Search

Background: The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on heart failure (HF) outcomes and cardiovascular (CV) death in patients with varying combinations of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), HF, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are uncertain., Objectives: The authors conducted a meta-analysis assessing the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on HF outcomes and CV death across different patient populations., Methods: Online databases were queried up to November 2022 for primary and secondary analyses of trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HF, T2DM, or CKD. Outcomes of interest were composite of first heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or CV death (first HFH/CV death), first HFH, and CV death. Data were pooled by means of a random-effects model to derive HRs and 95% CIs., Results: Thirteen trials (n = 90,413) were included. Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of first HFH/CV death by 24% in HF (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.72-0.81), 23% in T2DM (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.73-0.81), and 23% in CKD (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.72-0.82). The benefit was consistent in HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction, HF with or without T2DM, and HF with or without CKD. The benefit was also consistent in T2DM with or without CKD, T2DM without HF, CKD without HF, and in patients with all 3 comorbidities. SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced CV death by 16% in HF, 15% in T2DM, and 12% in CKD., Conclusions: SGLT2 inhibitors reduce HF events and CV death in cohorts of HF, T2DM and CKD, and these effects appear consistent in patients with varying combinations of these diseases., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Anker has received grants or personal fees from Vifor Int, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Abbott Vascular, Cardiac Dimensions, Actimed, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bioventrix, Janssen, Respicardia, V-Wave, Brahms, Cordio, and Occlutech outside of the submitted work. Dr Bakris has received research funding paid to the University of Chicago Medicine from Bayer, Novo Nordisk, and Vascular Dynamics; and has acted as a consultant for and received personal fees from Alnylam, Merck, and Ionisand Relypsa. Dr Bhatt has served on the Advisory Board for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; has served on the Board of Directors for Angiowave (stock options), Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; Inaugural Chair of American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; has been a consultant for Broadview Ventures; has served on the Data Monitoring Committee for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi-Sankyo; and the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; and Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), and Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for Clinical Trial Steering Committee for RE-DUAL PCI (funded by Boehringer Ingelheim) and Executive Committee for AEGIS-II (funded by CSL Behring), and from Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (Clinical Trial Steering Committees), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (Clinical Trial Steering Committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, Interdisciplinary Curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME Steering Committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS Operations Committee, Publications Committee, Steering Committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME Steering Committees), and Wiley (Steering Committee); Deputy Editor, Clinical Cardiology, Registry Steering Committee (Chair) for NCDR-ACTION, Research and Publications Committee (Chair) for VA CART; named on patent for sotagliflozin (no income), assigned to Brigham and Women’s Hospital (no income), who assigned to Lexicon; has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); is site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; is a trustee of American College of Cardiology; and has performed unfunded research for FlowCo and Takeda. Dr Fillipatos lectures and/or has committee member contributions in trials sponsored by Medtronic, Vifor, Servier, Novartis, Bayer, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received research grants from the European Union. Dr Fonarow has received research support from the National Institutes of Health; and has consulted for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr Greene has received research support from the Duke University Department of Medicine Chair's Research Award, American Heart Association, 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 and Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, scPharmaceuticals, and Sanofi; serves as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, CSL Vifor, Merck, PharmaIN, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Tricog Health, and Urovant Pharmaceuticals; and has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Januzzi is a Trustee of the American College of Cardiology; is a board member of Imbria Pharmaceuticals; has received grant support from Abbott Diagnostics, Applied Therapeutics, Innolife, and Novartis; has received consulting income from Abbott Diagnostics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and participates in clinical endpoint committees/data safety monitoring boards for AbbVie, Siemens, Takeda, and Vifor. Dr Kosiborod has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; has consultant/advisory board roles at Amgen, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, and Vifor Pharma; has received financial support for analysis from AstraZeneca; and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr McGuire has had leadership roles in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Esperion, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck & Co, Novo Nordisk, CSL Behring, and Sanofi USA; and has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly USA, Merck & Co, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Metavant, Afimmune, and Sanofi. Dr Piña is on the advisory board for Vifor and AstraZeneca; and is on the steering committee of the DIAMOND trial (funded by Vifor). Dr Rosenstock has served on advisory boards for Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, Sanofi, Structure Therapeutics, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Zealand; and has received research support from Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, Intarcia, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Oramed, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support, served on advisory boards, or had speaker engagements with American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; and participates on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Galmed, Novartis, Bayer, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics. Dr Verma has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Toronto Knowledge Translation Working Group; has received grants and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck; has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb; and has received personal fees from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr Zieroth has received personal fees for Speakers Bureau and/or consulting in advisory board for Abbott, Akcea AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GSK, 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, outside of the submitted work. Dr Butler is a consultant to Abbott, Adrenomed, American Regent, Arca Biopharma, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimension, Cardior CVRx, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Element Science, Fast Biomedical, G3 Pharmaceutical, Innolife, Impulse Dynamics, Imbria, Inventiva, Lexicon, Lilly, LivaNova Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Medtronics, Merck, Occlutech, Nestle, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Pharmain, Roche, Sanofi, Sequana, SQ Innovation, 3live, and Vifor. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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.)

