Optimal Initial Intravenous Loop Diuretic Dosing in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

Background: Nearly one-half of patients admitted with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) are discharged with unresolved congestion, elevating rehospitalization risk. This may be due to suboptimal intravenous (IV) loop diuretic dosing, which may be influenced by home oral diuretic dose. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the association between: 1) home oral loop diuretic dose and optimal initial IV loop diuretic dosing in ADHF; and 2)receiving optimal initial IV loop diuretic dosing and length of stay and 30-day readmission. Methods: Retrospective analysis of adults admitted to a large U.S. hospital for ADHF on home oral loop diuretics from 1 January 2014 to 21 December 2021. Patients were categorized by home dose: low (≤40 mg furosemide equivalents), medium (>40-80 mg furosemide equivalents), and high (>80 mg furosemide equivalents). Optimal initial IV dosing was considered ≥2 times home oral dosing. Poisson regression models estimated prevalence ratios (CIs) for optimal initial IV loop diuretic dosing. Results: Among 3,269 adults admitted for ADHF (mean age 63 years, 62% male), optimal initial IV dosing occurred in 2,218 (67.9%). The prevalence of optimal initial IV dosing among low, medium, and high home dosing was 95.5%, 59.9%, and 4.0%, respectively. Adjusted prevalence ratios for optimal IV dosing with high and medium home dosing, compared to low, were 0.05 (95% CI: 0.03-0.07) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.70), respectively. There was no difference in length of stay or 30-day readmission between optimal and suboptimal initial IV diuretic dosing. Conclusions: Among patients with ADHF, higher home loop diuretic dose was strongly associated with a substantially lower likelihood of optimal initial IV diuretic dosing.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. CONCLUSION: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups. METHODS: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. RESULTS: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Sodium-glucose linked transporter 2 inhibitors in liver cirrhosis: Beyond their antidiabetic use.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and liver cirrhosis are clinical entities that frequently coexist, but glucose-lowering medication options are limited in cirrhotic patients. Sodium-glucose linked transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a class of glucose-lowering medication that act independently of insulin, by causing glycosuria in the proximal convoluted tubule. In this review, we aimed to briefly present the main data and to provide insight into the pathophysiology and potential usefulness of SGLT2 inhibitors in cirrhotic patients with or without T2DM. SGLT2 inhibitors have been proven useful as antidiabetic treatment in patients with metabolic liver disease, with most robust data from patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), where they also showed improvement in liver function parameters. Moreover, it has been suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may have effects beyond their antidiabetic action. Accordingly, they have exhibited cardioprotective effects, expanding their indication in patients with heart failure without T2DM. Since decompensated liver cirrhosis and congestive heart failure share common pathophysiological features, namely renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis and sympathetic nervous system activation as well as vasopressin secretion, SGLT2 inhibitors could also be beneficial in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, even in the absence of T2DM.

Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics and Cause-specific Outcomes in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Heart failure (HF) is a global pandemic affecting 64 million people worldwide. HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has traditionally received less attention than its main counterpart, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The incidence and prevalence of HFpEF show geographic variation and are increasing over time, soon expected to surpass those of HFrEF. Morbidity and mortality rates of HFpEF are considerable, albeit lower than those of HFrEF. This review focuses on the burden of HFpEF, providing contemporary data on epidemiology, clinical characteristics and comorbidities, cause-specific outcomes, costs and pharmacotherapy.

Sleep-disordered breathing and cardiovascular disease: who and why to test and how to intervene?

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is common in individuals with established cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly those with heart failure (HF). There are two main types of SDB, central sleep apnoea (CSA) and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) which frequently overlap as mixed SDB. Investigating for SDB could be considered in patients with excessive daytime sleepiness, male sex, high body mass index, low ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation (AF), in patients with no dipping blood pressure pattern, recurrent paroxysms of nocturnal dyspnoea or when an apnoea is witnessed. Excessive daytime sleepiness is less likely to be reported by patients with HF than by the general population. In patients with CVD and OSA, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation for over 4 hours daily reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, but there was no reduction in mortality. In patients with AF and OSA treated with AF ablation, CPAP use was associated with a reduced risk of recurrence of AF. In patients with HF and OSA, small studies have demonstrated that CPAP improves symptoms, brain natriuretic peptide levels and ejection fraction, but data on survival are lacking. Treatment remains unclear in patients with HF and CSA. The presence of CSA may be a defensive adaptive response to HF, and effectively treating CSA as demonstrated in a randomised clinical trial of adaptive servo-ventilation caused more harm than benefit when compared to optimal medical therapy. Thus, the focus of treating CSA should remain on improving the underlying HF by optimising medical therapy and, if indicated, cardiac resynchronisation therapy.

