Extent of Abdominal Aortic Calcification Is Associated With Incident Rapid Weight Loss Over 5 Years: The Perth Longitudinal Study of Ageing Women.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC), a marker of vascular disease, is associated with disease in other vascular beds including gastrointestinal arteries. We investigated whether AAC is related to rapid weight loss over 5 years and whether rapid weight loss is associated with 9.5-year all-cause mortality in community-dwelling older women. METHODS: Lateral spine images from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (1998/1999) were used to assess AAC (24-point AAC scoring method) in 929 older women. Over 5 years, body weight was assessed at 12-month intervals. Rapid weight loss was defined as >5% decrease in body weight within any 12-month interval. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to assess AAC and rapid weight loss and Cox regression to assess the relationship between rapid weight loss and 9.5-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Mean±SD age of women was 75.0±2.6 years. During the initial 5 years, 366 (39%) women presented with rapid weight loss. Compared with women with low AAC (24-point AAC score 0-1), those with moderate (24-point AAC score 2-5: odds ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.00-1.85]) and extensive (24-point AAC score 6+: odds ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.10-2.31]) AAC had higher odds for presenting with rapid weight loss. Results remained similar after further adjustment for dietary factors (alcohol, protein, fat, and carbohydrates), diet quality, blood pressure, and cholesterol measures. The estimates were similar in subgroups of women who met protein intake (n=599) and physical activity (n=735) recommendations (extensive AAC: odds ratios, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.12-2.92] and 1.58 [95% CI, 1.02-2.44], respectively). Rapid weight loss was associated with all-cause mortality over the next 9.5 years (hazard ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.17-1.89]; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: AAC extent was associated with greater risk for rapid weight loss over 5 years in older women, a risk for all-cause mortality. Since the association was unchanged after taking nutritional intakes into account, these data support the possibility that vascular disease may play a role in the maintenance of body weight.

Left ventricular ejection fraction digit bias and reclassification of heart failure with mildly reduced vs reduced ejection fraction based on the 2021 definition and classification of heart failure.

