Search

Clinical trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have led to the approval of several effective treatments that improve symptoms, exercise capacity and clinical outcomes. In phase 3 clinical trials, primary end-points must reflect how a patient "feels, functions or survives". In a rare disease like PAH, with an ever-growing number of treatment options and numerous candidate therapies being studied, future clinical trials are now faced with challenges related to sample size requirements, efficiency and demonstration of incremental benefit on traditional end-points in patients receiving background therapy with multiple drugs. Novel clinical trial end-points, innovative trial designs and statistical approaches and new technologies may be potential solutions to tackle the challenges facing future PAH trials, but these must be acceptable to patients and regulatory bodies while preserving methodological rigour. In this World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension task force article, we address emerging trial end-points and designs, biomarkers and surrogate end-point validation, the concept of disease modification, challenges and opportunities to address diversity and representativeness, and the use of new technologies such as artificial intelligence in PAH clinical trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J. Weatherald declares grants or contracts to their institution from Janssen, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca and Sanofi; consulting fees, payment or honoraria to themselves, travel support and paid membership of an Advisory Board from Janssen and Merck; payment for expert testimony from Sprigings Intellectual Property Law; unpaid membership of a Data Safety Monitoring Board drom Université Laval; and unpaid membership of the medical advisory committee of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada and the scientific medical advisory committee of the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute. T.R. Fleming declares no competing interests. M.R. Wilkins declares grants or contracts from the British Heart Foundation (RE/18/4/34215 centre support); consulting fees from MorphogenIX (advisory committee), VIVUS (study protocol advisory meeting), Janssen and Kinaset (study advisory boards) and Chiesi, Aerami and Benevolent AI (consultancy); payment for expert testimony from Pennington Marches and Sprigings; support for travel to scientific meetings from Apollo Therapeutics; patents planned, issued or pending (Imperial Innovations: patent submitted for prognostic protein model presented in this manuscript; patent for ZIP12 as a drug target; patent for TSPO as a drug target); membership of an adjudication committee for three clinical trials for Acceleron; membership of study safety committees for GSK and Novartis; a role as a trustee of the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute; and stock options in W12 Therapeutics. T.M. Cascino delares grants from NHLBI (K12 HL138039) and Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine; consulting fees from and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Merck; and payment or honoraria from Total CME. M.A. Psotka declares no competing interests. R. Zamanian declares grants to their institution from Gossamer Bio, Merck, United Therapeutics and Janssen; consulting fees from Gossamer Bio, Morphogen IX, Merck and Aerovate; patents planned, issued or pending for FK506 for treatment of pulmonary hypertension; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Aerovate; and stock options in REVIVA. W. Seeger declares consulting fees from United Therapeutics, Abivax, Tiakis Biotech AG, Pfizer, Liquidia, Medspray BV and Pieris Pharmaceuticals. N. Galiè declares grants or contracts from Janssen, Actelion and Merck; consulting fees from Janssen, Actelion, Chiesi and Ferrer; payment or honoraria from Janssen, Actelion and Chiesi; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Dompe; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from Janssen, Actelion and Ferrer. M. Gomberg-Maitland declares consulting fees from Acceleron/Merck (steering committee), Aerami (until 2023), Janssen (consultancy), JucaBio (steering committee), Keros (steering committee) and United Therapeutics (Jenesis Young Investigator Grant Chairman); support for attending the ERS Congress from Merck; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring board for Acceleron/Merck (until 2023) and Janssen (until 2023); and unpaid roles as Treasurer of ISHLT and a member of the United Therapeutics Scientific Advisory Board., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

