Global use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in heart failure and reduced, below normal and supranormal ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: The global use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in clinical practice, especially in patients with heart failure and below-normal ejection fraction (HFbnEF), has not been thoroughly evaluated. We aimed to investigate the characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events in patients treated with ARNI for HF with reduced (HFrEF), below-normal (HFbnEF), and supranormal left ventricular EF (HFsnEF). METHODS: This observational study analyzed data from the electronic healthcare records (EHR) of patients with HF treated with ARNI between 2015 and 2022 in North and South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. Based on the left ventricular EF, patients were categorized as HFrEF (< 40%), HFbnEF (40-60%), and HFsnEF (> 60%). Mortality and the incidence of adverse events were investigated. RESULTS: Of the 11,141 patients analyzed, HFrEF, HFbnEF and HFsnEF accounted for 74%, 22%, and 4%, respectively. Patients with a higher EF were more likely to be older, female, and obese. Hypertension and atrial fibrillation were the most common in HFsnEF. Systolic blood pressure was lower and natriuretic peptide levels were higher in the lower EF groups. Mortality was lowest in HFbnEF (7.7 per 100 patient-years follow-up in HFrEF, 5.8 in HFmrEF, and 6.0 in HFsnEF). Similarly, hypotension and acute kidney injury were the least frequent in HFbnEF. Incidence of elevated serum potassium levels was similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of large-scale EHR, ARNI was mainly used in HFrEF and HFbnEF, consistent with previous randomized trials and pooled analyses. Adverse events were less common in HFbnEF.

Machine learning in the prevention of heart failure.

Heart failure (HF) is a global pandemic with a growing prevalence and is a growing burden on the healthcare system. Machine learning (ML) has the potential to revolutionize medicine and can be applied in many different forms to aid in the prevention of symptomatic HF (stage C). HF prevention currently has several challenges, specifically in the detection of pre-HF (stage B). HF events are missed in contemporary models, limited therapeutic options are proven to prevent HF, and the prevention of HF with preserved ejection is particularly lacking. ML has the potential to overcome these challenges through existing and future models. ML has limitations, but the many benefits of ML outweigh these limitations and risks in most scenarios. ML can be applied in HF prevention through various strategies such as refinement of incident HF risk prediction models, capturing diagnostic signs from available tests such as electrocardiograms, chest x-rays, or echocardiograms to identify structural/functional cardiac abnormalities suggestive of pre-HF (stage B HF), and interpretation of biomarkers and epigenetic data. Altogether, ML is able to expand the screening of individuals at risk for HF (stage A HF), identify populations with pre-HF (stage B HF), predict the risk of incident stage C HF events, and offer the ability to intervene early to prevent progression to or decline in stage C HF. In this narrative review, we discuss the methods by which ML is utilized in HF prevention, the benefits and pitfalls of ML in HF risk prediction, and the future directions.

Serum insulin-like growth factor-1 as a potential prognostic biomarker for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis.

Background: Most studies have indicated that peripheral insulin-like growth levels factor-1 (IGF-1) is valuable in diagnosing heart failure, although the results have been inconsistent. To help solve the debate, we performed a meta-analysis to explore the relationship between IGF-1 and heart failure (HF). Methods: We conducted an extensive search across various databases such as Embase, Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Medline, and Web of Science on May 30, 2023. From the extensive pool of studies, we selected 16 relevant articles, encompassing a total of 1,380 cases and 1,153 controls, to conduct a rigorous meta-analysis. Results: The total results indicated that there is an association between lower IGF-1 level and HF. The random-effects model yielded a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.598 (95% CI: -1.081 to -0.116, P = 0.015). Further subgroup analysis also showed that IGF-1 levels were associated with HF in the age difference ≥5 years subgroup and body mass index difference >1 subgroup. Additionally, significant association between IGF-1 levels and HF were detected in the "serum" samples and "Europe" subgroups. Importantly, we observed IGF-1 showed significant lower levels in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared to the controls, not in patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The Begg's and Egger's tests revealed no indication of publication bias. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis has provided evidence suggesting a substantial correlation between reduced levels of IGF-1 and the occurrence of HF. Further prospective studies are necessary to ascertain the use of IGF-1 as a reliable biomarker for diagnosing HF, especially for HFrEF. But the diagnosis of HFpEF should be cautious.

