Search

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a Working Group (WG) on August 5 to 6, 2010 in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss future directions of research in heart transplantation (HT). The WG was composed of researchers with expertise in the basic science, clinical science, and epidemiological aspects of advanced heart failure and HT. These experts were asked to identify the highest priority research gaps in the field and make recommendations for future research strategies. The WG was also asked to include approaches that capitalize on current scientific opportunities and focus on areas that required unique NHLBI leadership. Finally, the WG was charged with developing recommendations that would have short- and long-term impact on the field of HT. The WG participants reviewed key areas in HT and identified the most urgent knowledge gaps. These gaps were then organized into the following 4 specific research directions: 1) enhanced phenotypic characterization of the pre-transplant population; 2) donor-recipient optimization strategies; 3) individualized immunosuppression therapy; and, 4) investigations of immune and non-immune factors affecting late cardiac allograft outcomes. Finally, because the HT population is relatively small compared with other patient groups, the WG strongly urged concerted efforts to enroll every transplant recipient into a clinical study and to increase collaborative networks to optimize research in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Daclizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-2 receptor, reduced the risk of rejection without increasing the risk of infection among renal-transplant recipients and, in a single-center trial, among cardiac-transplant recipients. We conducted a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to confirm these results in cardiac-transplant patients.Methods: We randomly assigned 434 recipients of a first cardiac transplant treated with standard immunosuppression (cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids) to receive five doses of daclizumab or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of moderate or severe cellular rejection, hemodynamically significant graft dysfunction, a second transplantation, or death or loss to follow-up within six months.Results: By six months, 104 of 218 patients in the placebo group had reached the primary end point, as compared with 77 of the 216 patients in the daclizumab group (47.7 percent vs. 35.6 percent, P=0.007), a 12.1 percent absolute risk reduction and a 25 percent relative reduction. The rate of rejection was lower in the daclizumab group than in the placebo group (41.3 percent vs. 25.5 percent). Among patients reaching the primary end point, the median time to the end point was almost three times as long in the daclizumab group as in the placebo group during the first 6 months (61 vs. 21 days) and at 1 year (96 vs. 26 days). More patients in the daclizumab group than in the placebo group died of infection (6 vs. 0) when they received concomitant cytolytic therapy.Conclusions: Daclizumab was efficacious as prophylaxis against acute cellular rejection after cardiac transplantation. Because of the excess risk of death, concurrent or anticipated use of cytolytic therapy with daclizumab should be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of estimated creatinine clearance (CrCl) in relation to 6-min walk distance in ambulatory patients with congestive heart failure (HF).Background: Although measurement of renal function is integral to the management of chronic congestive HF, its prognostic implications are not well described and have not been formally evaluated relative to measures of functional capacity.Methods: We analyzed outcomes of the 585 participants of the 6-min walk substudy of the Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial. The CrCl was estimated using the Cockcroft-Gault equation. Predictors of all-cause mortality were identified using semiparametric Cox proportional hazards regression and completely parametric hazard analyses.Results: Most subjects (85%) were New York Heart Association functional class II and III. Mean age was 65 (+/-12) years and mean ejection fraction (EF) 35% (+/-13%). There were 153 (26%) deaths during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up. Mortality by increasing quartiles of estimated CrCl was 37% (18 to 48 ml/min), 29% (47 to 64 ml/min), 18% (64 to 86 ml/min), and 21% (86 to 194 ml/min) with corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) relative to the top quartile of 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 3.3), 1.6 (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.5), and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.5 to 1.5), respectively. In Cox regression analyses, independent predictors of mortality were estimated CrCl (adjusted HR [quartile 1:quartile 4] 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.1), 6-min walk distance < or =262 m [adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.27]), EF, recent hospitalization for worsening HF, and need for diuretic treatment. Parametric (hazard) analysis confirmed consistent effects of estimated CrCl on