Explore the vast range of titles available.

Older patients hospitalized for heart failure were randomly assigned to a rehabilitation intervention (which included multiple function domains) or control; the intervention began during, or early after, hospitalization and continued for 3 months. At 3 months, physical function, as assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery, was better in the intervention group than in the control group.

Key Points Acute heart failure (AHF) is a complex syndrome characterized by the worsening of signs and symptoms of heart failure Clinical evaluation of patients with AHF involves a focused history and physical examination, along with ancillary data from laboratory and diagnostic tests New team-based and device-based approaches to the clinical assessment and management of patients with AHF have improved outcomes and reduced hospitalization Neurohormonal activation, venous congestion, endothelial dysfunction, myocardial injury, and renal dysfunction are central to the pathophysiology of AHF Studies are currently underway to investigate the utility of identifying specific AHF phenotypes for targeted therapeutic interventions Acute heart failure (AHF) is a complex disease characterized by an acute worsening of heart failure symptoms, usually in patients with pre-existing heart failure. Clinical evaluation of patients with AHF involves the assessment of clinical history, a comprehensive physical examination, and laboratory and diagnostic testing. In this Review, Mentz and O'Connor highlight the literature on the clinical evaluation of AHF, in addition to summarizing the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying its development. Acute heart failure (AHF) is a complex syndrome characterized by worsening heart failure (HF) symptoms that requires escalation of therapy. Intrinsic cardiac abnormalities and comorbid conditions, including lung and renal disease, and sleep-disordered breathing, can contribute to the development of AHF. In this Review, we summarize and discuss the literature on the clinical evaluation and underlying pathophysiology of AHF. Important features of AHF evaluation include identification of precipitating factors to the disease, and assessment of circulatory–renal limitations associated with use of HF medications, prior HF hospitalizations, congestion and perfusion profiles, and end-organ dysfunction. The pathophysiological contributions of endothelial dysfunction, neurohormonal activation, venous congestion, and myocardial injury to the development of AHF are also discussed. These potential causative mechanisms provide a framework for clinicians to evaluate and manage patients with AHF and highlight possible future targets for therapies designed to improve clinical outcomes.

Machine learning and artificial intelligence are generating significant attention in the scientific community and media. Such algorithms have great potential in medicine for personalizing and improving patient care, including in the diagnosis and management of heart failure. Many physicians are familiar with these terms and the excitement surrounding them, but many are unfamiliar with the basics of these algorithms and how they are applied to medicine. Within heart failure research, current applications of machine learning include creating new approaches to diagnosis, classifying patients into novel phenotypic groups, and improving prediction capabilities. In this paper, we provide an overview of machine learning targeted for the practicing clinician and evaluate current applications of machine learning in the diagnosis, classification, and prediction of heart failure.

Background Heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are common and interrelated conditions, each with a significant burden of disease. HF and kidney disease progress through pathophysiologic pathways that culminate in end-stage disease, for which T2DM is a major risk factor. Intervention within these pathways can disrupt disease processes and improve patient outcomes. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have been investigated in patient populations with combinations of T2DM, CKD, and/or HF. However, until recently, the effect of these agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was not well studied. Main body The aim of this review is to summarize key information regarding the interaction between HFpEF, CKD, and T2DM and discuss the role of SGLT2 inhibition in the management of patients with comorbid HFpEF and CKD, with or without T2DM. Literature was retrieved using Boolean searches for English-language articles in PubMed and Google Scholar and included terms related to SGLT2is, HFpEF, T2DM, and CKD. The reference lists from retrieved articles were also considered. Conclusion SGLT2is are efficacious and safe in treating HFpEF in patients with comorbid CKD with and without T2DM. The totality of evidence from clinical trials data suggests there are benefits in using SGLT2is across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fractions, but there may be a potential for different renal effects in the different ejection fraction groups. Further analysis of these clinical trials has highlighted the need to obtain more accurate phenotypes for patients with HF and CKD to better determine which patients might respond to guideline-directed medical therapies, including SGLT2is. Graphical Abstract CI confidence interval, EF ejection fraction, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, HF heart failure, HHF hospitalization for HF, HR hazard ratio, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, SGLT2i sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, UACR urine albumin-creatinine ratio. a Mean value, unless otherwise stated, b SGLT2i vs. placebo, c Data reanalyzed using more conventional endpoints (≥ 50% sustained decrease in eGFR, and including renal death) (UACR at baseline not stated in trial reports)

