Search

AIMS Outpatient treatment for the worsening of signs and symptoms of heart failure (HF) is usually not incorporated in the main outcomes of HF trials. Patients with HF and a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) may experience frequent episodes of outpatient worsening HF. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency, prognostic impact, and the effect of spironolactone on outpatient diuretic intensification (ODI), among 1767 patients enrolled in TOPCAT-Americas. METHODS AND RESULTS Time-updated Cox models and win ratio analysis. ODI was defined by a post-randomization loop diuretic dose increase or new initiation. The median follow-up was 2.9 years. At baseline, 1362 (77%) patients were taking loop diuretics. During the follow-up, 685 (38.8%) patients experienced ODI, which was associated with a higher risk of subsequent cardiovascular events and death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36-2.04; HR for cardiovascular death 2.17, 95% CI 1.64-2.87); and HR for all-cause mortality 1.75, 95% CI 1.41-2.16] (p

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor therapy is well suited for initiation during the heart failure hospitalization, owing to clinical benefits that accrue rapidly within days to weeks, a strong safety and tolerability profile, minimal to no effects on blood pressure, and no excess risk of adverse kidney events. There is no evidence to suggest that deferring initiation to the outpatient setting accomplishes anything beneficial. Instead, there is compelling evidence that deferring in-hospital initiation exposes patients to excess risk of early postdischarge clinical worsening and death. Lessons from other heart failure with reduced ejection fraction therapies highlight that deferring initiation of guideline-recommended medications to the U.S. outpatient setting carries a >75% chance they will not be initiated within the next year. Recognizing that 1 in 4 patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure die or are readmitted within 30 days, clinicians should embrace the in-hospital period as an optimal time to initiate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor therapy and treat this population with the urgency it deserves.

STUDY OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine if variants in NR3C2, which codes the target protein of spironolactone, or CYP11B2, which is involved in aldosterone synthesis, were associated with spironolactone response, focused on the primary end point of diastolic function (E/e'), in Aldosterone Receptor Blockade in Diastolic Heart Failure (Aldo-DHF) participants. DESIGN Post-hoc genetic analysis. DATA SOURCE Data and samples were derived from the multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Aldo-DHF trial. PATIENTS Aldo-DHF participants treated with spironolactone (n = 184) or placebo (n = 178) were included. INTERVENTION Participants were genotyped for NR3C2 rs5522, NR3C2 rs2070951 and CYP11B2 rs1799998 via pyrosequencing. MEASUREMENTS In the placebo and spironolactone arms, separate multivariable linear regression analyses were performed for change in E/e' with each single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), adjusted for age, sex, and baseline E/e'. To discern potential mechanisms of a genotype effect, associated SNPs were further examined for their association with change in blood pressure, circulating procollagen type III N-terminal peptide (PIIINP), and left atrial area. MAIN RESULTS Carriers of the rs5522 G allele in the placebo arm had a greater increase in E/e' over the 12-month course of the trial compared to noncarriers (β = 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-2.16; p = 0.04). No corresponding E/e' worsening by rs5522 genotype was observed in the spironolactone arm. None of the other genotypes were associated with change in E/e'. Compared to noncarriers, rs5522 G carriers also had a greater increase in left atrial area with placebo (β = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.17-1.48; p = 0.01) and a greater reduction in diastolic blood pressure with spironolactone (β = -3.56; 95% CI: -6.73 to -0.39; p = 0.03). Serum PIIINP levels were similar across rs5522 genotypes. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that spironolactone attenuates progression of diastolic dysfunction associated with the NR3C2 rs5522 G allele. Validation of our findings is needed.

More stringent blood pressure (BP) goals have led to greater prevalence of apparent resistant hypertension (ARH), yet the long-term prognostic impact of ARH diagnosed according to these goals in the general population remains unknown. We assessed the prognostic impact of ARH according to contemporary BP goals in 9612 participants of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study without previous cardiovascular disease. ARH, defined as BP above goal (traditional goal = 3 antihypertensive drug classes or any BP with >= 4 antihypertensive drug classes (one of which was required to be a diuretic) was compared with controlled hypertension (BP at goal with 1-3 antihypertensive drug classes). Cox regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race, study center, BMI, heart rate, smoking, eGFR, LDL, HDL, triglycerides, and diabetes. Using the traditional BP goal, 133 participants (3.8% of the treated) had ARH. If the more stringent BP goal was instead applied, 785 participants (22.6% of the treated) were reclassified from controlled hypertension to uncontrolled hypertension (n = 725) or to ARH (n = 60). Over a median follow-up time of 19 years, ARH was associated with increased risk for a composite end point (all-cause mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure) regardless of whether traditional (adjusted HR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.23-1.82) or more stringent (adjusted HR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.20-1.70) blood pressure goals were applied. We conclude that in patients free from cardiovascular disease, ARH predicted long-term risk regardless of whether traditional or more stringent BP criteria were applied. Funding Agencies|National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Heart Lung & Blood Institute (NHLBI) [HHSN268201700001I, HHSN268201700002I, HHSN268201700003I, HHSN268201700005I, HHSN268201700004I]; Swedish Heart Association, Sweden; Swedish Society of Medicine, Sweden; Region Ostergotland, Sweden; NIH/NHLBIUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Heart Lung & Blood Institute (NHLBI) [R01HL135008, R01HL143224, R01HL150342, R01HL148218, K24HL152008]

BACKGROUND The incidence of pneumonia and subsequent outcomes has not been compared in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).OBJECTIVES This study aimed to examine the rate and impact of pneumonia in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials.METHODS The authors analyzed the incidence of investigator-reported pneumonia and the rates of HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death before and after the occurrence of pneumonia, and estimated risk after the first occurrence of pneumonia in unadjusted and adjusted analyses (the latter including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide).RESULTS In PARADIGM-HF, 528 patients (6.3%) developed pneumonia after randomization, giving an incidence rate of 29 (95% CI: 27 to 32) per 1,000 patient-years. In PARAGON-HF, 510 patients (10.6%) developed pneumonia, giving an incidence rate of 39 (95% CI: 36 to 42) per 1,000 patient-years. The subsequent risk of all trial outcomes was elevated after the occurrence of pneumonia. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of death from any cause was 4.34 (95% CI: 3.73 to 5.05). The corresponding adjusted HR in PARAGON-HF was 3.76 (95% CI: 3.09 to 4.58).CONCLUSIONS The incidence of pneumonia was high in patients with HF, especially HFpEF, at around 3 times the expected rate. A first episode of pneumonia was associated with 4-fold higher mortality. (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF], NCT01035255; Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] With ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF], NCT01920711) (J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;77:1961-73) (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