Left ventricular reverse remodeling after combined ARNI and SGLT2 therapy in heart failure patients with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Background: Cardiac remodeling is an adverse phenomenon linked to heart failure (HF) progression. Cardiac remodeling could represent the real therapeutic goal in the treatment of patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), being potentially reversed through different pharmacotherapies. Currently, there are well-established drugs such as ACEi/ARBs and ß-blockers with anti-remodeling effects. More recently, ARNI effects on cardiac remodeling were also demonstrated; additional potential benefits of gliflozins remain non clearly demonstrated. Aim of study: To evaluate possible changes in cardiac remodeling in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF in treatment with ARNI or ARNI plus SGLT2i and the potential benefit on cardiac remodeling of adding SGLT2i to ARNI. Methods: Between June 2021 and August 2023, 100 consecutive patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF underwent conventional and advanced echocardiography (TDI, 2DSTE): patients were therefore divided into three groups according to therapy with neither ARNI nor SGLT2i, just ARNI or both. After 3 months, all patients underwent echocardiographic follow-up. Results: After a 3 months of therapy, significant improvements were observed for LVEF, LVEDD, LVEDV, LVESV, LV mass, E/e', LV GLS, TAPSE (ANOVA p< 0.01 in all cases), RV S' velocity (ANOVA p< 0.001).The trend in favor of additional treatment with SGTL2i over ARNI remained statistically significant even after multivariable analysis (p< 0.001 for LVEF, LVEDD; p< 0.01 for LV GLS, TAPSE, TRVS; p< 0.05 for LV mass). Conclusions: SGLT2i therapy when added to the standard treatment for HFrEF and HFmrEF is associated with an improved biventricular function and ventricular dimensions at follow-up.

Unlocking Hidden Risks: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Detect Subclinical Conditions from an Electrocardiogram (ECG).

Recent artificial intelligence (AI) advancements in cardiovascular medicine offer potential enhancements in diagnosis, prediction, treatment, and outcomes. This article aims to provide a basic understanding of AI enabled ECG technology. Specific conditions and findings will be discussed, followed by reviewing associated terminology and methodology. In the appendix, definitions of AUC versus accuracy are explained. The application of deep learning models enables detecting diseases from normal electrocardiograms at accuracy not previously achieved by technology or human experts. Results with AI enabled ECG are encouraging as they considerably exceeded current screening models for specific conditions (i.e., atrial fibrillation, left ventricular dysfunction, aortic stenosis, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). This could potentially lead to a revitalization of the utilization of the ECG in the insurance domain. While we are embracing the findings with this rapidly evolving technology, but cautious optimism is still necessary at this point.

Heart failure and stroke: The underrepresentation of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction subtype in randomized clinical trials of therapeutic anticoagulation.

Heart failure (HF) is an important comorbidity for patients with ischemic stroke, present in 11 %-18 % of patients, and may also independently increase the risk of first-ever and recurrent ischemic stroke. HF is categorized based on ejection fraction (EF) into HF with reduced (HFrEF), mildly-reduced (HFmrEG) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), with the efficacy of HF therapies differing between the three subcategories. Despite this classification, the incidence, recurrence rates and outcomes of ischemic stroke do not appear to differ significantly between the three subtypes, even when considering the concurrent presence of atrial fibrillation. However, several randomized-controlled clinical trials of anticoagulation defined HF based on reduced EF, inevitably excluding a large proportion of patients with HFpEF. This exclusion is significant considering marked differences between heart failure phenotypes. Such discrepancies raise concerns about the broad applicability of the results of these studies, including those of primary or secondary stroke prevention in HF. Future trials should include both patients with HFrEF and HFpEF to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antiocoagulation therapies in primary and secondary stroke prevention across the spectrum of the EF.

A prospective randomized controlled study of multi-intravenous infusion of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (PRIME-HFrEF) trial: Rationale and design.

Background and objective: The use of mesenchymal stem cells for heart failure treatment has gained increasing interest. However, most studies have relied on a single injection approach, with no research yet confirming the effects of multiple administrations. The present trial aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of multi-intravenous infusion of umbilical cord-mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: The PRIME-HFrEF trial is a single-center, prospective, randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of multi-intravenous infusion of UC-MSCs in HFrEF patients. A total of 40 patients meeting the inclusion criteria for HFrEF were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to the MSC group or the placebo group. Patients enrolled will receive intravenous injections of either UC-MSCs or placebo every 6 weeks for three times. Both groups will be followed up for 12 months. The primary safety endpoint is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy endpoint is a change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) measured by left ventricular opacification (LVO) with contrast echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 12 months. The secondary endpoints include a composite of the incidence of death and re-hospitalization caused by heart failure at the 12th month, serum NT-proBNP, growth stimulation expressed gene 2 (ST2), and a change of right ventricular structure and function. Conclusions: The PRIME-HFrEF study is designed to shed new light on multiple UC-MSC administration regimens for heart failure treatment.

