HTML

ePub

PDF

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome characterized by typical signs and symptoms in addition to the objective evidence of a structural or functional abnormality of the heart ¹. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with one-year mortality rates of 7.2% and hospitalization rates of 31.9% in patients with chronic HF, and these outcomes increasing to 17.4% mortality and 43.9% hospitalization in patients with acute HF ². Five-year survival is 56.7% (95% CI 54-59.4%) and 10-year survival is 34.9% (95% CI 24-46.8%) ³.

Traditionally, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been the most commonly used classification method, due to its practical implications for determining an appropriate treatment strategy, although over the last few years the measurement of global longitudinal strain and myocardial contraction fraction have gained ground ⁴. The European Society of Cardiology classifies it in three categories according to LVEF: HF with preserved LVEF when it is equal to or greater than 50%, HR with mildly reduced LVEF if it is 40-49%, and HF with reduced LVEF (HF-rLVEF) when it is less than 40% ⁵.

Heart failure with preserved and mid-range LVEF has no specific evidenced-based treatment to date, and its treatment is aimed at managing risk factors and controlling comorbidities ^1,2,5, while HF-rLVEF has clearly evidence-based treatments with an increasingly broad therapeutic arsenal, and currently even offers new treatment paradigms ⁶. Thus we, in this systematic review of the literature, deal with the current treatment of HF-rLVEF.

Data collection

The study design is a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines ⁷. The systematic search performed in drafting the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment and Rehabilitation of Heart Failure in People Over the Age of 18, Classification B, C and D" ¹ was updated.

Objective

The population, intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) questions were:

1. In patients over the age of 18 with HF-rLVEF, does pharmacological or interventional treatment or treatment with devices decrease the combined primary outcome - mortality and hospitalizations for any cause or for cardiovascular causes - compared with a placebo or active treatment or not using them?

Elegibility criteria

Studies were selected by two investigators, and differences were resolved by consensus. The included studies were randomized clinical trials which compared the use of pharmacological or interventional treatment or devices in HF-rLVEF (defined as LVEF less than 40%) with placebo, active treatment or, in the case of devices, with not using them, and which reported relevant combined outcomes: mortality from any cause or cardiovascular mortality, hospitalizations for any cause or for HF. The baseline characteristics and the outcomes evaluated were extracted from each study.

Search strategy

A systematic search was performed in the following bibliographic databases: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, DARE, Epistemonikos, SciELO, LILACS and OpenGrey, along with the web pages of clinical trial registries such as Clinical-Trials. The manual search included international cardiology congress pages, web sites and cardiology electronic media like Twitter from institutions such as the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society and the American College of Cardiology, as well as primary studies included in these societies' clinical practice guidelines and those of the National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) and meta-analyses. The update included studies in English from January 2014 to December 2020.

A general and manual search was performed including the following terms: "heart failure" or "congestive heart failure" or "left ventricular dysfunction" or "reduced ejection fraction" or "systolic heart failure" and "treatment" "management" or "drug therapy" and randomized controlled trial or controlled clinical trial or randomized or randomly or trial".

Statistical analysis

In line with the individual characteristics of the included studies, the heterogeneity among them and the fact that they act as complementary therapies, the study group consensus was to perform a systematic review rather than a meta-analysis. The individual papers were analyzed according to their baseline characteristics and defined outcomes, which are presented in tables for comparison. The risk of bias was assessed using the strategy proposed by Cochrane, and the fragility index was calculated for new studies along with a comparison with the classic studies using the outcome of mortality from any cause. The fragility index is defined as the minimum number of events that would have to change to a "non-event" status in order to change from a significant to a nonsignificant result, as evidence of the robustness of the studies, since many of these depend on a difference of three or fewer events; its interpretation shows that the smaller the index, the more fragile the result ⁸.

Results

The systematic and manual search recovered 1,424 results, of which only original clinical trials were analyzed, excluding publications analyzing individual subgroups or secondary outcomes or subrogates. New studies of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or beta blockers were not recovered, nor were new studies of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) or ivabradine.

The risk of bias for the six new studies analyzed was considered to be low for all the evaluated aspects: generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcomes, incomplete outcomes and selective reporting (Table 1).

The fragility index shows robust results for sacubitril/ valsartan for both the primary combined outcome as well as for cardiovascular death, death from a cardiovascular source and hospitalization for HF. For dapagliflozin, the results are robust for the primary combined outcome and hospitalization for HF. The empagliflozin study showed robust results for the primary combined outcome and hospitalization for HF; for sotagliflozin it is robust for the primary outcome; and vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil had very low fragility indices, especially the latter one (Table 2).

A comparative analysis of the classic and new studies was performed for the outcome of mortality (Table 3). The results showed estimates below 1 in almost all cases, except for valsartan, losartan and omecamtiv mecarbil. Those with a 95% CI above 1 were valsartan and candesartan in the CHARM Added trial, losartan in ELITE II and HEAAL, carvedilol in ANZ, nebivolol, digoxin, ivabradine vericiguat, empagliflozin, omecamtiv mecarbil and sotagliflozin. The fragility indices were robust for beta blockers, spironolactone and sacubitril/valsartan.

Pharmacological treatment

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors

The ACE inhibitors decrease the concentration of angiotensin II and aldosterone, increase renin release and the concentration of angiotensin ^9-12, decrease the plasma concentration of epinephrine, norepinephrine and vasopressin, and increase the production of bradykinin ^10,13,14.

The CONSENSUS Trial ¹⁵ with enalapril was the first drug (1986) to show reduced mortality in HF, in patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV. Six-month mortality significantly reduced in the group receiving enalapril (44% vs. 26%). Since then, many studies have shown that RAAS inhibitors reduce morbidity and mortality in HF-rLVEF, with reductions in mortality from all causes ranging from 20-30% ^16-20.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs)

The clinical trial results indicate that ARBs are not superior to ACE inhibitors, but are an alternative for patients with intolerance. Clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy not only of losartan (OPTIME-ELITE II), but also of valsartan (Val-HeFT) and candesartan (CHARM) in patients with HF, in terms of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality ^21-24. However, they have not been able to surpass the ACE inhibitors in consistently reducing morbidity and mortality; their main advantage lies in a better tolerance. Their use as an alternative treatment is based on the results of the CHARM-Alternative study in patients with symptomatic HF and LVEF <40% who were not taking ACE inhibitors due to intolerance. In these patients, the use of candesartan achieved a significant reduction in both mortality and the number of hospitalizations for HF ²⁵.