Decongestion strategies in patients presenting with acutely decompensated heart failure: A worldwide survey among physicians.

AIMS: Decongestion strategies for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) characterized by volume overload differ widely. The aim of this independent international academic web-based survey was to capture the therapeutic strategies that physicians use to treat ADHF and to assess differences in therapeutic approaches between cardiologists versus non-cardiologists. METHODS AND RESULTS: Physicians were invited to complete a web-based questionnaire, capturing anonymized data on physicians' characteristics and treatment preferences based on a hypothetical clinical scenario of a patient hospitalized with ADHF. A total of 641 physicians from 60 countries participated. A wide variation in the management of the patient was observed. There was conservative use of diuretics, i.e. only 7% started intravenous furosemide at a dose ≥2 times the baseline oral dose, and infrequent use of ultrasound in assessing congestion (20.4%). Spot urinary sodium was infrequently or never measured by ≥85% of physicians. A third considered a patient with ongoing oedema as being stabilized. There were significant differences between cardiologists and non-cardiologists in the management of ADHF, the targets for daily body weight loss and urine output, diuretic escalation strategies (66.3% vs. 40.7% would escalate diuresis by adding a thiazide) and assessment of response to treatment (27.0% vs. 52.9% considered patients with minimal congestion as stabilized). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability amongst physicians and between cardiologists and non-cardiologists in the management of patients with ADHF, with regard to clinical parameters used to tailor treatment, treatment goals, diuretic dosing and escalation strategies.

Global Public Health Burden of Heart Failure: An Updated Review.

Heart failure (HF) is a rapidly growing public health issue with an estimated prevalence of 64 million people globally. Although the incidence of HF has stabilised worldwide and seems to be declining in developed countries, the prevalence is increasing due to the ageing of the population, improved survival after MI and improved treatment and survival of patients with HF. Yet, HF remains associated with high mortality and morbidity, poor quality of life and functional capacity, and confers a substantial burden to the healthcare system. The prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity rates reported show geographical variations, depending on the different aetiologies and clinical characteristics observed among patients with HF. In this review, we provide an overview of the global epidemiology of HF with updated data on prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity worldwide.

Finerenone and effects on mortality in chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes: a FIDELITY analysis.

AIMS: Finerenone reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). We investigated the causes of mortality in the FIDELITY population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The FIDELITY prespecified pooled data analysis from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD excluded patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Outcomes included intention-to-treat and prespecified on-treatment analyses of the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Of 13 026 patients [mean age, 64.8 years; mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), 57.6 mL/min/1.73 m2], 99.8% were on renin-angiotensin system inhibitors. Finerenone reduced the incidence of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality vs. placebo (8.5% vs. 9.4% and 4.9% vs. 5.6%, respectively) and demonstrated significant on-treatment reductions [hazard ratio (HR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.96; P = 0.014 and HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99; P = 0.040, respectively]. Cardiovascular-related mortality was most common, and finerenone lowered the incidence of sudden cardiac death vs. placebo [1.3% (incidence rate 0.44/100 patient-years) vs. 1.8% (0.58/100 patient-years), respectively; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.996; P = 0.046]. The effects of finerenone on mortality were similar across all Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes risk groups. Event probability with finerenone at 4 years was consistent irrespective of baseline urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, but seemingly more pronounced in patients with higher baseline eGFR. CONCLUSION: In FIDELITY, finerenone significantly reduced the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality vs. placebo in patients with T2D across a broad spectrum of CKD stages while on treatment, as well as sudden cardiac death in the intention-to-treat population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02540993 and NCT02545049, respectively (funded by Bayer AG).

Temporal Trends of Heart Failure Hospitalizations in Cardiology Versus Noncardiology Wards According to Ejection Fraction: 16-Year Data From the SwedeHF Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) may receive different care depending on type of ward. We describe temporal changes in triage of HF patients with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF) hospitalized for AHF to cardiology versus noncardiology wards in Sweden. METHODS: We analyzed temporal changes in ward type for AHF for HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF between 2000 and 2016. RESULTS: Among 37 918 patients with AHF, 19 777 (52%) had HFrEF, 7712 (20%) had HFmrEF, and 10 429 (28%) had HFpEF. Overall, 19 646 (52%) were hospitalized in cardiology and 18 272 (48%) in noncardiology. The proportions hospitalized in noncardiology in 2000 to 2004 versus in 2013 to 2016 were for HFrEF: 45 versus 47%, for HFmrEF: 52 versus 56%, and for HFpEF: 46 versus 64%, respectively. The overall proportion of HFrEF in 2000 to 2004 versus in 2013 to 2016 decreased (60% versus 49%) especially in noncardiology (58% versus 41%), whereas the overall proportion of HFpEF increased (20% versus 30%) especially in noncardiology (21% versus 37%). The average age and prevalence of comorbidities also increased over time, with older patients with multiple comorbidities being more frequently admitted to noncardiology wards. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, AHF hospitalization for HFpEF occurred increasingly in noncardiology, whereas for HFrEF and HFmrEF the proportions of patients treated in cardiology versus noncardiology were substantially unchanged over time. This may have implications for implementation of emerging HFpEF therapy.