Factors Associated With Sacubitril/Valsartan Continuation and the Methods of Combining Heart Failure Medications in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) is recommended for patients with heart failure (HF). In addition, a combination of 4 HF medications, including SV, is recommended in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, evidence on the characteristics of patients who could continue SV and its initiation methods is limited. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors associated with SV continuation and methods of combining HF medications. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included HF patients who initiated with SV at our institution. The endpoint was SV continuation for 6 months after its initiation. Multivariate analysis was used to extract factors associated with SV continuation. The relationship between the methods of combining HF medications (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors), including the number of HF medications, their combination patterns, and the timing of their initiation, and SV continuation was examined in patients with HFrEF. RESULTS: Of 186 eligible patients, 68.8% had HFrEF, and 79.0% continued SV for 6 months. Significant factors associated with SV continuation were albumin ≥ 3.5 g/dL (odds ratio, 4.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.19-10.59), body mass index (BMI) ≥ 18.5 kg/m2 (4.17; 1.10-15.85), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 110 mmHg (2.66; 1.12-6.28). In patients with HFrEF, the proportion of HF medications not initiated simultaneously with SV was significantly higher in the continuation group than in the discontinuation group (67.3% vs 33.3%, P = 0.002). The number of HF medications and their combination patterns were not significantly associated with SV continuation. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Albumin, BMI, and SBP are useful indicators for selecting patients who are likely to continue SV. In addition, initiating only SV without simultaneously initiating other HF medications in patients with HFrEF may lead to SV continuation.

Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension.

Prescription patterns in management of Heart failure and its association with re-admissions: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: AHA/ACC/HFSA recently added SGLT2i in addition to RAASi, Beta-blockers and MRAs to form the 4 pillars of Guideline-directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) for management of Heart Failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Despite strong evidence suggesting improved outcomes with inpatient initiation of GDMT at target doses, significant lag has been noted in prescription practices. OBJECTIVES: To study GDMT prescription rates in patients with HFrEF at the time of hospital discharge and evaluate its association with various patient characteristics and all-cause readmission rates. METHODS: We used a modified version of Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) score to characterize patients into 2 groups (those with HFC score <3 and HFC score ≥3) and to examine various socio-economic and biomedical factors affecting GDMT prescription practices. RESULTS: Out of the eligible patients, the prescription rates for Beta-blockers was 77.9%, RAASi was 70.3%, and MRAs was 41%. Furthermore, Prescription rates for Sacubitril/Valsartan was 27.7% and SGLT2i was 17%. Only 1% of patients had HFC score 9 (drugs from all 4 classes at target doses). Patients of black ethnicity, those admitted on teaching service and those with HfrEF as the primary cause of admission were more likely to have HFC ≥ 3 at discharge. HFC ≥ 3 was associated with lower rates of 1-month all cause readmissions. CONCLUSION: Consistent with the prior research, our data shows significant gaps in prescription of GDMT in HFrEF. Further implementation research should be done to improve GDMT prescription during inpatient stay.

Use of Guideline-Recommended Heart Failure Drugs in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Optimal use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) can prevent hospitalization and mortality among patients with heart failure (HF). We aimed to assess the prevalence of GDMT use for HF across geographic regions and country-income levels. We systematically reviewed observational studies (published between January 2010 and October 2020) involving patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to obtain summary estimates. We included 334 studies comprising 1,507,849 patients (31% female). The majority (82%) of studies were from high-income countries, with Europe (45%) and the Americas (33%) being the most represented regions, and Africa (1%) being the least. Overall prevalence of GDMT use was 80% (95% CI 78%-81%) for ß-blockers, 82% (80%-83%) for renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, and 41% (39%-43%) for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. We observed an exponential increase in GDMT use over time after adjusting for country-income levels (p < 0.0001), but significant gaps persist in low- and middle-income countries. Multi-level interventions are needed to address health-system, provider, and patient-level barriers to GDMT use.

A Multivariable Mendelian Randomization Study of Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure, Lipid Profile, and Heart Failure Subtypes.

Heart failure (HF) is a significant health burden, with two major clinical subtypes: HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Blood pressure and lipid profile are established risk factors of HF. We performed univariable and multivariable Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to assess potential causal effects of blood pressures and lipids on HF subtypes. Genetic instruments for blood pressures and lipids were derived from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) among the European participants of the UK Biobank. GWAS summaries of HFrEF and HFpEF were obtained from the meta-analysis of the European participants from the Million Veteran Program and the Vanderbilt University DNA Databank. Systolic blood pressure exhibited a supportive MR association primarily with HFpEF (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.23), while diastolic blood pressure had an independent MR association with HFrEF (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.77). MR associations also supported the observation that higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol increase the risk for both subtypes (HFrEF OR, 1.10 and 95% CI, 1.05-1.17; HFpEF OR, 1.05 and 95% CI, 1.02-1.09). These findings underscore differences in HF subtype-specific risk profiles and mechanisms, which may lead to different interventional strategies for different HF subtypes.

