Search

Aim: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic., Methods and Results: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87)., Conclusions: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide., Clinical Trail Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking., Methods and Results: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 . Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously., Conclusion: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described., Objectives: Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum., Methods: The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial., Results: The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72)., Conclusions: In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were supported by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Drs Morrow and Park are members of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Research and Development, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Softcell Medical Limited, and Zora Biosciences. Dr Morrow has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, ARCA Biopharma, Inflammatix, Merck and Co, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Velazquez has received institutional research grant support and/or honoraria for serving on advisory boards from Novartis, Abiomed, Rednvia, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institutes of Health. Dr Desai has received research grants (to Brigham and Women’s Hospital) from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received personal consulting fees from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Avidity Biopharma, Axon Therapeutics, Bayer, Biofourmis, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Medpace, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, and Veristat. Dr DeVore has received research funding through his institution from Biofourmis, Bodyport, Cytokinetics, American Regent, Inc, the National Institutes of Health and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, and Story Health; and has served as a consultant for and/or received honoraria from Abiomed, Cardionomic, LivaNova, Natera, Novo Nordisk, Story Health, and Zoll. Dr Sharma has served on the advisory board and/or as a consultant for Alleviant, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Imbria, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, RIVUS, and ViCardia. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, Actelion, Amgen, Bellerophon, Celladon, Gilead, Mesoblast, Neurotronik, and US2; and has served as a consultant 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, Akros, and Valo. Dr Starling has served on the steering committee for the PARAGLIDE trial sponsored by Novartis and for the RESPONDER HF trial sponsored by Corvia Medical. Drs Ward and Williamson are employees of Novartis. Dr Zieroth has received research grant support from, served on advisory boards for, or served as a speaker for Abbott, Akcea AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; and has served on a clinical trial committee or as a national lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Hernandez has received research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Somologic, and Verily; and has served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Intellia, Merck, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Mentz has received research support and/or honoraria from Novartis, Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Dr Braunwald has received grant support to his institution from Novartis for the conduct of the PIONEER-HF trial, for serving on the Executive Committee of the PARADISE-MI trial and the Steering Committee of the PARAGLIDE-HF trial, and for participation in an advisory board meeting; and has served as a consultant for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Edgewise, and Verve. Dr Lepage has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups., Methods: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score., Results: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P =0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup., Conclusions: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813., Competing Interests: Dr Greene has received research support from the Duke University Department of Medicine Chair’s Research Award, the American Heart Association (929502), the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; has served on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi; serves as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, CSL Vifor, Merck, PharmaIN, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Tricog Health, Urovant Pharmaceuticals; and has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Anstrom has received research support from Merck, Bayer, Pfizer, National Institutes of Health, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr Mentz receives research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. All other authors report no conflicts.

Importance: Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF)., Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF., Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023., Exposure: Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy., Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS)., Results: Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Objective: The role of surgical ventricular reconstruction (SVR) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy is controversial. Observational series and the Surgical Treatment of IsChemic Heart failure (STICH) trial reported contradictory results. SVR is highly dependent on operator experience. The aim of this study is to compare the long-term results of SVR between a high-volume SVR institution and the STICH trial using individual patient data., Methods: Patients undergoing SVR at San Donato Hospital (Milan) were compared with patients undergoing SVR in STICH (as-treated principle) by inverse probability treatment-weighted Cox regression. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality., Results: The San Donato cohort included 725 patients, whereas the STICH cohort included 501. Compared with the STICH-SVR cohort, San Donato patients were older (66.0, lower quartile, upper quartile [Q1, Q3: 58.0, 72.0] vs 61.9 [Q1, Q3: 55.1, 68.8], P < .001) and with lower left ventricular end-systolic volume index at baseline (LVESVI: 77.0 [Q1, Q3: 59.0, 97.0] vs 80.8 [Q1, Q3: 58.5, 106.8], P = .02). Propensity score weighting yielded 2 similar cohorts. At 4-year follow-up, mortality was significantly lower in the San Donato cohort compared with the STICH-SVR cohort (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.95; P = .001). Greater postoperative LVESVI was independently associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.03). At 4 to 6 months of follow-up, the mean reduction of LVESVI in the San Donato cohort was 39.6%, versus 10.7% in the STICH-SVR cohort (P < .001)., Conclusions: Patients with postinfarction LV remodeling undergoing SVR at a high-volume SVR institution had better long-term results than those reported in the STICH trial, suggesting that a new trial testing the SVR hypothesis may be warranted., (Copyright © 2022 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction., Methods and Results: Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002)., Conclusion: In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF., Methods: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months., Results: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P =0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P =0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P =0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P =0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization., Conclusions: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Greene has received research support from the Duke University Department of Medicine Chair’s Research Award, American Heart Association (No. 929502), National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; has served on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi; serves as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, CSL Vifor, Merck, PharmaIN, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Tricog Health, Urovant Pharmaceuticals; and has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Anstrom has received research support from Merck, Bayer, Pfizer, National Institutes of Health, and PCORI. Dr DeWald reports consulting for Bodyport. Dr Mentz receives research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics and Zoll. All other authors report no disclosures.

