Congestion and fluid retention are the hallmarks of decompensated heart failure and the major reason for the hospitalization of patients with heart failure. Diuretics have been used in heart failure for decades, and they remain the backbone of the contemporary management of heart failure. Loop diuretics is the preferred diuretic, and it has been given a class I recommendation by clinical guidelines for the relief of congestion symptoms. Although loop diuretics have been used virtually among all patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there is still very limited clinical evidence to guide the optimized diuretics use. This is a sharp contrast to the rapidly growing evidence of the rest of the guideline-directed medical therapy of heart failure and calls for further studies. The loop diuretics possess a unique pharmacology and pharmacokinetics that lay the ground for different strategies to increase diuretic efficiency. However, many of these approaches have not been evaluated in randomized clinical trials. In recent years, a stepped and protocolized diuretics dosing has been suggested to have superior benefits over an individual clinician-based strategy. Diuretic resistance has been a major challenge to decongestion therapy for patients with heart failure and is associated with a poor clinical prognosis. Recently, therapy options have emerged to help overcome diuretic resistance to loop diuretics and have been evaluated in randomized clinical trials. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of the pharmacology and clinical use of loop diuretics in the context of heart failure, with attention to its side effects, and adjuncts, as well as the challenges and future direction.

Background: Despite advances in resuscitation medicine, the burden of in‐hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) remains substantial. The impact of these advances and changes in resuscitation guidelines on IHCA survival remains poorly defined. To better characterize evolving patient characteristics and temporal trends in the nature and outcomes of IHCA, we undertook a 20‐year analysis of a national database. Methods and Results: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample (1999–2018) using International Classification of Diseases , Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD‐9‐CM and ICD‐10‐CM ) codes to identify all adult patients suffering IHCA. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of cardiac arrest (ie, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation or pulseless electrical activity‐asystole). An age‐ and sex‐adjusted model and a multivariable risk‐adjusted model were used to adjust for potential confounders. Over the 20‐year study period, a steady increase in rates of IHCA was observed, predominantly driven by pulseless electrical activity‐asystole arrest. Overall, survival rates increased by over 10% after adjusting for risk factors. In recent years (2014–2018), a similar trend toward improved survival is noted, though this only achieved statistical significance in the pulseless electrical activity‐asystole cohort. Conclusions: Though the ideal quality metric in IHCA is meaningful neurological recovery, survival is the first step toward this. As overall IHCA rates rise, overall survival rates are improving in tandem. However, in more recent years, these improvements have plateaued, especially in the realm of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation‐related survival. Future work is needed to better identify characteristics of IHCA nonsurvivors to improve resource allocation and health care policy in this area.

The long-term implications of COVID-19 have garnered increasing interest in recent months, with Long-COVID impacting over 65 million individuals worldwide. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) has emerged as an important component of the Long-COVID umbrella, estimated to affect between 2 and 14% of survivors. POTS remains very challenging to diagnose and manage – this review aims to provide a brief overview of POTS as a whole and goes on to summarize the available literature pertaining to POTS in the setting of COVID-19. We provide a review of available clinical reports, outline proposed pathophysiological mechanisms and end with a brief note on management considerations.

Obesity is significantly associated with uncontrolled blood pressure and resistant hypertension (RH). There are limited studies on the prevalence and determinants of RH in patients with higher body mass index (BMI) values. Since the hypertension guidelines changed in 2017, the prevalence of RH has become unknown and now is subject to be estimated by further studies. We conducted a cross‐sectional study in an urban Federally Qualified Health Center in New York City aiming to estimate the prevalence of RH in high‐risk overweight and obese patients based on the new hypertension definition, BP threshold ≥130/80 mm Hg, and also to describe the associated comorbid conditions in these patients. We identified 761 eligible high‐risk overweight and obese subjects with hypertension between October 2017 and October 2018. Apparent treatment‐RH was found in 13.6% among the entire study population. This represented 15.4% of those treated with BP‐lowering agents. True RH confirmed with out‐of‐office elevated BP was found in 6.7% of the study population and 7.4% among patients treated with BP‐lowering agents. Prevalence was higher with higher BMI values. Those with true RH were more likely to be black, to have diabetes mellitus requiring insulin, chronic kidney disease stage 3 or above and diastolic heart failure. In conclusion, obesity is significantly associated with RH and other significant metabolic comorbid conditions.

Background: Acute pericarditis (AP) is considered a cardiovascular complication in patients with COVID‐19. We aimed to ass‐ess the incidence, associated complications, and clinical impact of AP on hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Methods and Results: In this retrospective cohort study, International Classification of Diseases, Tenthth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD‐10 ) codes were used to identify patients with COVID‐19 with or without AP in the National Inpatient Sample 2020 database. We compared outcomes between AP and non‐AP groups before and after propensity‐score matching for patient and hospital demographics and relevant comorbidities. A total of 211 619 patients with a primary diagnosis of COVID‐19 were identified, including 983 (0.46%) patients who had a secondary diagnosis of AP. Before matching, patients with COVID‐19 with AP were younger (59.93±19.24 years old versus 64.29±16.82 years old) and more likely to have anemia (40.5% versus 19.9%), cancer (6.7% versus 3.6%), and chronic kidney disease (29.3% versus 19.6%) (all P <0.05). After matching, patients with COVID‐19 with AP (n=980), when compared with the matched non‐AP group (n=2936), had higher rates of mortality (21.3% versus 11.1%, P <0.001), cardiac arrest (5.0% versus 2.6%, P <0.001), cardiogenic shock (4.2% versus 0.5%, P <0.001), ventricular arrhythmia (4.7% versus 1.9%, P <0.001), acute kidney injury (38.3% versus 28.9%, P <0.001), acute congestive heart failure (14.3% versus 4.8%, P <0.001), and longer length of stay (7.00±10.00 days versus 5.00±7.00 days, P <0.001) and higher total charges ($75066.5±$130831.3 versus $44824.0±$63660.5, P <0.001). Conclusions: In hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, AP is a rare but severe in‐hospital complication and is associated with worse in‐hospital outcomes.