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.).

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 (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events 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 HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% 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 HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Sex Differences in Characteristics, Outcomes, and Treatment Response With Dapagliflozin Across the Range of Ejection Fraction in Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have emerged as a key pharmacotherapy in heart failure (HF) with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction. The benefit of other HF therapies may be modified by sex, but whether sex modifies the treatment effect and safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors remains unclear. Our analyses aim to assess the effect of sex on the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin. METHODS: In a prespecified patient-level pooled analysis of DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure), clinical outcomes were compared by sex (including the composite of cardiovascular death or worsening HF events, cardiovascular death, all-cause death, total events [first and recurrent HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death], and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. RESULTS: Of a total of 11 007 randomized patients, 3856 (35%) were women. Women with HF were older and had higher body mass index but were less likely to have a history of diabetes and myocardial infarction or stroke and more likely to have hypertension and atrial fibrillation compared with men. At baseline, women had higher ejection fraction but worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores than men did. After adjustment for baseline differences, women were less likely than men to experience cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.60-0.79]), all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.62-0.78]), HF hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.72-0.94]), and total events (adjusted rate ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.71-0.84]). Dapagliflozin reduced the primary end point in both men and women similarly (Pinteraction=0.77) with no sex-related differences in secondary outcomes (all Pinteraction>0.35) or safety events. The benefit of dapagliflozin was observed across the entire ejection fraction spectrum and was not modified by sex (Pinteraction>0.40). There were no sex-related differences in serious adverse events, adverse events, or drug discontinuation attributable to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In DAPA-HF and DELIVER, the response to dapagliflozin was similar between men and women. Sex did not modify the treatment effect of dapagliflozin across the range of ejection fraction.

Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan With Blood Pressure Changes and Symptomatic Hypotension: the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In PARAGLIDE-HF, in patients with ejection fraction (EF) > 40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern about SH may be limiting the use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients. METHODS: We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: (1) cardiovascular death; (2) hospitalizations due to HF; (3) urgent HF visits; and (4) change in NT-proBNP levels. RESULTS: Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 56 [24.0%]; valsartan, n = 36 [15.5%]; P = 0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs 15 days, respectively; P = 0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as serious by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be white (OR 1.87 [95% CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10 mmHg increase, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 60% (OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP levels did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg vs SBP < 128 mmHg (interaction, P = 0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95% CI: 0.91, 1.99]; P = 0.096) vs SBP < 128 mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66]; P = 0 .62; interaction P value = 0.42). CONCLUSION: Among patients with LVEF > 40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, being white, and having higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.).

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.

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.

Sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting.

Reduction of dietary sodium to less than 100 mmol in heart failure (SODIUM-HF): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dietary restriction of sodium has been suggested to prevent fluid overload and adverse outcomes for patients with heart failure. We designed the Study of Dietary Intervention under 100 mmol in Heart Failure (SODIUM-HF) to test whether or not a reduction in dietary sodium reduces the incidence of future clinical events. METHODS: SODIUM-HF is an international, open-label, randomised, controlled trial that enrolled patients at 26 sites in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class 2-3), and receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using a standard number generator and varying block sizes of two, four, or six, stratified by site, to either usual care according to local guidelines or a low sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (ie, <1500 mg/day). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular-related admission to hospital, cardiovascular-related emergency department visit, or all-cause death within 12 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in the ITT population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02012179, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between March 24, 2014, and Dec 9, 2020, 806 patients were randomly assigned to a low sodium diet (n=397) or usual care (n=409). Median age was 67 years (IQR 58-74) and 268 (33%) were women and 538 (66%) were men. Between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2286 mg/day (IQR 1653-3005) to 1658 mg/day (1301-2189) in the low sodium group and from 2119 mg/day (1673-2804) to 2073 mg/day (1541-2900) in the usual care group. By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome had occurred in 60 (15%) of 397 patients in the low sodium diet group and 70 (17%) of 409 in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·89 [95% CI 0·63-1·26]; p=0·53). All-cause death occurred in 22 (6%) patients in the low sodium diet group and 17 (4%) in the usual care group (HR 1·38 [0·73-2·60]; p=0·32), cardiovascular-related hospitalisation occurred in 40 (10%) patients in the low sodium diet group and 51 (12%) patients in the usual care group (HR 0·82 [0·54-1·24]; p=0·36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 17 (4%) patients in the low sodium diet group and 15 (4%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·21 [0·60-2·41]; p=0·60). No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group. INTERPRETATION: In ambulatory patients with heart failure, a dietary intervention to reduce sodium intake did not reduce clinical events. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Health Research Council of New Zealand.

Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial: Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in HFmrEF and HFpEF With a Worsening Heart Failure Event.

BACKGROUND: The PARAGON-HF trial studied the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) compared with valsartan (Val) on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). Further data are needed regarding the use of Sac/Val in these groups with EF and with recent worsening heart failure (WHF) events and in key populations not broadly represented in the PARAGON-HF trial, including those with de novo HF, the severely obese and Black patients. METHODS: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of Sac/Val vs Val that enrolled patients at 100 sites. Medically stable patients ≥ 18 years old with EF > 40%, amino terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels ≥ 500 pg/mL and within 30 days of a WHF event were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to Sac/Val vs Val. The primary efficacy endpoint is time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. Secondary endpoints include clinical outcomes during follow-up and additional biomarker assessments. Safety endpoints include symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function and hyperkalemia. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 467 participants from June 2019 through October 2022 (52% women, 22% Black, age 70 ± 12 years, median (IQR) BMI 33 (27-40) kg/m2). The median (IQR) EF was 55% (50%-60%), 23% with HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), 24% with EF > 60% and 33% with de novo HFpEF. Median screening NT-proBNP was 2009 (1291-3813) pg/mL, and 69% were enrolled in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial enrolled a broad and diverse range of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and will inform clinical practice by providing evidence about the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Sac/Val vs Val in those with a recent WHF event.

Are Post Hoc Analyses on Subgroups Sufficient to Support New Treatment Algorithms of Heart Failure? The Case of SGLT2 Inhibitors Associated with Sacubitril/Valsartan.

The use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been strongly supported by the results of recent randomized clinical trials. Upon this evidence, international recommendations and consensus documents propose the inclusion of SGLT2i among the first-line classes for HFrEF management. Subsequent analyses of treatment subgroups have been performed to investigate the effects of SGLT2i in patients treated with first-line classes including sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val), showing a consistent reduction of cardiovascular outcomes with a good safety profile of SGLT2i in combination with the other classes. Accordingly, SGLT2i are recommended also in combination with Sac/Val. This association, however, may require caution before being translated into guideline-directed medical therapy in clinical practice, since the proportion of patients receiving Sac/Val and SGLT2i in the available studies was poorly represented. In order to support an effective and safe sequencing or a simultaneous initiation of these 2 drug classes, pragmatic and real-world clinical studies would be helpful.

Reflecting on the advancements of HFrEF therapies over the last two decades and predicting what is yet to come.

What was once considered a topic best avoided, managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has become the focus of many drug and device therapies. While the four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapies have successfully reduced heart failure hospitalizations, and some have even impacted cardiovascular mortality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcomes have emerged as important endpoints that merit greater emphasis in future studies. The prospect of an oral inotrope seems more probable now as targets for drug therapies have moved from neurohormonal modulation to intracellular mechanisms and direct cardiac myosin stimulation. While we have come a long way in safely providing durable mechanical circulatory support to patients with advanced HFrEF, several percutaneous device therapies have emerged, and many are under investigation. Biomarkers have shown promise in not only improving our ability to diagnose incident heart failure but also our potential to implicate specific pathophysiological pathways. The once-forgotten concept of discordance between pressure and volume, the forgotten splanchnic venous and lymphatic compartments, have all emerged as promising targets for diagnosing and treating heart failure in the not-so-distant future. The increase in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (CS) has revived interest in defining optimal perfusion targets and designing RCTs in CS. Rapid developments in remote monitoring, telemedicine, and artificial intelligence promise to change the face of heart failure care. In this state-of-the-art review, we reminisce about the past, highlight the present, and predict what might be the future of HFrEF therapies.

Aiming at harmony. Comparing and contrasting International HFrEF Guidelines.

Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have led to major changes in the treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and these advances are included in the recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) guidelines issued in 2021 and 2022, respectively. According to both guidelines, treatment of patients with HFrEF is based on the administration of four classes of drugs that reduce the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations in RCTs: angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Specific sequences of treatment are not recommended but emphasis is given to reaching treatment with all four drugs as early as possible. Further treatments are considered in selected patients including ivabradine, hydralazine nitrates, digoxin, and the new agent vericiguat. Specific treatments, mostly new, for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities are also given. The aim of this article is to compare the two recent guidelines issued by the ESC and ACC/AHA/HFSA and show the few differences and the many consistent recommendations, now more numerous given the evidence available for many new treatments.

Current status of perioperative temporary mechanical circulatory support during cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine utilization and outcomes of perioperative temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) in the current practice of cardiac surgery. BACKGROUND: tMCS is an evolving adjunct to cardiac surgery not fully characterized in contemporary practice. METHODS: Using the nationwide inpatient sample we retrospectively analyzed hospital discharge data between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. ICD-10-CM procedure codes were used to identify and divide patient hospitalizations into those who had preoperative tMCS (pre-tMCS) versus tMCS instituted the day of surgery or afterwards (sd/post-tMCS). RESULTS: In all, 1,383,520 hospitalizations met inclusion criteria. 86,445 (6.25%) had tMCS. tMCS was utilized in 8.74% of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 2.58% of isolated valve, and 9.71% of valve/CABG; operations. 29,325 (33.9%) had pre-tMCS while 57,120 (66.1%) had sd/post-tMCS. The use of tMCS was associated with greater inpatient mortality (15.66% vs. 1.53%, p < .001), longer length of stay (LOS) (14.4 vs. 8.5 days, p < .001), and higher mean inflation-adjusted costs ($93,040 ± 1038 vs. $51,358 ± 296, p < .001) compared to no use. Inpatient mortality (5.98% vs. 20.63%, p < .001), LOS (13.87 vs. 14.68, p < .001), and cost ($82,621 ± 1152 SEM vs. $98,381 ± 1242) were all significantly lower with pre-tMCS compared to sd/post tMCS. When analyzed separately, mortality was higher with later utilization of tMCS (5.98% pre, 17.1% sd, and 49.05% postsurgical date insertion, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative tMCS is utilized in 6.25% of modern cardiac surgery, with two-thirds of cases instituted on the day of surgery or afterwards. The use of tMCS is associated with significantly higher mortality, longer LOS, and higher costs. Among patients undergoing tMCS, earlier utilization is associated with better outcomes.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure: A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%.

Permission to prescribe: do cardiologists need permission to prescribe diabetes medications that afford cardiovascular benefit?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Antihyperglycemic therapies including sodium glucose contransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) have been demonstrated to confer significant cardiovascular benefit and reduce future events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, despite positive data from cardiovascular outcome trials, these therapies remain underutilized in a large proportion of patients who have clinical indications and meet coverage guidelines for their initiation. One of the causes of the observed gap between scientific evidence and clinical cardiology practice is therapeutic hesitancy (otherwise known as therapeutic inertia). The purpose of this review is to discuss the contributors to therapeutic hesitancy in the implementation of these evidence-based therapies and, more importantly, provide pragmatic solutions to address these barriers. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have demonstrated that clinicians may not initiate cardiovascular protective therapies due to a reluctance to overstep perceived interdisciplinary boundaries, concerns about causing harm due to medication side effects, and a sense of unfamiliarity with the optimal choice of therapy amidst a rapidly evolving landscape of T2DM therapies. SUMMARY: Herein, we describe a multifaceted approach aimed at creating a 'permission to prescribe' culture, developing integrated multidisciplinary models of care, enhancing trainees' experiences in cardiovascular disease prevention, and utilizing technology to motivate change. Taken together, these interventions should increase the implementation of evidence-based therapies and improve the quality of life and cardiovascular outcomes of individuals with T2DM.

Trends, management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in chronic liver disease.