This review examines the pharmacotherapy and lifestyle recommendations of the most recent iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) / Canadian Heart Failure Society (CHFS), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the American Heart Association (AHA) / American College of Cardiology (ACC) / Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) heart failure (HF) guidelines, which all have been updated in response to therapeutic developments across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. Identified areas of unanimity across these guidelines include the following: recommending quadruple therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; although no guideline proposed an ideal sequence of initiation); intravenous iron administration for patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency; and sodium restriction for patients with HF. Recent evidence regarding the harms of HFrEF medication withdrawal in patients with HF with improved ejection fraction has prompted subsequent guidelines to recommend against withdrawal. Due to the lower quality of evidence, there are disagreements regarding management of HF with preserved ejection fraction and uncertainty regarding management of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction. Practical guidance is provided to clinicians navigating these challenging areas. In addition to these clinically focused comparisons, we describe opportunities for guideline improvement and harmonization. Specifically, these include opportunities regarding HFrEF sequencing, the need for timely updates, shared decision-making, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework adoption, and the creation of recommendations where high-quality evidence is lacking. Although these guidelines have broad agreement, key areas of controversy remain that may be addressed by emerging evidence and changes in guideline methodology., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Acute heart failure (AHF) hospitalization presents an opportunity to optimize pharmacotherapy to improve outcomes., Objectives: This study's aim was to define eligibility for initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy and newer heart failure (HF) agents from recent clinical trials in the AHF population., Methods: The authors analyzed patients with an AHF admission within the CAN-HF (Canadian Heart Failure) registry between January 2017 and April 2020. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) as LVEF >40%. Eligibility was assessed according to the major society guidelines or enrollment criteria from recent landmark clinical trials., Results: A total of 809 patients with documented LVEF were discharged alive from hospital: 455 with HFrEF and 354 with HFpEF; of these patients, 284 had a de novo presentation and 525 had chronic HF. In HFrEF patients, eligibility for therapies was 73.6% for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), 94.9% for beta-blockers, 84.4% for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), 81.1% for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and 15.6% for ivabradine. Additionally, 25.9% and 30.1% met trial criteria for vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil, respectively. Overall, 71.6% of patients with HFrEF (75.5% de novo, 69.5% chronic HF) were eligible for foundational quadruple therapy. In the HFpEF population, 37.6% and 59.9% were eligible for ARNIs and SGLT2 inhibitors based on recent trial criteria, respectively., Conclusions: The majority of patients admitted with AHF are eligible for foundational quadruple therapy and additional novel medications across a spectrum of HF phenotypes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures CAN-HF was funded by Novartis Canada. This study was supported by the Canadian Cardiovascular Institute (CCI-CIC). Dr Hawkins has received speaker and research fees from Novartis; and has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr McKelvie has received speaker and research fees from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. Dr Joncas has received research grant support or served on advisory boards for and speaking engagements with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. Dr Zieroth has received research grant support or served on advisory boards for and speaking engagements with Abbott, Akcea, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier, and Vifor; and serves on a clinical trial steering committee or as a National Lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Merck. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pericardiocentesis is undertaken in patients with cancer for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, there are limited data on the frequency, characteristics and mortality of patients with different cancers undergoing pericardiocentesis., Methods: All hospitalisations of adult cancer patients (≥18 years) in the US National Inpatient Sample between January 2004 and December 2017 were included. The cohort was stratified by discharge code of pericardiocentesis and cancer, using the International Classification of Diseases. The prevalence of pericardiocentesis, patient characteristics, cancer types and in-hospital all-cause mortality were analysed between cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis versus not., Results: A total of 19,773,597 weighted cancer discharges were analysed, out of which 18,847 (0.1%) underwent pericardiocentesis. The most common cancer types amongst the patients receiving pericardiocentesis were lung (51.3%), haematological (15.9%), breast (5.4%), mediastinum/heart (3.2%), gastroesophageal (2.2%) and female genital cancer (1.8%), whilst 'other' cancer types were present in 20.2% patients. Patients undergoing pericardiocentesis had significantly higher mortality (15.6% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001) compared to their counterparts. The presence of metastatic disease (aOR 2.67 95% CI 1.79-3.97), weight loss (aOR 1.48 95% CI 1.33-1.65) and coagulopathy (aOR 3.22 95% CI 1.63-6.37) were each independently associated with higher mortality in patients who underwent pericardiocentesis., Conclusion: Pericardiocentesis is an infrequent procedure in cancer patients and is most commonly performed in patients with lung, haematological and breast cancer. Cancer patients undergoing pericardiocentesis have increased mortality, irrespective of the underlying cancer type., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have emerged as a key pharmacotherapy in heart failure (HF) with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction. The benefit of other HF therapies may be modified by sex, but whether sex modifies the treatment effect and safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors remains unclear. Our analyses aim to assess the effect of sex on the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin., Methods: In a prespecified patient-level pooled analysis of DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure), clinical outcomes were compared by sex (including the composite of cardiovascular death or worsening HF events, cardiovascular death, all-cause death, total events [first and recurrent HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death], and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction., Results: Of a total of 11 007 randomized patients, 3856 (35%) were women. Women with HF were older and had higher body mass index but were less likely to have a history of diabetes and myocardial infarction or stroke and more likely to have hypertension and atrial fibrillation compared with men. At baseline, women had higher ejection fraction but worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores than men did. After adjustment for baseline differences, women were less likely than men to experience cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.60-0.79]), all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.62-0.78]), HF hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.72-0.94]), and total events (adjusted rate ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.71-0.84]). Dapagliflozin reduced the primary end point in both men and women similarly ( P interaction =0.77) with no sex-related differences in secondary outcomes (all P interaction >0.35) or safety events. The benefit of dapagliflozin was observed across the entire ejection fraction spectrum and was not modified by sex ( P interaction >0.40). There were no sex-related differences in serious adverse events, adverse events, or drug discontinuation attributable to adverse events., Conclusions: In DAPA-HF and DELIVER, the response to dapagliflozin was similar between men and women. Sex did not modify the treatment effect of dapagliflozin across the range of ejection fraction.

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive disease characterized by variable durations of symptomatic stability often punctuated by episodes of worsening despite continued therapy. These periods of clinical worsening are increasingly recognized as a distinct phase in the history of HF, termed worsening HF (WHF). The definition of WHF continues to evolve from a historical focus solely on hospitalization to now include nonhospitalization events (eg, need for intravenous diuretic therapy in the emergency or outpatient setting). Most HF clinical trials to date have had HF hospitalization and death as primary endpoints, and only recently, some studies have included other WHF events regardless of location of care. This article reviews the evolution of the WHF definition, highlights the importance of considering the onset of WHF as an event that marks a new phase of HF, summarizes the latest clinical trials investigating novel therapies, and outlines unmet needs regarding identification and treatment of WHF., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by Bayer AG, Germany. Dr Greene has received research support from the Duke University Department of Medicine Chair’s Research Award, American Heart Association, 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 and Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, scPharmaceuticals, and Sanofi; has served as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, CSL Vifor, Merck, PharmaIN, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Tricog Health, and Urovant Pharmaceuticals; and has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Cytokinetics. Dr Bauersachs has received honoraria for lectures/consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Corvia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor; and has received institutional research support from Zoll, CVRx, and Abiomed. Dr Brugts has received research grants from Abbott and Vifor Pharma; and has received