Aims: The TRANSFORM-HF trial found no difference in clinical outcomes between torsemide versus furosemide after hospitalization for heart failure. This analysis aimed to assess the impact of diuretic dosing on the primary and secondary clinical outcomes., Methods and Results: This post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF categorized patients into three groups by discharge diuretic dose: (1) ≤40 mg, (2) >40-80 mg, and (3) >80 mg of furosemide equivalents. The associations between discharge dose and 12-month clinical events, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS), were assessed. Overall, 2379 patients were included, aged 65 years (interquartile range 56-75), 883 (37.1%) women, and 812 (34.2%) Black. Furosemide had adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for all-cause mortality of 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.59) for discharge dose group 2 and 1.40 (95% CI 1.04-1.88) for group 3, compared with group 1. For torsemide, aHRs were 1.74 (95% CI 1.32-2.30) for group 2 and 1.58 (95% CI 1.14-2.19) for group 3. No evidence of heterogeneity for the association between increased mortality and higher dose was found by loop diuretic type (p interaction  = 0.17). Higher doses of furosemide and torsemide were associated with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization and the composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization, without evidence of heterogeneity by loop diuretic type (p interaction > 0.2). Changes in KCCQ-CSS from baseline at 12 months was similar across dose groups for both drugs., Conclusion: Following hospitalization for heart failure, higher loop diuretic dosing was independently associated with worse clinical and patient-reported outcomes. The correlation between higher loop diuretic dose and outcomes was consistent, regardless of loop diuretic used., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Despite significant morbidity and mortality, recent advances in cardiogenic shock (CS) management have been associated with increased survival. However, little is known regarding the management of patients who survive CS with heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFrEF), and the utilization of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in these patients has not been well described. To fill this gap, we investigated the use of GDMT during an admission for CS and short-term outcomes using the Inova single-centre shock registry., Methods: We investigated the implementation of GDMT for patients who survived an admission for CS with HFrEF using data from our single-centre shock registry from January 2017 to December 2019. Baseline characteristics, discharge clinical status, data on GDMT utilization and 30 day, 6 month and 12 month patient outcomes were collected by retrospective chart review., Results: Among 520 patients hospitalized for CS during the study period, 185 (35.6%) had HFrEF upon survival to discharge. The median age was 64 years [interquartile range (IQR) 56, 70], 72% (n = 133) were male, 22% (n = 40) were Black and 7% (n = 12) were Hispanic. Forty-one per cent of patients (n = 76) presented with shock related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), while 59% (n = 109) had HF-related CS (HF-CS). The median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 7, 18). At discharge, the proportions of patients on beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)/angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were 78% (n = 144), 58% (n = 107) and 55% (n = 101), respectively. Utilization of three-drug GDMT was 33.0% (n = 61). Ten per cent of CS survivors with HFrEF (n = 19) were not prescribed any component of GDMT at discharge. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for baseline GDMT use revealed that patients with lower LVEF and those who transferred to our centre from an outside hospital were more likely to experience GDMT addition (P < 0.05). Patients prescribed at least one additional class of GDMT during admission had higher odds of 6 month and 1 year survival (P < 0.01): On average, 6 month survival odds were 7.1 times greater [confidence interval (CI) 1.9, 28.5] and 1 year survival odds were 6.0 times greater than those who did not have at least one GDMT added (CI 1.9, 20.5)., Conclusions: Most patients who survived CS admission with HFrEF in this single-centre CS registry were not prescribed all classes or goal doses of GDMT at hospital discharge. These findings highlight an urgent need to augment multidisciplinary efforts to enhance the post-discharge medical management and outcomes of patients who survive CS with HFrEF., (© 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Hemocompatibility-related adverse events affect patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation but are hard to predict., Objectives: Dynamic risk modeling with a multistate model can predict risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), stroke, or death in ambulatory patients., Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3) trial. HeartMate 3 LVAD recipients who survived to hospital discharge and were followed for up to 2 years. A total of 145 variables were included in the multistate model with multivariate logistic regression. Model performance was assessed with the area under the curve in a holdout validation cohort. A risk stratification tool was created by dividing patients into categories of predicted risk using the final model variables and associated OR., Results: Among 2,056 LVAD patients, the median age was 59.4 years (20.4% women, 28.6% Black). At 2 years, the incidence of GIB, stroke, and death was 25.6%, 6.0%, and 12.3%, respectively. The multistate model included 39 total variables to predict risk of GIB (16 variables), stroke (10 variables), and death (19 variables). When ambulatory patients were classified according to their risk category, the 30-day observed event rate in the highest risk group for GIB, stroke, or death was 26.9%, 1.8%, and 4.8%, respectively. The multistate model predicted GIB, stroke, and death at any 30-day period with an area under the curve of 0.70, 0.69, and 0.86, respectively., Conclusions: The multistate model informs 30-day risk in ambulatory LVAD recipients and allows recalculation of risk as new patient-specific data become available. The model allows for accurate risk stratification that predicts impending adverse events and may guide clinical decision making. (MOMENTUM 3 IDE Clinical Study Protocol; NCT02224755)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Abbott is the sponsor of the MOMENTUM 3 studies. Abbott supported an investigator-initiated grant paid to the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute to support this effort; and Abbott has filed a U.S. provisional patent (U.S. Patent Application No. 63/421,450) for the work presented in the paper. Dr Shah is supported by National Institutes of Health K23 Career Development Award 1K23HL143179; has received consulting fees from Procyrion, Merck, and Natera; and grant support has been paid to his institution from Abbott, Roche, Merck, and Bayer. Dr Sayer has received consulting fees from Abbott. Dr Kanwar is on the medical advisory board for Abiomed, CorWave, and CareDx. Dr Cowger has served as a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, Bioventrix, Endotronix, Bivacor, and Procyrion; and has received grant support and speaker fees from Abbott. Dr Pagani has served as an AD hoc scientific advisor without compensation for FineHeart, Medtronic, CH Biomedical, and Abbott; has served as medical monitor for Abiomed; is a member of the data safety monitoring board for Carmat and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PumpKIN clinical trial; and is Chair of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs Task Force. Dr Mehra has received travel support and consulting fees, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, from Abbott; has received fees for serving on a steering committee from Medtronic and Janssen (Johnson and Johnson); has received fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Mesoblast; has received consulting fees from Natera, Paragonix, Moderna, Baim Institute of Clinical Research, and Broadview Ventures; and has received fees for serving as a scientific board member from NuPulseCV, Leviticus, and FineHeart. Dr Cleveland has received fees from Abbott and Medtronic. Dr Desai is on the speaker’s bureau for Abbott. Drs Lu, Hu, Connolly, and Kormos are employees of Abbott. Dr Uriel is a medical advisory board member for Livemetric, Levitcus, and Revamp; and receives grant support from Abbott, Abiomed, and Fire 1. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF) could be enrolled in EMPULSE (NCT04157751) upon haemodynamic stabilization and between 24 h and 5 days after hospital admission. The timing of treatment initiation may influence the efficacy and safety of drugs such as empagliflozin. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient characteristics, clinical events, and treatment effects according to time from admission to randomization., Methods and Results: The EMPULSE population was dichotomized by median time from hospital admission to randomization (1-2 days vs. 3-5 days). The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite endpoint of time to all-cause death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and a ≥5-point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score change from baseline after 90 days, analysed using the win ratio (WR) method. Patients randomized later (3-5 days, average time 3.9 days; n = 312) had a higher risk of experiencing clinical events than patients randomized earlier (1-2 days, average time 1.7 days; n = 215). The treatment effect favoured empagliflozin versus placebo in patients randomized later (3-5 days: WR 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.25) but was attenuated in patients randomized earlier (1-2 days: WR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74-1.44) (interaction p = 0.029). A similar pattern was observed for the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death and all-cause hospitalizations (interaction p < 0.1 for both). The reduction of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels was more pronounced with empagliflozin among patients randomized later than in patients randomized earlier (interaction p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized for acute HF enrolled in EMPULSE, those randomized later after hospital admission (3-5 days) experienced greater clinical benefit with empagliflozin than those randomized earlier (1-2 days). These findings should be confirmed in future studies before clinical application., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Over the past decade, the field of heart failure (HF) has witnessed remarkable progress in drug development, resulting in the approval of numerous groundbreaking drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. To address some of these challenges, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued guidance documents that have been critical in contemporary HF drug development; however, there are still many challenges in need of investigation. This article leverages efforts of the Heart Failure Collaboratory and the scientific community to discuss the critical need for innovative trial designs, important concepts in clinical trials in the modern era, and the utilization of big data to accelerate HF drug development. At this inflection point in HF drug development, it is imperative that, as a global scientific community, we foster increased collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and regulatory bodies. Only through such unified efforts can we navigate the complexities of HF, accelerate the development process, and ultimately deliver effective therapies that transform patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Januzzi has a board position with Imbria Pharma; has received grant support from Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BMS, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting income from Abbott Diagnostics, Beckman-Coulter, Jana Care, Janssen, Novartis, Prevencio, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and has served on clinical endpoint committees/data safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Lindenfeld has received consulting fees from Abbott, Adona, Axon, Alleviant, AstraZeneca, Boston Scienrific, CVRx, Cordio, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Merck, Orchestra Biomed, VWave, Whiteswell, and Vascular Dynamics; and has received grant funding from AstraZeneca and Volumetrix. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gossamer, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and Valo. Dr Bristow has been a consultant for ARCA Biopharma. Dr Abraham has received research grant support from the NHLBI (NIH 1 UG3/UH3 HL140144-01, 08/01/18-07/31/22, “Impact of Low Flow Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy on Hospital Readmission/Mortality in Patients with Heart Failure and Central Sleep Apnea [LOFT-HF]”); has received consulting income from Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Zoll Respicardia; has received speaker honoraria from Impulse Dynamics; and has received salary support from V-Wave Medical. Dr O'Connor has done consulting for Abiomed and Merck. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The EMPULSE (EMPagliflozin in patients hospitalised with acUte heart faiLure who have been StabilizEd) trial showed that, compared to placebo, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/day) improved clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF). We investigated whether efficacy and safety of empagliflozin were consistent across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)., Methods and Results: A total of 530 patients hospitalized for acute de novo or decompensated HF were included irrespective of LVEF. For the present analysis, patients were classified as HF with reduced (HFrEF, LVEF ≤40%), mildly reduced (HFmrEF, LVEF 41-49%) or preserved (HFpEF, LVEF ≥50%) ejection fraction at baseline. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical outcome of death, worsening HF events (HFE) and quality of life over 90 days, assessed by the win ratio. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the primary endpoint and safety. Out of 523 patients with baseline data, 354 (67.7%) had HFrEF, 54 (10.3%) had HFmrEF and 115 (22.0%) had HFpEF. The clinical benefit (hierarchical composite of all-cause death, HFE and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score) of empagliflozin at 90 days compared to placebo was consistent across LVEF categories (≤40%: win ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.75]; 41-49%: win ratio 1.25 [0.66, 2.37)] and ≥50%: win ratio 1.40 [0.87, 2.23], p interaction  = 0.96) with a favourable safety profile. Results were consistent across individual components of the hierarchical primary endpoint., Conclusion: The clinical benefit of empagliflozin proved consistent across LVEF categories in the EMPULSE trial. These results support early in-hospital initiation of empagliflozin regardless of LVEF., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The handling editor LC declared a past co-authorship with the authors CR, SD, MP., (© 2024 Mehta, Vavilin, Nguyen, Batchelor, Blumer, Cilia, Dewanjee, Desai, Desai, Flanagan, Isseh, Kennedy, Klein, Moukhachen, Psotka, Raja, Rosner, Shah, Tang, Truesdell, Tehrani and Sinha.)

