Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights from the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, and in those with prevalent heart failure irrespective of ejection fraction. While EMPACT-MI showed empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization of heart failure and all-cause mortality, the impact of empagliflozin on first and recurrent heart failure events in patients after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for heart failure based on newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% and/or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for heart failure outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median of follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first heart failure hospitalization and total heart failure hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 (3.6%) vs. 153 (4.7%) patients with events, HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.60, 0.98], P=0.031 for first heart failure hospitalization and 148 vs. 207 events, RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.51, 0.89], P=0.006 for total heart failure hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total heart failure hospitalizations. Post-discharge need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists were less in patients randomized to empagliflozin than placebo (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients after acute myocardial infarction with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion, empagliflozin reduced the risk of heart failure.

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Left Ventricular Function, Congestion, and Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Risk After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality when started within 14 days of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), congestion, or both on outcomes and the impact of empagliflozin in reducing HF risk post-MI. METHODS: In the EMPACT-MI trial, patients were randomized within 14 days of an AMI complicated by either newly reduced LVEF<45%, congestion, or both to empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo and followed for a median of 17.9 months. RESULTS: Among 6522 patients, the mean baseline LVEF was 41%+9%; 2648 patients (40.6%) presented with LVEF<45% alone, 1483 (22.7%) presented with congestion alone, and 2181 (33.4%) presented with both. Among patients in the placebo arm, multivariable adjusted risk for each 10-point reduction in LVEF included all-cause death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 1.49; 95%CI, 1.31-1.69; P<0.0001), first HF hospitalization (HR, 1.64; 95%CI, 1.37-1.96; P<0.0001), and total HF hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR], 1.89; 95%CI, 1.51-2.36; P<0.0001). Presence of congestion was also associated with a significantly higher risk for each of these outcomes (HR 1.52, 1.94, and RR 2.03, respectively). Empagliflozin reduced the risk for first (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.60-0.98) and total (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.50-0.89) HF hospitalization, irrespective of LVEF or congestion or both. The safety profile of empagliflozin was consistent across baseline LVEF and irrespective of congestion status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI, severity of LV dysfunction and the presence of congestion was associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced first and total HF hospitalizations across the range of LVEF with and without congestion.

Socioeconomic Disparities in Women's Cardiovascular Health in United States and Canada.

Cardiovascular disease has been the leading cause of death in the United States and Canada for decades. Although it affects millions across a multitude of backgrounds, notable disparities in cardiovascular health are observed among women, and become more apparent when accounting for race and socioeconomic status. While intrinsic sex-specific physiological differences predispose women to poorer outcomes, social determinants of health (SDOH) and biases at both the individual provider and larger healthcare system, play an equal, if not greater, role. This review examines socioeconomic disparities in women compared to men with regards to cardiovascular risk factors, treatments, and outcomes. While various at-risk sub-populations exist, we highlight the impact of SDOH in specific populations, including patients with disabilities, transgender persons, South Asian and Indigenous populations. These groups are underrepresented in studies and experience poorer health outcomes because of structural barriers to care. These findings emphasize the significance of understanding the interplay of different socioeconomic factors and how their stacking can negatively impact women's cardiovascular health. To address these disparities, we propose a multi-pronged approach to augment culturally sensitive and patient-centered care. This includes increased cardiovascular workforce diversity, inclusion of underrepresented populations into analyses of cardiovascular metrics, and greater utilization of technology and telemedicine to improve access to health care. Achieving this goal will necessitate active participation from patients, healthcare administrators, physicians, and policymakers, and is imperative in closing the cardiovascular health gap in women over the coming decades.

Factors Impacting Physician Prognostic Accuracy in Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: A recent study showed that the accuracy of heart failure (HF) cardiologists and family doctors to predict mortality in outpatients with HF proved suboptimal, performing less well than models. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate patient and physician factors associated with physician accuracy. METHODS: The authors included outpatients with HF from 11 HF clinics. Family doctors and HF cardiologists estimated patient 1-year mortality. They calculated predicted mortality using the Seattle HF Model and followed patients for 1 year to record mortality (or urgent heart transplant or ventricular assist device implant as mortality-equivalent events). Using multivariable logistic regression, the authors evaluated associations among physician experience and confidence in estimates, duration of patient-physician relationship, patient-physician sex concordance, patient race, and predicted risk, with concordant results between physician and model predictions. RESULTS: Among 1,643 patients, 1-year event rate was 10% (95% CI: 8%-12%). One-half of the estimates showed discrepant results between model and physician predictions, mainly owing to physician risk overestimation. Discrepancies were more frequent with increasing patient risk from 38% in low-risk to ∼75% in high-risk patients. When making predictions on male patients, female HF cardiologists were 26% more likely to have discrepant predictions (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58-0.94). HF cardiologist estimates in Black patients were 33% more likely to be discrepant (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45-0.99). Low confidence in predictions was associated with discrepancy. Analyses restricted to high-confidence estimates showed inferior calibration to the model, with risk overestimation across risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepant physician and model predictions were more frequent in cases with perceived increased risk. Model predictions outperform physicians even when they are confident in their predictions. (Predicted Prognosis in Heart Failure [INTUITION]; NCT04009798).

