Assessment of Temporary Warfarin Reversal in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices: the KVAD Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) require interruption of warfarin for invasive procedures, but parenteral bridging is associated with many complications. Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) can temporarily restore hemostasis in patients undergoing anticoagulation with warfarin. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study evaluated the strategy of using variable-dose 4F-PCC to immediately and temporarily reverse warfarin before invasive procedures without holding warfarin in patients with LVADs. The duration of effect of 4F-PCC on factor levels and time to reestablish therapeutic anticoagulation post procedure were assessed. METHODS: Adult patients with LVADs and planned invasive procedures were enrolled from a single center. Warfarin was continued uninterrupted. The 4F-PCC dose administered immediately pre-procedure was based on study protocol. International normalized ratio (INR)- and vitamin K-dependent factor levels were collected before and during the 48 hours after 4F-PCC administration. The use of parenteral bridging, International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) and thromboembolic events at 7 and 30 days were collected. RESULTS: In 21 episodes of 4F-PCC reversal, median baseline INR was 2.7 (IQR 2.2-3.2). The median dosage of 4F-PCC administered was 1794 units (IQR 1536-2130). At 24 and 48 hours post 4F-PCC administration, median INRs were 1.8 (IQR 1.7-2.0) and 2.0 (IQR 1.9-2.4). Two patients required postoperative bridging. One patient experienced major bleeding within 72 hours, and 2 experienced CRNMB within 30 days. There were no thromboembolic events. Baseline and post 4F-PCC vitamin K-dependent factor levels corresponded with changes in INR values. The median time to achieve therapeutic INR post-procedure was 2.5 days (IQR, 1-4). CONCLUSION: Administration of 4F-PCC for temporary reversal of warfarin for invasive procedures in patients with LVADs allowed for continued warfarin dosing with minimal use of post-intervention bridging, limited bleeding and no thromboembolic events.

Multicenter evaluation of left ventricular assist device implantation with or without ECMO bridge in cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remains unclear, and recipients of the more contemporary HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD are not well represented in previous studies. We therefore undertook a multicenter, retrospective study of this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: INTERMACS 1 LVAD recipients from five U.S. centers were included. In-hospital and one-year outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was the overall mortality hazard comparing ECMO versus non-ECMO patients by propensity-weighted survival analysis. Secondary outcomes included survival by LVAD type, as well as postoperative and one-year outcomes. One hundred and twenty-seven patients were included; 24 received ECMO as a bridge to LVAD. Mortality was higher in patients bridged with ECMO in the primary analysis (HR 3.22 [95%CI 1.06-9.77], p = 0.039). Right ventricular assist device was more common in the ECMO group (ECMO: 54.2% vs non-ECMO: 11.7%, p < 0.001). Ischemic stroke was higher at one year in the ECMO group (ECMO: 25.0% vs non-ECMO: 4.9%, p = 0.006). Among the study cohort, one-year mortality was lower in HM3 than in HeartMate II (HMII) or HeartWare HVAD (10.5% vs 46.9% vs 31.6%, respectively; p < 0.001) recipients. Pump thrombosis at one year was lower in HM3 than in HMII or HVAD (1.8% vs 16.1% vs 16.2%, respectively; p = 0.026) recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Higher mortality was observed with ECMO as a bridge to LVAD, likely due to higher acuity illness, yet acceptable one-year survival was seen compared with historical rates. The receipt of the HM3 was associated with improved survival compared with older generation devices.

