Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of all CS cases. Nevertheless, there is a lack of evidence on sex-related differences in HF-CS, especially regarding use of treatment and mortality risk in women vs. men. This study aimed to investigate potential differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and mortality between women and men with HF-CS. METHODS: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS (without acute myocardial infarction) from 16 tertiary-care centers in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and 30-day mortality in women vs. men with HF-CS. RESULTS: N = 1030 patients with HF-CS were analyzed, of whom 290 (28.2%) were women. Compared to men, women were more likely to be older, less likely to have a known history of heart failure or cardiovascular risk factors, and lower rates of highly depressed left ventricular ejection fraction and renal dysfunction. Nevertheless, CS severity as well as use of treatments were comparable, and female sex was not independently associated with 30-day mortality (53.0% vs. 50.8%; adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: In this large HF-CS registry, sex disparities in risk factors and clinical presentation were observed. Despite these differences, the use of treatments was comparable, and both sexes exhibited similarly high mortality rates. Further research is necessary to evaluate if sex-tailored treatment, accounting for the differences in cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentation, might improve outcomes in HF-CS.

Sodium loading in ambulatory patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Mechanistic insights into sodium handling.

AIMS: Sodium restriction was not associated with improved outcomes in heart failure patients in recent trials. The skin might act as a sodium buffer, potentially explaining tolerance to fluctuations in sodium intake without volume overload, but this is insufficiently understood. Therefore, we studied the handling of an increased sodium load in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-one ambulatory, stable HFrEF patients and 10 healthy controls underwent a 2-week run-in phase, followed by a 4-week period of daily 1.2 g (51 mmol) sodium intake increment. Clinical, echocardiographic, 24-h urine collection, and bioelectrical impedance data were collected every 2 weeks. Blood volume, skin sodium content, and skin glycosaminoglycan content were assessed before and after sodium loading. Sodium loading did not significantly affect weight, blood pressure, congestion score, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, echocardiographic indices of congestion, or total body water in HFrEF (all p > 0.09). There was no change in total blood volume (4748 ml vs. 4885 ml; p = 0.327). Natriuresis increased from 150 mmol/24 h to 173 mmol/24 h (p = 0.024), while plasma renin decreased from 286 to 88 µU/L (p = 0.002). There were no significant changes in skin sodium content, total glycosaminoglycan content, or sulfated glycosaminoglycan content (all p > 0.265). Healthy controls had no change in volume status, but a higher increase in natriuresis without any change in renin. CONCLUSIONS: Selected HFrEF patients can tolerate sodium loading, with increased renal sodium excretion and decreased neurohormonal activation.

Protocolized Natriuresis-Guided Decongestion Improves Diuretic Response: The Multicenter ENACT-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of urinary sodium to guide diuretics in acute heart failure is recommended by experts and the most recent European Society of Cardiology guidelines. However, there are limited data to support this recommendation. The ENACT-HF study (Efficacy of a Standardized Diuretic Protocol in Acute Heart Failure) investigated the feasibility and efficacy of a standardized natriuresis-guided diuretic protocol in patients with acute heart failure and signs of volume overload. METHODS: ENACT-HF was an international, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic, 2-phase study, comparing the current standard of care of each center with a standardized diuretic protocol, including urinary sodium to guide therapy. The primary end point was natriuresis after 1 day. Secondary end points included cumulative natriuresis and diuresis after 2 days of treatment, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. All end points were adjusted for baseline differences between both treatment arms. RESULTS: Four hundred one patients from 29 centers in 18 countries worldwide were included in the study. The natriuresis after 1 day was significantly higher in the protocol arm compared with the standard of care arm (282 versus 174 mmol; adjusted mean ratio, 1.64; P<0.001). After 2 days, the natriuresis remained higher in the protocol arm (538 versus 365 mmol; adjusted mean ratio, 1.52; P<0.001), with a significantly higher diuresis (5776 versus 4381 mL; adjusted mean ratio, 1.33; P<0.001). The protocol arm had a shorter length of stay (5.8 versus 7.0 days; adjusted mean ratio, 0.87; P=0.036). In-hospital mortality was low and did not significantly differ between the 2 arms (1.4% versus 2.0%; P=0.852). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized natriuresis-guided diuretic protocol to guide decongestion in acute heart failure was feasible, safe, and resulted in higher natriuresis and diuresis, as well as a shorter length of stay.

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.

