Search

Importance: Sudden death is a leading cause of death after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The Prospective ARNi vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI (PARADISE-MI) and Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction (VALIANT) trials enrolled patients with pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular dysfunction after AMI. Whether the prognosis in such patients has changed over time has not been examined., Objective: To compare the rate of sudden death/resuscitated cardiac arrest (RCA) after AMI in the PARADISE-MI and VALIANT trials., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of multicenter randomized clinical trials enrolling patients after AMI. In the primary analysis, the VALIANT cohort was restricted to patients with "PARADISE-MI-like" characteristics (eg, at least 1 augmenting risk factor and no history of heart failure). The baseline characteristics of people in both trials were compared. The VALIANT trial enrolled from December 1998 to June 2001, and the PARADISE-MI trial enrolled between December 2016, and March 2020. The median follow-up in the VALIANT and PARADISE-MI trials was 24.7 and 22 months, respectively. People with AMI, complicated by pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular dysfunction, were included in the analysis., Exposure: Sudden death after AMI., Results: A total of 5661 patients were included in the PARADISE-MI cohort (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [11.5] years; 4298 male [75.9%]), 9617 were included in the VALIANT (PARADISE-MI-like) cohort (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.5] years; 6504 male [67.6%]), and 14 703 patients were included in the VALIANT (total) cohort (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [11.8] years; 10 133 male [68.9%]). In the PARADISE-MI-like cohort of the VALIANT trial, 707 of 9617 participants (7.4%) experienced sudden death/RCA. A total of 148 of 5661 people (2.6%) in the PARADISE-MI trial experienced sudden death/RCA. Sudden death rates were highest in the first month after infarction in both trials: 19.3 (95% CI, 16.4-22.6) per 100 person-years in the VALIANT trial and 9.5 (95% CI, 7.0-12.7) per 100 person-years in the PARADISE-MI trial, and these rates declined steadily thereafter. Compared with the VALIANT cohort, people in the PARADISE-MI trial were more often treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for their qualifying AMI and received a β-blocker, statin, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist more frequently., Conclusions and Relevance: After AMI, the risk of sudden death/RCA was highest in the first month, declining rapidly thereafter. Results revealed that compared with counterparts from 20 years ago, the rate of sudden death/RCA in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and/or pulmonary congestion was 2- to 3-fold lower in people receiving contemporary management. Interventions to further protect people in the highest risk first month after infarction are needed., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02924727.

Aims: Pharmacologic blockade of neurohormonal pathways in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) can result in acute changes in biomarkers of kidney function. We evaluated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril on initial changes in serum creatinine and the association of these changes with longer-term outcomes among participants in PARADISE-MI., Methods and Results: In this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, event-driven trial, 5661 patients with an acute MI were assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril, with no run-in. The frequency of an initial pre-specified increase in serum creatinine (≥26.5 or ≥44 μmol/L) from baseline to week 1 was compared between arms. Multivariable Cox regression models were fit to examine the association of acute changes in serum creatinine with the primary cardiovascular composite outcome (cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or outpatient heart failure), all-cause mortality, and longer-term changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). An initial increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 μmol/L occurred in 155 of 2604 (6.0%) patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 120 of 2603 (4.6%) patients assigned to ramipril (odds ratio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.68). The corresponding numbers for an increase ≥44 μmol/L were 57 (2.2%) and 42 (1.6%), respectively (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.92-2.05). A higher odds of increased serum creatinine ≥26.5 and ≥44 μmol/L for sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril appeared to be restricted to patients who had a greater decline in systolic blood pressure over the same period (p-interaction = 0.05 and 0.001, respectively). In multivariable analyses, neither an acute increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 or ≥44 μmol/L was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, or differences in longer-term eGFR slope. Findings were similar across the randomized treatment arms (p-interaction >0.6 for all)., Conclusions: Following acute MI, patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan had a higher frequency of initial increases in serum creatinine at 1 week, compared with ramipril. In adjusted models, initial increases in serum creatinine with either treatment were not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes or changes in longer-term kidney function., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: Although education in self-management is thought to be an important aspect of the care of patients with heart failure, little is known about whether self-rated knowledge of self-management is associated with outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between patient-reported knowledge of self-management and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: Using individual patient data from three recent clinical trials enrolling participants with HFrEF, we examined patient characteristics and clinical outcomes according to responses to the 'self-efficacy' questions of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. One question quantifies patients' understanding of how to prevent heart failure exacerbations ('prevention' question) and the other how to manage complications when they arise ('response' question). Self-reported answers from patients were pragmatically divided into: poor (do not understand at all, do not understand very well, somewhat understand), fair (mostly understand), and good (completely understand). Cox-proportional hazard models were used to evaluate time-to-first occurrence of each endpoint, and negative binomial regression analysis was performed to compare the composite of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death across the above-defined groups. Of patients (n = 17 629) completing the 'prevention' question, 4197 (23.8%), 6897 (39.1%), and 6535 (37.1%) patients had poor, fair, and good self-rated knowledge, respectively. Of those completing the 'response' question (n = 17 637), 4033 (22.9%), 5463 (31.0%), and 8141 (46.2%) patients had poor, fair, and good self-rated knowledge, respectively. For both questions, patients with 'poor' knowledge were