speaker fees from or has served on advisory boards for Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer, Novartis, and Vifor Pharma. Dr Ezekowitz has received research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, Amgen, Sanofi, Novartis, Cytokinetics, American Regent, and Applied Therapeutics; and has received consulting fees from Bayer, Merck, Servier, Amgen, Sanofi, Novartis, Cytokinetics, American Regent, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr Lam is supported by a Clinician Scientist Award from the National Medical Research Council of Singapore; has received research support from Bayer and Roche Diagnostics; has served as consultant or on advisory boards/steering committees/executive committees for Actelion, Alleviant Medical, Allysta Pharma, Amgen, AnaCardio AB, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Darma Inc, EchoNous Inc, Eli Lilly, Impulse Dynamics, Ionis Pharmaceutical, Janssen Research & Development LLC, Medscape/WebMD Global LLC, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, ProSciento Inc, Radcliffe Group Ltd, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics and Us2.ai; and serves as cofounder and nonexecutive director of Us2.ai. Dr Lund has received grants from AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; has served as a consultant for Merck, Vifor Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pharmacosmos, MedScape, Sanofi, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc, Myokardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier; has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, MedScape, Radcliffe, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and AnaCardio AB; and owns stock in AnaCardio AB. Dr Ponikowski has served as consultant or on advisory boards/steering committees/executive committees for Abbott Vascular, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Impulse Dynamics, Merck, Novartis, Radcliffe Group Ltd, Servier, and Vifor Pharma. Dr Zieroth has received research grant support, served on advisory boards, or been a speaker for Abbott, Akcea Therapeutics, Inc., AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; and has served on a clinical trial steering committee or as a national lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Novartis. Dr Butler has served as a consultant for Abbott, Adrenomed AG, Amgen, American Regent, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LivaNova, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor Pharma. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

What was once considered a topic best avoided, managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has become the focus of many drug and device therapies. While the four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapies have successfully reduced heart failure hospitalizations, and some have even impacted cardiovascular mortality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcomes have emerged as important endpoints that merit greater emphasis in future studies. The prospect of an oral inotrope seems more probable now as targets for drug therapies have moved from neurohormonal modulation to intracellular mechanisms and direct cardiac myosin stimulation. While we have come a long way in safely providing durable mechanical circulatory support to patients with advanced HFrEF, several percutaneous device therapies have emerged, and many are under investigation. Biomarkers have shown promise in not only improving our ability to diagnose incident heart failure but also our potential to implicate specific pathophysiological pathways. The once-forgotten concept of discordance between pressure and volume, the forgotten splanchnic venous and lymphatic compartments, have all emerged as promising targets for diagnosing and treating heart failure in the not-so-distant future. The increase in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (CS) has revived interest in defining optimal perfusion targets and designing RCTs in CS. Rapid developments in remote monitoring, telemedicine, and artificial intelligence promise to change the face of heart failure care. In this state-of-the-art review, we reminisce about the past, highlight the present, and predict what might be the future of HFrEF therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: I.L.P.: Vifor Pharma Advisory Board, Modest. Other authors have nothing to declare., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have led to major changes in the treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and these advances are included in the recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) guidelines issued in 2021 and 2022, respectively. According to both guidelines, treatment of patients with HFrEF is based on the administration of four classes of drugs that reduce the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations in RCTs: angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Specific sequences of treatment are not recommended but emphasis is given to reaching treatment with all four drugs as early as possible. Further treatments are considered in selected patients including ivabradine, hydralazine nitrates, digoxin, and the new agent vericiguat. Specific treatments, mostly new, for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities are also given. The aim of this article is to compare the two recent guidelines issued by the ESC and ACC/AHA/HFSA and show the few differences and the many consistent recommendations, now more numerous given the evidence available for many new treatments., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.M. received personal fees of minimal amounts since January 2021 from Actelion, Amgen, Livanova, and Vifor pharma as member of Executive or Data Monitoring Committees of sponsored clinical trials, from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Boheringer Ingelhelm, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis for participation to advisory boards and/or speeches at sponsored meetings., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: S.Z. received research grant support, served on advisory boards for, or speaker engagements with Abbott, Akcea AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, 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.

With modern treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF), indicative of impaired cardiac systolic function, patients may exhibit an increase in EF. Limited data are available regarding the clinical management of this growing population, categorized as heart failure with improved EF (HFimpEF), which has a high event rate and has been excluded from virtually all prior heart failure outcomes trials. In a prespecified analysis of the DELIVER trial ( NCT03619213 ), of a total of 6,263 participants with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular EF >40%, 1,151 (18%) had HFimpEF, defined as patients whose EF improved from ≤40% to >40%. Participants were randomized to 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo daily and the primary outcome of the trial was a composite of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure (heart failure hospitalization or an urgent heart failure visit). Participants with HFimpEF had similar event rates to those with an EF consistently >40%. In participants with HFimpEF, dapagliflozin reduced the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56-0.97), first worsening heart failure events (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.61-1.14), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.41-0.96) and total worsening heart failure events (rate ratio = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50-0.94) to a similar extent as for individuals with an EF consistently >40%. These data suggest that patients with HFimpEF who are symptomatic may benefit from the addition of a sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor to previously instituted guideline-directed medical therapy to further reduce morbidity and mortality., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is a common comorbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). Prevalence of the most common subtypes of SDB, central sleep apnea (CSA) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), is increasing, which is concerning due to the association of SDB with increased mortality in patients with HF. Despite an increasing burden of CSA in HF, it is difficult to detect using current diagnostic tools and the treatment modalities are limited by variable efficacy and patient adherence. Though positive airway pressure therapies remain the cornerstone of OSA treatment, the management of CSA in the setting of HF continues to evolve. The association of the presence of CSA with worse prognosis in HF patients warrants the need for routine screening for signs and symptoms of CSA in this population. In this review, we examine the connection between CSA and HF, and highlight advancements in timely diagnostics, treatment modalities, and strategies to promote facilitation of compliance in this high-risk cohort., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We sought to determine utilization and outcomes of perioperative temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) in the current practice of cardiac surgery., Background: tMCS is an evolving adjunct to cardiac surgery not fully characterized in contemporary practice., Methods: Using the nationwide inpatient sample we retrospectively analyzed hospital discharge data between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. ICD-10-CM procedure codes were used to identify and divide patient hospitalizations into those who had preoperative tMCS (pre-tMCS) versus tMCS instituted the day of surgery or afterwards (sd/post-tMCS)., Results: In all, 1,383,520 hospitalizations met inclusion criteria. 86,445 (6.25%) had tMCS. tMCS was utilized in 8.74% of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 2.58% of isolated valve, and 9.71% of valve/CABG; operations. 