Heart failure, the global pandemic: A call to action consensus statement from the global presidential conclave at the platinum jubilee conference of cardiological society of India 2023.

Heart failure (HF) is emerging as a major public health problem both in high- and low - income countries. The mortality and morbidity due to HF is substantially higher in low-middle income countries (LMICs). Accessibility, availability and affordability issues affect the guideline directed therapy implementation in HF care in those countries. This call to action urges all those concerned to initiate preventive strategies as early as possible, so that we can reduce HF-related morbidity and mortality. The most important step is to have better prevention and treatment strategies for diseases such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease (IHD), type-2 diabetes, and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) which predispose to the development of HF. Setting up dedicated HF-clinics manned by HF Nurses, can help in streamlining HF care. Subsidized in-patient care, financial assistance for device therapy, use of generic medicines (including polypill strategy) will be helpful, along with the use of digital technologies.

Identification of heart failure hospitalization from NHS Digital data: comparison with expert adjudication.

AIMS: Population-wide, person-level, linked electronic health record data are increasingly used to estimate epidemiology, guide resource allocation, and identify events in clinical trials. The accuracy of data from NHS Digital (now part of NHS England) for identifying hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), a key HF standard, is not clear. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of NHS Digital data for identifying HHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients experiencing at least one HHF, as determined by NHS Digital data, and age- and sex-matched patients not experiencing HHF, were identified from a prospective cohort study and underwent expert adjudication. Three code sets commonly used to identify HHF were applied to the data and compared with expert adjudication (I50: International Classification of Diseases-10 codes beginning I50; OIS: Clinical Commissioning Groups Outcomes Indicator Set; and NICOR: National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, used as the basis for the National Heart Failure Audit in England and Wales). Five hundred four patients underwent expert adjudication, of which 10 (2%) were adjudicated to have experienced HHF. Specificity was high across all three code sets in the first diagnosis position {I50: 96.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1-97.7%]; NICOR: 93.3% [CI 90.8-95.4%]; OIS: 95.6% [CI 93.3-97.2%]} but decreased substantially as the number of diagnosis positions expanded. Sensitivity [40.0% (CI 12.2-73.8%)] and positive predictive value (PPV) [highest with I50: 17.4% (CI 8.1-33.6%)] were low in the first diagnosis position for all coding sets. PPV was higher for the National Heart Failure Audit criteria, albeit modestly [36.4% (CI 16.6-62.2%)]. CONCLUSIONS: NHS Digital data were not able to accurately identify HHF and should not be used in isolation for this purpose.

2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Jozef Bartunek (Belgium), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Sergio Buccheri (Sweden), Elisabetta Cerbai (Italy), Erwan Donal (France), Frank Edelmann (Germany), Gloria Färber (Germany), Bettina Heidecker (Germany), Borja Ibanez (Spain), Stefan James (Sweden), Lars Køber (Denmark), Konstantinos C. Koskinas (Switzerland), Josep Masip (Spain), John William McEvoy (Ireland), Robert Mentz (United States of America), Borislava Mihaylova (United Kingdom), Jacob Eifer Møller (Denmark), Wilfried Mullens (Belgium), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Jens Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Agnes A. Pasquet (Belgium), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Bianca Rocca (Italy), Xavier Rossello (Spain), Leyla Elif Sade (United States of America/Türkiye), Hannah Schaubroeck (Belgium), Elena Tessitore (Switzerland), Mariya Tokmakova (Bulgaria), Peter van der Meer (Netherlands), Isabelle C. Van Gelder (Netherlands), Mattias Van Heetvelde (Belgium), Christiaan Vrints (Belgium), Matthias Wilhelm (Switzerland), Adam Witkowski (Poland), and Katja Zeppenfeld (Netherlands) All experts involved in the development of this Focused Update have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and simultaneously published in a supplementary document to the Focused Update. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines See the European Heart Journal online for supplementary documents that include evidence tables.

Growth differentiation factor-15 in patients with or at risk of heart failure but before first hospitalisation.