mortality in several subgroups including that of patients with EF >45%.Conclusion: In ambulatory patients with congestive HF, estimated CrCl predicts all-cause mortality independently of established prognostic variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Impella 5.5 is a temporary left ventricular assist device utilized to support patients with cardiogenic shock and those undergoing high-risk cardiac interventions., Methods: From October 2019 to January 2023, 226 patients received Impella 5.5 support at Cleveland Clinic main campus. Patients were stratified by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock stages. Immediate post-Impella 5.5 trajectories were compared across groups. Trajectories were defined as mortality on Impella 5.5, transition to advanced heart failure therapies (durable left ventricular assist device/heart transplantation), or survival to Impella 5.5 removal without advanced therapies., Results: Overall, 148 (65%) patients with cardiogenic shock and 78 (35%) undergoing high-risk cardiac interventions received Impella 5.5 support. SCAI stage was A in 63 (28%), B in 10 (4.4%), C in 29 (13%), D in 104 (46%), and E in 20 (8.8%). Mortality on Impella 5.5 was highest in SCAI stage E (A: 3.2%, B: 10%, C: 14%, D: 27%, E: 35%; p < 0.01). Transition to advanced therapies (durable left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation) was highest in SCAI stages C-D (A: 1.6%, B: 0.0%, C: 45%, D: 36%, E: 20%; p < 0.01). Survival to Impella removal without advanced therapies was highest in SCAI stages A-B (A: 95%, B: 90%, C: 41%, D: 38%, E: 45%; p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Stratification by presentation acuity in candidates for Impella 5.5 insertion may help identify which patients may and may not benefit from this escalation of tailored temporary mechanical circulatory support., (© 2024 The Author(s). Artificial Organs published by International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Novel transcatheter therapies for tricuspid regurgitation (TR) appear promising, yet their applicability to an all-comer TR population remains unclear. We aimed to assess the feasibility of emerging transcatheter tricuspid therapies in a real-world population with greater than or equal to moderate symptomatic TR. A total of 178 patients were referred to our center between January 2019 and December 2021 for greater than or equal to moderate symptomatic TR and were classified into 4 groups: Investigative (patients eligible for enrollment in the Triluminate, Clasp TR, and TRISCEND trials), off-label clipping, surgery, and medical treatment. A total of 10.7% of the population were deemed eligible for investigative therapies, 20.2% and 19.7% of patients were offered off-label clipping and surgery, respectively, and 49.4% received medical treatment. Common reasons for investigative therapy-related ineligibility were unsuitable anatomy (large tricuspid annulus or wide leaflet coaptation gap) and the presence of significant comorbidities. Compared with the other groups, the investigative group was less likely to harbor concomitant ≥moderate mitral regurgitation, greater than or equal to moderate right ventricular dysfunction or severe pulmonary hypertension (P < .05). At 1 year, there remained a significant reduction in TR severity in the investigative group (P < .001) in comparison with the medical treatment group. However, the results were comparable to off-label clipping (P = .60) and inferior to surgery (P =.04). Exploratory analyses failed to show evidence of differences in the rates of all-cause mortality (P =.40) and heart failure hospitalizations (P = .94) between all groups. Current real-world eligibility of TR patients for emerging transcatheter therapies remains limited, underscoring the need for continued innovative efforts to offer device therapies to a broader TR cohort., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In those with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS), an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) may improve hemodynamics and be useful as a bridge to advanced therapies. We explore whether those with cardiac amyloidosis and HF-CS might experience hemodynamic improvement and describe the hemodynamic response after IABP., Methods and Results: We retrospectively identified consecutive patients with a diagnosis of cardiac amyloid, either light chain or transthyretin, who were admitted to our intensive care unit with HF-CS. Patients were excluded if an IABP was placed during heart transplant or for shock related to acute myocardial infarction. Invasive hemodynamics before and after IABP placement were assessed. We identified 23 patients with cardiac amyloid who had an IABP placed for HF-CS. The 1-year survival rate was 74% and most (65%) were bridged to heart transplant, although 1 patient was bridged to destination left ventricular assist device. After IABP, the mean arterial pressure, cardiac index, and cardiac power index were significantly increased, whereas mean right atrial pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure were all significantly decreased. A smaller left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (per cm) was associated with