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization during the course of the trial. Despite the increased risk associated with more recent hospitalization, the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan therapy did not differ from that of enalapril according to the occurrence of or time from hospitalization for HF before screening, with respect to the primary endpoint or with respect to cardiovascular or all-cause mortality., Conclusions: Patients with recent HF decompensation requiring hospitalization were more likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who had never been hospitalized. Patients who were clinically stable, as shown by a remote HF hospitalization (>3 months prior to screening) or by lack of any prior HF hospitalization, were as likely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan therapy as more recently hospitalized patients. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Renal dysfunction (RD) is associated with reduced survival in HF; however, not all RD is mechanistically or prognostically equivalent. Notably, RD associated with "pre-renal" physiology, as identified by an elevated blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio (BUN/Cr), identifies a particularly high risk RD phenotype. Proteinuria, another domain of renal dysfunction, has also been associated with adverse events. Given that several different mechanisms can cause proteinuria, we sought to investigate whether the mechanism underlying proteinuria also affects survival in HF., Methods and Results: Subjects in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) trial with proteinuria assessed at baseline were studied (n=6439). All survival models were adjusted for baseline characteristics and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Proteinuria (trace or 1+) was present in 26% and associated with increased mortality (HR=1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3, p=0.006). Proteinuria >1+ was less common (2.5%) but demonstrated a stronger relationship with mortality (HR=1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.5, p<0.001). In patients with BUN/Cr in the top tertile (≥17.3), any proteinuria (HR=1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5, p=0.008) and >1+ proteinuria (HR=2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.3, p<0.001) both remained associated with mortality. However, in patients with BUN/Cr in the bottom tertile (≤13.3), any proteinuria (HR=0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.2, p=0.63, p interaction=0.015) and >1+ proteinuria (HR=1.3; 95% CI, 0.79-2.2, p=0.29, p interaction=0.036) were not associated with worsened survival., Conclusion: Analogous to a reduced eGFR, the mechanism underlying proteinuria in HF may be important in determining the associated survival disadvantage., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Sphingolipids have been implicated as key mediators of cell-stress responses and effectors of mitochondrial function. To investigate potential mechanisms underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, an important contributor to diabetic cardiomyopathy, we examined alterations of cardiac sphingolipid metabolism in a mouse with streptozotocin-induced type 1 diabetes. Diabetes increased expression of desaturase 1, (dihydro)ceramide synthase (CerS)2, serine palmitoyl transferase 1, and the rate of ceramide formation by mitochondria-resident CerSs, indicating an activation of ceramide biosynthesis. However, the lack of an increase in mitochondrial ceramide suggests concomitant upregulation of ceramide-metabolizing pathways. Elevated levels of lactosylceramide, one of the initial products in the formation of glycosphingolipids were accompanied with decreased respiration and calcium retention capacity (CRC) in mitochondria from diabetic heart tissue. In baseline mitochondria, lactosylceramide potently suppressed state 3 respiration and decreased CRC, suggesting lactosylceramide as the primary sphingolipid responsible for mitochondrial defects in diabetic hearts. Moreover, knocking down the neutral ceramidase (NCDase) resulted in an increase in lactosylceramide level, suggesting a crosstalk between glucosylceramide synthase- and NCDase-mediated ceramide utilization pathways. These data suggest the glycosphingolipid pathway of ceramide metabolism as a promising target to correct mitochondrial abnormalities associated with type 1 diabetes., (Copyright © 2016 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.)