OBJECTIVE: Identification of patients at risk of adverse outcome from heart failure (HF) at an early stage is a priority. Growth differentiation factor (GDF)-15 has emerged as a potentially useful biomarker. This study sought to identify determinants of circulating GDF-15 and evaluate its prognostic value, in patients at risk of HF or with HF but before first hospitalisation. METHODS: Prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 2166 consecutive patients in stage A-C HF undergoing cardiovascular magnetic resonance and measurement of GDF-15. Multivariable linear regression investigated determinants of GDF-15. Cox proportional hazards modelling, Net Reclassification Improvement and decision curve analysis examined its incremental prognostic value. Primary outcome was a composite of first hospitalisation for HF or all-cause mortality. Median follow-up was 1093 (939-1231) days. RESULTS: Major determinants of GDF-15 were age, diabetes and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, although despite extensive phenotyping, only around half of the variability of GDF-15 could be explained (R2 0.51). Log-transformed GDF-15 was the strongest predictor of outcome (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.71 to 2.63) and resulted in a risk prediction model with higher predictive accuracy (continuous Net Reclassification Improvement 0.26; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.39) and with greater clinical net benefit across the entire range of threshold probabilities. CONCLUSION: In patients at risk of HF, or with HF but before first hospitalisation, GDF-15 provides unique information and is highly predictive of hospitalisation for HF or all-cause mortality, leading to more accurate risk stratification that can improve clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02326324.

Artificial intelligence methods for improved detection of undiagnosed heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIM: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains under-diagnosed in clinical practice despite accounting for nearly half of all heart failure (HF) cases. Accurate and timely diagnosis of HFpEF is crucial for proper patient management and treatment. In this study, we explored the potential of natural language processing (NLP) to improve the detection and diagnosis of HFpEF according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) diagnostic criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a retrospective cohort study, we used an NLP pipeline applied to the electronic health record (EHR) to identify patients with a clinical diagnosis of HF between 2010 and 2022. We collected demographic, clinical, echocardiographic and outcome data from the EHR. Patients were categorized according to the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Those with LVEF ≥50% were further categorized based on whether they had a clinician-assigned diagnosis of HFpEF and if not, whether they met the ESC diagnostic criteria. Results were validated in a second, independent centre. We identified 8606 patients with HF. Of 3727 consecutive patients with HF and LVEF ≥50% on echocardiogram, only 8.3% had a clinician-assigned diagnosis of HFpEF, while 75.4% met ESC criteria but did not have a formal diagnosis of HFpEF. Patients with confirmed HFpEF were hospitalized more frequently; however the ESC criteria group had a higher 5-year mortality, despite being less comorbid and experiencing fewer acute cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that patients with undiagnosed HFpEF are an at-risk group with high mortality. It is possible to use NLP methods to identify likely HFpEF patients from EHR data who would likely then benefit from expert clinical review and complement the use of diagnostic algorithms.

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.

Rationale and design of the ESC Heart Failure III Registry - Implementation and discovery.

AIMS: Heart failure outcomes remain poor despite advances in therapy. The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure III Registry (ESC HF III Registry) aims to characterize HF clinical features and outcomes and to assess implementation of guideline-recommended therapy in Europe and other ESC affiliated countries. METHODS: Between 1 November 2018 and 31 December 2020, 10 162 patients with chronic or acute/worsening HF with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction were enrolled from 220 centres in 41 European or ESC affiliated countries. The ESC HF III Registry collected data on baseline characteristics (hospital or clinic presentation), hospital course, diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in hospital and at the clinic visit; and on outcomes at 12-month follow-up. These data include demographics, medical history, physical examination, biomarkers and imaging, quality of life, treatments, and interventions - including drug doses and reasons for non-use, and cause-specific outcomes. CONCLUSION: The ESC HF III Registry will provide comprehensive and unique insight into contemporary HF characteristics, treatment implementation, and outcomes, and may impact implementation strategies, clinical discovery, trial design, and public policy.