Background: U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation is safe and effective in EF >40% after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event is unknown., Objectives: PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a recent WHF event., Methods: PARAGLIDE-HF is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >40% enrolled within 30 days of a WHF event. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: 1) cardiovascular death; 2) HF hospitalizations; 3) urgent HF visits; and 4) change in NT-proBNP., Results: In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.999; P = 0.049). The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril/valsartan but was not significant (unmatched win ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.52; P = 0.16). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced worsening renal function (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.93) but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.09-2.76). There was evidence of a larger treatment effect in the subgroup with EF ≤60% for NT-proBNP change (0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.95)., Conclusions: Among patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared with valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures PARAGLIDE-HF was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Dr Mentz has received research support and/or honoraria from Novartis, Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Drs Ward, Sarwat, and Williamson are employees of Novartis. Dr Hernandez has received research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Somologic, and Verily; and has served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Morrow is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Inc, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc, Softcell Medical Limited, and Zora Biosciences; and has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, ARCA Biopharma, Inflammatix, Merck and Co, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Sharma serves as an advisory board member and/or consultant to AstraZeneca, Alleviant, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Imbria, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, RIVUS, and ViCardia; and receives grant funding from Amgen and the American Heart Association. Dr Starling serves on the steering committee for the PARAGLIDE trial sponsored by Novartis. Dr Velazquez has received grants from Novartis, Amgen, Phillips, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institutes of Health. Dr Desai has received research grants (to BWH) from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received personal consulting fees from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Avidity Biopharma, Axon Therapeutics, Bayer, Biofourmis, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Medpace, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, and Veristat. Dr Zieroth has received research grant support, served on advisory boards for, or has had speaker engagements with Abbott, Akcea AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier and Vifor Pharma; and serves on a clinical trial committee or as a national lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, Actelion, Amgen, Bellerophon, Celladon, Gilead, Mesoblast, Neurotronik, and US2; 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, Akros, and Valo. Dr Braunwald has received grant support to his institution from Novartis for the conduct of the PIONEER-HF trial, for serving on the Executive Committee of the PARADISE-MI trial and the Steering Committee of the PARAGLIDE-HF trial, and for participation in an Advisory Board Meeting. Dr Lepage has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PARAGON-HF trial studied the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) compared with valsartan (Val) on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). Further data are needed regarding the use of Sac/Val in these groups with EF and with recent worsening heart failure (WHF) events and in key populations not broadly represented in the PARAGON-HF trial, including those with de novo HF, the severely obese and Black patients., Methods: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of Sac/Val vs Val that enrolled patients at 100 sites. Medically stable patients ≥ 18 years old with EF > 40%, amino terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels ≥ 500 pg/mL and within 30 days of a WHF event were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to Sac/Val vs Val. The primary efficacy endpoint is time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. Secondary endpoints include clinical outcomes during follow-up and additional biomarker assessments. Safety endpoints include symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function and hyperkalemia., Results: The trial enrolled 467 participants from June 2019 through October 2022 (52% women, 22% Black, age 70 ± 12 years, median (IQR) BMI 33 (27-40) kg/m 2 ). The median (IQR) EF was 55% (50%-60%), 23% with HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), 24% with EF > 60% and 33% with de novo HFpEF. Median screening NT-proBNP was 2009 (1291-3813) pg/mL, and 69% were enrolled in the hospital., Conclusions: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial enrolled a broad and diverse range of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and will inform clinical practice by providing evidence about the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Sac/Val vs Val in those with a recent WHF event., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Acute Heart failure (AHF) is among the most frequent causes of hospitalization in the United States, contributing to substantial health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. Inpatient initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is recommended for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. However, underutilization of GDMT prior to discharge is pervasive, representing a valuable missed opportunity to optimize evidence-based care. The PRagmatic Trial Of Messaging to Providers about Treatment of Acute Heart Failure tests the effectiveness of an electronic health record embedded clinical decision support system that informs providers during hospital management about indicated but not yet prescribed GDMT for eligible AHF patients with HFrEF. PRagmatic Trial Of Messaging to Providers about Treatment of Acute Heart Failureis an open-label, multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial of 1,012 patients hospitalized with HFrEF. Eligible patients randomized to the intervention group are exposed to a tailored best practice advisory embedded within the electronic health record that alerts providers to prescribe omitted GDMT. The primary outcome is an increase in the proportion of additional GDMT medication classes prescribed at the time of discharge compared to those in the usual care arm., Competing Interests: Disclosures JH, TO, JM are employees of AstraZeneca. RJR is a consultant for Alexion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, PhaseBio, and Portola. RD does executive teaching for Sanofi Consumer Health care. SEI has served on clinical trial committees and advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. He has served as a consultant to Merck, Pfizer, Lexicon, vTv Therapeutics, Esperion and Abbott and has delivered lectures supported by Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. TA is consultant for Sanofi-Aventis, Amgen, Cytokinetics. He has research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. NRD works under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures used for public reporting and pay for performance programs. He reports research grants and consulting for Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Novartis, SCPharmaceuticals, and Vifor. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide., Objective: To determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure., Design, Setting, and Participants: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022., Interventions: Loop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide., Results: TRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Objectives: Optimal medical therapy in patients with heart failure and coronary artery disease is associated with improved outcomes. However, whether this association is influenced by the performance of coronary artery bypass grafting is less well established. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the possible relationship between coronary artery bypass grafting and optimal medical therapy and its effect on the outcomes of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy., Methods: The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial randomized 1212 patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction 35% or less to coronary artery bypass grafting with medical therapy or medical therapy alone with a median follow-up over 9.8 years. For the purpose of this study, optimal medical therapy was collected at baseline and 4 months, and defined as the combination of 4 drugs: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, beta-blocker, statin, and 1 antiplatelet drug., Results: At baseline and 4 months, 58.7% and 73.3% of patients were receiving optimal medical therapy, respectively. These patients had no differences in important parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular volumes. In a multivariable Cox model, optimal medical therapy at baseline was associated with a lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.91; P = .001). When landmarked at 4 months, optimal medical therapy was also associated with a lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.99; P = .04). There was no interaction between the benefit of optimal medical therapy and treatment allocation., Conclusions: Optimal medical therapy was associated with improved long-term survival and lower cardiovascular mortality in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and should be strongly recommended., (Copyright © 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Death ascertainment can be challenging for pragmatic clinical trials that limit site follow-up activities to usual clinical care., Methods and Results: We used blinded aggregate data from the ongoing ToRsemide comparison with furoSemide FOR Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) pragmatic clinical trial in patients with heart failure to evaluate the agreement between centralized call center death event identification and the United States National Death Index (NDI). Of 2284 total patients randomized through April 12, 2021, 1480 were randomized in 2018-2019 and 804 in 2020-2021. The call center identified 416 total death events (177 in 2018-2019 and 239 in 2020-2021). The NDI 2018-2019 final file identified 178 death events, 165 of which were also identified by the call center. The study's inter-rater reliability metric (Cohen's kappa coefficient, 0.920; 95% confidence interval, 0.889-0.951) demonstrates a high level of agreement. The time between a death event and its identification was less for the call center (median, 47 days; interquartile range, 11-103 days) than for the NDI (median, 270 days; interquartile range, 186-391 days)., Conclusions: There is substantial agreement between deaths identified by a centralized call center and the NDI. However, the time between a death event and its identification is significantly less for the call center., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The use of risk scores has the potential to improve targeted use of interventions by clinicians that improve patient outcomes, but this hypothesis has not been tested in a randomized trial., Objective: To evaluate whether prognostic information in heart failure translates into improved decisions about initiation and intensity of treatment, more appropriate end-of-life care, and a subsequent reduction in rates of hospitalization or death., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, electronic health record-based, randomized clinical trial across the Yale New Haven Health System, comprising small community hospitals and large tertiary care centers. Patients hospitalized for heart failure who had N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels of greater than 500 pg/mL and received intravenous diuretics within 24 hours of admission were automatically randomly assigned to the alert (intervention) or usual-care groups., Interventions: The alert group had their risk of 1-year mortality calculated using an algorithm that was derived and validated using similar historic patients in the electronic health record. This estimate, including a categorical risk assessment, was presented to clinicians while they were interacting with a patient's electronic health record., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day hospital readmissions and all-cause mortality at 1 year., Results: Between November 27, 2019, through March 7, 2021, 3124 patients were randomly assigned to the alert (1590 [50.9%]) or usual-care (1534 [49.1%]) group. The alert group had a median (IQR) age of 76.5 (65-86) years, and 796 were female patients (50.1%). Patients from the following race and ethnicity groups were included: 13 Asian (0.8%), 324 Black (20.4%), 136 Hispanic (8.6%), 1448 non-Hispanic (91.1%), 1126 White (70.8%), 6 other ethnicity (0.4%), and 127 other race (8.0%). The usual-care group had a median (IQR) age of 77 (65-86) years, and 788 were female patients (51.4%). Patients from the following race and ethnicity groups were included: 11 Asian (1.4%), 298 Black (19.4%), 162 Hispanic (10.6%), 1359 non-Hispanic (88.6%), 1077 White (70.2%), 13 other ethnicity (0.9%), and 137 other race (8.9%). Median (IQR) NT-proBNP levels were 3826 (1692-8241) pg/mL in the alert group and 3867 (1663-8917) pg/mL in the usual-care group. A total of 284 patients (17.9%) and 270 patients (17.6%) were admitted to the intensive care unit in the alert and usual-care groups, respectively. A total of 367 patients (23.1%) and 359 patients (23.4%) had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less in the alert and usual-care groups, respectively. The model achieved an area under the curve of 0.74 in the trial population. The primary outcome occurred in 619 patients (38.9%) in the alert group and 603 patients (39.3%) in the usual-care group (P = .89). There were no significant differences between study groups in the prescription of heart failure medications at discharge, the placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, or referral to palliative care., Conclusions and Relevance: Provision of 1-year mortality estimates during heart failure hospitalization did not affect hospitalization or mortality, nor did it affect clinical decision-making., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03845660.