Clinical presentation, shock severity and mortality in patients with de novo versus acute-on-chronic heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of CS cases. Whether patients with de novo HF and those with acute-on-chronic HF in CS differ in clinical characteristics and outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in clinical presentation and mortality between patients with de novo and acute-on-chronic HF-CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS from 16 tertiary care centres in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. To investigate differences in clinical presentation and 30-day mortality, adjusted logistic/Cox regression models were fitted. Patients (n = 1030) with HF-CS were analysed, of whom 486 (47.2%) presented with de novo HF-CS and 544 (52.8%) with acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Traditional markers of CS severity (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate and lactate) as well as use of treatments were comparable between groups. However, patients with acute-on-chronic HF-CS were more likely to have a higher CS severity and also a higher mortality risk, after adjusting for relevant confounders (de novo HF 45.5%, acute-on-chronic HF 55.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.72, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In this large HF-CS cohort, acute-on-chronic HF-CS was associated with more severe CS and higher mortality risk compared to de novo HF-CS, although traditional markers of CS severity and use of treatments were comparable. These findings highlight the vast heterogeneity of patients with HF-CS, emphasize that HF chronicity is a relevant disease modifier in CS, and indicate that future clinical trials should account for this.

Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Currently, use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is predominantly guided by shock-specific markers, and not by markers of cardiac function. We hypothesise that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can identify patients with a higher likelihood to benefit from MCS and thus help to optimise their expected benefit. METHODS: Patients with non-ischaemic CS and available data on LVEF from 16 tertiary-care centres in five countries were analysed. Cox regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between LVEF and mortality, as well as the interaction between LVEF, MCS use and mortality. RESULTS: N = 807 patients were analysed: mean age 63 [interquartile range (IQR) 51.5-72.0] years, 601 (74.5%) male, lactate 4.9 (IQR 2.6-8.5) mmol/l, LVEF 20 (IQR 15-30) %. Lower LVEF was more frequent amongst patients with more severe CS, and MCS was more likely used in patients with lower LVEF. There was no association between LVEF and 30-day mortality risk in the overall study cohort. However, there was a significant interaction between MCS use and LVEF, indicating a lower 30-day mortality risk with MCS use in patients with LVEF ≤ 20% (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.02 for LVEF ≤ 20% vs. hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.85-2.01 for LVEF > 20%, interaction-p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study may indicate a lower mortality risk with MCS use only in patients with severely reduced LVEF. This may propose the inclusion of LVEF as an adjunctive parameter for MCS decision-making in non-ischaemic CS, aiming to optimise the benefit-risk ratio.

Webtool to enhance the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF: a prospective cross-over study.

AIMS: Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of a webtool to enhance the scoring accuracy when applying the complex HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF algorithms, which are commonly used for diagnosing HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed an online tool, the HFpEF calculator, that enables the automatic calculation of current HFpEF algorithms. We assessed the accuracy of manual vs. automatic scoring, defined as the percentage of correct scores, in a cohort of cardiologists with varying clinical experience. Cardiologists scored eight online clinical cases using a triple cross-over design (i.e. two manual-two automatic-two manual-two automatic). Data were analysed in study completers (n = 55, 29% heart failure specialists, 42% general cardiologists, and 29% cardiology residents). Manually calculated scores were correct in 50% (HFA-PEFF: 50% [50-75]; H2 FPEF: 50% [38-50]). Correct scoring improved to 100% using the HFpEF calculator (HFA-PEFF: 100% [88-100], P < 0.001; H2 FPEF: 100% [75-100], P < 0.001). Time spent on clinical cases was similar between scoring methods (±4 min). When corrections for faulty algorithm scores were displayed, cardiologists changed their diagnostic decision in up to 67% of cases. At least 67% of cardiologists preferred using the online tool for future cases in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Manual calculation of HFpEF diagnostic algorithms is often inaccurate. Using an automated webtool to calculate HFpEF algorithms significantly improved correct scoring. This new approach may impact the eventual diagnostic decision in up to two-thirds of cases, supporting its routine use in clinical practice.