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) cutpoints. Although LVEF is prognostic for risk of events and predictive of response to some HF therapies, LVEF is a continuous variable and cutpoints are arbitrary, often based on historical clinical trial enrichment decisions rather than physiology. Holistic evaluation of the treatment effects for therapies throughout the LVEF range suggests the standard categorization paradigm for HF merits modification. The multidisciplinary Heart Failure Collaboratory reviewed data from large-scale HF clinical trials and found that many HF therapies have demonstrated therapeutic benefit across a large range of LVEF, but specific treatment effects vary across that range. Therefore, HF should practically be classified by association with an LVEF that is reduced or not reduced, while acknowledging uncertainty around the precise LVEF cutpoint, and future research should evaluate new therapies across the continuum of LVEF., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Ibrahim has received consulting fees from Cytokinetics. Dr McMurray discloses payments to his employer, Glasgow University, for his work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities: Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, Dal-Cor, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos; and personal payments: Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Eris Lifesciences, Hikma, Ionis, Lupin, ProAdWise Communications, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Servier. Dr Lindenfeld has received consulting fees from Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cordio, CRVx, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Merck, Whiteswell, Vascular Dynamics, and V-Wave. Dr Bozkurt has received consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, scPharmaceuticals, Baxter, Sanofi, Relypsa, Vifor, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served on the steering committees of Relypsa and Renovacor; has served on a Clinical Event Committee for Abbott Pharmaceuticals; and has served on the Data Safety Monitoring Board for LivaNova Pharmaceuticals. Dr Bristow has served as a director, officer, partner, advisor, consultant, or trustee for ARCA biopharma; has received research grants from the American Heart Association and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; and has received personal payments from ARCA biopharma. Dr Butler has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, CVRx, Foundry, G3 Pharma, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Roche, Sanofi, Sequana Medical, V-Wave Ltd, and Vifor; and is a Trial Executive Committee member of the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company Diabetes Alliance (trial sponsor). Dr Carson has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and IQVIA related to work on Clinical Events Committees. Dr Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, American Heart Association, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Novartis, Daxor, Merck, Cytokinetics, and CSL-Behring; has acted as a consultant to Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Cytokinetics, Innolife, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Boehringer Ingelheim, American Regent, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Reprieve, Myovant, Sequana, Windtree Therapuetics, Rocket Pharma, and Whiteswell; and has served on clinical endpoint committees/data safety monitoring boards for Amgen, Merck, Medtronic, EBR Systems, V-Wave, and LivaNova. Dr Murillo is an employee and stockholder of UnitedHealth Group. Dr Kondo has received grants from the Uehara Memorial Foundation and the Japanese Heart Failure Society Tsuchiya Foundation for research activity at the University of Glasgow; and has received lecture fees from Ono Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Novartis Pharma K.K., AstraZeneca K.K., Bristol Myers Squibb Co, Abiomed Japan K.K., and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, 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, BMS, Cardior, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, and Tenaya. Dr Abraham has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardionomic, Zoll Respicardia, scPharmaceuticals, Sensible Medical, and Vectorious; has received salary support from V-Wave Medical; and has served as a speaker for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr O’Connor has received grant or research support from Merck; and consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, and Abiomed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Competing Interests: None.

The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) is a consortium of stakeholders in the heart failure (HF) community that aims to improve the infrastructure of clinical research to promote development of novel therapies for patients. Since its launch in 2018, HFC has implemented several solutions to tackle obstacles in HF clinical research including training programs to increase the number of clinicians skilled in conducting clinical trials, novel study designs, and advocacy for a diverse and inclusive HF research ecosystem. We highlight some of the HFC successes since its establishment., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The handling editor LC declared past co-authorship with the author MP., (© 2024 Alkalbani and Psotka.)

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations or urgent care and is associated with poor outcomes. Therapies shown to improve outcomes are limited, however, and innovation in pharmacologic and device-based therapeutics are therefore actively being sought. Standardizing definitions for ADHF and its trajectory is complex, limiting the generalizability and translation of clinical trials to effect clinical care and policy change. The Heart Failure Collaboratory is a multistakeholder organization comprising clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives (including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants), payors, and industry collaborators. The following expert consensus document is the product of the Heart Failure Collaboratory convening with the Academic Research Consortium, including members from academia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry, for the purposes of proposing standardized definitions for ADHF and highlighting important endpoint considerations to inform the design and conduct of clinical trials for drugs and devices in this clinical arena., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Lala is a Speakers Bureau member for Abiomed, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Zoll; and performs contracted research for Merck. Dr Bozkurt has received consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, scPharmaceuticals, Baxter, Sanofi, Relypsa, Vifor, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served on the steering committees of Relypsa and Renovacor; has served on a Clinical Event Committee for Abbott Pharmaceuticals; and has served on the Data Safety Monitoring Board for LivaNova Pharmaceuticals. Dr Burkhoff receives institutional grant support from Ancora Heart, Axon Medical, and Edwards Lifesciences; and receives consulting fees from AquaPass, Axon, BackBeat Medical, BioMind, Corvia Medical, Impulse Dynamics, and Therox/Zoll. Dr Costanzo has served as a Board of Directors member for Nuwellis; has received research grants from Bayer, Novartis, and V-WAVE to the Midwest Cardiovascular Institute; and is an Associated Editor for the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Dr Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Novartis, Daxor, Merck, Cytokinetics, and CSL Behring; has acted as a consultant to Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Cytokinetics, Innolife, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Boehringer Ingelheim, American Regent, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Reprieve, Myovant, Sequana, Windtree Therapeutics, Rocket Pharma, and WhiteSwell; and has served on clinical endpoint committees/data safety monitoring boards for Amgen, Merck, Medtronic, EBR Systems, V-WAVE, and LivaNova. Dr Filippatos is a committee member of trials and registries sponsored by Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; is a Senior Consulting Editor for JACC Heart Failure; and has received research support from the European Union. Dr Konstam has been a consultant for FIRE1, Pfizer, Luitpold, Cardurion, Cytogenetics, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr McMurray reports payments to his employer, Glasgow University, for his 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, and Theracos; and personal payments from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Eris Lifesciences, Hikma, Ionis, Lupin, ProAdWise Communications, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Servier. Dr Mentz is a consultant to Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Zoll. Dr Metra has received personal fees of minimal amounts in the last 3 years: from Actelion as member of the Data Monitoring Committee of sponsored clinical trials; from Amgen, LivaNova, Servier, and Vifor Pharma as member of Executive Committees of sponsored clinical trials; and from AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Edwards Therapeutics for participation on advisory boards and/or for speeches at sponsored meetings. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NeuroTronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has served as a consultant for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, 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, and Akros. Dr Teerlink is a consultant for 3iveLabs, Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Verily, ViCardia, and Windtree Therapeutics; and has received research grants from 3ive Labs, Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, EBR Systems, Edwards, Medtronic, Novartis, V-WAVE, ViCardia, and Windtree Therapeutics. Dr Abraham has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardionomic, Zoll Respicardia, scPharmaceuticals, Sensible Medical; Vectorious Salary support from V-WAVE Medical; and has served as a speaker for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr O’Connor has received grant or research support from Merck; and consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, and Abiomed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: In patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) empagliflozin produced greater clinical benefit than placebo. Many patients with AHF are treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). The interplay between empagliflozin and MRAs in AHF is yet to be explored. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin versus placebo according to MRA use at baseline in the EMPULSE trial (NCT04157751)., Methods and Results: In this analysis all comparisons were performed between empagliflozin and placebo, stratified by baseline MRA use. The primary outcome included all-cause death, heart failure events, and a ≥5 point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score at 90 days, assessed using the win ratio (WR). First heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was a secondary outcome. From the 530 patients randomized, 276 (52%) were receiving MRAs at baseline. MRA users were younger, had lower ejection fraction, better renal function, and higher KCCQ scores. The primary outcome showed benefit of empagliflozin irrespective of baseline MRA use (WR 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.97 and WR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93-1.73 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.52). The effect of empagliflozin on first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was not modified by MRA use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.30-1.11 and HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47-1.52 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.39). Investigator-reported and severe hyperkalaemia events were infrequent (<6%) irrespective of MRA use., Conclusions: In patients admitted for AHF, initiation of empagliflozin produced clinical benefit and was well tolerated irrespective of background MRA use. These findings support the early use of empagliflozin on top of MRA therapy in patients admitted for AHF., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Heart failure (HF) substantially impacts the health and financial security of an increasing proportion of the US population. It worsens debility and quality of life and may lead to hospitalization and death. HF is a clinical syndrome with diverse symptomatic presentations. Physicians generally divide patients with HF into 2 groups: those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than or equal to 50% and those with an LVEF less than 49%. This review focuses on the group of patients whose LVEF is greater than or equal to 50%. This classification of HF is referred to as HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Few beneficial therapies have been identified for this condition, possibly because of its heterogenous etiologies (eg, myocardial, vascular, metabolic, and other physiologic derangements). Clinicians should focus on diagnosing, treating, and preventing the etiologies that are known to cause HFpEF. Results from a small proportion of randomized controlled trials have shown therapeutic benefit for small molecules, although limited, if any, demonstrated mortality benefit has been noted. More research and investment are needed to decrease the burden of HFpEF and to discover lifesaving treatments for this growing population.

