Search

Background and Aims: Evidence is lacking that correcting iron deficiency (ID) has clinically important benefits for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Methods: FAIR-HFpEF was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind trial designed to compare intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) with placebo (saline) in 200 patients with symptomatic HFpEF and ID (serum ferritin < 100 ng/mL or ferritin 100-299 ng/mL with transferrin saturation < 20%). The primary endpoint was change in 6-min walking test distance (6MWTD) from baseline to week 24. Secondary endpoints included changes in New York Heart Association class, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life (QoL)., Results: The trial was stopped because of slow recruitment after 39 patients had been included (median age 80 years, 62% women). The change in 6MWTD from baseline to week 24 was greater for those assigned to FCM compared to placebo [least square mean difference 49 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5-93; P = .029]. Changes in secondary endpoints were not significantly different between groups. The total number of adverse events (76 vs. 114) and serious adverse events (5 vs. 19; rate ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-0.96; P = .043) was lower with FCM than placebo., Conclusions: In patients with HFpEF and markers of ID, intravenous FCM improved 6MWTD and was associated with fewer serious adverse events. However, the trial lacked sufficient power to identify or refute effects on symptoms or QoL. The potential benefits of intravenous iron in HFpEF with ID should be investigated further in a larger cohort., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Current understanding of iron-deficient heart failure is based on blood tests that are thought to reflect systemic iron stores, but the available evidence suggests greater complexity. The entry and egress of circulating iron is controlled by erythroblasts, which (in severe iron deficiency) will sacrifice erythropoiesis to supply iron to other organs, e.g. the heart. Marked hypoferraemia (typically with anaemia) can drive the depletion of cardiomyocyte iron, impairing contractile performance and explaining why a transferrin saturation < ≈15%-16% predicts the ability of intravenous iron to reduce the risk of major heart failure events in long-term trials (Type 1 iron-deficient heart failure). However, heart failure may be accompanied by intracellular iron depletion within skeletal muscle and cardiomyocytes, which is disproportionate to the findings of systemic iron biomarkers. Inflammation- and deconditioning-mediated skeletal muscle dysfunction-a primary cause of dyspnoea and exercise intolerance in patients with heart failure-is accompanied by intracellular skeletal myocyte iron depletion, which can be exacerbated by even mild hypoferraemia, explaining why symptoms and functional capacity improve following intravenous iron, regardless of baseline haemoglobin or changes in haemoglobin (Type 2 iron-deficient heart failure). Additionally, patients with advanced heart failure show myocardial iron depletion due to both diminished entry into and enhanced egress of iron from the myocardium; the changes in iron proteins in the cardiomyocytes of these patients are opposite to those expected from systemic iron deficiency. Nevertheless, iron supplementation can prevent ventricular remodelling and cardiomyopathy produced by experimental injury in the absence of systemic iron deficiency (Type 3 iron-deficient heart failure). These observations, taken collectively, support the possibility of three different mechanistic pathways for the development of iron-deficient heart failure: one that is driven through systemic iron depletion and impaired erythropoiesis and two that are characterized by disproportionate depletion of intracellular iron in skeletal and cardiac muscle. These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and all pathways may be operative at the same time or may occur sequentially in the same patients., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background and Aims: Whereas a beneficial effect of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) on symptoms and exercise capacity among patients with iron deficiency and heart failure (HF) has been consistently demonstrated, the effects of treatment on clinical events remain the subject of research. This meta-analysis aimed to characterize the effects of FCM therapy on hospitalizations and mortality., Methods: Patient-level data from randomized, placebo-controlled FCM trials including adults with HF and iron deficiency with ≥52 weeks follow-up were analysed. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were (i) composite of total/recurrent cardiovascular hospitalizations and cardiovascular death and (ii) composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, through 52 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included individual composite endpoint components. Event rates were analysed using a negative binomial model. Treatment-emergent adverse events were also examined., Results: Three FCM trials with a total of 4501 patients were included. Ferric carboxymaltose was associated with a significantly reduced risk of co-primary endpoint 1 (rate ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.98; P = .029; Cochran Q: 0.008), with a trend towards a reduction of co-primary endpoint 2 (rate ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.75-1.01; P = .076; Cochran Q: 0.024). Treatment effects appeared to result from reduced hospitalization rates, not improved survival. Treatment appeared to have a good safety profile and was well tolerated., Conclusions: In iron-deficient patients with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, intravenous FCM was associated with significantly reduced risk of hospital admissions for HF and cardiovascular causes, with no apparent effect on mortality., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: STRONG-HF showed that rapid up-titration of guideline-recommended medical therapy (GRMT), in a high intensity care (HIC) strategy, was associated with better outcomes compared with usual care. The aim of this study was to assess the role of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at baseline and its changes early during up-titration., Methods and Results: A total of 1077 patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF) and with a >10% NT-proBNP decrease from screening (i.e. admission) to randomization (i.e. pre-discharge), were included. Patients in HIC were stratified by further NT-proBNP changes, from randomization to 1 week later, as decreased (≥30%), stable (<30% decrease to ≤10% increase), or increased (>10%). The primary endpoint was 180-day HF readmission or death. The effect of HIC vs. usual care was independent of baseline NT-proBNP. Patients in the HIC group with stable or increased NT-proBNP were older, with more severe acute HF and worse renal and liver function. Per protocol, patients with increased NT-proBNP received more diuretics and were up-titrated more slowly during the first weeks after discharge. However, by 6 months, they reached 70.4% optimal GRMT doses, compared with 80.3% for those with NT-proBNP decrease. As a result, the primary endpoint at 60 and 90 days occurred in 8.3% and 11.1% of patients with increased NT-proBNP vs. 2.2% and 4.0% in those with decreased NT-proBNP (P = 0.039 and P = 0.045, respectively). However, no difference in outcome was found at 180 days (13.5% vs. 13.2%; P = 0.93)., Conclusion: Among patients with acute HF enrolled in STRONG-HF, HIC reduced 180-day HF readmission or death regardless of baseline NT-proBNP. GRMT up-titration early post-discharge, utilizing increased NT-proBNP as guidance to increase diuretic therapy and reduce the GRMT up-titration rate, resulted in the same 180-day outcomes regardless of early post-discharge NT-proBNP change., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A.M. has received grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and MSD; is a consultant for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and is coinventor of a patent on combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnoea. G.C. is employee of Momentum Research, which has received grants for research from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Celyad, Cirius Therapeutics, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, Heart Initiative, Sanofi, Windtree Therapeutics, and XyloCor Therapeutics. .G.C. is director of Heart Initiative, a non-profit