International audience; Aims: The relationship between serum potassium concentration and outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not well-established. The aim of this study was to explore the association between serum potassium and clinical outcomes in the PARAGON-HF trial in which 4822 patients with HFpEF were randomised to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan.Methods and results: The relationship between serum potassium concentrations and the primary study composite outcome of total (first and recurrent) heart failure hospitalisations and cardiovascular death was analysed. Hypo-, normo-, and hyperkalaemia were defined as serum potassium 5 mmol/L, respectively. Both screening and time-updated potassium (categorical and continuous spline-transformed) were studied. Patient mean age was 73 years and 52% were women. Patients with higher baseline potassium more often had an ischaemic aetiology and diabetes and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment. Compared with normokalaemia, both time-updated (but not screening) hypo- and hyperkalaemia were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for hypokalaemia 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-1.85; P < 0.001, and for hyperkalaemia HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.44; P = 0.025]. Hypokalaemia had a stronger association with a higher risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death than hyperkalaemia. The association of hypokalaemia with increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death was most marked in participants with impaired kidney function (interaction P < 0.05). Serum potassium did not significantly differ between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan throughout the follow-up.Conclusions: Both hypo- and hyperkalaemia were associated with heart failure hospitalisation but only hypokalaemia was associated with mortality, especially in the context of renal impairment. Hypokalaemia was as strongly associated with death from non-cardiovascular causes as with cardiovascular death. Collectively, these findings suggest that potassium disturbances are a more of a marker of HFpEF severity rather than a direct cause of death.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly changed clinical care and research, including the conduct of clinical trials, and the clinical research ecosystem will need to adapt to this transformed environment. The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the Academic Research Consortium, composed of academic investigators from the United States and Europe, patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and industry members. A series of meetings were convened to address the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, review options for maintaining or altering best practices, and establish key recommendations for the conduct and analysis of clinical trials for cardiovascular disease and heart failure. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations., Central Illustration, Highlights • The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected patient care and the conduct of clinical trials. • HF-ARC scientific expert panel developed recommendations for the conduct and analysis of heart failure trials during the pandemic. • The HF-ARC consensus recommendations support ongoing clinical trials and strengthen the clinical trial ecosystem, which should have sustained benefits in the future.

OBJECTIVE Recent influenza infection is associated with an increased risk of atherothrombotic events, including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke. Little is known about the association between influenza vaccination and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used nationwide register data to identify patients with diabetes in Denmark during nine consecutive influenza seasons in the period 2007–2016. Diabetes was defined as use of glucose-lowering medication. Patients who were not 18–100 years old or had ischemic heart disease, heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer, or cerebrovascular disease were excluded. Patient exposure to influenza vaccination was assessed before each influenza season. We considered the outcomes of death from all causes, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from AMI or stroke. For each season, patients were monitored from December 1 until April 1 the next year. RESULTS A total of 241,551 patients were monitored for a median of four seasons (interquartile range two to eight seasons) for a total follow-up of 425,318 person-years. The vaccine coverage during study seasons ranged from 24% to 36%. During follow-up, 8,207 patients died of all causes (3.4%), 4,127 patients died of cardiovascular causes (1.7%), and 1,439 patients died of AMI/stroke (0.6%). After adjustment for confounders, vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risks of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, P < 0.001), cardiovascular death (HR 0.84, P < 0.001), and death from AMI or stroke (HR 0.85, P = 0.028) and a reduced risk of being admitted to hospital with acute complications associated with diabetes (diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia, or coma) (HR 0.89, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS In patients with diabetes, influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and death from AMI or stroke. Influenza vaccination may improve outcome in patients with diabetes.

Aims The primary objective of this systematic review was to estimate the prevalence and temporal changes in chronic comorbid conditions reported in heart failure (HF) clinical trials. Methods and results We searched MEDLINE for HF trials enrolling more than 400 patients published between 2001 and 2016.Trials were divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), or trials enrolling regardless of ejection fraction. The prevalence of baseline chronic comorbid conditions was categorized according to the algorithm proposed by the Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse, which is used to analyse Medicare data. To test for a trend in the prevalence of comorbid conditions, linear regression models were used to evaluate temporal trends in prevalence of comorbidities. Overall, 118 clinical trials enrolling a cumulative total of 215 508 patients were included. Across all comorbidities examined, data were reported in a mean of 35% of trials, without significant improvement during the study period. Reporting of comorbidities was more common in HFrEF trials (51%) compared with HFpEF trials (27%). Among trials reporting data, hypertension (63%), ischaemic heart disease (44%), hyperlipidaemia (48%), diabetes (33%), chronic kidney disease (25%) and atrial fibrillation (25%) were the major comorbidities. The prevalence of comorbidities including hypertension, atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease increased over time while the prevalence of smoking decreased in HFrEF trials. Conclusion Many HF trials do not report baseline comorbidities. A more rigorous, systematic, and standardized framework needs to be adopted for future clinical trials to ensure adequate comorbidity reporting and improve recruitment of multi-morbid HF patients.

Background: Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men. Methods: In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84–1.25) in men ( P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men. Conclusions: As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Background: Polypharmacy is associated with a poor prognosis in the elderly, however, information on the association of polypharmacy with cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is sparse. This study sought to investigate the relationship between polypharmacy and adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Methods: Baseline total number of medications was determined in 1758 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the Americas regions of the TOPCAT trial (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist), by 3 categories: nonpolypharmacy ( Results: The proportion of patients taking 5 or more medications was 92.5% (inclusive of polypharmacy [38.7%] and hyper-polypharmacy [53.8%]). Over a 2.9-year median follow-up, compared with patients with polypharmacy, hyper-polypharmacy was associated with an increased risk for the primary outcome, hospitalization for any reason and any serious adverse events in the univariable analysis, but not significantly associated with mortality. After multivariable adjustment for demographic and comorbidities, hyper-polypharmacy remained significantly associated with an increased risk for hospitalization for any reason (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.05–1.41]; P =0.009) and any serious adverse events (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.07–1.42]; P =0.005), whereas the primary outcome was no longer statistically significant. Conclusions: Hyper-polypharmacy was common and associated with an elevated risk of hospitalization for any reason and any serious adverse events in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. There were no significant associations between polypharmacy status and mortality.