Background: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF., Methods: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months., Results: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P =0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P =0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P =0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P =0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization., Conclusions: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Greene has received research support from the Duke University Department of Medicine Chair’s Research Award, American Heart Association (No. 929502), National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; has served on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi; serves as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, CSL Vifor, Merck, PharmaIN, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Tricog Health, Urovant Pharmaceuticals; and has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Anstrom has received research support from Merck, Bayer, Pfizer, National Institutes of Health, and PCORI. Dr DeWald reports consulting for Bodyport. Dr Mentz receives research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics and Zoll. All other authors report no disclosures.

Aims: The EMPULSE trial evaluated the clinical benefit of empagliflozin versus placebo using the stratified win ratio approach in 530 patients with acute heart failure (HF) after initial stabilization. We aim to elucidate how this method works and what it means, thereby giving guidance for use of the win ratio in future trials., Methods and Results: The primary trial outcome is a hierarchical composite of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, or a ≥5-point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score change at 90 days. In an overall (unstratified) analysis we show how comparison of all 265 x 265 patients pairs contribute to 'wins' for empagliflozin and placebo at all four levels of the hierarchy, leading to an unstratified win ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.71; p = 0.0036). How such a win ratio should (and should not) be interpreted is then described. The more complex primary analysis using a stratified win ratio is then presented in detail leading to a very similar overall result. Win ratios for de novo acute HF and decompensated chronic HF patients were 1.29 and 1.39, respectively, their weighted combination yielding an overall stratified win ratio of 1.36 (95% CI 1.09-1.68) (p = 0.0054). Alternative ways of including HF events and KCCQ scores in the clinical hierarchy are presented, leading to recommendations for their use in future trials. Specifically, inclusion of both number of HF events and time-to-first HF event appears an unnecessary complication. Also, the use of a 5-point margin for KCCQ score paired comparisons is not statistically necessary., Conclusions: The EMPULSE trial findings illustrate how deaths, clinical events and patient-reported outcomes can be integrated into a win ratio analysis strategy that yields clinically meaningful findings of patient benefit. This has implications for future trial designs that recognize the clinical priorities of patient evaluation and the need for efficient progress towards approval of new treatments., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Background: As heart failure therapeutic care becomes increasingly complex, a composite medical therapy score could be useful to conveniently summarize background medical therapy. We applied the composite medical therapy score developed by the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) to the Danish heart failure with reduced ejection fraction population to evaluate its external validation including assessing the distribution of the score and its association with survival., Methods: In a retrospective nationwide cohort study, we identified all Danish heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients alive on July 1, 2018, and assessed their treatment doses. Patients were excluded if they did not have at least 365 days for up-titration of medical therapy prior to identification. The HFC score (range 0-8) accounts for use and dosing of multiple therapies prescribed to each patient. Risk-adjusted association between the composite score and all-cause mortality was examined., Results: In total, 26 779 patients (mean age 71.9 years; 32% women) were identified. At baseline, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker was used in 77%, β-blocker in 81%, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in 30%, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in 2%, and ivabradine in 2%. The median HFC score was 4. After multivariable adjustment, higher HFC scores were independently associated with lower mortality (≥median versus

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome that affects mortality/morbidity and acts at different levels in the patient's life, resulting in a drastic impairment in multiple aspects of daily activities (e.g. physical, mental/emotional, and social) and leading to a reduction in quality of life. The definition of disease status and symptom severity has been traditionally based on the physician assessment, while the patient's experience of disease has been long overlooked. The active participation of patients in their own care is necessary to better understand the perception of disease and the multiple aspects of life affected, and to improve adherence to treatments. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aim to switch traditional care to a more patient-centred approach. Although PROs demonstrated precision in the evaluation of disease status and have a good association with prognosis in several randomized controlled trials, their implementation into clinical practice is limited. This review discusses the modalities of use of PROs in HF, summarizes the most largely adopted PROs in HF care, and provides an overview on the application of PROs in trials and the potential for their transition to clinical practice. By discussing the advantages and the disadvantages of their use, the reasons limiting their application in daily clinical routine, and the strategies that may promote their implementation, this review aims to foster the systematic integration of the patient's standpoint in HF care., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of 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.)

