Podcasts about gdmt

The shift from purely clinical heart failure diagnosis to biomarker-guided management unfolded over decades of incremental evidence, institutional skepticism, and a handful of pivotal decisions by a small number of physician-scientists willing to champion tools before their adoption became mainstream.In this episode of Moving the Needle in Medicine, host Alexander Hajduczok, MD, a cardiologist and heart failure specialist at Oklahoma Heart Institute, interviews Jim Januzzi, MD, the Adolph Hutter Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, chief scientific officer and Gibson chair at the Baim Institute for Clinical Research, and a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, to explore the formative experiences, clinical innovations, and leadership principles that shaped his career and, more broadly, the evolution of modern cardiology.Januzzi described nearly declining the opportunity to conduct the first US-based clinical studies with NT-proBNP in 2002, having positioned himself primarily as a troponin and acute coronary syndrome researcher. The foundational diagnostic and prognostic work he ultimately led at MGH established the NT-proBNP cutoffs now used internationally, and the test has since evolved from an emergency department dyspnea-evaluation tool into a biomarker applied across all phases of heart failure management. He noted sacubitril/valsartan as a particularly meaningful convergence of therapeutic and biomarker science, consistently producing substantial reductions in NT-proBNP regardless of baseline value, a finding he has incorporated as a practical signal for adequacy of neurohormonal blockade.On the broader arc of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), Januzzi reflected on witnessing the introduction of beta-blockers for heart failure as a fellow, a shift once considered counterintuitive, and tracing the subsequent addition of each pillar as a reminder that even well-established treatment paradigms remain open to displacement by rigorous evidence. He described his involvement in the endpoint committee for the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial as the entry point for his work with SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure, another opportunity initially approached with ambivalence. Despite four-pillar GDMT, he noted residual event rates underscore the continued need for novel therapeutics, and he expressed enthusiasm for gene-editing approaches and RNA-silencing therapies now entering cardiovascular development pipelines.Across the conversation, Januzzi returned to the role of mentorship and deliberate career planning, including maintaining clinical trial involvement from early protocol design rather than joining established programs at the phase three stage, advocating for sponsorship alongside mentorship, and structuring academic evolution in intentional five-year increments. The discussion positions biomarker-guided heart failure care not as a completed project but as a framework still being refined as the disease's diagnostic boundaries and therapeutic options continue to expand.

Dr. Jenna Skowronski, Dr. Shazli Khan, and Dr. Alix Barnes discuss the involvement of palliative care throughout the heart failure spectrum with Dr. Sarah Chuzi. Audio editing for this episode was performed by CardioNerds Intern, Dr. Julia Marques Fernandes. In this episode, we discuss utilizing palliative care principles while caring for patients with heart failure, particularly those being considered for advanced therapies. We emphasize utilization of communication frameworks when discussing prognosis and making decisions on pursuing therapies such as palliative inotropes, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), and heart transplant. Additionally, we discuss when to involve specialty palliative care services. Finally, we highlight the difference between palliative care and hospice and how to help patients navigate the transition from life-prolonging care to hospice. Dr. Jenna Skowronski is the Chair for the CardioNerds Heart Failure Council. Dr. Jenna Skowronski and Dr. Shazli Khan are the Co-chairs for the CardioNerds Advanced Heart Failure Therapies Series. Dr. Alix Barnes is the CardioNerds FIT Ambassador at UPMC and member of the CardioNerds Critical Care Cardiology Council. Enjoy this Circulation Paths to Discovery article to learn more about the CardioNerds mission and journey. US Cardiology Review is now the official journal of CardioNerds! Submit your manuscripts here. 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 Primary palliative care is care provided by a clinician that is not a palliative care specialist, such as a heart failure clinician having a conversation with a patient about their goals and values in clinic.  Taking time to get to know a patient as an individual and learning their goals and values prior to diving into conversations about prognosis and change in treatment plan facilitates more effective goals of care discussions.   