Background Sacubitril/valsartan, a first‐in‐class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our objective was to describe the sacubitril/valsartan initiation rate, associated characteristics, and 6‐month follow‐up dosing among veterans with HFrEF who are renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) naïve. Methods and Results Retrospective cohort study of veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; ≥1 in/outpatient heart failure visit, first RAASi (sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]), or angiotensin‐II receptor blocker [ARB]) fill from July 2015 to June 2019. Characteristics associated with sacubitril/valsartan initiation were identified using Poisson regression models. From July 2015 to June 2019, we identified 3458 sacubitril/valsartan and 29 367 ACEI or ARB initiators among veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve. Sacubitril/valsartan initiation increased from 0% to 26.5%. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators were less likely to have histories of stroke, myocardial infarction, or hypertension and more likely to be older and have diabetes mellitus and lower LVEF. At 6‐month follow‐up, the prevalence of ≥50% target daily dose for sacubitril/valsartan, ACEI, and ARB initiators was 23.5%, 43.2%, and 47.1%, respectively. Conclusions Sacubitril/valsartan initiation for HFrEF in the Veterans Administration increased in the 4 years immediately following Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators had fewer baseline cardiovascular comorbidities and the lowest proportion on ≥50% target daily dose at 6‐month follow‐up. Identifying the reasons for lower follow‐up dosing of sacubitril/valsartan could support guideline recommendations and quality improvement strategies for patients with HFrEF.

Aims Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on ‘apparent resistant hypertension’ in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril–valsartan with valsartan. Methods and results In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). ‘Apparent resistant hypertension’ was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. ‘Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant’ hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril–valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6–19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7–14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05–1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril–valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [−4.8 (−7.0 to −2.5) and 3.9 (−6.6 to −1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [−8.8 (−14.0 to −3.5) and −6.3 (−12.5 to −0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril–valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30–2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18–5.89). Conclusion Sacubitril–valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA. Clinical trial registration PARAGON-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711., Graphical Abstract Almost one in six patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction had apparent resistant hypertension in PARAGON-HF and this was associated with worse clinical outcomes; neprilysin inhibition reduced systolic blood pressure significantly in these patients.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors form the latest pillar in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and appear to be effective across a range of patient profiles. There is increasing interest in initiating SGLT-2 inhibitors during hospitalization, yet little is known about the putative benefits of this implementation strategy.We evaluated Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF (≤ 40%) hospitalized at 228 sites in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry in 2016 who had linked claims data for ≥ 1 year postdischarge. We identified those eligible for dapagliflozin under the latest U.S. Food and Drug Administration label (excluding estimated glomerular filtration rates25 mL/min per 1.73 mAmong 7523 patients hospitalized for HFrEF, 6576 (87%) would be candidates for dapagliflozin (mean age 79 ± 8 years, 39% women, 11% Black). Among eligible candidates, discharge use of β-blockers, ACEi/ARB, MRA, ARNI, and triple therapy (ACEi/ARB/ARNI+β-blocker+MRA) was recorded in 88%, 64%, 29%, 3%, and 20%, respectively. Among treatment-eligible patients, the 1-year incidence (95% CI) of mortality was 37% (36-38%) and of HF readmission was 33% (32-34%), and each exceeded 25% across all key subgroups. Among 1333 beneficiaries eligible for dapagliflozin who were already on triple therapy, the 1-year incidence of mortality was 26% (24%-29%) and the 1-year readmission due to HF was 30% (27%-32%). Applying the relative risk reductions observed in DAPA-HF, absolute risk reductions with complete implementation of dapagliflozin among treatment-eligible Medicare beneficiaries are projected to be 5% (1%-9%) for mortality and 9% (5%-12%) for HF readmission by 1 year. The projected number of Medicare beneficiaries who would need to be treated for 1 year to prevent 1 death is 19 (11-114), and 12 (8-21) would need to be treated to prevent 1 readmission due to HF.Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who are eligible for dapagliflozin after hospitalization due to HF, including those well-treated with other disease-modifying therapies, face high risks of mortality and HF readmission by 1 year. If the benefits of reductions in death and hospitalizations due to HF observed in clinical trials can be fully realized, the absolute benefits of implementation of SGLT-2 inhibitors among treatment-eligible candidates are anticipated to be substantial in this high-risk postdischarge setting.

Volume management in acute decompensated and chronic heart failure (HF) remains a significant challenge. Although progress has been made in the development of mortality-reducing neurohormonal regimens in the reduced ejection fraction population, no clinical trial has yet demonstrated anything more than symptomatic relief or biomarker reduction with pharmacotherapeutic volume-based interventions made in the acutely decompensated individual or those with evolving outpatient congestion. As the number of patients with HF continues to grow, in addition to HF-related hospitalizations, identifying therapies that have the potential to aid in diuresis more safely and efficaciously is paramount to decreasing inpatient length of stay and preventing unnecessary admissions. More recently, a significant amount of research has been dedicated to the use of vasopressin antagonists, specifically tolvaptan, as adjunctive therapy to loop and thiazide diuretics. Although these agents do not seem to have a pervasive role in fluid management in the acute decompensated and chronic HF populations, they are effective tools to have available for specific clinical situations. This review summarizes the literature surrounding the use of tolvaptan for volume management in congestive HF, as well as offering practical guidance for use of this agent.