AIMS: Aims were to evaluate (1) reclassification of patients from heart failure with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) to reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction when an EF = 40% was considered as HFrEF, (2) role of EF digit bias, ie, EF reporting favouring 5% increments; (3) outcomes in relation to missing and biased EF reports, in a large multinational HF registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 25,154 patients in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HF Long-Term registry, 17% had missing EF and of those with available EF, 24% had HFpEF (EF≥50%), 21% HFmrEF (40%-49%) and 55% HFrEF (<40%) according to the 2016 ESC guidelines´ classification. EF was "exactly" 40% in 7%, leading to reclassifying 34% of the HFmrEF population defined as EF = 40% to 49% to HFrEF when applying the 2021 ESC Guidelines classification (14% had HFmrEF as EF = 41% to 49% and 62% had HFrEF as EF≤40%). EF was reported as a value ending with 0 or 5 in ∼37% of the population. Such potential digit bias was associated with more missing values for other characteristics and higher risk of all-cause death and HF hospitalization. Patients with missing EF had higher risk of all-cause and CV mortality, and HF hospitalization compared to those with recorded EF. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients had reported EF = 40%. This led to substantial reclassification of EF from old HFmrEF (40%-49%) to new HFrEF (≤40%). There was considerable digit bias in EF reporting and missing EF reporting, which appeared to occur not at random and may reflect less rigorous overall care and worse outcomes.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: People with heart failure experience substantial disease burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous 2018 Cochrane review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission amongst people with heart failure, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with heart failure with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with heart failure with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in a hospital or centre-based setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ExCR on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of adults with heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science without language restriction on 13 December 2021. We also checked the bibliographies of included studies, identified relevant systematic reviews, and two clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ExCR interventions (either exercise only or exercise as part of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) with a follow-up of six months or longer versus a no-exercise control (e.g. usual medical care). The study population comprised adults (≥ 18 years) with heart failure - either HFrEF or HFpEF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, mortality due to heart failure, all-cause hospital admissions, heart failure-related hospital admissions, and HRQoL. Secondary outcomes were costs and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials (8728 participants) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 16 new trials (2945 new participants), in addition to the previously identified 44 trials (5783 existing participants). Although the existing evidence base predominantly includes patients with HFrEF, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III receiving centre-based ExCR programmes, a growing body of trials includes patients with HFpEF with ExCR undertaken in a home-based setting. All included trials employed a usual care comparator with a formal no-exercise intervention as well as a wide range of active comparators, such as education, psychological intervention, or medical management. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was low or unclear, and we mostly downgraded the certainty of evidence of outcomes upon GRADE assessment. There was no evidence of a difference in the short term (up to 12 months' follow-up) in the pooled risk of all-cause mortality when comparing ExCR versus usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.21; absolute effects 5.0% versus 5.8%; 34 trials, 36 comparisons, 3941 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only a few trials reported information on whether participants died due to heart failure. Participation in ExCR versus usual care likely reduced the risk of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; absolute effects 15.9% versus 23.8%; 23 trials, 24 comparisons, 2283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and heart failure-related hospital admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.35; absolute effects 5.6% versus 6.4%; 10 trials; 10 comparisons, 911 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in the short term. Participation in ExCR likely improved short-term HRQoL as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire (lower scores indicate better HRQoL and a difference of 5 points or more indicates clinical importance; mean difference (MD) -7.39 points, 95% CI -10.30 to -4.77; 21 trials, 22 comparisons, 2699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When pooling HRQoL data measured by any questionnaire/scale, we found that ExCR may improve HRQoL in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (33 trials, 37 comparisons, 4769 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.34; very-low certainty evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre- versus home-based, exercise dose, exercise only versus comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone versus aerobic plus resistance programmes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review provides additional randomised evidence (16 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous 2018 version of the review. Compared to no exercise control, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with heart failure, ExCR participation likely reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and heart failure-related hospital admissions, and may result in important improvements in HRQoL. Importantly, this updated review provides additional evidence supporting the use of alternative modes of ExCR delivery, including home-based and digitally-supported programmes. Future ExCR trials need to focus on the recruitment of traditionally less represented heart failure patient groups including older patients, women, and those with HFpEF.

Prognostic utility of serum NT-proBNP (fragments 1-76aa and 13-71aa) and galectin-3 in predicting death and re-hospitalisation due to cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure.

Patients with heart failure (HF) are at a higher risk of rehospitalisation. In this study, we investigated the prognostic utility of galectin-3 (Gal-3) and NT-proBNP fragments (1-76aa and 13-71aa) as biomarkers to predict outcomes for patients with HF. We collected blood samples from patients with HF (n = 101). Gal-3 and NT-proBNP fragments (1-76aa and 13-71aa) concentrations were measured by immunoassay. Survival analysis and Cox proportional regression models were used to determine the prognostic utility of Gal-3 and NT-proBNP fragments. In patients with increased baseline levels of NT-proBNP1-76 the time to primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or re-hospitalisation) was significantly shorter (p = 0.0058), but not in patient with increased baseline levels of Gal-3 or NTproBNP13-71. Patients with increased levels of NT-proBNP13-71aa at 1 month showed reduced time to the primary endpoint (p = 0.0123). Our findings demonstrated that Gal-3 and NT-proBNP can be used as prognostic biomarkers to stratify patients with HF.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences in 6-Minute Walk Test in Patients With HFrEF and Iron Deficiency.