older, more often female, and had a worse heart failure profile but similar treatment. The rates (95% confidence interval) per 100 person-years for the primary composite outcome for 'poor', 'moderate' and 'good' self-rated knowledge in answer to the 'prevention' question were 12.83 (12.11-13.60), 12.08 (11.53-12.65) and 11.55 (11.00-12.12), respectively, and for the 'response' question were 12.88 (12.13-13.67), 12.22 (11.60-12.86) and 11.56 (11.07-12.07), respectively. The lower event rates in patients with 'good' self-rate knowledge were accounted for by lower rates of cardiovascular (and all-cause) death and not hospitalization for worsening heart failure., Conclusions: Poor patient-reported 'self-efficacy' may be associated with higher rates of mortality. Evaluation of knowledge of 'self-efficacy' may provide prognostic information and a guide to which patients may benefit from further education about self-management., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background Studies demonstrated sex differences in outcomes following acute myocardial infarction, with women more likely to develop heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to reduce cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results A total of 5661 patients (1363 women [24%]) with acute myocardial infarction complicated by reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40%), pulmonary congestion, or both and ≥1 of 8 risk-augmenting factors were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or incident HF. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and safety events were compared according to sex, a prespecified subgroup. Female participants were older and had more comorbidities. After multivariable adjustment, women and men were at similar risks for cardiovascular death or all-cause death. Women were more likely to have first HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34 [95% CI, 1.05-1.70]; P =0.02) and total HF hospitalizations (HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.05-1.84]; P =0.02). Sex did not significantly modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril on the primary outcome ( P for interaction=0.11). Conclusions In contemporary patients who presented with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both, following acute myocardial infarction, women had a higher incidence of HF during follow-up. Sex did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan relative to ramipril. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Aim: Patients with heart failure (HF) often suffer from a range of comorbidities, which may affect their health status. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different comorbidities on health status in patients with HF and reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Methods and Results: Using individual patient data from HFrEF (ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM-HF, DAPA-HF) and HFpEF (TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF) trials, we examined the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) domain scores and overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) across a range of cardiorespiratory (angina, atrial fibrillation [AF], stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]) and other comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease [CKD], anaemia). Of patients with HFrEF (n = 20 159), 36.2% had AF, 33.9% CKD, 33.9% diabetes, 31.4% obesity, 25.5% angina, 12.2% COPD, 8.4% stroke, and 4.4% anaemia; the corresponding proportions in HFpEF (n = 6563) were: 54.0% AF, 48.7% CKD, 43.4% diabetes, 53.3% obesity, 28.6% angina, 14.7% COPD, 10.2% stroke, and 6.5% anaemia. HFpEF patients had lower KCCQ domain scores and KCCQ-OSS (67.8 vs. 71.3) than HFrEF patients. Physical limitations, social limitations and quality of life domains were reduced more than symptom frequency and symptom burden domains. In both HFrEF and HFpEF, COPD, angina, anaemia, and obesity were associated with the lowest scores. An increasing number of comorbidities was associated with decreasing scores (e.g. KCCQ-OSS 0 vs. ≥4 comorbidities: HFrEF 76.8 vs. 66.4; HFpEF 73.7 vs. 65.2)., Conclusions: Cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities are common in both HFrEF and HFpEF patients and most are associated with reductions in health status although the impact varied among comorbidities, by the number of comorbidities, and by HF phenotype. Treating/correcting comorbidity is a therapeutic approach that may improve the health status of patients with HF., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. We examined these differences in PARADISE-MI., Methods and Results: Overall, 23.0% were randomized in Eastern Europe/Russia, 17.5% in Western Europe, 12.2% in Southern Europe, 10.1% in Northern Europe, 12.0% in Latin America (LA), 9.3% in North America (NA), 10.0% in East/South-East Asia and 5.8% in South Asia (SA). Those from Asia, particularly SA, were different from patients enrolled in the other regions, being younger and thinner. They also differed in terms of comorbidities (high prevalence of diabetes and low prevalence of atrial fibrillation), type of myocardial infarction (more often ST-elevation myocardial infarction), and treatment (low rate of primary percutaneous coronary intervention). By contrast, patients from LA did not differ meaningfully from those randomized in Europe or NA. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (34.8%) and beta-blockers (65.5%) was low in SA, whereas mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use was lowest in NA (22%) and highest in Eastern Europe/Russia (53%). Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure varied two-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (4.6/100 person-years) and the highest in LA (9.2/100 person-years). Rates of incident heart failure varied almost six-fold among regions, with the lowest rate in SA (1.0/100 person-years) and the highest in Northern Europe (5.9/100 person-years). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was not modified by region., Conclusion: In PARADISE-MI, there were substantial regional differences in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes. Although the generalizability of these findings to a 'real-world' unselected population may be limited, these findings underscore the importance of considering both regional and within-region differences when designing global clinical trials., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The rate of stroke in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction but without atrial fibrillation (AF), is uncertain as is whether it is possible to reliably predict the risk of stroke in these patients., Methods: We validated a previously developed simple risk model for stroke among patients enrolled in the I-Preserve trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function) and PARAGON-HF trial (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction). The risk model consisted of 3 variables: history of previous stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level., Results: Of the 8924 patients included in the pooled trial dataset, 5126 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 190 (3.