Background/Aims Obtaining ethical approval from multiple institutional review boards is a long-standing challenge to multi-site clinical trials and often leads to significant delays in study activation and enrollment. As of 25 January 2018, the National Institutes of Health began requiring use of a single institutional review board for US multi-site trials. To learn more and further inform the research and regulatory communities around aspects of transitioning to single institutional review board review, this study evaluated the efficiency, resource use, and user perceptions of a nascent institutional review board reliance model (Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance). Methods This research was embedded within the Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure trial—a multi-site trial of two influenza vaccine formulations. In the first year of the trial, a sample of sites agreed to use the developing Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model and participated in its evaluation. In keeping with a least burdensome approach, short surveys were developed and obtained from each reporting entity (relying sites, non-relying site, lead site, and reviewing institutional review board). Data regarding time to institutional review board approval and site activation, costs, and user perceptions of reliant review were self-reported and collected via the survey form. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed, with costs analyzed as actual versus estimated due to the lack of established baseline cost data. Results A total of 13 sites ceded review and received institutional review board approval. Mean time to approval was substantially faster in sites that ceded review using the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model versus the site that did not cede review (81 vs 121 days). The mean time to approval was also faster than published averages for academic medical centers (81 vs 103 days). Time to first enrollment was faster for ceding sites versus the non-ceding site, and also faster than published averages (126 vs 149 and 169 days, respectively). Costs were higher than estimates for local institutional review board review and approval. Nearly half (47%) the stakeholders reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the reliance experience, although many noted the challenge related to institutional culture change. Conclusion Implementation of a single institutional review board represents a shift in practice and culture for many institutions. Evaluation of the reliance arrangements for this study highlights both the potential of, and challenges for, institutions as they transition to single institutional review board review. Although efficiencies were observed for study start-up, we anticipate a learning curve as institutions and research teams implement necessary process and resource changes to adapt to single institutional review board oversight. Findings may inform research teams but are, however, limited by the relatively small number of sites and lack of a control group.

This cohort study compares the clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized women who gave birth with and without coronavirus disease 2019.

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan improves morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether initiation of sacubitril/valsartan limits the use and dosing of other elements of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFrEF is unknown. We examined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on β-blocker and MRA use and dosing in a large randomized clinical trial. Methods: Patients with full data on medication/dose use were included. We examined β-blocker and MRA use/dose in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril through 12-month follow-up. New initiations and discontinuations of β-blocker and MRA were compared between treatment groups. Results: Overall, 8398 (99.9%) had full medication and dose data at baseline. Baseline use of β-blocker and MRA at any dose was 87.1% and 55%, respectively. Mean doses of β-blocker and MRA were similar between treatment groups at baseline and at 6-months and 12-months follow-up. New initiations through 12-months follow-up were infrequent and similar in the sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril groups for β-blockers (37 [9.0%] vs. 42 [10.2%], p = 0.56) and MRA (127 [7.6%] vs. 143 [9.2%], p = 0.10). Among patients on MRA therapy at baseline (n = 4634), there were fewer MRA discontinuations in patients on sacubitril/valsartan as compared with enalapril at 12-months (125 [6.2%] vs. 187 [9.0%], p = 0.001). Discontinuations of β-blockers were not significantly different between groups in follow-up (2.2% vs 2.6%, p = 0.26). Conclusions: Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even when titrated to target dose, did not appear to lead to greater discontinuation or dose downtitrations of other key guideline-directed medical therapies, and was associated with fewer discontinuations of MRA. Use of sacubitril/valsartan (when compared with enalapril) may promote sustained MRA use in follow-up.

Background Few contemporary data exist evaluating care patterns and outcomes in heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of kidney function. Objectives This study sought to characterize differences in quality of care and outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF by degree of kidney dysfunction. Methods Guideline-directed medical therapies were evaluated among patients hospitalized with HF at 418 sites in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure) registry from 2014 to 2019 by discharge CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration)-derived estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). We additionally evaluated the risk-adjusted association of admission eGFR with in-hospital mortality. Results Among 365,494 hospitalizations (age 72 ± 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [EF]: 43 ± 17%), median discharge eGFR was 51 ml/min/1.73 m2 (interquartile range: 34 to 72 ml/min/1.73 m2), 234,332 (64%) had eGFR Conclusions Despite facing elevated risks of mortality, patients with comorbid HF with reduced EF and kidney disease are not optimally treated with evidence-based medical therapies, even at levels of eGFR where such therapies would not be contraindicated by kidney dysfunction. Further efforts are required to mitigate risk in comorbid HF and kidney disease.

BACKGROUND Treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with spironolactone is associated with lower risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) but increased risk of worsening renal function (WRF). The prognostic implications of spironolactone-associated WRF in HFpEF patients are not well understood.OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between WRF, spironolactone treatment, and clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF.METHODS In 1,767 patients randomized to spironolactone or placebo in the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial)-Americas study, we examined the incidence of WRF (doubling of serum creatinine) by treatment assignment. Associations between incident WRF and subsequent risk for the primary study endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, HFH, or aborted cardiac arrest and key secondary outcomes, including CV death, HFH, and all-cause mortality according to treatment assignment, were examined in time-updated Cox proportional hazards models with an interaction term.RESULTS WRF developed in 260 (14.7%) patients with higher rates in those assigned to spironolactone compared to placebo (17.8% vs. 11.6%; odds ratio: 1.66; 95% confidence interval: 1.27 to 2.17; p < 0.001). Regardless of treatment, incident WRF was associated with increased risk for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio: 2.04; 95% confidence interval: 1.52 to 2.72; p < 0.001) after multivariable adjustment. Although there was no statistical interaction between treatment assignment and WRF regarding the primary endpoint (interaction p = 0.11), spironolactone-associated WRF was associated with lower risk of CV death (interaction p = 0.003) and all-cause mortality (interaction p = 0.001) compared with placebo-associated WRF.CONCLUSIONS Among HFpEF patients enrolled in TOPCAT-Americas, spironolactone increased risk of WRF compared with placebo. Rates of CV death were lower with spironolactone in both patients with and without WRF. (c) 2021 the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved.

The link between viral respiratory infection and non-pulmonary organ-specific injury, including cardiac injury, has become increasingly appreciated during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Even prior to the pandemic, however, the association between acute infection with influenza and elevated cardiovascular risk was evident. The recently published results of the NHLBI-funded INfluenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop CardioThoracic Events and Decompensated (INVESTED) trial, a 5200 patient comparative effectiveness study of high-dose vs. standard-dose influenza vaccine to reduce cardiopulmonary events and mortality in a high-risk cardiovascular population, found no difference between strategies. However, the broader implications of influenza vaccine as a strategy to reduce morbidity in high-risk patients remain extremely important, with randomized controlled trial and observational data supporting vaccination in high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease. Given a favourable risk-benefit profile and widespread availability at generally low cost, we contend that influenza vaccination should remain a centrepiece of cardiovascular risk mitigation and describe the broader context of underutilization of this strategy. Few therapeutics in medicine offer seasonal efficacy from a single administration with generally mild, transient side effects, and exceedingly low rates of serious adverse effects. Infection control measures such as physical distancing, hand washing, and the use of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic have already been associated with substantially curtailed incidence of influenza outbreaks across the globe. Appending annual influenza vaccination to these measures represents an important public health and moral imperative.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%.

Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes among patients with a history of heart failure (HF) hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Background Cardiometabolic comorbidities are common in patients with severe COVID-19. Patients with HF may be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 complications. Methods The Premier Healthcare Database was used to identify patients with at least 1 HF hospitalization or 2 HF outpatient visits between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, who were subsequently hospitalized between April and September 2020. Baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization, and mortality rates were compared between those hospitalized with COVID-19 and those hospitalized with other causes. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were identified in HF patients hospitalized with COVID-19 by using multivariate logistic regression. Results Among 1,212,153 patients with history of HF, 132,312 patients were hospitalized from April 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. A total of 23,843 patients (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute HF, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 patients (75.6%) were hospitalized with alternative reasons. Hospitalization with COVID-19 was associated with greater odds of in-hospital mortality as compared with hospitalization with acute HF; 24.2% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 died in-hospital compared to 2.6% of those hospitalized with acute HF. This association was strongest in April (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 14.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]:12.25 to 17.12) than in subsequent months (adjusted OR: 10.11; 95% CI: 8.95 to 11.42; pinteraction Conclusions Patients with HF hospitalized with COVID-19 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of40%.

Background Due to the overlapping clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza, parallels are often drawn between the two diseases. Patients with pre-existing cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are at a higher risk for severe manifestations of both illnesses. Considering the high transmission rate of COVID-19 and with the seasonal influenza approaching in late 2020, the dual epidemics of COVID-19 and influenza pose serious cardiovascular implications. This review highlights the similarities and differences between influenza and COVID-19 and the potential risks associated with coincident pandemics. Main body COVID-19 has a higher mortality compared to influenza with case fatality rate almost 15 times more than that of influenza. Additionally, a significantly increased risk of adverse outcomes has been noted in patients with CVD, with ~ 15 to 70% of COVID-19 related deaths having an underlying CVD. The critical care need have ranged from 5 to 79% of patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, a proportion substantially higher than with influenza. Similarly, the frequency of vascular thrombosis including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism is markedly higher in COVID-19 patients compared with influenza in which vascular complications are rarely seen. Unexpectedly, while peak influenza season is associated with increased cardiovascular hospitalizations, a decrease of ~ 50% in cardiovascular hospitalizations has been observed since the first diagnosed case of COVID-19, owing in part to deferred care. Conclusion In the coming months, increasing efforts towards evaluating new interventions will be vital to curb COVID-19, especially as peak influenza season approaches. Currently, not enough data exist regarding co-infection of COVID-19 with influenza or how it would progress clinically, though it may cause a significant burden on an already struggling health care system. Until an effective COVID-19 vaccination is available, high coverage of influenza vaccination should be of utmost priority.

Background: In May 2020, dapagliflozin was approved by the US FDA as the first SGLT-2 inhibitor for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on the pivotal DAPA-HF trial. Limited data are available characterizing its generalizability to US clinical practice. Methods: We studied patients with HFrEF (≤40%) hospitalized at 406 sites in the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-HF registry admitted between Jan 2014 - Sept 2019. We excluded patients who left against medical advice, transferred to an acute care facility or to hospice, or had missing critical data. We applied the FDA label (excluding eGFR2 , dialysis, or type 1 DM) and eligibility criteria of DAPA-HF to the GWTG-HF registry sample. Results: Among 154,714 patients hospitalized with HFrEF, 125,497 (81.1%) would be candidates for dapagliflozin under the FDA label. Across 355 sites with ≥10 hospitalizations, median proportion of FDA label candidates was 81.1% (77.8%-84.6%). This proportion was similar across all study years (80.4-81.7%) and higher among those without type 2 DM than with type 2 DM (85.5% vs. 75.6%). Among GWTG-HF participants, the most frequent reason for not meeting the FDA label was eGFR2 (n=28,605). Among patients with available paired admission and discharge data, 14.2% had eGFR2 at both time points, while 3.8% developed eGFR2 by discharge. While there were more women, more Black patients, and less Asian patients in GWTG-HF, clinical characteristics were qualitatively similar between DAPA-HF trial and GWTG-HF registry participants. Compared with the DAPA-HF trial cohort, there was lower use of evidence-based HF therapies among GWTG-HF patients ( Table ). Conclusions: These data from a large, contemporary US hospitalized HF registry suggest that 4 out of 5 patients with HFrEF (with or without type 2 DM) would be candidates for initiation of dapagliflozin, and support its broad generalizability to US clinical practice.

Objective: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is typically a hypertensive phenotype and many HFpEF patients have difficult to control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on resistant hypertension in HFpEF patients in the PARAGON-HF trial. Patients entered a 1 to 4-week valsartan run-in (target dose 80mg bd), followed by sacubitril/valsartan run-in, before randomization to valsartan or sacubitril/valsartan (target doses 160mg bd or 200mg bd respectively). Design and methods: Patients were examined according to different definitions of resistant hypertension using systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of valsartan run-in. Group 1: SBP≥140mmHg (≥135mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with a calcium channel blocker (CCB), diuretic and valsartan, Group 2: SBP≥130mmHg despite treatment with a CCB, diuretic and valsartan, or SBP Results: Of 4796 patients randomized, criteria for resistant hypertension were fulfilled in 726 (15%) using the Group 1 definition, 1146 (24%) using the Group 2 definition and 132 (3%) in the third group. The combination of neprilysin inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, CCB and diuretic (+/-MRA) reduced SBP and significantly increased the proportion of patients with controlled SBP (Table). Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan may be useful in treating resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated SBP despite treatment with at least 4 antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA.

