Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology.(ESC) With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

No abstract

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.

Background: Knowledge on the association between heart failure (HF) etiologies, precipitant causes and clinical outcomes may help in ascertaining patient's risk and in selecting tailored therapeutic strategies. Methods: The prognostic value of both HF etiologies and precipitants for worsening HF were analyzed using the index cohort of BIOSTAT-CHF. The studied HF etiologies were: a) ischemic HF; b) dilated cardiomyopathy; c) hypertensive HF; d) valvular HF; and e) other/unknown. The precipitating factors for worsening HF were: a) atrial fibrillation; b) non-adherence; c) renal failure; d) acute coronary syndrome; e) hypertension; and f) Infection. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization. Results: Among 2465 patients included in the study, 45% (N = =1102) had ischemic HF, 23% (N = =563) dilated cardiomyopathy, 15% (N = =379) other/unknown, 10% (N = =237) hypertensive and 7% (N = =184) valvular HF. Patients with ischemic HF had the worst prognosis, whereas patients with dilated cardiomyopathy had the best prognosis. From the precipitating factors for worsening HF, renal failure was the one independently associated with worse prognosis (adjusted HR (95%CI) = =1.48 (1.04-2.09), p < 0.001). We found no interaction between HF etiologies and precipitating factors for worsening HF with regard to the study outcomes (p interaction > 0.10 for all). Treatment up-titration benefited patients regardless of their underlying etiology or precipitating cause (p interaction > 0.10 for all). Conclusions: In BIOSTAT-CHF, patients with HF of an ischemic etiology, and those with worsening HF precipitated by renal failure (irrespective of the underlying HF etiology), had the highest rates of death and HF hospitalization, but still benefited equally from treatment up-titration.

Aims The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores have been developed to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and hold prognostic value. Their use in patients with HFpEF caused by cardiac amyloidosis (CA) has never been investigated. Methods and results We evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores in 304 patients from 3 cohorts with HFpEF caused by transthyretin (ATTR)-CA (n=160, 53%) or immunoglobulin light-chain (AL)-CA (n=144, 47%). A diagnosis of HFpEF was more likely using the HFA-PEFF score with 2 (1%), 71 (23%), and 231 (76%) patients ranked as having a low (0–1), intermediate (2–4) or high (5–6) probability of HFpEF, respectively. Conversely, 36 (12%), 179 (59%) and 89 (29%) of patients ranked as having a low (0–1), intermediate (2–5) or high (6–9) probability of HFpEF using the H2FPEF score. During a median follow-up of 19 months (interquartile range 8–40), 132 (43%) patients died. The HFA-PEFF score, but not the H2FPEF, predicted a high risk of all-cause death which remained significant after adjustment for age, AL-CA diagnosis, high-sensitivity troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain, LV diastolic function and right ventricular function (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16–1.95, p=0.002 for every 1-point increase in HFA-PEFF). Conclusions The HFA-PEFF score has a high sensitivity to diagnose HFpEF caused by CA and holds independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality, while the H2FPEF score does not. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Aims Activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system plays an important role in the pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) and has been associated with poor prognosis. There are limited data on the associations of renin and aldosterone levels with clinical profiles, treatment response, and study outcomes in patients with HF. Methods and results We analysed 2,039 patients with available baseline renin and aldosterone levels in BIOSTAT-CHF (a systems BIOlogy study to Tailored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization. We also investigated changes in renin and aldosterone levels after administration of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in a subset of the EPHESUS trial and in an acute HF cohort (PORTO). In BIOSTAT-CHF study, median renin and aldosterone levels were 85.3 (percentile 25-75 = 28-247) μIU/mL and 9.4 (percentile 25-75 = 4.4-19.8) ng/dL, respectively. Prior HF admission, lower blood pressure, sodium, poorer renal function, and MRA treatment were associated with higher renin and aldosterone. Higher renin was associated with an increased rate of the primary outcome [highest vs. lowest renin tertile: adjusted-HR (95% CI) = 1.47 (1.16-1.86), P = 0.002], whereas higher aldosterone was not [highest vs. lowest aldosterone tertile: adjusted-HR (95% CI) = 1.16 (0.93-1.44), P = 0.19]. Renin and/or aldosterone did not improve the BIOSTAT-CHF prognostic models. The rise in aldosterone with the use of MRAs was observed in EPHESUS and PORTO studies. Conclusions Circulating levels of renin and aldosterone were associated with both the disease severity and use of MRAs. By reflecting both the disease and its treatments, the prognostic discrimination of these biomarkers was poor. Our data suggest that the "point" measurement of renin and aldosterone in HF is of limited clinical utility.Categorical variables are described as frequencies (percentages), and continuous variables are described as means ± 954 M. Kobayashi et al. ESC Heart Failure 2020; 7: 953-963

No abstract

No abstract