Background: The use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is underprescribed in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Objectives: This study sought to examine whether targeted and tailored electronic health record (EHR) alerts recommending GDMT in eligible patients with HFrEF improves GDMT use., Methods: PROMPT-HF (PRagmatic trial Of Messaging to Providers about Treatment of Heart Failure) was a pragmatic, EHR-based, cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial. A total of 100 providers caring for patients with HFrEF were randomized to either an alert or usual care. The alert notified providers of individualized GDMT recommendations along with patient characteristics. The primary outcome was an increase in the number of GDMT classes prescribed at 30 days postrandomization. Providers were surveyed on knowledge of guidelines and user experience., Results: The study enrolled 1,310 ambulatory patients with HFrEF from April to October 2021. Median age was 72 years; 31% were female; 18% were Black; and median left ventricular ejection fraction was 32%. At baseline, 84% of participants were receiving β-blockers, 71% received a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor, 29% received a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and 11% received a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor. The primary outcome occurred in 176 of 685 (26%) participants in the alert arm vs 117 of 625 (19%) in the usual care arm, thus increasing GDMT class prescription by >40% after alert exposure (adjusted relative risk: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.03-1.93; P = 0.03). The number of patients needed to alert to result in an increase in addition of GDMT classes was 14. A total of 79% of alerted providers agreed that the alert was effective at enabling improved prescription of medical therapy for HF., Conclusions: A real-time, targeted, and tailored EHR-based alerting system for outpatients with HFrEF led to significantly higher rates of GDMT at 30 days when compared with usual care. This low-cost intervention can be rapidly integrated into clinical care and accelerate adoption of high-value therapies in heart failure. (PRagmatic trial Of Messaging to Providers about Treatment of Heart Failure [PROMPT-HF; NCT04514458])., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PROMPT-HF trial was supported by AstraZeneca. Drs Huang, Olufade, and McDermott are employees of AstraZeneca. Dr Riello has received consulting fees from Alexion, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, PhaseBio, and Portola. Dr Dhar has provided executive teaching for Sanofi Consumer Healthcare. Dr Inzucchi has served on clinical trial committees and advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk; has served as a consultant to Merck, Pfizer, Lexicon, vTv Therapeutics, Esperion, and Abbott; and has delivered lectures supported by Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. Dr Wilson has received funding from National Institutes of Health grants R01DK113191 and P30DK079310. Dr Desai has worked under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures used for public reporting and pay for performance programs; and has received research grants from and consulted for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Novartis, SCPharmaceuticals, and Vifor. Dr Ahmad has received consulting fees from Sanofi, Amgen, and Cytokinetics; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. 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.)

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is one of the most common chronic illnesses in the United States and carries significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with HFrEF has been shown to dramatically improve outcomes, but adoption of these treatments remains generally low. Possible explanations for poor GDMT uptake include lack of knowledge about recommended management strategies and provider reluctance due to uncertainties regarding application of said guidelines to real-world practice. One way to overcome these barriers is by harnessing the electronic health record (EHR) to create patient-centered "best practice alerts" (BPAs) that can guide clinicians to prescribe appropriate medical therapies. If found to be effective, these low-cost interventions can be rapidly applied across large integrated healthcare systems. The PRagmatic Trial Of Messaging to Providers about Treatment of Heart Failure (PROMPT-HF) trial is a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial designed to test the hypothesis that tailored and timely alerting of recommended GDMT in heart failure (HF) will result in greater adherence to guidelines when compared with usual care. PROMPT-HF has completed enrollment of 1,310 ambulatory patients with HFrEF cared for by 100 providers who were randomized to receive a BPA vs usual care. The BPA alerted providers to GDMT recommended for their patients and displayed current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) along with the most recent blood pressure, heart rate, serum potassium and creatinine levels, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. It also linked to an order set customized to the patient that suggests medications within each GDMT class not already prescribed. Our goal is to examine whether tailored EHR-based alerting for outpatients with HFrEF will lead to higher rates of GDMT at 30 days post randomization when compared with usual care. Additionally, we are assessing clinical outcomes such as hospital readmissions and death between the alert versus usual care group. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04514458., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Chronic kidney disease is a known risk factor in cardiovascular disease, but its influence on treatment effect of bypass surgery remains unclear. We assessed the influence of chronic kidney disease on 10-year mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart failure treated with medical therapy (medical treatment) with or without coronary artery bypass grafting., Methods: We calculated the baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration formula, chronic kidney disease stages 1-5) from 1209 patients randomized to medical treatment or coronary artery bypass grafting in the Surgical Treatment for IsChemic Heart failure trial and assessed its effect on outcome., Results: In the overall Surgical Treatment for IsChemic Heart failure cohort, patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3 to 5 were older than those with stages 1 and 2 (66-71 years vs 54-59 years) and had more comorbidities. Multivariable modeling revealed an inverse association between estimated glomerular filtration rate and risk of death, cardiovascular death, or cardiovascular rehospitalization (all P < .001, but not for stroke, P = .697). Baseline characteristics of the 2 treatment arms were equal for each chronic kidney disease stage. There were significant improvements in death or cardiovascular rehospitalization with coronary artery bypass grafting (stage 1: hazard ratio, 0.71; confidence interval, 0.53-0.96, P = .02; stage 2: hazard ratio, 0.71; confidence interval, 0.59-0.84, P < .0001; stage 3: hazard ratio, 0.76; confidence interval, 0.53-0.96, P = .03). These data were inconclusive in stages 4 and 5 for insufficient patient numbers (N = 28). There was no significant interaction of estimated glomerular filtration rate with the treatment effect of coronary artery bypass grafting (P = .25 for death and P = .54 for death or cardiovascular rehospitalization)., Conclusions: Chronic kidney disease is an independent risk factor for mortality in patients with ischemic heart failure with or without coronary artery bypass grafting. However, mild to moderate chronic kidney disease does not appear to influence long-term treatment effects of coronary artery bypass grafting., (Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: It remains unclear why depression is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). We examine the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction managed with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT)., Methods and Results: Using the GUIDE-IT trial, 894 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were stratified according to a history of depression, and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to examine the association with outcomes. There were 140 patients (16%) in the overall cohort who had depression. They tended to be female (29% vs 46%, P < .001) and White (67% vs 53%, P = .002). There were no differences in GDMT rates at baseline or at 90 days; nor were there differences in target doses of these therapies achieved at 90 days (NS, all). amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels at all time points were similar between the cohorts (P > .05, all). After adjustment, depression was associated with all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.81, P < .01), cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.07-2.68, P = .025), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.03-2.32, P = .039)., Conclusions: Depression impacts clinical outcomes in HF regardless of GDMT intensity and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. This finding underscores the need for a focus on mental health in parallel to achievement of optimal GDMT in these patients., Trial Registration: NCT01685840, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01685840., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Associations between growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), cardiovascular outcomes, and exercise capacity among patients with a recent hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are unknown. We utilized data from the 'Functional Impact of GLP-1 for Heart Failure Treatment' (FIGHT) study to address these knowledge gaps., Methods and Results: FIGHT was a randomized clinical trial testing the effect of liraglutide (vs. placebo) among 300 participants with HFrEF and a recent HHF. Multivariable regression models evaluated associations between baseline GDF-15 and change in GDF-15 (per 1000 pg/mL increase from baseline to 30 days) with clinical outcomes (at 180 days) and declines in exercise capacity (6 min walk distance ≥ 45 m). At baseline (n = 249), median GDF-15 value was 3221 pg/mL (interquartile range 1938-5511 pg/mL). Participants in the highest tertile of baseline GDF-15 were more likely to be male and have more co-morbidities. After adjustment, an increase in GDF-15 