Renal function and decongestion with acetazolamide in acute decompensated heart failure: the ADVOR trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the ADVOR trial, acetazolamide improved decongestion in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Whether the beneficial effects of acetazolamide are consistent across the entire range of renal function remains unclear. METHODS: This is a pre-specified analysis of the ADVOR trial that randomized 519 patients with ADHF to intravenous acetazolamide or matching placebo on top of intravenous loop diuretics. The main endpoints of decongestion, diuresis, natriuresis, and clinical outcomes are assessed according to baseline renal function. Changes in renal function are evaluated between treatment arms. RESULTS: On admission, median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 40 (30-52) mL/min/1.73 m². Acetazolamide consistently increased the likelihood of decongestion across the entire spectrum of eGFR (P-interaction = .977). Overall, natriuresis and diuresis were higher with acetazolamide, with a higher treatment effect for patients with low eGFR (both P-interaction < .007). Acetazolamide was associated with a higher incidence of worsening renal function (WRF; rise in creatinine ≥ 0.3 mg/dL) during the treatment period (40.5% vs. 18.9%; P < .001), but there was no difference in creatinine after 3 months (P = .565). This was not associated with a higher incidence of heart failure hospitalizations and mortality (P-interaction = .467). However, decongestion at discharge was associated with a lower incidence of adverse clinical outcomes irrespective of the onset of WRF (P-interaction = .805). CONCLUSIONS: Acetazolamide is associated with a higher rate of successful decongestion across the entire range of renal function with more pronounced effects regarding natriuresis and diuresis in patients with a lower eGFR. While WRF occurred more frequently with acetazolamide, this was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03505788.

Natriuretic Response to Acetazolamide in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Volume Overload.

BACKGROUND: Acetazolamide facilitates decongestion in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the effect of acetazolamide on natriuresis in ADHF and its relationship with outcomes. METHODS: Patients from the ADVOR (Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload) trial with complete data on urine output and urine sodium concentration (UNa) were analyzed. Predictors of natriuresis and its relationship with the main trial endpoints were evaluated. RESULTS: This analysis included 462 of 519 patients (89%) from the ADVOR trial. During 2 days after randomization, UNa was 92 ± 25 mmol/L on average, and total natriuresis was 425 ± 234 mmol. Allocation to acetazolamide strongly and independently predicted natriuresis with a 16 mmol/L (19%) increase in UNa and 115 mmol (32%) greater total natriuresis. Higher systolic blood pressure, better renal function, higher serum sodium levels, and male sex also independently predicted both a higher UNa and greater total natriuresis. A stronger natriuretic response was associated with faster and more complete relief of signs of volume overload, and this effect was already significant on the first morning of assessment (P = 0.022). A significant interaction was observed between the effect of allocation to acetazolamide and UNa on decongestion (P = 0.007). Stronger natriuresis with better decongestion translated into a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). After multivariable adjustments, every 10 mmol/L UNa increase was independently associated with a lower risk of all-cause death or heart failure readmission (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Increased natriuresis is strongly related to successful decongestion with acetazolamide in ADHF. UNa may be an attractive measure of effective decongestion for future trials. (Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload [ADVOR]; NCT03505788).

Pre-treatment bicarbonate levels and decongestion by acetazolamide: the ADVOR trial.

AIMS: Acetazolamide inhibits proximal tubular sodium and bicarbonate re-absorption and improved decongestive response in acute heart failure in the ADVOR trial. It is unknown whether bicarbonate levels alter the decongestive response to acetazolamide. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a sub-analysis of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ADVOR trial that randomized 519 patients with acute heart failure and volume overload in a 1:1 ratio to intravenous acetazolamide (500 mg/day) or matching placebo on top of standardized intravenous loop diuretics (dose equivalent of twice oral maintenance dose). The primary endpoint was complete decongestion after 3 days of treatment (morning of day 4). Impact of baseline HCO3 levels on the treatment effect of acetazolamide was assessed. : Of the 519 enrolled patients, 516 (99.4%) had a baseline HCO3 measurement. Continuous HCO3 modelling illustrated a higher proportional treatment effect for acetazolamide if baseline HCO3 ≥ 27 mmol/l. A total of 234 (45%) had a baseline HCO3 ≥ 27 mmol/l. Randomization towards acetazolamide improved decongestive response over the entire range of baseline HCO3- levels (P = 0.004); however, patients with elevated baseline HCO3 exhibited a significant higher response to acetazolamide [primary endpoint: no vs. elevated HCO3; OR 1.37 (0.79-2.37) vs. OR 2.39 (1.35-4.22), P-interaction = 0.065), with higher proportional diuretic and natriuretic response (both P-interaction < 0.001), greater reduction in congestion score on consecutive days (treatment × time by HCO3-interaction <0.001) and length of stay (P-interaction = 0.019). The larger proportional treatment effect was mainly explained by the development of diminished decongestive response in the placebo arm (loop diuretics only), both with regard to reaching the primary endpoint of decongestion as well as reduction in congestion score. Development of elevated HCO3 further worsened decongestive response in the placebo arm (P-interaction = 0.041). A loop diuretic only strategy was associated with an increase in the HCO3 during the treatment phase which was prevented by acetazolamide (day 3: placebo 74.8% vs. acetazolamide 41.3%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Acetazolamide improves decongestive response over the entire range of HCO3- levels; however, the treatment response is magnified in patients with baseline or loop diuretic-induced elevated HCO3 (marker of proximal nephron NaHCO3 retention) by specifically counteracting this component of diuretic resistance.