LVAD as a Bridge to Remission from Advanced Heart Failure: Current Data and Opportunities for Improvement.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an established treatment modality for advanced heart failure (HF). It has been shown that through volume and pressure unloading they can lead to significant functional and structural cardiac improvement, allowing LVAD support withdrawal in a subset of patients. In the first part of this review, we discuss the historical background, current evidence on the incidence and assessment of LVAD-mediated cardiac recovery, and out-comes including quality of life after LVAD support withdrawal. In the second part, we discuss current and future opportunities to promote LVAD-mediated reverse remodeling and improve our pathophysiological understanding of HF and recovery for the benefit of the greater HF population.

Right Heart Failure Following Left Ventricular Device Implantation: Natural History, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: An Analysis of the STS INTERMACS Database.

BACKGROUND: Our current understanding of right heart failure (RHF) post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is lacking. Recently, a new Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support definition of RHF was introduced. Based on this definition, we investigated natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of post-LVAD RHF. METHODS: Patients implanted with continuous flow LVAD between June 2, 2014, and June 30, 2016 and registered in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database were included. RHF incidence and predictors, and survival after RHF were assessed. The manifestations of RHF which were separately analyzed were elevated central venous pressure, peripheral edema, ascites, and use of inotropes. RESULTS: Among 5537 LVAD recipients (mean 57±13 years, 49% destination therapy, support 18.9 months) prevalence of 1-month RHF was 24%. Of these, RHF persisted at 12 months in 5.3%. In contrast, de novo RHF, first identified at 3 months, occurred in 5.1% and persisted at 12 months in 17% of these, and at 6 months occurred in 4.8% and persisted at 12 months in 25%. Higher preimplant blood urea nitrogen (ORs,1.03-1.09 per 5 mg/dL increase; P<0.0001), previous tricuspid valve repair/replacement (ORs, 2.01-10.09; P<0.001), severely depressed right ventricular systolic function (ORs,1.17-2.20; P=0.004); and centrifugal versus axial LVAD (ORs,1.15-1.78; P=0.001) represented risk factors for RHC incidence at 3 months. Patients with persistent RHF at 3 months had the lowest 2-year survival (57%) while patients with de novo RHF or RHF which resolved by 3 months had more favorable survival outcomes (75% and 78% at 2 years, respectively; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RHF at 1 or 3 months post-LVAD was a common and frequently transient condition, which, if resolved, was associated with relatively favorable prognosis. Conversely, de novo, late RHF post-LVAD (>6 months) was more frequently a persistent disorder and associated with increased mortality. The 1-, 3-, and 6-month time points may be used for RHF assessment and risk stratification in LVAD recipients.

Subclinical Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in HIV Patients: Prevalence and Associations with Carotid Atherosclerosis and Increased Adiposity.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is mainly detected in young, otherwise healthy, individuals. Cardiomyopathy and peripheral artery disease affecting these patients appears to be multifactorial. Prompt and potentially more effective implementation of therapeutic measures could be enabled by pre-symptomatic diagnosis of myocardial dysfunction and peripheral artery damage. However, limited data is available to date on this specific topic. Μethods: We investigated the association between global longitudinal strain (GLS), an established index of subclinical left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) assessed by two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography, and: (a) patient history; (b) demographic and clinical baseline characteristics; (c) carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and the presence of carotid atherosclerotic plaque(s), measured by ultrasonography; (d) temperature difference (ΔT) along each carotid artery, measured by microwave radiometry; and (e) basic blood panel measurements, including high-sensitivity troponin-T (hsTnT) and NT-proBNP in people living with HIV (PLWH) and no history of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 103 consecutive PLWH (95% male, age 47 ± 11 years, anti-retroviral therapy 100%) and 52 age- and sex-matched controls. PLWH had a significantly higher relative wall thickness (0.38 ± 0.08 vs. 0.36 ± 0.04, p = 0.048), and higher rate of LVSD (34% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.015), and carotid artery atherosclerosis (28% vs. 6%, p = 0.001) compared with controls. Among PLWH, LVSD was independently associated with the presence of carotid atherosclerosis (adj. OR:3.09; 95%CI:1.10-8.67, p = 0.032) and BMI (1.15; 1.03-1.29, p = 0.017), while a trend for association between LVSD and left ventricular hypertrophy was also noted (3.12; 0.73-13.33, p = 0.124). No differences were seen in microwave radiometry parameters, NT-proBNP, hs-TnT and c-reactive protein between PLWH with and without LVSD. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical LVSD and carotid atherosclerosis were significantly more frequent in PLWH compared to a group of healthy individuals, implying a possible link between HIV infection and these two pathological processes. Carotid atherosclerosis and increased adiposity were independently associated with impaired GLS in HIV-infected individuals.