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients Hospitalized With Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described. OBJECTIVES: Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum. METHODS: The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial. RESULTS: The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634).

The effectiveness of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) cardiorenal guideline provided clinical recommendations on sodium-glucose co-transport 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) use. Since then, additional trials of relevance for SGLT2i have been published. This update re-evaluates the clinical recommendations for using SGLTi and their indirect comparison with existing evidence on GLP-1RA as compared to the standard of care to reduce cardiorenal morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We updated our existing search and screening of the literature from September 2021 to April 2023 for randomized controlled trials of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA with placebo control. We conducted risk of bias assessment, data extraction and updated our meta-analysis of studies with similar interventions and components. The certainty of the evidence was determined using GRADE. RESULTS: Evidence from three new trials and additional results from an updated existing trial on SGLT2i met our inclusion criteria after an updated search. Across all the included studies, the total sample size was 151,023 adults, with 90,943 in SGLT2i trials and 60,080 in GLP-1 RA trials. The mean age ranged from 59.9 to 68.4 years. Compared with standard care, the use of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA showed significant reductions in the outcomes of cardiovascular (CV) mortality (14% & 13%), any-cause mortality (12% & 12%), major adverse CV events (MACE) (11% & 14%), heart failure (HF) hospitalization (30% & 9%), CV death or HF hospitalization (23% & 11%), and kidney composite outcome (32% & 22%). In participants with T2D, both classes demonstrated significant cardiorenal protection. But, only GLP-1RA showed a reduction in non-fatal stroke (16%) and only SGLT2i showed a reduction in HF hospitalization (30%) in this population of people living with T2D. CONCLUSIONS: This updated and comprehensive meta-analysis substantiates and strengthens the clinical recommendations of the CCS cardiorenal guidelines.

The spectrum of post-myocardial infarction care: From acute ischemia to heart failure.

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), with incidence ranging from 14% to 36% in patients admitted due to AMI. HF post-MI develops due to complex inter-play between macrovascular obstruction, microvascular dysfunction, myocardial stunning and remodeling, inflammation, and neuro-hormonal activation. Cardiogenic shock is an extreme presentation of HF post-MI and is associated with a high mortality. Early revascularization is the only therapy shown to improve survival in patients with cardiogenic shock. Treatment of HF post-MI requires prompt recognition and timely introduction of guideline-directed therapies to improve mortality and morbidity. This article aims to provide an up-to-date review on the incidence and pathogenesis of HF post-MI, current strategies to prevent and treat onset of HF post-MI, promising therapeutic strategies, and knowledge gaps in the field.

The HFSA Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology Fellowship Consensus Conference.

There is waning interest among cardiology trainees in pursuing an Advanced Heart Failure/Transplant Cardiology (AHFTC) fellowship as evidenced by fewer applicants in the National Resident Matching Program match to this specialty. This trend has generated considerable attention across the heart failure community. In response, the Heart Failure Society of America convened the AHFTC Fellowship Task Force with a charge to develop strategies to increase the value proposition of an AHFTC fellowship. Subsequently, the HFSA sponsored the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference April 26-27, 2023. Before the conference, interviews of 44 expert stakeholders diverse across geography, site of practice (traditional academic medical center or other centers), specialty/area of expertise, sex, and stage of career were conducted virtually. Based on these interviews, potential solutions to address the declining interest in AHFTC fellowship were categorized into five themes: (1) alternative training pathways, (2) regulatory and compensation, (3) educational improvements, (4) exposure and marketing for pipeline development, and (5) quality of life and mental health. These themes provided structure to the deliberations of the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference. The recommendations from the Consensus Conference were subsequently presented to the HFSA Board of Directors to inform strategic plans and interventions. The HFSA Board of Directors later reviewed and approved submission of this document. The purpose of this communication is to provide the HF community with an update summarizing the processes used and concepts that emerged from the work of the HFSA AHFTC Fellowship Task Force and Consensus Conference.