Aspirin and Hemocompatibility Events With a Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Heart Failure: The ARIES-HM3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) enhance quality and duration of life in advanced heart failure. The burden of nonsurgical bleeding events is a leading morbidity. Aspirin as an antiplatelet agent is mandated along with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) with continuous-flow LVADs without conclusive evidence of efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether excluding aspirin as part of the antithrombotic regimen with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD is safe and decreases bleeding. DESIGN, SETTING, and PARTICIPANTS: This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aspirin (100 mg/d) vs placebo with VKA therapy in patients with advanced heart failure with an LVAD was conducted across 51 centers with expertise in treating patients with advanced heart failure across 9 countries. The randomized population included 628 patients with advanced heart failure implanted with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD (314 in the placebo group and 314 in the aspirin group), of whom 296 patients in the placebo group and 293 in the aspirin group were in the primary analysis population, which informed the primary end point analysis. The study enrolled patients from July 2020 to September 2022; median follow-up was 14 months. Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin (100 mg/d) or placebo in addition to an antithrombotic regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The composite primary end point, assessed for noninferiority (-10% margin) of placebo, was survival free of a major nonsurgical (>14 days after implant) hemocompatibility-related adverse events (including stroke, pump thrombosis, major bleeding, or arterial peripheral thromboembolism) at 12 months. The principal secondary end point was nonsurgical bleeding events. RESULTS: Of the 589 analyzed patients, 77% were men; one-third were Black and 61% were White. More patients were alive and free of hemocompatibility events at 12 months in the placebo group (74%) vs those taking aspirin (68%). Noninferiority of placebo was demonstrated (absolute between-group difference, 6.0% improvement in event-free survival with placebo [lower 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.6%]; P < .001). Aspirin avoidance was associated with reduced nonsurgical bleeding events (relative risk, 0.66 [95% confidence limit, 0.51-0.85]; P = .002) with no increase in stroke or other thromboembolic events, a finding consistent among diverse subgroups of patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with advanced heart failure treated with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD, avoidance of aspirin as part of an antithrombotic regimen, which includes VKA, is not inferior to a regimen containing aspirin, does not increase thromboembolism risk, and is associated with a reduction in bleeding events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04069156.

Association of activin A and postpartum blood pressure in peripartum cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Activin A has been implicated in the pathogenesis of patients with chronic hypertension and heart failure as well as patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). Whether activin A correlates with blood pressure in patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) and HDP history has not previously been explored. METHODS AND RESULTS: 82 women with PPCM w/ and w/out HDP or hypertension history were selected for analysis from the Investigations in Pregnancy Associated Cardiomyopathy (IPAC) study. Serum biomarkers and blood pressure were assessed at the time of enrollment (median postpartum day 24). Levels of both sFlt-1 (SBP: r 0.47, p = 0.008; DBP: r 0.57, p < 0.001) and activin A (SBP: r 0.59, p < 0.001;DBP: r 0.68, p < 0.001) were noted to significantly correlate with blood pressure in patients with a history of HDP who went on to develop PPCM, but not in patients with chronic hypertension or no hypertensive history. The strongest correlation was between activin A levels and postpartum diastolic blood pressure for the subset with preeclampsia (DBP: r0.82, p < 0.001). This remained significant in multivariable linear regression analysis (DBP: ß = 0.011, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: In patients with PPCM, activin A and sFlt-1 levels had direct correlations with both systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressures (DBP), but only in participants with history of HDP. This correlation was more evident for activin A and strongest with a history of preeclampsia. Our findings suggest that activin A may play an important role in blood pressure modulation in women with HDP who subsequently develop PPCM.

Heart failure medical therapy prior to mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair: the STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is recommended before mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) in patients with heart failure (HF) and severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). Whether MTEER is being performed on the background of optimal GDMT in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% who underwent MTEER for FMR from 23 July 2019 to 31 March 2022 in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were identified. Pre-procedure GDMT utilization was assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate associations between pre-MTEER therapy (no/single, double, or triple therapy) and risk of 1-year mortality or HF hospitalization (HFH). RESULTS: Among 4199 patients across 449 sites, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors were used in 85.1%, 44.4%, 28.6%, and 19.9% before MTEER, respectively. Triple therapy was prescribed for 19.2%, double therapy for 38.2%, single therapy for 36.0%, and 6.5% were on no GDMT. Significant centre-level variation in the proportion of patients on pre-intervention triple therapy was observed (0%-61%; adjusted median odds ratio 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-3.88]; P < .001). In patients eligible for 1-year follow-up (n = 2014; 341 sites), the composite rate of 1-year mortality or HFH was lowest in patients prescribed triple therapy (23.0%) compared with double (24.8%), single (35.7%), and no (41.1%) therapy (P < .01 comparing across groups). Associations persisted after accounting for relevant clinical characteristics, with lower risk in patients prescribed triple therapy [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.73, 95% CI .55-.97] and double therapy (aHR 0.69, 95% CI .56-.86) before MTEER compared with no/single therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Under one-fifth of patients with LVEF <50% who underwent MTEER for FMR in this US nationwide registry were prescribed comprehensive GDMT, with substantial variation across sites. Compared with no/single therapy, triple and double therapy before MTEER were independently associated with reduced risk of mortality or HFH 1 year after intervention.