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) composed of patients, academic investigators from the United States and Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, payers, and industry. Members discussed the measure, remote capture, and clinical utility of functional and quality-of-life endpoints for use in clinical trials of heart failure and cardiovascular therapeutics, with the goal of improving the efficiency of heart failure and cardiovascular clinical research, evidence generation, and thereby patient quality of life, functional status, and survival. Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance are standardized and validated, but actigraphy remains inconsistent as a potential endpoint. This paper details those discussions and consensus recommendations., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the FDA or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr Abraham has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Zoll Respicardia, speaker honoraria from Impulse Dynamics, salary support from V-Wave Medical, and research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr Filippatos has received consulting income from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor; and has received lecture fees from Merck. Dr Lindenfeld has received consulting fees from Novartis, Abbott, ResMed, V-Wave, CVRx, and Cytokinetics. Dr Ahmad has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cytokinetics, Relypsa, and Novartis. Dr Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, Amgen, Merck, Cytokinetics, and Roche Diagnostics; and has received consulting fees from Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Relypsa, V-Wave, Myokardia, Innolife, EBR Systems, Arena, Abbott, Sphingotec, Roche Diagnostics, Alnylam, LivaNova, Windtree Therapeutics, Rocket Pharma, and SC Pharma. Dr Kitzman has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, DCRI, and Corvia; has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has stock in Gilead. Dr Lewis has received consulting fees from Novartis; and has received institutional research grant support from Amgen, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Mentz has received consulting fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has received research grants from Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, InnoLife, Luitpold/American Reagent, Novartis, Otsuka, ResMed, and the National Institutes of Health (grants U01HL125511-01A1 and R01AG045551-01A1). Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and has received consulting fees from Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, and Cardiac Dimensions. Dr Teerlink has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Stealth Health; and has received research funding from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and scPharma. Dr Unger’s employer, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, has contracts with many companies, some of which are developing treatments for HF. Dr Whellan has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health (grant R01AG045551). Dr Wittes’s employer, Wittes LLC, has contracts with many companies, some of which are developing treatments for HF. Dr Anker has received fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiac Dimension, Cordio, Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Occlutech, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; and has received grant support from Abbott and Vifor Pharma. Dr O’Connor has received grant or research support from Roche Diagnostics and Merck; and has received consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiomed, and Windtree. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although it is a rare disease, the number of available therapeutic options for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension has increased since the late 1990s, with multiple drugs developed that are shown to be effective in phase 3 randomised controlled trials. Despite considerable advancements in pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment, prognosis remains poor. Existing therapies target pulmonary endothelial dysfunction with vasodilation and anti-proliferative effects. Novel therapies that target proliferative vascular remodelling and affect important outcomes are urgently needed. There is need for additional innovations in clinical trial design so that all emerging candidate therapies can be rigorously studied. Pulmonary arterial hypertension trial design has shifted from short-term submaximal exercise capacity as a primary endpoint, to larger clinical event-driven trial outcomes. Event-driven pulmonary arterial hypertension trials could face feasibility and efficiency issues in the future because increasing sample sizes and longer follow-up durations are needed, which would be problematic in such a rare disease. Enrichment strategies, innovative and alternative trial designs, and novel trial endpoints are potential solutions that could improve the efficiency of future pulmonary arterial hypertension trials while maintaining robustness and clinically meaningful evidence., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JW received research grants paid to his institution from Janssen, Actelion, Merck, and Bayer; consulting fees paid personally from Janssen; honoraria for lectures from Janssen; payment for expert testimony from Sprigings Intellectual Property Law; travel support from Janssen; and payment for participation in advisory boards from Janssen and Acceleron. AB received grants paid to her institution from Acceleron, Janssen, and MSD; honoraria for lectures from Janssen, MSD, and AOP Orphan; and travel support from Janssen. AP received a training grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute paid to his institution; and discloses stock or stock options in Bristol Myers Squibb. DM received research grants paid to his institution from Acceleron, Janssen, and Merck; consulting fees from Acceleron; and honoraria for lectures from Bayer, Janssen, and Merck. FZ has received consulting fees from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cellprothera, CVRx, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Cardior, Novo Nordisk, Servier, and Vifor Fresenius; honoraria for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Vifor Fresenius; payment for expert testimony from Hogan Lovells; advisory board payment from Acceleron; holds a leadership role with CardioVascular Clinical Trials; and holds stock or stock options with Cereno, G3 Pharmaceuticals, and Cardior. MG-M received grants paid to her institution from Altavant, Aerovate, Acceleron, Merck, Bayer, and United Therapeutics; consulting fees from Acceleron, Merck, Bayer, Altavant, Janssen, and United Therapeutics; honoraria for continuing medical education from Medscape; advisory board payments from Janssen, Aerovate, and Gilead; and holds leadership roles on the board of directors for the International Society of Heart & Lung Transplantation, Scientific Leadership Committee of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association, and Scientific Advisory Board of United Therapeutics. VM has received grants paid to his institution from Acceleron, Janssen, Sonovie, and United Therapeutics; consulting fees from Acceleron, Aerovate, Altavant, Bayer, Caremark, Civi Biopharma, Corvista, Gossamer Bio, Janssen, Merck, and United Therapeutics; and holds a leadership role on the Board of Directors at Clene. GS received consulting fees from MSD, Bayer, Actelion, and Janssen; payment for lectures from MSD, Bayer, Actelion, and Janssen; and advisory board payments from Acceleron. MH received grants paid to his institution from Acceleron, AOP Orphan, Janssen, Merck, and Shou Ti; consulting fees from Acceleron, Aerovate, Altavant, AOP Orphan, Bayer, Chiesi, Ferrer, Janssen, Merck, MorphogenIX, and United Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Janssen and Merck; and advisory board payments from Acceleron, Altavant, Janssen, Merck, and United Therapeutics. KP received research grants from the British Heart Foundation and SPARKS society in 1995–98 for unrelated work, and has no additional interests to declare. All other authors declare no competing interests. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Food and Drug Administration or the United States Department of Health and Human Services., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin improved clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. In patients with chronic heart failure, SGLT2 inhibitors cause an early decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) followed by a slower eGFR decline over time than placebo. However, the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on renal function during a hospital admission for acute heart failure remain largely unknown., Methods and Results: Between 1 and 5 days after a hospitalization for acute heart failure, 530 patients with an eGFR >20 ml/min/1.73 m 2 were randomized to 10 mg of empagliflozin or placebo and treated for 90 days. Renal function and electrolytes were measured at baseline, and after 15, 30 and 90 days. We evaluated the effect of empagliflozin on eGFR over time and the impact of baseline eGFR on the primary hierarchical outcome of death, worsening heart failure events and quality of life. Mean baseline eGFR was 52.4 ml/min/1.73 m 2 in the empagliflozin group and 55.7 ml/min/1.73 m 2 in the placebo group. Empagliflozin caused an initial decline in eGFR (-2 ml/min/1.73 m 2 at day 15 compared to placebo). At day 90, eGFR was similar between empagliflozin and placebo. Investigator-reported acute renal failure occurred in 7.7% of empagliflozin versus 12.1% of placebo patients. The overall clinical benefit (hierarchical composite of all-cause death, heart failure events and quality of life) of empagliflozin was unaffected by baseline eGFR., Conclusion: In patients hospitalized for acute heart failure, empagliflozin caused an early modest decline in renal function which was no longer evident after 90 days. Acute renal events were similar in both groups. The clinical benefit of empagliflozin was consistent regardless of baseline renal function., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Patients hospitalized for acute heart failure experience poor health status, including a high burden of symptoms and physical limitations, and poor quality of life. SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2) inhibitors improve health status in chronic heart failure, but their effect on these outcomes in acute heart failure is not well characterized. We investigated the effects of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin on symptoms, physical limitations, and quality of life, using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in the EMPULSE trial (Empagliflozin in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure Who Have Been Stabilized)., Methods: Patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized to empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo for 90 days. The KCCQ was assessed at randomization and 15, 30, and 90 days. The effects of empagliflozin on the primary end point of clinical benefit (hierarchical composite of all-cause death, heart failure events, and a 5-point or greater difference in KCCQ Total Symptom Score [TSS] change from baseline to 90 days) were examined post hoc across the tertiles of baseline KCCQ-TSS. In prespecified analyses, changes (randomization to day 90) in KCCQ domains, including TSS, physical limitations, quality of life, clinical summary, and overall summary scores were evaluated using a repeated measures model., Results: In total, 530 patients were randomized (265 each arm). Baseline KCCQ-TSS was low overall (mean [SD], 40.8 [24.0] points). Empagliflozin-treated patients experienced greater clinical benefit across the range of KCCQ-TSS, with no treatment effect heterogeneity (win ratio [95% CIs] from lowest to highest tertile: 1.49 [1.01-2.20], 1.37 [0.94-1.99], and 1.48 [1.00-2.20], respectively; P for interaction=0.94). Beneficial effects of empagliflozin on health status were observed as early as 15 days and persisted through 90 days, at which point empagliflozin-treated patients experienced a greater improvement in KCCQ TSS, physical limitations, quality of life, clinical summary, and overall summary (placebo-adjusted mean differences [95% CI]: 4.45 [95% CI, 0.32-8.59], P =0.03; 4.80 [95% CI, 0.00-9.61], P =0.05; 4.66 [95% CI, 0.32-9.01], P =0.04; 4.85 [95% CI, 0.77-8.92], P =0.02; and 4.40 points [95% CI, 0.33-8.48], P =0.03, respectively)., Conclusions: Initiation of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure produced clinical benefit regardless of the degree of symptomatic impairment at baseline, and improved symptoms, physical limitations, and quality of life, with benefits seen as early as 15 days and maintained through 90 days., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT0415775.

Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.

Objective: Prostacyclin infusion for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is an effective therapy with varied dosing requirements and clinical response. The major aim of this study was to determine new biologically-based predictors of prostacyclin treatment response heterogeneity., Methods: Ninety-eight patients with hemodynamically defined PAH at two academic medical centers volunteered for registry studies. A stable dose of treprostinil was the quantitative phenotype for the genome-wide association study (GWAS). Candidate genes with the largest effect sizes and strongest statistical associations were further characterized with in silico and in-vitro assays to confirm mechanistic hypotheses. The clinical significance of these candidate predictors was assessed for mechanistically consistent physiologic effects in an independent cohort of patients., Results: GWAS identified three loci for association with P < 10-6. All three loci had clinically significant effect sizes. Specific single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at two of the loci: rs11078738 in phosphoribosylformylglycinamidine synthase and rs10023113 in CAMK2D encoded sequence changes with clear predicted consequences. Production of the primary mediator of prostacyclin-induced vasodilation, cyclic AMP, was reduced in human cell lines by the missense variant rs11078738 (p.L621P). Located in the promoter of CAMK2D, the allele of rs10023113 associated with a higher treprostinil dose has higher ventricular transcription of CAMK2δ. At initial diagnostic catheterization in a separate cohort of patients, the same allele of rs10023113 was associated with elevated right mean atrial and ventricular diastolic pressures., Conclusions: The quantitative phenotype of stable treprostinil dose identified two gene loci associated with pharmacodynamic response and right ventricular function in PAH worth further investigation., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about clinical characteristics, hospital course, and longitudinal outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) related to heart failure (HF-CS) compared to acute myocardial infarction (AMI; CS related to AMI [AMI-CS])., Methods: We examined in-hospital and 1-year outcomes of 520 (219 AMI-CS, 301 HF-CS) consecutive patients with CS (January 3, 2017-December 31, 2019) in a single-center registry., Results: Mean age was 61.5±13.5 years, 71% were male, 22% were Black patients, and 63% had chronic kidney disease. The HF-CS cohort was younger (58.5 versus 65.6 years, P <0.001), had fewer cardiac arrests (15.9% versus 35.2%, P <0.001), less vasopressor utilization (61.8% versus 82.2%, P <0.001), higher pulmonary artery pulsatility index (2.14 versus 1.51, P <0.01), lower cardiac power output (0.64 versus 0.77 W, P <0.01) and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (25.4 versus 22.2 mm Hg, P <0.001) than patients with AMI-CS. Patients with HF-CS received less temporary mechanical circulatory support (34.9% versus 76.3% P <0.001) and experienced lower rates of major bleeding (17.3% versus 26.0%, P= 0.02) and in-hospital mortality (23.9% versus 39.3%, P <0.001). Postdischarge, 133 AMI-CS and 229 patients with HF-CS experienced similar rates of 30-day readmission (19.5% versus 24.5%, P =0.30) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.3% versus 28.8%, P =0.45). Patients with HF-CS had lower 1-year mortality (n=123, 42.6%) compared to the patients with AMI-CS (n=110, 52.9%, P =0.03). Cumulative 1-year mortality was also lower in patients with HF-CS (log-rank test, P =0.04)., Conclusions: Patients with HF-CS were younger, and despite lower cardiac power output and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, less likely to receive vasopressors or temporary mechanical circulatory support. Although patients with HF-CS had lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality, both cohorts experienced similarly high rates of postdischarge major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and 30-day readmission, highlighting that both cohorts warrant careful long-term follow-up., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03378739.

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is managed with increasing numbers of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT). Benefits tend to be additive. Burdens can also be additive. We propose a heart failure spending function as a conceptual framework for tailored intensification of GDMT that maximizes therapeutic opportunity while limiting adverse events and patient burden. Each patient is conceptualized to have reserve in physiological and psychosocial domains, which can be spent for a future return on investment. Key domains are blood pressure, heart rate, serum creatinine, potassium, and out-of-pocket costs. For each patient, GDMT should be initiated and intensified in a sequence that prioritizes medications with the greatest expected cardiac benefit while drawing on areas where the patient has ample reserves. When reserve is underspent, patients fail to gain the full benefit of GDMT. Conversely, when a reserve is fully spent, addition of new drugs or higher doses that draw upon a domain will lead to patient harm. The benefit of multiple agents drawing upon varied physiological domains should be balanced against cost and complexity. Thresholds for overspending are explored, as are mechanisms for implementing these concepts into routine care, but further health care delivery research is needed to validate and refine clinical use of the spending function. The heart failure spending function also suggests how newer therapies may be considered in terms of relative value, prioritizing agents that draw on different spending domains from existing GDMT.

Background: We aimed to evaluate the influence of heart failure (HF) on clinical and economic outcomes among older adults ≥75 years of age during their acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admission in large population-based study from the United States. We also evaluated the clinical characteristics associated with the presence of HF and the predictors of mortality, healthcare utilization, and cost among older adults with AMI., Methods: From January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016, AMI admission was identified using the primary diagnosis and concomitant HF was identified using any non-primary diagnoses in the Premier Healthcare Database., Results: Of the 468,654 patients examined, 42,946 (9%) had concomitant HF during their AMI admission. These patients were older, more often female, and were more likely to be White. Patients with concomitant HF were more likely to be frail than non-HF patients (59% vs 15%, P < .001). The mean (SD) Elixhauser comorbidity index was 2.6 (2.5) vs 0.4 (1.1), P < .001 in the AMI with HF vs AMI only group. The use of percutaneous coronary intervention in those with AMI and HF was lower than those with AMI only (15% vs 31%, P < .001). The overall mortality rate for those with HF was 12%, the median [IQR] hospital length of stay was 5 [3,9] days, and only 25% of patients were discharged home. A higher proportion of patients were discharged to rehabilitation or hospice if they had AMI and HF (Rehabilitation: 33% vs 20%, P < .001; Hospice: 5% vs 3%, P < .001). The mean unadjusted cost of an AMI hospitalization in patients with concomitant HF was lower ($12,411 ± $14,860) than in those without HF ($15,828 ± $19,330). After adjusting for age, gender, race, hypertension, frailty, revascularization strategy, and death, the average cost of hospitalization attributed to concomitant HF was +$1,075 (95% CI +876 to $1,274) when compared to AMI patients without HF., Conclusion: In patients ≥75 years of age, AMI with concomitant HF carries higher risk of death, but at ages ≥85 years, the risk difference diminishes due to other competing risks. HF was also associated with longer hospital length of stay and higher likelihood of referral to hospice and rehabilitation facilities when compared to older patients without HF. Care for these older adults is associated with increased hospitalization costs. Measures to identify HF in older adults during their AMI admission are necessary to optimize health outcomes, care delivery, and costs., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: After the implementation of the 2018 US heart transplant allocation system, the experience and perceptions of heart transplant clinicians have not been well-cataloged., Methods and Results: This web-based survey of both heart failure cardiologists and surgeons examined physician perspectives about the policy changes and whether the system is meeting its intended goals. The majority of participants (94%, n = 113) responded that the 2018 heart allocation system requires modification. Eighty-four percent reported using more temporary mechanical circulatory support to achieve higher status and 86% were concerned about the change in physician behavior and practices under the new system., Conclusions: Suggestions for possible improvement included higher status for patients on durable left ventricular assist device support, changes to criteria for status 2, modification of status exceptions, and advocacy for a heart allocation score., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