Beta blockers

Beta blockers should be part of the treatment of all chronic, stable patients, and they should be started early after compensating patients with acute, newly diagnosed HF ^1,5. They have proven benefits, regardless of the etiology of the HF. These include symptom relief and improved quality of life, reduced risk of hospitalization and incidence of sudden death, as well as improved survival. In addition, they have significant effects on reverse ventricular remodeling, with LVEF recovery ^26-30. Beta blocker treatment should be used with caution in patients with borderline BP, recent inotrope treatment or NYHA functional class IV.

A recent meta-analysis raises questions about the effect of beta blockers on patients with HF and atrial fibrillation (AF), as they have a different impact in these patients than in patients with a sinus rhythm ³¹. The recent RATE AF clinical trial shows that digoxin, compared with bisoprolol, has similar effectivity, but with fewer adverse events ³².

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs)

The MRAs (spironolactone and eplerenone) reduce the aldosterone escape phenomenon, contribute to the RAAS block ^33-35 and reduce mortality by 15 to 30%. Furthermore, they decreased hospitalizations for HF by 15 to 40% in three randomized clinical trials (RALES, EMPHASIS, EPHESUS) ^36-38, in patients with chronic HF-rLVEF, including patients who had had a myocardial infarction, excluding patients with a baseline serum creatinine greater than 2.5 mg/dL (or an estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <30 mL/min/1.73 m²) or a serum potassium level >5.0 mEq/L.

Recent evidence, using indirect comparison, suggests greater survival benefits with a starting strategy using the three agents compared with conventional therapy ³⁹. New drugs such as finerenone have shown benefits in a Phase 2 trial (ARTS-HF) and in type 2 diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease ^40-41.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs)

Initially, as a complement to the neurohormonal block, an attempt was made to raise natriuretic peptide levels with nesiritide and carperitide, with discouraging results ^42-45. Subsequently, isolated neprilysin inhibition was attempted with racecadotril, candoxatrilat and ecadotril, which was unsuccessful, as their effect was rapidly lost ⁴⁶. The next step was to use a new group known as vasopeptidase inhibitors which have a dual mechanism, inhibiting neutral endopeptidases (such as neprilysin) and ACE (omapatrilat). The OVERTURE trial showed noninferiority compared with enalapril, but a greater number of patients with angioedema [24 (0.8%) vs. 14 (0.5%)] ⁴⁷, due to neprilysin degrading aminopeptidase P which, like ACE, degrades bradykinin.

Finally, sacubitril (a neprilysin inhibitor) was combined with an ARB-II (valsartan), which was tested in the PARADIGM HF trial ⁴⁸ in patients with LVEF <35%, with proven tolerance to ACE inhibitors or ARBs, NYHA ≥II, elevated natriuretic peptides, systolic arterial pressure (SAP) > 100 mmHg, GFR > 30 mL/min/1.73m² and potassium ≤5.2 mEq/L. Sacubitril/valsartan showed superiority in doses of 200 mg every 12 hours, compared with enalapril at 10 mg every 12 hours, in cardiovascular mortality, including sudden death and worsening HF (HR 0.8, CI 0.73-0.87) and hospitalizations for HF (HR 0.79, CI 0.71-0.89).

The PIONEER HF trial ⁴⁹ proved the safety of beginning this drug in uncompensated HF in patients with LVEF <40%, BNP ≥400 ng/L or NT-proBNP ≥1,600 ng/L, no inotrope requirement in the last 24 hours, nor use of vasodilators, SAP <100 mmHg or increased diuretics in the last six hours. Sacubitril/valsartan showed superiority at a dose of 200 mg every 12 hours compared with enalapril at doses of 10 mg every 12 hours, with regard to decreased NT-ProBNP levels and a reduction in 30-day readmissions as a secondary outcome.

Subsequently, the TITRATION trial was performed to determine the safety of conservative (standard) titration or condensed (aggressive) titration of the dose, with good results in both arms ⁵⁰. Similarly, the TRANSITION trial ⁵¹ showed that initiating sacubitril/valsartan before or after discharge did not affect the achievement of the target dose. Finally, the PROVE HF study ⁵² found a weak, but statistically significant, relationship between NT-ProBNP levels and the change in LVEF, since the bioavailability of valsartan in the ARNI is 50% greater than that of valsartan alone, which means that 400 mg of the combination contains ~203 mg of valsartan, equivalent to 320 of valsartan sold alone; in addition, it has proven cost-effectiveness (Tables 4-6) ¹⁹.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors

Beginning in 2016, with the publication of the EMPAREG-OUTCOME ⁵³ study which found a reduction in hospitalization for HF in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) receiving empagliflozin treatment, there has been a growing interest in the effect of this group of medications on HF treatment. The proposed mechanism of action of SGLT-2 inhibitors is, first of all, natriuresis and glucosuria which, in addition to decreasing preload and postload, decreases interstitial edema which is related to ventricular hypertrophy, although this effect is neutralized around week 12 of treatment ⁵⁴. The second proposed effect is decreased BP, secondary to decreased sympathetic tone through direct inhibition of noradrenaline synthesis by blocking renal tyrosine hydroxylase ⁵⁵. The third mechanism is decreased cardiomyocyte glucose consumption in favor of the use of fatty acids and ketones which, besides being more energy efficient, have the ability to decrease oxidative stress ⁵⁶. Finally, although there are several ideas to explain improved contractility through calcium metabolism, direct blocking of the NHE1 receptor by SGLT-2 inhibitors and the subsequent reduction in intracellular sodium and calcium, as well as increased mitochondrial calcium, has the greatest evidence ⁵⁶.