organization. B.D. is employee of Momentum Research, which has received grants for research from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Celyad, Cirius Therapeutics, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, Heart Initiative, Sanofi, Windtree Therapeutics, and XyloCor Therapeutics. B.D. is director of Heart Initiative, a non-profit organization. A.C.S. has received honoraria for lectures or consultancy from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Vifor, Bayer, Merck, Sanofi, Abbott, and Boehringer Ingelheim. M.M. has received personal fees from Amgen, Livanova, and Vifor Pharma as a member of executive committees of sponsored clinical trials and from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, and Roche Diagnostics for participation to advisory boards or for speaking at sponsored meetings. C.E. is employee of Momentum Research, which has received grants for research from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Celyad, Cirius Therapeutics, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, Heart Initiative, Sanofi, Windtree Therapeutics, and XyloCor Therapeutics. O.C. received grants from Servier. R.D. has received supporting fees for coordination of STRONG-HF trial activities. G.F. has received lecture fees or was a committee member for trials and registries sponsored by Bayer, Vifor, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Servier, and Amgen. K.S. has received grants from Medtronic, Servier, and Amylam and honoraria from MSD, Novartis, and Sanofi. A.A.V. has received consultancy fees or research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Myocardia, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche Diagnostics. MN is employee of Momentum Research, which has received grants for research from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Celyad, Cirius Therapeutics, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, Heart Initiative, Sanofi, Windtree Therapeutics, and XyloCor Therapeutics. KT is employee of Momentum Research, which has received grants for research from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Celyad, Cirius Therapeutics, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, Heart Initiative, Sanofi, Windtree Therapeutics, and XyloCor Therapeutics. A.D. works for the Faculty of Medicine, Eduardo Mondlane University (Maputo, Mozambique), which received research grants from the Heart Initiative for their participation in this study. P.S.P. has received grants or research contracts from American Heart Association, Roche, Siemens, Ortho Diagnostics, Abbott, Beckman Coulter, and Siemens; consulting fees from Roche; honoraria from WebMD; and he has financial interest in The Heart Course. J.C. has received personal fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Pfizer. C.S.P.L. 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 the Advisory Board/Steering Committee/Executive Committee 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, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceutical, Janssen Research & Development LLC, Medscape/WebMD Global LLC, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Prosciento Inc, Radcliffe Group Ltd., Redcardio Inc, ReCor Medical, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics and Us2.ai; and serves as co-founder and non-executive director of Us2.ai. M.P. has received personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Vifor Pharma. MA has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic. M.B. is employee of Momentum Research, which has received grants for research from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Celyad, Cirius Therapeutics, Corteria Pharmaceuticals, Heart Initiative, Sanofi, Windtree Therapeutics, and XyloCor Therapeutics. The other authors have no conflicts to report., (© The Author(s) 2023. 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.)

Aims: Because an increased risk of amputation with canagliflozin was reported in the CANVAS trials, there has been a concern about the safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who are at higher risk of amputation., Methods and Results: A patient-level pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced, mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction, respectively, was conducted. In both trials, the primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death, and amputation was a prespecified safety outcome. Peripheral artery disease history was available for 11 005 of the total 11 007 patients. Peripheral artery disease was reported in 809 of the 11 005 patients (7.4%). Median follow-up was 22 months (interquartile range 17-30). The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) was higher in PAD patients than that in non-PAD patients: 15.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.1-17.3) vs. 10.6 (10.2-11.1]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.23 (95% CI 1.06-1.43). The benefit of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent in patients with [hazard ratio 0.71 (95% CI 0.54-0.94)] and without PAD [0.80 (95% CI 0.73-0.88)] (Pinteraction = 0.39). Amputations, while more frequent in PAD patients, were not more common with dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, irrespective of PAD status (PAD, placebo 4.2% vs. dapagliflozin 3.7%; no PAD, placebo 0.4% vs. dapagliflozin 0.4%) (Pinteraction = 1.00). Infection rather than ischaemia was the main trigger for amputation, even in patients with PAD., Conclusion: The risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death was higher in patients with PAD, as was the risk of amputation. The benefits of dapagliflozin were consistent in patients with and without PAD, and dapagliflozin did not increase the risk of amputation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest J.H.B. reports advisory board honoraria from Bayer; consultant honoraria from Novartis and AstraZeneca; travel grants from AstraZeneca. Dr Kondo has received speaker fees from Abbott, Ono Pharma, Otsuka Pharma, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Abiomed. M.Y. reports travel grants from AstraZeneca. P.S.J.’s employer the University of Glasgow has been remunerated by AstraZeneca for working on the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, personal fees from Novartis and Cytokinetics, and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim. K.F.D. reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca and a research grant to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim. M.V. has received research grant support, served on advisory boards, or had speaker engagements with American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, 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 AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics. A.F.H. has received research support from American Regent, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Verily and has served as a consultant or on the Advisory Board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Myokardia, Merck, Novartis, and Vifor. C.S.P.L. is supported by a Clinician Scientist Award from the National Medical Research Council of Singapore; has received research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, and Roche Diagnostics; has served as a consultant or on the advisory board/steering committee/executive committee for Actelion, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Darma Inc, Us2.ai, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Medscape, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Radcliffe Group Ltd, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and WebMD Global LLC; and serves as the cofounder and non-executive director of Us2.ai. S.E.I. has served on clinical trial committees or as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Lexicon, Merck, Pfizer, vTv Therapeutics, Abbott, and Esperion and has given lectures sponsored by AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. F.A.M. has received personal fees from AstraZeneca. R.A.d.B.’s institution, the UMCG, has received research grants and fees (outside the submitted work) from AstraZeneca; Abbott; Boehringer Ingelheim; Cardio Pharmaceuticals Gmbh; Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Novo Nordisk; and Roche. R.A.d.B. has received speaker fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Roche (outside the submitted work). M.N.K. has received research grant support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma, has received other research support from AstraZeneca, and has received honorarium