BACKGROUND: The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is widely used to measure exercise capacity; however, the magnitude of change that is clinically meaningful for individuals is not well established in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). OBJECTIVE: To calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for change in exercise capacity in the 6MWT in iron-deficient populations with HFrEF. METHODS: In this pooled secondary analysis of the FAIR-HF and CONFIRM-HF trials, mean changes in the 6MWT from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 were calculated and calibrated against the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) tool (clinical anchor) to derive MCIDs in improvement and deterioration. RESULTS: Of 760 patients included in the 2 trials, 6MWT and PGA data were available for 680 (89%) and 656 (86%) patients at weeks 12 and 24, respectively. The mean 6MWT distance at baseline was 281 ± 103 meters. There was a modest correlation between changes in 6MWT and PGA from baseline to week 12 (r = 0.31; P < 0.0001) and week 24 (r = 0.43; P < 0.0001). Respective estimates (95% confidence intervals) of MCID in 6MWT at weeks 12 and 24 were 14 meters (5;23) and 15 meters (3;27) for a "little improvement" (vs no change), 20 meters (10;30) and 24 meters (12;36) for moderate improvement vs a "little improvement,", -11 meters (-32;9.2) and -31 meters (-53;-8) for a "little deterioration" (vs no change), and -84 meters (-144;-24) and -69 meters (-118;-20) for "moderate deterioration" vs a "little deterioration". CONCLUSIONS: The MCID for improvement in exercise capacity in the 6MWT was 14 meters-15 meters in patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency. These MCIDs can aid clinical interpretation of study data.

Natriuretic Peptides: Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America and Japanese Heart Failure Society.

Natriuretic peptides, brain (B-type) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are globally and most often used for the diagnosis of heart failure (HF). In addition, they can have an important complementary role in the risk stratification of its prognosis. Since the development of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), the use of natriuretic peptides as therapeutic agents has grown in importance. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project among the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus that aims to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on natriuretic peptides in the diagnosis and management of HF, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) history and basic research: discovery, production and cardiovascular protection; (2) diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers: acute HF, chronic HF, inclusion/endpoint in clinical trials, and natriuretic peptides-guided therapy; (3) therapeutic use: nesiritide (BNP), carperitide (ANP) and ARNIs; and (4) gaps in knowledge and future directions.

Cardiac contractility modulation: an effective treatment strategy for heart failure beyond reduced left ventricular ejection fraction?

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) causes a progressive limitation of functional capacity, poor quality of life (QoL) and increased mortality, yet unlike HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) there are no effective device-based therapies. Both HFrEF and HFpEF are associated with dysregulations in myocardial cellular calcium homeostasis and modifications in calcium-handling proteins, leading to abnormal myocardial contractility and pathological remodelling. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) therapy, based on a pacemaker-like implanted device, applies extracellular electrical stimulation to myocytes during the absolute refractory period of the action potential, which leads to an increase in cytosolic peak calcium concentrations and thereby the force of isometric contraction promoting positive inotropism. Subgroup analysis of CCM trials in HFrEF has demonstrated particular benefits in patients with LVEF between 35% and 45%, suggesting its potential effectiveness also in patients with higher LVEF values. Available evidence on CCM in HFpEF is still preliminary, but improvements in terms of symptoms and QoL have been observed. Future large, dedicated, prospective studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this therapy in patients with HFpEF.

Data standards for heart failure: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart).

Standardized data definitions are essential for assessing the quality of care and patient outcomes in observational studies and randomized controlled trials. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims to create contemporary pan-European data standards for cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure (HF). We followed the EuroHeart methodology for cardiovascular data standard development. A Working Group including experts in HF registries, representatives from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, and the EuroHeart was formed. Using Embase and Medline (2016-21), we conducted a systematic review of the literature on data standards, registries, and trials to identify variables pertinent to HF. A modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on the final set of variables. For each variable, the Working Group developed data definitions and agreed on whether it was mandatory (Level 1) or additional (Level 2). In total, 84 Level 1 and 79 Level 2 variables were selected for nine domains of HF care. These variables were reviewed by an international Reference Group with the Level 1 variables providing the dataset for registration of patients with HF on the EuroHeart IT platform. By means of a structured process and interaction with international stakeholders, harmonized data standards for HF have been developed. In the context of the EuroHeart, this will facilitate quality improvement, international observational research, registry-based randomized trials, and post-marketing surveillance of devices and pharmacotherapies across Europe.

Patiromer for the management of hyperkalemia in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the DIAMOND trial.