Their clinical effect has been proven in recent years in patients without DM; thus, the DEFINE HF ⁵⁷ study found that patients with LVEF <40%, NYHA II-III, elevated natriuretic peptides and GFR ≥ 30mL/min/1.73m² dapagliflozin at 10 mg/day was superior to placebo in decreasing the dual co-primary outcome which included reducing NT-proBNP levels by at least 20% and increasing the Kansas scale by ≥ 5 points (OR 1.8 CI 1.03-3.06), although there were no differences in the other co-primary outcome of the average NT-proBNP levels at 6-12 weeks.

Later, the DAPA-HF ⁵⁸ trial showed that in patients with LVEF <40% and NYHA ≥II with elevated natriuretic peptides, despite being on optimal therapy, with GFR ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73m², SAP > 95 mmHg, and without type 1 DM, dapagliflozin was superior at 10 mg/day compared with placebo in the combined outcome of worsening HF (unplanned hospitalization or an urgent visit to the emergency room for intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death (HR 0.74 CI 0.65-0.85).

The EMPEROR REDUCED ⁵⁹ study randomized patients with LVEF <30%, NYHA ≥II, and elevated natriuretic peptides (in cases with LVEF between 30 and 40%, hospitalizations for HF in the previous year or very high peptide levels were also required), despite being on optimal therapy, with a GFR ≥20 mL/min/1.73m² and SAP >100 mmHg. In this study, empagliflozin proved to be superior at 10 mg/day compared with placebo in decreasing hospitalizations for HF or cardiovascular death (HR 0.75 95% CI 0.65-0.86).

Finally, the SOLOIST WHF study in type 2 diabetic patients with decompensated HF randomly assigned stabilized patients, before or within three days of discharge, to 200 mg of sotaglifozin (increasing to 400 mg, depending on side effects) versus placebo. After a median nine-month follow up, it significantly decreased the combined primary outcome (HR 0.67 95% CI 0.52-0.85). This study offers an interesting perspective by suggesting that early initiation of treatment has important effects and, furthermore, the effect is maintained in patients with an LVEF ≥50%, which suggests a promising effect for patients with HF with a slightly reduced and preserved fraction ⁶⁰, as suggested by the results of the recent EMPEROR PRESERVED (N Engl J Med 2021 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2107038/10.1056) study.

Although, given the consistency of the described evidence, it could be deduced that this is a group effect, the results of the VERTIS CV ⁶¹ trial raised doubts in this regard, since the use of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes was unable to show superiority to the placebo, but did show non-inferiority, although the population of HF patients included did not exceed 25%. A subsequent report with the prespecified analysis of HF-related events suggested a reduction in hospitalization for HF (RR 0.70 95% CI 0.56-0.87) and the combined outcome of hospitalization for HF/cardiovascular death (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.72-0.96) ⁶².

Ivabradine

Ivabradine inhibits the sinus node's pacemaker activity by selectively blocking the hyperpolarization channels known as the "funny" (If) channels, decreasing the heart rate of patients with a sinus rhythm without affecting arterial pressure, cardiac contractility or intracardiac conduction ³⁰. Among the studies found on this treatment is the initial background in the BEAUTIFUL ⁶³ study on patients with coronary disease and ventricular dysfunction (LVEF <40%), which found no difference between ivabradine and placebo in the primary outcome (HR 1 95% CI 0.91-1.1) nor in the secondary outcomes which made up the combined primary outcome. However, in the subgroup analysis, in patients with a baseline heart rate ≥70 bpm, it reduced the incidence of hospitalization for myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization, although it did not decrease the primary objective nor overall mortality ⁶⁴.

The SHIFT ⁶⁵ study was conducted in patients with chronic HF and LVEF ≤35%, sinus rhythm and a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm. Ivabradine had an impact on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF (HR 0.82 95% CI 0.75-0.90), as well as the outcomes related to HF (hospitalization for HF HR 0.74 95% CI 0.66-0.83; and death from HF HR 0.74 95% CI 0.58-0.94).

Patients treated with ivabradine have an average heart rate reduction of 8 bpm, while a meta-analysis of patients with HF-rLVEF with beta blockers showed a reduction of 12 bpm ⁶⁶. Cullington et al. ⁶⁷ showed that the proportion of patients for whom the addition of ivabradine would be indicated according to the SHIFT trial criteria dropped from 19.4% of the total at the initial visit to only 9% at the 12-month follow up, after adequately adjusting the beta blocker dose.

Hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate

The evidence for the clinical usefulness of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate comes initially from the V-HeFT I trial, which compared three treatments: placebo, prazosin, or isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine. After two years, there was a 34% reduction in the primary outcome of cumulative mortality in the hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate group compared with placebo (p=0.028, 95% CI 4-54%) ⁶⁸. Subsequently, the V-HeFT II study compared hydralazine combined with isosorbide dinitrate to enalapril; at two years, there was a significantly higher reduction in mortality from all causes in the enalapril group (ARR 6%, p= 0.016) and the differences in mortality between the two groups were not sustained at 2.5 years (ARR 5.4%, p=0.08), improved peak oxygen consumption and LVEF in the hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate group compared with enalapril early on, as part of the secondary results ⁶⁹.

The AHeFT study was carried out based on observations which suggested a greater benefit in African Americans. This study randomized 1,050 black patients with HF in functional class III/IV and ventricular dilation to receive a fixed dose of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate (n=518) compared to placebo (n=532) in addition to standard medical care. The study was ended early when it showed that hydralazine combined with isosorbide dinitrate resulted in significantly lower mortality compared with placebo (6.2% vs. 10.2%, p= 0.02). The outcome of side effects was also better in the intervention group, with a 43% reduction in death from any cause (HR 0.57; p=0.01), 33% reduction in the rate of first hospitalizations for HF (16.4% vs. 22.4%, p=0.01), and improved quality of life ⁷⁰.

Vericiguat

Vericiguat is an oral, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator which increases cyclic GMP activity, a second messenger involved in regulating cardio-renal and metabolic protective mechanisms. The SOCRATES-REDUCED study randomized 456 patients with HF with LVEF <45% and one recent decompensation episode (<4 weeks). A total of 377 patients finished treatment and there was no difference between the baseline and 12-week NT-proBNP levels between the group treated with vericiguat and the placebo group, with adequate tolerance and no differences in adverse events, with a linear relationship between the dose of vericiguat used and the degree of NT-proBNP reduction ⁷¹.