from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. A.S.D. has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbott, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor Pharma, Relypsa, Regeneron, and Merck; grants and personal fees from Alnylam and Novartis; and personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. L.K. reports compensation from Novartis for other services, compensation from Novo Nordisk for other services, and compensation from AstraZeneca for other services. P.P. reports compensation from AstraZeneca for consultant services, compensation from Boehringer Ingelheim for consultant services, compensation from Servier for consultant services, compensation from AstraZeneca for other services, compensation from Pfizer for other services, compensation from Amgen for consultant services, compensation from Vifor Pharma for consultant services, compensation from Novartis for other services, and compensation from Abbott Vascular for other services. M.S.S. reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer and consulting for Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Boehrigner Ingelheim, Reddy’s Laboratories, FibroGen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, and Silence Therapeutics. S.J.S. has received either personal or institutional research support for DELIVER from AstraZeneca. N.Z. is an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. U.W. is an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. O.B. is an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. S.D.S. has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/NHLBI, NeuroTronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI 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, and Sarepta. J.J.V.M. reports payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, GSK, KBP Biosciences, and Novartis. Personal consultancy fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BMS, George Clinical PTY Ltd, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and River 2 Renal Corporation. Personal lecture fees: Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, AstraZeneca, Blue Ocean Scientific Solutions Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge, Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Eris Lifesciences, European Academy of CME, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Imagica health, Intas Pharmaceuticals J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Sun Pharma, The Corpus, Translation Research Group, and Translational Medicine Academy. He is a director of Global Clinical Trial Partners Ltd., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Iron deficiency (ID) is common in patients with cardiovascular disease. Up to 60% of patients with coronary artery disease, and an even higher proportion of those with heart failure (HF) or pulmonary hypertension have ID; the evidence for cerebrovascular disease, aortic stenosis and atrial fibrillation is less robust. The prevalence of ID increases with the severity of cardiac and renal dysfunction and is probably more common amongst women. Insufficient dietary iron, reduced iron absorption due to increases in hepcidin secondary to the low-grade inflammation associated with atherosclerosis and congestion or reduced gastric acidity, and increased blood loss due to anti-thrombotic therapy or gastro-intestinal or renal disease may all cause ID. For older people in the general population and patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), both anaemia and ID are associated with a poor prognosis; each may confer independent risk. There is growing evidence that ID is an important therapeutic target for patients with HFrEF, even if they do not have anaemia. Whether this is also true for other HF phenotypes or patients with cardiovascular disease in general is currently unknown. Randomized trials showed that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose improved symptoms, health-related quality of life and exercise capacity and reduced hospitalizations for worsening HF in patients with HFrEF and mildly reduced ejection fraction (<50%). Since ID is easy to treat and is effective for patients with HFrEF, such patients should be investigated for possible ID. This recommendation may extend to other populations in the light of evidence from future trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: G.S. reports grants and personal fees from Vifor and AstraZeneca, grants and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from Società Prodotti Antibiotici, Roche, Servier, GENESIS, Cytokinetics, and Medtronic; grants from Novartis, Boston Scientific, PHARMACOSMOS, Merck, and Bayer, outside the submitted work. J.B. reports consulting fees from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Array, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, G3 Pharma, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Relypsa, Sequana Medical, and Vifor; and honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Janssen. P.P. has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Novartis, Berlin-Chemie, Bayer, Renal Guard Solutions, Pfizer, Respicardia, Cardiorentis, AstraZeneca, and Cibiem; has received grants, personal fees, and fees to his institution from Impulse Dynamics; and has received fees to his institution from Vifor, Corvia, AstraZeneca, and Revamp Medical. J.G.F.C. reports grants and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Medtronic, and Novartis. S.D.A. has received research support from Vifor International and Abbott Vascular and fees for consultancy and/or speaking from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Respicardia, Impulse Dynamics, Janssen, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor International. S.v.H. reports research support from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, IMI, and the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK)., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Effective and safe decongestion remains a major goal for optimal management of patients with acute heart failure (AHF). The effects of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin on decongestion-related endpoints in the EMPULSE trial (NCT0415775) were evaluated., Methods and Results: A total of 530 patients hospitalized for AHF were randomized 1:1 to either empagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo for 90 days. The outcomes investigated were: weight loss (WL), WL adjusted for mean daily loop diuretic dose (WL-adjusted), area under the curve of change from baseline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, hemoconcentration, and clinical congestion score after 15, 30, and 90 days of treatment. Compared with placebo, patients treated with empagliflozin demonstrated significantly greater reductions in all studied markers of decongestion at all time-points, adjusted mean differences (95% confidence interval) at Days 15, 30, and 90 were: for WL -1.97 (-2.86, -1.08), -1.74 (-2.73, -0.74); -1.53 (-2.75, -0.31) kg; for WL-adjusted: -2.31 (-3.77, -0.85), -2.79 (-5.03, -0.54), -3.18 (-6.08, -0.28) kg/40 mg furosemide i.v. or equivalent; respectively (all P < 0.05). Greater WL at Day 15 (i.e. above the median WL in the entire population) was associated with significantly higher probability for clinical benefit at Day 90 (hierarchical composite of all-cause death, heart failure events, and a 5-point or greater difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score change from baseline to 90 days) with the win ratio of 1.75 (95% confidence interval 1.37, 2.23; P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Initiation of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for AHF resulted in an early, effective and sustained decongestion which was associated with clinical benefit at Day 90., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A.A.V. has received research support and/or has been a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. S.P.C. is a consultant for Aiphia, Siemens, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vixiar and receives research support from the NIH, PCORI, AstraZeneca, and Beckman Coulter. M.N.K. has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and has served as a consultant for Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Sanofi, and Vifor. J.R.T. has received research support and/or has been a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics. C.E.A. has received research support from and/or has been a consultant for Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, ResMed, Thermo