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow-up of 3.6 years (rate 10.5 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: second tertile hazard ratio, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.17-2.71); third tertile hazard ratio, 3.03 (95% CI, 2.06-4.47), with the first tertile as reference. For patients in the third tertile, the occurrence rate of stroke was 17.7 per 1000 patient-years, similar to that in patients with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.7 per 1000 patient-years), and those with AF who were receiving anticoagulation (14.5 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C index of 0.81 (0.68-0.91) and a simple score could be created from the model., Conclusions: A simple risk model can detect a subset of HF and preserved ejection fraction patients without AF who have a higher risk for stroke. The balance of risk-to-benefit in these individuals may justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be prospectively evaluated., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00095238 and NCT01920711., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Kondo received speaker fees from Abbott, Ono Pharma, Otsuka Pharma, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Abiomed. Dr Jering is supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute T32 postdoctoral training grant T32HL007604. Dr Jhund’s employer the University of Glasgow has been remunerated by AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis and Cytokinetics, and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Anand reports receiving fees for serving on a steering committee from AstraZeneca, ARCA biopharma, Amgen, and LivaNova; fees for serving as chair of a data and safety monitoring board from Boston Scientific; fees for serving on an end point committee from Boehringer Ingelheim; and fees for serving on an advisory board from Zensun. Dr Desai 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. Dr Lam 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 nonexecutive director of Us2.ai. Dr Maggioni has received fees for serving on a study committee from Bayer, Novartis, and Fresenius. Dr Martinez has received research grants or honoraria from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gador, Baliarda, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Packer 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. M.C. Petrie is supported by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) Center 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. Dr Pfeffer reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Novartis; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, Corvidia, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) CONNECTs (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi; and has equity in DalCor. Dr Rouleau reports grants and consulting fees from Novartis and consulting fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, MyoKardia, and Sanofi. Dr van Veldhuisen has received fees for serving on a steering committee and travel support from ARCA Biopharma and Corvia Medical. Dr Zannad has served on the advisory board/steering committee/executive committee for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cardior, Ceva Santé Animale, CVRx, GE Healthcare, Janssen, KBP biosciences, LivaNova, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Mundipharma, Quantum Genomics, Relypsa, Roche, Vifor Fresenius; and is cofounder of CardioRenal, CardioVascular Clinical Trialists, and Eshmoun. Dr Zile reports research funding from Novartis and has been a consultant for Novartis, Abbott, Boston Scientific, CVRx, EBR Systems Inc, Endotronics, Ironwood, Merck, Medtronic, and Myokardia V Wave. Dr Solomon 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. Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, DalCor, GSK, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos and personal lecture fees from the Corpus, Abbott, Hikma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier Director, and Global Clinical Trial Partners (GCTP).

Background: Scalable and safe approaches for heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization are needed., Objectives: The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of a virtual care team guided strategy on GDMT optimization in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods: In a multicenter implementation trial, we allocated 252 hospital encounters in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% to a virtual care team guided strategy (107 encounters among 83 patients) or usual care (145 encounters among 115 patients) across 3 centers in an integrated health system. In the virtual care team group, clinicians received up to 1 daily GDMT optimization suggestion from a physician-pharmacist team. The primary effectiveness outcome was in-hospital change in GDMT optimization score (+2 initiations, +1 dose up-titrations, -1 dose down-titrations, -2 discontinuations summed across classes). In-hospital safety outcomes were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee., Results: Among 252 encounters, the mean age was 69 ± 14 years, 85 (34%) were women, 35 (14%) were Black, and 43 (17%) were Hispanic. The virtual care team strategy significantly improved GDMT optimization scores vs usual care (adjusted difference: +1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-1.8; P < 0.001). New initiations (44% vs 23%; absolute difference: +21%; P = 0.001) and net intensifications (44% vs 24%; absolute difference: +20%; P = 0.002) during hospitalization were higher in the virtual care team group, translating to a number needed to intervene of 5 encounters. Overall, 23 (21%) in the virtual care team group and 40 (28%) in usual care experienced 1 or more adverse events (P = 0.30). Acute kidney injury, bradycardia, hypotension, hyperkalemia, and hospital length of stay were similar between groups., Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with HFrEF, a virtual care team guided strategy for GDMT optimization was safe and improved GDMT across multiple hospitals in an integrated health system. Virtual teams represent a centralized and scalable approach to optimize GDMT., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding was provided by the Brigham Health Care Redesign Incubator and Startup Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Mass General Brigham, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr Varshney has received consulting fees from Broadview Ventures. Dr Claggett has received consulting fees from Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Intellia, and Novartis. Dr Eaton is employed at Brigham and Women’s hospital, but is also employed by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr Cunningham has received consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and Occlutech. Dr Choudhry has received research grant support to Brigham and Women‘s Hospital from Merck, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, CVS Health, and Medisafe. Dr Solomon 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/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, 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. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support from, served on advisory boards for, or had speaker engagements with American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; and participates on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Galmed, Novartis, Bayer, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) is a potent predictor of death and heart failure (HF) across multiple populations. We evaluated the prognostic importance of NT-proBNP in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both and ≥1 of 8 risk-augmenting factors enrolled in the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction)., Methods: Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily within 0.5 to 7 days of a MI. Patients with prior HF were excluded. NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT (high-sensitivity troponin T) were collected at randomization in a prespecified substudy of 1129 patients. The primary end point of PARADISE-MI was a composite of cardiovascular death or incident HF (hospitalization or outpatient symptomatic HF), analyzed as time-to-first event; additional end points included all-cause death and the composite of fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke., Results: Median NT-proBNP was 1757 ng/L (25th-75th percentiles, 896-3462 ng/L) at randomization (4.0±1.8 days after the index MI). Patients in the highest quartile of NT-proBNP were older, more commonly women and had more hypertension, atrial fibrillation, renal dysfunction, and pulmonary congestion on presentation (all P <0.001). NT-proBNP was strongly associated with the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.45 per doubling of NT-proBNP; [95% CI, 1.23-1.70]), adjusted for clinical variables and baseline hs-cTnT. NT-proBNP was also independently associated with all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38-2.21]) and fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.45]). NT-proBNP did not significantly modify the neutral treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan relative to ramipril ( P interaction=0.46)., Conclusions: Within the first week of a high-risk MI NT-proBNP is associated with incident HF, death and atherosclerotic events. This prognostic information is independent of hs-cTnT., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Braunwald has received research grants through his institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis and consultancies with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, and Verve. Dr Claggett has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cardurion, Corvia, and Novartis. Dr Granger has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke Clinical Research Institute, US Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products LP, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceutic Company, and Pfizer and consulting fees from Abbvie, Abiomed, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Corporation US, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardionomic, CeleCor Therapeutics, HengRui US, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products LP, Medscape LLC, Medtronic Inc, Merck, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Novo Nordisk, Novartis Pharmaceutic Company, Pfizer, Phillips, and Reata and owns equity in Tenac.io. Dr Køber has received payments to his institution from AstraZeneca and Novartis for participation in trial executive communities and speaker’s honoraria from Novo Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer. Dr Mann has received consulting fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb and serves as a member on the scientific advisory board for Tenaya, Renovacor, and Cardurion. Dr Lewis has received personal fees from Amgen and Dal-Cor. Dr Maggioni has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Fresenius for participation in study committees. Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, Dal-Cor, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos and personal lecture fees from the Corpus, Abbott, Hikma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.Org, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier Director, and Global Clinical Trial Partners. Dr Pfeffer has received research grant support through his institution from Novartis, has been a consultant to Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, Corvidia, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Lexicon, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute CONNECTs (Collaborating Network of Networks for Evaluating COVID-19 and Therapeutic Strategies; Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and has equity in DalCor. Dr Prescott is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals and owns Novartis stock provided as part of her salary. Dr Rouleau has been a consultant to Bayer, Novartis, AstraZenaca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 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, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and Puretech Health. Dr Steg has received research grants from Amarin, Bayer, Sanofi, and Servier and speaker or consultant fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Kowa, Idorsia, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr von Lewinski is on the advisory board and speakers bureau of Abiomed, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Servier and receives consulting fees from Recardio Inc, Bayer, and Vaxxinity Inc. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: How patient characteristics and outcomes vary according to the duration of heart failure (HF) is unknown in individuals with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. We compared these, and the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, according to the time from diagnosis of HF in a prespecified analysis of the DELIVER trial (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure)., Methods: HF duration was categorized as ≤6 months, >6 to 12 months, >1 to 2 years, >2 to 5 years, or >5 years. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. The effect of treatment was examined by HF duration category., Results: The number of patients in each category was as follows: 1160 (≤6 months), 842 (>6 to 12 months), 995 (>1 to 2 years), 1569 (>2 to 5 years), and 1692 (>5 years). Patients with longer-duration HF were older and had more comorbidities with worse symptoms. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with HF duration: ≤6 months, 7.3 (95% CI, 6.3 to 8.4); >6 to 12 months, 7.1 (6.0 to 8.5); >1 to 2 years, 8.4 (7.2 to 9.7); >2 to 5 years, 8.9 (7.9 to 9.9); and >5 years, 10.6 (9.5 to 11.7). Similar trends were seen for other outcomes. The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent across HF duration category: the hazard ratio for the primary outcome in the ≤6-month group was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.91); >6 to 12 months, 0.78 (0.55 to 1.12); >1 to 2 years, 0.81 (0.60 to 1.09); >2 to 5 years, 0.97 (0.77 to 1.22); and >5 years, 0.78 (0.64 to 0.96; P interaction =0.41). The absolute benefit was greatest in longest-duration HF; the number needed to treat for HF >5 years was 24 versus 32 for ≤6 months., Conclusions: Patients with longer-duration HF were older, had more comorbidities and symptoms, and had higher rates of worsening HF and death. The benefits of dapagliflozin were consistent across HF duration. Even patients with long-standing HF and generally mild symptoms are not stable, and it is not too late for such patients to benefit from a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03619213.