Utilizing and practicing a communication framework can improve our skills at goals of care discussions.   Palliative inotropes should be reserved for patients experiencing symptomatic benefit from the therapy that outweighs the associated risks including arrhythmias and infections. The burden of managing these therapies at home should also be considered. Partnerships between cardiologists and hospice agencies can improve the experience for patients with heart failure who enroll in hospice. Cardiologists can continue to see their patients even after hospice enrollment and help with symptom management.   Notes Notes: Notes drafted by Dr. Barnes. 1. What is the difference between primary palliative care and specialty palliative care? Primary palliative care is the delivery of palliative care services that any clinician can deliver. This includes aligning treatment with a patient's goals and basic symptom management. For heart failure patients, symptom management can include cardiac symptoms such as dyspnea and chest pain as well as managing comorbid mood disorders such as adjustment disorder, depression, and anxiety. Advanced palliative care skills take additional training and time to develop. These include leading a difficult family meeting, managing symptoms that are not controlled with standard therapies and responding to emotional and spiritual distress. When these situations are encountered, referral to a specialty palliative care service should be considered. 1 2. How is palliative care integrated throughout the disease trajectory of a patient with heart failure? Heart failure clinicians deliver primary palliative care when assessing a patient's preferences, goals and values or managing symptoms. As a patient's disease progresses, the heart failure team also engages in primary palliative care when delivering news about prognosis. When advanced therapies are being considered, utilization of shared decision-making (SDM) should be employed (see question 3 for further discussion on SDM). For patients being considered for LVAD, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandates that patients are seen by a palliative care specialist prior to implantation. 2 Despite this, there remains variability in how institutions involve specialty palliative care in this decision-making process. Thoughtful consideration of what palliative care resources are available at your institution should guide how best to integrate specialty palliative care teams into the LVAD decision tree. One example of a model for meeting this mandate is having a small team of heart failure clinicians with additional palliative care training meet all patient's being evaluate for LVAD. 3. What is shared decision-making (SDM) and how is it utilized when evaluating a patient for advanced therapies? SDM is a collaborative process where patients and clinicians work together to make medical decisions that are aligned with a patient's goals and values.3 There are a variety of communication frameworks that can be used to engage in effective SDM. One framework is the Serious Illness Conversation guide. This is an evidenced based framework that can be used to deliver the news about a patient's current condition and then assess their goals, values and preferences for next steps in their treatment plan.4  This framework can be helpful when discussing prognosis prior to introducing the idea of an evaluation for advanced therapies. REMAP is a second commonly used framework which stands for Reframe, Expect Emotion, Map What's Important, Align, and Plan.5 This framework is similarly helpful when starting a discussion about advanced therapies with a patient. Both frameworks prioritize learning about a patient's goals, values, and preferences prior to making a recommendation for a treatment plan. Listening more than speaking and accepting that a patient and their family may choose a path that is different than what you personally might choose for yourself or your loved ones are vital pillars to engaging in these conversations effectively. When discussing LVAD, it is important to avoid framing the decision as “LVAD or no LVAD,” rather LVAD versus best supportive care. The “Best Case, Worst Case” framework is an effective way to create choice awareness for patients when they are faced with making this decision. This is a way to discuss both the best outcomes after LVAD implantation as well as the potential complications so a patient is better able to understand the full spectrum of possible outcomes. 