a higher likelihood of a cardiac index of <2.2 L/min/m 2 after IABP (odds ratio 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.93, P = .04)., Conclusions: IABP significantly improved cardiac index while decreasing right atrial pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in cardiac amyloidosis patients with HF-CS., Competing Interests: Funding and Disclosures Dr Longinow is supported by a grant from Pfizer. Dr Pieter Martens is supported by a grant from the Belgian American Educational Foundation (BAEF) and by the Frans Van de Werf Fund. Dr Andrew Higgins has received honoraria from Abbott. Dr Edward Soltesz has received honoraria from Abiomed, Abbott, and Atricure. Dr Wilson Tang served as consultant for Sequana Medical, Cardiol Therapeutics, Genomics plc, Zehna Therapeutics, Renovacor, WhiteSwell, Kiniksa, Boston Scientific, and CardiaTec Biosciences, and has received honorarium from Springer Nature and American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr Mazen Hanna is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc., Eidos, Akcea Therapeutics, and Pfizer Inc. Dr Lee has received honorarium from Getinge, unrelated to the subject and content of this paper. Dr Estep has served as a consultant and has received honorarium from Abbott, Bioventrix, and Getinge, all unrelated to the subject and contents of this paper. All other authors have no relationships to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures NR reports speaking honoraria from Zoll, research grants to her institution from Bristol Myers Squibb, and consultancy honoraria from Roche Diagnostics and American Regent. PP reports consultancy honoraria and/or sponsorship support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pharmacosmos, Novartis, Vifor, AstraZeneca, and Caption Health in the past 3 years. RCS reports consultancy with CORVIA, Cardiac Dimensions, Novartis without honoraria; research support to his institution from COVIA, Cardiac Dimensions.

Background: Long-term clinical outcomes of early intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings in a prospective cohort of heart transplantation (HTx) patients have not been evaluated., Methods: This study included patients from 20 centers across Europe and North and South America among the original cohort of the RAD B253 study. Among these patients, 91 had paired IVUS images at baseline and 1-year post-transplant: everolimus 1.5 mg group (n = 25), everolimus 1.5 mg group (n = 33), and azathioprine 3.0 group (n = 33). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, retransplantation, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) within a 10-year follow-up period. The secondary outcome was all-cause death, cardiovascular death, retransplantation, MI, coronary revascularization, and CAV. Donor disease was defined as baseline maximal intimal thickness (MIT) >0.66 mm, and rapid progression was defined as a change in MIT > 0.59 mm at 1 year., Results: Donor disease (46 patients) was associated with a higher incidence of the primary outcome (hazard ratio (HR) 4.444, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.946-10.146, p < 0.001). Rapid progression (44 patients) was associated with a significantly higher incidence of the primary outcome (HR 2.942, 95% CI 1.383-6.260, p = 0.005). Higher-risk features on IVUS (positive both donor disease and rapid progression) were independently associated with poor clinical outcomes (HR 4.800, 95% CI 1.816-12.684, p = 0.002)., Conclusions: An increase in baseline MIT and a change in first-year MIT in IVUS post HTx was associated with poor outcomes up to 10 years. Early IVUS findings can be considered as surrogate endpoints for evaluating long-term outcomes in HTx clinical trials., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for the Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The short-term risk of moderate-severe cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) after a low-risk positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is unknown, and therefore, there is no guidance on how frequently to perform screening. The aim of this study was to assess the rate of progression to moderate-severe CAV as part of an annual screening programme., Methods and Results: Patients with no history of CAV 2/3 and a low-risk result on initial screening PET/CT (CAV 0/1) were enrolled in the study. The primary outcome was the progression to CAV 2/3 as part of an annual screening programme (within 6-18 months of initial scan). PET CAV results were graded according to a published and externally validated diagnostic criterion for CAV. Over the study period, 231 patients underwent an initial PET/CT and had a subsequent evaluation for CAV. In this cohort, 4.3% of patients progressed to CAV 2/3 at a median of 374 days (interquartile range 363-433). Initial PET CAV grade was the most significant patient characteristic associated with the progression of CAV, with 17% of patients with PET CAV 1 progressing to CAV 2/3 compared with 1.6% with PET CAV 0 (odds ratio 12.4, 95% confidence interval 3.06-50.3)., Conclusion: The rate of progression to moderate-severe CAV at 1 year after the lowest-risk PET/CT is low, but approximately 1/6 patients with