Fisher, Vifor, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. J.T. is supported by the National University of Singapore Start-up grant, the tier 1 grant from the ministry of education and the CS-IRG New Investigator Grant from the National Medical Research Council; has received consulting or speaker fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche diagnostics, and Us2.ai, owns patent US-10702247-B2 unrelated to the present work. J.P.F. is a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim and receives research support from AstraZeneca. M.E.N. has received speaking honoraria from Abbott, and is a consultant for Vifor, Roche, and Amgen. P.P. reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Berlin Chemie, and grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma. J.P.B. is an employee of Elderbrook Solutions. M.B. and A.S. are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim. J.B. and M.A.P. have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) have become a global problem worldwide. Each episode of HF decompensation may lead to deleterious short- and long- term consequences, but on the other hand is an unique opportunity to adjust the heart failure pharmacotherapy. Thus, in-hospital and an early post-discharge period comprise an optimal timing for initiation and optimization of the comprehensive management of HF. This timeframe affords clinicians an opportunity to up titrate and adjust guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) to potentially mitigate poor outcomes associated post-discharge and longer-term. This review will cover this timely concept, present the data of utilization of GDMT in HF populations, discuss recent evidence for in-hospital initiation and up-titration of GDMT with a need for post-discharge follow-up and implementation this into clinical practice in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J.B., Y.M. has nothing to declare. C.S. reports: advisor for Merck, Bayer, Novartis and Astrazeneca, principal investigator for Novartis, Merck and Bayer trial, speaker for Merck, Bayer, Novartis Astrazeneca, Boehringer Ingelheime, Servier, Medtronic, Sanofi. P.P. reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Berlin Chemie, and grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are at significant risk of stroke. Anticoagulation reduces this risk in patients with and without atrial fibrillation (AF), but the risk-to-benefit balance in the latter group, overall, is not favourable. Identification of patients with HFrEF, without AF, at the highest risk of stroke may allow targeted and safer use of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy., Methods and Results: In a pooled patient-level cohort of the PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE, and DAPA-HF trials, a previously derived simple risk model for stroke, consisting of three variables (history of prior stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level), was validated. Of the 20 159 patients included, 12 751 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 346 (2.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow up of 2.0 years (rate 11.7 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: fourth quintile hazard ratio (HR) 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-3.45]; fifth quintile HR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58-5.38), with the first quintile as reference. For patients in the top quintile, the rate of stroke was 21.2 per 1000 patient-years, similar to participants with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.1 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C-index of 0.84 (0.75-0.91)., Conclusion: It is possible to identify a subset of HFrEF patients without AF with a stroke-risk equivalent to that of patients with AF who are not anticoagulated. In these patients, the risk-to-benefit balance might justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be tested prospectively., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: T.K. received speaker fees from Abbott, Ono Pharma, Otsuka Pharma, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abiomed. A.T. have no disclosures to report. W.T.A. has received personal fees from Abbott; has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, and Respicardia; has received salary support from V-Wave Medical; and has received research support from the NHLBI, all for studies performed within the heart failure arena. A.S.D. has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbott, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor Pharma, Relypsa, Regeneron, and Merck; grants and personal fees from Alnylam and Novartis; and personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. K.D. has received honoraria and/or research support from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, St Jude, Biotronik, Sorin, Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Sanofi, Abbott, Otsuka, Leo, Servier, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb. S.E.I. has served on clinical trial committees or as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Lexicon, Merck, Pfizer, vTv Therapeutics, Abbott, and Esperion; and has given lectures sponsored by AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim. L.K. has received financial from AstraZeneca; and personal fees from Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb as a speaker. M.N.K. has received research grant support from AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma; has received other research support from AstraZeneca; and has received honorarium from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. F.A.M. has received personal fees from AstraZeneca. Mi.P. reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Akcea, Actavis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Relypsa, Sanofi, Synthetic Biologics, and Theravance. Ma.P. is supported by the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Award (RE/13/5/30177 and RE/18/6/34217þ); has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Roche, and SQ Innovations; and has served as a consultant and on Clinical Trials Committees for Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Siemens, and Takeda. P.P. has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Servier, Bristol Myers Squib, Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and Berlin Chemie; and has received grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma. J.L.R. reports grants and consulting fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, MyoKardia, and Sanofi. K.S. reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. M.S.S. has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and has received grants and personal fees from Amgen, Intarcia, Janssen Research and Development, Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, and Novartis; and has received personal fees from Anthos Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, DalCor, Dyrnamix, Esperion, IFM Therapeutics, Ionis; and has received grants from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Pfizer, Poxel, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Quark Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda outside the submitted work; and is a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has also received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Aralez, Roche, and Zora Biosciences. K.S. reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis. M.R.Z. reports research funding from Novartis and has been a consultant for Novartis, Abbott, Boston Scientific, CVRx, EBR, Endotronics, Ironwood, Merck, Medtronic, and Myokardia V-Wave. S.D.S. has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, US2.AI; 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, CellPro-Thera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. P.S.J.’s employer has been remunerated for his work on clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis. Consulting and speakers fees Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, research funding Boehringer Ingelheim. J.J.V.M. has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, DalCor, GSK, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Theracos Personal lecture fees: the Corpus, Abbott, Hikma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier Director, Global Clinical Trial Partners (GCTP)., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J.B. has nothing to declare. P.P. reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Berlin Chemie, and grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma.