Aim: PARADISE-MI examined the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pulmonary congestion, or both. We sought to assess the trajectory of pulmonary congestion using lung ultrasound (LUS) and its association with cardiac structure and function in a pre-specified substudy., Methods and Results: Patients without prior heart failure (HF) underwent eight-zone LUS and echocardiography at baseline (±2 days of randomization) and after 8 months. B-lines were quantified offline, blinded to treatment, clinical findings, time point, and outcomes. Among 152 patients (median age 65, 32% women, mean LVEF 41%), B-lines were detectable in 87% at baseline [median B-line count: 4 (interquartile range 2-8)]. Among 115 patients with LUS data at baseline and follow-up, B-lines decreased significantly from baseline (mean ± standard deviation: -1.6 ± 7.3; P = 0.018). The proportion of patients without pulmonary congestion at follow-up was significantly higher in those with fewer B-lines at baseline. Adjusted for baseline, B-lines at follow-up were on average 6 (95% confidence interval: 3-9) higher in patients who experienced an intercurrent HF event vs. those who did not (P = 0.001). A greater number of B-lines at baseline was associated with larger left atrial size, higher E/e' and E/A ratios, greater degree of mitral regurgitation, worse right ventricular systolic function, and higher tricuspid regurgitation velocity (P-trend <0.05 for all)., Conclusion: In this AMI cohort, B-lines, indicating pulmonary congestion, were common at baseline and, on average, decreased significantly from baseline to follow-up. Worse pulmonary congestion was associated with prognostically important echocardiographic markers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: E.P.’s employer has received support from Novartis for consulting work, and she has consulted for scPharmaceuticals outside of the submitted work. She has received research support from NHLBI and NIDDK. B.C. reports consultancy fees from Novartis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardurion, Corvia, and Myokardia. A.K. reports personal fees from Argus Cognitive, Inc., outside the submitted work and research grant from GE Healthcare, outside the submitted work. M.C. reports Institutional Research Grants from Abbott, Novartis, Pfizer; Institutional Trial Funding from Novartis, Corvia; travel grants, speaker and advisory board honoraria from Abbott, Abiomed, Amicus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GE Healthcare, Krka Pharma, LivaNova, Medtronic, Novartis, Orion Corporation, Pfizer, Sanofi, Swixx, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. E.B.W. reported receiving personal fees from Amarin (lectures), Bayer (lectures and advisory board activities), Boehringer Ingelheim (lectures and advisory board activities), Daiichi-Sankyo (lectures), CVRX (lectures), and Novartis (lectures and advisory board activities) outside the submitted work. M.P.L. and J.G. are employees of Novartis. L.K. reports speaker’s honorarium from Nova, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bayer and Boehringer. J.J.V.M.’s employer, Glasgow University, has received payments from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, DalCor, GSK, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos for his work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities and he has received personal payments from Abbott, Hikma, Ionis, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Servier. S.D.S. has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, NIH/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, US2.AI and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer 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, Puretech Health. M.A.P. reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Novartis; and consulting fees from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly Alliance, Corvidia, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) CONNECTs (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi; and has equity in DalCor. A.S. has received research support from Novartis and Philips Ultrasound through Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and consulting fees from Philips Ultrasound and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 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: The effects of adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) or an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are uncertain, even though the use of all three drugs is recommended in recent guidelines., Methods and Results: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin added to background MRA or ARNI therapy was examined in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF enrolled in the DELIVER trial. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Of 6263 patients, 2667 (42.6%) were treated with an MRA and 301 (4.8%) with an ARNI at baseline. Patients taking either were younger, more often men and had lower systolic blood pressure and ejection fraction; they were also more likely to have prior HF hospitalization. The benefit of dapagliflozin was similar whether patients were receiving these therapies. The hazard ratio for the effect of dapagliflozin compared to placebo on the primary outcome was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.01) for MRA non-users versus 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.91) for MRA users (p interaction  = 0.30). The corresponding values for ARNI non-users and users were 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.45-1.22), respectively (p interaction  = 0.75). None of the adverse events examined was more common with dapagliflozin compared to placebo overall or in the MRA and ARNI subgroups., Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were similar, regardless of background treatment with an MRA or ARNI. SGLT2 inhibitors may be added to other treatments recommended in recent guidelines for HFmrEF/HFpEF., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism (PE) response teams have garnered widespread adoption given the complexities of managing acute PE and provide a platform for assessment of trends in therapy and outcomes. We describe temporal trends in PE management and outcomes following the deployment of such a team. All consecutive patients managed by our multidisciplinary PE response team activated by the Emergency Department were included over a 5-year calendar period. We examined temporal trends in management and rates of a composite primary endpoint (all-cause-death, major bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and readmission) at 30 days and 6 months. We assessed 425 patients between 2015 and 2019. We observed an increase in PE acuity and use of systemic thrombolysis. The primary endpoint at 30 days decreased from 16.3% in 2015 to 7.1% in 2019 (adjusted rate ratio per period, 0.63; 95%CI, 0.47-0.84), driven by a decrease in the adjusted rate of major bleeding. Among 406 patients with complete follow-up, the adjusted rate ratio per year for the primary outcome at 6 months was 0.37 (95%CI, 0.19-0.71), driven by a decrease in all-cause mortality. We observed evidence of temporal changes in clinical presentation, therapeutic strategies, and outcomes for acute PE, in parallel to, but not necessarily because of, the implementation of a multidisciplinary response team. Over time, major bleeding, mortality and readmission rates decreased, despite an increase in PE risk category., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Aim: The win ratio can incorporate different types of outcomes and enhance statistical power, making it a useful method for analysing composite outcomes in cardiovascular trials. The application of this approach to the PARADISE-MI trial provides an additional perspective into understanding the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction., Methods and Results: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial, which