Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: The FINEARTS-HF trial.

AIMS: To describe the baseline characteristics of participants in the FINEARTS-HF trial, contextualized with prior trials including patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). The FINEARTS-HF trial is comparing the effects of the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone with placebo in reducing cardiovascular death and total worsening HF events in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40%, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 25 ml/min/1.73 m2, elevated natriuretic peptide levels and evidence of structural heart disease were enrolled and randomized to finerenone titrated to a maximum of 40 mg once daily or matching placebo. We validly randomized 6001 patients to finerenone or placebo (mean age 72 ± 10 years, 46% women). The majority were New York Heart Association functional class II (69%). The baseline mean LVEF was 53 ± 8% (range 34-84%); 36% of participants had a LVEF <50% and 64% had a LVEF ≥50%. The median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) was 1041 (interquartile range 449-1946) pg/ml. A total of 1219 (20%) patients were enrolled during or within 7 days of a worsening HF event, and 3247 (54%) patients were enrolled within 3 months of a worsening HF event. Compared with prior large-scale HFmrEF/HFpEF trials, FINEARTS-HF participants were more likely to have recent (within 6 months) HF hospitalization and greater symptoms and functional limitations. Further, concomitant medications included a larger percentage of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors than previous trials. CONCLUSIONS: FINEARTS-HF has enrolled a broad range of high-risk patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. The trial will determine the safety and efficacy of finerenone in this population.

Titration of Medications after Acute Heart Failure is Safe, Tolerated, and Effective Regardless of Risk.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-directed medical therapy decisions may be less affected by single patient variables such as blood pressure or kidney function and more by overall risk profile. In STRONG-HF, high intensity care (HIC) in the form of rapid uptitration of heart failure (HF) guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) was effective overall, but the safety, tolerability and efficacy of HIC across the spectrum of HF severity is unknown. Evaluating this with a simple risk-based framework offers an alternative and more clinically translatable approach than traditional subgroup analyses. OBJECTIVES: To assess safety, tolerability, and efficacy of HIC according to the simple, powerful, and clinically translatable Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic (MAGGIC) HF risk score. METHODS: In STRONG-HF, 1078 patients with acute HF were randomized to HIC (uptitration of treatments to 100% of recommended doses within 2 weeks of discharge and 4 scheduled outpatient visits over the 2 months after discharge) versus usual care (UC). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death or first HF rehospitalization at Day 180. Baseline HF risk profile was determined by the previously validated MAGGIC risk score. Treatment effect was stratified according to MAGGIC risk score both as a categorical and continuous variable. RESULTS: Among 1062 patients (98.5%) with complete data for whom a MAGGIC score could be calculated at baseline, GDMT use at baseline was similar across MAGGIC tertiles. Overall GDMT prescriptions achieved for individual medication classes were higher in the HIC versus UC group and did not differ by MAGGIC risk score tertiles (interaction non-significant). The incidence of all-cause death or HF readmission at Day 180 was, respectively, 16.3%, 18.9%, and 23.2% for MAGGIC risk score tertiles 1-3. The HIC arm was at lower risk of all-cause death or HF readmission at Day 180 (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.86) and this finding was robust across MAGGIC risk score modeled as a categorical (HR 0.51, 0.62, 0.68 in tertile 1, 2, and 3, respectively, (interaction non-significant) for all comparisons) and continuous (p-interaction=NS) variable. The rate of adverse events was higher in the HIC group, but this observation did not differ based on MAGGIC risk score tertile (interaction non-significant). CONCLUSIONS: HIC led to better use of GDMT and lower HF-related morbidity and mortality compared to UC regardless of underlying HF risk profile.

Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of early vs. late enrollees of the STRONG-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: The STRONG-HF trial showed that high-intensity care (HIC) consisting of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and close follow-up reduced all-cause death or heart failure (HF) readmission at 180 days compared to usual care (UC). We hypothesized that significant differences in patient characteristics, management, and outcomes over the enrolment period may exist. METHODS: Two groups of the 1,078 patients enrolled in STRONG-HF were created according to the order of enrolment within center. The early group consisted of the first 10 patients enrolled at each center (N = 342) and the late group consisted of the following patients (N = 736). RESULTS: Late enrollees were younger, had more frequently reduced ejection fraction, slightly lower NT-proBNP and creatinine levels compared with early enrollees. The primary outcome occurred less frequently in early compared to late enrollees (15% vs. 21%, aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-0.99, P = .044). No treatment-by-enrolment interaction was seen in respect to the average percentage of optimal dose of GDMT after randomization, which was consistently higher in early and late patients randomized to HIC compared to UC. The higher use of renin-angiotensin-inhibitors in the HIC arm was more pronounced in the late enrollees both after randomization (interaction-P = .013) and at 90 days (interaction-P < .001). No interaction was observed for safety events. Patients randomized late to UC displayed a trend toward more severe outcomes (26% vs. 16%, P = .10), but the efficacy of HIC showed no interaction with the enrolment group (aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.35-1.67 in early and 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.83 in late enrollees, adjusted interaction-P = .51) with similar outcomes in the HIC arm in late and early enrollees (16% vs. 13%, P = .73). CONCLUSIONS: Late enrollees have different clinical characteristics and higher event rates compared to early enrollees. GDMT implementation in the HIC arm robustly achieved similar doses with consistent efficacy in early and late enrollees, mitigating the higher risk of adverse outcome in late enrollees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412201.

Dietary sodium and fluid intake in heart failure. A clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC.

Sodium and fluid restriction has traditionally been advocated in patients with heart failure (HF) due to their sodium and water avid state. However, most evidence regarding the altered sodium handling, fluid homeostasis and congestion-related signs and symptoms in patients with HF originates from untreated patient cohorts and physiological investigations. Recent data challenge the beneficial role of dietary sodium and fluid restriction in HF. Consequently, the European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines have gradually downgraded these recommendations over time, now advising for the limitation of salt intake to no more than 5 g/day in patients with HF, while contemplating fluid restriction of 1.5-2 L/day only in selected patients. Therefore, the objective of this clinical consensus statement is to provide advice on fluid and sodium intake in patients with acute and chronic HF, based on contemporary evidence and expert opinion.

Impact of Rapid Up-Titration of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies on Quality of Life: Insights From the STRONG-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: This analysis provides details on baseline and changes in quality of life (QoL) and its components as measured by EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, as well as association with objective outcomes, applying high-intensity heart failure (HF) care in patients with acute HF. METHODS: In STRONG-HF trial (Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by NT-proBNP Testing, of Heart Failure Therapies) patients with acute HF were randomized just before discharge to either usual care or a high-intensity care strategy of guideline-directed medical therapy up-titration. Patients ranked their state of health on the EQ-5D visual analog scale score ranging from 0 (the worst imaginable health) to 100 (the best imaginable health) at baseline and at 90 days follow-up. RESULTS: In 1072 patients with acute HF with available assessment of QoL (539/533 patients assigned high-intensity care/usual care) the mean baseline EQ-visual analog scale score was 59.2 (SD, 15.1) with no difference between the treatment groups. Patients with lower baseline EQ-visual analog scale (meaning worse QoL) were more likely to be women, self-reported Black and non-European (P<0.001). The strongest independent predictors of a greater improvement in QoL were younger age (P<0.001), no HF hospitalization in the previous year (P<0.001), lower NYHA class before hospital admission (P<0.001) and high-intensity care treatment (mean difference, 4.2 [95% CI, 2.5-5.8]; P<0.001). No statistically significant heterogeneity in the benefits of high-intensity care was seen across patient subgroups of different ages, with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below 40%, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and systolic blood pressure above or below the median value. The treatment effect on the primary end point did not vary significantly across baseline EQ-visual analog scale (Pinteraction=0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Early up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy significantly improves all dimensions of QoL in patients with HF and improves prognosis regardless of baseline self-assessed health status. The likelihood of achieving optimal doses of HF medications does not depend on baseline QoL. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03412201.

Heart failure care in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region: status, barriers, and routes to improvement.