29,325 (33.9%) had pre-tMCS while 57,120 (66.1%) had sd/post-tMCS. The use of tMCS was associated with greater inpatient mortality (15.66% vs. 1.53%, p < .001), longer length of stay (LOS) (14.4 vs. 8.5 days, p < .001), and higher mean inflation-adjusted costs ($93,040 ± 1038 vs. $51,358 ± 296, p < .001) compared to no use. Inpatient mortality (5.98% vs. 20.63%, p < .001), LOS (13.87 vs. 14.68, p < .001), and cost ($82,621 ± 1152 SEM vs. $98,381 ± 1242) were all significantly lower with pre-tMCS compared to sd/post tMCS. When analyzed separately, mortality was higher with later utilization of tMCS (5.98% pre, 17.1% sd, and 49.05% postsurgical date insertion, p < .001)., Conclusions: Perioperative tMCS is utilized in 6.25% of modern cardiac surgery, with two-thirds of cases instituted on the day of surgery or afterwards. The use of tMCS is associated with significantly higher mortality, longer LOS, and higher costs. Among patients undergoing tMCS, earlier utilization is associated with better outcomes., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Cardiac Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, reductions in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations have been widely reported, and there is an urgent need to understand how HF care has been reorganized in countries with different infection levels, vaccination rates and healthcare services. The OPTIMIZE Heart Failure Care program has a global network of investigators in 42 countries, with first-hand experience of the impact of the pandemic on HF management in different care settings. The national coordinators were surveyed to assess: 1) the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for continuity of HF care, from both a hospital and patient perspective; 2) the organizational changes enacted to ensure continued HF care; and 3) lessons learned for the future of HF care. Contributions were obtained from 37 national coordinators in 29 countries. We summarize their input, highlighting the issues raised and using the example of three very different settings (Italy, Brazil, and Taiwan) to illustrate the similarities and differences across the OPTIMIZE program., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Aims: Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) are guideline-recommended therapy for individuals with cardiorenal disease. They are associated with increased risk of hyperkalaemia, a common and life-threatening disorder for this population. RAASi-induced hyperkalaemia often leads to dose reduction or discontinuation, reducing cardiorenal protection. Guideline recommendations differ between specialties for the clinical management of hyperkalaemia. Using a modified Delphi method, we developed consensus recommendations for optimal management of hyperkalaemia in adults with cardiorenal disease., Methods and Results: An international steering group of cardiologists and nephrologists developed 39 statements regarding hyperkalaemia care, including risk factors and risk stratification, prevention, correction, and cross-specialty coordination. Consensus was determined by agreement on an online questionnaire administered to cardiorenal specialists across Europe and North America. The threshold for consensus agreement was established a priori by the steering group at 67%. Across November 2021, 520 responses were received from Canada (n = 50), France (n = 50), Germany (n = 54), Italy (n = 58), Spain (n = 57), the UK (n = 49), and the US (n = 202); 268 from cardiologists and 252 from nephrologists. Twenty-nine statements attained very high agreement (≥90%) and 10 attained high agreement (≥67%-&lt;90%), with strong alignment between cardiologists and nephrologists., Conclusion: A high degree of consensus regarding hyperkalaemia evaluation and management exists among healthcare professionals. Based on high levels of agreement, the steering group derived six key recommendations for hyperkalaemia prevention and management in people with cardiorenal disease. Future studies examining the quality of hyperkalaemia care delivery are required., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: An unanswered question is whether the combination of advances in medical and device therapy over the past decade has translated into improved outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF) in Canada., Methods: The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) Hospital Morbidity Database was used to identify hospitalizations for HF among patients aged 18 years and older in Canadian hospitals during fiscal years 2009/2010 and 2018/2019. We assessed interprovincial differences in age, sex, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, type of admitting hospital, and most responsible service, for all HF admissions. National and provincial rates of HF admissions and all-cause 30-day readmissions were calculated., Results: After adjusting for age, the rate of HF admissions in Canada was 216 per 100,000 population in 2009/2010 and 2018/2019. The majority of patients with HF were admitted to general internal medicine and community hospitals in both 2009/2010 and 2018/2019. The national, crude, all-cause 30-day readmission rate stayed constant at 20.6%, and the majority of patients were readmitted with the diagnosis of HF in both 2009/2010 (62.5%) and 2018/2019 (59.0%). Median and interquartile range of HF LOS also remained unchanged at 7 days (3-14)., Conclusions: The national rate of HF admissions, 30-day readmissions, and HF LOS have remained unchanged from 2009/2010 to 2018/2019, despite advances in medical and device therapy during this timeframe., (© 2022 The Authors.)

This guideline synthesizes clinical trial data supporting the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) for treatment of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease, and for optimizing prevention of cardiorenal morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is on the basis of a companion systematic review and meta-analysis guided by a focused set of population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) questions that address priority cardiorenal end points. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and a modified Delphi process were used. We encourage comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular (CV) patients with routine measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rate, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c), and documentation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when evaluating symptoms of HF. For patients with HF, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy for the reduction of hospitalization for HF when LVEF is > 40% and for the reduction of all-cause and CV mortality, hospitalization for HF, and renal protection when LVEF is ≤ 40%. In patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for HF. We provide recommendations and algorithms for the selection of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2i for patients with type 2 diabetes and either established atherosclerotic CV disease or risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal stroke, and for the prevention of hospitalization for HF and decline in renal function. We offer practical advice for safe use of these diabetes-associated agents with profound cardiorenal benefits., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence for the cardiorenal risk reduction properties of antihyperglycemic medications originally prescribed for type 2 diabetes, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) is rapidly emerging. We completed a meta-analysis of recent literature to provide evidence-based estimates of benefit across various populations and outcomes., Methods: We searched Medline and Cochrane databases from 2015 to September 2021 for randomized controlled trials of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA with placebo control. Reviewers screened citations, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We assessed statistical and methodological heterogeneity and performed a meta-analysis of studies with similar interventions and components., Results: A total of 137,621 adults (51% male) from 19 studies were included; 14 studies with unclear risk of bias and 5 with low risk of bias. Compared with standard of care, use of SGLT2i showed significant reductions for the outcome of cardiovascular (CV) mortality (14%), any-cause mortality (13%), major adverse CV events (MACE) (12%), heart failure (HF) hospitalization (31%), CV death or HF hospitalization (24%), nonfatal myocardial infarction (10%), and kidney composite outcome (36%). Treatment with GLP-1RA was associated with significant reductions for the outcome of CV mortality (13%), any-cause mortality (12%), MACE (14%), CV death or HF hospitalization (11%), nonfatal stroke (16%), and kidney composite outcome (22%)., Conclusions: The use of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i leads to a statistically significant benefit across most cardiorenal outcomes in the populations studied. This review shows a role for SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in cardiorenal protection in adults, independent of type 2 diabetes status., (Copyright © 2022 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dietary restriction of sodium has been suggested to prevent fluid overload and adverse outcomes for patients with heart failure. We designed the Study of Dietary Intervention under 100 mmol in Heart Failure (SODIUM-HF) to test whether or not a reduction in dietary sodium reduces the incidence of future clinical events., Methods: SODIUM-HF is an international, open-label, randomised, controlled trial that enrolled patients at 26 sites in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class 2-3), and receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using a standard number generator and varying block sizes of two, four, or six, stratified by site, to either usual care according to local guidelines or a low sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (ie, <1500 mg/day). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular-related admission to hospital, cardiovascular-related emergency department visit, or all-cause death within 12 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in the ITT population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02012179, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between March 24, 2014, and Dec 9, 2020, 806 patients were randomly assigned to a low sodium diet (n=397) or usual care (n=409). Median age was 67 years (IQR 58-74) and 268 (33%) were women and 538 (66%) were men. Between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2286 mg/day (IQR 1653-3005) to 1658 mg/day (1301-2189) in the low sodium group and from 2119 mg/day (1673-2804) to 2073 mg/day (1541-2900) in the usual care group. By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome had occurred in 60 (15%) of 397 patients in the low sodium diet group and 70 (17%) of 409 in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·89 [95% CI 0·63-1·26]; p=0·53). All-cause death occurred in 22 (6%) patients in the low sodium diet group and 17 (4%) in the usual care group (HR 1·38 [0·73-2·60]; p=0·32), cardiovascular-related hospitalisation occurred in 40 (10%) patients in the low sodium diet group and 51 (12%) patients in the usual care group (HR 0·82 [0·54-1·24]; p=0·36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 17 (4%) patients in the low sodium diet group and 15 (4%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·21 [0·60-2·41]; p=0·60). No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group., Interpretation: In ambulatory patients with heart failure, a dietary intervention to reduce sodium intake did not reduce clinical events., Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Health Research Council of New Zealand., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JAE reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, eko.ai, US2.ai, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier, and consulting fees from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, and Servier. PM reports research grants from National Health & Medical Research Committee, New South Wales Department of Health, and St Vincent's Clinic Foundation; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; honoraria payments from Japanese Circulation Society; support for attending meetings or travel from Astellas; and stock or stock options from Infensa Biologics. RT reports research grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand; consulting fees from Merck and Roche Diagnostics; and honoraria payments from Roche Diagnostics. CS reports research grants from Medtronic; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria payments from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; and fees for participation in advisory boards from Servier, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. JAt reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Shire. MG reports research grants from the University of Alberta. JH reports research grants from AstraZeneca; consulting fees from Servier, Otsuka, Alnylam, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Bayer Canada, AstraZeneca, and Novartis; and honoraria payments from Servier, Otsuka, Alnylam, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Bayer Canada, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. SJ reports research payments from the University of Alberta. ML reports consulting fees from New Zealand Formulary and honoraria payment from Novartis. JS reports consulting fees from Servier and Novartis; honoraria payments from Bayer; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Servier, Novartis, Bayer, and HLS Therapeutics. SZ reports consulting fees from Abbott, Akcea, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier, and Vifor; and honoraria payments from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Servier, and Vifor. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Given the high risk of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there is an urgent need for the initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) that can reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality. Clinical practice guidelines are now emphasizing the need for early and rapid initiation of therapies that have cardiovascular benefit. Recognizing that there are many barriers to GDMT initiation and optimization, health care providers should aim to introduce the 4 pillars of quadruple therapy now recommended by most clinical practice guidelines: angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. A large proportion of patients with HFrEF do not have clinical contraindications to GDMT but are not treated with these therapies. Early initiation of low-dose combination therapy should be tolerated by most patients. However, patient-related factors such as hemodynamics, frailty, and laboratory values will need consideration for maximum tolerated GDMT. GDMT initiation in acute heart failure hospitalization represents another important avenue to improve use of GDMT. Finally, removal of therapies that do not have clear cardiovascular benefit should be considered to lower polypharmacy and reduce the risk of adverse side effects. Future prospective studies aimed at guiding optimal implementation of quadruple therapy are warranted to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with HFrEF., Competing Interests: The funding support for the think tank meeting was provided through unrestricted grants from AstraZeneca Canada and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Sharma has received support from the Fonds de Recherche Santé Quebec (FRSQ) Junior 1 clinician scholars program, Canada Institute for Health Research (CIHR grant #175095), Roche Diagnostics, Boeringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Takeda. Dr Verma holds a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Cardiovascular Surgery; and has received research grants and/or speaking honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EOCI Pharmacomm Ltd, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and the Toronto Knowledge Translation Working Group. He is the President of the Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group, a federally incorporated not-for-profit physician organization. Dr Bhatt discloses the following relationships: advisory board, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Janssen, Level Ex, Medscape Cardiology, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Regado Biosciences; board of directors, Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and ToBeSoft; Chair, Inaugural Chair, American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; data monitoring committees, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St Jude Medical, now Abbott), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; honoraria, American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees); other, Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), and VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); research funding, Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, and 89Bio; royalties, Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald’s Heart Disease); site co-investigator, Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, and Svelte; trustee, American College of Cardiology; and unfunded research, FlowCo, Merck, and Takeda. Dr Connelly has received research grants to his institution from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; received support for travel to scientific meeting from Boehringer Ingelheim and honoraria for speaking engagements and ad hoc participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Janssen. Dr Swiggum has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; advisory or consulting honorarium from Akcea Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, the Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support or served on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, and Relypsa; speaker engagements with Novartis and Roche Diagnostics; and participates on clinical endpoint committees for studies sponsored by Galmed and Novartis. Dr Zieroth has received research grant support or served on advisory boards for and speaking engagements with Abbott, Akcea, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, Servier, and Vifor; and serves on a clinical trial steering committee or as a National Lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Dr Butler is a consultant to Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Cures, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Roche, Sanofi, and Vifor., (© 2022 The Authors.)

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure, but whether empagliflozin also improves clinical outcomes when initiated in patients who are hospitalized for acute heart failure is unknown. In this double-blind trial (EMPULSE; NCT04157751 ), 530 patients with a primary diagnosis of acute de novo or decompensated chronic heart failure regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo. Patients were randomized in-hospital when clinically stable (median time from hospital admission to randomization, 3 days) and were treated for up to 90 days. The primary outcome of the trial was clinical benefit, defined as a hierarchical composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events and time to first heart failure event, or a 5 point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days, as assessed using a win ratio. More patients treated with empagliflozin had clinical benefit compared with placebo (stratified win ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68; P = 0.0054), meeting the primary endpoint. Clinical benefit was observed for both acute de novo and decompensated chronic heart failure and was observed regardless of ejection fraction or the presence or absence of diabetes. Empagliflozin was well tolerated; serious adverse events were reported in 32.3% and 43.6% of the empagliflozin- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. These findings indicate that initiation of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure is well tolerated and results in significant clinical benefit in the 90 days after starting treatment., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background Women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology and even more so in leadership positions. We evaluated the trends and gender differences in the guideline writing groups of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines from 2006 to 2020. Methods and Results We extracted all guidelines authors from 2006 to 2020, assessed their gender from publicly available profiles, and compared differences based on subspecialties and specific societies. Stratified and trend analyses were performed using χ 2 and average annual percentage change/average 5 year percentage change. A total of 80 ACC/AHA (1288 authors [28% women]), 64 CCS (988 authors [26% women]), and 59 ESC (1157 authors [16% women]) guidelines were analyzed. A significant increase in inclusion of women was seen in ACC/AHA (12.6% [2006] to 42.6% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [2.3% to 11.1%]; P =0.005) and ESC (7.1% [2006] to 25.8% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [0.2% to 13.5%]; P =0.04), but the trend remained similar in CCS (20.6% [2006] to 36.3% [2020]; average annual percentage change, -0.1% (-3.7% to 3.5%); P =0.94), guideline authors. More women were coauthors in the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines when women were chairs of guidelines. There was a persistent disparity of women among guideline authors for general cardiology and all subspecialties, except for pediatric cardiology and heart failure guidelines. The appointment of women authors as a chair was significantly low in all societies (22.4% [ACC/AHA], 16.9% [CCS], and 7.2% [ESC]; P =0.008). Conclusions There is a significant disparity in the inclusion of women on all national guideline committees, in addition to serving as a chair of cardiology guidelines. Further advocacy is required to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in our cardiology guidelines globally.