Diagnostic accuracy, clinical characteristics, and prognostic differences of patients with acute myocarditis according to inclusion criteria.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of acute myocarditis (AM) is complex due to its heterogeneity and typically is defined by either Electronic Healthcare Records (EHRs) or advanced imaging and endomyocardial biopsy, but there is no consensus. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of these approaches for AM. METHODS: Data on ICD 10th Revision(ICD-10) codes corresponding to AM were collected from two hospitals and compared to CMR-confirmed or clinically suspected(CS) AM cases with respect to diagnostic accuracy, clinical characteristics, and all-cause mortality. Next, we performed a review of published AM studies according to inclusion criteria. RESULTS: We identified 291 unique admissions with ICD-10 codes corresponding to AM in the first three diagnostic positions. The positive predictive value(PPV) of ICD-10 codes for CMR-confirmed or CS-AM was 36%, and patients with CMR-confirmed or CS AM had a lower all-cause mortality than those with a refuted diagnosis (P = 0.019). Using an unstructured approach, patients with CMR-confirmed and CS AM had similar demographics, comorbidity profiles and survival over a median follow-up of 52 months (P = 0.72). Our review of the literature confirmed our findings. Outcomes for patients included in studies using CMR-confirmed criteria were favourable compared to studies with EMB-confirmed AM cases. CONCLUSION: ICD-10 codes have poor accuracy in identification of AM cases and should be used with caution in clinical research. There are important differences in management and outcomes of patients according to the selection criteria used to diagnose AM. Potential selection biases must be considered when interpreting AM cohorts and requires standardisation of inclusion criteria for AM studies.

Viability and Outcomes With Revascularization or Medical Therapy in Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

Importance: In the Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED-BCIS2) trial, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not improve outcomes for patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Whether myocardial viability testing had prognostic utility for these patients or identified a subpopulation who may benefit from PCI remained unclear. Objective: To determine the effect of the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium on the effectiveness of PCI, prognosis, and improvement in left ventricular function. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective open-label randomized clinical trial recruiting between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, with a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR, 2.3-5.0 years). A total of 40 secondary and tertiary care centers in the United Kingdom were included. Of 700 randomly assigned patients, 610 with left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%, extensive coronary artery disease, and evidence of viability in at least 4 myocardial segments that were dysfunctional at rest and who underwent blinded core laboratory viability characterization were included. Data analysis was conducted from March 31, 2022, to May 1, 2023. Intervention: Percutaneous coronary intervention in addition to optimal medical therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Blinded core laboratory analysis was performed of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging scans and dobutamine stress echocardiograms to quantify the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium, expressed as an absolute percentage of left ventricular mass. The primary outcome of this subgroup analysis was the composite of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and improved left ventricular function at 6 months. Results: The mean (SD) age of the participants was 69.3 (9.0) years. In the PCI group, 258 (87%) were male, and in the optimal medical therapy group, 277 (88%) were male. The primary outcome occurred in 107 of 295 participants assigned to PCI and 114 of 315 participants assigned to optimal medical therapy alone. There was no interaction between the extent of viable or nonviable myocardium and the effect of PCI on the primary or any secondary outcome. Across the study population, the extent of viable myocardium was not associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio per 10% increase, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04) or any secondary outcome. The extent of nonviable myocardium was associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and improvement in left ventricular function. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that viability testing does not identify patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who benefit from PCI. The extent of nonviable myocardium, but not the extent of viable myocardium, is associated with event-free survival and likelihood of improvement of left ventricular function. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01920048.

Pre-discharge and early post-discharge management of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure: A scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC.

Acute heart failure is a major cause of urgent hospitalizations. These are followed by marked increases in death and rehospitalization rates, which then decline exponentially though they remain higher than in patients without a recent hospitalization. Therefore, optimal management of patients with acute heart failure before discharge and in the early post-discharge phase is critical. First, it may prevent rehospitalizations through the early detection and effective treatment of residual or recurrent congestion, the main manifestation of decompensation. Second, initiation at pre-discharge and titration to target doses in the early post-discharge period, of guideline-directed medical therapy may improve both short- and long-term outcomes. Third, in chronic heart failure, medical treatment is often left unchanged, so the acute heart failure hospitalization presents an opportunity for implementation of therapy. The aim of this scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology is to summarize recent findings that have implications for clinical management both in the pre-discharge and the early post-discharge phase after a hospitalization for acute heart failure.

Treatment of Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart failure (HF) is commonly associated with iron deficiency (ID), defined as insufficient levels of iron to meet physiological demands. ID's association with anaemia is well understood but it is increasingly recognised as an important comorbidity in HF, even in the absence of anaemia. This review summarises contemporary evidence for the measurement and treatment of ID, in both HFrEF and HFpEF, and specific HF aetiologies, and highlights important gaps in the evidence-base. RECENT FINDINGS: ID is common among patients with HF and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Correcting ID in patients with HF can impact upon functional status, exercise tolerance, symptoms, and overall quality of life, irrespective of anaemia status. ID is a modifiable comorbidity in HF. Therefore, recognising and treating ID has emerging therapeutic potential and is important for all clinicians who care for patients with HF to understand the rationale and approach to treatment.