Despite improvements over recent years, morbidity and mortality associated with heart failure (HF) are higher in countries in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region than in Western Europe. With the goal of improving the standard of HF care and patient outcomes in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region, this review aimed to identify the main barriers to optimal HF care and potential areas for improvement. This information was used to suggest methods to improve HF management and decrease the burden of HF in the region that can be implemented at the national and regional levels. We performed a literature search to collect information about HF epidemiology in 11 countries in the region (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia). The prevalence of HF in the region was 1.6-4.7%, and incidence was 3.1-6.0 per 1000 person-years. Owing to the scarcity of published data on HF management in these countries, we also collected insights on local HF care and management practices via two surveys of 11 HF experts representing the 11 countries. Based on the combined results of the literature review and surveys, we created national HF care and management profiles for each country and developed a common patient pathway for HF for the region. We identified five main barriers to optimal HF care: (i) lack of epidemiological data, (ii) low awareness of HF, (iii) lack of national HF strategies, (iv) infrastructure and system gaps, and (v) poor access to novel HF treatments. To overcome these barriers, we propose the following routes to improvement: (i) establish regional and national prospective HF registries for the systematic collection of epidemiological data; (ii) establish education campaigns for the public, patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals; (iii) establish formal HF strategies to set clear and measurable policy goals and support budget planning; (iv) improve access to quality-of-care centres, multidisciplinary care teams, diagnostic tests, and telemedicine/telemonitoring; and (v) establish national treatment monitoring programmes to develop policies that ensure that adequate proportions of healthcare budgets are reserved for novel therapies. These routes to improvement represent a first step towards improving outcomes in patients with HF in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region by decreasing disparities in HF care within the region and between the region and Western Europe.

Physician perceptions, attitudes, and strategies towards implementing guideline-directed medical therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A survey of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC and the ESC Council for Cardiology Practice.

27 March 2024: This article published in Early View in error. The article is under embargo and will republish after 11th May 2024.

Enhanced Decongestive Therapy in Patients With Acute Heart Failure: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Because signs of congestion are associated with adverse outcomes in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), attempts were made to decongest patients as much as possible with diuretic agents (loop diuretic agents, thiazides, acetazolamide) or mechanical devices. Those interventions improved signs of congestion but failed to meaningfully improve patients' symptoms, improve quality of life, or reduce early readmissions or deaths. Recent studies have shown that implementation of guideline-directed medical therapies after an AHF admission led to both more decongestion and improved symptoms, quality of life, and outcomes. Therefore, for most patients with AHF whose symptoms and congestion can be controlled with loop diuretic agents, the main focus should be rapid guideline-directed medical therapy uptitration. Enhanced decongestion, ie, adding a second-line diuretic agent to a loop diuretic agent, should be reserved for those patients who do not respond to loop diuretic agents.

Quality of life in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: tools and evidence.

Aortic stenosis is the most prevalent valvular heart disease requiring intervention, especially in the elderly population. Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are well established treatment options for symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, as they provide a significant survival benefit. Aortic stenosis may have an important impact on patients' quality of life (QoL). However, advanced age, comorbidities and frailty may limit the beneficial effect of aortic stenosis interventions in terms of QoL. Current guidelines mention the importance of frailty and avoiding the futility of interventions, but lack specific indications about decision-making. Also, there are limited data on how to specifically assess QoL in aortic stenosis patients since the most used questionnaires are validated in different populations (i.e. heart failure). The aim of this review is to summarize all the available tools for QoL assessment in patients with aortic stenosis; to report current evidence on the impact of TAVI on QoL; and to discuss the role of frailty and comorbidities in this setting.

Blood pressure and intensive treatment up-titration after acute heart failure hospitalization: Insights from the STRONG-HF trial.