The health and economic burden of heart failure is significant and continues to grow each year. Loop diuretics are an integral part of symptom management in heart failure. Furosemide is used disproportionately compared with other loop diuretics, and there is currently no guidance for physicians regarding which agent to choose. However, there exist pharmacologic differences as well as other mechanistic differences that appear to favor torsemide use over furosemide. Compared with furosemide, torsemide improves surrogate markers of heart failure severity such as left ventricular function, plasma brain natriuretic peptide levels, and New York Heart Association functional class and may also reduce hospitalizations, readmissions, and mortality. Data suggest that these benefits could be mediated through torsemide's ability to positively affect the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Specifically, torsemide has been shown to inhibit aldosterone secretion, synthesis, and receptor binding in vitro, as well as decrease transcardiac extraction of aldosterone, myocardial collagen production, and cardiac fibrosis in patients with heart failure. We identified pertinent literature using keyword MEDLINE searches and cross-referencing prior bibliographies. We summarize the available data suggesting potential benefits with torsemide over furosemide, and call attention to the need for a reappraisal of diuretic use in heart failure patients and also for a well-powered, randomized control trial assessing torsemide versus furosemide use.

Aims There is considerable variability in the effect of intravenous iron on hard cardiovascular (CV)‐related outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We use a meta‐analytic approach to analyse data from existing RCTs to derive a more robust estimate of the effect size of intravenous iron infusion on CV‐related outcomes in patients with HF. Method and results PubMed/Medline was searched using the following terms: (‘intravenous’ and ‘iron’ and ‘heart failure’) from inception till 6 November 2022 for RCTs comparing intravenous iron infusion with placebo or standard of care in patients with HF and iron deficiency. Outcomes were the composite of CV mortality and first hospitalization for HF; all‐cause mortality; CV mortality; first hospitalization for HF; and total hospitalizations for HF. Random effects risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Ten RCTs with a total of 3438 patients were included. Intravenous iron resulted in a significant reduction in the composite of CV mortality and first hospitalization for HF [RR 0.0.85; 95% CI (0.77, 0.95)], first hospitalization for HF [RR 0.82; 95% CI (0.67, 0.99)], and total hospitalizations for HF [RR 0.74; 95% CI (0.60, 0.91)] but no statistically significant difference in all‐cause mortality [RR 0.95; 95% CI. (0.83, 1.09)] or CV mortality [OR 0.89; 95% CI (0.75, 1.05)]. Conclusions Intravenous iron infusion in patients with HF reduces the composite risk of first hospitalization for HF and CV mortality as well as the risks of first and recurrent hospitalizations for HF, with no effect on all‐cause mortality or CV mortality alone.

Background Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes through distinct mechanisms. However, evidence on clinical outcomes in patients treated with both GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i is lacking. We aim to provide insight into the effects of open-label SGLT2i use in parallel with or shortly after once-weekly GLP-1 RA exenatide (EQW) on cardiorenal outcomes. Methods In the EXSCEL cardiovascular outcomes trial EQW arm, SGLT2i drop-in occurred in 8.7% of participants. These EQW+SGLT2i users were propensity-matched to: (1) placebo-arm participants not taking SGLT2i (n = 572 per group); and to (2) EQW-arm participants not taking SGLT2i (n = 575), based on their last measured characteristics before SGLT2i initiation, and equivalent study visit in comparator groups. Time-to-first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and all-cause mortality (ACM) were compared using Cox regression analyses. eGFR slopes were quantified using mixed model repeated measurement analyses. Results In adjusted analyses, the risk for MACE with combination EQW+SGLT2i use was numerically lower compared with both placebo (adjusted hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.39–1.17) and EQW alone (0.85, 0.48–1.49). Risk of ACM was nominally significantly reduced compared with placebo (0.38, 0.16–0.90) and compared with EQW (0.41, 0.17–0.95). Combination EQW+SGLT2i use also nominally significantly improved estimated eGFR slope compared with placebo (+ 1.94, 95% CI 0.94–2.94 mL/min/1.73 m 2 /year) and EQW alone (+ 2.38, 1.40–3.35 mL/min/1.73 m 2 /year). Conclusions This post hoc analysis supports the hypothesis that combinatorial EQW and SGLT2i therapy may provide benefit on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifying number: NCT01144338, Date of registration: June 15, 2010.