over 30 days was associated with higher risk of death or HHF [hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.64]. In addition, higher baseline GDF-15 (per 1000 pg/mL until 6000 pg/mL) and an increase in GDF-15 over 30 days were associated with declining 6 min walk distance (odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.55 and odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.12-1.69, respectively). GDF-15 levels remained stable among participants randomized to liraglutide., Conclusions: An increase in GDF-15 over 30 days among patients in HFrEF was independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and declining exercise capacity. These results support the value of longitudinal GDF-15 trajectory in informing risk of heart failure disease progression., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Improved cancer survivorship has led to a higher number of anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy patients with end-stage heart failure. We hypothesize that outcomes following continuous-flow LVAD (CF-LVAD) implantation in those with anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy are comparable with other aetiologies of cardiomyopathy., Methods and Results: Using the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) from 2008 to 2017, we identified patients with anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy who received a CF-LVAD and compared them with those with idiopathic dilated (IDM) and ischaemic cardiomyopathies (ICM). Mortality was studied using the Cox proportional hazards model. Other adverse events were evaluated using competing risk models. Overall, 248 anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy patients underwent CF-LVAD implantation, with a median survival of 48 months, an improvement compared with those before 2012 [adjusted hazards ratio (aHR): 0.53; confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.86]. At 12 months, 85.1% of anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy, 86.0% of IDM, and 80.2% of ICM patients were alive (anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy vs. IDM: aHR: 1.12; CI: 0.88-1.43 and anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy vs. ICM: aHR: 0.98; CI: 0.76-1.28). Anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy patients had a higher major bleeding risk compared with IDM patients (aHR: 1.23; CI: 1.01-1.50), and a lower risk of stroke and prolonged respiratory support compared to ICM patients (aHR: 0.31 and 0.67 respectively; both P < 0.05). There was no difference in the risk of major infection, acute kidney injury, and venous thromboembolism., Conclusions: After receiving a CF-LVAD, survival in patients with anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy is similar to those with ICM or IDM. Further research into differential secondary endpoints-related disparities is warranted., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Heart failure (HF) is one of the most common causes of hospitalization in the United States and carries a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Use of evidence-based interventions may improve outcomes, but their use is encumbered in part by limitations in accurate prognostication. The REVeAL-HF (Risk EValuation And its Impact on ClinicAL Decision Making and Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial is the first to definitively evaluate the impact of knowledge about prognosis on clinical decision making and patient outcomes. The REVeAL-HF trial is a pragmatic, completely electronic, randomized controlled trial that has completed enrollment of 3,124 adults hospitalized for HF, defined as having an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of >500 pg/ml and receiving intravenous diuretic agents within 24 h of admission. Patients randomized to the intervention had their risk of 1-year mortality generated with information in the electronic health record and presented to their providers, who had the option to give feedback on their impression of this risk assessment. The authors are examining the impact of this information on clinical decision-making (use of HF pharmacotherapies, referral to electrophysiology, palliative care referral, and referral for advanced therapies like heart transplantation or mechanical circulatory support) and patient outcomes (length of stay, post-discharge 30-day rehospitalizations, and 1-year mortality). The REVeAL-HF trial will definitively examine whether knowledge about prognosis in HF has an impact on clinical decision making and patient outcomes. It will also examine the relationship between calculated, perceived, and real risk of mortality in this patient population. (Risk EValuation And Its Impact on ClinicAL Decision Making and Outcomes in Heart Failure [REVeAL-HF]; NCT03845660)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Wilson was supported by grant numbers R01DK113191 and P30DK079310 (National Institutes of Health). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Randomized clinical trials are the foundation of evidence-based medicine and central to practice guidelines and patient care decisions. Nonetheless, randomized trials in heart failure (HF) populations have become increasingly difficult to conduct and are frequently associated with slow patient enrollment, highly selected populations, extensive data collection, and high costs. The traditional model for HF trials has become particularly difficult to execute in the United States, where challenges to site-based research have frequently led to modest U.S. representation in global trials. In this context, the TRANSFORM-HF (Torsemide Comparison with Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) trial aims to overcome traditional trial challenges and compare the effects of torsemide versus furosemide among patients with HF in the United States. Loop diuretic agents are regularly used by most patients with HF and practice guidelines recommend optimal use of diuretic agents as key to a successful treatment strategy. Long-time clinical experience has contributed to dominant use of furosemide for loop diuretic therapy, although preclinical and small clinical studies suggest potential advantages of torsemide. However, due to the lack of appropriately powered clinical outcome studies, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that torsemide should be routinely recommended over furosemide. Given this gap in knowledge and the fundamental role of loop diuretic agents in HF care, the TRANSFORM-HF trial was designed as a prospective, randomized, event-driven, pragmatic, comparative-effectiveness study to definitively compare the effect of a treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on long-term mortality, hospitalization, and patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. (TRANSFORM-HF: ToRsemide compArisoN With furoSemide FORManagement of Heart Failure [TRANSFORM-HF]; NCT03296813)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures TRANSFORM-HF is supported through cooperative agreements from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: U01-HL125478 and U01-HL125511. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Greene has received research support from the American Heart Association, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Novartis; has served on advisory boards for Amgen and Cytokinetics; and has served as a consultant for Amgen and Merck. Dr. Mentz has received research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, and Windtree Therapeutics. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

The technique of surgical restoration of postischemically dilated left ventricles (SVR) has almost disappeared from operating theaters after the Surgical Treatment of IsChemic Heart failure (STICH) Trial demonstrated no treatment effect in patients with CAD and ejection fraction below 35%. Criticism on the trial was expressed stating that surgical expertise and patient selection (i.e., almost no aneurysm patients included) may have been inadequate to test the procedure s potential. Gaudino and colleagues now propose to conduct an analysis comparing the STICH patient population to a group of comparable SVR patients treated by a center with documented specific expertise for this technique. We here address the background of the trial and the following controversy and suggest a rationale why the suggested analysis has the potential to add valuable information to the field., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Cardiac Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: In patients stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure (HF), initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF without increasing the risk of adverse events. It is unknown whether potentially high-risk subpopulations have a similar risk-benefit profile., Methods: PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide] in Patients Stabilized From an Acute HF Episode) was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (n=440) versus enalapril (n=441) in patients stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated HF. The composite of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF was adjudicated. Safety outcomes included worsening renal function, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalemia. We evaluated heterogeneity in the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on these efficacy and safety outcomes in selected subgroups of clinical concern: patients with baseline systolic blood pressure ≤118 mm Hg (median; n=448), baseline NT-proBNP >2701 pg/mL (median; n=395), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/minute per 1.73 m 2 (n=455), ≥1 additional hospitalization for HF within the prior year (n=343), admission to the ICU during the index hospitalization (n=96), inotrope use during the index hospitalization (n=68), and severe congestion (n=219)., Results: The relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was consistent across all high-risk subgroups ( P interaction=non-significant [NS] for each). The risks of worsening renal function, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalemia with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril were also consistent in each high- versus low-risk subgroup ( P interaction=NS for each)., Conclusions: In high-risk subpopulations admitted for acute decompensated HF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan after initial stabilization conferred a consistent reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF and was well tolerated.

