Podcasts about gdmt

CardioNerds (Dr. Jenna Skowronski [Heart Failure Council Chair], Dr. Shazli Khan, and Dr. Josh Longinow) are joined by renowned leaders in the field of AHFTC (Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology) and mechanical circulatory support, Dr. Jeff Teuteberg and Dr. Mani Daneshmand to continue the discussion of advanced heart failure therapies by taking a deep dive into the world of durable LVADs (Left Ventricular Assist Devices). In this episode, we will review the history of ventricular assist devices, the basics of LVAD function, selection criteria for LVAD therapy, and surgical nuances of LVAD implantation. Audio Editing by CardioNerds intern, Joshua Khorsandi. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. CardioNerds Heart Success Series PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls There have been significant advances in the field of MCS/LVAD therapy since the first implanted LVAD in the 1960s, to the first FDA approved device in the early 2000's, to now the HM3 LVAD, with the most important change being a centrifugal flow/magnetically levitated design that led to minimized hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAE's) (MOMENTUM 3 trial comparing HM2 and HM3).  The REMATCH trial in 2001 was a pivotal trial for LVAD therapy, demonstrating that in a population of patients with advanced HF (70% IV inotrope dependent), LVAD therapy significantly improved survival at both 1 and 2 years as compared to medical therapy alone.    MOMENTUM 3 trial was a landmark trial for the HM3 device, showing that in a population of end stage HF patients (86% inotrope dependent, 32% INTERMACS 1-2, and 60% DT strategy), 5-year survival with HM3 was 58% and HM3 had lower HRAE's compared with HM2.  There are both patient-specific factors and surgical considerations when it comes to candidacy for LVAD therapy.  RV function prior to LVAD is a key determinant for success post-LVAD  Many patients being considered for LVAD may not have robust RV function, however, predicting RV failure after LVAD is exceedingly difficult.   In general, it doesn’t matter how bad the RV may look on imaging; we care more about the pre-LVAD hemodynamics (look at the PAPi and RA/wedge ratio).   What happens in the OR may be the most important determinant of how the RV will do with the LVAD!  Notes Notes drafted by Dr. Josh Longinow.  1. Historical background of heart pumps and LVADs  LVAD Evolution   FDA approval year  2001  2008  2012  2017  Pump  HeartMate XVE   HeartMate II  Heartware HVAD  HeartMate III  Flow/Design Features  Pulsatile Technology   Continuous flow Axial design  Continuous flow  Centrifugal design  Continuous flow   Full MagLev + Centrifugal design  The 1960's ushered in the first ‘LVADs', when the first air-powered ‘LVAD' was implanted. It kept the patient alive for four days before the patient expired.   The first generation of LVADs were pulsatile pumps   The first nationally recognized, FDA approved LVAD was the HeartMate XVE (late 1990s to early 2000s, REMATCH trial). The XVE pump used compressed air (pneumatically driven) to power the pump.   Prior to the XVE, OHT was the standard of care for patients with advanced, end-stage heart failure.   The second and third generations of LVADs were non-pulsatile, continuous flow devices and included the HVAD, HM2, and HM3 devices.   MOMENTUM 3 was a landmark trial for the HM3 device, showing that in a population of sick patients with end stage HF (86% inotrope dependent, 32% INTERMACS 1-2, and 60% DT strategy), 5-year survival with HM3 was 58% and HM3 had lower HRAE's compared with HM2.   The only pump that is currently FDA approved for implant is the HM3, although other pumps are in clinical trials (BrioVAD system, INNOVATE Trial).  2. What are LVADs, and how do they work?   In simplest terms, the LVAD is a heart pump comprised of several key mechanistic components:   Inflow cannula  Mechanical pump   Outflow cannula  Driveline  Controller/Power source  The HM3 differs from its predecessors (HM2 and HVAD) in several key ways;   HM3 is placed intrapericardial whereas the HM2 was placed pre-peritoneal.   Perhaps most importantly, the HM3 is a fully magnetically levitated, centrifugal flow pump, whereas the HM2 is an axial flow device.  Axial flow pumps are not magnetically levitated, leading to more friction produced between the ruby bearing's contact with the pump rotors, and higher rates of hemocompatibility related adverse events (HRAEs, i.e. pump thrombosis) and the HM2 was ultimately discontinued in favor of the HM3 (MOMENTUM 3 trial).  3. What do the terms ‘Destination Therapy' (DT) or ‘Bridge to Transplant' (BTT) mean when it comes to LVADs?   When LVADs first came on the stage, EVERYONE was a BTT; these early pumps weren't designed for long term use (I.e. REMATCH Trial, Heartmate XVE)  Destination therapy means the LVAD was placed in leu of transplant because there are contraindications to transplant   REMATCH trial brought about the concept of “Destination therapy”, comparing outcomes in patients (with contraindications for transplant) who received an LVAD vs optimal medical therapy  Bridge to transplant means we are placing the LVAD in a patient who may not be a transplant candidate at this moment in time (is too sick, or conversely, not sick enough), but may be down the line   Bridge to recovery is another term used when the LVAD is being placed for a patient we think may have a recoverable cardiomyopathy  4. What are some factors we should consider when assessing a patient’s candidacy for LVAD, in general, and from a surgical perspective?   Patient factors   Older age might push us towards thinking LVAD rather than transplant  In general, age > 70 is the cutoff for transplant, but this is not a hard cut off and varies institution to institution    In general, think about things that help predict recovery after a major surgery; Frailty and Nutritional status are important, we try to optimize these prior to LVAD implant   Right ventricular function remains the Achilles heel of LV support  We know that needing temporary RV support post LVAD puts you on a different survival curve than patients who don’t need RVAD support  Studies have not been able to successfully predict who will develop RV failure after LVAD implantation  What happens in the time between when the patient goes to the OR and when they get back to the ICU is an important determinant who might develop RV failure post LVAD   Surgical techniques such as implanting the HM3 in the intra-thoracic cavity, rather than intra-pericardial may help maintain LV/RV geometry to help optimize the RV post LVAD   Surgical considerations for LVAD candidacy  Small, hypertrophied LV: HM3 inflow cannula is small, but small hypertrophied ventricles tend towards chamber collapse during systole causing suction, needing to run slower with lower flow rates  Chest size/diameter: pumps have gotten so small now, that for adults, these have become less of a consideration  BMI: low BMI used to be more of a concern with the older pumps due to where they were placed, and the relative size of the pump itself, not so much now with the smaller HM 3 pumps  Calcified LV apex: would increase risk of stroke, bleeding   Driveline tunneling becomes a concern in the super obese population, higher risk for driveline infections (might tunnel these driveline's shorter, and to a less fatty region of the abdomen, could even tunnel out the thoracic cavity in the super obese to limit skin motion)    5. Is there a role for MCS (i.e. temporary LVAD such as Impella) in pre-habilitation of patients prior to LVAD surgery?   The theory of being able to improve systemic perfusion, decongest the organs, and make the patient feel better prior to surgery makes sense, but becomes problematic due to the lack of a hard end point/time for prehabilitation which might risk delays in surgery   More likely that it can lead to delay in the surgery, with less-than-optimal benefit; you don't want to prolong the wait for surgery and increase the risk for complications prior to surgery    An Impella 5.5 is currently FDA approved for 2 weeks of support, not 2 months so timing is important to keep in mind  It’s unlikely that you will take a patient and convert them from a malnourished, cachectic person in 2 weeks’ time   6. Is there a role for LVAD therapy in the younger patient population? Should we be thinking of LVAD up front for these patients, with the goal of transplanting down the line?   Recovery may be more likely in certain populations, particularly younger females with smaller LV's; in those populations, perhaps bridge to recovery should be the focus, optimizing them on GDMT etc.   The replacement of transplant, with MCS (LVAD) in young patients has become a topic of discussion, because these pumps have become better and better, with the thinking that an LVAD could bridge a patient for 10 years or so, and they could get a transplant later   It is still a big unknown, but several concerns exist  Patients who get LVADs might end up with complications that become contraindication to transplant down the line (stroke, sensitization etc)   Patients and providers are more hesitant because of the more recent iteration for the UNOS criteria for OHT listing which no longer gives patients with an uncomplicated LVAD higher priority, and therefore they could end up waiting a longer time for a heart after undergoing LVAD  References 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  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  Mancini D, Colombo PC. Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Rapidly Evolving Alternative to Transplant. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(23):2542-2555. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.039  Mehra MR, Goldstein DJ, Cleveland JC, et al. Five-Year Outcomes in Patients With Fully Magnetically Levitated vs Axial-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices in the MOMENTUM 3 Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2022;328(12):1233-1242. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.16197  Rose EA, Moskowitz AJ, Packer M, et al. The REMATCH trial: rationale, design, and end points. Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67(3):723-730. doi:10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00042-9  Kittleson MM, Shah P, Lala A, et al. INTERMACS profiles and outcomes of ambulatory advanced heart failure patients: A report from the REVIVAL Registry. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020;39(1):16-26. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2019.08.017  Mehra MR, Netuka I, Uriel N, et al. Aspirin and Hemocompatibility Events With a Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Heart Failure: The ARIES-HM3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2023;330(22):2171-2181. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.23204  Mehra MR, Nayak A, Morris AA, et al. Prediction of Survival After Implantation of a Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device. JACC Heart Fail. 2022;10(12):948-959. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2022.08.002  Bhardwaj A, Salas de Armas IA, Bergeron A, et al. Prehabilitation Maximizing Functional Mobility in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Supported on Axillary Impella. ASAIO J. 2024;70(8):661-666. doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000002170 

I know 2026 feels like it ihas been here for months, but only a few weeks ago we were celebrating the nephrology accomplishments of 2025. The New Filtrate came together to review the year.The FiltrateJoel Topf‍ ‍@kidneyboy.bsky.social‬ (COI)Swapnil Hiremath @hswapnil.medsky.social and on LinkedIn Editor in Chief of Kidney International Case ReportsAnna Gaddy (@AnnaGaddy) Winner of NephJC Rookie of the Year 2020Nayan Arora (@CaptainChloride.bsky.social)AC (@medpeedskidneys.bsky.social)Vipin Verghese (@vipvargh.bsky.social) co-winner of NephJC Engaged Scientist of the Year in 2021Brian Rifkin (@brianrifkin.bsky.social) Co-Editor in Chief NephJC. Winner of NephJC Rookie of the Year 2021Cristina Popa (@NephroSeeker) Co-Editor in Chief NephJC. Wwinner of NephJC Rookie of the Year 2022 and MVP 2023Editing and Show Notes byAnna Gaddy and Joel TopfThe Kidney Connection written and performed by Tim YauShow NotesTop Stories in Nephrology 2025 (NephJC)First Top sories in Nephrology 2010! (Renal Fellow Network)Links to all of the Top Stories in Nephrology, hosted on NephJC since 2017 (NephJC)1. IgA NephropathyVISIONARY: Sibeprenlimab in IgA Nephropathy — Interim Analysis of a Phase 3 Trial (NEJM)ORIGIN 3: A Phase 3 Trial of Atacicept in Patients with IgA Nephropathy (NEJM)APPLAUSE-IgA Alternative Complement Pathway Inhibition with Iptacopan in IgA Nephropathy (NEJM)Aliza M. Thompson, MD, MS (ASN) 2. Lupus NephritisREGENCY: Efficacy and Safety of Obinutuzumab in Active Lupus Nephritis (NEJM)3. Nobel prize winner and peripheral immune tolerance4. Xenotransplantation5. GLP1ra RevolutionRemodel REMODELing mechanistic trials for kidney disease: a multimodal, tissue-centered approach to understand the renal mechanism of action of semaglutide (Kidney International)SURPASS-CVOT Tirzepatide vs. Dulaglutide Is Associated with Reduced Major Kidney Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes, CVD, and Very High-Risk Kidney Diseases (Kidney Week abstract in JASN)Poll: 1 in 8 Adults Say They Are Currently Taking a GLP-1 Drug for Weight Loss, Diabetes or Another Condition, Even as Half Say the Drugs Are Difficult to Afford (KFF survey)6. GDMT implementation in CKD: lessons learnt from CONFIDENCE and MIRO-CKDConfidence Finerenone with Empagliflozin in Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes (NEJM)MIRO-CKD Balcinrenone in combination with dapagliflozin compared with dapagliflozin alone in patients with chronic kidney disease and albuminuria: a randomised, active-controlled double-blind, phase 2b clinical trial (The Lancet)7. Flozin Meta analysisSMART-C. SGLT2 Inhibitors and Kidney Outcomes by Glomerular Filtration Rate and Albuminuria. A Meta-Analysis (JAMA)SMART-C. Effects of Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors by Diabetes Status and Level of Albuminuria. A Meta-Analysis (JAMA)8. Paradigm Shift: Aiming for CKD Remission9. Fish Oil and DialysisPISCES Fish-Oil Supplementation and Cardiovascular Events in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis (NEJM)10. Decline in Dialysis Patients in the United StatesUSRD 2025 Annual Data Report (USRDS)Tubular SecretionSwapnil Hiremath Alien Earth on FX Hulu (Wikipedia)AC A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (Wikipedia) and The Muppet Christmas Carol (Wikipedia)Anna Monty Don (Wikipedia)Nayan Back Street Boys at The Sphere (Wikipedia)Brian Marty Supreme (Wikipedia)Cristina The Yellow Tie (Wikipedia)Vipin Stranger Things, good for a four year old? (Wikipedia)Joel Crash Course: The Universe with Katie Mack and John Green (Apple PodCasts)

Darshan H. Brahmbhatt, Podcast Editor of JACC: Advances, discusses a recently published original research paper on The Association Between Office, Video, and Telemanagement Encounters and GDMT Optimization in Advanced HFrEF.

