Differences in Donor Heart Acceptance by Race and Gender of Patients on the Transplant Waiting List.

Importance: Barriers to heart transplant must be overcome prior to listing. It is unclear why Black men and women remain less likely to receive a heart transplant after listing than White men and women. Objective: To evaluate whether race or gender of a heart transplant candidate (ie, patient on the transplant waiting list) is associated with the probability of a donor heart being accepted by the transplant center team with each offer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the United Network for Organ Sharing datasets to identify organ acceptance with each offer for US non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, Black) and non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White) adults listed for heart transplant from October 18, 2018, through March 31, 2023. Exposures: Black or White race and gender (men, women) of a heart transplant candidate. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was heart offer acceptance by the transplant center team. The number of offers to acceptance was assessed using discrete time-to-event analyses, nonparametrically (stratified by race and gender) and parametrically. The hazard probability of offer acceptance for each offer was modeled using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables. Results: Among 159 177 heart offers with 13 760 donors, there were 14 890 candidates listed for heart transplant; 30.9% were Black, 69.1% were White, 73.6% were men, and 26.4% were women. The cumulative incidence of offer acceptance was highest for White women followed by Black women, White men, and Black men (P < .001). Odds of acceptance were less for Black candidates than for White candidates for the first offer (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84) through the 16th offer. Odds of acceptance were higher for women than for men for the first offer (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.68) through the sixth offer and were lower for the 10th through 31st offers. Conclusions and Relevance: The cumulative incidence of heart offer acceptance by a transplant center team was consistently lower for Black candidates than for White candidates of the same gender and higher for women than for men. These disparities persisted after adjusting for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables, possibly suggesting racial and gender bias in the decision-making process. Further investigation of site-level decision-making may reveal strategies for equitable donor heart acceptance.

OPTN/SRTR 2022 Annual Data Report: Heart.

The number of heart transplants in the United States has continued to increase. Since 2011, pediatric heart transplants have increased 31.7% to 494 and adult heart transplants have increased 85.8% to 3,668 in 2022. The numbers of new candidates for pediatric and adult heart transplants have also increased, with 703 new pediatric candidates and 4,446 new adult candidates in 2022. Adult heart transplant rates continue to rise, peaking at 122.5 transplants per 100 patient-years in 2022; however, the pediatric heart transplant rate decreased to its lowest rate in the past decade, 104.2 transplants per 100 patient-years, a decrease of 13.9% from 121 transplants per 100 patient-years in 2011. Despite this, pretransplant mortality among pediatric candidates has decreased by 52.2%, from 20.8 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2011 to 10.0 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2022, but remains excessive for candidates younger than 1 year at 25.7 deaths per 100 patient-years. Among adult candidates, pretransplant mortality declined from 15 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2011 to 8.7 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2022. Since 2011, posttransplant mortality has been stable to slightly better; among recipients who underwent transplant in 2015-2017, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year pediatric survival rates were 93.7%, 89.2%, and 85.0%, respectively, and the adult survival rates were 91.3%, 85.7%, and 80.4%. Donor trends have been favorable, with an increase in the numbers of hearts recovered and growing numbers of hearts procured after circulatory death.

Role of ascorbic acid in cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a progressive fibroproliferative disease which occurs after heart transplantation and is associated with significant long-term morbidity and mortality. Currently available strategies including statins, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and revascularization, have limited overall effectiveness in treating this pathology once the disease process is established. mTOR inhibitors, while effective when used early in the disease process, are not well tolerated, and hence not routinely used in post-transplant care. RECENT DATA: Recent work on rodent models have given us a novel mechanistic understanding of effects of ascorbic acid in preventing CAV. TET methyl cytosine dioxygenase2 (TET2) reduces vascular smooth muscle cell (VSMC) apoptosis and intimal thickening. TET2 is repressed by interferon γ (IFNγ) in the setting of CAV. Ascorbic acid has been shown to promote TET2 activity and attenuate allograft vasculopathy in animal models and CAV progression in a small clinical trial. SUMMARY: CAV remains a challenging disease process and needs better preventative strategies. Ascorbic acid improves endothelial dysfunction, reduces reactive oxygen species, and prevents development of intimal hyperplasia by preventing smooth muscle cell apoptosis and hyperproliferation. Further large-scale randomized control studies of ascorbic acid are needed to establish the role in routine post-transplant management.

Do outcomes for heart transplantation differ based on donor and recipient race?

