Search

Right‐sided heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation are common and strongly associated with poor quality of life and an increased risk of heart failure hospitalizations and death. While medical therapy for right‐sided heart failure is limited, treatment options for tricuspid regurgitation include surgery and, based on recent developments, several transcatheter interventions. However, the patients who might benefit from tricuspid valve interventions are yet unknown, as is the ideal time for these treatments given the paucity of clinical evidence. In this context, it is crucial to elucidate aetiology and pathophysiological mechanisms leading to right‐sided heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation in order to recognize when tricuspid regurgitation is a mere bystander and when it can cause or contribute to heart failure progression. Notably, early identification of right heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation may be crucial and optimal management requires knowledge about the different mechanisms and causes, clinical course and presentation, as well as possible treatment options. The aim of this clinical consensus statement is to summarize current knowledge about epidemiology, pathophysiology and treatment of tricuspid regurgitation in right‐sided heart failure providing practical suggestions for patient identification and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess the potential interaction between non‐cardiac comorbidities (NCCs) and the efficacy and safety of high‐intensity care (HIC) versus usual care (UC) in the STRONG‐HF trial, including stable patients with improved but still elevated natriuretic peptides. Methods and results: In the trial, eight NCCs were reported: anaemia, diabetes, renal dysfunction, severe liver disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, psychiatric/neurological disorders, and malignancies. Patients were classified by NCC number (0, 1, 2 and ≥3). The treatment effect of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint, 180‐day death or heart failure (HF) rehospitalization, was compared by NCC number and by each individual comorbidity. Among the 1078 patients, the prevalence of 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 NCCs was 24.3%, 39.8%, 24.5% and 11.4%, respectively. Achievement of full doses of HF therapies at 90 and 180 days in the HIC was similar irrespective of NCC number. In HIC, the primary endpoint occurred in 10.0%, 16.6%, 13.6% and 26.2%, in those with 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 NCCs, respectively, as compared to 19.1%, 25.4%, 23.3% and 26.2% in UC (interaction‐p = 0.80). The treatment benefit of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint did not differ significantly by each individual comorbidity. There was no significant treatment interaction by NCC number in quality‐of‐life improvement (p = 0.98) or the incidence of serious adverse events (p = 0.11). Conclusions: In the STRONG‐HF trial, NCCs neither limited the rapid up‐titration of HF therapies, nor attenuated the benefit of HIC on the primary endpoint. In the context of a clinical trial, the benefit–risk ratio favours the rapid up‐titration of HF therapies even in patients with multiple NCCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Mitral regurgitation (MR) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) are common in patients with heart failure (HF). The aim of this study was to investigate prevalence, clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with or without isolated or combined MR and TR across the entire HF spectrum. Methods and results: The ESC‐HFA EORP HF Long‐Term Registry is a prospective, multicentre, observational study including patients with HF and 1‐year follow‐up data. Outpatients without aortic valve disease were included and stratified according to isolated or combined moderate/severe MR and TR. Among 11 298 patients, 7541 (67%) had no MR/TR, 1931 (17%) isolated MR, 616 (5.5%) isolated TR and 1210 (11%) combined MR/TR. Baseline characteristics were differently distributed across MR/TR categories. Compared to HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction was associated with a lower risk of isolated MR (odds ratio [OR] 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.80), and distinctly lower risk of combined MR/TR (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.41–0.62). HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was associated with a distinctly lower risk of isolated MR (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.36–0.49), and combined MR/TR (OR 0.59; 95% 0.50–0.70), but a distinctly increased risk of isolated TR (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.61–2.33). All‐cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization and combined outcomes occurred more frequently in combined MR/TR, isolated TR and isolated MR versus no MR/TR. The highest incident rates were observed in isolated TR and combined MR/TR. Conclusion: In a large cohort of outpatients with HF, prevalence of isolated and combined MR and TR was relatively high. Isolated TR was driven by HFpEF and was burdened by an unexpectedly poor outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute heart failure (AHF) represents a broad spectrum of disease states, resulting from the interaction between an acute precipitant and a patient's underlying cardiac substrate and comorbidities. Valvular heart disease (VHD) is frequently associated with AHF. AHF may result from several precipitants that add an acute haemodynamic stress superimposed on a chronic valvular lesion or may occur as a consequence of a new significant valvular lesion. Regardless of the mechanism, clinical presentation may vary from acute decompensated heart failure to cardiogenic shock. Assessing the severity of VHD as well as the correlation between VHD severity and symptoms may be difficult in patients with AHF because of the rapid variation in loading conditions, concomitant destabilization of the associated comorbidities and the presence of combined valvular lesions. Evidence‐based interventions targeting VHD in settings of AHF have yet to be identified, as patients with severe VHD are often excluded from randomized trials in AHF, so results from these trials do not generalize to those with VHD. Furthermore, there are not rigorously conducted randomized controlled trials in the setting of VHD and AHF, most of the data coming from observational studies. Thus, distinct to chronic settings, current guidelines are very elusive when patients with severe VHD present with AHF, and a clear‐cut strategy could not be yet defined. Given the paucity of evidence in this subset of AHF patients, the aim of this scientific statement is to describe the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and overall treatment approach for patients with VHD who present with