Aims: To investigate the impact of patiromer on the serum potassium level and its ability to enable specified target doses of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) use in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: A total of 1642 patients with HFrEF and current or a history of RAASi-related hyperkalemia were screened and 1195 were enrolled in the run-in phase with patiromer and optimization of the RAASi therapy [≥50% recommended dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, and 50 mg of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) spironolactone or eplerenone]. Specified target doses of the RAASi therapy were achieved in 878 (84.6%) patients; 439 were randomized to patiromer and 439 to placebo. All patients, physicians, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was between-group difference in the adjusted mean change in serum potassium. Five hierarchical secondary endpoints were assessed. At the end of treatment, the median (interquartile range) duration of follow-up was 27 (13-43) weeks, the adjusted mean change in potassium was +0.03 mmol/l in the patiromer group and +0.13 mmol/l in the placebo group [difference in the adjusted mean change between patiromer and placebo: -0.10 mmol/l (95% confidence interval, CI -0.13, 0.07); P < 0.001]. Risk of hyperkalemia >5.5 mmol/l [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.45, 0.87; P = 0.006), reduction of MRA dose (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.87; P = 0.006), and total adjusted hyperkalemia events/100 person-years (77.7 vs. 118.2; HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53, 0.81; P < 0.001) were lower with patiromer. Hyperkalemia-related morbidity-adjusted events (win ratio 1.53, P < 0.001) and total RAASi use score (win ratio 1.25, P = 0.048) favored the patiromer arm. Adverse events were similar between groups., Conclusion: Concurrent use of patiromer and high-dose MRAs reduces the risk of recurrent hyperkalemia (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03888066)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. T.F. reported consulting fees from Vifor Pharma, Bayer, Biosense Webster, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Minoryx, Novartis, LivaNova, Janssen, Roche, and honoraria from Fresenius Kabi. J.B. reported consulting fees from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, G3 Pharma, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Sequana Medical, and Vifor Pharma. G.F. reported honoraria from Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim, committee membership for Medtronic, Vifor Pharma, Amgen, Servier, and Novartis, and grants from the European Commission. M.R.W. reported consulting fees from Vifor Pharma and AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Vifor Pharma. P.V.d.M. reported grants from Vifor Pharma, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Ionis, consulting fees from Vifor Pharma, Novartis and AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Vifor Pharma and Pharmacosmos. L.H.L. reported grants from AstraZeneca, Vifor, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis, consulting fees from Merck, Vifor Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pharmacosmos, MedScape, Sanofi, Lexicon, Myokardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier, honoraria from Abbott, MedScape, Radcliffe, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, and stock options and patents with AnaCardio. F.D. reported support and stock options from Vifor Pharma as a Vifor employee. F.P. reported consulting fees from Vifor Pharma and Novo Nordisk, honoraria from Servier, Pfizer, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and presidency (unpaid) of the World Heart Federation. S.D.A. reports consulting fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiac Dimension, Cordio, Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Occlutech, Servier, and Vifor Pharma, and grant support from Abbott and Vifor Pharma. M.M. reported consulting fees from Actelion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Servier, Edwards Therapeutics, Livanova, Vifor Pharma, and WindTree Therapeutics. UMG reports grants, support and stock options from Vifor Pharma. M.K. reported consulting fees from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma, grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and grant support from Abbott and Vifor Pharma, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. A.C. reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Servier, Vifor, Abbott, Actimed, Arena, Cardiac Dimensions, Corvia, CVRx, Enopace, ESN Cleer, Faraday, Gore, Impulse Dynamics, Respicardia, and Viatris. P.R. reported grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Fresenius, Novartis, Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma, Relypsa, and Vifor, consulting fees from Bayer, Idorsia, G3P, KBP, and Sanofi, honoraria from Sequana medical, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Fresenius, Novartis, Grünenthal, Stealth Peptides, Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal, Novo Nordisk, Ablative Solutions, Corvidia, Relypsa, and Vifor CardioRenal, and non-financial support from Servier, Fresenius, and G3P. I.L.P. serves on an advisory board for Vifor Pharma Ltd and on the Steering Committee of the DIAMOND clinical trial. B.P. reported consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Sanofi/Lexicon, SCPharmaceuticals, SQinnovations, G3 Pharmaceuticals, Sarfez, KBP biosciences, Cereno scientific, Phase bio, Proton Intel, and Vifor Pharma, stock options from SCPharmaceuticals, SQinnovations, G3 Pharmaceuticals, Sarfez, Cereno scientific, KBP biosciences, Proton Intel, and Vifor Pharma, US Patent 9931412- site specific delivery of eplerenone to the myocardium, and US Patent pending 63/045,783—Histone-modulating agents for the treatment and prevention of organ damage. No other authors reported disclosures., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In healthy volunteers, the kidney deploys compensatory post-diuretic sodium reabsorption (CPDSR) following loop diuretic-induced natriuresis, minimizing sodium excretion and producing a neutral sodium balance. CPDSR is extrapolated to non-euvolemic populations as a diuretic resistance mechanism; however, its importance in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is unknown., Methods and Results: Patients with ADHF in the Mechanisms of Diuretic Resistance cohort receiving intravenous loop diuretics (462 administrations in 285 patients) underwent supervised urine collections entailing an immediate pre-diuretic spot urine sample, then 6-h (diuretic-induced natriuresis period) and 18-h (post-diuretic period) urine collections. The average spot urine sodium concentration immediately prior to diuretic administration [median 15 h (13-17) after last diuretic] was 64 ± 33 mmol/L with only 4% of patients having low (<20 mmol/L) urine sodium consistent with CPDSR. Paradoxically, greater 6-h diuretic-induced natriuresis was associated with larger 18-h post-diuretic spontaneous natriuresis (r = 0.7, P < 0.001). Higher pre-diuretic urine sodium to creatinine ratio (r = 0.37, P < 0.001) was the strongest predictor of post-diuretic spontaneous natriuresis. In a subgroup of patients (n = 43) randomized to protocol-driven intensified diuretic therapies, the mean diuretic-induced natriuresis increased three-fold. In contrast to the substantial decrease in spontaneous natriuresis predicted by CPDSR, no change in post-diuretic spontaneous natriuresis was observed (P = 0.47)., Conclusion: On a population level, CPDSR was not an important driver of diuretic resistance in hypervolemic ADHF. Contrary to CPDSR, a greater diuretic-induced natriuresis predicted a larger post-diuretic spontaneous natriuresis. Basal sodium avidity, rather than diuretic-induced CPDSR, appears to be the predominant determinate of both diuretic-induced and post-diuretic natriuresis in hypervolemic ADHF., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of dapagliflozin on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: In a post hoc analysis of DAPA-HF, we examined serious adverse event reports related to ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest, in addition to adjudicated sudden death. The effect of dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, on the composite of the first occurrence of any serious ventricular arrhythmia, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or sudden death was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. A serious ventricular arrhythmia was reported in 115 (2.4%) of the 4744 patients in DAPA-HF (ventricular fibrillation in 15 patients, ventricular tachycardia in 86, 'other' ventricular arrhythmia/tachyarrhythmia in 12, and torsade