Worsening renal function (WRF) can occur throughout a hospitalization for acute heart failure (HF). However, decongestion can be measured in different ways and the prognostic implications of WRF in the setting of different measures of decongestion are unclear. Patients (N = 433) from the ESCAPE were classified by measures of decongestion during hospitalization: hemodynamic (right atrial pressure ≤8 mmHg and/or wedge pressure ≤15 mmHg at discharge), clinical (≤1 sign of congestion at discharge), hemoconcentration (any increase in hemoglobin) and estimated plasma volume using the Hakim formula (5% reduction in plasma volume). WRF was defined as creatinine increase ≥0.3 mg/dl during hospitalization. The association between WRF and 180-day all-cause death was assessed. Successful decongestion was observed in 124 (60%) patients by hemodynamics, 204 (49%) by clinical exam, 173 (47%) by hemoconcentration, and 165 (45%) by plasma volume. There was no agreement between the hemodynamic assessment and other decongestion measures in up to 43% of cases. Persistent congestion with concomitant WRF at discharge was associated with worse outcomes compared to patients without congestion and WRF. Among patients decongested at discharge, in-hospital WRF was not significantly associated with 180-day all-cause death, when using hemodynamic, clinical or estimated plasma volume as measures of decongestion (P > .05 for all markers). In patients hospitalized for HF, although there was disagreement across common measures of decongestion, in-hospital WRF was not associated with increased hazard of all-cause mortality among patients successfully decongested at discharge.

Background Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are a viable option for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) but the mechanisms of this potential disease modifying action are unclear. We investigated the effects of once-weekly exenatide (EQW) on AD associated proteomic clusters. Methods The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering study compared the cardiovascular effects of EQW 2 mg with placebo in 13,752 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. 4,979 proteins were measured (Somascan V0.4) on baseline and 1-year plasma samples of 3,973 participants. C-reactive protein (CRP), ficolin-2 (FCN2), plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), soluble vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (sVCAM1) and 4 protein clusters were tested in multivariable mixed models. Results EQW affected FCN2 (Cohen’s d -0.019), PAI-1 (Cohen’s d -0.033), sVCAM-1 (Cohen’s d 0.035) and a cytokine-cytokine cluster (Cohen’s d 0.037) significantly compared with placebo. These effects were sustained in individuals over the age of 65 but not in those under 65. Conclusions EQW treatment was associated with significant change in inflammatory proteins associated with AD. Trial Registration EXSCEL is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01144338 on 10th of June 2010.

BAY 2413555 is a novel selective and reversible positive allosteric modulator of the type 2 muscarinic acetylcholine (M2) receptor, aimed at enhancing parasympathetic signaling and restoring cardiac autonomic balance for the treatment of heart failure (HF). This study tested the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of this novel therapeutic option. REMOTE-HF was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase Ib dose-titration study with two active arms. Study participants had an established diagnosis of HF with NYHA Class I-III and LVEF ≤ 45%. Patients were required to have an implanted cardiac defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device because of the potential for bradycardia or AV conduction delay, which may be induced by BAY 2413555. The study period included a screening and run-in period, followed by a treatment period of over 28 days, consisting of two parts, A and B, comprising 14 days each. Participants were randomized into 1 of 3 arms: a placebo arm and two BAY 2413555 arms—one receiving 1.25 mg in both Part A and Part B (BAY 1.25 mg–1.25 mg) and the other receiving 1.25 mg in Part A followed by 5 mg in Part B (BAY 1.25 mg–5 mg). The primary safety endpoint was the number of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Secondary endpoints included number of participants with high degree AV block or symptomatic pauses/ bradycardia and changes from baseline in resting heart rate after 2 and 4 weeks of dosing with BAY 2413555. Changes from baseline in heart rate recovery (HRR) at 1 and 2 min after exercise testing and chronotropic reserve (CR) were also assessed. Of the anticipated 129 participants, 22 participants were randomized: 7 to placebo, 8 to BAY 1.25 mg–1.25 mg, and 7 to BAY 1.25 mg–5 mg. The study was terminated early based on new and unexpected preclinical findings from a chronic animal toxicology study in monkeys in which evidence of increased vascular inflammation was observed, leading to a no longer favorable risk-benefit balance for the intended long-term (i.e., life-long) treatment of heart failure patients. Comparable adverse events were not encountered in REMOTE-HF. Overall, until the termination of the study, BAY 2413555 was safe and well tolerated, with no deaths or TEAEs leading to discontinuation, and no symptomatic bradycardia or AV blocks observed. There was a larger change in the mean HRR at 60 s in the pooled BAY 2413555 treatment arms in Part A (1.25 mg) compared to the placebo (+ 7.3 vs. −6.7 bpm), indicating enhanced cardiac parasympathetic activity. Administration of 1.25 mg and 5 mg BAY 2413555 was safe and well tolerated in both active treatment arms, with no concerning safety findings observed. However, due to the limited number of subjects resulting from early termination, the results should be considered with caution and viewed as exploratory. There were promising signs of target engagement, providing grounds for further exploration of the mechanism