Aim: The “2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” replaces the “2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” and the “2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.” The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Background Loop diuretics are an essential component of therapy for patients with acute decompensated heart failure, but there are few prospective data to guide their use. Methods In a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned 308 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive furosemide administered intravenously by means of either a bolus every 12 hours or continuous infusion and at either a low dose (equivalent to the patient's previous oral dose) or a high dose (2.5 times the previous oral dose). The protocol allowed specified dose adjustments after 48 hours. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours. Results In the comparison of bolus with continuous infusion, there was no significant difference in patients' global assessment of symptoms (mean AUC, 4236±1440 and 4373±1404, respectively; P = 0.47) or in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.05±0.3 mg per deciliter [4.4±26.5 μmol per liter] and 0.07±0.3 mg per deciliter [6.2±26.5μmol per liter], respectively; P = 0.45). In the comparison of the high-dose strategy with the low-dose strategy, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater improvement in patients' global assessment of symptoms in the high-dose group (mean AUC, 4430±1401 vs. 4171±1436; P = 0.06). There was no significant difference between these groups in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.08±0.3 mg per deciliter [7.1±26.5 μmol per liter] with the high-dose strategy and 0.04±0.3 mg per deciliter [3.5±26.5 μmol per liter] with the low-dose strategy, P = 0.21). The high-dose strategy was associated with greater diuresis and more favorable outcomes in some secondary measures but also with transient worsening of renal function. Conclusions Among patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00577135.)

No abstract

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINEST he intent of this American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement is to summarize our current understanding of dilated cardiomyopathies. There is special emphasis on recent developments in diagnostic approaches and therapies for specific cardiomyopathies. Recommendations in this document are based on published studies, published practice guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/AHA 1 and other organizations, 2,3 and the multidisciplinary expertise of the writing group. Existing evidence in epidemiology, classification, diagnosis, and management of specific cardiomyopathies is usually derived from nonrandomized observational studies, registries, case reports, or expert opinion based on clinical experience, not large-scale randomized clinical trials or systematic reviews. Therefore, in this document, rather than using the standard ACC/AHA classification schema of recommendations and level of evidence, 4 we have included key management strategies at the end of each section and categorized our recommendations according to the level of consensus. Although the format of our recommendations might resemble the ACC/AHA classification of recommendations used in the ACC/AHA practice guidelines, because of the preponderance of expert opinion or level of evidence C evidence in our document, we elected to use different terminology to provide a distinction from the practice guidelines, in which stronger levels and quality of evidence with randomized clinical trials or meta-analyses are usually present. 4 The levels of evidence follow the AHA and ACC methods of classifying the level of certainty of the treatment effect. 4 DEfINITIoN of DILATED CArDIoMyopAThyThe term dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) refers to a spectrum of heterogeneous myocardial disorders that are characterized by ventricular dilation and depressed myocardial performance in the absence of hypertension, valvular, congenital, or ischemic heart disease. 5 In clinical practice, the pathogenesis of heart failure (HF) has often been placed into 2 categories: ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The term nonischemic cardiomyopathy has been interchangeably used with DCM. Although this approach might be practical, it fails to recognize that nonischemic cardiomyopathy can include cardiomyopathies caused by volume or pressure overload (such as hypertension or valvular heart disease) that are not conventionally accepted under the definition of DCM. 1,5 Again, in general practice and clinical research trials, the term ischemic cardiomyopathy is defined as cardiomyopathy caused by ischemic heart disease. Current use of ischemic cardiomyopathy terminology implies ventricular dilation and depressed myocardial contractility caused by ischemia or infarction. CLASSIfICATIoN of CArDIoMyopAThIESThe first classification on this topic categorized cardiomyopathies as heart muscle diseases with dilated (DCM), hypertrophic, restrictive, arrhythmogenic right ventricular (ARVC), or nonclassifiable cardiomyopathy in 1980. 5 Subse...