AHF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We examined the effects of istaroxime in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) related Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stage B pre‐cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods and results: Sixty patients with AHF without acute myocardial infarction with pre‐CS, defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg without hypoperfusion, venous lactate ≥2 mmol/L and/or mechanical or inotropic support, were randomized to istaroxime 1.0–1.5 μg/kg/min or placebo for 24 h. The primary endpoint, the adjusted area under the curve (AUC) change in SBP from time of treatment to 6 h, was 53.1 (standard error [SE] 6.88) mmHg × hour versus 30.9 (SE 6.76) mmHg × hour with istaroxime versus placebo (p = 0.017). Adjusted SBP AUC at 24 h was 291.2 (SE 27.5) versus 208.7 (SE 27.0) mmHg × hour (p = 0.025). At 24 h, some echocardiographic measurements improved with istaroxime versus placebo including cardiac index (+0.21 L/min/m2; p = 0.016), left atrial area (−1.8 cm2; p = 0.008), and left ventricular end‐systolic volume (−12.0 ml; p = 0.034). There were no significant differences in pulse pressure, laboratory measurements, serious adverse events or adverse events between the treatment groups except for more nausea, vomiting and infusion site pain in the istaroxime‐treated patients. In a post‐hoc analysis, patients receiving ≤1.0 μg/kg/min versus 1.5 μg/kg/min had similar increase in blood pressure, but a trend towards less adverse events. Conclusion: In a phase 2a study of patients with AHF related pre‐CS, istaroxime improved blood pressure and some echocardiography measures related to heart failure and was well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While surgery in the emergent setting only allows for post-hoc HF interventions, the elective setting in chronic HF or in patients at risk for HF can provide an extraordinary opportunity to avoid deaths. In addition, a significant proportion of pAHF events occurred in chronic HF patients, providing an appropriate opportunity to integrate a more complex strategy by involving early HF specialist care. Heart failure and non-cardiac surgery: "a call to action" for multidisciplinary care supporting surgeons and anaesthesiologists. [Extracted from the article]

Within a registry of 1308 unselected CS patients admitted to University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg between 2009 and 2019, a Cox regression model was fitted to derive the CSS, with 30-day mortality as main outcome. B This article refers to 'Early risk stratification in patients with cardiogenic shock irrespective of the underlying cause - the Cardiogenic Shock Score' by B.N. Beer I et al i ., published in this issue on pages 657-667. b Cardiogenic shock (CS) represents the most severe form of acute heart failure (AHF) syndrome, with 30-day mortality between 30%-50%, depending on the underlying aetiology and clinical settings.1 There is a large spectrum of CS phenotypes resulting from the interaction between a cardiac insult and patient's underlying cardiac and overall medical conditions.2 This large heterogeneity of the CS population determines the individual risk of mortality to be highly variable. CSS was developed and validated in a large observational cohort of consecutive CS patients of any aetiology which confers a potential advantage in terms of general applicability compared to the risk scores developed in randomized clinical trials including only AMI-CS patients. CSS was externally validated in a cohort of 934 consecutive CS patients, enrolled between 2007 to 2015 at Mayo Clinic Cardiac Intensive Care Unit and similarly, C-index was calculated for the novel CSS in patients with and without an admission diagnosis of AMI. [Extracted from the article]

GLO:P3O/01nov21:ejhf2320-fig-0001.jpg PHOTO (COLOR): 1 Network of regionalized cardiogenic shock (CS) care system and characteristics of the hub CS centre. B This article refers to 'Impact of hospital transfer to hubs on outcomes of cardiogenic shock in the real world' by D.Y. Lu I et al i ., published in this issue on pages 1927-1937. b Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death.1 Despite advanced management, including aetiological treatment and mechanical circulatory support (MCS), CS represents the most severe manifestation of acute heart failure2 with in-hospital mortality varying between 30-50%, depending on the underlying aetiology.1,3-5 CS management remains challenging and substantial investments in research and development have not yielded proof of efficacy and safety for most of the therapies tested. Recently, new approaches to care of CS patients have focused on mechanisms beyond medical therapies I per se i , implying that CS management should consider appropriate organization of the health care services in order to facilitate optimal care coordination and to minimize time delay.6 There is growing interest for developing CS centres and CS teams using a standardized multidisciplinary team-based approach in the management of CS. [Extracted from the article]

He described HFA Atlas as an excellent example of cooperation between HFA and national HF societies, since the collection of the data was entirely based on voluntary contributions from NHFS/HF working groups. Volunteer participation at HFA Atlas and ESC/HFA HF registries was a highly commented upon topic, particularly recognition of participation in terms of authorship. There are 55 National Heart Failure Societies (NHFS) and Working Groups within the Heart Failure Association (HFA) providing important support to the HFA in the development of new ideas and programmes and in the promotion of heart failure (HF) as a target for both healthcare professionals and researchers. [Extracted from the article]

Because signs of congestion are associated with adverse outcomes in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), attempts were made to decongest patients as much as possible with diuretic agents (loop diuretic agents, thiazides, acetazolamide) or mechanical devices. Those interventions improved signs of congestion but failed to meaningfully improve patients' symptoms, improve quality of life, or reduce early readmissions or deaths. Recent studies have shown that implementation of guideline-directed medical therapies after an AHF admission led to both more decongestion and improved symptoms, quality of life, and outcomes. Therefore, for most patients with AHF whose symptoms and congestion can be controlled with loop diuretic agents, the main focus should be rapid guideline-directed medical therapy uptitration. Enhanced decongestion, ie, adding a second-line diuretic agent to a loop diuretic agent, should be reserved for those patients who do not respond to loop diuretic agents. [Display omitted] • Congestion in patients with AHF is associated with poor outcomes and frequent hospital readmissions. • Enhanced decongestion leads to minimal improvement in symptoms or outcomes in patients with AHF. • Greater focus on GDMT after discharge can improve outcomes for patients hospitalized with AHF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These data strongly suggest that patients at risk of AHF, i.e. those with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction and/or other cardiovascular diseases, should be heavily treated in order to prevent death when exposed to future AHF hospitalization. The study also confirms that despite the favourable trends in AHF survival in the past decades, death after AHF remained high, with one quarter of AHF patients dying in the following year. [Extracted from the article]