randomly assigned patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to guideline-recommended therapy. The principal composite outcome was analysed in the hierarchical order of death due to cardiovascular causes, first hospitalization for heart failure, and first outpatient episode of symptomatic heart failure. We included events confirmed by the clinical events classification (CEC) committee as well as events identified by investigators that did not meet study definitions. Results were analysed by the unmatched win-ratio method. A win ratio that exceeds 1.00 reflects a better outcome. A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. The hierarchical analysis of the principal composite outcome demonstrated a larger number of wins (1 265 767 [15.7%]) than losses (1 079 502 [13.4%]) in the sacubitril/valsartan group (win ratio of 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.33; p = 0.015). Sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions of the composite outcome showed results similar to those of the principal analysis, except for analysis restricted to events that met CEC definitions (win ratio of 1.11, 95% CI 0.96-1.30; p = 0.16)., Conclusion: In this post-hoc analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial using the win ratio and including investigator-identified events not having CEC confirmation, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to ramipril among high-risk survivors of acute myocardial infarction., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Prognostic enrichment strategies can make trials more efficient, although potentially at the cost of diminishing external validity. Whether using a risk score to identify a population at increased mortality risk could improve trial efficiency is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether Machine learning Assessment of RisK and EaRly mortality in Heart Failure (MARKER-HF), a previously validated risk score, could improve clinical trial efficiency., Methods and Results: Mortality rates and association of MARKER-HF with all-cause death by 1 year were evaluated in four community-based heart failure (HF) and five HF clinical trial cohorts. Sample size required to assess effects of an investigational therapy on mortality was calculated assuming varying underlying MARKER-HF risk and proposed treatment effect profiles. Patients from community-based HF cohorts (n = 11 297) had higher observed mortality and MARKER-HF scores than did clinical trial patients (n = 13 165) with HF with either reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). MARKER-HF score was strongly associated with risk of 1-year mortality both in the community (hazard ratio [HR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-1.52) and clinical trial cohorts with HFrEF (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.30-1.54), and HFpEF (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.53-1.98), per 0.1 increase in MARKER-HF. Using MARKER-HF to identify patients for a hypothetical clinical trial assessing mortality reduction with an intervention, enabled a reduction in sample size required to show benefit., Conclusion: Using a reliable predictor of mortality such as MARKER-HF to enrich clinical trial populations provides a potential strategy to improve efficiency by requiring a smaller sample size to demonstrate a clinical benefit., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Of the more than 550,000 patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis (HD) in the United States, each has an average of 1.6 admissions annually (>880,000 inpatient HD sessions). Little is known about the temporal changes in laboratory values, ECGs, and intravascular and extravascular volume during inpatient HD sessions., Methods: In this prospective cohort study of hospitalized HD patients, we assessed intradialytic laboratory values (metabolic panels, blood gases, ionized calcium levels), ECGs, and sonographic measures of volume status., Results: Among 30 participants undergoing HD (mean age 62 years; 53% men, 43% Black) laboratory values had the largest changes in the first hour of HD. There was no significant change in ionized calcium levels pre- to post-HD (change: -0.01±0.07, P =0.24); 12 of 30 and 17 of 30 patients had levels below the lower reference limit at the beginning and end of HD, respectively. The mean pH increased pre- to post-HD (change: 0.06±0.04, P <0.001); 21 of 30 had a pH above the upper reference limit post-HD. There was a trend toward longer median QTc duration from pre- to post-HD (change: 7.5 msec [-5 msec, 19 msec], P =0.07). The sum of B lines on lung ultrasound decreased from pre- to post-HD (median decrease: 3 [1, 7], P <0.01). The collapsibility index of the inferior vena cava increased pre- to post-HD (median increase: 4.8% [1.5%, 13.4%], P =0.01), whereas internal jugular vein diameter did not change ( P =0.24)., Conclusions: Among hospitalized patients undergoing HD, we found dynamic changes in laboratory values, QTc duration, and volume status. Further research is required to assess whether HD prescriptions can be tailored to alter these variations to potentially improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: F.R. Mc Causland reports consultancy for GlaxoSmithKline, and research funding paid to institution from Advanced Medical and Fifth Eye. E. Platz reports consultancy for Novartis and ScPharmaceuticals; research funding from the National Institutes of Health; and other interests or relationships with Women as One. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Background: Solid-organ transplant (SOT) recipients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have higher risk of adverse outcomes compared to the general population. Whether hospitalized SOT recipients with COVID-19 are at higher risk of mortality than SOT recipients hospitalized for other causes, including non-COVID-19 pneumonia, remains unclear., Methods: We used logistic regression to compare outcomes of SOT recipients hospitalized with COVID-19 to non-COVID-19 related admissions and with non-COVID-19 pneumonia., Results: Of 17,012 hospitalized SOT recipients, 1682 had COVID-19. Those with COVID-19 had higher odds of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.12 [95%CI: 1.88-2.39]) and mechanical ventilation (aOR 3.75 [95%CI: 3.24-4.33]). COVID-19 was associated with higher odds of in-hospital death, which was more pronounced earlier in the pandemic (aOR 9.74 [95%CI: 7.08-13.39] for April/May vs. aOR 7.08 [95%CI: 5.62-8.93] for June through November 2020; P-interaction = .03). Compared to SOT recipients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 pneumonia, odds of in-hospital death were higher in SOT recipients with COVID-19 (aOR 2.44 [95% CI: 1.90-3.13]), regardless of time of hospitalization (P-interaction > .40)., Conclusions: In this large cohort of SOT recipients, hospitalization with COVID-19 was associated with higher odds of complications and in-hospital mortality than non-COVID-19 related admissions, and 2.5-fold higher odds of in-hospital mortality, compared to SOT recipients with non-COVID-19 pneumonia., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: Implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains incomplete. Non-cardiovascular hospitalization may present opportunities for GDMT optimization. We assessed the efficacy and durability of a virtual, multidisciplinary 'GDMT Team' on medical therapy prescription for HFrEF., Methods and Results: Consecutive hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were prospectively identified from 3 February to 1 March 2020 (usual care group) and 2 March to 28 August 2020 (intervention group). Patients with critical illness, de novo heart failure, and systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg in the preceeding 24 hs prior to enrollment were excluded. In the intervention group, a pharmacist-physician GDMT Team provided optimization suggestions to treating teams based