Witam Państwa, nazywam się Jarosław Drożdż, pracuję w Centralnym Szpitalu Klinicznym Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi, skąd nagrywam podcast Kardio Know-How. W tym odcinku omawiam pojęcie SMuRFs-less. Coraz więcej pojawia się skrótów opisujących szczególne fenotypy choroby niedokrwiennej serca, począwszy od MINOCA i INOCA, a także ANOCA, które omawiałem szerzej w odcinku 117 z 12 maja 2023 roku: https://open.spotify.com/episode/37HPbmamx5qiDVN8fUdhth?si=881fb4ec4a9143cb. Niedługo potem, 24 maja 2023 roku, w podcaście Heart ukazała się rozmowa na ten temat, choć bez użycia terminu ANOCA, lecz z rzetelnym omówieniem MINOCA i INOCA: https://open.spotify.com/episode/57BS26FP3UGH0vnb18xasn?si=4e763c576cde47bf. Dziś jednak do słownika dołącza kolejny ważny skrót – SMuRFs-less – określający pacjentów z zawałem serca i ze zwężeniami tętnic wieńcowych, ale pozbawionych klasycznych, modyfikowalnych czynników ryzyka, co opisano po raz pierwszy w JACC we 09/2023: https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.06.045. Rok później ukazała się analiza NMR pacjentów po zawale, w której po raz pierwszy pojawiło się samo pojęcie SMuRFs-less: https://www.ejinme.com/article/S0953-6205(23)00297-2/fulltext. Ogromny rezonans wywołał także znakomity tekst Paula Ridkera „SMuRF-less but inflamed”, opublikowany podczas Kongresu ESC, który jednoznacznie łączy zawał bez czynników ryzyka ze stanem zapalnym i podkreśla znaczenie hsCRP: https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf658/8242429?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Problem SMuRFs-less okazał się klinicznie doniosły – obejmuje ok. 11% wszystkich pacjentów z OZW i ponad 20% chorych ze STEMI, co w Polsce w 2024 roku przełożyło się na ok. 11 tysięcy takich przypadków, zgodnie z danymi z naszej publikacji w Polish Heart Journal: https://journals.viamedica.pl/polish_heart_journal/article/view/108435. Pacjenci ci mają wyższe ryzyko wczesnej śmiertelności, częściej doświadczają zatrzymania krążenia, wstrząsu kardiogennego i powikłań okołozabiegowych, a jednocześnie częściej brakuje u nich tradycyjnych czynników ryzyka, za to częściej występują te nietradycyjne, jak choroby zapalne, obciążenia rodzinne czy zaburzenia psychiczne. Leczenie tych chorych okazuje się mniej zgodne z zaleceniami – rzadziej otrzymują statyny, ACE-I, β-blokery czy leki przeciwpłytkowe – dlatego poprawa rokowania zaczyna się od poprawy terapii, w tym intensyfikacji statyn i zwiększenia stosowania pełnego GDMT. Kluczową rolę w ocenie ryzyka odgrywają trzy markery: LDL-C, hsCRP i LP(a), z których każdy niezależnie przewiduje ryzyko zawału, choć aktualne skale ryzyka uwzględniają jedynie LDL-C, dlatego konieczne jest ich uzupełnienie o hsCRP>3 i LP(a)>30. Wreszcie, coraz większego znaczenia nabiera koncepcja zapalna zawału serca, obejmująca zarówno intensywną kontrolę stanu zapalnego – od leczenia infekcji i dbałości o styl życia, po potencjalne terapie przeciwzapalne w rodzaju kolchicyny czy IL-1β-inhibitorów – jak i pełną modyfikację skal ryzyka, bo pacjent SMuRFs-less, pozbawiony tradycyjnych czynników, ma w pierwszym roku prawie dwukrotnie wyższe ryzyko zgonu niż ten klasyczny, palący tytoń czy z hiperlipidemią. Szczegółowy TRANSKRYPT do odcinka.Podcast jest przeznaczony wyłącznie dla osób z profesjonalnym wykształceniem medycznym.

New Lancet Seminar on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.  

CME credits: 0.50 Valid until: 14-11-2026 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/the-fifth-pillar-closing-the-gap-in-hfref/37615/ For patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), optimizing therapy is an important part of treatment and care. But not all patients may be reaching their treatment goals and can continue to face substantial residual risk despite the use of quadruple pharmacologic guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and medical devices. A soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulator that targets a previously unaddressed pathway in HFrEF and complements other GDMT may provide an incremental benefit to patients to positively impact outcomes. =

Welcome back to Don't Miss a Beat! In this episode of Don't Miss a Beat, cohosts Steven Green, MD, and Muthu Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, sit down with Ambarish Pandey, MD, from UT Southwestern, to discuss the landmark POLY-HF trial, presented at the 2025 American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in New Orleans. The discussion centers on the novel concept of a “polypill” approach for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), aiming to simplify guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and improve adherence while maintaining safety and efficacy. Key Timestamps 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:45 Polypills in cardiovascular medicine 00:02:32 Structuring the POLY-HF trial 00:05:00 Mechanics of POLY-HF 00:07:43 The patient population in POLY-HF 00:09:47 Dosing other medications in POLY-HF 00:11:54 Results of POLY-HF 00:14:57 Reaching endpoints in POLY-HF 00:18:52 Safety in POLY-HF 00:22:09 Upcoming studies 00:23:54 Outro 

CardioNerds kicks off its advanced therapies series with Chair of the CardioNerds Heart Failure Council, Dr. Jenna Skowronski, co-chair of the series, Dr. Shazli Khan, and Episode FIT lead, Dr. Jason Feinman. In this first episode, they discuss the process of advanced therapies evaluation with Dr. Michelle Kittleson, Professor of Medicine and Director of Education in Heart Failure and Transplantation at Cedars-Sinai. In this case-based discussion, they cover the signs and symptoms of end-stage heart failure, the initial management strategies, and the diagnostic workup required when considering advanced therapies. Importantly, they discuss the special considerations for pursuing left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) versus heart transplantation as well as the multidisciplinary, team-based approach needed when advanced therapies are indicated.  Notes were drafted by Dr. Shazli Khan.  Audio editing for this episode was performed by CardioNerds Intern, Julia Marques Fernandes. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. CardioNerds Heart Success Series PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is indicated in all heart failure patients and improves survival, but progressive symptoms and intolerance to GDMT can be warning signs of disease progression. The I-NEED-HELP mnemonic is an excellent reference when considering referral for advanced therapies (Figure).   Management of acute decompensation includes diuretics and possible inotropic support. The inotropic agent used should be whichever best suits your specific patient. Milrinone may result in more hypotension, whereas dobutamine may result in more tachycardia. Tachycardic and normotensive patients may do better with milrinone, while hypotensive patients with normal heart rates may do better with dobutamine. Notably, DoReMi found no difference between milrinone and dobutamine for patients with cardiogenic shock.  The initial diagnostic evaluation includes an echocardiogram, right heart catheterization (RHC), and often cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to objectively assess the status of the heart. Comprehensive labs, imaging and cancer screening are also needed to assess all other organs.   When making the decision to pursue advanced therapies, always ask:   Is the heart sick enough?   Is the rest of the body well enough?   These two questions provide a framework to guide if patients are optimal candidates for transplant versus LVAD.   The advanced therapies evaluation is a team sport! Patients will meet not only with advanced heart failure cardiologists, but also cardiac surgeons, psychiatrists, social workers, nutritionists and pharmacists. All team members are of critical value in the process.   Notes 1.) What are the key features of advanced cardiomyopathy, and when should providers consider referral for advanced therapies?   Advanced cardiomyopathy may present as recurrent hospitalizations for decompensated heart failure, intolerance to GDMT with symptomatic orthostasis and hypotension, and progressive symptoms of heart failure despite medical therapy.   The I-NEED-HELP mnemonic is a helpful tool to identify patients at risk of heart failure and is defined as follows: Need for Inotropic support, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class IV symptoms, End-Organ Dysfunction, Ejection fraction

Witam Państwa, nazywam się Jarosław Drożdż, pracuję w Centralnym Szpitalu Klinicznym Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi, skąd nagrywam podcast Kardio Know-How. W tym odcinku rozpoczynam omawianie doniesień z tegorocznego kongresu TCT. Witam Państwa, nazywam się Jarosław Drożdż, pracuję w Centralnym Szpitalu Klinicznym Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Łodzi i prowadzę podcast Kardio-Know-How, część portalu edukacyjnego o tej samej nazwie. Niedomykalność mitralna dzieli się na pierwotną (degeneracyjną) i wtórną (czynnościową) — rozróżnienie to ma kluczowe znaczenie dla leczenia. Podstawą diagnostyki są badanie kliniczne, echokardiografia i ocena frakcji wyrzutowej lewej komory. W leczeniu wtórnej niedomykalności fundamentem jest terapia zgodna z wytycznymi (GDMT) dla niewydolności serca, obejmująca m.in. ARNI, MRA, flozyny i beta-blokery. W pierwotnej postaci leki łagodzą objawy, ale nie modyfikują przebiegu choroby. Terapia resynchronizująca (CRT) i leczenie migotania przedsionków mogą dodatkowo poprawić wyniki. W ciężkiej pierwotnej niedomykalności preferowana jest naprawa zastawki, a u pacjentów wysokiego ryzyka — przezcewnikowa naprawa (TEER, np. MitraClip). W przypadku zwapnienia pierścienia (MAC) coraz częściej rozważa się przezcewnikową wymianę zastawki, choć to technicznie trudne. Badanie SUMMIT-MAC testowało system Tendyne u pacjentów z ciężkim MAC — opisano go w Cardiology Journal (https://journals.viamedica.pl/cardiology_journal/article/view/99752) i JACC (https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.10.025). Wyniki wskazują na 94% skuteczności zabiegu, poprawę klasy NYHA i jakości życia przy 80% przeżyciu rocznym. To duży krok naprzód, ale metoda wciąż dla nielicznych — potrzebne są dalsze badania i porównania z klasyczną chirurgią. Szczegółowy TRANSKRYPT do odcinka.Podcast jest przeznaczony wyłącznie dla osób z profesjonalnym wykształceniem medycznym.

In this episode of Parallax, Dr Ankur Kalra speaks with Dr Benjamin A D'Souza, Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Section Chief of Cardiac Electrophysiology at Presbyterian Medical Center. Together, they explore the challenges of mitigating sudden cardiac death and the evolving role of guideline-directed medical therapy in optimising patient outcomes. Dr D'Souza reflects on current strategies for risk assessment and prevention, highlighting the importance of medical therapy, careful monitoring and timely use of defibrillators. He stresses that management must be tailored to individual patients, with decisions guided by evidence, imaging and multidisciplinary collaboration. The conversation also turns to women's cardiac health and representation in electrophysiology. Dr D'Souza highlights the persistent under-enrolment of women in clinical trials and their lower access to ablation and device therapy. He stresses the need for inclusive trial design, mentorship and acknowledgement of systemic bias to improve equity in cardiovascular care. This series is supported by ZOLL and is intended for Health Care Professionals.