Transplantation Outcomes with Donor Hearts after Circulatory Death.

BACKGROUND: Data showing the efficacy and safety of the transplantation of hearts obtained from donors after circulatory death as compared with hearts obtained from donors after brain death are limited. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, noninferiority trial in which adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group). The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation; 90 (assigned to the circulatory-death group) received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 (regardless of group assignment) received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor). The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88 to 99) among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% (95% CI, 84 to 97) among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (least-squares mean difference, -3 percentage points; 90% CI, -10 to 3; P<0.001 for noninferiority [margin, 20 percentage points]). There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, risk-adjusted survival at 6 months after transplantation with a donor heart that had been reanimated and assessed with the use of extracorporeal nonischemic perfusion after circulatory death was not inferior to that after standard-care transplantation with a donor heart that had been preserved with the use of cold storage after brain death. (Funded by TransMedics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03831048.).

Bridging strategies and cardiac replacement outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: To describe outcomes associated with bridging strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (ADHF-CS) bridged to durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplantation (HTx). METHODS AND RESULTS: Durable LVAD or HTx recipients from 2014 to 2019 with pre-operative ADHF-CS were identified in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database and stratified by bridging strategy. The primary outcome was operative or 30-day post-operative mortality. Secondary outcomes included post-operative major bleeding. Exploratory comparisons between bridging strategies and outcomes were performed using overlap weighting with and without covariate adjustment. Among 9783 patients with pre-operative CS, 8777 (89.7%) had ADHF-CS. Medical therapy (n = 5013) was the most common bridging strategy, followed by intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP; n = 2816), catheter-based temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS; n = 417), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO; n = 465). Mortality was highest in patients bridged with VA-ECMO (22%), followed by catheter-based TMCS (10%), IABP (9%), and medical therapy (7%). Adverse post-operative outcomes were more frequent in LVAD recipients compared with HTx recipients. CONCLUSION: Among patients with ADHF-CS bridged to HTx or durable LVAD, the highest rates of death and adverse events during index hospitalization were observed in those bridged with VA-ECMO, followed by catheter-based TMCS, IABP, and medical therapy. Patients who received durable LVAD had higher rates of post-operative complications compared with HTx recipients. Prospective trials are needed to define optimal bridging strategies in patients with ADHF-CS.

Utilization of COVID-19 positive donors for Heart transplantation and associated short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of using COVID-19 positive donors in heart transplantation (HT) are increasingly relevant, but not well established. The present study evaluated the characteristics and utilization of such donors and associated post-HT outcomes. METHODS: All adult (≥18 years old) potential donors and HT recipients in the United States from April 21, 2020 to March 31, 2022 were included. Donor COVID-19 status was defined by the presence (or absence) of any positive test within 21 days of organ recovery. Donor and recipient characteristics and post-HT outcomes, including a primary composite of death, graft failure, and re-transplantation, were compared by donor COVID-19 status. RESULTS: Of 967 COVID-19(+) potential donors, 19.3% (n = 187) were used for HT compared to 26.7% (n = 6277) of COVID-19(-) donors (p < 0.001). Transplanted COVID-19(+) vs COVID-19(-) donors were younger, but otherwise were similar. Recipients of hearts from COVID-19+ vs COVID-19(-) donors less frequently received pre-HT inotropes (24.1% vs 31.7%, p = 0.023) and ventricular assist device therapy (29.7% vs 36.8%, p = 0.040). There were no significant differences in any post-HT outcome by donor COVID-19 status, including the primary composite outcome at 90 days (5.4% vs 5.6%, p = 0.91). Among COVID-19(+) donors, the presence of a subsequent negative test prior to transplant was not associated with posttransplant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that carefully selected COVID-19 positive donors may be used for HT with no difference in short-term post-transplant outcomes. Additional data regarding donor and recipient treatments and impact of vaccination should be collected to better inform our use of organs from COVID(+) donors.