PURPOSE: There are limited data examining the impact of both donor and recipient race on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplant (OHT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between donor and recipient race and OHT outcomes. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was retrospectively reviewed from January 2000 to March 2018 for donor hearts. A comparison was conducted based on donor and recipient race (White, Black, Hispanic, Other/Unknown). Races for which there were limited numbers were excluded from the analysis (Asian, n = 1292; American Indian, n = 132; Pacific Islander, n = 132, Multiple ethnicities, n = 225). The primary endpoint was survival at 30 days, 1 year survival, and post-transplant rejection. Logistic and Cox models were used to quantify survival endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 41 841 OHT were included. Of the recipients, 29 894 (71%) were White, 8475 (20%) were Black, and 3472 (8%) were Hispanic. Of the donors 27 783 (66%) were White, 6277 (15%) were Black, 6576 (16%) were Hispanic, and 1205 (3%) were Unknown/Other race. In a comparison of recipient demographics, White recipients were older (54.09 ± 12.21 years) compared to Black (49.44 ± 12.83 years) and Hispanic (49.97 ± 13.27 years) recipients. All other differences between groups were not clinically significant. Black recipients were more likely to receive a heart with an "urgent" status (probability .80) compared to White (.73) and Hispanic (.75) recipients (p < .001). Hispanic recipients were more likely to receive a transplant when listed as "non-urgent" (Probability .47) compared to White (.37) and Black (.30) recipients (p < .001). In terms of outcomes, compared to White recipients, Hispanic patients experienced a decreased 30-day survival (OR 1.27; p = .011) and 1-year survival (OR 1.17; p = .016). In comparing Donor/Recipient combinations compared to a White Donor/White Recipient combination, overall survival was decreased in White donor/African American recipient (HR 1.36; p < .001), African American donor/African American recipient (HR 1.41; p < .001) and Hispanic donor/African American recipient (HR 1.30; p < .001) combinations (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: African American and Hispanic recipients have decreased survival compared to White recipients after heart transplant. The African American donor does not decrease survival. Racial differences still exist in donor and recipient characteristics and recipient outcomes after OHT. Increasing the donor pool for all races and ethnicities would potentially benefit all recipients. Continued study is warranted in order to minimize these differences among recipients and identify factors that could be contributing to decreased survival, in order to optimize outcomes for African American and Hispanic recipients post-transplant and eliminate disparities.

Dual-Organ Transplantation: Indications, Evaluation, and Outcomes for Heart-Kidney and Heart-Liver Transplantation: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Although heart transplantation is the preferred therapy for appropriate patients with advanced heart failure, the presence of concomitant renal or hepatic dysfunction can pose a barrier to isolated heart transplantation. Because donor organ supply limits the availability of organ transplantation, appropriate allocation of this scarce resource is essential; thus, clear guidance for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation and simultaneous heart-liver transplantation is urgently required. The purposes of this scientific statement are (1) to describe the impact of pretransplantation renal and hepatic dysfunction on posttransplantation outcomes; (2) to discuss the assessment of pretransplantation renal and hepatic dysfunction; (3) to provide an approach to patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation and simultaneous heart-liver transplantation and posttransplantation management; and (4) to explore the ethics of multiorgan transplantation.

Use of exception status listing and related outcomes during two heart allocation policy periods.

BACKGROUND: The October 2018 update to the heart allocation policy was intended to decrease exception status requests, whereby candidates are listed at a specific status due to perceived need despite not meeting prespecified criteria of illness severity. We assessed the use of exception status and waitlist outcomes before and after the 2018 policy. METHODS: We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients on adult heart transplant candidates listed from 2015 to 2021. We assessed (1) the use of exception status across patient characteristics between the two periods and (2) transplant rate and waitlist mortality or delisting due to deterioration in each period. Patients listed by exception versus standard criteria were compared with multivariable logistic regression, and waitlist outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with medical urgency and exception status as time-dependent covariates. RESULTS: During the study period (n = 19,213), heart transplants under exception status increased postpolicy from 10.0% to 32.3%, with 20.6% of transplants performed for patients at status 2 exception. Exception status candidates postpolicy were more frequently Black or Hispanic/Latino and less likely to have hypertrophic or restrictive cardiomyopathy and had worse hemodynamics. Exception status listing was associated with higher transplant rates in both periods. Postpolicy, candidates listed status 1 exception had a lower likelihood for waitlist mortality or delisting (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.99; and p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the 2018 policy, exception status listings dramatically increased. The policy change shifted the population of patients listed by exception status and affected waitlist mortality, which suggests a need to further evaluate the policy's impact.

OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: Heart.