Sodium and potassium changes during decongestion with acetazolamide - A pre-specified analysis from the ADVOR trial.

AIMS: Acetazolamide, an inhibitor of proximal tubular sodium reabsorption, leads to more effective decongestion in acute heart failure (AHF). It is unknown whether acetazolamide alters serum sodium and potassium levels on top of loop diuretics and if baseline values modify the treatment effect of acetazolamide. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a pre-specified sub-analysis of the ADVOR trial that randomized 519 patients with AHF and volume overload in a 1:1 ratio to intravenous acetazolamide or matching placebo on top of standardized intravenous loop diuretics. Mean potassium and sodium levels at randomization were 4.2 ± 0.6 and 139 ± 4 mmol/L in the acetazolamide arm versus 4.2 ± 0.6 and 140 ± 4 mmol/L in the placebo arm. Hypokalaemia (<3.5 mmol/L) on admission was present in 44 (9%) patients and hyponatraemia (≤135 mmol/L) in 82 (16%) patients. After 3 days of treatment, 44 (17%) patients in the acetazolamide arm and 35 (14%) patients in the placebo arm developed hyponatraemia (p = 0.255). Patients randomized to acetazolamide demonstrated a slight decrease in mean potassium levels during decongestion, which was non-significant over time (p = 0.053) and had no significant impact on hypokalaemia incidence (p = 0.061). Severe hypokalaemia (<3.0 mmol/L) occurred in only 7 (1%) patients, similarly distributed between the two treatment arms (p = 0.676). Randomization towards acetazolamide improved decongestive response irrespective of baseline serum sodium and potassium levels. CONCLUSIONS: Acetazolamide on top of standardized loop diuretic therapy does not lead to clinically important hypokalaemia or hyponatraemia and improves decongestion over the entire range of baseline serum potassium and sodium levels.

Comparison of Radifocus versus Silverway Guidewires for Percutaneous Radial Angiography Following Failed Use of a J-Tip Guidewire.

BACKGROUND During transradial coronary angiography, when conventional J-tip wires fail to deliver catheters to the aortic root due to anatomical obstacles, additional hydrophilic wires, such as Radifocus (Terumo) or Silverway (Asahi), are used. We recently showed that the Silverway guidewire was effective at delivering the catheter to the aortic root. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Radifocus and Silverway guidewires in 100 patients after failed use of the J-tip guidewire. MATERIAL AND METHODS After patients had a failure of a conventional J-tip wire to reach the aortic root, 100 patients were 1:1 randomized to either the Silverway or Radifocus wire. All patients with failure of the J-tip wire were eligible. The primary endpoint was the time between wire entry in the catheter and successful delivery of the catheter to the aortic root. Secondary endpoints included change of access site, number of complications, and questionnaires on subjective wire assessments by the performing interventional cardiologist. RESULTS The primary endpoint was significantly shorter in patients randomized to the Silverway arm (median 30 s [21-39] vs 48 s [36-66]; P<0.001)). The percentage of patients with change of access site was not different between the groups (2 vs 2, not significant). Only 1 minor complication (2%) occurred, in the Radifocus group. Questionnaires revealed that torque control, crossing, and support were all significantly better with the Silverway wire (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Silverway showed superior torque control, resulting in faster catheter delivery to the aortic root when compared with the Radifocus guidewire.