With the current landscape of approved therapies for heart failure (HF), there is a need to determine the role of a standard background therapy against which novel therapies are studied. The Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multistakeholder group of clinical investigators, clinicians, patients, government representatives including U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health participants, payers, and industry in March 2021 to discuss whether standardization of background drug therapy is necessary in clinical trials in patients with HF. The current paper summarizes the discussion and provides potential conceptual approaches, with a focus on therapies indicated for HF with reduced ejection fraction., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Hamo has received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health (grant number T32 HL007024). Dr Butler has served as a consultant to Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Cures, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Roche, Sequanna, and Vifor. Dr Fonarow has served as a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support or served on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Relypsa, and Roche Diagnostics; has speaker engagements with Novartis and Roche Diagnostics; and has participated on clinical endpoint committees for studies sponsored by Galmed and Novartis. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Corvia, Novartis, and Pfizer; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Axon Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiora, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Eisai, Ionis, Ironwood, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Prothena, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Shifamed, Tenax, and United Therapeutics. Dr Lindenfeld has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Abbott, Allegiant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Edwards, Impulse Dynamics, and VWave; and has received grants from AstraZeneca, Volumetrix, and Sensible Medical. Dr Abraham has received consulting fees from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardionomic, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Respicardia, Sensible Medical, and Vectorious; and has received salary support from V-Wave Medical. Dr Teerlink has received research grants and/or consulting fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, EBR Systems, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr McMurray has had payments to his employer, Glasgow University, for his 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 has received personal payments from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Eris Lifesciences, Hikma, Ionis, Lupin, ProAdWise Communications, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Servier. Dr O’Connor has received grant or research support from Roche Diagnostics and Merck; and has received consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Windtree, and Arena. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships related to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) mechanically unload the heart and coupled with neurohormonal therapy can promote reverse cardiac remodeling and myocardial recovery. Minimally invasive LVAD decommissioning with the device left in place has been reported to be safe over short-term follow-up. Whether device retention reduces long-term safety, or sustainability of recovery is unknown., Methods: This is a dual-center retrospective analysis of patients who had achieved responder status (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF ≥40% and left ventricular internal diastolic diameter, LVIDd ≤6.0 cm) and underwent elective LVAD decommissioning for myocardial recovery from May 2010 to January 2020. All patients had outflow graft closure and driveline resection with the LVAD left in place. Emergent LVAD decommissioning for an infection or device thrombosis was excluded. Patients were followed with serial echocardiography for up to 3-years. The primary clinical outcome was survival free of heart failure hospitalization, LVAD reimplantation, or transplant., Results: During the study period 515 patients received an LVAD and 29 (5.6%) achieved myocardial recovery, 12 patients underwent total device explantation or urgent device decommissioning, 17 patients underwent elective LVAD decommissioning, and were included in the analysis. Median age of patients at LVAD implantation was 42 years (interquartile range, IQR: 25-54 years), all had a nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 5 (29%) were female. At LVAD implantation, median LVEF was 10% (IQR: 5%-15%), and LVIDd 6.6 cm (IQR: 5.8-7.1 cm). There were 11 hydrodynamically levitated centrifugal-flow (65%), and 6 axial-flow LVADs (35%). The median duration of LVAD support before decommissioning was 28.7 months (range 13.5-36.2 months). As compared to the turndown study parameters, 1-month post-decommissioning, median LVEF decreased from 55% to 48% (p = 0.03), and LVIDd increased from 4.8 cm to 5.2 cm (p = 0.10). There was gradual remodeling until 6 months, after which there was no statistical difference on follow-up through 3-years (LVEF 42%, LVIDd 5.6 cm). Recurrent infections affected 41% of patients leading to 3 deaths and 1 complete device explant. Recurrent HF occurred in 1 patient who required a transplant. Probability of survival free of HF, LVAD, or transplant was 94% at 1-year, and 78% at 3-years., Conclusions: LVAD decommissioning for myocardial recovery was associated with excellent long-term survival free from recurrent heart failure and preservation of ventricular size and function up to 3-years. Reducing the risk of recurrent infections, remains an important therapeutic goal for this management strategy., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Outpatient calcitrope infusions-that is, the cardiac inotropes milrinone and dobutamine-are often used for bridge to transplantation and palliation in advanced heart failure, but few data exist about the real-world use of these agents., Methods and Results: We used the Symphony Integrated DataVerse of commercial, managed Medicare, and Medicaid insurance claims of approximately 280 million people (2012-2020) to determine the incidence and characteristics of ambulatory calcitrope use. Demographics were calculated, including geographic densities at the metropolitan statistical area level. A population projection normalized for age, sex, and location was extrapolated to the total US population. Ambulatory dispensing of milrinone was found in 10,533 outpatients, 1867 in 2019. Ambulatory dobutamine use was found in 4967 outpatients, 836 in 2019. The 2019 total US projection was 3411 for milrinone and 1281 for dobutamine. The mean age was 62 years for milrinone and 68 for dobutamine. Males represented 70% of use. There were differences between drugs in geographic distribution, with more milrinone use in the Northeast and South and more dobutamine use in the Midwest. Duration of use was 4.6 ± 7.2 months for milrinone and 1.8 ± 4.0 months for dobutamine. Of the patients receiving milrinone, 30.6% subsequently underwent cardiac transplantation or left ventricular assist device placement, whereas 10% receiving dobutamine went on to advanced therapies. Less than 0.5% of patients received calcitropes while enrolled in hospice care., Conclusions: More than 4000 patients receive outpatient infusion of calcitropes annually in the outpatient setting. Men are much more likely to receive these medications. A minority of the use is as a bridge to advanced therapies. Geographic variability in use suggests better evidence and consistent guidelines may be helpful., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Actigraphy-based measurements of physiologic parameters may enable design of patient-centric heart failure (HF) clinical trials. Recently, the Heart Failure Collaboratory focused on recommendations for meaningful change and use of actigraphy as an end point in HF clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have quantified the impact of HF interventions using actigraphy., Methods: Using a scoping review strategy, we evaluated the use of actigraphy in HF RCTs. Studies were identified through electronic searches of Embase, OVID Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Review. Data on trial characteristics and results were collected., Results: We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 1,455 participants. The risk of bias across the included trials was high overall. All trials had the primary outcomes reflecting measures of either physical activity (n = 8), sleep (n = 2), or both (n = 1). Five trials evaluated response to pharmacologic therapies compared with placebo, 3 evaluated physical activity interventions, 2 evaluated group or cognitive therapy, and 1 evaluated sleep-ventilation strategy. Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 619 participants. There was significant heterogeneity relating to device type, body placement site, and handling of missing actigraphy data. Duration of monitoring ranged from 48 hours to 12 weeks. None of the studies evaluating pharmacologic therapies (n = 5) demonstrated a significant improvement of actigraphy-based primary end point measurements., Conclusions: There is significant heterogeneity in the use, methodology, and results of actigraphy-based HF RCTs. Our results highlight the need to develop, standardize, and validate actigraphy-specific outcomes for use in HF clinical trials., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Treatment with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improves outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. There is limited experience with the in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute HF (AHF) with or without diabetes. EMPULSE is designed to assess the clinical benefit and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin compared with placebo in patients hospitalized with AHF., Methods: EMPULSE is a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled multinational trial comparing the in-hospital initiation of empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) with placebo. Approximately 500 patients admitted for AHF with dyspnoea, signs of fluid overload, and elevated natriuretic peptides will be randomized 1:1 stratified to HF status (de-novo and decompensated chronic HF) to either empagliflozin or placebo at approximately 165 sites across North America, Europe and Asia. Patients will be enrolled regardless of ejection fraction and diabetes status and will be randomized during hospitalization and after stabilization (between 24 h and 5 days after admission), with treatment continued up to 90 days after initiation. The primary outcome is clinical benefit at 90 days, consisting of a composite of all-cause death, HF events, and ≥5 point change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (KCCQ-TSS), assessed using a 'win-ratio' approach. Secondary outcomes include assessments of safety, change in KCCQ-TSS from baseline to 90 days and change in natriuretic peptides from baseline to 30 days., Conclusion: The EMPULSE trial will evaluate the clinical benefit and safety of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for AHF., (© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background Edge-to-edge transcatheter mitral valve repair as salvage therapy in high surgical risk patients with severe mitral regurgitation presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS) has been described in small case series, but large clinical results have not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve repair with MitraClip in patients with mitral regurgitation and CS using a large national database. Methods and Results From January 2014 to March 2019, we identified hospitalizations for CS in patients with mitral valve disease using data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Those with a prior surgical or percutaneous mitral valve intervention were excluded. We compared survival between patients who underwent MitraClip during the index hospitalization and those who did not using propensity-matched analysis. The analysis included 38 166 patients (mean age, 71±11 years, 41.6% women) of whom 622 (1.6%) underwent MitraClip. MitraClip was increasingly used during CS hospitalizations over the study period ( P <0.001). After matching, patients receiving MitraClip had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.47-0.77; P <0.001) and 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.88; P <0.001) compared with those without MitraClip. The survival benefit associated with MitraClip was consistent across subgroups of interest, with the exception of patients requiring acute mechanical circulatory support or hemodialysis at index. Conclusions In patients with mitral regurgitation presenting with CS, use of MitraClip is increasing and associated with greater in-hospital and 1-year survival. Further studies are warranted to optimize patient selection and procedure timing for those receiving MitraClip as a treatment option in CS.

