Background —Data are limited regarding the classification and prognosis of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) in the community. Methods and Results —Using the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, we evaluated all patients receiving a first diagnosis of CHF in Olmsted County, Minnesota, in 1991 (n=216). Among these patients, 88% were ≥65 years and 49% were ≥80 years of age. The prognosis of patients with a new diagnosis of CHF was poor; survival was 86±2% at 3 months, 76±3% at 1 year, and 35±3% at 5 years. Of the 216 patients, 137 (63%) had an assessment of ejection fraction. In these patients, systolic function was preserved (ejection fraction ≥50%) in 59 (43%) and reduced (ejection fraction <50%) in 78 (57%). Survival adjusted for age, sex, NYHA class, and coronary artery disease was not significantly different between patients with preserved and those with reduced systolic function (relative risk, 0.80; P =0.369). ACE inhibitors were used in only 44% of the total population with CHF. Conclusions —The present study reports the clinical characteristics and natural history of CHF as it presents in the community in the vasodilator era. CHF is a disease of the “very elderly,” frequently occurs in the setting of normal ejection fraction, and has a poor prognosis, regardless of the level of systolic function. Diagnostic and therapeutic methods are underused in the community.

Background—: Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. Methods and Results—: We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–0.94; P =0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.85; P =0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P <0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P =0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P <0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P =0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. Conclusions—: Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Background: There is controversy about the outcome of patients with acute myocarditis (AM), and data are lacking on how patients admitted with suspected AM are managed. We report characteristics, in-hospital management, and long-term outcome of patients with AM based on a retrospective multicenter registry from 19 Italian hospitals. Methods: A total of 684 patients with suspected AM and recent onset of symptoms (70 years of age and those >50 years of age without coronary angiography were excluded. The final study population comprised 443 patients (median age, 34 years; 19.4% female) with AM diagnosed by either endomyocardial biopsy or increased troponin plus edema and late gadolinium enhancement at cardiac magnetic resonance. Results: At presentation, 118 patients (26.6%) had left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, sustained ventricular arrhythmias, or a low cardiac output syndrome, whereas 325 (73.4%) had no such complications. Endomyocardial biopsy was performed in 56 of 443 (12.6%), and a baseline cardiac magnetic resonance was performed in 415 of 443 (93.7%). Cardiac mortality plus heart transplantation rates at 1 and 5 years were 3.0% and 4.1%. Cardiac mortality plus heart transplantation rates were 11.3% and 14.7% in patients with complicated presentation and 0% in uncomplicated cases (log-rank P <0.0001). Major AM-related cardiac events after the acute phase (postdischarge death and heart transplantation, sustained ventricular arrhythmias treated with electric shock or ablation, symptomatic heart failure needing device implantation) occurred in 2.8% at the 5-year follow-up, with a higher incidence in patients with complicated forms (10.8% versus 0% in uncomplicated AM; log-rank P <0.0001). β-Adrenoceptor blockers were the most frequently used medications both in complicated (61.9%) and in uncomplicated forms (53.8%; P =0.18). After a median time of 196 days, 200 patients had follow-up cardiac magnetic resonance, and 8 of 55 (14.5%) with complications at presentation had left ventricular ejection fraction <50% compared with 1 of 145 (0.7%) of those with uncomplicated presentation. Conclusions: In this contemporary study, overall serious adverse events after AM were lower than previously reported. However, patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, ventricular arrhythmias, or low cardiac output syndrome at presentation were at higher risk compared with uncomplicated cases that had a benign prognosis and low risk of subsequent left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the renal effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Renal function is frequently impaired in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and may deteriorate further after blockade of the renin-angiotensin system. In the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibition to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, 8,399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was available for all patients, and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was available in 1872 patients, at screening, randomization, and at fixed time intervals during follow-up. We evaluated the effect of study treatment on change in eGFR and UACR, and on renal and cardiovascular outcomes, according to eGFR and UACR. At screening, the eGFR was 70 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 2,745 patients (33%) had chronic kidney disease; the median UACR was 1.0 mg/mmol (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.4 to 3.2 mg/mmol) and 24% had an increased UACR. The decrease in eGFR during follow-up was less with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (-1.61 ml/min/1.73 m2/year; [95% confidence interval: -1.77 to -1.44 ml/min/1.73 m2/year] vs. -2.04 ml/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI: -2.21 to -1.88 ml/min/1.73 m2/year ]; p < 0.001) despite a greater increase in UACR with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril (1.20 mg/mmol [95% CI: 1.04 to 1.36 mg/mmol] vs. 0.90 mg/mmol [95% CI: 0.77 to 1.03 mg/mmol]; p < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization was not modified by eGFR, UACR (p interaction = 0.70 and 0.34, respectively), or by change in UACR (p interaction = 0.38). Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a slower rate of decrease in the eGFR and improved cardiovascular outcomes, even in patients with chronic kidney disease, despite causing a modest increase in UACR.

The management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) has improved significantly over the last two decades. In contrast, little or no progress has been made in identifying evidence-based, effective treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). Despite the high prevalence, mortality, and cost of HF-PEF, large phase III international clinical trials investigating interventions to improve outcomes in HF-PEF have yielded disappointing results. Therefore, treatment of HF-PEF remains largely empiric, and almost no acknowledged standards exist. There is no single explanation for the negative results of past HF-PEF trials. Potential contributors include an incomplete understanding of HF-PEF pathophysiology, the heterogeneity of the patient population, inadequate diagnostic criteria, recruitment of patients without true heart failure or at early stages of the syndrome, poor matching of therapeutic mechanisms and primary pathophysiological processes, suboptimal study designs, or inadequate statistical power. Many novel agents are in various stages of research and development for potential use in patients with HF-PEF. To maximize the likelihood of identifying effective therapeutics for HF-PEF, lessons learned from the past decade of research should be applied to the design, conduct, and interpretation of future trials. This paper represents a synthesis of a workshop held in Bergamo, Italy, and it examines new and emerging therapies in the context of specific, targeted HF-PEF phenotypes where positive clinical benefit may be detected in clinical trials. Specific considerations related to patient and endpoint selection for future clinical trials design are also discussed.