Background: We hypothesized that a development of a novel index based on the combination of left atrial volume (LAV) and left atrial (LA) function evaluated by the time-LA volume curve using speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) would be accurate and useful to estimate pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). Our goal was to develop a novel index of PCWP based on a combination of LAV and LA function using STE., Methods: A cross-validation study was performed with the patients divided into a training study to define the novel index (n=50) and a testing study to validate the index (n=196). PCWP was measured by right heart catheterization, and phasic LAV and emptying function (EF) were measured by STE., Results: Simple linear regression analysis in the training study revealed that the novel index that best estimated PCWP was the kinetics-tracking index [KT index=log10 (active LAEF/minimum LAV index)]. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the KT index was the most reliable predictor of PCWP. It had the strongest correlation with PCWP (r=-0.86, p<0.001) among all echocardiographic parameters. In the testing study, PCWP estimated by the KT index was also strongly correlated with measured PCWP (r=0.92, p<0.001). These correlations were also strong in the patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%), chronic heart failure, and chronic atrial fibrillation (r=0.92, r=0.91, r=0.79, p<0.001, respectively)., Conclusions: A novel index (KT index) using a combination of LAV and LA function was a powerful and useful predictor of PCWP and may be valuable in routine clinical practice., (Copyright © 2014 Japanese College of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction and the causes of hospitalization and post-hospitalization mortality., Background: Although hospitalizations in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction are common, there are limited data from clinical trials on the causes of admission and the influence of hospitalizations on subsequent mortality risk., Methods: Patients (n = 4,128) with New York Heart Association functional class II to IV HF and left ventricular ejection fractions >45% were enrolled in I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction). A blinded events committee adjudicated cardiovascular hospitalizations and all deaths using predefined and standardized definitions. The risk for death after HF, any-cause, or non-HF hospitalization was assessed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models., Results: A total of 2,278 patients had 5,863 hospitalizations during the 49 months of follow-up, of which 3,585 (61%) were recurrent hospitalizations. For any-cause hospitalizations, 26.5% of patients died during follow-up, with an incident mortality rate of 11.1 deaths per 100 patient-years (PYs) and an adjusted hazard ratio of 5.32 (95% confidence interval: 4.21 to 6.23). Overall, 53.6% of hospitalizations were classified as cardiovascular and 43.7% as noncardiovascular, with 2.7% not classifiable. HF was the largest single cause of initial (17.6%) and overall (21.1%) hospitalizations, although, after HF hospitalization, a substantially higher proportion of readmissions were due to primary HF causes (40%). HF hospitalization occurred in 685 patients, with 41% deaths during follow-up, an incident mortality rate of 19.3 deaths per 100 PYs. The adjusted hazard ratio was 2.93 (95% confidence interval: 2.40 to 3.57) relative to patients who were not hospitalized for HF and was greater in those with longer durations of hospitalization. There were 1,593 patients with only non-HF hospitalizations, 21% of whom died during follow-up, with an incident mortality rate of 8.7 deaths per 100 PYs and an adjusted hazard ratio of 4.25 (95% confidence interval: 3.27 to 5.32). The risk for death was highest in the first 30 days and declined over time for all hospitalization categories. Patients not hospitalized for HF or for any cause had observed incident mortality rates of 3.8 and 1.3 deaths per 100 PYs, respectively., Conclusions: In I-PRESERVE, HFpEF patients hospitalized for any reason, and especially for HF, were at high risk for subsequent death, particularly early. The findings support the need for careful attention in the post-discharge time period including attention to comorbid conditions. Among those hospitalized for HF, the high mortality rate and increased proportion of readmissions due to HF (highest during the first 30 days), suggest that this group would be an appropriate target for investigation of new interventions., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objective of this clinical trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of carotid BAT in advanced HF., Background: Increased sympathetic and decreased parasympathetic activity contribute to heart failure (HF) symptoms and disease progression. Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) results in centrally mediated reduction of sympathetic outflow and increased parasympathetic activity., Methods: Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III HF and ejection fractions ≤35% on chronic stable guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) were enrolled at 45 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe. They were randomly assigned to receive ongoing GDMT alone (control group) or ongoing GDMT plus BAT (treatment group) for 6 months. The primary safety end point was system- and procedure-related major adverse neurological and cardiovascular events. The primary efficacy end points were changes in NYHA functional class, quality-of-life score, and 6-minute hall walk distance., Results: One hundred forty-six patients were randomized, 70 to control and 76 to treatment. The major adverse neurological and cardiovascular event-free rate was 97.2% (lower 95% confidence bound 91.4%). Patients assigned to BAT, compared with control group patients, experienced improvements in the distance walked in 6 min (59.6 ± 14 m vs. 1.5 ± 13.2 m; p = 0.004), quality-of-life score (-17.4 ± 2.8 points vs. 2.1 ± 3.1 points; p < 0.001), and NYHA functional class ranking (p = 0.002 for change in distribution). BAT significantly reduced N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (p = 0.02) and was associated with a trend toward fewer days hospitalized for HF (p = 0.08)., Conclusions: BAT is safe and improves functional status, quality of life, exercise capacity, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and possibly the burden of heart failure hospitalizations in patients with GDMT-treated NYHA functional class III HF. (Barostim Neo System in the Treatment of Heart Failure; NCT01471860; Barostim HOPE4HF [Hope for Heart Failure] Study; NCT01720160)., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and recent heart failure (HF) hospitalization as predictors of future events in heart failure - preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF)., Background: Recently, doubt has been expressed about the value of a history of HF hospitalization as a predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HF and HF-PEF., Methods: We estimated rates and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, according to history of recent HF hospitalization and baseline NT-proBNP level in the I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved systolic function) trial., Results: Rates of composite endpoints in patients with (n = 804) and without (n = 1,963) a recent HF hospitalization were 12.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.47 to 14.24) and 4.49 (95% CI: 4.04 to 4.99) per 100 person-years, respectively (HR: 2.71; 95% CI: 2.33 to 3.16). For patients with NT-proBNP concentrations >360 pg/ml (n = 1,299), the event rate was 11.51 (95% CI: 10.54 to 12.58) compared to 3.04 (95% CI: 2.63 to 3.52) per 100 person-years in those with a lower level of NT-proBNP (n = 1468) (HR: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.68 to 3.80). In patients with no recent HF hospitalization and NT-proBNP ≤360 pg/ml (n = 1,187), the event rate was 2.43 (95% CI: 2.03 to 2.90) compared with 17.79 (95% CI: 15.77 to 20.07) per 100 person-years when both risk predictors were present (n = 523; HR: 6.18; 95% CI: 4.96 to 7.69)., Conclusions: Recent hospitalization for HF or an elevated level of NT-proBNP identified patients at higher risk for cardiovascular events, and this risk was increased further when both factors were present., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: In adult myocardium, Estrogen-Related Receptor α (ERRα) programs energetic capacity of cardiomyocytes by regulating expression of target genes required for mitochondrial biogenesis, fatty acid metabolism and oxidative phosphorylation. Transcriptional activation by ERRα is dependent on the α or β isoform of Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor γ Coactivator-1 (PGC-1). This study utilized a model of continuously contracting adult cardiomyocytes to determine the effects of sustained oxygen reduction (hypoxia) on ERRα target gene expression., Methods and Results: Adult feline cardiomyocytes in primary culture were electrically stimulated to contract at 1 Hz in either normoxia (21% O2) or hypoxia (0.5% O2). Compared to normoxia, hypoxia increased PGC-1α mRNA and PGC-1β mRNA levels by 16-fold and 14-fold after 24h. ERRα mRNA levels were increased 3-fold by hypoxia over the same time period. Treatment of cardiomyocytes with XCT-790, an ERRα inverse agonist, caused knockdown of ERRα protein expression. The increases in PGC-1 mRNA levels in response to hypoxia were blocked by XCT-790 treatment, which indicates that expression of PGC-1 isoforms is dependent on ERRα activity. The products of two ERRα target genes required for energy metabolism, Cox6c mRNA and Fabp3 mRNA, increased by 4.5-fold and 3.5 fold after 24h of hypoxia as compared to normoxic controls. These increases were blocked by XCT-790 treatment of hypoxic cardiomyocytes with a concomitant decrease in ERRα expression., Conclusions: ERRα activity is required to increase expression of PGC-1 isoforms and downstream target genes as part of the adaptive response of contracting adult cardiomyocytes to sustained hypoxia., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine whether specific patterns of adverse left ventricular (LV) structural remodeling are associated with differential rates