The VICTORIA study involved 5,050 patients with high-risk HF-rLVEF (40% in NYHA functional class III), severe impairment of systolic ventricular function (mean LVEF of 29%), with elevated natriuretic peptides and recent decompensation (80% within the last three months) to receive oral vericiguat with a target dose of 10 mg per day, compared with placebo plus guideline-directed treatment. The study showed a modest reduction in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for HF (35.5% vs. 38.5%, HR 0.9 [95% CI, 0.82-0.98, p=0.02]), derived mainly from the effect on hospitalizations for HF or any cause, with no impact on cardiovascular deaths or total deaths. Mean follow up was 10.8 months. Due to its vasodilating properties, there was symptomatic hypotension in 9.1% of the patients compared with 7.9% in the placebo group (p=0.12) and syncope in 4% compared with 3.5% in the placebo group (p=0.30) ⁷².

Omecamtiv mecarbil

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a selective cardiac myosin activator which increases contractility by binding to an allosteric site, for a faster transition from weak to strong binding, increasing the number of myosin heads bound to an actin filament, generating more strength. In addition, stabilization of the baseline status reduces ATP turnover in the absence of an interaction with actin, which improves energy efficiency.

The Phase 3 GALACTIC HF trial in 8,256 patients with chronic HF with LVEF ≤35% compared omecamtiv mecarbil with placebo and showed a reduction in the primary outcome of HF-related events or cardiovascular death (HR 0.92 95% CI 0.86-0.99), with no impact on cardiovascular mortality or quality of life assessed with the Kansas questionnaire. Despite its modest effect in the total group, the finding of the differential impact according to LVEF, with a median cut-off ≤ 28% generates an interesting hypothesis which should be tested in a subsequent clinical trial ⁷³.

Digoxin

Digoxin, a sodium-potassium ATPase pump inhibitor ⁷⁴ was evaluated in the DIG study in 6,800 patients with HF and LVEF <45%. The study showed no differences in mortality [34.8% vs. 35.1% (RR 0.99 95% CI 0.91-1.07, p=0.08)], but there was a reduction in total hospitalization and hospitalization for decompensated HF [26.8% vs. 34.7% (RR 0.72 95% CI 0.66-0.79, p=0.001)]. An analysis of secondary outcomes showed that digoxin had the tendency to reduce deaths attributable to worsening HF [RR 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01, p=0.06)] ⁷⁵. The prespecified subgroup analysis of high-risk patients (NYHA III-IV, LVEF < 25%, cardiothoracic ratio > 55%) after two years of follow up showed a reduction in the outcome of hospitalization and death from any cause ⁷⁶.

A Cochrane review showed that digoxin does not reduce mortality from all causes nor from HF, but it does reduce HF symptoms and readmissions by 32% [OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.61-0.75, p < 0.00001)]. The benefits were greater in patients with greater LVEF impairment (<25%) or NYHA functional class III/IV. A subgroup analysis by serum digoxin concentrations showed that patients with levels between 0.5 and 0.8 ng/mL had a 20% reduction in deaths from all causes (HR 0.8 [95% CI 0.68-0.94, p= 0.005]). There were more arrhythmia complications in patients with serum digoxin levels >1.2 ng/mL, especially in patients with kidney disease, who require close monitoring ⁷⁷.

Diuretics

Their use is mainly based on small, controlled clinical trials in which they have proven to be well tolerated and to alleviate congestion, improving edemas and reducing body weight ⁷⁸. Likewise, changes in neurohormonal parameters associated with congestion have been shown ⁶³. Loop diuretics are preferred (furosemide, bumetanide, torsemide), although thiazides may be added in diuretic-resistant patients, as well as potassium-sparing diuretics ^3,25. The main adverse events associated with their use are fluid and electrolyte disorders and renal dysfunction ⁷⁹; the long-term effect on outcomes is unclear ⁸⁰.

Studies of other treatment options for managing congestion, such as arginine vasopressin antagonists, have shown no impact on clinical outcomes, although they do increase urine volume and decrease weight ^81,82.

Treatment of comorbidities and devices

Other types of therapies exist, including iron supplementation, management of atrial fibrillation, implantable automatic defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization, cardiac contractility modulation, mitral clips, CardioMEMS and ventricular assist devices which have proven beneficial in specific groups of patients, after optimizing what is considered to be standard treatment ^83-129 (Annex 1).

Discussion

Given the current evidence, the papers published especially during the last year, the GPC recommended heart failure algorithm should be updated to introduce new therapies, considering the magnitude of the treatment benefit and that the effect could be considered to be separate from each of the medication groups, supported by the studies' subgroup analyses.

The consistency of studies with ARNI place it as the treatment of choice, replacing ACE inhibitors/ARBs, and reserving these for a few cases, specifically patients who do not tolerate ARNI treatment due to hypotension. Likewise, the SGLT-2 inhibitors, together with the already positioned beta blockers and MRAs complement this first-line therapy. The results with other new medications such as vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil are modest and they should be reserved for only a few cases which are not stabilized using standard treatment. The risk of bias was considered to be low in all the items.

The fragility index analysis comparing the classical strategies with the new ones showed robust results for beta blockers, spironolactone and sacubitril/valsartan, and weak results for ACE inhibitors, ARBs, vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil, although it should be noted that this may be affected by factors such as the expected effect size, the number of events and the study's power ¹³⁰.

The proposal was designed as a decision circle with a central nucleus including what is considered to be the pillar of HF treatment (Figure 1), which is enlarged according to certain variables which may be considered or introduced into treatment, according to the clinical progress.

The central nucleus is organized hierarchically to highlight the fundamental pillars of treatment and provide a general recommendation for initiating and titrating doses according to monitoring and the patient's clinical progress, supported by the mentioned studies. The next orbit contains the interventions to be used after reaching the goals of the basic nucleus which contains four strategies, whose evidential strength is differentiated based on the support of designed clinical trials, the affected outcome and the variables to be considered for its use.

The suggestion is to begin in step one with ARNI (Figure 2); the only available one to date is the sacubitril/valsartan combination. In step 2, SGLT-2 inhibitors plus the beta blocker (Figure 3), and, finally, the MRA (Figure 4).