AIMS: There are limited data on the management and outcomes of chronic liver disease (CLD) patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), particularly according to the subtype of CLD. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2004-2015), we examined outcomes of AMI patients stratified by severity and sub-types of CLD. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of receipt of invasive management and adverse outcomes in CLD groups compared with no-CLD. RESULTS: Of 7 024 723 AMI admissions, 54 283 (0.8%) had a CLD diagnosis. CLD patients were less likely to undergo coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (aOR 0.62, 95%CI 0.60-0.63 and 0.59, 95%CI 0.58-0.60, respectively), and had increased odds of adverse outcomes including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (1.19, 95%CI 1.15-1.23), mortality (1.30, 95%CI 1.25-1.34) and major bleeding (1.74, 95%CI 1.67-1.81). In comparison to the non-severe CLD sub-groups, patients with all forms of severe CLD had the lower utilization of CA and PCI (P < .05). Among severe CLD patients, those with alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) had the lowest utilization of CA and PCI; patients with ALD and other CLD (OCLD) had more adverse outcomes than the viral hepatitis sub-group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: CLD patients presenting with AMI are less likely to receive invasive management and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Further differences are observed depending on the type as well as severity of CLD, with the worst management and clinical outcomes observed in those with severe ALD and OCLD.

A Comprehensive Analysis of the Efficacy of Resveratrol in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease, Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure.

Atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction (MI) and heart failure (HF) are the main causes of mortality and morbidity around the globe. New therapies are needed to better manage ischemic heart disease and HF as existing strategies are not curative. Resveratrol is a stilbene polyphenolic compound with favorable biological effects that counter chronic diseases. Current evidence suggests that resveratrol is cardioprotective in animal models of atherosclerosis, ischemic heart disease, and HF. Though clinical studies for resveratrol have been promising, evidence remains inadequate to introduce it to the clinical setting. In this narrative review, we have comprehensively discussed the relevant compelling evidence regarding the efficacy of resveratrol as a new therapeutic agent for the management of atherosclerosis, MI and HF.

Comparative and Combinatorial Effects of Resveratrol and Sacubitril/Valsartan alongside Valsartan on Cardiac Remodeling and Dysfunction in MI-Induced Rats.

The development and progression of heart failure (HF) due to myocardial infarction (MI) is a major concern even with current optimal therapy. Resveratrol is a plant polyphenol with cardioprotective properties. Sacubitril/valsartan is known to be beneficial in chronic HF patients. In this study, we investigated the comparative and combinatorial benefits of resveratrol with sacubitril/valsartan alongside an active comparator valsartan in MI-induced male Sprague Dawley rats. MI-induced and sham-operated animals received vehicle, resveratrol, sacubitril/valsartan, valsartan alone or sacubitril/valsartan + resveratrol for 8 weeks. Echocardiography was performed at the endpoint to assess cardiac structure and function. Cardiac oxidative stress, inflammation, fibrosis, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), creatinine and neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin were measured. Treatment with resveratrol, sacubitril/valsartan, valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan + resveratrol significantly prevented left ventricular (LV) dilatation and improved LV ejection fraction in MI-induced rats. All treatments also significantly reduced myocardial tissue oxidative stress, inflammation and fibrosis, as well as BNP. Treatment with the combination of sacubitril/valsartan and resveratrol did not show additive effects. In conclusion, resveratrol, sacubitril/valsartan, and valsartan significantly prevented cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in MI-induced rats. The reduction in cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in MI-induced rats was mediated by a reduction in cardiac oxidative stress, inflammation and fibrosis.

Hyperkalemia in heart failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hyperkalemia is increasingly prevalent in the heart failure population as more people live with heart failure and comorbid conditions such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Furthermore, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone (RAAS) inhibitors are a key component of clinical therapy in these populations. Until now, we have not had any reliable or tolerable therapies for treatment of hyperkalemia resulting in inability to implement or achieve target doses of RAAS inhibition. This review will focus on two new therapies for hyperkalemia: patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC). RECENT FINDINGS: Patiromer and SZC have been studied in heart failure and both agents have demonstrated the ability to maintain normokalemia for extended periods of time with improved side effect profiles than existing potassium binders such as sodium polystyrene sulfate, though no direct comparisons have occurred. SZC has also shown promise in the treatment of acute hyperkalemia with its quick onset of action. SUMMARY: Patiromer and SZC will be useful adjuncts in the clinical care of heart failure patients with hyperkalemia. These agents will allow clinicians to maintain patients on RAAS inhibitors and uptitrate their guideline directed medical therapy to target doses without the additional concern for recurrent hyperkalemia and its untoward effects.