Chris bell interviews Michael Arnold DNP, FHRS, about what is new in CCM therapy and when GDMT is not enough.

Heart failure remains one of the most urgent challenges in health care, affecting millions of individuals and imposing a significant burden on families and the broader health system. Although guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes and reduce hospitalizations, adoption of these therapies remains suboptimal nationwide. Addressing this treatment gap is essential not only for enhancing survival and quality of life but also for mitigating the rising economic impact of heart failure as its prevalence continues to increase. Gluckman also led the session “Addressing Underuse of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Heart Failure” at the July 9 Institute for Value-Based Medicine® (IVBM) event in Garden Grove, CA, where he addressed the need for integrated approaches to drive sustainable, system-level change in cardiovascular care. On this episode of Managed Care Cast, Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, FACC, FAHA, FASPC—a practicing cardiologist at Providence Heart Institute in Portland, Oregon, and medical director of Providence's Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Research, and Data Science—discusses strategies to improve GDMT implementation. The conversation explores opportunities for payers and providers, the potential of remote patient monitoring and digital health tools, and the role of value-based care models in supporting optimal therapy. Emphasis is placed on the importance of aligning clinical guidelines with managed care policies to drive meaningful improvements in patient outcomes.

In this JACC Deep Dive, Editor-in-Chief Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, discusses a large real-world study by Min et al. examining heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) in over 24,000 patients. The study found that while EF improvement is common (30%), true remission is rare and relapse occurs in about 25% of cases—highlighting the need for continued guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) even after apparent recovery. Listen to the podcast, find out what reviewers and editors liked about the paper, and get more insight into our dedicated focus issue on heart failure.

The BedMed trial of nighttime BP meds, SURMOUNT-5, Troponin URL, gene tests in patients with no disease, and guideline-directed medical therapy for HF are the topics John Mandrola, MD, discusses in this week's podcast. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. To read a partial transcript or to comment, visit: https://www.medscape.com/twic I Timing of BP Meds – The BedMed RCT MAPEC https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2010.510230 Hygia https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz754 Turgeon et al https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.16501 TIME trial https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01786-X BedMed https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2833860 Time Antihypertensives Taken Doesn't Matter: New Trials https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/time-antihypertensives-taken-doesnt-matter-new-trials-2024a1000g3z Timing of BP Dosing Doesn't Matter: BedMed and BedMed-Frail https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/timing-blood-pressure-dosing-doesnt-matter-again-bedmed-and-2024a1000fz2 Timing of Blood Pressure Meds Doesn't Affect Outcomes: BedMed in Print https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/timing-blood-pressure-meds-doesnt-affect-outcomes-bedmed-2025a1000cdm II Tirzepatide vs Semaglutide SURMOUNT 5 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2416394 III Age-specific Troponins Coyle and McEvoy https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf308 Mandrola/Foy JAMA-IM https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2777967 IV Return to Play for Gene Positive Phenotype Negative athletes Martinez et al https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2025.03.013 V Rapid Titration of GDMT in HF STRONG HF: More Beats Less After Discharge for Heart Failure https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/983698 JACC-HF Substudy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2025.02.020 STRONG HF https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02076-1 AVID https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa013474 EAST https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa013474 You may also like: The Bob Harrington Show with the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine, Robert A. Harrington, MD. https://www.medscape.com/author/bob-harrington Questions or feedback, please contact news@medscape.net

In this episode, Dr. Valentin Fuster discusses a study from the ISCHEMIA trial, showing that achieving multiple guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) goals—especially blood pressure control—reduces cardiovascular events in chronic coronary artery disease patients. The study highlights the importance of early goal attainment and adherence, with the POLYPILL offering a potential solution to improve patient compliance.

With Henrique Arfsten, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna - Austria and Alexandre Mebazza, Hospital Lariboisiere, Paris - France.  In this episode of HFA CardioTalk, Henrike Arfsten and  Alexandre Mebazaa discuss the importance of rapid initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical heart failure therapy. A focus will be on data from the STRONG-HF trial, which demonstrated safety and efficacy of rapid up-titration following an acute heart failure event. The trial was even stopped early as the benefits of the intensive treatment strategy were overwhelming. Moreover, specific questions are raised, such as the right time to start therapy and how to deal with possible side effects. Mebazaa A, et al. Lancet 2022 Dec 3;400(10367):1938-52 Biegus J, et al. Heart Fail Rev 2024 Sep;29(5):1065-1077 McDonagh TA, et al. Eur J Heart Fail 2022 Jan;24(1):4-131 McDonagh TA, et al. Eur J Heart Fail 2024 Jan;26(1):5-17 This 2025 HFA Cardio Talk podcast series is supported by Bayer AG in the form of an unrestricted financial support. The discussion has not been influenced in any way by its sponsor.

For more information regarding this CME/CE activity and to complete the CME/CE requirements and claim credit for this activity, visit:https://www.mycme.com/courses/managing-the-burden-of-hyperkalemia-9952SummaryIn this concise CME/CE podcast, a cardiologist and a family physician discuss risks associated with hyperkalemia in patients being treated for heart failure or chronic kidney disease (CKD)—including the risks that accompany down-titration or discontinuation of RAASi therapy.Drs. Javed Butler and Neil Skolnik provide guidance on which patients are most at risk and review the use of potassium binders that can manage hyperkalemia without compromising the crucial use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). By the end of this podcast episode, listeners will feel much more confident in their ability to safely and effectively address hyperkalemia in patients with heart failure or CKD.Learning ObjectivesAt the conclusion of this activity, participants should be better able to:Describe the disparities and clinical implications of hyperkalemia in patients with HF and CKD in terms of optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and outcomesDiscuss the safety and effectiveness of potassium binders in reducing potassium and optimizing GDMT in patients with HF and CKDThis activity is accredited for CME/CE CreditThe National Association for Continuing Education is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The National Association for Continuing Education designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.The National Association for Continuing Education is accredited by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners as an approved provider of nurse practitioner continuing education. Provider number: 121222. This activity is approved for 0.25 contact hours (which includes 0 hours of pharmacology).For additional information about the accreditation of this program, please contact NACE at info@naceonline.com.Summary of Individual DisclosuresPlease review faculty and planner disclosures here.Disclosure of Commercial SupportThis educational activity is supported by an educational grant from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.Send us a text about this episode. Please visit http://naceonline.com to engage in more live and on demand CME/CE content.

For more information regarding this CME/CE activity and to complete the CME/CE requirements and claim credit for this activity, visit:https://www.mycme.com/courses/using-newer-agents-in-chronic-hyperkalemia-management-9953SummaryIn this concise CME/CE podcast, a cardiologist and primary care physician review hyperkalemia management options that safely allow continuing GDMT for patients with heart failure or CKD. Using case examples, the clinicians provide education on individualizing treatment and addressing disparities in care.Learning ObjectiveAt the conclusion of this activity, participants should be better able to:Identify practical aspects of using potassium binders for treating hyperkalemia and optimizing GDMT to achieve equitable care for patients with HF and CKDThis activity is accredited for CME/CE CreditThe National Association for Continuing Education is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The National Association for Continuing Education designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.The National Association for Continuing Education is accredited by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners as an approved provider of nurse practitioner continuing education. Provider number: 121222. This activity is approved for 0.25 contact hours (which includes 0.25 hours of pharmacology).For additional information about the accreditation of this program, please contact NACE at info@naceonline.com.Summary of Individual DisclosuresPlease review faculty and planner disclosures here.Disclosure of Commercial SupportThis educational activity is supported by an educational grant from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.Send us a text about this episode. Please visit http://naceonline.com to engage in more live and on demand CME/CE content.

The following question refers to Sections 7.4 and 7.5 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.The question is asked by the Director of the CardioNerds Internship Dr. Akiva Rosenzveig, answered first by Vanderbilt AHFT cardiology fellow Dr. Jenna Skowronski, and then by expert faculty Dr. Randall Starling.Dr. Starling is Professor of Medicine and an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic where he was formerly the Section Head of Heart Failure, Vice Chairman of Cardiovascular Medicine, and member of the Cleveland Clinic Board of Governors. Dr. Starling is also Past President of the Heart Failure Society of America in 2018-2019. Dr. Staring was among the earliest CardioNerds faculty guests and has since been a valuable source of mentorship and inspiration. Dr. Starling's sponsorship and support was instrumental in the origins of the CardioNerds Clinical Trials Program.The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance.Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2024As heard in this episode, the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2024 is coming up November 16-18 in Chicago, Illinois at McCormick Place Convention Center. Come a day early for Pre-Sessions Symposia, Early Career content, QCOR programming and the International Symposium on November 15. It's a special year you won't want to miss for the premier event for advancements in cardiovascular science and medicine as AHA celebrates its 100th birthday. Registration is now open, secure your spot here!When registering, use code NERDS and if you're among the first 20 to sign up, you'll receive a free 1-year AHA Professional Membership! Question #38 Mrs. M is a 65-year-old woman with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (LVEF 40%) and moderate to severe mitral regurgitation (MR) presenting for outpatient follow-up. Despite improvement overall, she continues to experience dyspnea on exertion with two flights of stairs and occasional PND. She reports adherence with her medication regimen of sacubitril-valsartan 97-103mg twice daily, metoprolol succinate 200mg daily, spironolactone 25mg daily, empagliflozin 10mg daily, and furosemide 80mg daily. A transthoracic echocardiogram today shows an LVEF of 35%, an LVESD of 60 mm, severe MR with a regurgitant fraction of 60%, and an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure of 40 mmHg. Her EKG shows normal sinus rhythm at 65 bpm and a QRS complex width of 100 ms. What is the most appropriate recommendation for management of her heart failure?AContinue maximally tolerated GDMT; no other changesBRefer for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)CRefer for transcatheter mitral valve intervention Answer #38 ExplanationChoice C is correct. The 2020 ACC/AHA Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease outline specific recommendations.In patients with chronic severe secondary MR related to LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF

The following question refers to Section 7.4 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.The question is asked by the Director of the CardioNerds Internship Dr. Akiva Rosenzveig, answered first by Vanderbilt AHFT cardiology fellow Dr. Jenna Skowronski, and then by expert faculty Dr. Clyde Yancy.Dr. Yancy is Professor of Medicine and Medical Social Sciences, Chief of Cardiology, and Vice Dean for Diversity and Inclusion at Northwestern University, and a member of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance.Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2024As heard in this episode, the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2024 is coming up November 16-18 in Chicago, Illinois at McCormick Place Convention Center. Come a day early for Pre-Sessions Symposia, Early Career content, QCOR programming and the International Symposium on November 15. It's a special year you won't want to miss for the premier event for advancements in cardiovascular science and medicine as AHA celebrates its 100th birthday. Registration is now open, secure your spot here!When registering, use code NERDS and if you're among the first 20 to sign up, you'll receive a free 1-year AHA Professional Membership! Question #37 Mr. S is an 80-year-old man with a history of hypertension, type II diabetes mellitus, and hypothyroidism who had an anterior myocardial infarction (MI) treated with a drug-eluting stent to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) 45 days ago. His course was complicated by a new LVEF reduction to 30%, and left bundle branch block (LBBB) with QRS duration of 152 ms in normal sinus rhythm. He reports he is feeling well and is able to enjoy gardening without symptoms, though he experiences dyspnea while walking to his bedroom on the second floor of his house. Repeat TTE shows persistent LVEF of 30% despite initiation of goal-directed medical therapy (GDMT). What is the best next step in his management?AMonitor for LVEF improvement for a total of 60 days prior to further interventionBImplantation of a dual-chamber ICDCImplantation of a CRT-DDContinue current management as device implantation is contraindicated given his advanced age Answer #37 Explanation Choice C is correct. Implantation of a CRT-D is the best next step. In patients with nonischemic DCM or ischemic heart disease at least 40 days post-MI with LVEF ≤35% and NYHA class II or III symptoms on chronic GDMT, who have reasonable expectation of meaningful survival for >1 year,ICD therapy is recommended for primary prevention of SCD to reduce total mortality (Class 1, LOE A). A transvenous ICD provides high economic value in this setting, particularly when a patient's risk of death from ventricular arrhythmia is deemed high and the risk of nonarrhythmic death is deemed low. In addition, for patients who have LVEF ≤35%, sinus rhythm, left bundle branch block (LBBB) with a QRS duration ≥150 ms, and NYHA class II, III, orambulatory IV symptoms on GDMT, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is indicated to reduce total mortality, reduce hospitalizations, and improve symptoms and QOL. Cardiac resynchronization provides high economic value in this setting. Mr.