Use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Despite its high incidence and mortality risk, there is no evidence-based treatment for non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for non-ischaemic CS treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicentre, international, retrospective study, data from 890 patients with non-ischaemic CS, defined as CS due to severe de-novo or acute-on-chronic heart failure with no need for urgent revascularization, treated with or without active MCS, were collected. The association between active MCS use and the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality was assessed in a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort. MCS was used in 386 (43%) patients. Patients treated with MCS presented with more severe CS (37% vs. 23% deteriorating CS, 30% vs. 25% in extremis CS) and had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline (21% vs. 25%). After matching, 267 patients treated with MCS were compared with 267 patients treated without MCS. In the matched cohort, MCS use was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97). This finding was consistent through all tested subgroups except when CS severity was considered, indicating risk reduction especially in patients with deteriorating CS. However, complications occurred more frequently in patients with MCS; e.g. severe bleeding (16.5% vs. 6.4%) and access-site related ischaemia (6.7% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: In patients with non-ischaemic CS, MCS use was associated with lower 30-day mortality as compared to medical therapy only, but also with more complications. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.

Decongestion With Acetazolamide in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis From the ADVOR Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acetazolamide inhibits proximal tubular sodium reabsorption and improved decongestion in the ADVOR (Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload) trial. It remains unclear whether the decongestive effects of acetazolamide differ across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: This is a prespecified analysis of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ADVOR trial that enrolled 519 patients with acute heart failure (HF), clinical signs of volume overload (eg, edema, pleural effusion, or ascites), NTproBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) >1000 ng/L, or BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) >250 ng/mL to receive intravenous acetazolamide (500 mg once daily) or placebo in addition to standardized intravenous loop diuretics (twice that of the oral home maintenance dose). Randomization was stratified according to LVEF (≤40% or >40%). The primary end point was successful decongestion, defined as the absence of signs of volume overload within 3 days from randomization without the need for mandatory escalation of decongestive therapy because of poor urine output. RESULTS: Median LVEF was 45% (25th to 75th percentile; 30% to 55%), and 43% had an LVEF ≤40%. Patients with lower LVEF were younger and more likely to be male with a higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease, higher NTproBNP, less atrial fibrillation, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. No interaction on the overall beneficial treatment effect of acetazolamide to the primary end point of successful decongestion (OR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.18-2.63]; P=0.005; all P values for interaction >0.401) was found when LVEF was assessed per randomization stratum (≤40% or >40%), or as HF with reduced ejection fraction, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with preserved ejection fraction, or on a continuous scale. Acetazolamide resulted in improved diuretic response measured by higher cumulative diuresis and natriuresis and shortened length of stay without treatment effect modification by baseline LVEF (all P values for interaction >0.160). CONCLUSIONS: When added to treatment with loop diuretics in patients with acute decompensated HF, acetazolamide improves the incidence of successful decongestion and diuretic response, and shortens length of stay without treatment effect modification by baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03505788.

Acetazolamide in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload.

BACKGROUND: Whether acetazolamide, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces proximal tubular sodium reabsorption, can improve the efficiency of loop diuretics, potentially leading to more and faster decongestion in patients with acute decompensated heart failure with volume overload, is unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute decompensated heart failure, clinical signs of volume overload (i.e., edema, pleural effusion, or ascites), and an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of more than 1000 pg per milliliter or a B-type natriuretic peptide level of more than 250 pg per milliliter to receive either intravenous acetazolamide (500 mg once daily) or placebo added to standardized intravenous loop diuretics (at a dose equivalent to twice the oral maintenance dose). Randomization was stratified according to the left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40% or >40%). The primary end point was successful decongestion, defined as the absence of signs of volume overload, within 3 days after randomization and without an indication for escalation of decongestive therapy. Secondary end points included a composite of death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure during 3 months of follow-up. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 519 patients underwent randomization. Successful decongestion occurred in 108 of 256 patients (42.2%) in the acetazolamide group and in 79 of 259 (30.5%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17 to 1.82; P<0.001). Death from any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure occurred in 76 of 256 patients (29.7%) in the acetazolamide group and in 72 of 259 patients (27.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.48). Acetazolamide treatment was associated with higher cumulative urine output and natriuresis, findings consistent with better diuretic efficiency. The incidence of worsening kidney function, hypokalemia, hypotension, and adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of acetazolamide to loop diuretic therapy in patients with acute decompensated heart failure resulted in a greater incidence of successful decongestion. (Funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center; ADVOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505788.).

Ambulatory haemodynamic-guided management reduces heart failure hospitalizations in a multicentre European heart failure cohort.