Objectives: Tafamidis is an effective treatment for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), this study aimed to determine whether there is a differential effect between variant transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTRv) and wild-type transthyretin (ATTRwt)., Background: ATTR-CM is a progressive, fatal disorder resulting from mutations in the ATTRv or the deposition of denatured ATTRwt., Methods: In pre-specified analyses from ATTR-ACT (Tafamidis in Transthyretin Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial), baseline characteristics, all-cause mortality, and change from baseline to month 30 in 6-min walk test distance and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score were compared in patients with ATTRwt and ATTRv., Results: There were 335 patients with ATTRwt (201 tafamidis, 134 placebo) and 106 with ATTRv (63 tafamidis, 43 placebo) enrolled in ATTR-ACT. Patients with ATTRwt (vs. ATTRv) had less advanced disease at baseline and a lower rate of disease progression over the study. The reduction in all-cause mortality with tafamidis compared with placebo was not different between ATTRwt (hazard ratio: 0.706 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.474 to 1.052]; p = 0.0875) and ATTRv (hazard ratio: 0.690 [95% CI: 0.408 to 1.167]; p = 0.1667). Tafamidis was associated with a similar reduction (vs. placebo) in the decline in 6-min walk test distance in ATTRwt (mean ± SE difference from placebo, 77.14 ± 10.78; p < 0.0001) and ATTRv (79.61 ± 29.83 m; p = 0.008); and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score in ATTRwt (12.72 ± 2.10; p < 0.0001) and ATTRv (18.18 ± 7.75; p = 0.019)., Conclusions: Pre-specified analyses from ATTR-ACT confirm the poor prognosis of untreated ATTRv-related cardiomyopathy compared with ATTRwt, but show the reduction in mortality and functional decline with tafamidis treatment is similar in both disease subtypes. (Safety and Efficacy of Tafamidis in Patients With Transthyretin Cardiomyopathy [ATTR-ACT]; NCT01994889)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Upon request, and subject to review, Pfizer will provide the data that support the findings of this study. Subject to certain criteria, conditions and exceptions, Pfizer may also provide access to the related individual anonymized participant data. See https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information. This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Rapezzi has received unrestricted research grants and fees for advisory board meetings from Pfizer. Dr. Elliott has received consultancy fees from Pfizer and Alnylam. Dr. Damy has served on a scientific advisory board for Pfizer; has received funding from Pfizer for scientific meeting expenses; and his institution has received grant support from Pfizer. Dr. Nativi-Nicolau’s institution has received funding for clinical trials from Pfizer, Akcea, and Eidos; and has received educational grants from Pfizer. Dr. Nativi-Nicolau has been a consultant for Pfizer, Eidos, Akcea, and Alnylam. Dr. Berk has received consultancy fees from Alnylam Pharmaceutical, Akcea Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, and Corino Therapeutics. Dr. Boman has served on scientific advisory boards for Pfizer; and has received funding for scientific meetings. Mr. Gundapaneni, Drs. Patterson and Sultan are employees of and hold stock options with Pfizer. At the time of this analysis, Dr. Schwartz was an employee of Pfizer; holds stock and stock options with Pfizer, and is now retired. Dr. Maurer has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health (HL HL139671-01, AG R21AG058348, and AG K24AG036778); his institution has received funding for clinical trials from Pfizer, Prothena, Eidos, and Alnylam; and he has received consulting income from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Eidos, Prothena, Akcea, and Alnylam. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Sacubitril-valsartan use reduces mortality and hospitalizations compared with enalapril among patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, the cost-effectiveness of these treatments when initiated during hospitalization for HF is unknown., Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan vs enalapril compared with no initiation or posthospitalization initiation of sacubitril-valsartan among stabilized patients with HFrEF., Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included data on US patients with HFrEF who were eligible for sacubitril-valsartan treatment from December 8, 2009, to May 15, 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model with all-cause mortality, HF, and non-HF hospitalization probabilities was used. Quality of life was estimated using Euro-QoL EQ-5D scores. Hospitalization, long-term care, and medication costs for sacubitril-valsartan and enalapril were modeled with a discount rate of 3%. The base-case analysis included a lifetime horizon from a health care and societal perspective., Results: Modeled patients were a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (11.5) years. Inpatient treatment with sacubitril-valsartan ($5628 per year) was associated with 62 fewer HF-related admissions per 1000 patients compared with outpatient initiation or 116 fewer HF-related admissions compared with continuation of enalapril treatment. From a health care system perspective, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization saved $452 per year compared with continuing enalapril and $811 per year compared with initiation at 2 months after hospitalization and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $21 532 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with continued enalapril treatment over a lifetime. From a societal perspective, inpatient initiation was estimated to save $460 per year per patient compared with no initiation of sacubitril-valsartan and $813 per year per patient compared with initiation after hospitalization. In a budget analysis, inpatient initiation of sacubitril-valsartan was estimated to save up to $449 per person for 1 year or $2550 per person over 5 years compared with continuation of enalapril., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that, for patients with HFrEF, initiation of sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization may be associated with reduced hospitalizations, increased quality-adjusted life expectancy, and cost savings compared with no initiation or initiation after hospitalization.