It is important to highlight that the algorithm is conceived in order to begin these treatments, considered to be pillars, early; and that the suggested titration may be modified according to the patient's clinical condition, although it is expected that the use of these recommendations will improve tolerance and adherence, in general, and that low doses of all the groups may be prescribed, to be subsequently increased according to the set sequence of steps ¹³¹.

Other therapies, such as cardiac rehabilitation, including an exercise program, vaccination and palliative care should be used concomitantly, ideally within a structured Heart Failure Clinic program. Patients who remain symptomatic despite the use of this strategy should be referred to a heart transplant group for assessment, especially if they are between 18 and 70 years old; have an NYHA functional status III or IV; a peak oxygen consumption (VO2 max) ≤ 14 mL/kg/minute or, with beta blockers, ≤ 12 mL/kg/minute, in patients < 50 years old add VO2 max ≤50% of the expected (predicted) value and in a submaximal test (RER <1.05) use the slope of the ventilatory equivalent of CO2 > 35 on the cardiopulmonary stress test; and are classified as high risk according to the Heart Failure Survival Score or have <80% expected one-year survival on the Seattle Heart Failure Model scale ¹³².

References

1. Senior JM, Lugo LH, Díaz JS, Muñoz E TN et al. C. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Guía de Práctica Clínica para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento y rehabilitación de la falla cardíaca en población mayor de 18 años clasificación B, C y D. Gpc.minsalud.gov.co, Guía Complet No53 [GPC en Internet] Edición 1° Bogotá DC El Minist 2016 [consultada 2016]. 2016: Disponible en https://gpc.minsalud.gov.co.

2. Maggioni AP, Dahlstrom U, Filippatos G, et al. EUR Observational Research Programme: regional differences and 1-year follow-up results of the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC-HF Pilot). Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15(7):808-817. doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hft050

3. Jones NR, Roalfe AK, Adoki I, Hobbs FDR, Taylor CJ. Survival of patients with chronic heart failure in the community: a systematic review and meta D analysis. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(11):1306-1325. doi:10.1002/ejhf.1594

4. Cikes M, Solomon SD. Beyond ejection fraction: an integrative approach for assessment of cardiac structure and function in heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(21):1642-1650. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv510

5. McDonagh T, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner R, Baumbach A et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart Failure. Eur Heart J 2021;42(36):3599-3726. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368.

6. Burnett H, Earley A, Voors AA, et al. Thirty Years of Evidence on the Efficacy of Drug Treatments for Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. Circ Hear Fail. 2017;10(1). doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.003529

7. Liberati A. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136

8. Walsh M, Srinathan SK, McAuley DF, et al. The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(6):622-628. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.019

9. Ondetti, M. A., Williams, N. J., Sabo, E., Pluscec, J., Weaver, E. R., & Kocy, O. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors from the venom of Bothrops jararaca. Isolation, elucidation of structure, and synthesis. Biochemistry, 10(22), 4033-4039.

10. Hoyer J, Schulte K-L, Lenz T. Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitors in Renal Failure. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1993;24(3):230-254. doi:10.2165/00003088-199324030-00005

11. Kostis JB. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors. Am J Hypertens. 1989;2(1):57-64. doi:10.1093/ajh/2.1.57

12. Francis GS, Benedict C, Johnstone DE, et al. Comparison of neuroendocrine activation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction with and without congestive heart failure. A substudy of the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD). Circulation. 1990;82(5):1724-1729. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.82.5.1724

13. Swedberg K. Importance of neuroendocrine activation in chronic heart failure. Impact on treatment strategies. Eur J Heart Fail. 2000;2(3):229-233. doi:10.1016/ S1388-9842(00)00102-1

14. Oates JA, Wood AJJ, Williams GH. Converting-Enzyme Inhibitors in the Treatment of Hypertension. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(23):1517-1525. doi:10.1056/NEJM198812083192305

15. Effects of Enalapril on Mortality in Severe Congestive Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(23):1429-1435. doi:10.1056/NEJM198706043162301

16. Effect of Enalapril on Survival in Patients with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fractions and Congestive Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(5):293-302. doi:10.1056/NEJM199108013250501

17. Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moyé LA, et al. Effect of Captopril on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction after Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(10):669-677. doi:10.1056/NEJM199209033271001

18. The Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study Investigators. Effect of ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivors of acute myocardial infarction with clinical evidence of heart failure. Lancet. 1993;342(8875). doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92693-N

19. Gaziano TA, Fonarow GC, Velazquez EJ, Morrow DA, Braunwald E, Solomon SD. Cost-effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Hospitalized Patients Who Have Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. JAMA Cardiol. August 2020. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2822

20. López-Sendón J, Swedberg K, McMurray J, et al. Documento de Consenso de Expertos sobre el uso de inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina en la enfermedad cardiovascular. Rev Española Cardiol. 2004;57(12):1213-1232. doi:10.1157/13069868

21. McMurray JJ, Ostergren J, Swedberg K, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial. Lancet. 2003;362(9386):767-771. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14283-3

22. Cohn JN, Tognoni G. A Randomized Trial of the Angiotensin-Receptor Blocker Valsartan in Chronic Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(23):1667-1675. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa010713

23. Pitt B, Poole-Wilson PA, Segal R, et al. Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial-the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II. Lancet. 2000;355(9215):1582-1587. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02213-3

24. Dickstein K, Kjekshus J. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTI-MAAL randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9335):752-760. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09895-1

25. Granger CB, McMurray JJ, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative trial. Lancet. 2003;362(9386):772-776. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14284-5

26. Foody JM, Farrell MH, Krumholz HM. p-Blocker Therapy in Heart Failure. JAMA. 2002;287(7):883. doi:10.1001/jama.287.7.883

27. Shah NB, Der E, Ruggerio C, Heidenreich PA, Massie BM. Prevention of hospitalizations for heart failure with an interactive home monitoring program. Am Heart J. 1998;135(3):373-378. doi:10.1016/S0002-8703(98)70310-2

28. Khand A, Gemmel I, Clark AL, Cleland JG. Is the prognosis of heart failure improving? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(7):2284-2286. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00995-5

29. Bristow MR, Gilbert EM, Abraham WT, et al. Carvedilol Produces Dose-Related Improvements in Left Ventricular Function and Survival in Subjects With Chronic Heart Failure. Circulation. 1996;94(11):2807-2816. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.94.11.2807

30. Murphy SP, Ibrahim NE, Januzzi JL. Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. JAMA. 2020;324(5):488. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.10262

31. Kotecha D, Holmes J, Krum H, et al. Efficacy of p blockers in patients with heart failure plus atrial fibrillation: an individual-patient data meta-analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9961):2235-2243. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61373-8

32. Kotecha D, Bunting K V., Gill SK, et al. Effect of Digoxin vs Bisoprolol for Heart Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation on Patient-Reported Quality of Life. JAMA. 2020;324(24):2497. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.23138

33. Struthers AD, Unger T. Physiology of aldosterone and pharmacology of aldosterone blockers. Eur Heart J Suppl B 2011; 13: 27B-30B.