on an evidence-based algorithm. The primary outcome was a GDMT optimization score, the sum of positive (+1 for new initiations or up-titrations) and negative therapeutic changes (-1 for discontinuations or down-titrations) at hospital discharge. Serious in-hospital safety events were assessed. Among 278 consecutive encounters with HFrEF, 118 met eligibility criteria; 29 (25%) received usual care and 89 (75%) received the GDMT Team intervention. Among usual care encounters, there were no changes in GDMT prescription during hospitalization. In the intervention group, β-blocker (72% to 88%; P = 0.01), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (6% to 17%; P = 0.03), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (16% to 29%; P = 0.05), and triple therapy (9% to 26%; P < 0.01) prescriptions increased during hospitalization. After adjustment for clinically relevant covariates, the GDMT Team was associated with an increase in GDMT optimization score (+0.58; 95% confidence interval +0.09 to +1.07; P = 0.02). There were no serious in-hospital adverse events., Conclusions: Non-cardiovascular hospitalizations are a potentially safe and effective setting for GDMT optimization. A virtual GDMT Team was associated with improved heart failure therapeutic optimization. This implementation strategy warrants testing in a prospective randomized controlled trial., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Patients surviving an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at risk of developing symptomatic heart failure (HF) or premature death. We hypothesized that sacubitril/valsartan, effective in the treatment of chronic HF, prevents development of HF and reduces cardiovascular death following high-risk AMI compared to a proven angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. This paper describes the study design and baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Prospective ARNI vs. ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction (PARADISE-MI) trial., Methods and Results: PARADISE-MI, a multinational (41 countries), double-blind, active-controlled trial, randomized patients within 0.5-7 days of presentation with index AMI to sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. Transient pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% and at least one additional factor augmenting risk of HF or death (age ≥70 years, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , diabetes, prior myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, LVEF <30%, Killip class ≥III, ST-elevation myocardial infarction without reperfusion) were required for inclusion. PARADISE-MI was event-driven targeting 708 primary endpoints (cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization or outpatient development of HF). Randomization of 5669 patients occurred 4.3 ± 1.8 days from presentation with index AMI. The mean age was 64 ± 12 years, 24% were women. The majority (76%) qualified with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; acute percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 88% and thrombolysis in 6%. LVEF was 37 ± 9% and 58% were in Killip class ≥II., Conclusions: Baseline therapies in PARADISE-MI reflect advances in contemporary evidence-based care. With enrollment complete PARADISE-MI is poised to determine whether sacubitril/valsartan is more effective than a proven ACE inhibitor in preventing development of HF and cardiovascular death following AMI., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes among patients with a history of heart failure (HF) hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)., Background: Cardiometabolic comorbidities are common in patients with severe COVID-19. Patients with HF may be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 complications., Methods: The Premier Healthcare Database was used to identify patients with at least 1 HF hospitalization or 2 HF outpatient visits between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, who were subsequently hospitalized between April and September 2020. Baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization, and mortality rates were compared between those hospitalized with COVID-19 and those hospitalized with other causes. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were identified in HF patients hospitalized with COVID-19 by using multivariate logistic regression., Results: Among 1,212,153 patients with history of HF, 132,312 patients were hospitalized from April 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. A total of 23,843 patients (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute HF, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 patients (75.6%) were hospitalized with alternative reasons. Hospitalization with COVID-19 was associated with greater odds of in-hospital mortality as compared with hospitalization with acute HF; 24.2% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 died in-hospital compared to 2.6% of those hospitalized with acute HF. This association was strongest in April (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 14.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]:12.25 to 17.12) than in subsequent months (adjusted OR: 10.11; 95% CI: 8.95 to 11.42; p interaction  <0.001). Among patients with HF hospitalized with COVID-19, male sex (adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.40) and morbid obesity (adjusted OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.46) were associated with greater odds of in-hospital mortality, along with age (adjusted OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.42 per 10 years) and admission earlier in the pandemic., Conclusions: Patients with HF hospitalized with COVID-19 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Bhatt has received speaker fees from Sanofi Pasteur; and is supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute T32 post-doctoral training grant T32HL007604. Dr. Jering is supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute T32 post-doctoral training grant T32HL007604. Dr. Vaduganathan has received grants from Harvard Catalyst, grants and personal fees from Amgen, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Baxter HealthCare, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa outside the submitted work. Dr. Claggett has received personal fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, MyoKardia, and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Cunningham is supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute T32 post-doctoral training grant T32HL007604. Dr. Rosenthal is an employee of Premier Inc., which curates the Premier Healthcare Database. Dr. Signorovitch is an employee of Analysis Group, Inc. Dr. Thune has received lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and has received personal fees and travel support from Novartis. Dr. Vardeny has received research support from U.S. National Institutes of Health; and is a consultant for Sanofi-Pasteur. Dr. Solomon has received grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, Neurotronik, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and has received personal fees from Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Sanofi-Pasteur, Tenaya, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, and Moderna outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to background mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapy., Background: Current guidelines recommend consideration of MRAs in selected patients with HFpEF. This study assessed cardiovascular outcomes, renal outcomes, and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF according to background MRA treatment., Methods: PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor] with ARB [angiotensin-receptor blockers] Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) randomized 4,796 patients with HFpEF to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan was evaluated according to baseline MRA use on the primary study composite of total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death using semiparametric proportional rates methods, as well as the renal composite of ≥50% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, development of end-stage renal disease, or death from renal causes using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Annual decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate was analyzed with repeated-measures mixed-effect models. Key safety outcomes included incidence of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and elevations in serum creatinine above predefined thresholds., Results: Patients treated with MRAs at baseline (n = 1,239, 26%), compared with MRA nonusers (n = 3,557, 74%), were younger (72 vs. 73 years), more often male (52% vs. 47%), had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (57% vs. 58%), and a higher proportion of prior HF hospitalization (59% vs. 44%) (all p < 0.001). Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with regard to the primary cardiovascular (for MRA users: rate ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56 to 0.95; vs. for MRA nonusers: rate ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.11; p interaction  = 0.11) and renal endpoints (for MRA users: hazard ratio: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.76; vs. for MRA non-users: HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.95; p interaction  = 0.21) did not significantly vary by baseline MRA use. The incidence of key safety outcomes including hypotension and severe hyperkalemia (K > 6.0 mmol/l) did not vary by baseline MRA use. However, annual decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate was less with the combination of MRA and sacubitril/valsartan (for MRA users: absolute difference favoring sacubitril/valsartan: +1.2 ml/min/1.73 m 2 per year; 95% CI: 0.6 to 1.7; vs. for MRA nonusers: +0.4; 95% CI: 0.1 to 0.7; p interaction  = 0.01)., Conclusions: Clinical efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with regard to predefined cardiorenal composite outcomes in PARAGON-HF was consistent in patients treated and not treated with MRA at baseline. Addition of sacubitril/valsartan rather than valsartan alone to MRA appears to be associated with a lesser decline in renal function and no increase in severe hyperkalemia. These data support possible added value of combination treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and MRA in patients with HFpEF. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor -neprilysin inhibitor] with ARB [angiotensin-receptor blockers] Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711)., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures The PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor] with ARB [angiotensin-receptor blockers] Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Jering has received support from the National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5-T32 HL007604). Dr. Zannad has received fees for serving on Steering Committees from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CVRx, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received consulting fees from Amgen, Vifor Pharma–Fresenius, Cardior, Cereno Pharmaceutical, Applied Therapeutics, and Merck; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca; and was a founder of Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists. Dr. Claggett has received consultancy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, AOBiome, Amgen, Novartis, MyoKardia, and Corvia. Mc Causland is supported by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grants U01DK096189, R03DK122240, and K23DK102511. Dr. Ferreira has received consultancy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Desai has received research grant support from AstraZeneca, Alnylam, and Novartis; and has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alnylam, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Biofourmis, Corvidia, DalCor Pharma, Novartis, Relypsa, and Regeneron. Dr. Barkoudah has received research support from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen; has received payments made to Brigham and Women's Hospital for performing clinical endpoints; has received Advisory Board fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Portola; and has received travel expenses from Alexion. Dr. McMurray has served as an executive committee member and coprincipal investigator of ATMOSPHERE (Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure) and coprincipal investigator of the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor–Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting–Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial) and PARAGON-HF trials and his employer, Glasgow University, has been paid by Novartis for his time spent in these roles; has received travel expenses from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Cardiorentis, Amgen, Theracos, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Vifor-Fresenius, and Kings College Hospital; has been a member of a Steering Committee and Endpoint Committee for Cardiorentis; has been a member of a Steering Committee for Amgen, Oxford University/Bayer, AbbVie, DalCor Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Vifor-Fresenius, Kidney Research United Kingdom; has been a member of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for Pfizer and Merck; and has been a member of an Executive Committee for Novartis. Dr. Pfeffer has received grants from Novartis; and has received personal fees for consulting from AstraZeneca, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MyoKardia, Servier, Takeda, and Corvidia. Dr. Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos Therapeutics, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and has consulted for Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion Pharmaceuticals, AOBiome, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, and Tenaya Therapeutics. Dr. Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, NIH/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos; and has consulted for Abbott, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, and Moderna., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Maturation defects occurring in adult tissue progenitor cells have the potential to contribute to tumor development; however, there is little experimental evidence implicating this cellular mechanism in the pathogenesis of solid tumors. Inhibitor of DNA-binding 2 (Id2) is a transcription factor known to regulate the proliferation and differentiation of primitive stem and progenitor cells. Id2 is derepressed in adult tissue neural stem cells (NSC) lacking the tumor suppressor Tp53 and modulates their proliferation. Constitutive expression of Id2 in differentiating NSCs resulted in maturation-resistant oligodendroglial precursor cells (OPC), a cell population implicated in the initiation of glioma. Mechanistically, Id2 overexpression was associated with inhibition of the Notch effector Hey1, a bHLH transcription factor that we here characterize as a direct transcriptional repressor of the oligodendroglial lineage determinant Olig2. Orthotopic inoculation of NSCs with enhanced Id2 expression into brains of mice engineered to express platelet-derived growth factor in the central nervous system resulted in glioma. These data implicate a mechanism of altered NSC differentiation in glioma development and characterize a novel mouse model that reflects key characteristics of the recently described proneural subtype of glioblastoma multiforme. Such findings support the emerging concept that the cellular and molecular characteristics of tumor cells are linked to the transformation of distinct subsets of adult tissue progenitors., Competing Interests: of Potential Conflicts of Interest No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed., (©2014 AACR.)