6 4. How do you select which patients would benefit from home inotrope therapy? There is no data demonstrating a survival benefit with use of palliative inotropes. There may be subsets of patients who derive a survival benefit, such as patients whose renal function worsens when the agent is withdrawn, however there is no concrete data proving this. 7 Therefore, the benefit of home inotrope therapy should be based on if the patient derives symptomatic benefit from these agents. Additionally, risks of the therapy such as arrhythmias and infection as well as the burden of managing these therapies at home should also be weighed in the decision.8 Life expectancy for patients being initiated on palliative inotropes likely ranges from 6 to 9 months. Given this prognosis, concordant palliative care efforts should be intensified when starting patients on these agents. This can either be through involvement in specialty palliative care or increasing primary palliative care interventions. 9 5. How do you determine if a patient would be a candidate for hospice and how do you discuss hospice with patients and their families? Hospice is a comprehensive program that provides supportive care to patients at end of life. This includes a team of physicians, nurses, aids, social workers and chaplains that can deliver care in the home, at a nursing facility, or in an inpatient hospice facility. 10 Patients with a prognosis of 6 months or less can qualify for hospice services. Even if a patient qualifies for hospice based on their prognosis, it is important to assess if a patient's goals and values align with hospice. Introducing hospice to patients who still desire life prolonging care can cause mistrust between the patient and their health care team. When introducing hospice, it is helpful to describe the services hospice offers in addition to naming the service as some patients may have a negative connotation with the word “hospice.” 6. How can cardiologists partner with hospice agencies to provide better care for these patients? Heart failure specialists can continue to see their patients even after they enroll in hospice. Partnering in hospice agencies in this way can help improve symptom management for patients while also allowing them to continue meaningful relationships with providers with whom they've developed a longitudinal relationship with. Guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) and diuretics can be continued while enrolled in hospice as long as they are offering symptomatic benefit. Heart failure specialists can help with adjusting GDMT to cheaper formulations, such as exchanging angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ANRIs) for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Many hospice agencies cannot accept patients receiving palliative inotropes due to the resources and training required to safely care for these patients. Understanding what hospice agencies in your area can and cannot support allows heart failure specialists to have informed discussions with patients and make appropriate referrals. References Quill TE, Abernethy AP. Generalist plus Specialist Palliative Care — Creating a More Sustainable Model. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(13):1173-1175. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1215620. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1215620 Ventricular Assist Devices for Bridge-to-Transplant and Destination Therapy. Published online August 1, 2013. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/ncacal-decision-memo.aspx?proposed=Y&NCAId=268 Godfrey S, Barnes A, Gao J, Katz JN, Chuzi S. Shared Decision-making in Palliative and End‑of‑life Care in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. US Cardiol Rev. 2024;18:e13. doi:10.15420/usc.2024.03. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39494405/ Baxter R, Pusa S, Andersson S, Fromme EK, Paladino J, Sandgren A. Core elements of serious illness conversations: an integrative systematic review. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2024;14(e3):e2268-e2279. doi:10.1136/spcare-2023-004163. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11671901/ Childers JW, Back AL, Tulsky JA, Arnold RM. REMAP: A Framework for Goals of Care Conversations. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(10):e844-e850. doi:10.1200/JOP.2016.018796. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JOP.2016.018796 Kruser JM, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, et al. “Best Case/Worst Case”: Qualitative Evaluation of a Novel Communication Tool for Difficult in-the-Moment Surgical Decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(9):1805-1811. doi:10.1111/jgs.13615. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4747100/ Tolia S, Khan M, Khan S, et al. Mortality and long-term outcomes of palliative inotropes in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J.  2021;42(Supplement_1):ehab724.0915. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.0915. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/42/Supplement_1/ehab724.0915/6392681 Chuzi S, Allen LA, Dunlay SM, Warraich HJ. Palliative Inotrope Therapy: A Narrative Review. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(8):815. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2019.2081. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abstract/2737414#google_vignette Chuzi S, Gao J, Thariath J, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of Palliative Continuous Intravenous Inotrope Support Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14(14):e039397. doi:10.1161/JAHA.124.039397. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.124.039397 What is hospice? Published online September 24, 2024. https://hospicefoundation.org/what-is-hospice/

