2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure replaces the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure and the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews and other evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies published through September 2021 were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments that have high-quality published economic analyses.

Advancing Research on the Complex Interrelations Between Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: A Report From a US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Virtual Workshop.

The interrelationships between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are complex and poorly understood, yet the number of patients with AF and HF continues to increase worldwide. Thus, there is a need for initiatives that prioritize research on the intersection between AF and HF. This article summarizes the proceedings of a virtual workshop convened by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify important research opportunities in AF and HF. Key knowledge gaps were reviewed and research priorities were proposed for characterizing the pathophysiological overlap and deleterious interactions between AF and HF; preventing HF in people with AF; preventing AF in individuals with HF; and addressing symptom burden and health status outcomes in AF and HF. These research priorities will hopefully help inform, encourage, and stimulate innovative, cost-efficient, and transformative studies to enhance the outcomes of patients with AF and HF.

Clinical Significance of Early Fluid and Weight Change During Acute Heart Failure Hospitalization.

AIMS: To explore the association of changes in weight and fluid during treatment for acute heart failure (AHF) with clinical endpoints. METHODS AND RESULTS: Weight and net fluid changes recorded at 72-96 hours in 708 AHF patients enrolled in Diuretic Optimization Strategy Evaluation in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure, Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure, and Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure studies were compared with freedom from congestion at 72-96 hours and a composite endpoint of death, rehospitalization, and unplanned hospital visit at 60 days. Weight loss was concordant with net fluid loss in 55%, discordant and less than expected for fluid loss in 34%, and paradoxically discordant or more than expected for fluid loss in 11% of patients. Weight loss, but not fluid loss, was associated with freedom from congestion (odds ratio per 1-kg weight loss = 1.11 [1.03-1.19]) and a nominal reduction in the composite endpoint (hazard ratio per 1-kg weight loss = 0.98 [0.95-1.00]). Outcomes were similar in patients with concordant and discordant weight-fluid loss. CONCLUSION: During treatment for AHF, early changes in weight may be more useful for identifying response to therapy and for predicting outcomes than net fluid output. Nearly one-half of patients receiving decongestive therapies demonstrate discordant changes in weight and fluid; however, discordance was not associated with outcomes.

Randomized, Controlled Trial of an Advance Care Planning Video Decision Support Tool for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Conversations about goals of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)/intubation for patients with advanced heart failure can be difficult. This study examined the impact of a video decision support tool and patient checklist on advance care planning for patients with heart failure. METHODS: This was a multisite, randomized, controlled trial of a video-assisted intervention and advance care planning checklist versus a verbal description in 246 patients ≥64 years of age with heart failure and an estimated likelihood of death of >50% within 2 years. Intervention participants received a verbal description for goals of care (life-prolonging care, limited care, and comfort care) and CPR/intubation plus a 6-minute video depicting the 3 levels of care, CPR/intubation, and an advance care planning checklist. Control subjects received only the verbal description. The primary analysis compared the proportion of patients preferring comfort care between study arms immediately after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were CPR/intubation preferences and knowledge (6-item test; range, 0-6) after intervention. RESULTS: In the intervention group, 27 (22%) chose life-prolonging care, 31 (25%) chose limited care, 63 (51%) selected comfort care, and 2 (2%) were uncertain. In the control group, 50 (41%) chose life-prolonging care, 27 (22%) selected limited care, 37 (30%) chose comfort care, and 8 (7%) were uncertain (P<0.001). Intervention participants (compared with control subjects) were more likely to forgo CPR (68% versus 35%; P<0.001) and intubation (77% versus 48%; P<0.001) and had higher mean knowledge scores (4.1 versus 3.0; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure who viewed a video were more informed, more likely to select a focus on comfort, and less likely to desire CPR/intubation compared with patients receiving verbal information only. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01589120.

Treatment Failure With Rhythm and Rate Control Strategies in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure: An AF-CHF Substudy.

INTRODUCTION: Rate and rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF) are not always effective or well tolerated in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). We assessed reasons for treatment failure, associated characteristics, and effects on survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1,376 patients enrolled in the AF-CHF trial were followed for 37  ±  19 months, 206 (15.0%) of whom failed initial therapy leading to crossover. Rhythm control was abandoned more frequently than rate control (21.0% vs. 9.1%, P < 0.0001). Crossovers from rhythm to rate control were driven by inefficacy, whereas worsening heart failure was the most common reason to crossover from rate to rhythm control. In multivariate analyses, failure of rhythm control was associated with female sex, higher serum creatinine, functional class III or IV symptoms, lack of digoxin, and oral anticoagulation. Factors independently associated with failure of rate control were paroxysmal (vs. persistent) AF, statin therapy, and presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Crossovers were not associated with cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11 from rhythm to rate control; 95% confidence interval [95% CI, 0.73-1.73]; P = 0.6069; HR 1.29 from rate to rhythm control; 95% CI, 0.73-2.25; P = 0.3793) or all-cause mortality (HR 1.16 from rhythm to rate control, 95% CI [0.79-1.72], P = 0.4444; HR 1.15 from rate to rhythm control, 95% [0.69, 1.91], P = 0.5873). CONCLUSIONS: Rhythm control is abandoned more frequently than rate control in patients with AF and CHF. The most common reasons for treatment failure are inefficacy for rhythm control and worsening heart failure for rate control. Changing strategies does not impact survival.

Water and sodium in heart failure: a spotlight on congestion.