Objectives: This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril in Black and non-Black Americans with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF)., Background: Black patients have a different response to treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors compared with other racial and ethnic groups. How Black patients with ADHF respond to sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, is unclear. PIONEER-HF was a double-blind randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in hospitalized patients with ADHF following hemodynamic stabilization., Methods: In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, we examined changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, clinical outcomes, and safety according to race., Results: The study population, all enrolled in the United States, included 316 (36%) Black participants, 515 (58%) White participants, and 50 (5.7%) participants of other racial groups. The reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration at weeks 4 and 8 was significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril in both Black (ratio of change with sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.88) and non-Black patients (ratio of change: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.83; interaction p = 1.00). Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan also reduced the pre-specified exploratory composite of cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization in both Black (hazard ratio: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.93) and non-Black patients (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.06; interaction p = 0.44)., Conclusions: Among Black patients admitted with ADHF in the United States, the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was more effective than enalapril in reducing natriuretic peptide levels and the composite of cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan did not differ by race. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan according to dose level achieved in the PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode) trial., Background: In patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), in-hospital initiation and continuation of sacubitril/valsartan as compared with enalapril is well tolerated, achieves a greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF through 8 weeks. However, not all patients achieve the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan, and its efficacy and safety in such patients are of interest., Methods: PIONEER-HF was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in 881 patients stabilized during hospitalization for ADHF. Blinded study medication was administered for 8 weeks, with initial dosing selected based on the systolic blood pressure at randomization and titrated toward a target of sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily, or enalapril 10 mg twice daily, with an algorithm based on systolic blood pressure and the investigator's assessment of tolerability., Results: At 4 weeks, 199 (55%) patients allocated to sacubitril/valsartan and 211 (60%) patients allocated to enalapril were dispensed the target dose. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 treatment groups within each dose level. There was no heterogeneity across dose levels in the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the reduction in NT-proBNP (p interaction  = 0.69), the reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for heart failure (p interaction  = 0.42), or the pre-specified adverse events of special interest through 8 weeks., Conclusions: In hemodynamically stabilized patients with ADHF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan are generally consistent across dose levels. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with comorbid conditions have a higher risk of mortality with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, but the impact on heart failure patients living near a disease hotspot is unknown. Therefore, we sought to characterize the prevalence and outcomes of COVID-19 in a live registry of heart failure patients across an integrated health care system in Connecticut., Methods: In this retrospective analysis, the Yale Heart Failure Registry (NCT04237701) that includes 26,703 patients with heart failure across a 6-hospital integrated health care system in Connecticut was queried on April 16th, 2020 for all patients tested for COVID-19. Sociodemographic and geospatial data as well as, clinical management, respiratory failure, and patient mortality were obtained via the real-time registry. Data on COVID-19 specific care was extracted by retrospective chart review., Results: COVID-19 testing was performed on 900 symptomatic patients, comprising 3.4% of the Yale Heart Failure Registry (N = 26,703). Overall, 206 (23%) were COVID- 19+. As compared to COVID-19-, these patients were more likely to be older, black, have hypertension, coronary artery disease, and were less likely to be on renin angiotensin blockers (P<0.05, all). COVID-19- patients tended to be more diffusely spread across the state whereas COVID-19+ were largely clustered around urban centers. 20% of COVID-19+ patients died, and age was associated with increased risk of death [OR 1.92 95% CI (1.33-2.78); P<0.001]. Among COVID-19+ patients who were ≥85 years of age rates of hospitalization were 87%, rates of death 36%, and continuing hospitalization 62% at time of manuscript preparation., Conclusions: In this real-world snapshot of COVID-19 infection among a large cohort of heart failure patients, we found that a small proportion had undergone testing. Patients found to be COVID-19+ tended to be black with multiple comorbidities and clustered around lower socioeconomic status communities. Elderly COVID-19+ patients were very likely to be admitted to the hospital and experience high rates of mortality., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common in patients with end-stage heart failure receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), but the benefit of concomitant tricuspid valve procedures (TVPs) remains uncertain. This study examined the impact of TVP at the time of LVAD implantation on clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) metrics., Methods: We included adult patients in the Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support database with various degrees of TR who received continuous-flow LVADs from 2008 to 2017. Patients undergoing concomitant TVP were compared with those without the intervention in a stratified analysis. Descriptive analyses, survival analyses, and Andersen‒Gill hazard models were used as appropriate to examine associations with clinical and patient-centered QOL outcomes., Results: Our analysis included 8,263 (53.1%) mild, 4,252 (33.3%) moderate, and 2,100 (13.5%) severe TR cases. TVP rate increased with severity: 8.6% of mild, 18.0% of moderate, and 43.9% of severe cases. TVP was not associated with survival benefit in cases of mild (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.19, p = 0.75), moderate (aHR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.88-1.20, p = 0.72), or severe (aHR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.98-1.48, p = 0.08) TR. For patients with combined moderate or severe TR, TVP was associated with increased mortality (log-rank p < 0.01, aHR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.00-1.27, p = 0.04). After adjusting for TR severity, TVP was associated with increased risk of bleeding, arrhythmia, and stroke (p < 0.01 each) and no improvements in QOL (p > 0.05)., Conclusions: TVP at the time of LVAD implantation was not associated with either improved survival or QOL, and there were associations with increased risk of adverse events among patients with moderate and severe TR., (Copyright © 2020 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PIONEER-HF (comParIson Of sacubitril/valsartaN versus Enalapril on Effect on nt-pRo-bnp in patients stabilized from an acute Heart Failure episode) trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction., Objectives: The study sought to determine whether and how prior HF history and treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) affected the results., Methods: The PIONEER-HF trial was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling 881 patients with an ejection fraction ≤40%. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to in-hospital initiation of S/V (n = 440) versus enalapril (n = 441). Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on prior HF history (i.e., de novo HF vs. worsening chronic HF) and treatment with an ACE inhibitor or ARB (i.e., ACE inhibitor or ARB-yes vs. ACE inhibitor or ARB-no) at admission., Results: At enrollment, 303 (34%) patients presented with de novo HF and 576 (66%) patients with worsening chronic HF. A total of 421 (48%) patients had been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB, while 458 (52%) had not been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide declined significantly in all 4 subgroups (p < 0.001), with greater decreases in the S/V versus the enalapril arm (p < 0.001). There was no interaction between prior HF history (p = 0.350) or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment (p = 0.880) and the effect of S/V versus enalapril on cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF. The incidences of adverse events were comparable between S/V and enalapril across all 4 subgroups., Conclusions: Among patients admitted for acute decompensated HF, S/V was safe and well tolerated, led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and improved clinical outcomes compared with enalapril irrespective of previous HF history or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Worsening heart failure (HF) is associated with shorter left ventricular systolic ejection time (SET), but there are limited data describing the relationship between SET and clinical outcomes. Thus, the objective was to describe the association between SET and clinical outcomes in an ambulatory HF population irrespective of ejection fraction (EF)., Methods and Results: We identified ambulatory patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) who had an outpatient transthoracic echocardiogram performed between August 2008 and July 2010 at a tertiary referral centre. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between SET and 1-year outcomes. A total of 545 HF patients (171 HFrEF, 374 HFpEF) met eligibility criteria. Compared with HFpEF, HFrEF patients were younger [median age 60 years (25th-75th percentiles 50-69) vs. 64 years (25th-75th percentiles 53-74], with fewer females (30% vs. 56%) and a similar percentage of African Americans (36% vs. 35%). Median (25th-75th percentiles) EF with HFrEF was 30% (25-35%) and with HFpEF was 54% (48-58%). Median SET was shorter (280 ms vs. 315 ms, P < 0.001), median pre-ejection period was longer (114 ms vs. 89 ms, P < 0.001), and median relaxation time was shorter (78.7 ms vs. 93.3 ms, P < 0.001) among patients with HFrEF vs. HFpEF. Death or HF hospitalization occurred in 26.9% (n = 46) HFrEF and 11.8% (n = 44) HFpEF patients. After adjustment, longer SET was associated with lower odds of the composite of death or HF hospitalization at 1 year among HFrEF but not HFpEF patients., Conclusion: Longer SET is independently associated with improved outcomes among HFrEF patients but not HFpEF patients, supporting a potential role for normalizing SET as a therapeutic strategy with systolic dysfunction., (© 2019 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Psychiatric comorbidities play a key role in patient selection for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), but their impact on clinical outcomes is unknown., Objectives: The goal of this study was to examine the clinical impact of psychiatric illness on outcomes in patients receiving LVADs for end-stage heart failure (HF)., Methods: The study identified adults in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support with psychiatric comorbidities (history of alcohol abuse, drug use, narcotic dependence, depression, and other major psychiatric diagnoses) receiving continuous-flow LVADs from 2008 to 2017. Demographic characteristics, survival, adverse events, and quality of life scores were compared for patients with and without each psychiatric comorbidity., Results: Over the study period, the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities was low: alcohol abuse, n = 1,093 (5.5%); drug use, n = 1,077 (5.4%); narcotic dependence, n = 96 (0.5%); depression, n = 401 (2.0%); and other major psychiatric illnesses, n = 265 (1.4%). Narcotic dependence (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 3.0; p = 0.004) and other major psychiatric illnesses (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.0 to 1.9; p = 0.02) were associated with increased risk of mortality, whereas alcohol abuse, drug use, and depression were not. All comorbidities except narcotic dependence were associated with increased risk of rehospitalization and device-related infection (both p < 0.05). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores were lower from 6 to 24 months' post-implantation among patients with psychiatric comorbidities (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Despite a low prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities among LVAD recipients, these conditions were associated with mortality risk, adverse events, and poorer quality of life. Further study is needed to understand how specific psychiatric conditions affect outcomes and how to best manage this vulnerable patient population., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: We sought to determine which echocardiographic markers of left ventricular (LV) remodeling and diastolic dysfunction can contribute as incremental and independent prognostic information in addition to current clinical risk markers of ischemic LV systolic dysfunction in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial., Methods and Results: The cohort consisted of 1511 of 2136 patients in STICH for whom baseline transmitral Doppler (E/A ratio) could be measured by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to treatment and outcomes, and prognostic value of echocardiographic variables was determined by a Cox regression model. E/A ratio was the most significant predictor of mortality amongst diastolic variables with lowest mortality for E/A closest 0.8, although mortality was consistently low for E/A 0.6 to 1.0. Mortality increased for E/A < 0.6 and > 1.0 up to approximately 2.3, beyond which there was no further increase in risk. Larger LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) and E/A < 0.6 and > 1.0 had incremental negative effects on mortality when added to a clinical multivariable model, where creatinine, LVESVI, age, and E/A ratio accounted for 74% of the prognostic information for predicting risk. LVESVI and E/A ratio were stronger predictors of prognosis than New York Heart Association functional class, anemia, diabetes, history of atrial fibrillation, and stroke., Conclusions: Echocardiographic markers of advanced LV remodeling and diastolic dysfunction added incremental prognostic value to current clinical risk markers. LVESVI and E/A ratio outperformed other markers and should be considered as standard in assessing risks in ischemic heart failure. E/A closest to 0.8 was the most optimal filling pattern.

Background: The FIGHT (Functional Impact of GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] for Heart Failure Treatment) trial randomized 300 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a recent hospitalization for heart failure to liraglutide versus placebo. While there was no difference in the primary outcome (rank score of time to death, time to rehospitalization for heart failure, and change in NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide]), there was a significant increase in cystatin C among patients randomized to liraglutide raising concern of adverse renal outcomes. We performed a post hoc analysis of FIGHT to investigate whether liraglutide was associated with worsening renal function (WRF)., Methods: The relationship between randomization to liraglutide and WRF was evaluated using logistic regression models. Two hundred seventy-four patients (91%) had complete data to assess for WRF defined as: increase in SCr ≥0.3 mg/dL, or ≥25% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, or an increase in cystatin C ≥0.3 mg/L from baseline to 180-days., Results: Patients with WRF (n=113, 41%), compared with those without, were older, had more comorbidities, and lower utilization of guideline-directed medical treatment. Logistic regression models showed that age and baseline cystatin C levels were associated with WRF. In adjusted models, liraglutide was not associated with excess risk of WRF compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.62-1.67]). There was also no difference in the rank score when WRF was added as a fourth-tier outcome., Conclusions: Liraglutide was not associated with WRF among patients with HFrEF and a recent hospitalization for heart failure. These data support the relative renal safety profile of liraglutide among patients with HFrEF. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01800968.

Background: Diastolic dysfunction (DD) is common and occurs at an earlier age among human immunodeficiency virus-infected (HIV+) individuals, but the mechanisms and consequences of DD among HIV+ individuals are unclear., Methods and Results: The Characterization of Heart Function on Antiretroviral Therapy (CHART) study was a multicenter cross-sectional case-control study of treated and virally suppressed HIV+ individuals with (DD+) and without DD (DD-). All patients had normal ejection fraction (>50%), no significant valvular disease, and no history of coronary revascularization or persistent atrial fibrillation. Overall, 94 DD+ and 101 DD- patients were included. DD+ patients were older with higher body mass index (BMI) and more likely to have hypertension, renal dysfunction, and dyslipidemia. Groups were similar with respect to sex, race, CD4 count, and HIV RNA copies. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels (median 36 [23, 85] vs 26 [12, 49] pg/mL, P < .01) and high-sensitivity troponin I (3.6 [2.6, 5.1] vs 2.5 [1.8, 3.5] pg/mL, P < .01) were higher among DD+ patients. The latter had similar left atrial size, but increased stiffness (conduit strain: 23.5 [17.5, 36.9] vs 30.0 [22.9, 37.0], P < .01) and impaired relaxation (reservoir strain: 39.7 [32.0, 58.0] vs 45.9 [37.0, 60.6], P = .04). On cardiac magnetic resonance, the prevalence of focal fibrosis was higher among DD+ patients (19.0% vs 5.3%, P < .01). DD+ patients demonstrated higher levels of carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (P = .04), and trends toward higher interleukin-6 and oxidized low-density lipoprotein levels (P ≤ .08). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire physical limitation (87.1±21.4 vs 93.1±18.1, P = .01) and symptom frequency scores were lower among DD+ patients (86.0±21.5 vs 92.5±16.8, P = .01)., Conclusions: In this contemporary HIV+ population receiving antiretroviral therapy, DD was associated with multiple alterations in cardiac structure and function, including myocardial fibrosis and left atrial abnormalities, and worse quality of life. Further studies are needed to assess longitudinal changes in these parameters and their potential as therapeutic targets to prevent progressive cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in HIV., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-pro BNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) was well-tolerated and led to improved outcomes. We aim to determine the representativeness of the PIONEER-HF trial among patients hospitalized for ADHF using real-world data., Methods: The study population was derived from all patients discharged alive for ADHF in the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry from 2006 to 2018 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF). We then determined the proportion of patients meeting PIONEER-HF eligibility criteria (PIONEER-HF eligible) and those meeting a set of limited eligibility criteria (actionable cohort). Rates of HF readmissions and all-cause mortality were then compared between the all HFrEF with ADHF, PIONEER-HF eligible, and actionable cohorts using linked Medicare claims data., Results: A total of 99 767 patients with HFrEF in Get With The Guidelines-HF were hospitalized for ADHF. PIONEER-HF inclusion criteria were met by 71 633 (71.8%) patients, and both inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 20 704 (20.8%) patients. Further, 68 739 (68.9%) patients met the criteria for the actionable cohort. Among the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid-linked patients, the HF rehospitalization rate at 1 year was 35.1% (95% CI, 34.5-35.8) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 32.6% (95% CI, 31.3-33.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 33.1% (95% CI, 32.3-33.9) for the actionable cohort. The 1-year all-cause mortality was 36.7% (95% CI, 36.1-7.4) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 31.6% (95% CI, 30.3-32.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 32.2% (95% CI, 31.4-33.0) for the actionable cohort., Conclusions: Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients eligible for PIONEER-HF only modestly differ when compared with those encountered in routine practice, suggesting that the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan should be routinely considered for patients with HFrEF hospitalized for ADHF.