34. Struthers AD. The clinical implications of aldosterone escape in congestive heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2004;6(5):539-545. doi:10.1016/j.ejheart.2004.04.013

35. Turban S, Wang X-Y, Knepper MA. Regulation of NHE3, NKCC2, and NCC abundance in kidney during aldosterone escape phenomenon: role of NO. Am J Physiol Physiol. 2003;285(5):F843-F851. doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00110.2003

36. Zannad F, McMurray JJV, Krum H, et al. Eplerenone in Patients with Systolic Heart Failure and Mild Symptoms. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(1):11-21. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1009492

37. Pitt B, Remme W, Zannad F, et al. Eplerenone, a Selective Aldosterone Blocker, in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction after Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(14):1309-1321. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa030207

38. Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, et al. The Effect of Spironolactone on Morbidity and Mortality in Patients with Severe Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(10):709-717. doi:10.1056/NEJM199909023411001

39. Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL, Jhund PS, et al. Estimating lifetime benefits of comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a comparative analysis of three randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2020;396(10244):121-128. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30748-0

40. Filippatos G, Anker SD, Bohm M, et al. A randomized controlled study of finerenone vs. eplerenone in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and diabetes mellitus and/or chronic kidney disease. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(27):2105-2114. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw132

41. Bakris GL, Agarwal R, Anker SD, et al. Effect of Finerenone on Chronic Kidney Disease Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(23):2219-2229. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2025845

42. Tsao CW, Lyass A, Enserro D, et al. Temporal Trends in the Incidence of and Mortality Associated With Heart Failure With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction. JACC Hear Fail. 2018;6(8):678-685. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2018.03.006

43. Daniels LB, Maisel AS. Natriuretic Peptides. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(25):2357-2368. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.021

44. O'Connor CM, Starling RC, Hernandez AF, et al. Effect of Nesiritide in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(1):32-43. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1100171

45. Hata N, Seino Y, Tsutamoto T, et al. Effects of Carperitide on the Long-Term Prognosis of Patients With Acute Decompensated Chronic Heart Failure. Circ J. 2008;72(11):1787-1793. doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-08-0130

46. O.Connell JE, Jardine AG, Davidson G, Connell JMC. Candoxatril, an orally active neutral endopeptidase inhibitor, raises plasma atrial natriuretic factor and is natriuretic in essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1992;10(3):271-277. doi:10.1097/00004872-199203000-00011

47. Packer M, Califf RM, Konstam MA, et al. Comparison of Omapatrilat and Enalapril in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure. Circulation. 2002;106(8):920-926. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000029801.86489.50

48. McMurray JJV, Packer M, Desai AS, et al. Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(11):993-1004. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1409077

49. Velazquez EJ, Morrow DA, DeVore AD, et al. Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(6):539-548. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812851

50. Senni M, McMurray JJV, Wachter R, et al. Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a doubleDblind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016; 18(9):1193-1202. doi:10.1002/ejhf.548

51. Wachter R, Senni M, Belohlavek J, et al. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in haemodynamically stabilised heart failure patients in hospital or early after discharge: primary results of the randomised TRANSITION study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(8):998-1007. doi:10.1002/ejhf.1498

52. Januzzi JL, Prescott MF, Butler J, et al. Association of Change in N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Following Initiation of Sacubitril-Valsartan Treatment With Cardiac Structure and Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. JAMA. 2019;322(11):1085. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.12821

53. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2117-2128. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1504720

54. Hallow KM, Helmlinger G, Greasley PJ, McMurray JJ V., Boulton DW. Why do SGLT2 inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalization? A differential volume regulation hypothesis. Diabetes, Obes Metab. 2018;20(3):479-487. doi:10.1111/dom.13126

55. Matthews VB, Elliot RH, Rudnicka C, Hricova J, Herat L, Schlaich MP. Role of the sympathetic nervous system in regulation of the sodium glucose cotransporter 2. J Hypertens. 2017;35(10):2059-2068. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000001434

56. Santos-Gallego CG, Requena-Ibanez JA, San Antonio R, et al. Empagliflozin Ameliorates Adverse Left Ventricular Remodeling in Nondiabetic Heart Failure by Enhancing Myocardial Energetics. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(15):1931-1944. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.056

57. Nassif ME, Windsor SL, Tang F, et al. Dapagliflozin Effects on Biomarkers, Symptoms, and Functional Status in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. Circulation. 2019;140(18):1463-1476. doi:10.1161/CIRCU-LATIONAHA.119.042929

58. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(21):1995-2008. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911303

59. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin in Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1413-1424. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2022190

60. Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Steg PG, et al. Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Worsening Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. November 2020:NEJ-Moa2030183. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2030183

61. Cannon CP, Pratley R, Dagogo-Jack S, et al. Cardiovascular Outcomes with Ertugliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1425-1435. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2004967

62. Cosentino F, Cannon CP, Cherney DZI, et al. Efficacy of Ertugliflozin on Heart Failure-Related Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Established Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation. 2020;142(23):2205-2215. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050255

63. Fox K, Ford I, Steg PG, Tendera M, Ferrari R. Ivabradine for patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9641):807-816. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61170-8

64. Fox K, Ford I, Steg PG, Tendera M, Robertson M, Ferrari R. Heart rate as a prognostic risk factor in patients with coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9641):817-821. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61171-X