"Wearable" devices are a rapidly evolving technology that often can record and store personal healthcare data. We report the case of a 64-year-old woman who presented with a syncopal episode and subsequent cardiac arrest, ultimately requiring a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Prior to hospitalization, she obtained electrocardiogram recordings using her Apple Watch, due to feeling unwell, and one showed nonsustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. Direct-to-consumer electrocardiogram monitors in "wearables" are increasing in popularity and may play a role in the work-up and diagnosis of patients' symptoms. However, they are not a replacement for healthcare expertise, and their misuse may result in undue anxiety and inappropriate healthcare utilization., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction (MI) and heart failure (HF) are the main causes of mortality and morbidity around the globe. New therapies are needed to better manage ischemic heart disease and HF as existing strategies are not curative. Resveratrol is a stilbene polyphenolic compound with favorable biological effects that counter chronic diseases. Current evidence suggests that resveratrol is cardioprotective in animal models of atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, and HF. Though clinical studies for resveratrol have been promising, evidence remains inadequate to introduce it to the clinical setting. In this narrative review, we have comprehensively discussed the relevant compelling evidence regarding the efficacy of resveratrol as a new therapeutic agent for the management of atherosclerosis, MI and HF.

The mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 infection have been effective in reducing the number of symptomatic cases worldwide. With widespread uptake, case series of vaccine-related myocarditis/pericarditis have been reported, particularly in adolescents and young adults. Men tend to be affected with greater frequency, and symptom onset is usually within 1 week after vaccination. Clinical course appears to be mild in most cases. On the basis of the available evidence, we highlight a clinical framework to guide providers on how to assess, investigate, diagnose, and report suspected and confirmed cases. In any patient with highly suggestive symptoms temporally related to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, standardized workup includes serum troponin measurement and polymerase chain reaction testing for COVID-19 infection, routine additional lab work, and a 12-lead electrocardiogram. Echocardiography is recommended as the imaging modality of choice for patients with unexplained troponin elevation and/or pathologic electrocardiogram changes. Cardiovascular specialist consultation and hospitalization should be considered on the basis of the results of standard investigations. Treatment is largely supportive, and myocarditis/pericarditis that is diagnosed according to defined clinical criteria should be reported to public health authorities in every jurisdiction. Finally, we recommend COVID-19 vaccination in all individuals in accordance with the Health Canada and National Advisory Committee on Immunization guidelines. In patients with suspected myocarditis/pericarditis after the first dose of an mRNA vaccine, deferral of a second dose is recommended until additional reports become available., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Antihyperglycemic therapies including sodium glucose contransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) have been demonstrated to confer significant cardiovascular benefit and reduce future events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, despite positive data from cardiovascular outcome trials, these therapies remain underutilized in a large proportion of patients who have clinical indications and meet coverage guidelines for their initiation. One of the causes of the observed gap between scientific evidence and clinical cardiology practice is therapeutic hesitancy (otherwise known as therapeutic inertia). The purpose of this review is to discuss the contributors to therapeutic hesitancy in the implementation of these evidence-based therapies and, more importantly, provide pragmatic solutions to address these barriers., Recent Findings: Recent studies have demonstrated that clinicians may not initiate cardiovascular protective therapies due to a reluctance to overstep perceived interdisciplinary boundaries, concerns about causing harm due to medication side effects, and a sense of unfamiliarity with the optimal choice of therapy amidst a rapidly evolving landscape of T2DM therapies., Summary: Herein, we describe a multifaceted approach aimed at creating a 'permission to prescribe' culture, developing integrated multidisciplinary models of care, enhancing trainees' experiences in cardiovascular disease prevention, and utilizing technology to motivate change. Taken together, these interventions should increase the implementation of evidence-based therapies and improve the quality of life and cardiovascular outcomes of individuals with T2DM., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The development and progression of heart failure (HF) due to myocardial infarction (MI) is a major concern even with current optimal therapy. Resveratrol is a plant polyphenol with cardioprotective properties. Sacubitril/valsartan is known to be beneficial in chronic HF patients. In this study, we investigated the comparative and combinatorial benefits of resveratrol with sacubitril/valsartan alongside an active comparator valsartan in MI-induced male Sprague Dawley rats. MI-induced and sham-operated animals received vehicle, resveratrol, sacubitril/valsartan, valsartan alone or sacubitril/valsartan + resveratrol for 8 weeks. Echocardiography was performed at the endpoint to assess cardiac structure and function. Cardiac oxidative stress, inflammation, fibrosis, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), creatinine and neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin were measured. Treatment with resveratrol, sacubitril/valsartan, valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan + resveratrol significantly prevented left ventricular (LV) dilatation and improved LV ejection fraction in MI-induced rats. All treatments also significantly reduced myocardial tissue oxidative stress, inflammation and fibrosis, as well as BNP. Treatment with the combination of sacubitril/valsartan and resveratrol did not show additive effects. In conclusion, resveratrol, sacubitril/valsartan, and valsartan significantly prevented cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in MI-induced rats. The reduction in cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in MI-induced rats was mediated by a reduction in cardiac oxidative stress, inflammation and fibrosis.

Background: Discussing goals of care with heart failure patients is recommended but is not done systematically, due to factors such as time and personal beliefs. A recent survey showed that one-fifth of clinicians believe that implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation (ICDD) is unethical or constitutes physician-assisted suicide. We investigated whether individuals' characteristics are associated with these beliefs., Methods: The Decision-Making About Goals of Care for Hospitalize d Pati e nts With H eart F ailure (DECIDE-HF) survey was given to healthcare providers at 9 hospitals to assess their perceived barriers to goals-of-care discussions. The association between respondent characteristics and their beliefs was examined using 2 adjusted logistic regression models., Results: We included 760 clinicians (459 nurses, 94 fellows, and 207 cardiologists). The responses varied among professions, with the belief that ICDD is unethical considered to be important barrier by nurses (24%), fellows (10%), and staff (7%); P < 0.001). After adjusting for site, spirituality being more important in life (odds ratio [OR]: 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.37-3.56; P  = 0.001, compared to less important), region of training (Asia [OR: 5.88; 95% CI: 2.12-16.31; P  = 0.001] and Middle East [OR: 5.55; 95% CI:1.57-19.63; P  = 0.008] compared to Canada), and years in practice (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.07-1.63; P  = 0.01 per decade) influenced beliefs about ICDD being unethical, with similar results for the belief that ICDD represents physician-assisted suicide., Conclusions: Sociocultural factors, region of training, and profession influence clinicians' beliefs about ICDD being unethical and representing physician-assisted suicide. These factors and beliefs must be acknowledged when facing the delicate issue of end-of-life discussion., (© 2021 The Authors.)

It is now widely recognized that COVID-19 illness can be associated with significant intermediate and potentially longer-term physical limitations. The term, "long COVID-19" is used to define any patient with persistent symptoms after acute COVID-19 infection (ie, after 4 weeks). It is postulated that cardiac injury might be linked to symptoms that persist after resolution of acute infection, as part of this syndrome. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society Rapid Response Team has generated this document to provide guidance to health care providers on the optimal management of patients with suspected cardiac complications of long COVID-19., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hyperkalaemia has become an increasingly prevalent finding in patients with heart failure (HF), especially with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors and angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors being the cornerstone of medical therapy. Patients living with HF often have other comorbidities, such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease, which predispose to hyperkalaemia. Until now, we have not had any reliable or tolerable therapies for the treatment of hyperkalaemia to facilitate implementation or achievement of target doses of RAAS inhibition. Patiromer sorbitex calcium and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate are two novel potassium-binding resins that have shown promise in the management of patients predisposed to developing recurrent hyperkalaemia, and their use may allow for further optimisation of guideline directed medical therapy., Competing Interests: Disclosure: SZ has received consulting and speaking fees from Astra Zeneca and Vifor. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021, Radcliffe Cardiology.)