The Cost-effectiveness of Transplanting Hearts From Hepatitis C-infected Donors Into Uninfected Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The DONATE HCV trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of transplanting hearts from hepatitis C viremic (HCV+) donors. In this report, we examine the cost-effectiveness and impact of universal HCV+ heart donor eligibility in the United States on transplant waitlist time and life expectancy. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to compare 2 waitlist strategies for heart transplant candidates in 2018: (1) status quo (SQ) and (2) SQ plus HCV+ donors (SQ + HCV). From the DONATE HCV trial and published national datasets, we modeled mean age (53 years), male sex (75%), probabilities of waitlist mortality (0.01-0.10/month) and transplant (0.03-0.21/month) stratified by medical urgency, and posttransplant mortality (0.003-0.052/month). We assumed a 23% increase in transplant volume with SQ + HCV compared with SQ. Costs (2018 United States dollar) included waitlist care ($2200-190 000/month), transplant ($213 400), 4-wk HCV treatment ($26 000), and posttransplant care ($2500-11 300/month). We projected waitlist time, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs [$/QALY, discounted 3%/year]; threshold ≤$100 000/QALY). RESULTS: Compared with SQ, SQ + HCV decreased waitlist time from 8.7 to 6.7 months, increased undiscounted life expectancy from 8.9 to 9.2 QALYs, and increased discounted lifetime costs from $671 400/person to $690 000/person. Four-week HCV treatment comprised 0.5% of lifetime costs. The ICER of SQ + HCV compared with SQ was $74 100/QALY and remained ≤$100 000/QALY with up to 30% increases in transplant and posttransplant costs. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting hearts from HCV-infected donors could decrease waitlist times, increase life expectancy, and be cost-effective. These findings were robust within the context of current high HCV treatment costs.

Tolerability of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: Analysis of the LIFE Trial Run-In.

BACKGROUND: The LIFE (LCZ696 In Hospitalized Advanced Heart FailurE) trial, which evaluated sacubitril/valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association functional class IV symptomatology, did not require tolerance to a renin angiotensin system antagonist before initiating sacubitril/valsartan, thus affording an opportunity to study the tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this analysis of the LIFE trial is to characterize the tolerability of initiating sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: In the LIFE trial, 445 subjects with advanced HF entered an unblinded run-in period of 3-7 days with sacubitril/valsartan 24/26 mg twice a day. The authors compared characteristics of subjects completing and failing run-in, performed multivariable analysis of clinical parameters associated with run-in failure, and developed a predictive model for short-term intolerance to sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS: Of 445 subjects entering run-in, 73 (18%) were intolerant of sacubitril/valsartan. Reasons for intolerance included systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (59%), symptoms of hypotension/dizziness with systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg (19%), and renal dysfunction (creatinine >2.0 mg/dL) (12%). Multivariable predictors of intolerance included lower mean arterial pressure, lower serum chloride, presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and/or cardiac resynchronization device, moderate or greater mitral regurgitation, nonuse of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker at the screening visit, and use of insulin at screening. Subjects with 4 or more predictors had a 48.9% probability of sacubitril/valsartan intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Intolerance to low doses of sacubitril/valsartan is common in patients with advanced chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction and may be predicted by the presence of certain risk factors. (EntrestoTM [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE Study] [HFN-LIFE] NCT02816736).

Increased Opportunities for Transplantation for Women in the New Heart Allocation System.

BACKGROUND: Historically, women have had less access to advanced heart failure therapies, including temporary and permanent mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation (HT), with worse waitlist and post-transplant survival compared with men. This study evaluated for improvement in sex differences across all phases of HT in the 2018 allocation system. METHODS AND RESULTS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to identify adult patients (≥18 years) listed for HT from October 18, 2016, to October 17, 2018 (old allocation), and from October 18, 2018, to October 18, 2020 (new allocation). The outcomes of interest included waitlist survival, pretransplant use of temporary and durable mechanical circulatory support, rates of HT, and post-transplant survival. There were 15,629 patients who were listed for HT and included in this analysis; 7745 (2039 women, 26.3%) in the new and 7875 patients (2074 women, 26.3%) in the old allocation system. When compared with men in the new allocation system, women were more likely to have lower priority United Network for Organ Sharing status at time of transplant, and less likely to be supported by an intra-aortic balloon pump (27.1% vs 32.2%, P < .001), with no difference in the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (5.5% vs 6.3%, P = .28). Despite these findings, when transplantation was viewed in the context of risk for death or delisting, the cumulative incidence of transplant within 6 months of listing was higher in women than men in the new allocation system (62.4% vs 54.9%, P < .001) with no differences in post-transplant survival. When comparing women in the old with the new allocation system, the distance traveled for organ procurement was 187.5 ± 207.0 miles vs 272.8 ± 233.7 miles (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in women remains lower than in men in the new allocation system, more women are being transplanted with comparable waitlist and post-transplant outcomes as men. Broader sharing may be making its greatest impact on improving transplant opportunities for women.