de pointes in 2 patients). A total of 206 (41%) of the 500 cardiovascular deaths occurred suddenly. Eight patients survived resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Independent predictors of the composite outcome (first occurrence of any serious ventricular arrhythmia, resuscitated cardiac arrest or sudden death), ranked by chi-square value, were log-transformed N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, history of ventricular arrhythmia, left ventricular ejection fraction, systolic blood pressure, history of myocardial infarction, male sex, body mass index, serum sodium concentration, non-white race, treatment with dapagliflozin, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Of participants assigned to dapagliflozin, 140/2373 patients (5.9%) experienced the composite outcome compared with 175/2371 patients (7.4%) in the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.63-0.99), P = 0.037], and the effect was consistent across each of the components of the composite outcome., Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of any serious ventricular arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, or sudden death when added to conventional therapy in patients with HFrEF., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier: NCT03036124 (DAPA-HF)., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency experience poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We evaluated the impact of intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) vs. placebo on HRQoL for the AFFIRM-AHF population., Methods and Results: The baseline 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12), which was completed for 1058 (535 and 523) patients in the FCM and placebo groups, respectively, was administered prior to randomization and at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 52. The baseline KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) mean ± standard error was 38.7 ± 0.9 (FCM group) and 37.1 ± 0.8 (placebo group); corresponding values for the clinical summary score (CSS) were 40.9 ± 0.9 and 40.1 ± 0.9. At Week 2, changes in OSS and CSS were similar for FCM and placebo. From Week 4 to Week 24, patients assigned to FCM had significantly greater improvements in OSS and CSS scores vs. placebo [adjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval, CI) at Week 4: 2.9 (0.5-5.3, P = 0.018) for OSS and 2.8 (0.3-5.3, P = 0.029) for CSS; adjusted mean difference (95% CI) at Week 24: 3.0 (0.3-5.6, P = 0.028) for OSS and 2.9 (0.2-5.6, P = 0.035) for CSS]. At Week 52, the treatment effect had attenuated but remained in favour of FCM., Conclusion: In iron-deficient patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% who had stabilized after an episode of acute HF, treatment with IV FCM, compared with placebo, results in clinically meaningful beneficial effects on HRQoL as early as 4 weeks after treatment initiation, lasting up to Week 24., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Secondary (or functional) mitral regurgitation (SMR) occurs frequently in chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, resulting from LV remodelling that prevents coaptation of the valve leaflets. Secondary mitral regurgitation contributes to progression of the symptoms and signs of HF and confers worse prognosis. The management of HF patients with SMR is complex and requires timely referral to a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Optimization of pharmacological and device therapy according to guideline recommendations is crucial. Further management requires careful clinical and imaging assessment, addressing the anatomical and functional features of the mitral valve and left ventricle, overall HF status, and relevant comorbidities. Evidence concerning surgical correction of SMR is sparse and it is doubtful whether this approach improves prognosis. Transcatheter repair has emerged as a promising alternative, but the conflicting results of current randomized trials require careful interpretation. This collaborative position statement, developed by four key associations of the European Society of Cardiology-the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)-presents an updated practical approach to the evaluation and management of patients with HF and SMR based upon a Heart Team approach., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In this secondary analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, we sought to evaluate whether the benefits of empagliflozin varied by baseline health status and how empagliflozin impacted patient-reported outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction., Methods and Results: Health status was assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaires-clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). The influence of baseline KCCQ-CSS (analyzed by tertiles) on the effect of empagliflozin on major outcomes was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. Responder analyses were performed to assess the odds of improvement and deterioration in KCCQ scores related to treatment with empagliflozin. Empagliflozin reduced the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization regardless of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertiles [hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (0.68-1.02), HR 0.74 (0.58-0.94), and HR 0.61 (0.46-0.82) for <62.5, 62.6-85.4, and ≥85.4 score tertiles, respectively; P-trend = 0.10]. Empagliflozin improved KCCQ-CSS, total symptom score, and overall summary score at 3, 8, and 12 months. More patients on empagliflozin had ≥5-point [odds ratio (OR) 1.20 (1.05-1.37)], 10-point [OR 1.26 (1.10-1.44)], and 15-point [OR 1.29 (1.12-1.48)] improvement and fewer had ≥5-point [OR 0.75 (0.64-0.87)] deterioration in KCCQ-CSS at 3 months. These benefits were sustained at 8 and 12 months and were similar for other KCCQ domains., Conclusion: Empagliflozin improved cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization risk across the range of baseline health status. Empagliflozin improved health status across various domains, and this benefit was sustained during long-term follow-up., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03057977., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The EMPERIAL (Effect of EMPagliflozin on ExeRcise ability and HF symptoms In patients with chronic heArt faiLure) trials evaluated the effects of empagliflozin on exercise ability and patient-reported outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (EF), with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D), reporting, for the first time, the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibition in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)., Methods and Results: HF patients with reduced EF (HFrEF) (≤40%, N = 312, EMPERIAL-Reduced) or preserved EF (>40%, N = 315, EMPERIAL-Preserved), with and without T2D, were randomized to empagliflozin 10 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-minute walk test distance (6MWTD) change to Week 12. Key secondary endpoints included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score (KCCQ-TSS) and Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire Self-Administered Standardized format (CHQ-SAS) dyspnoea score. 6MWTD median (95% confidence interval) differences, empagliflozin vs. placebo, at Week 12 were -4.0 m (-16.0, 6.0; P = 0.42) and 4.0 m (-5.0, 13.0; P = 0.37) in EMPERIAL-Reduced and EMPERIAL-Preserved, respectively. As the primary endpoint was non-significant, all secondary endpoints were considered exploratory. Changes in KCCQ-TSS and CHQ-SAS dyspnoea score were non-significant. Improvements with empagliflozin in exploratory pre-specified analyses of KCCQ-TSS responder rates, congestion score, and diuretic use in EMPERIAL-Reduced are hypothesis generating. Empagliflozin adverse events were consistent with those previously reported., Conclusion: The primary outcome for both trials was neutral. Empagliflozin was well tolerated in HF patients, with and without T2D, with a safety profile consistent with that previously reported in T2D. Hypothesis-generating improvements in exploratory analyses of secondary endpoints with empagliflozin in HFrEF were observed., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: We sought to describe the clinical presentation, management, and 6-month outcomes in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) globally., Methods and Results: In 2011, >100 national and affiliated member cardiac societies of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) were contacted to contribute to a global registry on PPCM, under the auspices of the ESC EURObservational Research Programme. These societies were tasked with identifying centres who could participate in this registry. In