When treating heart failure, how do we distinguish between the expanding list of medications recommended for “Guideline Directed Medical Therapy” (GDMT) and what might be considered runaway polypharmacy? In this week's podcast, we'll tackle this crucial question, thanks to a fantastic suggestion from GeriPal listener Matthew Shuster, who will join us as a guest host. We've also invited two amazing cardiologists, Parag Goyal and Nicole Superville, to join us about GDMT in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and in Heart Failure with preserved EF (HFpEF).  We talk about what is heart failure, particularly HFpEF, how we treat it (including the use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2's), and how we should apply guidelines to individual patients, especially those with multimorbidity who are taking a lot of other medications. I'd also like to give a shout out to a recent ACP article on HFpEF with an outstanding contribution from Ariela Orkaby, geriatrician extraordinaire (we also just did a podcast with her on frailty).  

Surgical clearance, NICM assessment, dueling perspectives on PCI as first-line therapy for angina, GDMT in HFrEF are the topics John Mandrola, MD, discusses in this week's podcast. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. To read a partial transcript or to comment, visit: https://www.medscape.com/twic I. New ACC Peri-operative Guidelines Released ACC Guideline document https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.06.013 J Vasc Surg https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(21)00335-9/fulltext McFalls and colleagues; CARP https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa041905 II. NICM – We may be doing it wrong in Selecting ICDs JAMA Meta-analysis https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2823869/ German CMR ICD Trial https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04558723 BRITISH CMR trial https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/britishusing-cmr-scar-as-risk-indication-tool-in-nicm-and-severe-lvsd/ III. When Should PCI be Used in Chronic Stable CAD?   Rajkumar and Al-Lamee; PCI First https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.011201   Boden and De Caterina; Meds First https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.011268 ORBITA 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32714-9 ORBITA 2 trial https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2310610 IV. GDMT Underuse in HFrEF Greene and colleagues https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2024.08.002 DAPA HF https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1911303 RALES https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199909023411001 You may also like: The Bob Harrington Show with the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine, Robert A. Harrington, MD. https://www.medscape.com/author/bob-harrington Questions or feedback, please contact news@medscape.net

The following question refers to Section 2.2 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.The question is asked by University of Colorado internal medicine resident Dr. Hirsh Elhence, answered first by University of Chicago advanced heart failure cardiologist and Co-Chair for the CardioNerds Critical Care Cardiology Series Dr. Mark Belkin, and then by expert faculty Dr. Mark Drazner.Dr. Drazner is an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist, Professor of Medicine, and Clinical Chief of Cardiology at UT Southwestern. He is the President of the Heart Failure Society of America.The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance.Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.  Question #35 A 50-year-old woman with a history of congestive heart failure, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and obstructive sleep apnea presents to the outpatient clinic to follow up on her heart failure management. One year prior, echocardiogram showed an ejection fraction of 30% with an elevated BNP, for which she was started on appropriate GDMT. Repeat echocardiogram today showed an EF of 50%. Which of the following best describes her heart failure status? A HFrEF (HF with reduced EF) B HFimpEF (HF with improved EF) C HFmrEF (HF with mildly reduced EF) D HFpEF (HF with preserved EF) Answer #35 Explanation The correct answer is B – HFimpEF, or heart failure with improved ejection fraction, best describes her current heart failure status. Left ventricular ejection fraction is an important factor in classifying heart failure given differences in prognosis, response to treatment, and use in clinical trial enrollment criteria. The classification of heart failure by EF (adopted from the Universal Definition of HF): –        HFrEF (HF with reduced EF): LVEF ≤40% –        HFimpEF (HF with improved EF): previous LVEF ≤40%, a ≥10% increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF >40%. –        HFmrEF (HF with mildly reduced EF): LVEF 41%–49%, andevidence of spontaneous or provokable increased LV filling pressures (e.g., elevated natriuretic peptide, noninvasive and invasive hemodynamic measurement) –        HFpEF (HF with preserved EF): LVEF ≥50%, and evidence of spontaneous or provokable increased LV filling pressures (e.g., elevated natriuretic peptide, noninvasive and invasive hemodynamic measurement) Patients with HFmrEF are usually in a dynamic state of improving from HFrEF or deteriorating towards HFrEF. Therefore, patients with HFmrEF may benefit from follow-up evaluation of systolic function and etiology of sub-normal EF. Improvements in EF are associated with better outcomes but do not indicate full myocardial recovery or normalization of LV function. Indeed, structural and functional abnormalities such as LV dilation and systolic or diastolic dysfunction often persist. Moreover, EF may remain dynamic with fluctuations in either direction depending on factors such as GDMT adherence and re-exposure to cardiotoxic agents. As such, the term heart failure with “improved EF” was deliberately chosen over “recovered EF” and “preserved EF”. Importantly, in patients with HFimpEF while on GDMT, the EF may decrease after withdrawal of GDMT. Main Takeaway

With David Duncker, Hannover Heart Rhythm Center, Hannover - Germany, and Giuseppe Boriani, Modena Polyclinic Modena University Hospital, Modena - Italy. This episode will tackle GDMT in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: Heart failure medication optimization, ICD indications, remote monitoring.  

CardioNerds Dr. Rick Ferraro, Dr. Gurleen Kaur, and Dr. Maryam Barkhordarian discuss the evidence and data supporting SGLT inhibition for cardiovascular and kidney health outcomes with expert faculty Dr. Muthu Vaduganathan. They discuss the role of SGLT inhibitors in different populations, including those with diabetes mellitus, heart failure, CKD, and myocardial infarction. Show notes and audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Fellow Dr. Maryam Barkhordarian. This episode was produced in collaboration with the American Society of Preventive Cardiology (ASPC) with independent medical education grant support from Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. CardioNerds Prevention PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls - The Data Supporting SGLT Inhibition with Dr. Muthiah Vaduganathan The benefit of SGLT inhibition extends beyond diabetes, and improves cardiovascular and kidney health outcomes independent of diabetes in appropriate patient populations. SGLT inhibition decreases cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization independent of left ventricular ejection fraction. SGLT inhibitors reduce clinically relevant events such as dialysis and transplantation in CKD patients irrespective of etiology and are now a cornerstone for the prevention of CKD progression. The introduction of polypills in heart failure can simplify GDMT implementation. Show notes - The Data Supporting SGLT Inhibition with Dr. Muthiah Vaduganathan How did SGLT inhibitors transition from “diabetes medication” to guideline-directed cardiovascular medicine? Most therapies in cardiology were developed for a particular purpose and ended up being indicated for a vastly different reason. The SGLT-2 inhibitors are no different. Cardiovascular safety concerns about diabetes medications led to a mandate to conduct cardiovascular outcomes trials for all novel diabetes medications. This federal requirement shed light on the cardiovascular benefits of SGLT inhibitors in patients with diabetes. These initial trials showed that not only are these medications safe but also, surprisingly, proved their role in preventing heart failure and delaying progression of chronic kidney disease. What are the mechanisms of action of SGLT-2 and SGLT-1/2 inhibitors? The central mechanism(s) of how these medications confer health outcomes benefits patients is/are not well understood. The main organ involved in the action of SGLT-2 inhibitors is the kidney at the level of the proximal tubule, impacting the cardiovascular system by handling salt and water and improving kidney efficiency. Conversely, SGLT-1/2 inhibitors also act at the level of the gut, the predominant location of the SGLT-1 cotransporter. Their effects on the cardiovascular system are secondary, given there is no SGLT-1 or -2 cotransporters in the myocardium. These secondary effects can be impacted through blood pressure reduction, volume regulation, improved glycemic control, etc. to overall improve cardiovascular status. Whatever the underlying mechanisms, the empirical data for their use is strong and growing. What is the role of SGLT inhibitors in preventing CKD progression? RAAS inhibitors (ACE inhibitors and ARBs) have been the cornerstone of CKD management for the past two to three decades. SGLT inhibitors have been the first add-on to this background therapy. Four trials, DAPA-CKD, EMPA-CKD, CREDENCE, and the SCORED, investigated the effects of SGLT-2 and SGLT-1/2 inhibitors in patients with CKD with or without diabetes. The outcomes of these trials include modifying the course of CKD and reducing events such as dialysis initiation and transplantation. These effects were regardless of participants' diabetic status, CKD etiology, or individual patient profile.

In this enlightening episode of Parallax, which focuses on guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT), Dr Ankur Kalra is joined by two guests, Dr Georges Chahoud, a Heart Failure Cardiologist at St. Louis Cardiology Consultants in the US, and Dr Carsten Israel, Chief of Cardiology at Bethel-Clinic in Germany. Building on their expertise, they share insights on how they would personally consult colleagues on how to manage patients with new onset acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and how to optimise this management in the hospital setting. They cover key topics such as why early initiation of GDMT even before hospital discharge is important, what other imaging modalities can help in better stratifying patients at risk of sudden cardiac death and they address the management and assessment of the risk for sudden cardiac death in patients on quadruple backbone GDMT. This episode is a must-listen for all healthcare professionals dedicated to advancing their understanding and treatment of heart failure. This series is supported by ZOLL and is intended for Health Care Professionals.

Commentary by Social Media Editor Anju Bhardwaj

As healthcare continues to evolve, the need for efficient management of chronic diseases becomes more pressing. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) emerges as a crucial innovation in this landscape, offering a solution to the rising number of chronic disease cases and the subsequent strain on healthcare systems. A 2023 study found that 60% of American adults have at least one chronic condition, highlighting the urgency for effective management solutions.Can remote patient monitoring revolutionize chronic disease management, and what are the tangible benefits for patients and healthcare providers?In the latest episode of I Don't Care with Dr. Kevin Stevenson, host Dr. Kevin Stevenson engages in a timely discussion with Dr. Ted Feldman, Chief Medical Officer of Cadence. The episode delves into the capabilities and impact of Cadence's RPM technology, which partners with hospitals and health systems to enhance patient outcomes and alleviate clinician workload through advanced practice provider-led clinical care teams.Key Points of Discussion:Seamless Integration: Cadence's cellular-enabled RPM technology simplifies patient enrollment and data collection without the need for additional devices or applications.Effective Communication: Integration with major electronic medical records (EMRs) ensures that patient data is accessible to healthcare providers, enhancing treatment continuity and decision-making.Care Delivery Teams: Cadence attaches care delivery teams to RPM data, ensuring that patients receive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and ongoing monitoring, ultimately reducing hospital readmissions and improving clinical outcomes.Dr. Ted Feldman has over 37 years of experience in interventional cardiology. His career includes pioneering work in percutaneous coronary interventions and significant contributions to clinical trials for chronic disease treatments. As the Chief Medical Officer of Cadence, Dr. Feldman leverages his extensive background to advance the use of technology in chronic disease management.