IMPORTANCE: In May 2020, dapagliflozin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the first sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), based on the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial. Limited data are available characterizing the generalizability of dapagliflozin to US clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate candidacy for initiation of dapagliflozin based on the FDA label among contemporary patients with HFrEF in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included 154 714 patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) hospitalized at 406 sites in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry admitted between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2019. Patients who left against medical advice, transferred to an acute care facility or to hospice, or had missing data were excluded. The FDA label (which excluded patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]

Background/Introduction Abnormal thyroid hormone concentrations have been associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the relationship between thyroid dysfunction and specific heart failure phenotypes is less clear. Purpose To examine the association of thyroid dysfunction with the risk of incident HF in older adults without pre-existing HF. Methods We analyzed participants enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who attended the visit 5 examination (2011–2013). Participants with previous HF history, and participants treated with amiodarone, levothyroxine, and antithyroid medication were excluded. We used Cox regression models to assess the associations between serum thyroid indices (free thyroxine [FT4], total triiodothyronine [TT3], or thyroid stimulating hormone [TSH]) and incident adjudicated HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) left ventricular ejection fraction. Continuous associations between TT3 and outcome were further assessed via Cox model using restricted cubic spline. Results Among 3349 participants (mean age 75±5 years, 56% women, 20% black), subclinical hypothyroidism was prevalent in 12% of participants and low T3 syndrome in 3%. Those with overt hypothyroidism ( Conclusions In a contemporary biracial cohort of older adults, serum T3 level was inversely associated with incident HFpEF hospitalization. T3 administration could be considered as a potential target in future clinical trials preventing HFpEF hospitalization. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study is performed as a collaborative study supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute contracts

Background: Gender disparities in authorship of heart failure (HF) guideline citations and clinical trials have not been examined. Methods: We identified authors of publications referenced in Class I Recommendations in United States (n=173) and European (n=100) HF guidelines and of publications of all HF trials with >400 participants (n=118) published between 2001 and 2016. Authors’ genders were determined, and changes in authorship patterns over time were evaluated with linear regression and nonparametric testing. Results: The median proportion of women authors per publication was 20% (interquartile range [IQR], 8%–33%) in United States guidelines, 14% (IQR, 2%–20%) in European guidelines, and 11% (IQR, 4%–20%) in HF trials. The proportion of women authors increased modestly over time in United States and European guidelines’ references (β=0.005 and 0.003, respectively, from 1986 to 2016; P P >0.50). Overall proportions of women as first or last authors in HF trials (16%) did not change significantly over time ( P =0.60). North American HF trials had the highest likelihood of having a woman as first or senior author (24%). HF trials with a woman first or senior author were associated with a higher proportion of enrolled female participants (39% versus 26%, P =0.01). Conclusions: In HF practice guidelines and trials, few women are authors of pivotal publications. Higher number of women authors is associated with higher enrollment of women in HF trials. Barriers to authorship and representation of women in HF guidelines and HF trial leadership need to be addressed.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been promoted as a potential treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but there are safety concerns.The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of HCQ treatment on QT interval.We retrospectively studied the electrocardiograms of 819 patients treated with HCQ for rheumatologic diseases from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome was corrected QT (QTc) interval, by Bazett formula, during HCQ therapy.Mean patient age was 64.0 ± 10.9 years, and 734 patients (90%) were men. Median dosage of HCQ was 400 mg daily, and median (25th-75th percentile) duration of HCQ therapy was 1006 (471-2075) days. Mean on-treatment QTc was 430.9 ± 31.8 ms. In total, 55 patients (7%) had QTc 470-500 ms, and 12 (1.5%) had QTc500 ms. Chronic kidney disease (CKD), history of atrial fibrillation (AF), and heart failure were independent risk factors for prolonged QTc. In a subset of 591 patients who also had a pretreatment electrocardiogram, mean QTc increased from 424.4 ± 29.7 ms to 432.0 ± 32.3 ms (P.0001) during HCQ treatment. Of these patients, 23 (3.9%) had either prolongation of QTc15% or on-treatment QTc500 ms. Over median 5.97 (3.33-10.11) years of follow-up, 269 patients (33%) died. QTc470 ms during HCQ treatment was associated with a greater mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.78; 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.71; P = .008) in univariable but not in multivariable analysis.HCQ is associated with QT prolongation in a significant fraction of patients. The risk of QT prolongation is higher among patients with CKD, AF, and heart failure, who may benefit from greater scrutiny.

Importance Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has reached a pandemic level. Coronaviruses are known to affect the cardiovascular system. We review the basics of coronaviruses, with a focus on COVID-19, along with their effects on the cardiovascular system. Observations Coronavirus disease 2019 can cause a viral pneumonia with additional extrapulmonary manifestations and complications. A large proportion of patients have underlying cardiovascular disease and/or cardiac risk factors. Factors associated with mortality include male sex, advanced age, and presence of comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, and cerebrovascular diseases. Acute cardiac injury determined by elevated high-sensitivity troponin levels is commonly observed in severe cases and is strongly associated with mortality. Acute respiratory distress syndrome is also strongly associated with mortality. Conclusions and Relevance Coronavirus disease 2019 is associated with a high inflammatory burden that can induce vascular inflammation, myocarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias. Extensive efforts are underway to find specific vaccines and antivirals against SARS-CoV-2. Meanwhile, cardiovascular risk factors and conditions should be judiciously controlled per evidence-based guidelines.

Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is an uncommon syndrome characterized by sudden and severe diffuse cardiac inflammation often leading to death resulting from cardiogenic shock, ventricular arrhythmias, or multiorgan system failure. Historically, FM was almost exclusively diagnosed at autopsy. By definition, all patients with FM will need some form of inotropic or mechanical circulatory support to maintain end-organ perfusion until transplantation or recovery. Specific subtypes of FM may respond to immunomodulatory therapy in addition to guideline-directed medical care. Despite the increasing availability of circulatory support, orthotopic heart transplantation, and disease-specific treatments, patients with FM experience significant morbidity and mortality as a result of a delay in diagnosis and initiation of circulatory support and lack of appropriately trained specialists to manage the condition. This scientific statement outlines the resources necessary to manage the spectrum of FM, including extracorporeal life support, percutaneous and durable ventricular assist devices, transplantation capabilities, and specialists in advanced heart failure, cardiothoracic surgery, cardiac pathology, immunology, and infectious disease. Education of frontline providers who are most likely to encounter FM first is essential to increase timely access to appropriately resourced facilities, to prevent multiorgan system failure, and to tailor disease-specific therapy as early as possible in the disease process.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and use of inappropriate medications have been linked to increased risk of falls, hospitalizations, cognitive impairment, and death. The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We searched OVID MEDLINE Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from 1990 through February 2019 for controlled clinical trials comparing any deprescribing intervention to usual care or another intervention. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, health-related quality of life, and falls. The secondary outcome was use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Interventions were categorized as comprehensive medication review, educational initiatives, and computerized decision support. Data abstracted by one investigator were verified by another. We used the Cochrane criteria to rate risk of bias for each study and the GRADE system to determine certainty of evidence (COE) for primary outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight low and medium risk of bias clinical trials were included. Comprehensive medication review may have reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.95, I(2) = 0, k = 12, low COE) but probably had little to no effect on falls, health-related quality of life, or hospitalizations (low to moderate COE). Nine of thirteen trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention group. Educational interventions probably had little to no effect on all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, or health-related quality of life (low to moderate COE). The effect on falls was uncertain (very low COE). All 11 education trials that included PIMs reported fewer in the intervention than in the control groups. Two of 4 computerized decision support trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention arms; none included any primary outcomes. DISCUSSION: In community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older, medication deprescribing interventions may provide small reductions in mortality and use of potentially inappropriate medications. REGISTRY INFORMATION: PROSPERO - CRD42019132420. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06089-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives This study sought to evaluate and contribute to the limited data on U.S. hospital practice patterns with respect to respiratory vaccination in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF). Background Respiratory infection is a major driver of morbidity in patients with HF, and many influenza and pneumococcal infections may be prevented by vaccination. Methods This study evaluated patients hospitalized at centers participating in the Get With The Guidelines–HF (GWTG-HF) registry from October 2012 to March 2017. The proportion of patients receiving vaccination was described for influenza and pneumococcal vaccination, respectively. The association of hospital-level vaccination rates with individual GWTG-HF performance measures and defect-free care was evaluated using multivariable modeling. Results This study evaluated 313,761 patients discharged from 392 hospitals during the study period. The proportion of patients receiving influenza vaccination was 68% overall and declined from 70% in 2012 to 2013 to 66% in 2016 to 2017 (p Conclusions Nearly 1 in 3 patients hospitalized with HF at participating hospitals were not vaccinated for influenza or pneumococcal pneumonia, and vaccination rates did not improve from 2012 to 2017. Hospitals that exhibited higher vaccination rates performed well with respect to other HF quality of care measures. Vaccination status was not associated with differences in clinical outcomes. Further randomized controlled data are needed to assess the relationship between vaccination and outcomes.

BACKGROUND Recent evidence suggests that the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone should be the preferred fourth-line antihypertensive treatment in resistant hypertension (RHTN). Whether spironolactone improves blood pressure (BP) control in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and RHTN is unknown. METHODS We identified patients with RHTN, defined as baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) between 140 and 160 mm Hg on 3 or more medications, in the Americas cohort of the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist trial, in which patients with HFpEF were randomized to spironolactone vs. placebo. We evaluated the effects of spironolactone vs. placebo on BP reduction in this group and related this to the primary composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS We identified 403 participants in the Americas with RHTN. Compared to people without RHTN, those with RHTN were more frequently women, non-White, diabetics, with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction and body mass index, and a lower hemoglobin concentration. In the RHTN group, spironolactone resulted in a decrease of SBP: −6.1 (−8.9, −3.3); P < 0.001 and diastolic BP: −2.9 (−4.6, −1.2); P = 0.001 mm Hg during the first 8 months. BP became controlled after 4 weeks in 63% of patients receiving spironolactone vs. 46% receiving placebo (P = 0.003), with similar responses at 8 weeks, 4 and 8 months. Patients with RHTN derived similar overall benefit from spironolactone on the primary outcomes as those without. CONCLUSIONS In HFpEF patients with RHTN, spironolactone lowered BP substantially and was associated with similar benefit as those without RHTN. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION Trial Number NCT00094302 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

Background: US guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), who tolerate an ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or ARB (angiotensin II receptor blocker), be switched to sacubitril/valsartan to reduce morbidity and mortality. We compared characteristics and healthcare utilization between Veterans with HFrEF who were switched to sacubitril/valsartan versus maintained on an ACEI or ARB. Methods: retrospective cohort study of treated HFrEF (July 2015–June 2017) using Veterans Affairs data. The index date was the first fill for sacubitril/valsartan and if none, for an ACEI or ARB. Treated HFrEF was defined by (1) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, (2) ≥1 in/outpatient HF encounter, and (3) ≥1 ACEI or ARB fill, all within 1-year preindex. Poisson regression models were used to compare baseline characteristics and 1:1 propensity score-matched adjusted 4-month follow-up healthcare utilization between sacubitril/valsartan switchers and ACEI or ARB maintainers. Results: Switchers (1612; 4.2%) were less likely than maintainers (37 065; 95.8%) to have a history of myocardial infarction or hypertension, and more likely to be black, have a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and higher preindex healthcare utilization. Switchers were less likely to experience follow-up all-cause hospitalizations (11.2% versus 14.0%; risk ratio 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65–0.98], P value 0.035). Conclusions: Few Veterans with treated HFrEF were switched to sacubitril/valsartan within the first 2 years of Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with a lower risk for all-cause hospitalizations at 4 months follow-up. Reasons for lack of guideline-recommended sacubitril/valsartan initiation warrant investigation and may reveal opportunities for HFrEF care optimization.