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome with extremely high mortality, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large spectrum of CS presentations resulting from the interaction between an acute cardiac insult and a patient's underlying cardiac and overall medical condition. Phenotyping patients with CS may have clinical impact on management because classification would support initiation of appropriate therapies. CS management should consider appropriate organization of the health care services, and therapies must be given to the appropriately selected patients, in a timely manner, whilst avoiding iatrogenic harm. Although several consensus‐driven algorithms have been proposed, CS management remains challenging and substantial investments in research and development have not yielded proof of efficacy and safety for most of the therapies tested, and outcome in this condition remains poor. Future studies should consider the identification of the new pathophysiological targets, and high‐quality translational research should facilitate incorporation of more targeted interventions in clinical research protocols, aimed to improve individual patient outcomes. Designing outcome clinical trials in CS remains particularly challenging in this critical and very costly scenario in cardiology, but information from these trials is imperiously needed to better inform the guidelines and clinical practice. The goal of this review is to summarize the current knowledge concerning the definition, epidemiology, underlying causes, pathophysiology and management of CS based on important lessons from clinical trials and registries, with a focus on improving in‐hospital management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Classification of acute heart failure (AHF) patients into four clinical profiles defined by evidence of congestion and perfusion is advocated by the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)guidelines. Based on the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry, we compared differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes among congestion/perfusion profiles using this classification.Methods and Results: We included 7865 AHF patients classified at admission as: 'dry-warm' (9.9%), 'wet-warm' (69.9%), 'wet-cold' (19.8%) and 'dry-cold' (0.4%). These groups differed significantly in terms of baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 2.0% in 'dry-warm', 3.8% in 'wet-warm', 9.1% in 'dry-cold' and 12.1% in 'wet-cold' patients. Based on clinical classification at admission, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: 'wet-warm' vs. 'dry-warm' 1.78 (1.43-2.21) and 'wet-cold' vs. 'wet-warm' 1.33 (1.19-1.48). For profiles resulting from discharge classification, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: 'wet-warm' vs. 'dry-warm' 1.46 (1.31-1.63) and 'wet-cold' vs. 'wet-warm' 2.20 (1.89-2.56). Among patients discharged alive, 30.9% had residual congestion, and these patients had higher 1-year mortality compared to patients discharged without congestion (28.0 vs. 18.5%). Tricuspid regurgitation, diabetes, anaemia and high New York Heart Association class were independently associated with higher risk of congestion at discharge, while beta-blockers at admission, de novo heart failure, or any cardiovascular procedure during hospitalization were associated with lower risk of residual congestion.Conclusion: Classification based on congestion/perfusion status provides clinically relevant information at hospital admission and discharge. A better understanding of the clinical course of the two entities could play an important role towards the implementation of targeted strategies that may improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiogenic shock is a primary cardiac disorder that results in both clinical and biochemical evidence of tissue hypoperfusion and can lead to multi‐organ failure and death depending on its severity. Inadequate cardiac contractility or cardiac power secondary to acute myocardial infarction remains the most frequent cause of cardiogenic shock, although its contribution has declined over the past two decades, compared with other causes. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, this clinical syndrome is still burdened by an extremely high mortality. Its management is based on immediate stabilization of haemodynamic parameters so that further treatment, including mechanical circulatory support and transfer to specialized tertiary care centres, can be accomplished. With these aims, medical therapy, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs and vasopressors, still has a major role. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence on the use of these medications in patients with cardiogenic shock and discuss specific clinical settings with indications to their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute heart failure (AHF) is the most common cause of hospital admission in adults >=65 years and represents a global public health crisis [1]. The 5-year mortality rate was considerably higher in patients with history of HF readmissions compared to patients without HF readmissions (69% vs 50%) confirming the prognostic significance of the history of previous hospitalization [5],[6]. [Extracted from the article]