CardioNerds Co-Founder Dr. Daniel Ambinder, Episode Chair Dr. Dinu Balanescu, and FIT Lead Dr. Natalie Tapaskar discuss advanced heart failure in CardioOncology with expert Dr. Richard Cheng. Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Intern, Dr. Akiva Rosenzveig. In this episode, we discuss the spectrum of advanced heart failure in patients with a history of cancer. We dissect cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) cases and the imaging and biomarker tools available for risk stratification and disease monitoring. We delve into the data on the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in these patients. We discuss the risk of prior radiation and chemotherapy during cardiac surgery. Finally, we learn about the post-transplant risk of rejection, recurrent malignancy, and de-novo malignancies, as well as treatment strategies we can employ for these patients. This episode is supported by a grant from Pfizer Inc. This CardioNerds Cardio-Oncology series is a multi-institutional collaboration made possible by contributions of stellar fellow leads and expert faculty from several programs, led by series co-chairs, Dr. Giselle Suero Abreu, Dr. Dinu Balanescu, and Dr. Teodora Donisan.  CardioNerds Cardio-Oncology PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls and Quotes - Advanced Heart Failure in CardioOncology Use the HFA-ICOS risk tool to understand the baseline risk of developing cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). Key factors are type of cancer therapy, baseline CV risk factors, and age. A relative change in global longitudinal strain of more than 15% from baseline is a marker of early cardiac dysfunction and predicts the subsequent risk for systolic dysfunction in patients undergoing cardiotoxic chemotherapy. Statins may be useful in prevention of cardiovascular dysfunction in patients receiving anthracycline chemotherapy. There is limited data on the 4 pillars of GDMT in prevention of CTRCD, but should be started early once CRTCD is suspected or diagnosed! Mediastinal radiation causes adhesions and scarring which increase the risk of bleeding during cardiac surgery, lead to longer operative times, and can lead to RV failure and poor wound healing. Patients with a pre-transplant history of malignancy have a higher risk of mortality due to post-transplant malignancy. And patients with active cancer should not be considered for heart transplant. Post-transplant malignancy risk can be mitigated by utilizing an mTOR based, CNI free immunosuppression regimen. Show notes - Advanced Heart Failure in CardioOncology How do cardio-oncology and advanced heart failure intersect? There are 3 basic populations of patients to consider:Patients with advanced heart failure who develop cancer.Patients with pre-existing chemotherapy and radiation exposure for cancer treatment who later develop advanced heart failureHeart transplant recipients who, in the long term are at very high risk of developing cancer Cardio-oncologists must consider risk assessment and mitigation, long-term prognosis, and treatment strategies for each of these unique populations. How can we assess the risk of developing cardiovascular disease during cancer treatment (CTRCD)? There are many proposed risk tools. However, the majority are not well-validated. One of the most used tools is the HFA-ICOS risk tool.1You can select the planned cancer therapy for the patient (anthracyclines, HER-2, VEGF, RAF/MEK inhibitors, Kinase inhibitors, multiple myeloma therapies) and then calculate their risk of developing CV disease during cancer treatment based on baseline variables:1) previous history of CV disease,2) biomarkers – troponin and NT-proBNP3)age,4) CV risk factors -HTN, DM,

TRIO Score and Choosing Patients Most Likely to Benefit From Tricuspid Valve Intervention Guest: Sorin V. Pislaru, M.D., Ph.D. Hosts: Sharonne N. Hayes, M.D. Tricuspid Regurgitation (TR) is an extraordinarily heterogeneous, highly prevalent valvular heart disease. Given the tremendous variability, individualizing risk in patients with TR to guide appropriate therapy will be explored. Other topics discussed will be the use of TRIO scores, GDMT as a first line in therapy, as well as when to consider surgery or percutaneous interventions.   Topics Discussed: Is TR a relevant valvular heart disease? Why the need for a risk score? So what is the TRIO score What else did you learn from the score? The future?   Connect with Mayo Clinic's Cardiovascular Continuing Medical Education online at https://cveducation.mayo.edu or on Twitter @MayoClinicCV and @MayoCVservices. LinkedIn: Mayo Clinic Cardiovascular Services Cardiovascular Education App: The Mayo Clinic Cardiovascular CME App is an innovative educational platform that features cardiology-focused continuing medical education wherever and whenever you need it. Use this app to access other free content and browse upcoming courses. Download it for free in Apple or Google stores today! No CME credit offered for this episode. Podcast episode transcript found here.

Drs Michelle Kittleson and Ronald Oudiz dive into everything cardiologists need to know about the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Relevant disclosures can be found with the episode show notes on Medscape (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/997320). The topics and discussions are planned, produced, and reviewed independently of advertisers. This podcast is intended only for US healthcare professionals. Resources Heart Failure https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/163062-overview Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/303098-overview Cardiac Catheterization in Pulmonary Hypertension: Doing It Right, With a Catheter on the Left https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33224785/ How to Initiate and Uptitrate GDMT in Heart Failure: Practical Stepwise Approach to Optimization of GDMT https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36456074/ Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559276/ Cardiovascular Biology of Prostanoids and Drug Discovery https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32295420/ Soluble Guanylate Cyclase as an Emerging Therapeutic Target in Cardiopulmonary Disease https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21606405/ Pulmonary Hypertension Association https://phassociation.org/

In the sequel to last week's episode, we are back with Dr. Jonathan Davis, Director of the Heart Failure program from San Francisco General. We continue our tour of GDMT for HF, by covering SGLT2-i, MRAs, as well as some AKI and outpatient considerations. This is part 1 of 2 parts which will cover an overview of GDMT medications, and dive into Beta-blockers and ARNIs. Part 2 to come out next week! | 00.33 - Previously on Booster Shots | | 01.31 - Chapter 3: SGLT2-i | The now famous EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial [NEJM 2015] Empagliflozin in HFpEF (not discussed in this episode [NEJM 2021] | 04.24 - Chapter 4: MRAs | RALES trial demonstrating benefit in Morbidity/Mortality [NEJM 1999] | 10.04 - Organizing follow up | | 11.51 - Issues with AKI | | 15.10 - Some fun questions about Fun questions | | 16.54 - Summary of All The Things! | [The appearance of external hyperlinks does not constitute endorsements by UCSF of the linked websites, or the information, products, or services contained therein. UCSF does not exercise any editorial control over the information found therein, nor does UCSF make any representation of their accuracy or completeness. All information contained in this episode are the opinions of the respective speakers and not necessarily the views their respective institutions or UCSF, and is only provided for information purposes, not to diagnose or treat.] Music by Amit Apte. Medical Heart Vectors by Vecteezy

We talk to Cardiologist Dr. Jonathan Davis, Director of the Heart Failure program from San Francisco General about goal directed medical therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This is part 1 of 2 parts which will cover an overview of GDMT medications, and dive into Beta-blockers and ARNIs. Part 2 to come out next week! | 00.34 - Introduction | | 01.55 - Consult Q: GDMT for HF | Heart failure outcomes | 05.20 - GDMT medication summary and overview | | 07.17 - Effect on blood pressure and relative risk reduction for each drug | | 10.59 - What order to start in | Hint: ALL AT ONCE… if you can | 11.53 - Beta-blockers | When not to start (new HF in VOL), and when to re/start (almost all other times) Tartrate vs Succinate: duration of action | 15.40 - ARNI (Sacubitril-Valsartan) | Potent natriuresis effect Balancing the orthostatics | 20.37 - Outro | [The appearance of external hyperlinks does not constitute endorsements by UCSF of the linked websites, or the information, products, or services contained therein. UCSF does not exercise any editorial control over the information found therein, nor does UCSF make any representation of their accuracy or completeness. All information contained in this episode are the opinions of the respective speakers and not necessarily the views their respective institutions or UCSF, and is only provided for information purposes, not to diagnose or treat.] Music by Amit Apte. Medical Heart Vectors by Vecteezy

In this episode, Our guest host Avromi talks about pushing GDMT via the STRONG-HF trial. We also start our MHP2023 recap series with some pearls from Dr. Zier's cardiology update session. | 00.33 - TOC | | 01.19 - MHP2023 Afib updates | AFFIRM 2002 (rate and rhythm non-inferior) EAST-AFNET 4 - using dofetilide CABANA - using ablation and evaluating HF patients ESC commentary - impact of AFFIRM and changes in management to today | 03.04 - Guest host Avromi and STRONG-HF [Lancet 2022]. Click here for a slide deck overview of the study. | | 08.49 - MHP2023 high-sensitivity Troponin and AMI management | COMPASS-MI - using hs-cTnT for early rule out PLATO (lower primary outcome w/ ticagrelor v clopidogrel, equivalent bleeding), TRITON-TIMI 38 (lower primary outcome w/ prasugrel v clopidogrel, equivalent bleeding), ISAR-REACT 5 (lower mortality w/prasugrel v ticagrelor w/ similar bleeding risks) RAPID CABG (NOT PEER REVIEWED YET)- similar rates of bleeding waiting off ticagrelor 2-3d vs 5-7d REVERSE-IT - bentracimab for reversal of ticagrelor 2023 ESC Guidelines for ACS | 11.17 - Closing | [The appearance of external hyperlinks does not constitute endorsements by UCSF of the linked websites, or the information, products, or services contained therein. UCSF does not exercise any editorial control over the information found therein, nor does UCSF make any representation of their accuracy or completeness. All information contained in this episode are the opinions of the respective speakers and not necessarily the views their respective institutions or UCSF, and is only provided for information purposes, not to diagnose or treat.] png image from pngtree.com

Episode 154: Heart Failure and GDMTDr. Malave explains the four main medications that are part of the guideline-directed medical therapy of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Dr. Arreaza added comments and questions.  Written by Maria Fernanda Malave, MD. Edits by Hector Arreaza, MD.  You are listening to Rio Bravo qWeek Podcast, your weekly dose of knowledge brought to you by the Rio Bravo Family Medicine Residency Program from Bakersfield, California, a UCLA-affiliated program sponsored by Clinica Sierra Vista, Let Us Be Your Healthcare Home. This podcast was created for educational purposes only. Visit your primary care provider for additional medical advice.Brief introduction: Heart failure (HF) is a common condition that affects about 23 million people in the world, and it is estimated that 50% of cases are due to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). It is a major public health concern because of the high morbidity and mortality with a 5-year survival rate of 25% after hospitalization due to HFrEF.In recent years, the management of HFrEF has evolved due to increased evidence in favor of certain medications. Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is the foundation of medical therapy for these patients, and it is the result of multiple randomized controlled trials and reviews favoring four main drug classes: 1. renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors -ACEi- and angiotensin receptor blockers -ARB), 2. evidence-based β-blockers, 3. mineralocorticoid inhibitors, and 4. sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors -SGLT-2i-. The benefit of this therapy is mostly seen when these four groups of medications are used in conjunction. During this episode, we will provide some key elements about the prescription of these medications, but this is only an overview, and you are invited to continue learning from reputable sources.Definitions: HF is defined as the impairment of the heart to meet the metabolic demands of the body. It can be caused by multiple conditions that interfere with the filling up of the heart or conditions that prevent an effective ejection of blood out of the heart. Classification of HFrEF: Based on the EF by echocardiogram, heart failure can be classified as:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) when the EF is 50% or more.Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction when EF ranges between 41-49%.Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) when EF is 40% or less.GDMT: Once we make the diagnosis of HF, it is key to educate our patients and re-educate them every single visit about the importance of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and lifestyle modifications, because this can change the prognosis and exacerbation rates. Many patients think that since they are feeling well after starting GDMT they can stop it, but that's going to increase exacerbations, hospitalizations, and decrease quality of life. Key points to discuss with patients.First, discuss that GDMT are disease-modifying drugs that regulate the neurohormonal system to stop the progression of the disease. We should explain to our patients that medications should be taken despite feeling well. Also, patients should be educated about regular follow-ups and medication titration. We can even instruct our patients about increasing their furosemide dose if they observe signs of overload, such as a weight increase of 2-3 kgs in 3-4 days, tight rings, socks or bracelets, also Paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, dyspnea on exertion, and more.  Second, lifestyle modifications such as: quit smoking and alcohol. Additionally, in general, water restriction between 1.2-1.5L daily, salt restriction (there is no official recommendation about how many grams, but in general we recommend less than 2g daily). Third, it is highly recommended to do aerobic exercise that produces mild dyspnea since this improves cardiovascular capacity and decreases hospitalization risk. Patients should be encouraged to have their annual influenza vaccine and pneumococcal vaccine according to their own immunization schedule. According to the AFP journal, in September 2022, researchers found a clinically and statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality for patients who received an influenza vaccine right after an MI, with a number needed to treat of 50, the effectivity of the vaccine may vary by season.GDMT, groups of medications:What are the basic medications any patient with HF should be on? At least, patients should be on angiotensin receptor blockers ARBs/ACEIs and Beta-blockers. Let's keep in mind that beta-blockers should be given cautiously in cases of exacerbation, but in general low doses are safe. We also have the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), a group of medications whose representative is the combination of sacubitril/valsartan, aka Entresto®. This medication should be the target once ARBs/ACEIs are tolerated. ARBs/ACEIs/ARNIs should be discontinued in the setting of advanced CKD, with a GFR of 30 or less. This applies to other medications used in HF such as SGLT-2 and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA, such as spironolactone/eplerenone). Remember that SGLT-2 inhibitors should be started regardless diabetes status, and BB are safe in the setting of CKD. We also have other groups that are considered safe in patients with advanced CKD such as hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate (combined or not), which are used in African Americans whose BP and HF symptoms do not improve with maximally tolerated dose of ARBs/ACEIs + BB.Ivabradine: Let's not forget about ivabradine, which is an SA node inhibitor like BB. Patients need to meet criteria such as a maximally tolerated dose of beta-blocker, heart rate of a least 70 or more and being on normal sinus rhythm to be started on this medication. Ivabradine does not improve survival as BB do, so even though they are not contraindicated in HF exacerbation, BB are still preferred since ivabradine does not decrease mortality.Titration and follow-ups in the HF management:-ARBs/ACEIs/ARNIs should be titrated approx. Q2 weeks until the maximally tolerated dose is achieved, ARNI should be titrated up Q2-4weeks. With these medications, we should monitor BP, potassium levels and Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR). -BB can also be titrated up Q2weeks until the maximally tolerated dose is achieved. HR, BP and signs of congestion should be observed in patients on BB. Same for hydralazine/isosorbide, with BP follow-up. -MRA, such as spironolactone/eplerenone, these meds can be added in patients who remain symptomatic despite maximally tolerated doses of “ARBs or ACEIs or ARNIs” plus Beta-blockers. For MRA, potassium level, and GFR should be monitored every 2-3 days after initiation, 7 days after titration, monthly for 3 months, and then Q3 months. To start a patient on MRA, K+ must be lower than 5.Patients with HF should be followed up at least in a 2-week interval either via telephone, telemedicine, or clinic visit to assess symptoms, vital signs, bloodwork and to perform a physical exam. Monitoring EF: After 3-6 months of the patient´s stabilization, we should reorder an echo, EKG, BNP and Basic Metabolic Panel. The ejection fraction improves in all patients after GDMT initiation and compliance, and in some patients, this improvement is very significant, so we need to reassess EF after stabilization. Comorbidities: Also, let´s keep in mind that most of the patients have associated comorbidities such as Afib, diabetes, valve disease, or anemia. These comorbidities must be addressed either by starting anticoagulation, adjusting anti-diabetes medications, starting iron, or referring to cardiology if a valve replacement is needed.When to refer to Cardiology? Some patients will qualify for device therapy (ICD) as a primary prevention for ventricular arrhythmias that can degenerate either into torsades or ventricular fibrillation. These patients must be symptomatic, at least in 3 months of maximally tolerated GDMT, and EF between 30-35%. Symptomatic