Heart Failure Management in 2023: A Pharmacotherapy- and Lifestyle-Focused Comparison of Current International Guidelines.

This review examines the pharmacotherapy and lifestyle recommendations of the most recent iterations of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) / Canadian Heart Failure Society (CHFS), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and the American Heart Association (AHA) / American College of Cardiology (ACC) / Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) heart failure (HF) guidelines, which all have been updated in response to therapeutic developments across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. Identified areas of unanimity across these guidelines include the following: recommending quadruple therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; although no guideline proposed an ideal sequence of initiation); intravenous iron administration for patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency; and sodium restriction for patients with HF. Recent evidence regarding the harms of HFrEF medication withdrawal in patients with HF with improved ejection fraction has prompted subsequent guidelines to recommend against withdrawal. Due to the lower quality of evidence, there are disagreements regarding management of HF with preserved ejection fraction and uncertainty regarding management of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction. Practical guidance is provided to clinicians navigating these challenging areas. In addition to these clinically focused comparisons, we describe opportunities for guideline improvement and harmonization. Specifically, these include opportunities regarding HFrEF sequencing, the need for timely updates, shared decision-making, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework adoption, and the creation of recommendations where high-quality evidence is lacking. Although these guidelines have broad agreement, key areas of controversy remain that may be addressed by emerging evidence and changes in guideline methodology.

Le présent examen porte sur les recommandations en matière de pharmacothérapie et d'habitudes de vie en présence d'insuffisance cardiaque (IC) des plus récentes lignes directrices sur l'IC de la Société cardiovasculaire du Canada (SCC) / Société canadienne d'insuffisance cardiaque (SCIC), de la Société européenne de cardiologie (ESC) et de l'American Heart Association (AHA) / American College of Cardiology (ACC) / Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), qui ont toutes été mises à jour en réponse aux avancées thérapeutiques pour tout le spectre de fractions d'éjection du ventricule gauche. Voici certains des domaines qui font l'unanimité dans ces lignes directrices : quadrithérapie recommandée chez les patients atteints d'IC avec fraction d'éjection réduite (ICFER; toutefois, aucune ligne directrice ne comporte une proposition concernant la séquence idéale de l'instauration du traitement); administration de fer par voie intraveineuse aux patients atteints d'ICFER présentant une carence en fer; et restriction de l'apport sodique chez les patients aux prises avec une insuffisance cardiaque. Les données probantes récemment publiées sur les effets nocifs de l'abandon de médicaments contre l'ICFER chez les patients atteints d'insuffisance cardiaque dont la fraction d'éjection s'est améliorée ont incité les organismes à déconseiller de tels abandons dans leurs recommandations subséquentes. En raison de la faible qualité des données, il existe des différends en ce qui a trait à la prise en charge de l'IC avec fraction d'éjection préservée, ainsi qu'une incertitude quant à la prise en charge de l'IC avec fraction d'éjection légèrement réduite. Des conseils pratiques sont fournis afin d'aider les cliniciens à gérer ces domaines complexes. En plus de ces comparaisons axées sur la pratique clinique, nous décrivons des occasions d'amélioration et d'harmonisation des lignes directrices. Plus précisément, ces occasions touchent la séquence des traitements de l'ICFER, le besoin de mises à jour opportunes, la prise de décision conjointe, l'adoption du cadre GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, soit la classification des recommandations, des appréciations, du développement et des évaluations), ainsi que l'élaboration de recommandations dans les domaines où des données probantes de haute qualité sont lacunaires. Bien que ces lignes directrices obtiennent un vaste accord, d'importants domaines controversés demeurent. La publication de données probantes et la modification des méthodes d'élaboration des recommandations pourraient cependant y remédier.

Management of Worsening Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: JACC Focus Seminar 3/3.

Despite worsening heart failure (HF) being extremely common, expensive, and associated with substantial risk of death, there remain no dedicated clinical practice guidelines for the specific management of these patients. The lack of a management guideline is despite a rapidly evolving evidence-base, as a number of recent clinical trials have demonstrated multiple therapies to be safe and efficacious in this high-risk population. Herein, we propose a framework for treating worsening HF with reduced ejection fraction with the sense of urgency it deserves. This includes treating congestion; managing precipitants; and establishing a foundation of rapid-sequence, simultaneous, and/or in-hospital initiation of quadruple medical therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction, with the top priority being at least low doses of all 4 medications. Moreover, to maximally reduce residual clinical risk, we further propose consideration of upfront simultaneous use of vericiguat (ie, quintuple medical therapy) and administration of intravenous iron for those who are iron deficient.