Epicardial Fat in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Compared with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Background: The role of epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains to be defined. Methods: A consecutive series of outpatients with chronic heart failure-heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HFpEF and/or diastolic dysfunction-had EAT assessed by echocardiographic measurement and related to indices of cardiac structure and function. Results: Epicardial fat thickness was significantly (p < 0.05) greater in HFpEF (N = 141) with a mean of 6.7 ± 1.6 mm compared with a mean of 5.1 ± 1.0 mm in HFrEF (n = 40). After adjusting for the relationship with BMI, in HFpEF, epicardial fat was significantly (p < 0.05) negatively correlated with left ventricular internal diameter end diastole (LVIDd), left ventricular internal diameter end systole (LVIDs), left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (EDV) index, lateral e', septal e', right atrial (RA) volume index, and hemoglobin (Hgb). The association with Hgb was no longer significant after adjusting for the effect of age. HFpEF was associated with smaller LVIDd, LVIDs, LV EDV indexes, and left atrial (LA) and RA volume indexes. Conclusions: Epicardial fat is significantly (p < 0.05) greater in HFpEF than HFrEF. Epicardial fat is associated with smaller cardiac chamber sizes in HFpEF suggesting that epicardial fat acts as a constraint to cardiac dilation.

Screening for Heart Failure: Biomarkers to Detect Heightened Risk in the General Population.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart failure (HF) represents a growing global burden of morbidity and mortality. Identifying individuals at risk for HF development is increasingly important, particularly given the advent of disease-modifying therapies for HF as well as its major risk factors such as obesity actalnd diabetes. We aim to review the key circulating biomarkers associated with future HF which may contribute to HF risk prediction. RECENT FINDINGS: While current guidelines recommend the use of natriuretic peptides and cardiac troponins in HF risk stratification, there are a diverse array of other emerging protein, metabolic, transcriptomic, and genomic biomarkers of future HF development. These biomarkers not only lend insight into the underlying pathophysiology of HF, which spans inflammation to cardiac fibrosis, but also offer an opportunity to further refine HF risk in addition to established biomarkers. As evolving techniques in molecular biology enable an increased understanding of the complex biologic contributions to HF pathophysiology, there is an important opportunity to construct integrated clinical and multi-omic models to best capture HF risk. Moving forward, future studies should seek to understand the contributions of sex differences, underlying comorbidity burden, and HF subtypes to an individual's HF risk. Further studies are necessary to fully define the clinical utility of biomarker screening approaches to refine HF risk assessment, as well as to link risk assessment directly to preventive strategies for HF.

Relationship of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction with quality of life in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Heart failure is a complex clinical manifestation due to diastolic dysfunction and systolic dysfunction of the left ventricle (LV). Diastolic dysfunction of the LV plays an important role in worsening the quality of life (QoL) in heart failure patients. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the severity or grade of LV diastolic dysfunction and QoL in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Cardiac Center of H. Adam Malik Hospital, Medan, Indonesia, from January 2022 to December 2022. This study included inpatients and outpatients aged above 18 years who were diagnosed with HFrEF, identified by echocardiography with an ejection fraction of ≤40%. Echocardiography was performed to evaluate left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, and QoL was assessed using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) 6-12 months after the severity of LV diastolic dysfunction was confirmed. The MLHFQ was classified into good and poor QoL. The severity of LV diastolic function was measured using the E/A ratio, mean E/e' ratio, tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TR Vmax), and left atrial volume index (LAVI), and was classified into grades I, II, and III. The relationships between the severity of diastolic dysfunction and other factors with QoL were measured using Chi-squared, Fisher's exact test, or Mann-Whitney test, as appropriate. A total of 96 patients were included in the study, of which 56 (58.3%) patients had grade I, 12 (12.5%) had grade II, and 28 (29.2%) patients had grade III of LV diastolic dysfunction. There were 77 (80.2%) and 19 (19.8%) patients with good and poor QoL, respectively. This study revealed a significant relationship between the severity of LV diastolic dysfunction and QoL in HFrEF patients with p=0.040. In conclusion, the degree of LV diastolic dysfunction is related to the QoL of HFrEF patients and therefore better comprehensive management strategies should be considered in HFrEF cases to address the impact of LV diastolic dysfunction on QoL.