Background: Current guidelines recommend evaluation for underlying heart disease and reversible conditions for patients with new-onset heart failure (HF). There are limited data on contemporary testing for coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with new-onset HF., Methods: We performed an observational cohort study using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked to Medicare claims. All patients were aged ≥65 and hospitalized for new-onset HF from 2009 to 2015. We collected left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), prior HF history, and in-hospital CAD testing from the registry, as well as testing for CAD using claims from 90 days before to 90 days after index HF hospitalization., Results: Among 17 185 patients with new-onset HF, 6672 (39%) received testing for CAD, including 3997 (23%) during the index hospitalization. Testing for CAD differed by LVEF: 53% in HF with reduced EF (LVEF ≤40%), 42% in HF with borderline EF (LVEF, 41%-49%), and 31% in HF with preserved EF (LVEF ≥50%). After multivariable adjustment, patients who received testing for CAD, compared with those who did not, were younger and more likely to be male, have a smoking history, have hyperlipidemia, and have HF with reduced ejection fraction or HF with borderline ejection fraction (all P <0.05)., Conclusions: The majority of patients hospitalized for new-onset HF did not receive testing for CAD either during the hospitalization or in the 90 days before and after. The rates of testing for CAD were higher in patients with LVEF ≤40% though remained low. These data highlight an opportunity to improve care by identifying appropriate candidates for optimal CAD medical therapy and revascularization.

Background: Although left atrial (LA) mechanical dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with poor clinical outcomes, the influence of LA myopathy on temporal changes in cardiovascular biomarkers is unclear., Methods and Results: We evaluated biomarker correlates of LA myopathy, as defined by reduced LA strain, and the associations of LA strain with longitudinal changes in biomarkers among participants in the Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) trial. LA speckle-tracking was performed on baseline echocardiograms of RELAX participants to measure LA reservoir and LA contractile strain. Of the 216 RELAX participants, 169 (78%) had measurable LA strain and biomarker data. Participants with LA reservoir strain below median (13.5%, interquartile range: 10%-22.5%) were older, more likely to have atrial fibrillation, and had higher jugular venous pressure (P < .05 for all). At baseline, higher levels of endothelin-1, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and troponin I were independently associated with lower LA reservoir and contractile strain (P adjusted < .05 for all comparisons). Higher LA reservoir strain (β coefficient per 1-unit increase: -21.2, 95% CI: -38.8, -3.7; P = .02) was independently associated with reduction in NT-proBNP at 24 weeks., Conclusion: In HFpEF, LA myopathy is characterized by elevation in biomarkers of neurohormonal activation and myocardial necrosis. Lower LA function is associated with continued elevation in NT-proBNP over time, suggesting that LA myopathy is associated with persistent congestion in HFpEF., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In PIONEER-HF, among stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated and led to improved outcomes compared with enalapril. However, there are limited data comparing the strategies of in-hospital vs postdischarge initiation of sacubitril/valsartan., Objective: To describe changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels in patients recently hospitalized for ADHF and switching from taking enalapril to taking sacubitril/valsartan after discharge and compare clinical outcomes for patients randomized to receive in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs in-hospital initiation of enalapril who later switched to taking sacubitril/valsartan during an open-label extension phase., Interventions: Sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 97/103 mg twice daily., Design, Setting, and Participants: The PIONEER-HF trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted at 129 US sites between May 2016 and May 2018 that compared the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril (titrated to target dose, 10 mg twice daily) for 8 weeks among patients admitted for ADHF with reduced ejection fraction and hemodynamic stability. All patients were to continue in a 4-week, open-label study of sacubitril/valsartan; of 881 patients enrolled in PIONEER-HF, 832 (94%) continued in the open-label study., Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in NT-proBNP levels from week 8 to 12 as well as the exploratory composite of heart failure rehospitalization or cardiovascular death from randomization through week 12., Results: Of 881 participants, 226 (27.7%) were women, 487 (58.5%) were white, 297 (35.7%) were black, 15 (1.8%) were Asian, and 73 (8.8%) were of Hispanic ethnicity; the mean (SD) age was 61 (14) years. For patients who continued to take sacubitril/valsartan, NT-proBNP levels declined -17.2% (95% CI, -3.2 to -29.1) from week 8 to 12. The NT-proBNP levels declined to a greater extent for those switching from taking enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan after the week 8 visit (-37.4%; 95% CI, -28.1 to -45.6; P < .001; comparing changes in 2 groups). Over the entire 12 weeks of follow-up, patients that began taking sacubitril/valsartan in the hospital had a lower hazard for the composite outcome compared with patients that initiated enalapril in the hospital and then had a delayed initiation of sacubitril/valsartan 8 weeks later (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97)., Conclusions and Relevance: Switching patients' treatment from enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan at 8 weeks after randomization led to a further 37% reduction in NT-proBNP levels in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a recent hospitalization for ADHF., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02554890.

Aims: Circulating high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hsTn) and soluble ST2 (sST2) reflect myocardial stress in patients with heart failure (HF). Production of cyclic guanosine 3'5' monophosphate (cGMP) in response to activation of natriuretic peptide receptors reduces cardiac afterload and preload. We assessed the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on these biomarkers in patients with reduced ejection fraction and acute decompensated HF (ADHF)., Methods and Results: PIONEER-HF was a randomized, double-blind trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in hospitalized patients with ADHF following haemodynamic stabilization. We measured circulating hsTnT, sST2, and urinary cGMP at baseline, 1, 2 (sST2, cGMP), 4, and 8 weeks (n = 694 with all baseline biomarkers). Ratios of geometric means (timepoint/baseline) were determined and compared as a ratio for sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater decline in hsTnT and sST2. This effect emerged as early as 1 week for sST2 and was significant for both at 4 weeks with a 16% greater reduction in hsTnT (P < 0.001) and 9% greater reduction in sST2 (P = 0.0033). Serial urinary cGMP increased with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (P < 0.001, 1 week). The significant differences between treatment groups for each biomarker were sustained at 8 weeks. In an exploratory multivariable-adjusted analysis of cardiovascular death or HF-rehospitalization, the concentrations of hsTnT, sST2 at week 1 were significantly associated with subsequent outcome., Conclusion: Biomarkers of myocardial stress are elevated in patients with ADHF and associated with outcome. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduces myocardial injury and haemodynamic stress as reflected by biomarkers, with an onset that is apparent within 1-4 weeks., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02554890 clinical.trials.gov., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

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