Patient phenotype profiling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to guide therapeutic decision making. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association, the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the European Society of Hypertension.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents a highly heterogeneous clinical syndrome affected in its development and progression by many comorbidities. The left ventricular diastolic dysfunction may be a manifestation of various combinations of cardiovascular, metabolic, pulmonary, renal, and geriatric conditions. Thus, in addition to treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in all patients, the most effective method of improving clinical outcomes may be therapy tailored to each patient's clinical profile. To better outline a phenotype-based approach for the treatment of HFpEF, in this joint position paper, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Hypertension Society, have developed an algorithm to identify the most common HFpEF phenotypes and identify the evidence-based treatment strategy for each, while taking into account the complexities of multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy.

Effect of SGLT2 Inhibitors on Cardiovascular Outcomes Across Various Patient Populations.

BACKGROUND: The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on heart failure (HF) outcomes and cardiovascular (CV) death in patients with varying combinations of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), HF, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The authors conducted a meta-analysis assessing the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on HF outcomes and CV death across different patient populations. METHODS: Online databases were queried up to November 2022 for primary and secondary analyses of trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HF, T2DM, or CKD. Outcomes of interest were composite of first heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or CV death (first HFH/CV death), first HFH, and CV death. Data were pooled by means of a random-effects model to derive HRs and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (n = 90,413) were included. Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of first HFH/CV death by 24% in HF (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.72-0.81), 23% in T2DM (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.73-0.81), and 23% in CKD (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.72-0.82). The benefit was consistent in HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction, HF with or without T2DM, and HF with or without CKD. The benefit was also consistent in T2DM with or without CKD, T2DM without HF, CKD without HF, and in patients with all 3 comorbidities. SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced CV death by 16% in HF, 15% in T2DM, and 12% in CKD. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2 inhibitors reduce HF events and CV death in cohorts of HF, T2DM and CKD, and these effects appear consistent in patients with varying combinations of these diseases.

Predicting 1-Year Mortality in Outpatients With Heart Failure With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Do Empiric Models Outperform Physician Intuitive Estimates? A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have demonstrated that physicians often err in estimating patient prognosis. No studies have directly compared physician to model predictive performance in heart failure (HF). We aimed to compare the accuracy of physician versus model predictions of 1-year mortality. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study on 11 HF clinics in 5 provinces in Canada included consecutive consented outpatients with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<40%). By collecting clinical data, we calculated predicted 1-year mortality using the Seattle HF Model (SHFM), the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF score, and the HF Meta-Score. HF cardiologists and family doctors, blinded to model predictions, estimated patient 1-year mortality. During 1-year follow-up, we recorded the composite end point of mortality, urgent ventricular assist device implant, or heart transplant. We compared physicians and model discrimination (C statistic), calibration (observed versus predicted event rate), and risk reclassification. RESULTS: The study included 1643 patients with ambulatory HF with a mean age of 65 years, 24% female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 28%. Over 1-year follow-up, 9% had an event. The SHFM had the best discrimination (SHFM C statistic 0.76; HF Meta-Score 0.73; Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure 0.70) and calibration. Physicians' discrimination differed little (0.75 for HF cardiologists and 0.73 for family doctors) but both physician groups substantially overestimated risk by >10% in both low- and high-risk patients (poor calibration). In risk reclassification analysis, among patients without events, the SHFM better classified 51% in comparison to HF cardiologists and 43% in comparison to family doctors. In patients with events, the SHFM erroneously assigned lower risk to 44% in comparison to HF cardiologists and 34% in comparison to family doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Family doctors and HF cardiologists showed adequate risk discrimination, with however substantial overestimation of absolute risk. Predictive models showed higher accuracy. Incorporating models in family and HF cardiology practices may improve patient care and resource use in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04009798.