The following question refers to Section 8.5 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by Western Michigan University medical student & CardioNerds Intern Shivani Reddy, answered first by University of Southern California cardiology fellow and CardioNerds FIT Trialist Dr. Michael Francke, and then by expert faculty Dr. Shashank Sinha. Dr. Sinha is an Assistant Professor of Medical Education at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and an advanced heart failure, MCS, and transplant cardiologist at Inova Fairfax Medical Campus. He currently serves as both the Director of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit and Cardiovascular Critical Care Research Program at Inova Fairfax. He is also a Steering Committee member for the multicenter Cardiogenic Shock Working Group and Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network and an Associate Editor for the Journal of Cardiac Failure, the official Journal of the Heart Failure Society of America. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #30 Ms. V. Tea is a 55-year-old woman with a history of cardiac sarcoidosis, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF – EF 40%), and ventricular tachycardia with CRT-D who presents with recurrent VT. She has undergone several attempts at catheter ablation of VT in the past and previously had been trialed on amiodarone which was discontinued due to hepatotoxicity. She now continues to have episodic VT requiring anti-tachycardia pacing and ICD shocks despite medical therapy with mexiletine, metoprolol, and sotalol. Her most recent PET scan showed no active areas of inflammation. Currently, her vital signs are stable, and labs are unremarkable. What is the best next step for this patient? A Evaluation for heart transplant B Evaluation for LVAD C Dobutamine D Prednisone E None of the above Answer #30 Explanation The correct answer is A – evaluation for heart transplant. For selected patients with advanced heart failure despite GDMT, cardiac transplantation is indicated to improve survival and quality of life (Class 1, LOE C-LD). Heart transplantation, in this context, provides intermediate economic value. Clinical indicators include refractory or recurrent ventricular arrhythmias with frequent ICD shocks. Patient selection for heart transplant includes assessment of comorbidities, goals of care, and various other factors. The United Network of Organ Sharing Heart Transplant Allocation Policy was revised in 2018 with a 6-tiered system to better prioritize unstable patients and minimize waitlist mortality. VT puts the patient as a Status 2 on the transplant list. There was a contemporary analysis of patients with end-stage cardiomyopathy due to cardiac sarcoidosis, published in Journal of Cardiac Failure, in 2018 that demonstrated similar 1-year and 5-year survival after heart transplant between patients with and without cardiac sarcoidosis. Choice B (evaluation for LVAD) is incorrect. While bridge to transplant with LVAD is definitely a potential next step in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis, it is not recommended in patients presenting primarily with refractory ventricular arrhythmias due to granuloma-induced scarring. In this situation, patients benefit from direct heart transplant rather than bridge to transplant LVAD approa...

The following question refers to Section 7.3 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by Palisades Medical Center medicine resident & CardioNerds Academy Fellow Dr. Maryam Barkhordarian, answered first by Hopkins Bayview medicine resident & CardioNerds Academy Faculty Dr. Ty Sweeny, and then by expert faculty Dr. Gregg Fonarow. Dr. Fonarow is the Professor of Medicine and Interim Chief of UCLA's Division of Cardiology, Director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, and Co-director of UCLA's Preventative Cardiology Program. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #28 Mr. Gene D'aMeTi, a 53-year-old African American man with ischemic cardiomyopathy and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF 30-35%), is recently admitted with acutely decompensated heart failure and acute kidney injury on chronic kidney disease stage III. His outpatient regiment includes sacubitril-valsartan 97-103mg BID, carvedilol 25mg BID, and hydralazine 50mg TID. Sacubitril-valsartan was held because of worsening renal function. Despite symptomatic improvement with diuresis, his renal function continues to decline. He is otherwise well perfused & with preservation of other end organ function.   Throughout this hospitalization, he has steadily become more hypertensive with blood pressures persisting in the 170s/90s mmHg. What would be an appropriate adjustment to his medication regimen at this time? A Resume Losartan only B Start Amlodipine C Increase current Hydralazine dose D Start Isosorbide dinitrate therapy E Both C & D Answer #28 ExplanationThe correct answer is E – both increasing the current hydralazine dose (C) and starting isosorbide dinitrate therapy (D). Although ACEI/ARB therapy (choice A) has shown a mortality and morbidity benefit in HFrEF, caution should be used in patients with renal insufficiency. In this patient with ongoing decline in renal function, RAAS-inhibiting therapies (ACEi, ARB, ARNI, MRA) should be avoided. In this case, as his RAAS-I has been stopped, it would be reasonable to increase current therapies to target doses (or nearest dose tolerated), as these demonstrated both safety and efficacy in trials (Class 1, LOE A). Considering that his high dose ARNI was stopped, it is unlikely that either hydralazine or isosorbide dinitrate alone, even at maximal doses, would be sufficient to control his blood pressure (Options C and D, respectively). Interestingly, in the original study by Massie et. Al (1977), the decision was made to combine these therapies as the result was thought to be superior to either medication alone. ISDN would provide preload reduction, while Hydralazine would decrease afterload. Consequently, we do not have data looking at the individual benefit of either medication in isolation. In self-identified African Americans with NYHA class III or IV HFrEF already on optimal GDMT, the addition of hydralazine & isosorbide dinitrate is recommended to improve symptoms and reduce mortality and morbidity (Class 1, LOE A). In this case, as the patient has evidence of progressive renal disfunction, we are limited in using traditional RAAS-I, such as ACEI, ARB, or ARNI.

The following question refers to Section 7.2 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by Cleveland Clinic internal medicine resident and CardioNerds Intern Akiva Rosenzveig, answered first by UPMC Harrisburg cardiology fellow and CardioNerds Academy House Faculty Leader Dr. Ahmed Ghoneem, and then by expert faculty Dr. Randall Starling. Dr. Starling is Professor of Medicine and an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic where he was formerly the Section Head of Heart Failure, Vice Chairman of Cardiovascular Medicine, and member of the Cleveland Clinic Board of Governors. Dr. Starling is also Past President of the Heart Failure Society of America in 2018-2019. Dr. Staring was among the earliest CardioNerds faculty guests and has since been a valuable source of mentorship and inspiration. Dr. Starling's sponsorship and support was instrumental in the origins of the CardioNerds Clinical Trials Program.  The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #27 Which of the following sentences regarding diuretics in the management of heart failure is correct? A In HF patients with minimal congestive symptoms, medical management with diuretics alone is sufficient to improve outcomes. B Prescribing a loop diuretic on discharge after a HF hospitalization may improve short term mortality and HF rehospitalization rates. C The combination of thiazide (or thiazide-like) diuretics with loop diuretics is preferred to higher doses of loop diuretics in patients with HF and congestive symptoms. D The maximum daily dose of furosemide is 300 mg. Answer #27 Explanation Choice B in correct. The guidelines give a Class 1 recommendation for diuretics in HF patients who have fluid retention to relieve congestion, improve symptoms, and prevent worsening heart failure. Recent data from the non-randomized OPTIMIZE-HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure) registry revealed reduced 30-day all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for HF with diuretic use compared with no diuretic use after hospital discharge for HF. Choice A is incorrect. With the exception of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), the effects of diuretics on morbidity and mortality are uncertain. As such, diuretics should not be used in isolation, but always combined with other GDMT for HF that reduce hospitalizations and prolong survival. Choice C is incorrect. The use of a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic (e.g., metolazone) in combination with a loop diuretic inhibits compensatory distal tubular sodium reabsorption, leading to enhanced natriuresis. In a propensity-score matched analysis in patients with hospitalized HF, the addition of metolazone to loop diuretics was found to increase the risk for hypokalemia, hyponatremia, worsening renal function, and mortality, whereas use of higher doses of loop diuretics was not found to adversely affect survival. The guidelines recommend that the addition of a thiazide (e.g., metolazone) to treatment with a loop diuretic should be reserved for patients who do not respond to moderate- or high-dose loop diuretics to minimize electrolyte abnormalities (Class...

The following question refers to Sections 10.2 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by Western Michigan University medical student and CardioNerds Intern Shivani Reddy, answered first by Mayo Clinic Cardiology Fellow and CardioNerds Academy House Faculty Leader Dr. Dinu Balanescu, and then by expert faculty Dr. Ileana Pina. Dr. Pina is Professor of Medicine and Quality Officer for the Cardiovascular Line at Thomas Jefferson University, Clinical Professor at Central Michigan University, and Adjunct Professor of Biostats and Epidemiology at Case Western University. She serves as Senior Fellow and Medical Officer at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #24 Mr. E. Regular is a 61-year-old man with a history of HFrEF due to non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (latest LVEF 40% after >3 months of optimized GDMT) and persistent atrial fibrillation. He has no other medical history. He has been on metoprolol and apixaban and has also undergone multiple electrical cardioversions and catheter ablations for atrial fibrillation but remains symptomatic with poorly controlled rates. His blood pressure is 105/65 mm Hg. HbA1c is 5.4%. Which of the following is a reasonable next step in the management of his atrial fibrillation? A Anti-arrhythmic drug therapy with amiodarone. Stop apixaban. B Repeat catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Stop apixaban. C AV nodal ablation and RV pacing. Shared decision-making regarding anticoagulation. D AV nodal ablation and CRT device. Shared decision-making regarding anticoagulation. Answer #24 Explanation The correct answer is D – AV nodal ablation and CRT device along with shared decision-making regarding anticoagulation.” Maintaining sinus rhythm and atrial-ventricular synchrony is helpful in patients with heart failure given the hemodynamic benefits of atrial systole for diastolic filling and having a regularized rhythm. Recent randomized controlled trials suggest that catheter-based rhythm control strategies are superior to rate control and chemical rhythm control strategies with regards to outcomes in atrial fibrillation. For patients with heart failure and symptoms caused by atrial fibrillation, ablation is reasonable to improve symptoms and quality of life (Class 2a, LOE B-R). However, Mr. Regular has already had multiple failed attempts at ablations (option B). For patients with AF and LVEF ≤50%, if a rhythm control strategy fails or is not desired, and ventricular rates remain rapid despite medical therapy, atrioventricular nodal ablation with implantation of a CRT device is reasonable (Class 2a, LOE B-R). The PAVE and BLOCK-HF trials suggested improved outcomes with CRT devices in these patients. RV pacing following AV nodal ablation has also been shown to improve outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation refractory to other rhythm control strategies. In patients with EF >50%, there is no evidence to suggest that CRT is more beneficial compared to RV-only pacing. However, RV pacing may produce ventricular dyssynchrony and when compared to CRT in those with reduced EF (≤ 50%),