Aims: The objectives of the present study were to describe epidemiology and outcomes in ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to identify predictors for mortality at 1 year in each group.Methods and Results: The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting epidemiological information and 1-year follow-up data in 9134 HF patients. Patients were classified according to baseline LVEF into HF with reduced EF [EF <40% (HFrEF)], mid-range EF [EF 40-50% (HFmrEF)] and preserved EF [EF >50% (HFpEF)]. In comparison with HFpEF subjects, patients with HFrEF were younger (64 years vs. 69 years), more commonly male (78% vs. 52%), more likely to have an ischaemic aetiology (49% vs. 24%) and left bundle branch block (24% vs. 9%), but less likely to have hypertension (56% vs. 67%) or atrial fibrillation (18% vs. 32%). The HFmrEF group resembled the HFrEF group in some features, including age, gender and ischaemic aetiology, but had less left ventricular and atrial dilation. Mortality at 1 year differed significantly between HFrEF and HFpEF (8.8% vs. 6.3%); HFmrEF patients experienced intermediate rates (7.6%). Age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV status and chronic kidney disease predicted mortality in all LVEF groups. Low systolic blood pressure and high heart rate were predictors for mortality in HFrEF and HFmrEF. A lower body mass index was independently associated with mortality in HFrEF and HFpEF patients. Atrial fibrillation predicted mortality in HFpEF patients.Conclusions: Heart failure patients stratified according to different categories of LVEF represent diverse phenotypes of demography, clinical presentation, aetiology and outcomes at 1 year. Differences in predictors for mortality might improve risk stratification and management goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AimsThe objectives of the present study were to describe epidemiology and outcomes in ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to identify predictors for mortality at 1 year in each group. Methods and results The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting epidemiological information and 1-year follow-up data in 9134 HF patients. Patients were classified according to baseline LVEF into HF with reduced EF [EF <40% (HFrEF)], mid-range EF [EF 40–50% (HFmrEF)] and preserved EF [EF >50% (HFpEF)]. In comparison with HFpEF subjects, patients with HFrEF were younger (64 years vs. 69 years), more commonly male (78% vs. 52%), more likely to have an ischaemic aetiology (49% vs. 24%) and left bundle branch block (24% vs. 9%), but less likely to have hypertension (56% vs. 67%) or atrial fibrillation (18% vs. 32%). The HFmrEF group resembled the HFrEF group in some features, including age, gender and ischaemic aetiology, but had less left ventricular and atrial dilation. Mortality at 1 year differed significantly between HFrEF and HFpEF (8.8% vs. 6.3%); HFmrEF patients experienced intermediate rates (7.6%). Age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV status and chronic kidney disease predicted mortality in all LVEF groups. Low systolic blood pressure and high heart rate were predictors for mortality in HFrEF and HFmrEF. A lower body mass index was independently associated with mortality in HFrEF and HFpEF patients. Atrial fibrillation predicted mortality in HFpEF patients. Conclusions Heart failure patients stratified according to different categories of LVEF represent diverse phenotypes of demography, clinical presentation, aetiology and outcomes at 1 year. Differences in predictors for mortality might improve risk stratification and management goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To identify differences in clinical epidemiology, in-hospital management and 1-year outcomes among patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) and enrolled in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term (ESC-HF-LT) Registry, stratified by clinical profile at admission.Methods and Results: The ESC-HF-LT Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting hospitalization and 1-year follow-up data from 6629 AHF patients. Among AHF patients enrolled in the registry, 13.2% presented with pulmonary oedema (PO), 2.9% with cardiogenic shock (CS), 61.1% with decompensated heart failure (DHF), 4.8% with hypertensive heart failure (HT-HF), 3.5% with right heart failure (RHF) and 14.4% with AHF and associated acute coronary syndromes (ACS-HF). The 1-year mortality rate was 28.1% in PO, 54.0% in CS, 27.2% in DHF, 12.8% in HT-HF, 34.0% in RHF and 20.6% in ACS-HF patients. When patients were classified by systolic blood pressure (SBP) at initial presentation, 1-year mortality was 34.8% in patients with SBP <85 mmHg, 29.0% in those with SBP 85-110 mmHg, 21.2% in patients with SBP 110-140 mmHg and 17.4% in those with SBP >140 mmHg. These differences tended to diminish in the months post-discharge, and 1-year mortality for the patients who survived at least 6 months post-discharge did not vary significantly by either clinical profile or SBP classification.Conclusion: Rates of adverse outcomes in AHF remain high, and substantial differences have been found when patients were stratified by clinical profile or SBP. However, patients who survived at least 6 months post-discharge represent a more homogeneous group and their 1-year outcome is less influenced by clinical profile or SBP at admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To identify differences in clinical epidemiology, in-hospital management and 1-year outcomes among patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) and enrolled in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term (ESC-HF-LT) Registry, stratified by clinical profile at admission. Methods and results: The ESC-HF-LT Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting hospitalization and 1-year follow-up data from 6629 AHF patients. Among AHF patients enrolled in the registry, 13.2% presented with pulmonary oedema (PO), 2.9% with cardiogenic shock (CS), 61.1% with decompensated heart failure (DHF), 4.8% with hypertensive heart failure (HT-HF), 3.5% with right heart failure (RHF) and 14.4% with AHF and associated acute coronary syndromes (ACS-HF). The 1-year mortality rate was 28.1% in PO, 54.0% in CS, 27.2% in DHF, 12.8% in HT-HF, 34.0% in RHF and 20.6% in ACS-HF patients. When patients were classified by systolic blood pressure (SBP) at initial presentation, 1-year mortality was 34.8% in patients with SBP <85 mmHg, 29.0% in those with SBP 85-110 mmHg, 21.2% in patients with SBP 110-140 mmHg and 17.4% in those with SBP >140 mmHg. These differences tended to diminish in the months post-discharge, and 1-year mortality for the patients who survived at least 6 months post-discharge did not vary significantly by either clinical profile or SBP classification. Conclusion Rates of adverse outcomes in AHF remain high, and substantial differences have been found when patients were stratified by clinical profile or SBP. However, patients who survived at least 6 months post-discharge represent a more homogeneous group and their 1-year outcome is less influenced by clinical profile or SBP at admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To comprehensively assess hyponatraemia in acute heart failure (AHF) regarding prevalence, associations, hospital course, and post‐discharge outcomes. Methods and results: Of 8298 patients in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long‐Term Registry hospitalized for AHF with any ejection fraction, 20% presented with hyponatraemia (serum sodium <135 mmol/L). Independent predictors included lower systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haemoglobin, along with diabetes, hepatic disease, use of thiazide diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, digoxin, higher