Regulatory T Cell Biomarkers Identify Patients at Risk of Developing Acute Cellular Rejection in the First Year Following Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Acute cellular rejection (ACR), an alloimmune response involving CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, occurs in up to 20% of patients within the first year following heart transplantation. The balance between a conventional versus regulatory CD4+ T cell alloimmune response is believed to contribute to developing ACR. Therefore, tracking these cells may elucidate whether changes in these cell populations could signal ACR risk. METHODS: We used a CD4+ T cell gene signature (TGS) panel that tracks CD4+ conventional T cells (Tconv) and regulatory T cells (Treg) on longitudinal samples from 94 adult heart transplant recipients. We evaluated combined diagnostic performance of the TGS panel with a previously developed biomarker panel for ACR diagnosis, HEARTBiT, while also investigating TGS' prognostic utility. RESULTS: Compared with nonrejection samples, rejection samples showed decreased Treg- and increased Tconv-gene expression. The TGS panel was able to discriminate between ACR and nonrejection samples and, when combined with HEARTBiT, showed improved specificity compared with either model alone. Furthermore, the increased risk of ACR in the TGS model was associated with lower expression of Treg genes in patients who later developed ACR. Reduced Treg gene expression was positively associated with younger recipient age and higher intrapatient tacrolimus variability. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that expression of genes associated with CD4+ Tconv and Treg could identify patients at risk of ACR. In our post hoc analysis, complementing HEARTBiT with TGS resulted in an improved classification of ACR. Our study suggests that HEARTBiT and TGS may serve as useful tools for further research and test development.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society-Canadian Heart Failure Society Focused Clinical Practice Update of Patients With Differing Heart Failure Phenotypes.

A number of societies produce heart failure (HF) management guidelines, comprising official recommendations on the basis of recent research discoveries, but their applicability to specific situations encountered in daily practice might be difficult. In this clinical practice update we aim to provide responses to fundamental questions that face health care providers, like appropriate timing for the introduction and optimization of different classes of medication according to specific patient phenotypes, when second-line therapies and valvular interventions should be considered, and management of difficult clinical scenarios such as cardiorenal syndrome and frailty. A consensus-based methodology was used. Approaches to 5 different phenotypes are presented: (1) The wet HF phenotype is the easiest to manage, decongestion being performed alongside introduction of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT); (2) The de novo HF phenotype requires the introduction of the 4 pillars of GDMT, personalizing the order on the basis of the individuals' biological and physiological characteristics; (3) The worsening HF phenotype is a marker of poor prognosis, and therefore should motivate optimization of GDMT, start second-line therapies, and/or reevaluate goals of care/advanced HF therapies; (4) The cardiorenal phenotypes require correct volume assessment, because renal function usually improves with decongestion; and (5) The frail HF phenotype require special attention, careful drug titration, and consideration of cardiac rehabilitation programs. In conclusion, specific common HF phenotypes call for a personalized approach to improve adoption of the HF guidelines into clinical practice.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction and Worsening Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation is safe and effective in EF >40% after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event is unknown. OBJECTIVES: PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a recent WHF event. METHODS: PARAGLIDE-HF is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >40% enrolled within 30 days of a WHF event. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: 1) cardiovascular death; 2) HF hospitalizations; 3) urgent HF visits; and 4) change in NT-proBNP. RESULTS: In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.999; P = 0.049). The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril/valsartan but was not significant (unmatched win ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.52; P = 0.16). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced worsening renal function (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.93) but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.09-2.76). There was evidence of a larger treatment effect in the subgroup with EF ≤60% for NT-proBNP change (0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.95). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared with valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634).

Guardians For Health: A Practical Approach to Improving Quality of Life and Longevity in People with Type 2 Diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes is one of the fastest-growing health emergencies of the twenty-first century, in part due to its association with cardiovascular and renal disease. Successful implementation of evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with diabetes and pre-diabetes has been shown to improve patient outcomes by controlling risk factors for cardiovascular and renal disease. Recommendations include the early introduction of lifestyle adjustments, supported by pharmacological tools. Despite the availability of regularly updated, evidence-based guidelines, guideline implementation in clinical practice is low. As a result, people living with type 2 diabetes are not consistently receiving ideal clinical care. Improving guideline adherence has the potential to improve quality of life and longevity in patients with type 2 diabetes. This article introduces Guardians For Health, a global initiative that aims to improve guideline adherence by simplifying patient management and encouraging patient participation in the implementation of guidelines for type 2 diabetes. Guardians For Health is supported by a global community of implementers, with tools to support decision-making and quality assurance. Through achieving better guideline adherence, Guardians For Health hopes to achieve its vision to "stop early mortality by reducing cardiovascular and kidney complications in people with type 2 diabetes".