AIMS: A high-intensity care (HIC) strategy with rapid guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) up-titration and close follow-up visits improved outcomes, compared to usual care (UC), in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). Hypotension is a major limitation to GDMT implementation. We aimed to assess the impact of baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) on the effects of HIC versus UC and the role of early SBP changes in STRONG-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1075 patients hospitalized for AHF with SBP ≥100 mmHg were included in STRONG-HF. For the purpose of this post-hoc analysis, patients were stratified by tertiles of baseline SBP (<118, 118-128, and ≥129 mmHg) and, in the HIC arm, by tertiles of changes in SBP from the values measured before discharge to those measured at 1 week after discharge (≥2 mmHg increase, ≤7 mmHg decrease to <2 mmHg increase, and ≥8 mmHg decrease). The primary endpoint was 180-day heart failure rehospitalization or death. The effect of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint was independent of baseline SBP evaluated as tertiles (pinteraction = 0.77) or as a continuous variable (pinteraction = 0.91). In the HIC arm, patients with increased, stable and decreased SBP at 1 week reached 83.5%, 76.2% and 75.3% of target doses of GDMT at day 90. The risk of the primary endpoint was not significantly different between patients with different SBP changes at 1 week (adjusted p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: In STRONG-HF, the benefits of HIC versus UC were independent of baseline SBP. Rapid GDMT up-titration was performed also in patients with an early SBP drop, resulting in similar 180-day outcome as compared to patients with stable or increased SBP.

Medical therapy of cardiogenic shock: Contemporary use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Cardiogenic shock is a primary cardiac disorder that results in both clinical and biochemical evidence of tissue hypoperfusion and can lead to multi-organ failure and death depending on its severity. Inadequate cardiac contractility or cardiac power secondary to acute myocardial infarction remains the most frequent cause of cardiogenic shock, although its contribution has declined over the past two decades, compared with other causes. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, this clinical syndrome is still burdened by an extremely high mortality. Its management is based on immediate stabilization of haemodynamic parameters so that further treatment, including mechanical circulatory support and transfer to specialized tertiary care centres, can be accomplished. With these aims, medical therapy, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs and vasopressors, still has a major role. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence on the use of these medications in patients with cardiogenic shock and discuss specific clinical settings with indications to their use.

Integration of implantable device therapy in patients with heart failure. A clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Implantable devices form an integral part of the management of patients with heart failure (HF) and provide adjunctive therapies in addition to cornerstone drug treatment. Although the number of these devices is growing, only few are supported by robust evidence. Current devices aim to improve haemodynamics, improve reverse remodelling, or provide electrical therapy. A number of these devices have guideline recommendations and some have been shown to improve outcomes such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and long-term mechanical support. For others, more evidence is still needed before large-scale implementation can be strongly advised. Of note, devices and drugs can work synergistically in HF as improved disease control with devices can allow for further optimization of drug therapy. Therefore, some devices might already be considered early in the disease trajectory of HF patients, while others might only be reserved for advanced HF. As such, device therapy should be integrated into HF care programmes. Unfortunately, implementation of devices, including those with the greatest evidence, in clinical care pathways is still suboptimal. This clinical consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describes the physiological rationale behind device-provided therapy and also device-guided management, offers an overview of current implantable device options recommended by the guidelines and proposes a new integrated model of device therapy as a part of HF care.

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.

Safety Indicators in Patients Receiving High-intensity Care After Hospital Admission for Acute Heart Failure: The STRONG-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by NT-proBNP Testing, of Heart Failure Therapies (STRONG-HF) demonstrated the safety and efficacy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with high-intensity care (HIC) compared with usual care in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF). In the HIC group, the following safety indicators were used to guide up-titration: estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, serum potassium of >5.0 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure (SBP) of <95 mmHg, heart rate of <55 bpm, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration of >10% higher than predischarge values. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the impact of protocol-specified safety indicators on achieved dose of GDMT and clinical outcomes. Three hundred thirteen of the 542 patients in the HIC arm (57.7%) met ≥1 safety indicator at any follow-up visit 1-6 weeks after discharge. As compared with those without, patients meeting ≥1 safety indicator had more severe HF symptoms, lower SBP, and higher heart rate at baseline and achieved a lower average percentage of GDMT optimal doses (mean difference vs the HIC arm patients not reaching any safety indicator, -11.0% [95% confidence interval [CI] -13.6 to -8.4%], P < .001). The primary end point of 180-day all-cause death or HF readmission occurred in 15.0% of patients with any safety indicator vs 14.2% of those without (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.48-1.46, P = .540). None of each of the safety indicators, considered alone, was significantly associated with the primary end point, but an SBP of <95 mm Hg was associated with a trend toward increased 180-day all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.68, 95% CI 0.94-7.64, P = .065) and estimated glomerular filtration rate decreased to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 with more HF readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio 3.60, 95% CI 1.22-10.60, P = .0203). The occurrence of a safety indicator was associated with a smaller 90-day improvement in the EURO-QoL 5-Dimension visual analog scale (adjusted mean difference -3.32 points, 95% CI -5.97 to -0.66, P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute HF enrolled in STRONG-HF in the HIC arm, the occurrence of any safety indicator was associated with the administration of slightly lower GDMT doses and less improvement in quality of life, but with no significant increase in the primary outcome of 180-day HF readmission or death when appropriately addressed according to the study protocol.