doses of loop diuretics, and non‐use of angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta‐blockers. In‐hospital death occurred in 3.3%. The prevalence of hyponatraemia and in‐hospital mortality with different combinations were: 9% hyponatraemia both at admission and discharge (hyponatraemia Yes/Yes, in‐hospital mortality 6.9%), 11% Yes/No (in‐hospital mortality 4.9%), 8% No/Yes (in‐hospital mortality 4.7%), and 72% No/No (in‐hospital mortality 2.4%). Correction of hyponatraemia was associated with improvement in eGFR. In‐hospital development of hyponatraemia was associated with greater diuretic use and worsening eGFR but also more effective decongestion. Among hospital survivors, 12‐month mortality was 19% and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were for hyponatraemia Yes/Yes 1.60 (1.35–1.89), Yes/No 1.35 (1.14–1.59), and No/Yes 1.18 (0.96–1.45). For death or heart failure hospitalization they were 1.38 (1.21–1.58), 1.17 (1.02–1.33), and 1.09 (0.93–1.27), respectively. Conclusion: Among patients with AHF, 20% had hyponatraemia at admission, which was associated with more advanced heart failure and normalized in half of patients during hospitalization. Admission hyponatraemia (possibly dilutional), especially if it did not resolve, was associated with worse in‐hospital and post‐discharge outcomes. Hyponatraemia developing during hospitalization (possibly depletional) was associated with lower risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives - The emergency department (ED) is the starting point of care for the vast majority of patients hospitalized with acute heart failure (AHF). However, the evidence base to guide dispositions decisions and identify patients for early, safe discharge is relatively weak. As a result, the majority of patients are admitted. However, because clinicians are faced with the daily challenge of risk-stratifying patients to help determine who potentially could be sent home, this remains an area of intense investigation. In this review, we outline an expert consensus on how to risk-stratify ED patients with AHF. Methodology - Expert consensus literature review. Results - The evidence to support firm conclusions regarding risk-stratification to identify a low risk-cohort safe for ED discharge is lacking. Several risk scores have been developed, though all have limitations, suggesting they should not be routinely used in clinical practice. However, several of these scores are currently undergoing external validation. Patients with elevated blood pressure, preserved renal function and a normal cardiac troponin during their ED work-up are lower risk. In combination with good response to ED therapy, close outpatient follow up, and good self-care skills, these patients represent candidates for early, safe ED discharge. Conclusions - Most ED patients with AHF are admitted, however, a sizable proportion may be safely discharged. Although further work is needed, identifi cation of lower risk patients is currently possible with existing risk markers, such as blood pressure, renal function, and troponin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the role of focused emergency cardiopulmonary ultrasound on the management and identification of acute heart failure (AHF). Topics discussed include the proposed step-by-step sonographic elements in differentiating AHF from the contributing factors of dyspnoea and the importance of competence in performing and interpreting the procedure. Also emphasized is the impact of ample knowledge on the function, structure and hemodynamics in patients with AHF.

The ESC-HF Long-Term (ESC-HF-LT) Registry is a permanent, prospective, observational study conducted in 211 Cardiology Centers of 21 European and Mediterranean countries, members of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The present manuscript aims to assess 1-year outcomes of patients with HF, both acute and chronic, in the subset of patients enrolled in Romania, and to compare to the rest of patients enrolled in the registry. From May 2011 to April 2013, a total of 12 440 patients were enrolled, 40.5% with acute HF and 59.5% with chronic HF. A number of 380 patients were enrolled in 10 Romanian centers, 329 with acute HF and 51 with chronic HF. In Romania, 1-year mortality was substantially higher in patients with acute HF compared to chronic HF patients (22.4% vs 6%), data similar to the rest of European countries. Notably, o proportion of 35.8% of patients with acute HF, have died or have been re-hospitalized during 1-year follow up. Although pharmacological treatments tend to increase over the time, these are underutilized when compared to other European countries. In Romania, utilization of HF device-based therapies is still very low. The ESC-HF-LT registry shows that Romanian patients have similar prognostic characteristics as patients enrolled in other countries. 1-year mortality of patients with acute HF is higher than the mortality of chronic HF patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiorgan dysfunction leading to organ failure seen during the evolution of CS manifests with progressive increase of end-organ damage markers and lack of response to therapies, and this gradual process is often distinct from baseline organ injury/dysfunction. Does end-organ dysfunction precede or follow cardiogenic shock in acute decompensated heart failure? However, we do not know if baseline organ dysfunction in this group of patients represents an active mediator in the pathophysiological process of CS, or if it rather reflects the severity of chronic disease. [Extracted from the article]

Background: There is a paucity of evidence for dose and pace of up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies after admission to hospital for acute heart failure.Methods: In this multinational, open-label, randomised, parallel-group trial (STRONG-HF), patients aged 18-85 years admitted to hospital with acute heart failure, not treated with full doses of guideline-directed drug treatment, were recruited from 87 hospitals in 14 countries. Before discharge, eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40% vs >40%) and country, with blocks of size 30 within strata and randomly ordered sub-blocks of 2, 4, and 6, to either usual care or high-intensity care. Usual care followed usual local practice, and high-intensity care involved the up-titration of treatments to 100% of recommended doses within 2 weeks of discharge and four scheduled outpatient visits over the 2 months after discharge that closely monitored clinical status, laboratory values, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations. The primary endpoint was 180-day readmission to hospital due to heart failure or all-cause death. Efficacy and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients validly randomly assigned to treatment). The primary endpoint was assessed in all patients enrolled at hospitals that followed up patients to day 180. Because of a protocol amendment to the primary endpoint, the results of patients enrolled on or before this amendment were down-weighted. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03412201, and is now complete.Findings: Between May 10, 2018, and Sept 23, 2022, 1641 patients were screened and 1078 were successfully randomly assigned to high-intensity care (n=542) or usual care (n=536; ITT population). Mean age was 63·0 years (SD 13·6), 416 (39%) of 1078 patients were female, 662 (61%) were male, 832 (77%) were White or Caucasian, 230 (21%) were Black, 12 (1%) were other races, one (<1%) was Native American, and one (<1%) was Pacific Islander (two [<1%] had missing data on race). The study was stopped early per the data and safety monitoring board's recommendation because of greater than expected between-group differences. As of data cutoff (Oct 13, 2022), by day 90, a higher proportion of patients in the high-intensity care group had been up-titrated to full doses of prescribed drugs (renin-angiotensin blockers 278 [55%] of 505 vs 11 [2%] of 497; β blockers 249 [49%] vs 20 [4%]; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists 423 [84%] vs 231 [46%]). By day 90, blood pressure, pulse, New York Heart Association class, bodyweight, and NT-proBNP concentration had decreased more in the high-intensity care group than in the usual care group. Heart failure readmission or all-cause death up to day 180 occurred in 74 (15·2% down-weighted adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimate) of 506 patients in the high-intensity care group and 109 (23·3%) of 502 patients in the usual care group (adjusted risk difference 8·1% [95% CI 2·9-13·2]; p=0·0021; risk ratio 0·66 [95% CI 0·50-0·86]). More adverse events by 90 days occurred in the high-intensity care group (223 [41%] of 542) than in the usual care group (158 [29%] of 536) but similar incidences of serious adverse events (88 [16%] vs 92 [17%]) and fatal adverse events (25 [5%] vs 32 [6%]) were reported in each group.Interpretation: An intensive treatment strategy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medication and close follow-up after an acute heart failure admission was readily accepted by patients because it reduced symptoms, improved quality of life, and reduced the risk of 180-day all-cause death or heart failure readmission compared with usual care.Funding: Roche Diagnostics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the progress in the care of individuals with heart failure (HF), important sex disparities in knowledge and management remain, covering all the aspects of the syndrome, from aetiology and pathophysiology to treatment. Important distinctions in phenotypic presentation are widely known, but the mechanisms behind these differences are only partially defined. The impact of sex‐specific conditions in the predisposition to HF has gained progressive interest in the HF community. Under‐recruitment of women in large randomized clinical trials has continued in the more recent studies despite epidemiological data no longer reporting any substantial difference in the lifetime risk and prognosis between sexes. Target dose of medications and criteria for device eligibility are derived from studies with a large predominance of men, whereas specific information in women is lacking. The present scientific statement encompasses the whole scenario of available evidence on sex‐disparities in HF and aims to define the most challenging and urgent residual gaps in the evidence for the scientific and clinical HF communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) reduces morbidity and mortality, but its implementation is often poor in daily clinical practice. Barriers to implementation include clinical and organizational factors that might contribute to clinical inertia, i.e. avoidance/delay of recommended treatment initiation/optimization. The spectrum of strategies that might be applied to foster GDMT implementation is wide, and involves the organizational set‐up of heart failure care pathways, tailored drug initiation/optimization strategies increasing the chance of successful implementation, digital tools/telehealth interventions, educational activities and strategies targeting patient/physician awareness, and use of quality registries. This scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC provides an overview of the current state of GDMT implementation in HFrEF, clinical and organizational barriers to implementation, and aims at suggesting a comprehensive framework on how to overcome clinical inertia and ultimately improve implementation of GDMT in HFrEF based on up‐to‐date evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods and results Conclusions To describe the baseline characteristics of participants in the FINEARTS‐HF trial, contextualized with prior trials including patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). The FINEARTS‐HF trial is comparing the effects of the non‐steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone with placebo in reducing cardiovascular death and total worsening HF events in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF.Patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40%, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 25 ml/min/1.73 m2, elevated natriuretic peptide levels and evidence of structural heart disease were enrolled and randomized to finerenone titrated to a maximum of 40 mg once daily or matching placebo. We validly randomized 6001 patients to finerenone or placebo (mean age 72 ± 10 years, 46% women). The majority were New York Heart Association functional class II (69%). The baseline mean LVEF was 53 ± 8% (range 34–84%); 36% of participants had a LVEF <50% and 64% had a LVEF ≥50%. The median N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) was 1041 (interquartile range 449–1946) pg/ml. A total of 1219 (20%) patients were enrolled during or within 7 days of a worsening HF event, and 3247 (54%) patients were enrolled within 3 months of a worsening HF event. Compared with prior large‐scale HFmrEF/HFpEF trials, FINEARTS‐HF participants were more likely to have recent (within 6 months) HF hospitalization and greater symptoms and functional limitations. Further, concomitant medications included a larger percentage of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors than previous trials.FINEARTS‐HF has enrolled a broad range of high‐risk patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. The trial will determine the safety and efficacy of finerenone in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sodium and fluid restriction has traditionally been advocated in patients with heart failure (HF) due to their sodium and water avid state. However, most evidence regarding the altered sodium handling, fluid homeostasis and congestion‐related signs and symptoms