CardioNerds (Dr. Hamza Patel, Dr. Jenna Skowronski, and Dr. Apoorva Gangavelli) discuss advanced heart failure and LVAD management with Dr. Mark Belkin, Advanced Heart Failure & Transplant Cardiologist, and Dr. Chris Salerno, Cardiothoracic Surgeon. They explore the nuances of right ventricular (RV) physiology, perioperative hemodynamic optimization, long-term complications, sensitization and transplant considerations, and the evolving role of GDMT in LVAD patients.  This episode highlights the delicate interplay between surgical and medical management in achieving optimal outcomes for patients living with durable mechanical circulatory support.Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy intern, student doctor, Pace Wetstein. 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 “The right ventricle sets the stage.” — LVAD success hinges on RV performance; a struggling RV can turn a perfect LVAD surgery into a perfect storm.  “Watch the ratios.” — A PAPi < 2 and RA:PCWP >0.6 signal high risk for RV failure post-implant; trends and response to optimization matter more than static numbers.  “From hemocompatibility to hemodynamics.” — The LVAD field has moved from fighting pump thrombosis to mastering long-term RV failure and aortic insufficiency.  “Not all antibodies are created equal.” — LVAD-related sensitization often resolves post-transplant, reminding clinicians to interpret PRA trends in context.  “Recovery is possible.” — The RESTAGE-HF trial and emerging SGLT2 data hint at a new era: not just sustaining life with LVADs but restoring native heart function.  Notes Notes drafted by Dr. Hamza Patel. 1. Hemodynamic & Vasoactive Management of the RV  Use norepinephrine and vasopressin for pressor support; consider dobutamine as inotrope of choice.  Consider avoiding early milrinone due to hypotension and reduced coronary perfusion.  Use inhaled NO or epoprostenol selectively; institutional variation depends on cost and supply.  Key hemodynamic markers:  PAPi = (PA systolic – PA diastolic) / RA pressure.  PAPi < 2 → increased RV failure risk.  RA:PCWP ratio ≈ 0.6 normal; ≈ 1 → severe RV dysfunction.  RV reserve—the ability to improve these indices with optimization—is a stronger predictor of outcomes than baseline numbers alone.  NOTE: there is no robust data to guide vasoactive medical decision-making and there is substantial institutional variability in practive.  2. Long-Term LVAD Complications  MOMENTUM 3 trial: HeartMate 3 reduced pump thrombosis (10 → 1 %), stroke (14 → 5%), and GI bleed (77 → 43 %).  Persistent issues: driveline infections, RV failure, and aortic insufficiency.  Driveline care: silver sulfadiazine (Silvadene) cream linked to lower infection rates (Cowher & Kenmore 2025).  Field now focuses on hemodynamic-related adverse events—the next frontier in LVAD outcomes.  Innovation ahead: smaller drivelines and fully implantable LVADs to eliminate infection risk.  3. Sensitization and Transplant Candidacy  LVADs may induce de novo HLA antibodies, complicating transplant matching.  These antibodies tend to be transient and less cytotoxic, often resolving post-transplant.  Sensitization degree varies by device and patient; management strategies are center-dependent.  The field is redefining which antibodies are truly LVAD-induced versus incidental.  4. GDMT & Myocardial Recovery  GDMT data in LVAD patients limited—excluded from major HFrEF trials.  RESTAGE-HF: aggressive GDMT post-LVAD yielded 52% explant rate within 18 months.  SGLT2 inhibitors: emerging evidence of reverse remodeling and reduced LV size (Belkin et al., THT 2025).  GDMT promotes recovery but requires cautious titration to avoid hypotension and RV strain.  5. Future of LVAD Therapy  The fully implantable LVAD remains the goal—wireless energy, no driveline, and fewer infections.  Short-term focus: device miniaturization, improved energy efficiency, and better hemocompatibility.  HeartMate 3 remains gold standard until next-generation systems mature.  References Mehra MR et al. NEJM 2018 — MOMENTUM 3 Final Report.  Takeda K et al. JHLT 2020 — Predictors of RV Failure After LVAD.  Imamura T et al. Circ Heart Fail 2017 — Hemodynamics and RV Adaptation Post-LVAD.  RESTAGE-HF Trial, JHLT 2019.  Cowher J, Kenmore C et al. 2025 — Driveline Care & Infection Outcomes.  Belkin M et al. THT 2025 — SGLT2 Inhibition and Reverse Remodeling Post-LVAD. 