low-income countries, e.g. Mozambique or Burkina Faso, where there are no national societies due to a shortage of cardiologists, we identified potential participants through abstracts and publications and encouraged participation into the study. Seven hundred and thirty-nine women were enrolled in 49 countries in Europe (33%), Africa (29%), Asia-Pacific (15%), and the Middle East (22%). Mean age was 31 ± 6 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 31 ± 10%, and 10% had a previous pregnancy complicated by PPCM. Symptom-onset occurred most often within 1 month of delivery (44%). At diagnosis, 67% of patients had severe (NYHA III/IV) symptoms and 67% had a LVEF ≤35%. Fifteen percent received bromocriptine with significant regional variation (Europe 15%, Africa 26%, Asia-Pacific 8%, the Middle East 4%, P < 0.001). Follow-up was available for 598 (81%) women. Six-month mortality was 6% overall, lowest in Europe (4%), and highest in the Middle East (10%). Most deaths were due to heart failure (42%) or sudden (30%). Re-admission for any reason occurred in 10% (with just over half of these for heart failure) and thromboembolic events in 7%. Myocardial recovery (LVEF > 50%) occurred only in 46%, most commonly in Asia-Pacific (62%), and least commonly in the Middle East (25%). Neonatal death occurred in 5% with marked regional variation (Europe 2%, the Middle East 9%)., Conclusion: Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a global disease, but clinical presentation and outcomes vary by region. Just under half of women experience myocardial recovery. Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a disease with substantial maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Concern about hypotension often leads to withholding of beneficial therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, which lowers systolic blood pressure (SBP),according to baseline SBP in Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF)., Methods and Results: Key inclusion criteria were: New York Heart Association Class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and SBP ≥95 mmHg. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were examined using SBP as both a categorical and continuous variable. A total of 1205 patients had a baseline SBP <110 mmHg; 981 ≥ 110 < 120; 1149 ≥ 120 < 130; and 1409 ≥ 130 mmHg. The placebo-corrected reduction in SBP from baseline to 2 weeks with dapagliflozin was -2.54 (-3.33 to -1.76) mmHg (P < 0.001), with a smaller between-treatment difference in patients in the lowest compared to highest SBP category. Patients in the lowest SBP category had a much higher rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome [20.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.6-24.2] than those in the highest SBP category (13.8, 11.7-16.4). The benefit and safety of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of SBP; hazard ratio (95% CI) in each SBP group, lowest to highest: 0.76 (0.60-0.97), 0.76 (0.57-1.02), 0.81 (0.61-1.08), and 0.67 (0.51-0.87), P interaction = 0.78. Study drug discontinuation did not differ between dapagliflozin and placebo across the SBP categories examined., Conclusion: Dapagliflozin had a small effect on SBP in patients with HFrEF and was superior to placebo in improving outcomes, and well tolerated, across the range of SBP included in DAPA-HF., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03036124., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In the DAPA-HF trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (HF) and death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. We examined whether this benefit was consistent in relation to background HF therapy., Methods and Results: In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effect of study treatment in the following yes/no subgroups: diuretic, digoxin, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, implanted cardioverter-defibrillating (ICD) device, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. We also examined the effect of study drug according to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker dose, beta-blocker (BB) dose, and MRA (≥50% and <50% of target dose). We analysed the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or a worsening HF event. Most randomized patients (n = 4744) were treated with a diuretic (84%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (94%), and BB (96%); 52% of those taking a BB and 38% taking a RAS blocker were treated with ≥50% of the recommended dose. Overall, the dapagliflozin vs. placebo hazard ratio (HR) was 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.85] for the primary composite endpoint (P < 0.0001). The effect of dapagliflozin was consistent across all subgroups examined: the HR ranged from 0.57 to 0.86 for primary endpoint, with no significant randomized treatment-by-subgroup interaction. For example, the HR in patients taking a RAS blocker, BB, and MRA at baseline was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.86) compared with 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.94) in those not on all three of these treatments (P-interaction 0.64)., Conclusion: The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent regardless of background therapy for HF., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: The current pandemic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 infects a wide age group but predominantly elderly individuals, especially men and those with cardiovascular disease. Recent reports suggest an association with use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a functional receptor for coronaviruses. Higher ACE2 concentrations might lead to increased vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 in patients on RAAS inhibitors., Methods and Results: We measured ACE2 concentrations in 1485 men and 537 women with heart failure (index cohort). Results were validated in 1123 men and 575 women (validation cohort).The median age was 69 years for men and 75 years for women. The strongest predictor of elevated concentrations of ACE2 in both cohorts was male sex (estimate = 0.26, P < 0.001; and 0.19, P < 0.001, respectively). In the index cohort, use of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) was not an independent predictor of plasma ACE2. In the validation cohort, ACE inhibitor (estimate = -0.17, P = 0.002) and ARB use (estimate = -0.15, P = 0.03) were independent predictors of lower plasma ACE2, while use of an MRA (estimate = 0.11, P = 0.04) was an independent predictor of higher plasma ACE2 concentrations., Conclusion: In two independent cohorts of patients with heart failure, plasma concentrations of ACE2 were higher in men than in women, but use of neither an ACE inhibitor nor an ARB was associated with higher plasma ACE2 concentrations. These data might explain the higher incidence and fatality rate of COVID-19 in men, but do not support previous reports suggesting that ACE inhibitors or ARBs increase the vulnerability for COVID-19 through increased plasma ACE2 concentrations., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

It has been long known that incessant tachycardia and severe hypertension can cause heart failure (HF). In recent years, it has also been recognized that more modest elevations in either heart rate (HR) or blood pressure (BP), if sustained, can be a risk factor both for the development of HF and for mortality in patients with established HF. Heart rate and BP are thus both modifiable risk factors in the setting of HF. What is less clear is the question whether routine systematic monitoring of these simple physiological parameters to a target value can offer clinical benefits. Measuring these parameters clinically during patient review is recommended in HF management in most HF guidelines, both in the acute and chronic phases of the disease. More sophisticated systems now allow long-term automatic or remote monitoring of HR and BP and whether this more detailed patient information can improve clinical outcomes will require prospective RCTs to evaluate. In addition, analysis of patterns of both HR and BP variability can give insights into autonomic function, which is also frequently abnormal in HF. This window into autonomic dysfunction in our HF patients can also provide further independent prognostic information and may in itself be target for future interventional therapies. This article, developed during a consensus meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC concerning the role of physiological monitoring in the complex multi-morbid HF patient, highlights the importance of repeated assessment of HR and BP in HF, and reviews gaps in our knowledge and potential future directions., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. © The Author(s) 2019.)