AF screening, BNP, a new SGLT2 inhibitor, a sky-is-blue study, and the UK Mini Mitral surgical trial are discussed in this week's podcast This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. To read a partial transcript or to comment, visit: https://www.medscape.com/twic I AF Screening - Effects of Atrial Fibrillation Screening According to N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide: A Secondary Analysis of the Randomized LOOP Study https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.064361 - Implantable loop recorder detection of atrial fibrillation to prevent stroke (The LOOP Study): a randomised controlled trial https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01698-6 - Natural History of Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation Detected by Implanted Loop Recorders https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.050 - Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Bradyarrhythmias in Patients Screened for Atrial Fibrillation vs Usual Care https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2801362 - Stepwise mass screening for atrial fibrillation using N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide: the STROKESTOP II study design https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw319 - Current misconception 3: that subgroup-specific trial mortality results often provide a good basis for individualising patient care https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068511/ II Frailty and GDMT of HFrEF Frailty Linked to Lower Use of Guideline Treatments in HFrEF https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/993218 - Physical Frailty and Use of Guideline‐Recommended Drugs in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.122.026844 III Sotagliflozin FDA Approves New Drug, Sotagliflozin, for Heart Failure https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/992518 - Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2030186 - Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Worsening Heart Failure https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2030183 IV Mini-Mitral Support for Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Repair: Mini Mitral Published https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/993191 - Minithoracotomy vs Conventional Sternotomy for Mitral Valve Repair https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2805908 You may also like: Medscape editor-in-chief Eric Topol, MD, and master storyteller and clinician Abraham Verghese, MD, on Medicine and the Machine https://www.medscape.com/features/public/machine The Bob Harrington Show with Stanford University Chair of Medicine, Robert A. Harrington, MD. https://www.medscape.com/author/bob-harrington Questions or feedback, please contact: news@medscape.net

The following question refers to Section 8.3 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by Western Michigan University medical student & CardioNerds Intern Shivani Reddy, answered first by University of Southern California cardiology fellow and CardioNerds FIT Trialist Dr. Michael Francke, and then by expert faculty Dr. Prateeti Khazanie. Dr. Khazanie is an associate professor and advanced heart failure and transplant Cardiologist at the University of Colorado. Dr. Khazanie is an author on the 2022 ACC/AHA/HFSA HF Guidelines, the 2021 HFSA Universal Definition of Heart Failure, and multiple scientific statements. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Clinical Trials Talks Question #22 You are taking care of a 34-year-old man with chronic systolic heart failure from NICM with LVEF 20% s/p CRT-D. The patient was admitted 1 week prior with acute decompensated heart failure. Despite intravenous diuretics the patient developed acute kidney injury, and ultimately placed on intravenous inotropes on which he now seems dependent. He has been following up with an advanced heart failure specialist as an outpatient and has been undergoing evaluation for heart transplantation, which was subsequently completed in the hospital.   His exam is notable for an elevated JVP, a III/VI holosystolic murmur, and warm extremities with bilateral 1+ edema. His most recent TTE shows LVEF 20%, moderate MR, moderate-severe TR and estimated RVSP 34 mmHg. His most recent laboratory data shows Na 131 mmol/L, Cr 1.2 mg/dL, and lactate 1.6 mmol/L. Pulmonary artery catheter shows RA 7 mmHg, PA 36/15 mmHg, PCWP 12 mmHg, CI 2.4 L/min/m2 and SVR 1150 dynes*sec/cm5.   The patient was presented at transplant selection committee and approved for listing for orthotopic heart transplant. What is the most appropriate next step in the management of this patient? A Refer patient for transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for MR B Continue IV inotropes as a bridge-to-transplant C Refer patient for tricuspid valve replacement D Initiate 1.5L fluid restriction Answer #22 Explanation The correct answer is B – continue IV inotropes as a bridge-to-transplant. Positive inotropic agents may improve hemodynamic status, but have not been shown to improve survival in patients with HF. These agents may help HF patients who are refractory to other therapies and are suffering consequences from end-organ-hypoperfusion. Our patient is admitted with worsening advanced heart failure requiring intravenous inotropic support. He has been appropriately evaluated and approved for heart transplant. He has demonstrated the requirement of continuous inotropic support to maintain perfusion. In patients such as this with advanced (stage D) HF refractory to GDMT and device therapy who are eligible for and awaiting MCS or cardiac transplantation, continuous intravenous inotropic support is reasonable as “bridge therapy” (Class 2a, LOE B-NR). Continuous IV inotropes also have a Class 2b indication (LOE B-NR) in select patients with stage D HF despite optimal GDMT and device therapy who are ineligible for either MCS or cardiac transplantation, as palliative therapy for symptom control and improvement in functio...

The following question refers to Section 7.6 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.The question is asked by premedical student and CardioNerds Intern Pacey Wetstein, answered first by Mayo Clinic Cardiology Fellow and CardioNerds Academy Chief Dr. Teodora Donisan, and then by expert faculty Dr. Nancy Sweitzer.Dr. Sweitzer is Professor of Medicine, Vice Chair of Clinical Research for the Department of Medicine, and Director of Clinical Research for the Division of Cardiology at Washington University School of Medicine. She is the editor-in-chief of Circulation: Heart Failure. Dr. Sweitzer is a faculty mentor for this Decipher the HF Guidelines series.The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance.Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. /*! elementor - v3.13.3 - 28-05-2023 */ .elementor-heading-title{padding:0;margin:0;line-height:1}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title[class*=elementor-size-]>a{color:inherit;font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-small{font-size:15px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-medium{font-size:19px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-large{font-size:29px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-xl{font-size:39px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-xxl{font-size:59px}Clinical Trials Talks Question #21 Ms. Betty Blocker is a 60-year-old woman with a history of alcohol-related dilated cardiomyopathy who presents for follow up. She has been working hard to improve her health and is glad to report that she has just reached her 5-year sobriety milestone. Her current medications include metoprolol succinate 100mg daily, sacubitril-valsartan 97-103mg BID, spironolactone 25mg daily, and empagliflozin 10mg daily. She is asymptomatic at rest and up to moderate exercise, including chasing her grandchildren around the yard. A recent transthoracic echocardiogram shows recovered LVEF from previously 35% now to 60%. Ms. Blocker does not love taking so many medications and asks about discontinuing her metoprolol. Which of the following is the most appropriate response to Ms. Blocker's request? A Since the patient is asymptomatic, metoprolol can be stopped without risk B Stopping metoprolol increases this patient's risk of worsening cardiomyopathy regardless of current LVEF or symptoms C Because the LVEF is now >50%, the patient is now classified as having HFpEF and beta-blockade is no longer indicated; metoprolol can be safely discontinued D Metoprolol should be continued, but it is safe to discontinue either ARNi or spironolactone Answer #21 Explanation The correct answer is D – continue current therapy. The patient described above was initially diagnosed with HFrEF and experienced significant symptomatic improvement with GDMT, so she now has heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). In patients with HFimpEF after treatment, GDMT should be continued to prevent relapse of HF and LV dysfunction, even in patients who may become asymptomatic (Class 1, LOE B-R). Although symptoms, functional capacity, LVEF and reverse remodeling can improve with GDMT,

The following question refers to Sections 7.3.2, 7.3.8, and 7.6.2 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by Palisades Medical Center medicine resident & CardioNerds Intern Dr. Maryam Barkhordarian, answered first by Hopkins Bayview medicine resident & CardioNerds Academy Fellow Dr. Ty Sweeny, and then by expert faculty Dr. Robert Mentz. Dr. Mentz is associate professor of medicine and section chief for Heart Failure at Duke University, a clinical researcher at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Dr. Mentz is a mentor for the CardioNerds Clinical Trials Network as lead principal investigator for PARAGLIDE-HF and is a series mentor for this very Decipher the Guidelines Series. For these reasons and many more, he was awarded the Master CardioNerd Award during ACC22. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #20 Ms. Betty Blocker is a 60-year-old woman with a history of alcohol-related dilated cardiomyopathy who presents for follow up. She has been working hard to improve her health and is glad to report that she has just reached her 5-year sobriety milestone. Her current medications include metoprolol succinate 100mg daily, sacubitril-valsartan 97-103mg BID, spironolactone 25mg daily, and empagliflozin 10mg daily. She is asymptomatic at rest and up to moderate exercise, including chasing her grandchildren around the yard. A recent transthoracic echocardiogram shows recovered LVEF from previously 35% now to 60%. Ms. Blocker does not love taking so many medications and asks about discontinuing her metoprolol. Which of the following is the most appropriate response to Ms. Blocker's request? A Since the patient is asymptomatic, metoprolol can be stopped without risk B Stopping metoprolol increases this patient's risk of worsening cardiomyopathy regardless of current LVEF or symptoms C Because the LVEF is now >50%, the patient is now classified as having HFpEF and beta-blockade is no longer indicated; metoprolol can be safely discontinued D Metoprolol should be continued, but it is safe to discontinue either ARNi or spironolactone Answer #20 Explanation The correct answer is B – stopping metoprolol would increase her risk of worsening cardiomyopathy. Heart failure tends to be a chronically sympathetic state. The use of beta-blockers (specifically bisoprolol, metoprolol succinate, and carvedilol) targets this excess adrenergic output and has been shown to reduce the risk of death in patients with HFrEF. Beyond their mortality benefit, beta-blockers can improve LVEF, lessen the symptoms of HF, and improve clinical status. Therefore, in patients with HFrEF, with current or previous symptoms, use of 1 of the 3 beta blockers proven to reduce mortality (e.g., bisoprolol, carvedilol, sustained-release metoprolol succinate) is recommended to reduce mortality and hospitalizations (Class 1, LOE A). Beta-blockers in this setting provide a high economic value. Table 14 of the guidelines provides recommendations for target doses for GDMT medications. Specifically for beta blockers, those targets are 25-50mg twice daily for carvedilol (or 80mg once daily for the continuous release formulation), 200mg once daily for metoprolol succinate,