Hospitals and ambulatory facilities significantly reduced cardiac care delivery in response to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The deferral of elective cardiovascular procedures led to a marked reduction in health care delivery with a significant impact on optimal cardiovascular care. International and Canadian data have reported dramatically increased wait times for diagnostic tests and cardiovascular procedures, as well as associated increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In the wake of the demonstrated ability to rapidly create critical care and hospital ward capacity, we advocate a different approach during the second and possible subsequent COVID-19 pandemic waves. We suggest an approach, informed by local data and experience, that balances the need for an expected rise in demand for health care resources to ensure appropriate COVID-19 surge capacity with continued delivery of essential cardiovascular care. Incorporating cardiovascular care leaders into pandemic planning and operations will help health care systems minimise cardiac care delivery disruptions while maintaining critical care and hospital ward surge capacity and continuing measures to reduce transmission risk in health care settings. Specific recommendations targeting the main pillars of cardiovascular care are presented: ambulatory, inpatient, procedural, diagnostic, surgical, and rehabilitation., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The level of representation of women in cardiology remains low compared to that of men, particularly in leadership positions. We evaluated gender disparity in the authorship of Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines., Methods: All CCS guidelines from 2001-2020 were identified. Gender was assessed based on pronoun use in the biographies and social media of the authors. Only primary panel authors were included in our analysis. Stratified analyses were performed based on subspecialties., Results: A total of 76 guidelines were identified, with 1172 authors (26% women, 74% men, P < 0.0001), with no significant change in percentage of women authors over 2 decades , (37.1% in 2001, 36.3% in 2020, P  = 0.34). Inclusion of women as authors occurred less frequently than inclusion of men in general cardiology guidelines (20.1% vs 79.9%, P < 0.0001) and all subspecialties-heart failure (36.4% vs 63.6%, P < 0.0001), interventional cardiology (12.6% vs 87.4%, P < 0.0001), electrophysiology (20.2% vs 79.8%, P < 0.0001), and pediatric cardiology (41.7% vs 58.3%, P  = 0.02). It was less likely for women to be a chair or cochair of a guideline writing committee, compared with men (20.1% vs 79.8%, P < 0.0001). There were 609 unique authors (25.6% women, 74.4% men, P < 0.0001), 542 unique medical doctorate (MD) authors (20.7% women, 79.3% men, P < 0.0001), and 67 unique non-MD authors (65.7% women, 34.3% men, P  = 0.0003)., Conclusions: There is a persistent shortfall in the inclusion of women authors for CCS guidelines, which has not changed over time. Further efforts are required to promote women's inclusion in leadership roles, which may lead to authorship of the guidelines., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Cardiac amyloidosis is an emerging and important cause of heart failure, arrhythmia, and other cardiovascular disease in Canada. In this context, many centres have expressed interest in the development of effective care pathways for screening, evaluating, and treating this rapidly growing patient population. In October 2019, a group of Canadian stakeholders met, including specialists in cardiac amyloidosis, experts in heart failure and chronic disease management, and academic and community-based cardiologists at various stages of cardiac amyloidosis clinic development. Objectives of the meetings included discussion of existing care pathways, consideration of barriers to program development, and achieving a consensus on essential and desirable components of a best-practice cardiac amyloidosis program. Topics discussed included optimal settings for cardiac amyloidosis clinics and integration with other specialty clinics, funding limitations that act as barriers to program development and potential solutions to these barriers, the roles of the multidisciplinary team and specialist physicians in amyloidosis care, and diagnostic pathways and strategies for the identification of patients with cardiac amyloidosis. In this report, we summarize the discussion points and key recommendations for the development of a cardiac amyloidosis clinic that emerged from this meeting, focused on program integration and care coordination, human resource elements, access to care, and quality improvement and outcome measures in cardiac amyloidosis., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure (HF) guidelines, we provide comprehensive recommendations and practical tips for the pharmacologic management of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since the 2017 comprehensive update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of HF, substantial new evidence has emerged that has informed the care of these patients. In particular, we focus on the role of novel pharmacologic therapies for HFrEF including angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitors, and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in conjunction with other long established HFrEF therapies. Updated recommendations are also provided in the context of the clinical setting for which each of these agents might be prescribed; the potential value of each therapy is reviewed, where relevant, for chronic HF, new onset HF, and for HF hospitalization. We define a new standard of pharmacologic care for HFrEF that incorporates 4 key therapeutic drug classes as standard therapy for most patients: an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (as first-line therapy or after angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker titration); a β-blocker; a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; and a sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitor. Additionally, many patients with HFrEF will have clinical characteristics for which we recommended other key therapies to improve HF outcomes, including sinus node inhibitors, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, hydralazine/nitrates in combination, and/or digoxin. Finally, an approach to management that integrates prioritized pharmacologic with nonpharmacologic and invasive therapies after a diagnosis of HFrEF is highlighted., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: There are limited data on the management and outcomes of chronic liver disease (CLD) patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), particularly according to the subtype of CLD., Methods: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2004-2015), we examined outcomes of AMI patients stratified by severity and sub-types of CLD. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of receipt of invasive management and adverse outcomes in CLD groups compared with no-CLD., Results: Of 7 024 723 AMI admissions, 54 283 (0.8%) had a CLD diagnosis. CLD patients were less likely to undergo coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (aOR 0.62, 95%CI 0.60-0.63 and 0.59, 95%CI 0.58-0.60, respectively), and had increased odds of adverse outcomes including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (1.19, 95%CI 1.15-1.23), mortality (1.30, 95%CI 1.25-1.34) and major bleeding (1.74, 95%CI 1.67-1.81). In comparison to the non-severe CLD sub-groups, patients with all forms of severe CLD had the lower utilization of CA and PCI (P < .05). Among severe CLD patients, those with alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) had the lowest utilization of CA and PCI; patients with ALD and other CLD (OCLD) had more adverse outcomes than the viral hepatitis sub-group (P < .05)., Conclusions: CLD patients presenting with AMI are less likely to receive invasive management and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Further differences are observed depending on the type as well as severity of CLD, with the worst management and clinical outcomes observed in those with severe ALD and OCLD., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Current international guidelines recommend switching angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) to sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in stable outpatients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who remain symptomatic despite being on optimal medical therapy. Since these guidelines were published, new data may support further clinical applications and benefits of S/V beyond ambulatory HFrEF patients. The efficacy of S/V seems to be consistent across a wider array of subgroups including age, sex, etiology of HF, comorbidities, EF and estimated cardiovascular risk, with safety and tolerability profiles similar to ACE-I and ARBs. Additional clinical trial data are required to confirm the potential benefits of S/V in patients with mid-range or preserved EF, as suggested by analysis of PARAGON-HF, or in combination with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors or in post-myocardial infarction HF. In this article we summarize the new evidence on the effects and safety profile of S/V in HF and discuss current perspectives and persisting gaps. Currently, available evidence may support S/V as a first-line therapy in outpatient or in-hospital HFrEF patients, and possibly also in HFmrEF patients., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as a clinical syndrome with symptoms and/or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We also propose revised stages of HF as: At risk for HF (Stage A), Pre-HF (Stage B), Symptomatic HF (Stage C) and Advanced HF (Stage D). Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This includes HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): symptomatic HF with LVEF ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF): symptomatic HF with LVEF 41-49%; HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): symptomatic HF with LVEF ≥50%; and HF with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF): symptomatic HF with a baseline LVEF ≤40%, a ≥10 point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF > 40%., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology and Elsevier, Inc.)