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.

Epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of chronic right-sided heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation. A clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the ESC.

Right-sided heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation are common and strongly associated with poor quality of life and an increased risk of heart failure hospitalizations and death. While medical therapy for right-sided heart failure is limited, treatment options for tricuspid regurgitation include surgery and, based on recent developments, several transcatheter interventions. However, the patients who might benefit from tricuspid valve interventions are yet unknown, as is the ideal time for these treatments given the paucity of clinical evidence. In this context, it is crucial to elucidate aetiology and pathophysiological mechanisms leading to right-sided heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation in order to recognize when tricuspid regurgitation is a mere bystander and when it can cause or contribute to heart failure progression. Notably, early identification of right heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation may be crucial and optimal management requires knowledge about the different mechanisms and causes, clinical course and presentation, as well as possible treatment options. The aim of this clinical consensus statement is to summarize current knowledge about epidemiology, pathophysiology and treatment of tricuspid regurgitation in right-sided heart failure providing practical suggestions for patient identification and management.

Optimization of Evidence-Based Heart Failure Medications After an Acute Heart Failure Admission: A Secondary Analysis of the STRONG-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Testing of Heart Failure Therapies (STRONG-HF) trial strived for rapid uptitration aiming to reach 100% optimal doses of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) within 2 weeks after discharge from an acute heart failure (AHF) admission. Objective: To assess the association between degree of GDMT doses achieved in high-intensity care and outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc secondary analysis of the STRONG-HF randomized clinical trial, conducted from May 2018 to September 2022. Included in the study were patients with AHF who were not treated with optimal doses of GDMT before and after discharge from an AHF admission. Data were analyzed from January to October 2023. Interventions: The mean percentage of the doses of 3 classes of HF medications (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, ß-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) relative to their optimal doses was computed. Patients were classified into 3 dose categories: low (<50%), medium (≥50% to <90%), and high (≥90%). Dose and dose group were included as a time-dependent covariate in Cox regression models, which were used to test whether outcomes differed by dose. Main Outcome Measures: Post hoc secondary analyses of postdischarge 180-day HF readmission or death and 90-day change in quality of life. Results: A total of 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.7 [13.4] years; 311 male [60.4%]) assigned high-intensity care were included in this analysis. At 2 weeks, 39 patients (7.6%) achieved low doses, 254 patients (49.3%) achieved medium doses, and 222 patients (43.1%) achieved high doses. Patients with lower blood pressure and more congestion were less likely to be uptitrated to optimal GDMT doses at week 2. As a continuous time-dependent covariate, an increase of 10% in the average percentage optimal dose was associated with a reduction in 180-day HF readmission or all-cause death (primary end point: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .01) and a decrease in 180-day all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = .007). Quality of life at 90 days, measured by the EQ-5D visual analog scale, improved more in patients treated with higher doses of GDMT (mean difference, 0.10; 95% CI, -4.88 to 5.07 and 3.13; 95% CI, -1.98 to 8.24 points in the medium- and high-dose groups relative to the low-dose group, respectively; P = .07). Adverse events to day 90 occurred less frequently in participants with HIC who were prescribed higher GDMT doses at week 2. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this post hoc analysis of the STRONG-HF randomized clinical trial show that, among patients randomly assigned to high-intensity care, achieving higher doses of HF GDMT 2 weeks after discharge was feasible and safe in most patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412201.