Prevalence, clinical characteristics and outcomes of heart failure patients with or without isolated or combined mitral and tricuspid regurgitation: An analysis from the ESC-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIM: Mitral regurgitation (MR) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) are common in patients with heart failure (HF). The aim of this study was to investigate prevalence, clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with or without isolated or combined MR and TR across the entire HF spectrum. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ESC-HFA EORP HF Long-Term Registry is a prospective, multicentre, observational study including patients with HF and 1-year follow-up data. Outpatients without aortic valve disease were included and stratified according to isolated or combined moderate/severe MR and TR. Among 11 298 patients, 7541 (67%) had no MR/TR, 1931 (17%) isolated MR, 616 (5.5%) isolated TR and 1210 (11%) combined MR/TR. Baseline characteristics were differently distributed across MR/TR categories. Compared to HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction was associated with a lower risk of isolated MR (odds ratio [OR] 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.80), and distinctly lower risk of combined MR/TR (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.41-0.62). HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was associated with a distinctly lower risk of isolated MR (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.36-0.49), and combined MR/TR (OR 0.59; 95% 0.50-0.70), but a distinctly increased risk of isolated TR (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.61-2.33). All-cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization and combined outcomes occurred more frequently in combined MR/TR, isolated TR and isolated MR versus no MR/TR. The highest incident rates were observed in isolated TR and combined MR/TR. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of outpatients with HF, prevalence of isolated and combined MR and TR was relatively high. Isolated TR was driven by HFpEF and was burdened by an unexpectedly poor outcome.

The prognostic impact of specialist cardiology input in patients admitted for heart failure and normal ejection fraction.

AIMS: Specialist cardiology care is associated with a prognostic benefit in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) admitted with decompensated HF. However, up to one third of patients admitted with HF and normal ejection fraction (HFnEF) do not receive specialist cardiology input. Whether this has prognostic implications is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data on patients hospitalized with HFnEF from two tertiary centres were analysed. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality during follow-up. The secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A total of 1413 patients were included in the study. Of these, 23% (n = 322) did not receive in-hospital specialist cardiology input. Patients seen by a cardiologist were less likely to have hypertension (73% vs. 79%, P = 0.03) and respiratory co-morbidities (25% vs. 31%, P = 0.02) compared with those who did not receive specialist input. Similarly, clinical presentation was more severe for those who received specialist input (New York Heart Association III/IV 83% vs. 75% respectively, P = 0.003; moderate-to-severe peripheral oedema 65% vs. 54%, P < 0.001). Medical management was similar, except for a higher use of diuretics (90% vs. 86%, P = 0.04) and a longer length of stay for patients who received specialist input (9 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Long-term outcomes were comparable between patients who received specialist input and those who did not. However, specialist input was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 0.19, confidence interval 0.09-0.43, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital cardiology specialist input has no long-term prognostic advantage in patients with HFnEF but is independently associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Acute heart failure and valvular heart disease: A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology.

Acute heart failure (AHF) represents a broad spectrum of disease states, resulting from the interaction between an acute precipitant and a patient's underlying cardiac substrate and comorbidities. Valvular heart disease (VHD) is frequently associated with AHF. AHF may result from several precipitants that add an acute haemodynamic stress superimposed on a chronic valvular lesion or may occur as a consequence of a new significant valvular lesion. Regardless of the mechanism, clinical presentation may vary from acute decompensated heart failure to cardiogenic shock. Assessing the severity of VHD as well as the correlation between VHD severity and symptoms may be difficult in patients with AHF because of the rapid variation in loading conditions, concomitant destabilization of the associated comorbidities and the presence of combined valvular lesions. Evidence-based interventions targeting VHD in settings of AHF have yet to be identified, as patients with severe VHD are often excluded from randomized trials in AHF, so results from these trials do not generalize to those with VHD. Furthermore, there are not rigorously conducted randomized controlled trials in the setting of VHD and AHF, most of the data coming from observational studies. Thus, distinct to chronic settings, current guidelines are very elusive when patients with severe VHD present with AHF, and a clear-cut strategy could not be yet defined. Given the paucity of evidence in this subset of AHF patients, the aim of this scientific statement is to describe the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and overall treatment approach for patients with VHD who present with AHF.