Episode 215: Meth-associated HFrEF.   Abishak and Zat (medical students) explain the cardiotoxic effect of methamphetamine and the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Dr. Arreaza adds insight into the reversibility of meth-associated HFrEF.   Written by Abishak Govindarajan, MSIV and Zat Akbar Shaw. American University of the Caribbean. Edits and comments by Hector Arreaza, MD. Welcome Dr. Arreaza: Welcome to Rio Bravo qWeek. My name is Hector Arreaza, family physician, faculty and associate program director of the Clinica Sierra Vista/Rio Bravo Family Medicine Residency Program. Today we will explore heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a high-yield and clinically relevant topic in medicine. We will discuss the role of methamphetamine use in the development of HFrEF. This is a pressing issue because about 0.8% of the population 12 and older in the US reported using methamphetamine within the past 12 months in 2024 (National Survey on Drug Use and Health, NSDUH), that's about ≈2.4 million people!We are joined by two aspiring physicians who will help explore this topic. By the way, we will refer to methamphetamine in this episode as “meth”. [Abishak and Akbar introduce themselves] Abishak: [Introduce yourself] The role of meth in HFrEF Dr. Arreaza: Meth is a growing problem in many places, including Bakersfield, where we live. Meth is also known as Meth Crystal, Poor man's cocaine, Ice, Glass, Crank, Speed, Chalk, and Tina. How does meth contribute to the development of HFrEF? Abishak: So, first, let's understand how methamphetamine works. It has a chemical structure similar to dopamine and norepinephrine, and it gets taken up through the neuron transporter proteins. Once it enters the synaptic vesicles (storage sacs for neurotransmitters), it displaces and forces the release of large amounts of dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin into the synapse (the space between neurons). Additionally, meth blocks the reuptake of those neurotransmitters into the neuron, ensuring they remain in the synapse for a prolonged period. All this causes a downstream effect of increased sympathetic pathways in the body. Diagnosis Dr. Arreaza: The diagnosis starts with collecting a good history and performing a complete physical exam, and then we confirm with an echocardiogram.  Abishak: Yes, diagnosis requires both symptoms consistent with heart failure and objective evidence of reduced ejection fraction. Echocardiography is the primary diagnostic tool. We also measure BNP. In certain cases, cardiac MRI is used to evaluate myocardial fibrosis and exclude infiltrative or inflammatory etiologies. Coronary angiography may be performed if ischemic disease is suspected.Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Dr. Arreaza: GDMT Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy started around 1987 when ACE inhibitors were proven to improve mortality in patients with heart failure. Then, during the following decades, many medications have been added to GDMT. Until around 2019–2022 we came out with the main 4 groups of medications that we know as GDMT. Let's talk about GDMT. Akbar: There are four core pillars in GDMT. First, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, such as sacubitril with valsartan (Entresto), is preferred over ACE inhibitors when tolerated. This medication reduces mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. Second, evidence-based beta blockers including carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, or bisoprolol are used to reduce sympathetic overactivity and improve ventricular remodeling. Third, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone or eplerenone reduce fibrosis and improve survival. The Fourth pillar is SGLT2 inhibitors such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin, which provide significant reductions in heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality, regardless of diabetes status. Abishak: Other main parts of the treatment are diuretics, which are used for symptom control but do not reduce long-term mortality. Dr. Arreaza: As a recap: The current 4 pillars of GDMT are: ARNI/ACEi + β-blocker + MRA + SGLT2i)  Beta Blocker Considerations Dr. Arreaza: Sometimes we may be concerned about using beta blockers in active meth users. What did you read about it? Abishak: Historically, there was concern about unopposed alpha stimulation. However, in chronic heart failure, beta blockers remain essential. Carvedilol is often favored because it provides both alpha and beta blockade. Careful titration and close monitoring are critical.Reversibility and Remodeling Dr. Arreaza: Regarding meth-associated HFrEF, we have good news for meth users. Tell us about how reversible this condition is.  Akbar: It can be reversible. One of the most important aspects of this condition is that significant reverse remodeling may occur if the patient stops methamphetamine use and adheres to medical therapy. The Left ventricular ejection fraction can improve substantially and, in some cases, normalize. On the other end of the spectrum, continued meth use may lead to progressive fibrosis, ventricular dilation, and potentially irreversible damage, leading to death.Complications of meth-associated HFrEF Abishak: These patients are at increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias, sudden cardiac death, left ventricular thrombus formation, and progressive pulmonary hypertension. If the ejection fraction remains below 35 percent after at least three months of optimized therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (known as ICD) placement should be considered for primary prevention.Addiction Treatment as Core Therapy Dr. Arreaza: It sounds like GDMT cannot be done without talking about meth use disorder treatment. Akbar: Absolutely. Treating the myocardium without addressing the substance use disorder is ineffective. Primary care providers can be trained to manage addictions, but if resources are available, you can place a referral to addiction medicine, psychiatric support, behavioral therapy, and social support services. This is an essential part of the treatment. Sustained abstinence is the single most powerful predictor of recovery.Prognosis Abishak: Prognosis is highly dependent on abstinence. Patients who stop using methamphetamine often experience meaningful improvement in EF and even return to normal.  