Although heart failure (HF) is considered as a cardiogeriatric syndrome, elderly and very elderly patients are under-represented in the vast majority of clinical trials investigating novel drugs and therapies in this population. The homoeostatic systems of elderly subjects are very fragile, and the management of HF accompanied by numerous comorbidities requires a holistic approach towards the patient, with special emphasis not only on psychosomatic problems but also on the individual (including social) needs of each particular patient, along with the support for the family and/or caregivers. In this article, we summarize current evidence regarding pharmacotherapy of elderly patients with HF and summarize the clinical problems occurring in this population., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. © The Author(s) 2019.)

The 2016 ESC/HFA heart failure (HF) guidelines emphasize the importance of identifying and treating iron deficiency (ID) in patients with HF. Iron deficiency can occur in half or more of HF sufferers, depending on age and the phase of the disease. Iron deficiency can be a cause of anaemia, but it is also common even without anaemia, meaning that ID is a separate entity, which should be screened for within the HF population. Although assessment of iron stores in bone marrow samples is the most accurate method to investigate iron status, it is not practical in most HF patients. Levels of circulating iron biomarkers are an easily available alternative; especially, ferritin and transferrin saturation (Tsat). In patients with HF serum ferritin level <100 µg/L (regardless of Tsat value) or between 100 and 299 µg/L with Tsat <20% are considered as recommended criteria for the diagnosis of ID, criteria which have been used in the clinical trials in HF that have led to a recommendation to treat ID with intravenous iron. We discuss the optimal measures of iron biomarkers in patients with HF in order to screen and monitor iron status and introduce some novel ways to assess iron status., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. © The Author(s) 2019.)

Acute heart failure (HF) and in particular, cardiogenic shock are associated with high morbidity and mortality. A therapeutic dilemma is that the use of positive inotropic agents, such as catecholamines or phosphodiesterase-inhibitors, is associated with increased mortality. Newer drugs, such as levosimendan or omecamtiv mecarbil, target sarcomeres to improve systolic function putatively without elevating intracellular Ca2+. Although meta-analyses of smaller trials suggested that levosimendan is associated with a better outcome than dobutamine, larger comparative trials failed to confirm this observation. For omecamtiv mecarbil, Phase II clinical trials suggest a favourable haemodynamic profile in patients with acute and chronic HF, and a Phase III morbidity/mortality trial in patients with chronic HF has recently begun. Here, we review the pathophysiological basis of systolic dysfunction in patients with HF and the mechanisms through which different inotropic agents improve cardiac function. Since adenosine triphosphate and reactive oxygen species production in mitochondria are intimately linked to the processes of excitation-contraction coupling, we also discuss the impact of inotropic agents on mitochondrial bioenergetics and redox regulation. Therefore, this position paper should help identify novel targets for treatments that could not only safely improve systolic and diastolic function acutely, but potentially also myocardial structure and function over a longer-term., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Study Objective: To evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) in patients with moderate-to-severe central sleep apnea (CSA) through 3 years of therapy., Methods: Patients in the remedē System Pivotal Trial were observed every 3 months after implant until US Food and Drug Administration approval. At the time of approval and study closure, all patients completed 24 months of follow-up; 33 patients had not reached the 36-month visit. Sleep metrics (polysomnography) and echocardiographic parameters are reported at baseline, 12, 18, and 24 months, in addition to available 36-month sleep results from polygraphy. Safety was assessed through 36 months; however, analysis focused through 24 months and available 36-month results are provided., Results: Patients were assessed at 24 (n = 109) and 36 (n = 60) months. Baseline characteristics included mean age 64 years, 91% male, and mean apnea-hypopnea index 47 events per hour. Sleep metrics (apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), central apnea index, arousal index, oxygen desaturation index, rapid eye movement sleep) remained improved through 24 and 36 months with continuous use of PNS therapy. At least 60% of patients in the treatment group achieved at least 50% reduction in AHI through 24 months. Serious adverse events (SAEs) related to the remedē System implant procedure, device, or therapy through 24 months were reported by 10% of patients, no unanticipated adverse device effects or deaths, and all events resolved. No additional related SAEs were reported between 24 and 36 months., Conclusion: These data suggest beneficial effects of long-term PNS in patients with CSA appear to sustain through 36 months with no new safety concerns., Trial Registration: NCT01816776., (© Sleep Research Society 2019. Published by Oxford University Press [on behalf of the Sleep Research Society].)

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the 'HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm'. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for HF symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e'), left ventricular (LV) filling pressure estimated using E/e', left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2-4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cardiovascular safety of marathon running in recreational runners remains unclear. We set up this study to comprehensively evaluate the effects of a marathon run on the profile of cardiovascular stress biomarkers in connection with transthoracic echocardiography., Design and Methods: Thirty-three healthy male amateur runners, aged ≥50 years (mean age 57 ± 7) were enrolled. Venous blood samples were obtained before the marathon, just after the race, 2-4 and seven days after the marathon. Using novel single molecule counting technology we measured: plasma concentrations of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and endothelin-1. N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide was measured using electrochemiluminescence. Each participant had transthoracic echocardiography before and immediately after the race., Results: We observed a sharp rise in the levels of all biomarkers after the race (all p < 0.01), which subsequently normalized after 2-4 days and stayed within normal range after seven days. Runners with intensive training programmes (>169 km/month, a median for the studied group) had lower hs-cTnI leak after the race (median 15.11 ng/ml and 31.2 ng/ml, respectively; p < 0.05). Neither transthoracic echocardiography measures of ventricles nor strain rates changed after the run. We observed a decrease in the left atrial volume index and increase in the maximal right atrial volumes (all p < 0.05). Changes in Doppler indices of diastolic function suggestive of alteration in left ventricular relaxation were observed., Conclusions: Marathon run is associated with sharp and significant rises in the biomarkers of cardiovascular stress. The profile of these changes, however, along with echocardiographic parameters, does not suggest irreversible myocardial damage.