AIMS: To investigate the impact of patiromer on the serum potassium level and its ability to enable specified target doses of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) use in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1642 patients with HFrEF and current or a history of RAASi-related hyperkalemia were screened and 1195 were enrolled in the run-in phase with patiromer and optimization of the RAASi therapy [≥50% recommended dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, and 50 mg of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) spironolactone or eplerenone]. Specified target doses of the RAASi therapy were achieved in 878 (84.6%) patients; 439 were randomized to patiromer and 439 to placebo. All patients, physicians, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was between-group difference in the adjusted mean change in serum potassium. Five hierarchical secondary endpoints were assessed. At the end of treatment, the median (interquartile range) duration of follow-up was 27 (13-43) weeks, the adjusted mean change in potassium was +0.03 mmol/l in the patiromer group and +0.13 mmol/l in the placebo group [difference in the adjusted mean change between patiromer and placebo: -0.10 mmol/l (95% confidence interval, CI -0.13, 0.07); P < 0.001]. Risk of hyperkalemia >5.5 mmol/l [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.45, 0.87; P = 0.006), reduction of MRA dose (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.87; P = 0.006), and total adjusted hyperkalemia events/100 person-years (77.7 vs. 118.2; HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53, 0.81; P < 0.001) were lower with patiromer. Hyperkalemia-related morbidity-adjusted events (win ratio 1.53, P < 0.001) and total RAASi use score (win ratio 1.25, P = 0.048) favored the patiromer arm. Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Concurrent use of patiromer and high-dose MRAs reduces the risk of recurrent hyperkalemia (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03888066).

Redefining ß-blocker response in heart failure patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation: a machine learning cluster analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mortality remains unacceptably high in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) despite advances in therapeutics. We hypothesised that a novel artificial intelligence approach could better assess multiple and higher-dimension interactions of comorbidities, and define clusters of ß-blocker efficacy in patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation. METHODS: Neural network-based variational autoencoders and hierarchical clustering were applied to pooled individual patient data from nine double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of ß blockers. All-cause mortality during median 1·3 years of follow-up was assessed by intention to treat, stratified by electrocardiographic heart rhythm. The number of clusters and dimensions was determined objectively, with results validated using a leave-one-trial-out approach. This study was prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00832442) and the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (CRD42014010012). FINDINGS: 15 659 patients with heart failure and LVEF of less than 50% were included, with median age 65 years (IQR 56-72) and LVEF 27% (IQR 21-33). 3708 (24%) patients were women. In sinus rhythm (n=12 822), most clusters demonstrated a consistent overall mortality benefit from ß blockers, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 0·54 to 0·74. One cluster in sinus rhythm of older patients with less severe symptoms showed no significant efficacy (OR 0·86, 95% CI 0·67-1·10; p=0·22). In atrial fibrillation (n=2837), four of five clusters were consistent with the overall neutral effect of ß blockers versus placebo (OR 0·92, 0·77-1·10; p=0·37). One cluster of younger atrial fibrillation patients at lower mortality risk but similar LVEF to average had a statistically significant reduction in mortality with ß blockers (OR 0·57, 0·35-0·93; p=0·023). The robustness and consistency of clustering was confirmed for all models (p<0·0001 vs random), and cluster membership was externally validated across the nine independent trials. INTERPRETATION: An artificial intelligence-based clustering approach was able to distinguish prognostic response from ß blockers in patients with heart failure and reduced LVEF. This included patients in sinus rhythm with suboptimal efficacy, as well as a cluster of patients with atrial fibrillation where ß blockers did reduce mortality. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, UK, and EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative BigData@Heart.

Consensus statement on the current pharmacological prevention and management of heart failure.