65. Swedberg K, Komajda M, Bohm M, et al. Ivabradine and outcomes in chronic heart failure (SHIFT): a randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet. 2010;376(9744):875-885. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61198-1

66. Kotecha D, Flather MD, Altman DG, et al. Heart Rate and Rhythm and the Benefit of Beta-Blockers in Patients With Heart Failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(24):2885-2896. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.001

67. Cullington D, Goode KM, Cleland JGF, Clark AL. Limited role for ivabradine in the treatment of chronic heart failure. Heart. 2011;97(23):1961-1966. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300041

68. Cohn JN, Archibald DG, Ziesche S, et al. Effect of Vasodilator Therapy on Mortality in Chronic Congestive Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(24):1547-1552. doi:10.1056/NEJM198606123142404

69. Cohn JN, Johnson G, Ziesche S, et al. A Comparison of Enalapril with Hydralazine-Isosorbide Dinitrate in the Treatment of Chronic Congestive Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(5):303-310. doi:10.1056/NEJM199108013250502

70. Taylor AL, Ziesche S, Yancy C, et al. Combination of Isosorbide Dinitrate and Hydralazine in Blacks with Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(20):2049-2057. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa042934

71. Gheorghiade M, Greene SJ, Butler J, et al. Effect of Vericiguat, a Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulator, on Natriuretic Peptide Levels in Patients With Worsening Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2251. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.15734

72. Armstrong PW, Pieske B, Anstrom KJ, et al. Vericiguat in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(20):1883-1893. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1915928

73. Teerlink JR, Diaz R, Felker GM, et al. Cardiac Myosin Activation with Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Systolic Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. November 2020:NEJMoa2025797. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2025797

74. Gheorghiade M, Adams KF, Colucci WS. Digoxin in the Management of Cardiovascular Disorders. Circulation. 2004;109(24):2959-2964. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000132482.95686.87

75. The Effect of Digoxin on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(8):525-533. doi:10.1056/NEJM199702203360801

76. Gheorghiade M, Patel K, Filippatos G, et al. Effect of oral digoxin in high-risk heart failure patients: a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the DIG trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15(5):551-559. doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hft010

77. Hood Jr. WB, Dans AL, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, McMurray JJ. Digitalis for treatment of heart failure in patients in sinus rhythm. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. April 2014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002901.pub3

78. Patterson JH, Adams KF, Applefeld MM, Corder CN, Masse BR. Oral Torsemide in Patients With Chronic Congestive Heart Failure: Effects on Body Weight, Edema, and Electrolyte Excretion. Pharmacother J Hum Pharmacol Drug Ther. 1994;14(5):514-521. doi:10.1002/j.1875-9114.1994.tb02848.x

79. Anand IS, Kalra GS, Harris P et al. Diuretics as initial and sole treatment in chronic cardiac failure. Cardioscience. 2(4):273-8.

80. Faris RF, Flather M, Purcell H, Poole-Wilson PA, Coats AJ. Diuretics for heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. April 2016. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003838.pub4

81. Gattis W a, Connor CMO, Adams KF, et al. Effects of Tolvaptan Heart Fail. 2004;291(16):1963-1971.

82. Konstam MA. Effects of Oral Tolvaptan in Patients Hospitalized for Worsening Heart Failure The EVEREST Outcome Trial. JAMA. 2007;297(12):1319. doi:10.1001/jama.297.12.1319

83. Jankowska EA, Rozentryt P, Witkowska A, et al. Iron deficiency: an ominous sign in patients with systolic chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(15):1872-1880. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq158

84. Comín-Colet J, Enjuanes C, González G, et al. Iron deficiency is a key determinant of health-related quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure regardless of anaemia status. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15(10):1164-1172. doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hft083

85. Enjuanes C, Klip IjT, Bruguera J, et al. Iron deficiency and health-related quality of life in chronic heart failure: Results from a multicenter European study. Int J Cardiol. 2014;174(2):268-275. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.03.169

86. Klip IjT, Comin-Colet J, Voors AA, et al. Iron deficiency in chronic heart failure: An international pooled analysis. Am Heart J. 2013;165(4):575-582.e3. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2013.01.017

87. Ponikowski P, van Veldhuisen DJ, Comin-Colet J, et al. Beneficial effects of long-term intravenous iron therapy with ferric carboxymaltose in patients with symptomatic heart failure and iron deficiency. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(11):657-668. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu385

88. Anker SD, Comin Colet J, Filippatos G, et al. Ferric Carboxymaltose in Patients with Heart Failure and Iron Deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(25):2436-2448. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0908355

89. Ponikowski P, Kirwan B-A, Anker SD, et al. Ferric carboxymaltose for iron deficiency at discharge after acute heart failure: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10266):1895-1904. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32339-4

90. Lewis GD, Malhotra R, Hernandez AF, et al. Effect of Oral Iron Repletion on Exercise Capacity in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Iron Deficiency. JAMA. 2017;317(19):1958. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.5427

91. Maisel WH, Stevenson LW. Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and rationale for therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2003;91(6):2-8. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(02)03373-8

92. Mamas MA, Caldwell JC, Chacko S, Garratt CJ, Fath-Ordoubadi F, Neyses L. A meta-analysis of the prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11(7):676-683. doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfp085

93. Agarwal M, Apostolakis S, Lane DA, Lip GYH. The Impact of Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Predicting Stroke, Thromboembolism, and Mortality in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Systematic Review. Clin Ther. 2014;36(9):1135-1144. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.07.015

94. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. August 2020. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612

95. Cadrin-Tourigny J, Shohoudi A, Roy D, et al. Decreased Mortality With Beta-Blockers in Patients With Heart Failure and Coexisting Atrial Fibrillation. JACC Hear Fail. 2017;5(2):99-106. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2016.10.015

96. Marrouche NF, Brachmann J, Andresen D, et al. Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(5):417-427. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1707855

97. MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in-Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999;353(9169):2001-2007. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04440-2

98. Al-Khatib SM, Stevenson WG, Ackerman MJ, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(14):e91-e220. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.054

99. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Improved Survival with an Implanted Defibrillator in Patients with Coronary Disease at High Risk for Ventricular Arrhythmia. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(26):1933-1940. doi:10.1056/NEJM199612263352601

100. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, et al. Prophylactic Implantation of a Defibrillator in Patients with Myocardial Infarction and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(12):877-883. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa013474

101. Al-Khatib SM, Fonarow GC, Joglar JA, et al. Primary Prevention Implant-able Cardioverter Defibrillators in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(6):685. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.0630

102. Køber L, Thune JJ, Nielsen JC, et al. Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with Nonischemic Systolic Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(13):1221-1230. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1608029

103. Khan NK, Goode KM, Cleland JGF, et al. Prevalence of ECG abnormalities in an international survey of patients with suspected or confirmed heart failure at death or discharge. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9(5):491-501. doi:10.1016/j.ejheart.2006.11.003

104. Cleland JGF, Daubert J-C, Erdmann E, et al. The Effect of Cardiac Resynchronization on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(15):1539-1549. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa050496

105. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, et al. Cardiac-Resynchronization Therapy with or without an Implantable Defibrillator in Advanced Chronic Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(21):2140-2150. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa032423

106. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Cardiac-Resynchronization Therapy for the Prevention of Heart-Failure Events. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1329-1338. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0906431

107. Borggrefe MM, Lawo T, Butter C, et al. Randomized, double blind study of non-excitatory, cardiac contractility modulation electrical impulses for symptomatic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(8):1019-1028. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn020

108. Neelagaru SB, Sanchez JE, Lau SK, et al. Nonexcitatory, cardiac contractility modulation electrical impulses: Feasibility study for advanced heart failure in patients with normal QRS duration. Hear Rhythm. 2006;3(10):1140-1147. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.06.031

109. Kadish A, Nademanee K, Volosin K, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation in advanced heart failure. Am Heart J. 2011;161(2):329-337.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2010.10.025

110. Abraham WT, Nademanee K, Volosin K, et al. Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Cardiac Contractility Modulation in Advanced Heart Failure. J Card Fail. 2011;17(9):710-717. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2011.05.006

111. Abraham WT, Kuck K-H, Goldsmith RL, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Cardiac Contractility Modulation. JACC Hear Fail. 2018;6(10):874-883. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2018.04.010

112. Grigioni F, Enriquez-Sarano M, Zehr KJ, Bailey KR, Tajik AJ. Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation. Circulation. 2001;103(13):1759-1764. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.103.13.1759

113. Goliasch G, Bartko PE, Pavo N, et al. Refining the prognostic impact of functional mitral regurgitation in chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(1):39-46. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx402

114. Mirabel M, Iung B, Baron G, et al. What are the characteristics of patients with severe, symptomatic, mitral regurgitation who are denied surgery? Eur Heart J. 2007;28(11):1358-1365. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm001

115. Obadia J-F, Messika-Zeitoun D, Leurent G, et al. Percutaneous Repair or Medical Treatment for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(24):2297-2306. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1805374

116. Stone GW, Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT, et al. Transcatheter Mitral-Valve Repair in Patients with Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(24):2307-2318. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1806640

117. Pibarot P, Delgado V, Bax JJ. MITRA-FR vs. COAPT: lessons from two trials with diametrically opposed results. Eur Hear J-Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20(6):620-624. doi:10.1093/ehjci/jez073

118. Grayburn PA, Sannino A, Packer M. Proportionate and Disproportionate Functional Mitral Regurgitation: A New Conceptual Framework That Reconciles the Results of the MITRA-FR and COAPT Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(2):353-362. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.11.006

119. Hagendorff A, Knebel F, Helfen A, Stobe S, Doenst T, Falk V. Disproportionate mitral regurgitation: another myth? A critical appraisal of echocardiographic assessment of functional mitral regurgitation. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. August 2020. doi:10.1007/s10554-020-01975-6

120. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. December 2020. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000923

121. Angermann CE, Assmus B, Anker SD, et al. Pulmonary artery pressure D guided therapy in ambulatory patients with symptomatic heart failure: the Cardio MEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMSDHF). Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22(10):1891-1901. doi:10.1002/ejhf.1943

122. Shavelle DM, Desai AS, Abraham WT, et al. Lower Rates of Heart Failure and All-Cause Hospitalizations During Pulmonary Artery Pressure-Guided Therapy for Ambulatory Heart Failure. Circ Hear Fail. 2020;13(8). doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006863

123. Givertz MM, Stevenson LW, Costanzo MR, et al. Pulmonary Artery Pressure-Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(15):1875-1886. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.010

124. Dhruva SS, Krumholz HM. Championing Effectiveness Before Cost-Effectiveness D. JACC Hear Fail. 2016;4(5):376-379. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2016.02.001

125. Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Long-Term Use of a Left Ventricular Assist Device for End-Stage Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(20):1435-1443. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa012175

126. Aaronson KD, Slaughter MS, Miller LW, et al. Use of an Intrapericardial, Continuous-Flow, Centrifugal Pump in Patients Awaiting Heart Transplantation. Circulation. 2012;125(25):3191-3200. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.058412

127. Rogers JG, Pagani FD, Tatooles AJ, et al. Intrapericardial Left Ventricular Assist Device for Advanced Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(5):451-460. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1602954

128. Mehra MR, Uriel N, Naka Y, et al. A Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device - Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(17):1618-1627. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1900486

129. Potapov EV, Antonides C, Crespo-Leiro MG, et al. 2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2019;56(2):230-270. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezz098

130. Docherty KF, Campbell RT, Jhund PS, Petrie MC, McMurray JJV. How robust are clinical trials in heart failure? Eur Heart J. October 2016:ehw427. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw427

131. Greene SJ, Butler J, Fonarow G. Simultaneous or Rapid Sequence Initiation of Quadruple Medical Therapy for Heart Failure- Optimizing Therapy With the Need for Speed. JAMA Cardiol 2021 Mar 31. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.0496

132. Mehra MR, Canter CE, Hannan MM, et al. The 2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation listing criteria for heart transplantation: A 10-year update. J Hear Lung Transplant. 2016;35(1):1-23. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2015.10.023

Author notes

^*Correspondencia: Dr. Juan Manuel Senior-Sánchez. Medellín (Colombia). E-Mail: juan.senior64@gmail.com

IR