in patients with HF originates from untreated patient cohorts and physiological investigations. Recent data challenge the beneficial role of dietary sodium and fluid restriction in HF. Consequently, the European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines have gradually downgraded these recommendations over time, now advising for the limitation of salt intake to no more than 5 g/day in patients with HF, while contemplating fluid restriction of 1.5–2 L/day only in selected patients. Therefore, the objective of this clinical consensus statement is to provide advice on fluid and sodium intake in patients with acute and chronic HF, based on contemporary evidence and expert opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long‐Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In‐hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post‐discharge, events per 100 patient‐years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all‐cause death 22 (20–24) versus 17 (14–20) versus 17 (15–20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10–13) versus 8.6 (6.6–11) versus 8.4 (6.9–10); non‐CV death 2.4 (1.8–3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1–4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5–5.9); all‐cause hospitalization 48 (45–51) versus 35 (31–40) versus 42 (39–46); HF hospitalization 29 (27–32) versus 19 (16–22) versus 17 (15–20); and non‐CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6–8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5–12) versus 15 (13–17). Conclusion: In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in‐hospital mortality. Post‐discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non‐CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods and results Conclusions Recent guidelines recommend four core drug classes (renin–angiotensin system/angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor [RASi/ARNi], beta‐blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist [MRA], and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor [SGLT2i]) for the pharmacological management of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We assessed physicians' perceived (i) comfort with implementing the recent HFrEF guideline recommendations; (ii) status of guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) implementation; (iii) use of different GDMT sequencing strategies; and (iv) barriers and strategies for achieving implementation.A 26‐question survey was disseminated via bulletin, e‐mail and social channels directed to physicians with an interest in HF. Of 432 respondents representing 91 countries, 36% were female, 52% were aged <50 years, and 90% mainly practiced in cardiology (30% HF). Overall comfort with implementing quadruple therapy was high (87%). Only 12% estimated that >90% of patients with HFrEF without contraindications received quadruple therapy. The time required to initiate quadruple therapy was estimated at 1–2 weeks by 34% of respondents, 1 month by 36%, 3 months by 24%, and ≥6 months by 6%. The average respondent favoured traditional drug sequencing strategies (RASi/ARNi with/followed by beta‐blocker, and then MRA with/followed by SGLT2i) over simultaneous initiation or SGLT2i‐first sequences. The most frequently perceived clinical barriers to implementation were hypotension (70%), creatinine increase (47%), hyperkalaemia (45%) and patient adherence (42%).Although comfort with implementing all four core drug classes in patients with HFrEF was high among physicians, a majority estimated implementation of GDMT in HFrEF to be low. We identified several important perceived clinical and non‐clinical barriers that can be targeted to improve implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: A high‐intensity care (HIC) strategy with rapid guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) up‐titration and close follow‐up visits improved outcomes, compared to usual care (UC), in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). Hypotension is a major limitation to GDMT implementation. We aimed to assess the impact of baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) on the effects of HIC versus UC and the role of early SBP changes in STRONG‐HF. Methods and results: A total of 1075 patients hospitalized for AHF with SBP ≥100 mmHg were included in STRONG‐HF. For the purpose of this post‐hoc analysis, patients were stratified by tertiles of baseline SBP (<118, 118–128, and ≥129 mmHg) and, in the HIC arm, by tertiles of changes in SBP from the values measured before discharge to those measured at 1 week after discharge (≥2 mmHg increase, ≤7 mmHg decrease to <2 mmHg increase, and ≥8 mmHg decrease). The primary endpoint was 180‐day heart failure rehospitalization or death. The effect of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint was independent of baseline SBP evaluated as tertiles (pinteraction = 0.77) or as a continuous variable (pinteraction = 0.91). In the HIC arm, patients with increased, stable and decreased SBP at 1 week reached 83.5%, 76.2% and 75.3% of target doses of GDMT at day 90. The risk of the primary endpoint was not significantly different between patients with different SBP changes at 1 week (adjusted p = 0.46). Conclusions: In STRONG‐HF, the benefits of HIC versus UC were independent of baseline SBP. Rapid GDMT up‐titration was performed also in patients with an early SBP drop, resulting in similar 180‐day outcome as compared to patients with stable or increased SBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Time intervals related to ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) revascularization are central determinants for patient outcomes. The current capability of the Romanian STEMI program to meet guideline-recommended time intervals is largely unknown. The present study aims to assess the ability of a regional STEMI network to obtain guideline-recommended time intervals for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) and to measure the occurrence and the extent of time delays. This prospective study included 500 consecutive patients with STEMI at the "Prof. Dr. C.C. Iliescu" Emergency Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases, Bucharest, Romania during a period of 14 months. Complete ischemic timelines were created using several key timepoints. A secondary route (transfer from another hospital) was noted in most cases. The main time intervals were the following: patient delay 209 min, emergency medical system delay 66 min, and PCI center delay at 70 min, totaling an ischemic time of 6.4 h. A provisional stop at another hospital involved the addition of 113 min (1.8 h) until STEMI diagnosis and an additional 83 min (1.3 h) from diagnosis to revascularization, totaling a supplementary ischemic time of 3.1 h. In total, 41.5% of the patients were revascularized between 2 and 6 h from symptoms onset. The objective of revascularization in less