PET CAV 1 progress to CAV 2/3. Annual screening with PET/CT for select patients with PET CAV 0 may not be warranted. The optimal screening interval awaits confirmation of our findings in multi-centre registries., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: W.H.W.T served as consultant for Sequana Medical, Cardiol Therapeutics, Genomics PLC, Zehna Therapeutics, Renovacor, WhiteSwell, Kiniksa, Boston Scientific, and CardiaTec Biosciences and has received honorarium from Springer Nature and American Board of Internal Medicine—all unrelated to the manuscript topic. W.A.J. reports being on an advisory board for Boston Scientific. B.A., C.A., M.J., S.H., P.B., and R.C.S. have no relevant disclosures., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In PARAGLIDE-HF, in patients with ejection fraction (EF) > 40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern about SH may be limiting the use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients., Methods: We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: (1) cardiovascular death; (2) hospitalizations due to HF; (3) urgent HF visits; and (4) change in NT-proBNP levels., Results: Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 56 [24.0%]; valsartan, n = 36 [15.5%]; P = 0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs 15 days, respectively; P = 0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as serious by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be white (OR 1.87 [95% CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10 mmHg increase, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 60% (OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP levels did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg vs SBP < 128 mmHg (interaction, P = 0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95% CI: 0.91, 1.99]; P = 0.096) vs SBP < 128 mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66]; P = 0 .62; interaction P value = 0.42)., Conclusion: Among patients with LVEF > 40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, being white, and having higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.)., Competing Interests: Disclosures MF was supported by the NIH and Doris Duke, received consulting fees from Abbott, Ajax, Alio Health, Alleviant, Artha, Audicor, AxonTherapies, Bayer, Bodyguide, Bodyport, Boston Scientific, Broadview, Cadence, Cardioflow, Cardionomics, Coridea, CVRx, Daxor, Deerfield Catalyst, Edwards LifeSciences, Echosens, EKO, Feldschuh Foundation, Fire1, FutureCardia, Galvani, Gradient, Hatteras, HemodynamiQ, Impulse Dynamics, Intershunt, Medtronic, Merck, NIMedical, NovoNordisk, NucleusRx, NXT Biomedical, Orchestra, Pharmacosmos, PreHealth, Presidio, Procyreon, ReCor, Rockley, SCPharma, Shifamed, Splendo, Summacor, SyMap, Verily, Vironix, Viscardia, and Zoll. DAM is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women's Hospital from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Softcell Medical Limited, and Zora Biosciences and has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, ARCA Biopharma, Inflammatix, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. KS serves as an advisory board member and/or consultant to AstraZeneca, Alleviant, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Imbria, Novartis, NovoNordisk, RIVUS, and ViCardia. She receives grant funding from Amgen and American Heart Association. SDS has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, NIH/NHLBI, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos, and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boeringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, and Akros. RCS serves on the steering committee for the PARAGLIDE trial, sponsored by Novartis. EJV reports grants from Novartis, Amgen, Phillips, and NHLBI/NIH. SDS has received research grants has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gossamer, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, NIH/NHLBI, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, US2.AI and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boeringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, Valo. ASD has received research grants (to BWH) from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis and personal consulting fees from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Avidity Biopharma, Axon Therapeutics, Bayer, Biofourmis, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Medpace, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, Veristat. SZ received research grant support, served on advisory boards for or speaker engagements with 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. EB reports grant support to his institution from Novartis for the conduct of the PIONEER-HF trial (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide] in Patients Stabilized From an Acute HF Episode), for serving on the executive committee of the PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI [angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor] vs ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction) trial and the Steering Committee of the PARAGLIDE-HF trial, and for participation in an advisory board meeting. RJM