The following question refers to Section 4.4 of the 2021 ESC CV Prevention Guidelines. The question is asked by Dr. Maryam Barkhordarian, answered first by medicine resident Dr. Ahmed Ghoneem, and then by expert faculty Dr. Noreen Nazir. Dr. Nazir is Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where she is the director of cardiac MRI and the preventive cardiology program. The CardioNerds Decipher The Guidelines Series for the 2021 ESC CV Prevention Guidelines represents a collaboration with the ACC Prevention of CVD Section, the National Lipid Association, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. Question #21 Ms. J is a 57-year-old woman with a past medical history of myocardial infarction resulting in ischemic cardiomyopathy, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and major depressive disorder who presents today for follow-up. She reports feeling extremely overwhelmed lately due to multiple life stressors. She is on appropriate cardiovascular GDMT agents and is not prescribed any medications for her mood disorder. True or false: in addition to psychotherapy for stress management, it is appropriate to consider Ms. J for anti-depressant SSRI pharmacotherapy at this time to improve cardiovascular outcomes. A True B False Answer #21 Explanation The correct answer is FALSE. An ESC class 3 recommendation states that SSRIs, SNRIs, and tricyclic antidepressants are not recommended in patients with heart failure and major depression; this is based on data suggesting potential lack of SSRI efficacy for reducing depression or cardiovascular events, as well as safety data indicating an association between SSRI use and increased risk of CV events and all-cause as well as cardiovascular mortality among HF patients. Mental health disorders are associated with worse outcomes in patients with ASCVD and appropriate treatment effectively reduces stress symptoms and improves quality of life. Nonpharmacologic modalities of treatment (exercise therapy, psychotherapy, collaborative care) should be considered before pharmacotherapy to improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure. Of note, the ESC suggests SSRI treatment be considered for patients with coronary heart disease (without HF) and moderate-to-severe major depression based on data that SSRI treatment is associated with lower rates of CHD readmission (RR 0.63), all-cause mortality (RR 0.56), and the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality/MI/PCI (HR 0.69) vs. no treatment. This is a class 2a recommendation. ESC also gives a class 2a recommendation to consider referral to psychotherapeutic stress management for individuals with stress and ASCVD to improve CV outcomes and reduce stress symptoms. The ACC/AHA guidelines do not provide focused recommendations regarding mental health considerations in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk. Main Takeaway It is important to consider mental health treatment in patients with ASCVD as mental disorders are associated with increased CVD risk and poor patient prognosis, and data support that mental health interventions can improve overall and CVD outcomes, as well as improve quality of life. Guideline Loc. Section 4.4 CardioNerds Decipher the Guidelines - 2021 ESC Prevention Series CardioNerds Episode Page CardioNerds Academy Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal Club Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter! Check out CardioNerds SWAG! Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Section 10.1 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by Western Michigan University medical student and CardioNerds Intern Shivani Reddy, answered first by Boston University cardiology fellow and CardioNerds Ambassador Dr. Alex Pipilas, and then by expert faculty Dr. Ileana Pina.Dr. Pina is Professor of Medicine and Quality Officer for the Cardiovascular Line at Thomas Jefferson University, Clinical Professor at Central Michigan University, and Adjunct Professor of Biostats and Epidemiology at Case Western University. She serves as Senior Fellow and Medical Officer at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance.Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #15 Mrs. Framingham is a 65-year-old woman who presents to her cardiologist's office for stable angina and worsening dyspnea on minimal exertion. She has a history of non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. She is taking metformin, linagliptin, lisinopril, and amlodipine. Blood pressure is 119/70 mmHg. Labs are notable for a hemoglobin of 14.2 mg/dL, iron of 18 mcg/dL, ferritin 150 ug/L, transferrin saturation 15%, and normal creatine kinase. An echocardiogram shows reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of 25%. Coronary angiography shows obstructive lesions involving the proximal left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary arteries. In addition to optimizing GDMT, which of the following are recommendations for changes in management? A Anticoagulation, percutaneous revascularization, and IV iron B A change in her diabetic regimen, percutaneous revascularization, and PO iron C A change in her diabetic regimen, surgical revascularization, and IV iron D A change in her diabetic regimen, medical treatment alone for CAD, and PO iron E Anticoagulation and surgical revascularization Answer #15 Explanation The correct answer is C – a change in her diabetic regimen, surgical treatment and IV iron. Multimorbidity is common in patients with heart failure. More than 85% of patients with HF also have at least 2 additional chronic conditions, of which the most common are hypertension, ischemic heart disease, diabetes, anemia, chronic kidney disease, morbid obesity, frailty, and malnutrition. These conditions can markedly impact patients' tolerance to GDMT and can inform prognosis. Not only was Mrs. F found with HFrEF (most likely due to ischemic cardiomyopathy), but she also suffers from severe multi-vessel coronary artery disease, hypertension, and non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition to starting optimized GDMT for HF, specific comorbidities in the heart failure patient warrant specific treatment strategies. Mrs. Framingham would benefit from a change in her diabetic regimen, namely switching from linagliptin to an SGLT2 inhibitor (e.g., empagliflozin, dapagliflozin). In patients with HF and type 2 diabetes, the use of SGLT2i is recommended for the management of hyperglycemia and to reduce HF related morbidity and mortality (Class 1, LOE A). Furthermore, as she has diabetes, symptomatic severe multi-vessel CAD, and LVEF≤35%,

It's another session of CardioNerds Rounds! In these rounds, Dr. Jenna Skowronski (Chief FIT at University of Pittsburgh) and Dr. Natalie Stokes (Formerly FIT at University of Pittsburgh and now General Cardiology Faculty at University of Pittsburgh) join transformational leader, educator and researcher, Dr. Mary Norine Walsh (Director of Heart Failure and Transplantation at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center and Program Director of AHFT at St. Vincent) to discuss cardio-obstetrics and heart failure cases. Amongst her many accomplishments, Dr. Walsh is past president of the American College of Cardiology, Deputy Editor of JACC Case Reports, and a preeminent voice and thought leader in women's cardiovascular health. Audio editing by CardioNerds academy intern, Pace Wetstein. This episode is supported with unrestricted funding from Zoll LifeVest. A special thank you to Mitzy Applegate and Ivan Chevere for their production skills that help make CardioNerds Rounds such an amazing success. All CardioNerds content is planned, produced, and reviewed solely by CardioNerds. Case details are altered to protect patient health information. CardioNerds Rounds is co-chaired by Dr. Karan Desai and Dr. Natalie Stokes.  CardioNerds Rounds PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Show notes - Cardio-Obstetrics and Heart Failure Case 1 Synopsis: A woman in her earlier 30s, G1P1, with a history significant for peripartum cardiomyopathy presents to clinic for pre-conception counseling.  Her prior pregnancy was in her late 20s with an uneventful pre-natal course and a spontaneous vaginal delivery at 37w2d.  Two weeks after delivery, she experienced symptoms of heart failure and was found to have a new diagnosis of HFrEF. At that time TTE showed LVEF 30-35%, LVIDd 5.1cm (top normal size), diffuse hypokinesis. At that time, she was diuresed and discharged on metoprolol succinate 25mg po daily and furosemide 20mg po daily.  She had one follow up visit 6 months postpartum and the furosemide was discontinued.  Today in your office, she has NYHA Class I symptoms with no signs of symptoms of congestion. She walks daily and does vigorous exercise 1-2 times per week, while remaining on metoprolol.  Repeat TTE with LVEF 45-50% and similar LV size. She would like to have another child and was referred to you for counseling. Case 1 Rounding Pearls: Dr. Walsh discussed extensively the importance of full GDMT in this patient who was initially undertreated with only a beta blocker.  If patients are breastfeeding, clinicians should consider the addition of ACE-Inhibitor and Spironolactone. Otherwise, if not breastfeeding, they should receive maximally tolerated doses of full GDMT. For more details on medical therapy for Heart Failure during pregnancy and after, refer to this previous CardioNerds Episode with Dr. Julie Damp. Patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy are at highest risk of worsening LV systolic function when they have persistent LV systolic dysfunction from their initial diagnosis. In this circumstance, shared decision making is paramount.  These patients should receive counseling on contraception and risk of pregnancy on worsening LV function, death, & fetal demise. In addition, counseling includes discussing with patients limited options in some states for complete, comprehensive reproductive care, including pregnancy termination. If patients with prior peripartum cardiomyopathy do become pregnant, a team-based approach including cardiologists, maternal fetal medicine, and obstetrics (amongst other team members) is essential to determine care & delivery timing/method.  These patients should also be examined for signs of decompensation throughout the pregnancy, including rales, S3 or a reported history of PND.

The following question refers to Section 8.1 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.  The question is asked by Western Michigan University medical student & CardioNerds Intern Shivani Reddy, answered first by Brigham & Women's medicine resident and Director of CardioNerds Internship Dr. Gurleen Kaur, and then by expert faculty Dr. Prateeti Khazanie. Dr. Khazanie is an Associate Professor and Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiologist at the University of Colorado. She was an undergraduate at Duke University as a B.N. Duke Scholar. She spent two years at the NIH in the lab of Dr. Anthony Fauci and completed a dual MD-MPH program at Duke Medical School. When she started residency, she thought she was going to be an ID doctor, but she fell in love with cardiology at Stanford where she was an intern, resident, and then chief resident. She went back to Duke for her general cardiology and advanced heart failure/transplant fellowships as well as research training at the DCRI. Dr. Khazanie joined the University of Colorado in 2015 as a health services clinician researcher with a focus on improving health equity and bioethics in advanced heart failure care. She mentors medical students, residents, and fellows and is a faculty mentor for the University of Colorado Cardiology Fellows “House of Cards” mentoring group. She has research funding from the NIH/NHLBI K23, NIH Ethics Grant, and Ludeman Center for Women's Health Research. Dr. Khazanie is an author on the 2022 ACC/AHA/HFSA HF Guidelines, the 2021 HFSA Universal Definition of Heart Failure, and multiple scientific statements. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #11 A 64-year-old woman with a history of chronic systolic heart failure secondary to NICM (LVEF 15-20%) s/p dual chamber ICD presents for routine follow-up. She reports several months of progressive fatigue, dyspnea, and peripheral edema. She has been hospitalized twice in the past year with acute decompensated heart failure. Efforts to optimize guideline directed medical therapy have been tempered by episodes of lightheadedness and hypotension. Her exam is notable for an elevated JVP, an S3 heart sound, and a III/VI holosystolic murmur best heard at the apex with radiation to the axilla. Labs show Na 130 mmol/L, Cr 1.8 mg/dL (from 1.1 mg/dL 6 months prior), and NT-proBNP 1,200 pg/mL. ECG in clinic shows sinus rhythm and a nonspecific IVCD with QRS 116 ms. Her most recent TTE shows biventricular dilation with LVEF 15-20%, moderate functional MR, moderate functional TR and estimated RVSP of 40mmHg. What is the most appropriate next step in management? A Refer to electrophysiology for upgrade to CRT-D B Increase sacubitril-valsartan dose C Refer for advanced therapies evaluation D Start treatment with milrinone infusion Answer #11 Explanation The correct answer is C – refer for advanced therapies evaluation. Our patient has multiple signs and symptoms of advanced heart failure including NYHA Class III-IV functional status, persistently elevated natriuretic peptides, severely reduced LVEF, evidence of end organ dysfunction, multiple hospitalizations for ADHF, edema despite escalating doses of diuretics, and progressive intolerance to GDMT. Importantly, the 2018 European Society of Cardiology revised definition of advanced HF focuses...

The following question refers to Section 7.4 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The question is asked by New York Medical College medical student and CardioNerds Intern Akiva Rosenzveig, answered first by Cornell cardiology fellow and CardioNerds Ambassador Dr. Jaya Kanduri, and then by expert faculty Dr. Randall Starling.Dr. Starling is Professor of Medicine and an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic where he was formerly the Section Head of Heart Failure, Vice Chairman of Cardiovascular Medicine, and member of the Cleveland Clinic Board of Governors. Dr. Starling is also Past President of the Heart Failure Society of America in 2018-2019. Dr. Staring was among the earliest CardioNerds faculty guests and has since been a valuable source of mentorship and inspiration. Dr. Starling's sponsorship and support was instrumental in the origins of the CardioNerds Clinical Trials Program.The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance.Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #6 Mr. D is a 50-year-old man who presented two months ago with palpations and new onset bilateral lower extremity swelling. Review of systems was negative for prior syncope. On transthoracic echocardiogram, he had an LVEF of 40% with moderate RV dilation and dysfunction. EKG showed inverted T-waves and low-amplitude signals just after the QRS in leads V1-V3. Ambulatory monitor revealed several episodes non-sustained ventricular tachycardia with a LBBB morphology. He was initiated on GDMT and underwent genetic testing that revealed 2 desmosomal gene variants associated with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). Is the following statement true or false? “ICD implantation is inappropriate at this time because his LVEF is >35%” True   False   Answer #6 Explanation This statement is False. ICD implantation is reasonable to decrease sudden death in patients with genetic arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy with high-risk features of sudden death who have an LVEF ≤45% (Class 2a, LOE B-NR). While the HF guidelines do not define high-risk features of sudden death, the 2019 HRS expert consensus statement on evaluation, risk stratification, and management of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy identify major and minor risk factors for ventricular arrhythmias as follows: Major criteria: NSVT, inducibility of VT during EPS, LVEF ≤ 49%. Minor criteria: male sex, >1000 premature ventricular contractions (PVCs)/24 hours, RV dysfunction, proband status, 2 or more desmosomal variants. According to the HRS statement, high risk is defined as having either three major, two major and two minor, or one major and four minor risk factors for a class 2a recommendation for primary prevention ICD in this population (LOE B-NR). Based on these criteria, our patient has 2 major risk factors (NSVT & LVEF ≤ 49%), and 3 minor risk factors (male sex, RV dysfunction, and 2 desmosomal variants) for ventricular arrhythmias. Therefore, ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death is reasonable. Decisions around ICD implantation for primary prevention remain challenging and depend on estimated risk for SCD, co-morbidities, and patient preferences, and so should be guided by shared decision making weighing the possible benefits against the risks,