Background: International task force statements advocate telehealth programs to promote health-related quality of life for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). To that end, we evaluated the efficacy and usability of an automated e-counseling program., Methods: This Canadian multi-site double-blind randomized trial assessed whether usual care plus either internet-based e-counseling (motivational and cognitive-behavioral tools for CHF self-care) or e-based conventional CHF self-care education (e-UC) improved 12-month Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary (KCCQ-OS). Secondary outcomes included program engagement (total logon weeks, logons, and logon hours), total CHF self-care behaviors, diet (fruit and vegetable servings), 6-minute walk test, and 4-day step count. The association between program engagement and health-related quality of life was assessed using KCCQ-OS tertiles., Results: We enrolled 231 patients, median age =59.5 years, 22% female, and elevated median KCCQ-OS=83.0 (interquartile range, 68-93). KCCQ-OS increase ≥5 points was not more prevalent for e-counseling, n=29 (29.6%) versus e-UC, n=32 (34.0%), P =0.51. E-Counseling versus e-UC increased total logon weeks ( P =0.02), logon hours ( P =0.001), and logons ( P <0.001). Only e-counseling showed a positive association between 12-month KCCQ-OS tertile and logon weeks ( P =0.04) and logon hours ( P =0.004). E-Counseling increased CHF self-care behavior and diet but not 6-minute walk test or 4-day step count., Conclusions: The primary KCCQ-OS end point was negative for this trial. Only e-counseling showed a positive association between program engagement and 12-month KCCQ-OS tertile, and it improved CHF self-care behavior and diet. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01864369.

Cardiac rehabilitation programs across Canada have suspended in-person services as a result of large-scale physical distancing recommendations designed to flatten the COVID-19 pandemic curve. Virtual cardiac rehabilitation (VCR) offers an alternate mechanism of care delivery, capable of providing similar patient outcomes and safety profiles compared with centre-based programs. To minimize care gaps, all centres should consider developing and implementing a VCR program. The process of this rapid implementation, however, can be daunting. Centres should initially focus on the collation, utilization, and repurposing of existing resources, equipment, and technology. Once established, programs should then focus on ensuring that quality indicators are met and care processes are protocolized. This should be followed by the development of sustainable VCR solutions to account for care gaps that existed before COVID-19, and to improve cardiac rehabilitation delivery, moving forward. This article reviews the potential challenges and obstacles of this process and aims to provide pragmatic guidance to aid clinicians and administrators during this challenging time., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised ethical questions for the cardiovascular leader and practitioner. Attention has been redirected from a system that focuses on individual patient benefit toward one that focuses on protecting society as a whole. Challenging resource allocation questions highlight the need for a clearly articulated ethics framework that integrates principled decision making into how different cardiovascular care services are prioritized. A practical application of the principles of harm minimisation, fairness, proportionality, respect, reciprocity, flexibility, and procedural justice is provided, and a model for prioritisation of the restoration of cardiovascular services is outlined. The prioritisation model may be used to determine how and when cardiovascular services should be continued or restored. There should be a focus on an iterative and responsive approach to broader health care system needs, such as other disease groups and local outbreaks., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nine mRNA transcripts associated with acute cellular rejection (ACR) in previous microarray studies were ported to the clinically amenable NanoString nCounter platform. Here we report the diagnostic performance of the resulting blood test to exclude ACR in heart allograft recipients: HEARTBiT., Methods: Blood samples for transcriptomic profiling were collected during routine post-transplantation monitoring in 8 Canadian transplant centres participating in the Biomarkers in Transplantation initiative, a large (n = 1622) prospective observational study conducted between 2009 and 2014. All adult cardiac transplant patients were invited to participate (median age = 56 [17 to 71]). The reference standard for rejection status was histopathology grading of tissue from endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). All locally graded ISHLT ≥ 2R rejection samples were selected for analysis (n = 36). ISHLT 1R (n = 38) and 0R (n = 86) samples were randomly selected to create a cohort approximately matched for site, age, sex, and days post-transplantation, with a focus on early time points (median days post-transplant = 42 [7 to 506])., Results: ISHLT ≥ 2R rejection was confirmed by EMB in 18 and excluded in 92 samples in the test set. HEARTBiT achieved 47% specificity (95% confidence interval [CI], 36%-57%) given ≥ 90% sensitivity, with a corresponding area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.56-0.81)., Conclusions: HEARTBiT's diagnostic performance compares favourably to the only currently approved minimally invasive diagnostic test to rule out ACR, AlloMap (CareDx, Brisbane, CA) and may be used to inform care decisions in the first 2 months post-transplantation, when AlloMap is not approved, and most ACR episodes occur., (Copyright © 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A previous review of sex, gender, and equity within cardiovascular (CV) medicine, surgery, and science in Canada has revealed parity during medical and graduate school training. The purpose of this study was to explore sex and gendered experiences within the Canadian CV landscape, and their impact on career training and progression., Methods: An environmental scan was conducted of the Canadian CV landscape, which included an equity survey using Qualtrics software., Results: The environmental scan revealed that women remain underrepresented within CV training programs as trainees (12%-30%), program directors (33%), in leadership roles at the divisional level (21%), and in other professional or career-related activities (< 30%). Our analysis also showed improvements of career engagement at these levels of women at over time. The thematic analysis of the equity survey responses (n = 71 respondents; 83% female; 9.7% response rate among female Canadian Cardiovascular Society members) identified the following themes reported within the socio-ecological framework: desire to report inequities vs staying the course (individual level); desire for social support and mentorship and challenges of dual responsibilities (interpersonal level); concerns over exclusionary cliques and desire for respect and opportunity (organizational level); and increasing awareness and actions to overcome institutional barriers and accountability (societal level)., Conclusions: Although women face challenges and remain underrepresented in CV medicine, surgery, and science, this study highlights potential opportunities for improving access of female medical, surgical, and research trainees and professionals to specialized cardiovascular training, career advancement, leadership, and research., (© 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.)