Background Influenza infection is associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke. It is currently unknown whether influenza vaccination may reduce mortality in patients with hypertension. Purpose To determine whether influenza vaccination is associated with lower risks of death in hypertensive patients without significant cardiovascular or other chronic disease. Methods Using nationwide registers, we identified all patients with hypertension in Denmark during 9 consecutive influenza seasons in the period 2007–2016 who were treated with at least 2 different classes of antihypertensive medication (beta-blockers, diuretics, calcium antagonists or renin-angiotensin system inhibitors). Patients who were not 18–100 years old or had ischemic heart disease, heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer or cerebrovascular disease were excluded. Prior to each influenza season we assessed the exposure to influenza vaccination. End-points were death from all causes, from AMI or stroke, or cardiovascular death. For each season, patients were followed from December 1 until April 1 the next year, spanning the period of high influenza activity in Denmark. Results A total of 608,452 Patients were followed for a median of 5 seasons (interquartile-range: 2–8 seasons), with total follow-up time of 975,902 person-years. The vaccine coverage during study seasons ranged from 26% to 36%. During follow-up, 21,571 patients died of all-causes (3.5%), 12,270 patients died of cardiovascular causes (2.0%) and 3,846 patients died of AMI/stroke (0.6%). Vaccination was associated with older age, Diabetes Mellitus, atrial fibrillation, lower educational level, lower income and higher medication use. In unadjusted analysis considering all seasons, vaccination was significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death and death from AMI/stroke. However, following adjustment for season, age, sex, comorbidities, medications, income, education, and more, vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death and death from AMI/stroke (Figure). PY, person-years. Conclusion In a nationwide study spanning 9 consecutive influenza seasons including more than 600,000 hypertensive patients without significant cardiovascular disease identified through medication use, influenza vaccination was significantly associated with a reduced risk of death from all-causes, cardiovascular causes and AMI/stroke. Influenza vaccination may improve patient outcome in hypertension. Acknowledgement/Funding Daniel Modin was supported by the Herlev & Gentofte University Hospital Internal Research Fund and by the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Objectives The authors examined efficacy and safety of spironolactone by age in the Americas region (N = 1,767) of the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial. Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction disproportionately affects older adults who may exhibit changes in physiology and variable pharmacokinetics. Methods TOPCAT enrolled patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% who were age 50 or older with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and prior heart failure hospitalization or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. Participants were randomized to spironolactone or placebo with a mean follow-up duration of 3.3 years. We assessed treatment effect and safety by protocol-defined age categories ( Results The mean age was 72 ± 10 years (range 50 to 97 years) with 41% over the age of 75 years. Participants ≥75 years were more commonly women and white and had a lower body mass index and estimated glomerular filtration rate compared with the younger age categories. Spironolactone reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo across all age categories (p interaction = 0.42). However, spironolactone was associated with an increased risk of the safety endpoint (hazard ratio: 2.54; 95% confidence interval: 1.91 to 3.37; p Conclusions In this post hoc, exploratory analysis of the TOPCAT trial data from the Americas region, although there was no effect of age on efficacy, there were considerable effects of age on increased rates of adverse safety outcomes. These results should be weighed when considering spironolactone for older heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients. (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302 )

IMPORTANCE: Influenza is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but to our knowledge, few studies have explored the temporal association between influenza activity and hospitalizations, especially those caused by heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVE: To explore the temporal association between influenza activity and hospitalizations due to HF and myocardial infarction (MI). We hypothesized that increased influenza activity would be associated with an increase in hospitalizations for HF and MI among adults in the community. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: As part of the community surveillance component of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, a population-based study with hospitalizations sampled from 4 US communities, data were collected from 451 588 adults aged 35 to 84 years residing in the ARIC communities from annual cross-sectional stratified random samples of hospitalizations during October 2010 to September 2014. EXPOSURES: Monthly influenza activity, defined as the percentage of patient visits to sentinel clinicians for influenza-like illness by state, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Surveillance Network. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The monthly frequency of MI hospitalizations (n = 3541) and HF hospitalizations (n = 4321), collected through community surveillance and adjudicated as part of the ARIC Study. RESULTS: Between October 2010 and September 2014, 2042 (47.3%) and 1599 (45.1%) of the sampled patients who were hospitalized for HF and MI, respectively, were women and 2391 (53.3%) and 2013 (57.4%) were white, respectively. A 5% monthly absolute increase in influenza activity was associated with a 24% increase in HF hospitalization rates, standardized to the total population in each community, within the same month after adjusting for region, season, race/ethnicity, sex, age, and number of MI/HF hospitalizations from the month before (incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; P

Aims:\ud To assess differences in diuretic dose requirements in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM‐HF) trial.\ud \ud Methods and results:\ud Overall, 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II–IV heart failure and reduced LVEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg twice daily. Loop diuretic doses were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and furosemide dose equivalents were calculated via multiplication factors (2x for torsemide and 40x for bumetanide). Percentages of participants with reductions or increases in loop diuretic dose were determined. At baseline, 80.8% of participants were taking any diuretics (n = 6290 for loop diuretics, n = 496 for other diuretics); of those, recorded dosage data for loop diuretics were available on 5487 participants. Mean baseline furosemide equivalent doses were 48.2 mg for sacubitril/valsartan and 49.6 mg for enalapril (P = 0.25). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to reduce diuretic dose and less likely to increase diuretic dose relative to those randomized to enalapril at 6, 12, 24 months post‐randomization, with an overall decreased diuretic use of 2.0% (P = 0.02), 4.1% (P

Importance Influenza is temporally associated with cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality among those with cardiovascular disease who may mount a less vigorous immune response to vaccination. Higher influenza vaccine dose has been associated with reduced risk of influenza illness. Objective To evaluate whether high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine compared with standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine would reduce all-cause death or cardiopulmonary hospitalization in high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease. Design, Setting, and Participants Pragmatic multicenter, double-blind, active comparator randomized clinical trial conducted in 5260 participants vaccinated for up to 3 influenza seasons in 157 sites in the US and Canada between September 21, 2016, and January 31, 2019. Patients with a recent acute myocardial infarction or heart failure hospitalization and at least 1 additional risk factor were eligible. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive high-dose trivalent (n = 2630) or standard-dose quadrivalent (n = 2630) inactivated influenza vaccine and could be revaccinated for up to 3 seasons. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the time to the composite of all-cause death or cardiopulmonary hospitalization during each enrolling season. The final date of follow-up was July 31, 2019. Vaccine-related adverse events were also assessed. Results Among 5260 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 65.5 [12.6] years; 3787 [72%] men; 3289 [63%] with heart failure) over 3 influenza seasons, there were 7154 total vaccinations administered and 5226 (99.4%) participants completed the trial. In the high-dose trivalent vaccine group, there were 975 primary outcome events (883 hospitalizations for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes and 92 deaths from any cause) among 884 participants during 3577 participant-seasons (event rate, 45 per 100 patient-years), whereas in the standard-dose quadrivalent vaccine group, there were 924 primary outcome events (846 hospitalizations for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes and 78 deaths from any cause) among 837 participants during 3577 participant-seasons (event rate, 42 per 100 patient-years) (hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.97-1.17];P = .21). In the high-dose vs standard-dose groups, vaccine-related adverse reactions occurred in 1449 (40.5%) vs 1229 (34.4%) participants and severe adverse reactions occurred in 55 (2.1%) vs 44 (1.7%) participants. Conclusions and Relevance In patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease, high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine, compared with standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine, did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality or cardiopulmonary hospitalizations. Influenza vaccination remains strongly recommended in this population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02787044