The past 5 years have posed challenges to the field of heart transplantation. The 2018 heart allocation policy revision was accompanied by anticipated practice adjustments and increased use of short-term circulatory support, changes that may ultimately serve to advance the field. The COVID-19 pandemic also had an impact on heart transplantation. While the number of heart transplants in the United States continued to increase, the number of new candidates decreased slightly during the pandemic. There were slightly more deaths following removal from the waiting list for reasons other than transplant during 2020, and a decline in transplants among candidates listed as status 1, 2, or 3 compared with the other statuses. Heart transplant rates decreased among pediatric candidates, most notably among those younger than 1 year. Despite this, pretransplant mortality has declined for both pediatric and adult candidates, particularly candidates younger than 1 year. Transplant rates have increased in adults. The prevalence of ventricular assist device use has increased among pediatric heart transplant recipients, while the prevalence of short-term mechanical circulatory support, particularly intra-aortic balloon pump and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, has increased among adult recipients.

Greater geographic sharing and heart transplantation waitlist outcomes following the 2018 heart allocation policy.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, a new heart allocation policy was introduced to reduce variability in access to and outcomes after transplantation, in part, through attempts at broader geographic sharing of donor hearts. We evaluated how this policy affected geographic sharing and waitlist outcomes by donation service area (DSA). METHODS: This retrospective study of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database included adult patients waitlisted between October 2016 and October 2020, stratified by policy period. Our primary outcomes were mean proportion of imported and exported hearts aggregated by DSA as well as time to transplant. RESULTS: Following the policy change, there was substantial evidence of sharing across DSAs. The mean proportion of imported hearts transplanted by a DSA increased from 32% (95% CI: 27%-36%) to 74% (95% CI: 71%-78%; p < 0.001), and the mean proportion of exported hearts increased from 37% (95% CI: 33%-42%) to 75% (95% CI: 71%-79%; p < 0.001). The mean sharing ratio, defined as the log-transformed ratio of imported to exported hearts per DSA, shifted from 1.15 (95% CI: 0.88-1.42) to 1.02 (95% CI: 0.96-1.07), with a 76% decline in the variance across DSAs. As sharing increased, time to transplant per DSA declined from 153.9 days (95% CI, 143.4-164.4 days) pre-policy to 89.6 days (95% CI, 83.1-96.1 days) post-policy (p < 0.001). A larger decrease in waitlist time was associated with a higher proportion of exported hearts. CONCLUSIONS: The 2018 heart allocation policy was associated with more uniform access to heart transplantation and improved waitlist outcomes.

Readability and Non-English Language Resources of Heart Transplant Center Websites in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Health literacy is associated with heart failure (HF) care and outcomes. Online resources offer important educational materials for patients seeking access to heart transplantation but tend to be complex and potentially ineffective for non-English speakers and those with low reading levels. The purpose of this study was to evaluate both the readability of patient-level information posted on United States heart transplant center websites and the availability of non-English resources. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a review of patient-facing information on websites of U.S. heart transplant centers identified through the United Network for Organ Sharing in August 2022. Written English text was extracted and assessed for readability by using the Fry Graph Readability score. Websites were additionally evaluated for non-English language text and translator tools. Standard ANOVA analysis was used to compare readability levels across transplant regions. The median Fry readability level to understand a piece of text for all regions was 15, which is equivalent to a college-junior reading level (range: 7-17, 7th grade to postgraduate level). There was no statistical difference in median Fry readability levels among regions (P = 0.16). Of the 139 eligible heart transplant center websites, only 56.1% (78/139) had non-English resources available for patients. Regions 5 (75% [15/20]) and 6 (75% [3/4]) had the highest percentage of non-English resources, and region 2 had the lowest (38% [6/16]). CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplant center online resources are inadequate, and many do not provide translations of the English language. Additional work is needed to standardize heart-transplant patient information for a diverse U.S.

Racial Inequities in Access to Ventricular Assist Device and Transplant Persist After Consideration for Preferences for Care: A Report From the REVIVAL Study.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in access to advanced therapies for heart failure (HF) patients are well documented, although the reasons remain uncertain. We sought to determine the association of race on utilization of ventricular assist device (VAD) and transplant among patients with access to care at VAD centers and if patient preferences impact the effect. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study of ambulatory chronic systolic HF patients with high-risk features and no contraindication to VAD enrolled at 21 VAD centers and followed for 2 years in the REVIVAL study (Registry Evaluation of Vital Information for VADs in Ambulatory Life). We used competing events cause-specific proportional hazard methodology with multiple imputation for missing data. The primary outcomes were (1) VAD/transplant and (2) death. The exposures of interest included race (Black or White), additional demographics, captured social determinants of health, clinician-assessed HF severity, patient-reported quality of life, preference for VAD, and desire for therapies. RESULTS: The study included 377 participants, of whom 100 (26.5%) identified as Black. VAD or transplant was performed in 11 (11%) Black and 62 (22%) White participants, although death occurred in 18 (18%) Black and 36 (13%) White participants. Black race was associated with reduced utilization of VAD and transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.23-0.85]) without an increase in death. Preferences for VAD or life-sustaining therapies were similar by race and did not explain racial disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving care by advanced HF cardiologists at VAD centers, there is less utilization of VAD and transplant for Black patients even after adjusting for HF severity, quality of life, and social determinants of health, despite similar care preferences. This residual inequity may be a consequence of structural racism and discrimination or provider bias impacting decision-making. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01369407.