Clinical and proteomic profiles of chronic kidney disease in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is prevalent and related to poor clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). The pathophysiology of CKD in HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not well defined. In this study we compared clinical and proteomic profiles of CKD between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. METHODS: We included 478 patients of the Scottish BIOSTAT-CHF cohort, of which 246 had HFrEF and 232 had HFpEF. CKD was defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m2. We compared HFrEF-patients with CKD to HFpEF-patients with CKD using logistic- and Cox-regression. We performed a differential expression analysis using 6376 proteins. RESULTS: The prevalence of CKD was 36 % and 32 % in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, respectively. CKD patients were on average 7 years older. BMI, higher NT-proBNP, ACE-inhibitors, HDL-cholesterol and Stroke were associated with CKD- patients with HFrEF. In HFpEF, CKD was associated with MRA-use and higher platelet count. CKD was associated with increased risk of death or heart failure hospitalization (HR 1.82, p < 0.001), with similar effect in HFrEF and HFpEF. The pattern of differentially expressed proteins between patients with and without CKD was similar in both HF-groups. CONCLUSION: Clinical profiles related to CKD- patients with HFrEF were different from CKD-patients with HFrEF. CKD was associated with an increased risk of death or heart failure hospitalization, which was not different between HFpEF and HFrEF. Patterns of circulating proteins were similar between CKD-patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, suggesting no major differences in CKD-pathophysiology.

Heart rate variability metrics and myocardial recovery in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

PURPOSE: Autonomic dysregulation is observed in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Abnormal heart rate variability (HRV), a measure of such dysregulation, is associated with poor prognosis in HFrEF. It is unknown if novel HRV metrics normalize in the patients with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) compared to persistent HFrEF. The aim of this study was to investigate novel HRV indexes in persistent HFrEF in comparison to HFrecEF METHODS: A standard 10-min electrocardiography measurement was performed in patients categorized in four groups: persistent HFrEF (n = 40), HFrecEF (n = 41), stage A HF (n = 73) and healthy controls (n = 40). RESULTS: All HRV indexes were significantly different between the four groups. Specifically, novel metrics, such as higher parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) index and lower sympathetic nervous system (SNS) index, were observed in the HFrecEF group compared to the persistent HFrEF group. In multiple logistic regression analysis, higher PNS index (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-3.49; p = 0.01) and lower SNS index (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.87; p = 0.002) were associated with HFrecEF. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the SNS index had the highest area under the curve (AUC), followed by the PNS index and mean heart rate for the HF phenotype regarding EF recovery (AUC = 0.71, 0.69 and 0.69, respectively). CONCLUSION: Myocardial functional recovery in HFrEF is associated with improved parasympathetic activity and reduced sympathetic activity, as reflected in the PNS and SNS indexes. These novel metrics can be potentially used to aid in identifying recovered versus non-recovered phenotypes in patients with HFrEF.

Qualitative Evaluation to Understand Barriers and Facilitators to Prescribing Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors (ARNi) and Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Inhibitors (SGLT2i) in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF).

BACKGROUND: Despite sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) being cost-effective evidenced-based therapies for the management of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF), research shows that less than 30% of patients with HFrEF are prescribed these agents. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to prescribing ARNi and SGLT2i in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: We conducted virtual and in-person semi-structured interviews in a large integrated healthcare delivery system in the United States. Twenty cardiology clinicians managing patients with HFrEF were recruited using purposeful sampling to target providers across professions and practice sites. The interview guide was developed based on a literature review and insights from a practicing cardiologist. It inquired about perceived prescribing behaviors, focusing on factors affecting the use of ARNi and SGLT2i. We identified key themes using rapid qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Twenty clinicians were interviewed: 13 physicians, five advanced practitioners, and two clinic-based pharmacists. Eighteen interviews were analyzed; we excluded two as the clinicians interviewed did not meet the inclusion criteria. Three major themes were identified: 1) clinician-reported prescribing patterns don't always align with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the use of SGLT2i and ARNi due to clinical inertia, lack of familiarity, knowledge, and comfort with use, and concerns over polypharmacy or adverse events, 2) clinician-perceived and actual out-of-pocket cost reduced prescribing of ARNi or SGLT2i to patients, exacerbated by a lack of visibility into patients' prescription coverage, denials of coverage by insurance, and navigating prior authorization related workflows, and 3) incorporation of a clinic-based pharmacist increased the prescribing of these medications. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing cost transparency, implementing interventions to overcome clinical inertia and cost hurdles, and increasing clinic-based pharmacist support may improve evidenced-based prescribing in patients with HFrEF, especially for comparatively novel classes such as ARNi and SGLT2i.