than 120 min (from first medical contact) was accomplished in 35.5% of the patients. Prehospital thrombolysis was performed in 6.4% of the cases, although its potential benefits could have been expected in 64.5% of the patients. Patients with STEMI arrive predominantly via secondary routes to the PCI center, which implies significantly increased ischemic times. The ambulance alert system and primary routes represent by far the most efficient, albeit still imperfect methods of pre-hospital approach. Prehospital thrombolysis did not compensate for the gaps existing in the performance of the current system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implantable devices form an integral part of the management of patients with heart failure (HF) and provide adjunctive therapies in addition to cornerstone drug treatment. Although the number of these devices is growing, only few are supported by robust evidence. Current devices aim to improve haemodynamics, improve reverse remodelling, or provide electrical therapy. A number of these devices have guideline recommendations and some have been shown to improve outcomes such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators and long‐term mechanical support. For others, more evidence is still needed before large‐scale implementation can be strongly advised. Of note, devices and drugs can work synergistically in HF as improved disease control with devices can allow for further optimization of drug therapy. Therefore, some devices might already be considered early in the disease trajectory of HF patients, while others might only be reserved for advanced HF. As such, device therapy should be integrated into HF care programmes. Unfortunately, implementation of devices, including those with the greatest evidence, in clinical care pathways is still suboptimal. This clinical consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describes the physiological rationale behind device‐provided therapy and also device‐guided management, offers an overview of current implantable device options recommended by the guidelines and proposes a new integrated model of device therapy as a part of HF care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Co‐ordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Co‐ordinator) (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Jozef Bartunek (Belgium), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Sergio Buccheri (Sweden), Elisabetta Cerbai (Italy), Erwan Donal (France), Frank Edelmann (Germany), Gloria Färber (Germany), Bettina Heidecker (Germany), Borja Ibanez (Spain), Stefan James (Sweden), Lars Køber (Denmark), Konstantinos C. Koskinas (Switzerland), Josep Masip (Spain), John William McEvoy (Ireland), Robert Mentz (United States of America), Borislava Mihaylova (United Kingdom), Jacob Eifer Møller (Denmark), Wilfried Mullens (Belgium), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Jens Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Agnes A. Pasquet (Belgium), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Bianca Rocca (Italy), Xavier Rossello (Spain), Leyla Elif Sade (United States of America/Türkiye), Hannah Schaubroeck (Belgium), Elena Tessitore (Switzerland), Mariya Tokmakova (Bulgaria), Peter van der Meer (Netherlands), Isabelle C. Van Gelder (Netherlands), Mattias Van Heetvelde (Belgium), Christiaan Vrints (Belgium), Matthias Wilhelm (Switzerland), Adam Witkowski (Poland), and Katja Zeppenfeld (Netherlands) All experts involved in the development of this Focused Update have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and simultaneously published in a supplementary document to the Focused Update. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines See the European Heart Journal online for supplementary documents that include evidence tables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Heart failure outcomes remain poor despite advances in therapy. The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure III Registry (ESC HF III Registry) aims to characterize HF clinical features and outcomes and to assess implementation of guideline‐recommended therapy in Europe and other ESC affiliated countries. Methods: Between 1 November 2018 and 31 December 2020, 10 162 patients with chronic or acute/worsening HF with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction were enrolled from 220 centres in 41 European or ESC affiliated countries. The ESC HF III Registry collected data on baseline characteristics (hospital or clinic presentation), hospital course, diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in hospital and at the clinic visit; and on outcomes at 12‐month follow‐up. These data include demographics, medical history, physical examination, biomarkers and imaging, quality of life, treatments, and interventions – including drug doses and reasons for non‐use, and cause‐specific outcomes. Conclusion: The ESC HF III Registry will provide comprehensive and unique insight into contemporary HF characteristics, treatment implementation, and outcomes, and may impact implementation strategies, clinical discovery, trial design, and public policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: In this subgroup analysis of STRONG‐HF, we explored the association between changes in renal function and efficacy of rapid up‐titration of guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) according to a high‐intensity care (HIC) strategy. Methods and results: In patients randomized to the HIC arm (n = 542), renal function was assessed at baseline and during follow‐up visits. We studied the association with clinical characteristics and outcomes of a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at week 1, defined as ≥15% decrease from baseline. Patients in the usual care group (n = 536) were seen at day 90. The treatment effect of HIC versus usual care was independent of baseline eGFR (p‐interaction = 0.4809). A decrease in eGFR within 1 week occurred in 77 (15.5%) patients and was associated with more rales on examination (p = 0.004), and a higher New York Heart Association class at the corresponding visit. Following the decrease in eGFR at 1 week, lower average optimal doses of GDMT were prescribed during follow‐up (p = 0.0210) and smaller reductions in N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide occurred (geometrical mean 0.81 in no eGFR decrease vs 1.12 in GFR decrease, p = 0.0003). The rate of heart failure (HF) readmission or death at 180 days was 12.3% in no eGFR decrease versus 18.5% in eGFR decrease (p = 0.2274) and HF readmissions were 7.8% versus 16.6% (p = 0.0496). Conclusions: In the STRONG‐HF study, HIC reduced 180‐day HF readmission or death regardless of baseline eGFR. An early decrease in eGFR during rapid up‐titration of GDMT was associated with more evidence of congestion, yet lower doses of GDMT during follow‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]