INTRODUCTION: This consensus statement of Australian clinicians provides new recommendations for the pharmacological management of heart failure based on studies reported since the publication of the 2018 Australian heart failure guidelines. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: ▪Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to prevent hospitalisation for heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus can be extended to patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, albuminuric chronic kidney disease, or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. ▪New evidence supports the use of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (finerenone) to prevent heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus associated with albuminuric chronic kidney disease. ▪In addition to renin angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor preferred), beta blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin or empagliflozin) is recommended in all patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) (HFrEF). Lower quality evidence supports these therapies in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced LVEF (41-49%) (HFmrEF). ▪A soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator (vericiguat), selective cardiac myosin activator (omecamtiv mecarbil) and, if iron deficient, intravenous iron (ferric carboxymaltose) provide additional benefits in persistent HFrEF. ▪An SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin) should be considered in patients with heart failure with preserved LVEF (≥ 50%) (HFpEF). Key changes in management from this statement: This document broadens the scope of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor use in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF. SGLT2 inhibitor use expands to become a cornerstone therapy in HFrEF, with increasing evidence to support its use in HFmrEF and HFpEF.

Feasibility of the cardiac output response to stress test in suspected heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic tools available to support general practitioners diagnose heart failure (HF) are limited. OBJECTIVES: (i) Determine the feasibility of the novel cardiac output response to stress (CORS) test in suspected HF patients, and (ii) Identify differences in the CORS results between (a) confirmed HF patients from non-HF patients, and (b) HF reduced (HFrEF) vs HF preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction. METHODS: Single centre, prospective, observational, feasibility study. Consecutive patients with suspected HF (N = 105; mean age: 72 ± 10 years) were recruited from specialized HF diagnostic clinics in secondary care. The consultant cardiologist confirmed or refuted a HF diagnosis. The patient completed the CORS but the researcher administering the test was blinded from the diagnosis. The CORS assessed cardiac function (stroke volume index, SVI) noninvasively using the bioreactance technology at rest-supine, challenge-standing, and stress-step exercise phases. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were newly diagnosed with HF (HFrEF, n = 21) with 79% being able to complete all phases of the CORS (91% of non-HF patients). A 17% lower SVI was found in HF compared with non-HF patients at rest-supine (43 ± 15 vs 51 ± 16 mL/beat/m2, P = 0.02) and stress-step exercise phase (49 ± 16 vs 58 ± 17 mL/beat/m2, P = 0.02). HFrEF patients demonstrated a lower SVI at rest (39 ± 15 vs 48 ± 13 mL/beat/m2, P = 0.02) and challenge-standing phase (34 ± 9 vs 42 ± 12 mL/beat/m2, P = 0.03) than HFpEF patients. CONCLUSION: The CORS is feasible and patients with HF responded differently to non-HF, and HFrEF from HFpEF. These findings provide further evidence for the potential use of the CORS to improve HF diagnostic and referral accuracy in primary care.

Heart failure (HF) is a global pandemic affecting 26 million people worldwide with an estimated 1 million people in the United Kingdom. Accurate early diagnosis of HF and the initiation of evidence-based treatment is essential to reduce morbidity and mortality and the associated burden on healthcare. As there are no state-of-the-art approaches, early diagnosis is challenging and often inaccurate, as initial signs and symptoms are nonspecific. We have developed an innovative test, named CORS (cardiac output response to stress test), to help general practitioners identify HF, which uses a method similar to an electrocardiogram and measures heart function at rest and during short step exercise. We recruited suspected HF patients from specialist HF diagnostic clinics in secondary care to complete the CORS test. We successfully demonstrated that 79% of patients with newly diagnosed HF (n = 38) and 91% of non-HF patients (n = 67) were able to complete all phases of the CORS test. Our findings demonstrate that newly diagnosed HF patients are able to complete this test, which provides further evidence for the potential use of the CORS test to improve HF diagnostic and referral accuracy in primary care.

The four pillars of HFrEF therapy: is it time to treat heart failure regardless of ejection fraction?