Background: A growing population of patients with end-stage heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction has limited treatment options to improve their quality and quantity of life. Although positive inotropes have failed to show survival benefit, these agents may enhance patient-reported health status, that is, symptoms, functional status, and health-related quality of life. We sought to review the available clinical trial data on positive inotrope use in patients with end-stage HF and to summarize evidence supporting the use of these agents to improve health status of patients with end-stage HF., Methods: A literature review of randomized controlled trials examining the use of positive inotropy in HF with reduced ejection fraction was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science between January 1980 to December 2018 for randomized controlled trials that used as their main outcome measures the effects of inotrope therapy on (1) morbidity/mortality, (2) symptoms, (3) functional status, or (4) health-related quality of life. Inotropes of interest included adrenergic agents, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcium sensitizers, myosin activators, and SERCA2a (sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca 2+ -ATPase) modulators., Results: Twenty-two out of 26 inotrope randomized controlled trials measured the effect of inotropes on at least one patient-reported health status domain. Among the 22 studies with patient-related health status outcomes, 11 (50%) gauged symptom response, 15 (68%) reported functional capacity changes, and 12 (54%) reported health-related quality of life measures. Fourteen (64%) of these trials noted positive outcomes in at least one health status domain measured; 11 (79%) of these positive studies used agents that worked through phosphodiesterase inhibition., Conclusions: There has been a lack of standardization surrounding measurement of patient-centered outcomes in studies of inotropes for end-stage HF with reduced ejection fraction. The degree to which positive inotropes can improve patient-reported health status and the adverse risk they pose remains unknown.

The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has changed considerably over time, particularly with the sequential development of therapies aimed at antagonism of maladaptive biologic pathways, including inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system. The sequential nature of earlier HFrEF trials allowed the integration of new therapies tested against the background therapy of the time. More recently, multiple heart failure therapies are being evaluated simultaneously, and the number of therapeutic choices for treating HFrEF has grown considerably. In addition, implementation science has lagged behind discovery science in heart failure. Furthermore, given there are currently >200 ongoing clinical trials in heart failure, further complexities are anticipated. In an effort to provide a decision-making framework in the current era of expanding therapeutic options in HFrEF, the Heart Failure Collaboratory convened a multi-stakeholder group, including patients, clinicians, clinical investigators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, industry, and payers who met at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration campus on March 6, 2020. This paper summarizes the discussions and expert consensus recommendations., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Bhatt has received honorarium from Sanofi Pasteur and is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute T32 postdoctoral training grant T32HL094301. Dr. Abraham has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Respicardia; salary support from V-Wave Medical; and research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bristow is an employee of ARCA Biopharma. Dr. Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, Amgen, Merck, Cytokinetics, and Roche Diagnostics; and has received consulting fees from Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Relypsa, V-Wave, MyoKardia, Innolife, EBR Systems, Arena, Abbott, SphingoTec, Roche Diagnostics, Alnylam, LivaNova, Windtree Therapeutics, Rocket Pharma, and SC Pharma. Dr. Fonarow has received consulting from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Greene has received a Heart Failure Society of America/Emergency Medicine Foundation Acute Heart Failure Young Investigator Award funded by Novartis; has received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and Novartis; has served on advisory boards for Amgen and Cytokinetics; and serves as a consultant for Amgen and Merck. Dr. Lindenfield has received consulting fees from Novartis, Abbott, ResMed, V-Wave, CVRx, and Cytokinetics. Dr. Psotka has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Windtree; and grant support from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos; and has consulted for Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AOBiome, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi Pasteur, Dinaqor, and Tremeau. Dr. Teerlink has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Stealth Health; and research funding from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and scPharmaceuticals. Dr. Vaduganathan is supported by the KL2/Catalyst Medical Research Investigator Training award from Harvard Catalyst (National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Award UL 1TR002541); serves on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa; and participates on clinical endpoint committees for studies sponsored by Novartis and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wittes reports that the company for which she works, Statistics Collaborative, has contracts with many companies, some of which are developing treatments for HF. Dr. O’Connor has received research support from Roche Diagnostics; has received research support and is a consultant for Merck; is a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Windtree, and Neurotronik; and is a co-owner of BisCardia. Dr. Butler has received personal fees as a consultant from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Cures, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squib, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceuticals, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Roche, Sanofi, SC Pharma, V-Wave Limited, and Vifor outside the submitted work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)