Prognostic Role of Contraindicated Drugs in Hospitalized Patients with Decompensated Heart Failure.

Due to the ageing population, patients often present to the hospital with a high burden of comorbidities and polypharmacy. For patients admitted with decompensated heart failure (HF), the evidence on the effects of contraindicated drugs on long-term mortality is scarce. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effect of contraindicated medications on outcomes of patients admitted with decompensated HF. We analyzed all consecutive patients from the National Heart Failure Audit admitted to two tertiary centers with acutely decompensated HF between April 2020 and October 2021. We included medication classes listed as contraindicated (class III) in the most recent European and American guidelines on the management of HF. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome measure was overall mortality. Overall, 716 patients admitted with acute HF were included. One-fifth (n = 156, 21.8%) were on at least one contraindicated medication at admission. The prevalence of comorbidities was comparable between medication groups. During hospitalization, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (29% versus 9%, P = 0.013). On multivariable analyses, NSAID use was independently associated with worse in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio, 6.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.61-25.5; P = 0.005). However, other contraindicated medications were not associated with adverse outcomes. Postdischarge, the use of erythropoietin during admission was associated with increased mortality (54% versus 31%, P = 0.031). NSAID use is associated with increased in-hospital mortality for patients admitted with acute HF. However, inpatient use of other contraindicated medications was not associated with adverse in-hospital outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in larger and prospective cohorts. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is associated with a worse in-hospital mortality in patients with decompensated heart failure. The prognostic role of other contraindicated medications remains still uncertain.

Comprehensive characterization of non-cardiac comorbidities in acute heart failure: an analysis of ESC-HFA EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIMS: To evaluate the prevalence and associations of non-cardiac comorbidities (NCCs) with in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum. METHODS AND RESULTS: The 9326 AHF patients from European Society of Cardiology (ESC)-Heart Failure Association (HFA)-EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry had complete information for the following 12 NCCs: anaemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, depression, hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, malignancy, Parkinson's disease, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), rheumatoid arthritis, sleep apnoea, and stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Patients were classified by number of NCCs (0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥4). Of the AHF patients, 20.5% had no NCC, 28.5% had 1 NCC, 23.1% had 2 NCC, 15.4% had 3 NCC, and 12.5% had ≥4 NCC. In-hospital and post-discharge mortality increased with number of NCCs from 3.0% and 18.5% for 1 NCC to 12.5% and 36% for ≥4 NCCs.Anaemia, COPD, PVD, sleep apnoea, rheumatoid arthritis, stroke/TIA, Parkinson, and depression were more prevalent in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for post-discharge death for each NCC was for anaemia 1.6 (1.4-1.8), diabetes 1.2 (1.1-1.4), kidney dysfunction 1.7 (1.5-1.9), COPD 1.4 (1.2-1.5), PVD 1.2 (1.1-1.4), stroke/TIA 1.3 (1.1-1.5), depression 1.2 (1.0-1.5), hepatic dysfunction 2.1 (1.8-2.5), malignancy 1.5 (1.2-1.8), sleep apnoea 1.2 (0.9-1.7), rheumatoid arthritis 1.5 (1.1-2.1), and Parkinson 1.4 (0.9-2.1). Anaemia, kidney dysfunction, COPD, and diabetes were associated with post-discharge mortality in all EF categories, PVD, stroke/TIA, and depression only in HF with reduced EF, and sleep apnoea and malignancy only in HFpEF. CONCLUSION: Multiple NCCs conferred poor in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Ejection fraction categories had different prevalence and risk profile associated with individual NCCs.

The current analysis from ESC-Heart Failure Long-Term Registry represents the largest and most comprehensive study in an acute heart failure (AHF) population with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), on prevalence and association with in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes of a large number of non-cardiac comorbidities.A greater number of non-cardiac comorbidities (CNNs) were associated at admission with older age, preserved EF, more severe NYHA class, and longer duration of HF. In-hospital and post-discharge mortality gradually increased with number of CNNs.The association between each individual comorbidity and post-discharge outcomes varied substantially in AHF patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, suggesting that an 'EF-specific' multidisciplinary approach with distinct comorbidity management programs should be applied in post-discharge phase.