AIMS: To investigate the outcomes and associated costs of haemodynamic-guided heart failure (HF) management with a pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) sensor in a multicentre European cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from all consecutive patients receiving a PAP sensor in Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, University Hospital Zurich and Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust before January 2021 were collected. Medication changes, total number of HF hospitalizations and HF related health care costs (composed of HF hospitalizations, outpatient cardiology visits and monitoring costs) were compared between the pre-implantation and post-implantation period at 3, 6, and 12 months. PAP evolution post-implantation were grouped according to baseline mPAP ≥25 mmHg versus <25 mmHg and changes from baseline were analyzed via an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. A total of 48 patients received a PAP sensor (29 CardioMEMS and 19 Cordella devices) with a median follow-up of 19 (13-30) months. Mean age was 71 ± 10 years, 25.0% were female, 68.8% had a left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%, median NT-proBNP was 1801 (827-4503) pg/mL, and 89.6% were in NYHA class III. The number of diuretic therapy changes were non-significantly increased after 3 months (49 vs. 82; P = 0.284) and 6 months (82 vs. 127; P = 0.093) with a significant increase noted after 12 months (118 vs. 195; P = 0.005). The mPAP AUC decreased by -1418 mmHg-days for patients with a baseline mean PAP ≥ 25 mmHg. The number of HF hospitalizations was reduced for all patients after 6 (34 vs. 17; P = 0.014) and 12 months (48 vs. 29; P = 0.032). HF related health care costs were reduced from € 6286 to € 3761 at 6 months (P = 0.012) and from € 8960 to € 6167 at 12 months (P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Haemodynamic-guided HF management reduces HF hospitalizations and HF related health care costs in selected HF patients amongst different European health care systems.

Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload trial (ADVOR): baseline characteristics.

AIMS: To describe the baseline characteristics of participants in the Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) trial and compare these with other contemporary diuretic trials in acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: ADVOR recruited 519 patients with AHF, clinically evident volume overload, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and maintenance loop diuretic therapy prior to admission. All participants received standardized loop diuretics and were randomized towards once daily intravenous acetazolamide (500 mg) versus placebo, stratified according to study centre and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (≤40% vs. >40%). The primary endpoint was successful decongestion assessed by a dedicated score indicating no more than trace oedema and no other signs of congestion after three consecutive days of treatment without need for escalating treatment. Mean age was 78 years, 63% were men, mean LVEF was 43%, and median NT-proBNP 6173 pg/ml. The median clinical congestion score was 4 with an EuroQol-5 dimensions health utility index of 0.6. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were more often male, had more ischaemic heart disease, higher levels of NT-proBNP and less atrial fibrillation. Compared with diuretic trials in AHF, patients enrolled in ADVOR were considerably older with higher NT-proBNP levels, reflecting the real-world clinical situation. CONCLUSION: ADVOR is the largest randomized diuretic trial in AHF, investigating acetazolamide to improve decongestion on top of standardized loop diuretics. The elderly enrolled population with poor quality of life provides a good representation of the real-world AHF population. The pragmatic design will provide novel insights in the diuretic treatment of patients with AHF.

The MADIT-ICD benefit score helps to select implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the MADIT-ICD benefit score can predict who benefits most from the addition of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in real-world patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to compare this with selection according to a multidisciplinary expert centre approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive HFrEF patients who received a CRT for a guideline indication at a tertiary care hospital (Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium) between October 2008 and September 2016, were retrospectively evaluated. The MADIT-ICD benefit groups (low, intermediate, and high) were compared with the current multidisciplinary expert centre approach. Endpoints were (i) sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and (ii) non-arrhythmic mortality. Of the 475 included patients, 165 (34.7%) were in the lowest, 220 (46.3%) in the intermediate, and 90 (19.0%) in the highest benefit group. After a median follow-up of 34 months, VT/VF occurred in 3 (1.8%) patients in the lowest, 9 (4.1%) in the intermediate, and 13 (14.4%) in the highest benefit group (P < 0.001). Vice versa, non-arrhythmic death occurred in 32 (19.4%) in the lowest, 32 (14.6%) in the intermediate, and 3 (3.3%) in the highest benefit group (P = 0.002). The predictive power for ICD benefit was comparable between expert multidisciplinary judgement and the MADIT-ICD benefit score: Uno's C-statistic 0.69 vs. 0.69 (P = 0.936) for VT/VF and 0.62 vs. 0.60 (P = 0.790) for non-arrhythmic mortality. CONCLUSION: The MADIT-ICD benefit score can identify who benefits most from CRT-D and is comparable with multidisciplinary judgement in a CRT expert centre.