of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes., Background: It is not known whether a stepwise combinatorial assessment of LV volume, mass, and geometry done to define specific remodeling patterns provides incremental prognostic information., Methods: A total of 3,181 Cardiovascular Health Study participants (mean age, 73 years of age; 60% women, 5% African American) were categorized by LV remodeling patterns and related to a multivariate-adjusted (age, sex, race, ejection fraction, hypertension, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease) analysis of CV outcomes (incident heart failure [HF], all-cause mortality, and a combined endpoint of HF and mortality) over a 13-year follow-up period., Results: Examined independently, either left ventricular enlargement (LVE) or left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was associated with a higher risk of HF (32%, 34%, respectively) than with normal geometry (17%; p < 0.001). When LV volume and mass were used in combination, important incremental prognostic information was achieved. In the absence of LVE, HF was more common in those with LVH than in those with normal mass (32% vs. 16%, respectively; p < 0.001). In the presence of LVE, HF was more common in those with LVH than in those with normal mass (37% vs. 29%, respectively; p = 0.021). The subgroup with normal volume and mass but relative wall thickness (RWT) >0.42 carried a higher risk of HF (21%) than those with normal geometry (15%; p = 0.011). Once LVH or LVE was present, the addition of RWT to this analysis did not affect HF rate. Similar results were obtained for the other CV outcomes., Conclusions: Stepwise combinatorial assessment of LV volume, mass, and geometry provides incremental prognostic information regarding CV outcomes., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate pattern and clinical correlates of change in left ventricular (LV) geometry over a 4-year period in the community; it also assessed whether the pattern of change in LV geometry over 4 years predicts incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cardiovascular death, during an additional subsequent follow-up period., Background: It is unclear how LV geometric patterns change over time and whether changes in LV geometry have prognostic significance., Methods: This study evaluated 4,492 observations (2,604 unique Framingham Heart Study participants attending consecutive examinations) to categorize LV geometry at baseline and after 4 years. Four groups were defined on the basis of the sex-specific distributions of left ventricular mass (LVM) and relative wall thickness (RWT) (normal: LVM and RWT <80th percentile; concentric remodeling: LVM <80th percentile but RWT ≥80th percentile; eccentric hypertrophy: LVM ≥80th percentile but RWT <80th percentile; and concentric hypertrophy: LVM and RWT ≥80th percentile)., Results: At baseline, 2,874 of 4,492 observations (64%) had normal LVM and RWT. Participants with normal geometry or concentric remodeling progressed infrequently (4% to 8%) to eccentric or concentric hypertrophy. Change from eccentric to concentric hypertrophy was uncommon (8%). Among participants with concentric hypertrophy, 19% developed eccentric hypertrophy within the 4-year period. Among participants with abnormal LV geometry at baseline, a significant proportion (29% to 53%) reverted to normal geometry within 4 years. Higher blood pressure, greater body mass index (BMI), advancing age, and male sex were key correlates of developing an abnormal geometry. Development of an abnormal LV geometric pattern over 4 years was associated with increased CVD risk (140 events) during a subsequent median follow-up of 12 years (adjusted-hazards ratio: 1.59; 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 2.43)., Conclusions: The longitudinal observations in the community suggest that dynamic changes in LV geometric pattern over time are common. Higher blood pressure and greater BMI are modifiable factors associated with the development of abnormal LV geometry, and such progression portends an adverse prognosis., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The burden of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considerable and is projected to worsen. To date, there are no approved therapies available for reducing mortality or hospitalizations for these patients. The pathophysiology of HFpEF is complex and includes alterations in cardiac structure and function, systemic and pulmonary vascular abnormalities, end-organ involvement, and comorbidities. There remain major gaps in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology. To facilitate a discussion of how to proceed effectively in future with development of therapies for HFpEF, a meeting was facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration and included representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. This document summarizes the proceedings from this meeting., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)