receives research support and/or honoraria from Novartis, Abbott, AmericanRegent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. JHW, SS and KMW are employees of Novartis. AFH reports research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Somologic, Verily and consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squib Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Decompensated heart failure (HF) can be categorized as de novo or worsening of chronic HF. In PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF), among patients with an ejection fraction >40% that stabilized after worsening HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan., Objectives: This prespecified analysis characterized patients with de novo vs worsening chronic HF in PARAGLIDE-HF and assessed the interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan., Methods: Patients were classified as de novo (first diagnosis of HF) or chronic (known HF prior to the index event). Time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. A win ratio consisting of time to cardiovascular death, number and times of HF hospitalizations during follow-up, number and times of urgent HF visits during follow-up, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP was assessed for each group., Results: Of the 466 participants, 153 (33%) had de novo HF and 313 (67%) had chronic HF. De novo patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and lower creatinine. There was a nonsignificant reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan for de novo (0.82; 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) and chronic HF (0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07), interaction P  = 0.66. The win ratio was nominally in favor of sacubitril/valsartan for both de novo (1.12; 95% CI: 0.70-1.58) and chronic HF (1.24; 95% CI: 0.89-1.71)., Conclusions: There is no interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril-valsartan., Competing Interests: PARAGLIDE-HF was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Dr Mentz has received research support and/or honoraria from Novartis, Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Medable, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Drs Ward and Williamson are employees of Novartis. Dr Hernandez has received research grants from American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Somologic, and Verily, and has served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Morrow is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Inc, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc, Softcell Medical Limited, and Zora Biosciences, and has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, ARCA Biopharma, Inflammatix, Merck and Co, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Starling serves on the steering committee for the PARAGLIDE trial sponsored by Novartis. Dr Desai has received research grants (to Brigham and Women’s Hospital) from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received personal consulting fees from Abbott, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Avidity Biopharma, Axon Therapeutics, Bayer, Biofourmis, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Medpace, Merck, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, and Veristat. Dr Zieroth has received research grant support, served on advisory boards for, or has had speaker engagements with Abbott, Akcea AstraZeneca, Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; and serves on a clinical trial committee or as a national lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, Actelion, Amgen, Bellerophon, Celladon, Gilead, Mesoblast, Neurotronik, and US2; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and Valo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2024 The Authors.)

The left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), despite its severe limitations, has had an epicentral role in heart failure (HF) classification, management, and risk stratification for decades. The major argument favoring the LVEF based HF classification has been that it defines groups of patients in which treatment is effective. However, this reasoning has recently collapsed, since medical treatment with neurohormonal inhibitors, has proved beneficial in most HF patients regardless of the LVEF. In addition, there has been compelling evidence, that the LVEF provides poor guidance for device treatment of chronic HF (implantation of cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy) since sudden cardiac death may occur and cardiac dyssynchronization may be disastrous in all HF patients. The same holds true for LV assist device implantation, in which the LVEF has been used as a surrogate for LV size. In this review article we update the evidence questioning the use of LVEF-based HF classification and argue that guidance of chronic HF treatment should transition to more contemporary concepts. Specifically, we propose an etiologic chronic HF classification predominantly based on epidemiological data, which will be foundational for further higher resolution phenotyping in the emerging era of precision medicine., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)