Donor heart selection: Evidence-based guidelines for providers.

The proposed donor heart selection guidelines provide evidence-based and expert-consensus recommendations for the selection of donor hearts following brain death. These recommendations were compiled by an international panel of experts based on an extensive literature review.

Comparison of Evaluations for Heart Transplant Before Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device and Subsequent Receipt of Transplant at Transplant vs Nontransplant Centers.

Importance: In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services revised its national coverage determination, removing the requirement to obtain review from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center to implant a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for bridge-to-transplant (BTT) intent at an LVAD-only center. The association between center-level transplant availability and access to heart transplant, the gold-standard therapy for advanced heart failure (HF), is unknown. Objective: To investigate the association of center transplant availability with LVAD implant strategies and subsequent heart transplant following LVAD implant before the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs multicenter US registry database was conducted from April 1, 2012, to June 30, 2020. The population included patients with HF receiving a primary durable LVAD. Exposures: LVAD center transplant availability (LVAD/transplant vs LVAD only). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were implant strategy as BTT and subsequent transplant by 2 years. Covariates that might affect listing strategy and outcomes were included (eg, patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities) in multivariable models. Parameters for BTT listing were estimated using logistic regression with center-level random effects and for receipt of a transplant using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with death as a competing event. Results: The sample included 22 221 LVAD recipients with a median age of 59.0 (IQR, 50.0-67.0) years, of whom 17 420 (78.4%) were male and 3156 (14.2%) received implants at LVAD-only centers. Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD/transplant center was associated with a 79% increased adjusted odds of BTT LVAD designation (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.35-2.38; P < .001). The 2-year transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% at LVAD/transplant centers and 11.9% at LVAD-only centers. There was an associated 33% increased rate of transplant at LVAD/transplant centers compared with LVAD-only centers (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.17-1.51) with a similar hazard for death at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.08). Conclusions and Relevance: Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD-transplant center was associated with increased odds of BTT intent at implant and subsequent transplant receipt for patients at 2 years. The findings of this study suggest that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change may have the unintended consequence of further increasing inequities in access to transplant among patients at LVAD-only centers.

Racial and Sex Inequities in the Use of and Outcomes After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: While left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) increase survival for patients with advanced heart failure (HF), racial and sex access and outcome inequities remain and are poorly understood. Objectives: To assess risk-adjusted inequities in access and outcomes for both Black and female patients and to examine heterogeneity in treatment decisions among patients for whom clinician discretion has a more prominent role. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of 12 310 Medicare beneficiaries used 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service administrative claims. Included patients had been admitted for heart failure from 2008 to 2014. Data were collected from July 2007 to December 2015 and analyzed from August 23, 2020, to May 15, 2022. Exposures: Beneficiary race and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: The propensity for LVAD implantation was based on clinical risk factors from the 6 months preceding HF admission using XGBoost and the synthetic minority oversampling technique. Beneficiaries with a 5% or greater probability of receiving an LVAD were included. Logistic regression models were estimated to measure associations of race and sex with LVAD receipt adjusting for clinical characteristics and social determinants of health (eg, distance from LVAD center, Medicare low-income subsidy, neighborhood deprivation). Next, 1-year mortality after LVAD was examined. Results: The analytic sample included 12 310 beneficiaries, of whom 22.9% (n = 2819) were Black and 23.7% (n = 2920) were women. In multivariable models, Black beneficiaries were 3.0% (0.2% to 5.8%) less likely to receive LVAD than White beneficiaries, and women were 7.9% (5.6% to 10.2%) less likely to receive LVAD than men. Individual poverty and worse neighborhood deprivation were associated with reduced use, 2.9% (0.4% to 5.3%) and 6.7% (2.9% to 10.5%), respectively, but these measures did little to explain observed disparities. The racial disparity was concentrated among patients with a low propensity score (propensity score <0.52). One-year survival by race and sex were similar on average, but Black patients with a low propensity score experienced improved survival (7.2% [95% CI, 0.9% to 13.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HF, disparities in LVAD use by race and sex existed and were not explained by clinical characteristics or social determinants of health. The treatment and post-LVAD survival by race were equivalent among the most obvious LVAD candidates. However, there was differential use and outcomes among less clear-cut LVAD candidates, with lower use but improved survival among Black patients. Inequity in LVAD access may have resulted from differences in clinician decision-making because of systemic racism and discrimination, implicit bias, or patient preference.

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

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

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

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

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

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