Multichamber Involvement of Metastatic Cardiac Melanoma.

A 30-year-old man with a history of an in-situ melanoma of the forehead was referred for cardiac evaluation because of tachycardia and elevated levels of serum troponin. The transthoracic echocardiogram revealed multiple masses attached to the walls of both ventricles and the right atrium (RA). A large mass was occupying almost one third of the right ventricle (RV), resulting in reduction of the end-diastolic RV volume and tachycardia. A cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed multifocal myocardial infiltration and intracavitary masses and excluded the presence of thrombus in any of the cardiac chambers. Diffuse metastatic involvement in the liver, the spleen, and the brain by computed tomography precluded surgical management. Being BRAF-unmutated, the patient was initially treated with a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. One month later, the cardiac metastases in RA and left ventricle were unchanged on echocardiogram, while the tumor in RV was enlarged occupying the majority of the chamber, resulting in further reduction of the cardiac output and tachycardia. The treatment was changed to a combination of dacarbazine and carboplatin, but the patient eventually died two months later. Heart is not a common metastatic site of melanoma and cardiac involvement is usually clinically silent making ante mortem diagnosis difficult. Multimodalidy imaging plays a pivotal role in the diagnostic work up. Cardiac melanoma metastases indicate an advance stage disease with poor prognosis.

Digoxin use in contemporary heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: an analysis from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: Digoxin is included in some heart failure (HF) guidelines but controversy persists about the true role for and impact of treatment with this drug, particularly in the absence of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to assess the association between clinical characteristics and digoxin use and between digoxin use and mortality/morbidity in a large, contemporary cohort of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) stratified by history of AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFrEF (EF < 40%) enrolled in the Swedish HF registry between 2005 and 2018 were analysed. The independent association between digoxin use and patient characteristics was assessed by logistic regression, and between digoxin use and outcomes [composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, and HFH] by Cox regressions in a 1:1 propensity score matched population. Digoxin use was analysed at baseline and as a time-dependent variable. Of 42 456 patients with HFrEF, 16% received digoxin, 29% in the AF group and 2.8% in the non-AF group. The main independent predictors of use were advanced HF, higher heart rate, history of AF, preserved renal function, and concomitant use of beta blockers. Digoxin use was associated with lower risk of all-cause death/HFH [hazard ratio (HR): 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-0.99] in AF, but with higher risk in non-AF (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.09-1.43). Consistent results were observed when digoxin use was analysed as a time-dependent variable. CONCLUSION: The great majority of digoxin users had a history of AF. Digoxin use was associated with lower mortality/morbidity in patients with AF, but with higher mortality/morbidity in patients without AF.

Association of loop diuretics use and dose with outcomes in outpatients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies involving 96,959 patients.

There is ongoing controversy regarding the association between loop diuretics (LD), especially in high doses, and adverse clinical outcomes in outpatients with heart failure (HF). We performed a systematic review of the evidence for LD in outpatients with HF. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Clinical Trial Collection to identify controlled studies, evaluating the association between LD and morbidity and mortality in patients with HF. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and secondary endpoint HF hospitalizations. Quantitative analysis was performed by generating forest plots and pooling adjusted risk estimates across studies using random effects models. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed through Q and I2 statistics. Twenty-four studies with a total of 96,959 patients were included. No randomized studies were identified. Use of LD was associated with increased all-cause mortality compared with non-use (pooled adjusted risk estimates, 1.18; P = 0.001) and increased HF hospitalization rates (pooled adjusted risk estimates, 1.81; P < 0.001). These associations remained significant after excluding studies that included HF patients at discharge from hospital (pooled adjusted risk estimates, 1.31 and 1.89, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). High-dose LD (median dose 80 mg) were also associated with increased all-cause mortality (pooled adjusted risk estimates, 1.99; P < 0.001) compared with low-dose LD. Again, this association remained significant after excluding studies that included HF patients at discharge from hospital (pooled adjusted risk estimates, 1.33; P < 0.001). Existing evidence indicates that LD, especially in high doses, are associated with increased all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization rates. For this reason, prospective, randomized studies are warranted to clarify whether these associations indicate causality or are merely an epiphenomenon due to disease severity. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO database registration number CRD42020153239. Date of registration: 28 April 2020.