The syndrome of heart failure (HF) has historically been dichotomized based on clinical trial inclusion criteria into patients with a reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) using a cut-off of above or below 40%. The majority of trial evidence for the benefits of disease-modifying pharmacological therapy has been in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), i.e. those with an LVEF ≤40%. Recently, the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors empagliflozin and dapagliflozin have been shown to be the first drugs to improve outcomes in HF across the full spectrum of LVEF. There is, however, growing evidence that the benefits of many of the neurohumoral modulators shown to be beneficial in patients with HFrEF may extend to those with a higher LVEF above 40% but still below the normal range, i.e. HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Whether the benefits of some of these medications also extend to patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an area of ongoing debate. This article will review the evidence for HF treatments across the full spectrum of LVEF, provide an overview of recently updated clinical practice guidelines, and address the question whether it may now be time to treat HF with some therapies regardless of ejection fraction.

The management of secondary mitral regurgitation in patients with heart failure: a joint position statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the ESC.

Secondary (or functional) mitral regurgitation (SMR) occurs frequently in chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, resulting from LV remodelling that prevents coaptation of the valve leaflets. Secondary mitral regurgitation contributes to progression of the symptoms and signs of HF and confers worse prognosis. The management of HF patients with SMR is complex and requires timely referral to a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Optimization of pharmacological and device therapy according to guideline recommendations is crucial. Further management requires careful clinical and imaging assessment, addressing the anatomical and functional features of the mitral valve and left ventricle, overall HF status, and relevant comorbidities. Evidence concerning surgical correction of SMR is sparse and it is doubtful whether this approach improves prognosis. Transcatheter repair has emerged as a promising alternative, but the conflicting results of current randomized trials require careful interpretation. This collaborative position statement, developed by four key associations of the European Society of Cardiology-the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)-presents an updated practical approach to the evaluation and management of patients with HF and SMR based upon a Heart Team approach.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as: At-risk for HF (Stage A) , for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-heart failure (Stage B) for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C) for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D) for patients with severe symptoms and/ or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT) , refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) . The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) : HF with LVEF ≤ 40%; HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF) : HF with LVEF 41-49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) : HF with LVEF ≥ 50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF) : HF with a baseline LVEF ≤ 40%, a ≥ 10 point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF > 40.

Heart Failure Association, Heart Failure Society of America, and Japanese Heart Failure Society Position Statement on Endomyocardial Biopsy.

Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an invasive procedure, globally most often used for the monitoring of heart transplant rejection. In addition, EMB can have an important complementary role to the clinical assessment in establishing the diagnosis of diverse cardiac disorders, including myocarditis, cardiomyopathies, drug-related cardiotoxicity, amyloidosis, other infiltrative and storage disorders, and cardiac tumors. Improvements in EMB equipment and the development of new techniques for the analysis of EMB samples has significantly improved the diagnostic precision of EMB. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project between the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus aiming to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on EMB, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) an overview of the practical approach to EMB, (2) an update on indications for EMB, (3) a revised plan for heart transplant rejection surveillance, (4) the impact of multimodality imaging on EMB, and (5) the current clinical practice in the worldwide use of EMB.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure: A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%.

Optimized Implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy - a call for action for referral and optimization of care.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heartfailure hospitalization rates and reduces all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two-thirds ofeligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post implantation follow-up is oftenfragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This jointposition statement from three ESC Associations, HFA, EHRA and EACVI focuses onoptimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achievemore comprehensive CRT referral and post-procedural care by focusing on four actionabledomains; (I) overcoming CRT under-utilization, (II) better understanding of pre-implantcharacteristics, (III) abandoning the term 'non-response' and replacing this by the concept ofdisease modification, and (IV) implementing a dedicated post-implant CRT care pathway.

Optimized implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a call for action for referral and optimization of care.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heart failure hospitalization rates and all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two-thirds of eligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post-implantation follow-up is often fragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This joint position statement from three European Society of Cardiology Associations, Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), focuses on optimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achieve more comprehensive CRT referral and post-procedural care by focusing on four actionable domains: (i) overcoming CRT under-utilization, (ii) better understanding of pre-implant characteristics, (iii) abandoning the term 'non-response' and replacing this by the concept of disease modification, and (iv) implementing a dedicated post-implant CRT care pathway.

Conducting clinical trials in heart failure during (and after) the COVID-19 pandemic: an Expert Consensus Position Paper from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.