Despite all available therapies, the rates of hospitalization and death from heart failure (HF) remain unacceptably high. The most common reasons for hospital admission are symptoms related to congestion. During hospitalization, most patients respond well to standard therapy and are discharged with significantly improved symptoms. Post-discharge, many patients receive diligent and frequent follow-up. However, rehospitalization rates remain high. One potential explanation is a persistent failure by clinicians to adequately manage congestion in the outpatient setting. The failure to successfully manage these patients post-discharge may represent an unmet need to improve the way congestion is both recognized and treated. A primary aim of future HF management may be to improve clinical surveillance to prevent and manage chronic fluid overload while simultaneously maximizing the use of evidence-based therapies with proven long-term benefit. Improvement in cardiac function is the ultimate goal and maintenance of a "dry" clinical profile is important to prevent hospital admission and improve prognosis. This paper focuses on methods for monitoring congestion, and strategies for water and sodium management in the context of the complex interplay between the cardiac and renal systems. A rationale for improving recognition and treatment of congestion is also proposed.

Is it time to consider a "time-out" before primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement in currently or recently hospitalized older patients with heart failure?

BACKGROUND: Trajectories of mortality after primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement for older patients with heart failure during or soon after acute hospitalization have not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare trajectories of mortality after primary prevention ICD placement during or soon after acute cardiac or non-cardiac hospitalization. METHODS: We identified older patients with heart failure undergoing primary prevention ICD placement using 20% Medicare data (2008-2018). Placement settings were as follows: (1) Current-H-during current hospitalization, (2) Recent-H-within 90 days of hospitalization, or (3) Chronic stable. Hospitalization was categorized as cardiac vs non-cardiac. Interval mortality rates and hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression were estimated at 0-30, 31-90, and 91-365 days after ICD placement. RESULTS: Of the 61,710 patients (mean age 76 years; 35% female; 85% white), 19% (11,947), 25% (15,147), and 56% (34,616) had ICDs in Current-H, Recent-H, and Chronic stable settings. Mortality rates (per 100 person-years) were highest during 0-30 days, with 38 (34-42) and 22 (19-24) for Current-H and Recent-H, which declined to 21 (20-22) and 16 (15-17) during 91-365 days, respectively. Compared to Chronic stable, HRs were highest during 0-30 days post-ICD placement (5.5 [4.5-6.8] for Current-H and 3.4 [2.8-4.2] for Recent-H) and decreased during 91-365 days (2.0 [1.8-2.1] for Current-H and 1.6 [1.5-1.7] for Recent-H). HR pattens were similar for cardiac and non-cardiac hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Primary prevention ICD placement during or soon after hospitalization for any reason was associated with worse mortality with diminishing risks after 90 days. Hospitalization likely identifies a sicker population in whom early mortality with or without ICD may be higher. Our results support careful consideration regarding ICD placement during the 90 days after hospitalization.

Seated Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Heart Failure: Results of the PROACTIVE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring supine pulmonary artery pressures to guide heart failure (HF) management has reduced HF hospitalizations in select patients. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of managing seated mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) with the Cordella Pulmonary Artery sensor on outcomes in patients with HF. METHODS: Following GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd Management of Heart Failure Trial), with U.S. Food and Drug Administration input, PROACTIVE-HF (A Prospective, Multi-Center, Open Label, Single Arm Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of the Cordella Pulmonary Artery Sensor System in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients trial) was changed from a randomized to a single-arm, open label trial, conducted at 75 centers in the USA and Europe. Eligible patients had chronic HF with NYHA functional class III symptoms, irrespective of the ejection fraction, and recent HF hospitalization and/or elevated natriuretic peptides. The primary effectiveness endpoint at 6 months required the HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality rate to be lower than a performance goal of 0.43 events/patient, established from previous hemodynamic monitoring trials. Primary safety endpoints at 6 months were freedom from device- or system-related complications or pressure sensor failure. RESULTS: Between February 7, 2020, and March 31, 2023, 456 patients were successfully implanted in modified intent-to-treat cohort. The 6-month event rate was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.12-0.20) which was significantly lower than performance goal (0.15 vs 0.43; P < 0.0001). Freedom from device- or system-related complications was 99.2% and freedom from sensor failure was 99.8% through 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Remote management of seated mPAP is safe and results in a low rate of HF hospitalizations and mortality. These results support the use of seated mPAP monitoring and extend the growing body of evidence that pulmonary artery pressure-guided management improves outcomes in heart failure. (Multi-Center, Open Label, Single Arm Clinical Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of the Cordella Pulmonary Artery Sensor System in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients trial [PROACTIVE-HF]; NCT04089059).

Remote Monitoring for Heart Failure Management at Home.

Early telemonitoring of weights and symptoms did not decrease heart failure hospitalizations but helped identify steps toward effective monitoring programs. A signal that is accurate and actionable with response kinetics for early re-assessment is required for the treatment of patients at high risk, while signal specifications differ for surveillance of low-risk patients. Tracking of congestion with cardiac filling pressures or lung water content has shown most impact to decrease hospitalizations, while multiparameter scores from implanted rhythm devices have identified patients at increased risk. Algorithms require better personalization of signal thresholds and interventions. The COVID-19 epidemic accelerated transition to remote care away from clinics, preparing for new digital health care platforms to accommodate multiple technologies and empower patients. Addressing inequities will require bridging the digital divide and the deep gap in access to HF care teams, who will not be replaced by technology but by care teams who can embrace it.