Trends and Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: JACC Focus Seminar.

As the prevalence of advanced heart failure continues to rise, treatment strategies for select patients include heart transplantation or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support, both of which improve quality of life and extend survival. Recently, the HeartMate 3 has been incorporated into clinical practice, the United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system was revised, and the management of LVAD-related complications has evolved. Contemporary LVAD recipients have greater preoperative illness severity, but survival is higher and adverse event rates are lower compared with prior eras. This is driven by advances in device design, patient selection, surgical techniques, and long-term management. However, bleeding, infection, neurologic events, and right ventricular failure continue to limit broader implementation of LVAD support. Ongoing efforts to optimize management of patients implanted with current devices and parallel development of next-generation devices are likely to further improve outcomes for patients with advanced heart failure.

Evolving Characteristics of Heart Transplantation Donors and Recipients: JACC Focus Seminar.

Although the burden of end-stage heart failure continues to increase, the number of available organs for heart transplantation (HT) remains inadequate. The HT community has been challenged to find ways to expand the number of donor hearts available. Recent advances include use of hearts from donors infected with hepatitis C virus as well as other previously underutilized donors, including those with left ventricular dysfunction, of older age, and with a history of cocaine use. Concurrently, emerging trends in HT surgery include donation after circulatory death, ex vivo normothermic heart perfusion, and controlled hypothermic preservation, which may enable procurement of organs from farther distances and prevent early allograft dysfunction. Contemporary HT recipients have also evolved in light of the 2018 revision to the U.S. heart allocation policy. This focus seminar discusses recent trends in donor and recipient phenotypes and management strategies for successful HT, as well as evolving areas and future directions.

Medical Therapy During Hospitalization for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The VICTORIA Registry.

BACKGROUND: For patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), guidelines recommend optimization of medical therapy prior to discharge. The degree to which changes in medical therapy occur during hospitalizations for HFrEF in North American clinical practice is unclear. METHODS: The VICTORIA registry (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening chronic HFrEF across 51 sites in the United States and Canada from February 2018-January 2019. In patients with complete medication data who were not receiving dialysis, use and dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were assessed at admission and discharge. RESULTS: Of 1695 patients, the median (IQR) age was 69 (59-79) years, and 33% were women. Among eligible patients, 33%, 25% and 55% were not prescribed ACEI/ARB/ARNI, beta-blocker, and MRA at discharge, respectively; 99% were not prescribed SGLT2i. For each medication, > 50% of patients remained on stable subtarget doses or no medication during hospitalization. In-hospital rates of initiation/dose increase were 20% for ACEI/ARB, 4% for ARNI, 20% for beta-blocker, 22% for MRA, and < 1% for SGLT2i; corresponding rates of dose decrease/discontinuation were 11%, 2%, 9%, 5%, and < 1%, respectively. Overall, 17% and 28% of eligible patients were prescribed triple therapy prior to admission and at discharge, respectively. At both admission and discharge, 1% of patients were prescribed triple therapy at target doses. Across classes of medication, multiple factors were independently associated with higher likelihood of in-hospital initiation/dosing increase (eg, Canadian enrollment, white race, admission to intensive care units) and discontinuation/dosing decrease (eg, worse renal function, admission to intensive care units). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary North American registry of patients hospitalized for worsening chronic HFrEF, for each recommended medical therapy, the large majority of eligible patients remained on stable subtarget doses or without medication at admission and discharge. Although most patients had no alterations in medical therapy, hospitalization in Canada and multiple patient characteristics were associated with higher likelihood of favorable in-hospital medication changes.