Dr. Arreaza: Yes, the key factor is complete abstinence, plus standard heart failure treatment. If the damage is mostly functional and inflammatory, recovery is possible. If there is extensive fibrosis (scar) recovery is less likely. Observational studies have shown that patients with meth-associated cardiomyopathy who stop using meth have significant improvement in EF over 3–12 months, fewer hospitalizations, and lower mortality. Akbar: Absolutely. Not all meth-associated cardiomyopathy behaves the same way. The extent of fibrosis determines recovery potential. Cardiac MRI with late gadolinium enhancement can help us estimate scar burden. Patients with minimal fibrosis often have better improvement with abstinence and medical therapy. Dr. Arreaza: So, MRI can actually help us determine the prognosis. Abishak: Yes, very much so. If MRI shows extensive fibrosis, the likelihood of full EF recovery is lower. That information helps us counsel patients more accurately. Akbar: Another key issue is right ventricular involvement. Methamphetamine can affect both ventricles. When the right ventricle fails, patients may develop severe peripheral edema, ascites, and hepatic congestion. Right ventricular dysfunction also worsens prognosis significantly. Dr. Arreaza: And pulmonary hypertension can also worsen the whole picture.  Akbar: That's correct. Meth is associated with pulmonary arterial hypertension independently of left-sided heart failure. In some patients, you may see a combined picture of both pulmonary vascular disease and right ventricular dysfunction. That can make management more complicated because pulmonary pressures may remain elevated even after EF improves. Dr. Arreaza: Tells us about the role of BNP in monitoring these patients.  Abishak: Serial BNP levels can help track response to therapy. Additionally, troponin may be elevated at times in meth users due to myocardial injury. Monitoring renal function is critical because many heart failure medications affect kidney function and potassium levels. Akbar:Other lifestyle modifications include sodium restriction, regular follow-ups, vaccination, and avoidance of other cardiotoxic substances such as alcohol or cocaine. Sleep disorders, especially OSA, should be evaluated because untreated OSA worsens heart failure outcomes. Dr. Arreaza: WhatIs there any role for wearable devices or remote monitoring? Abishak: Yes, increasingly so. Remote weight monitoring, blood pressure tracking, and symptom reporting can reduce hospitalization. In select patients, implantable hemodynamic monitors may help detect rising filling pressures before symptoms occur. Dr. Arreaza: It was a great discussion. Thank you, Abishak and Akbar for bringing all that valuable information to us. Let's wrap it up.     

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 

CME credits: 0.25 Valid until: 16-02-2027 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/case-based-approach-managing-hyperkalemia-in-patients-with-ckd-and-heart-failure/37617/ Using a real-world patient case, Drs. Ellie Kelepouris and Nihar Desai examine clinical challenges in managing hyperkalemia among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure (HF). They explore the use of modern potassium binders to sustain guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors and break down the differences between patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC). Their discussion includes guideline recommendations from KDIGO and European societies, the sodium-related safety signals with SZC, and supporting data from trials such as REALIZE-K and DIAMOND. Findings from the CARE-HK registry are also discussed, highlighting low potassium binder use despite high rates of recurrent hyperkalemia and underutilization of GDMT in advanced CKD.=

CME credits: 0.75 Valid until: 13-02-2027 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/safety-clinical-integration-and-the-emerging-fifth-pillar-in-hf-practice/54635/ Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who have not experienced a recent worsening event pose a major clinical challenge: persistent and under-recognized cardiovascular (CV) risk. Recent findings show that these patients carry significant annual rates of CV death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization, despite adherence to quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and device support. For cardiologists, the challenge is twofold: accurately identifying high-risk individuals without overt clinical deterioration and knowing when and how to intensify therapy in patients who appear stable but remain vulnerable. Recent data show that soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) may provide significant reductions in CV death and all-cause mortality, particularly in individuals with moderately elevated NT-proBNP (≤6,000 pg/mL). These findings are especially important because this population is far more common in routine cardiology practice and has historically been overlooked in discussions of additional therapy. However, cardiologists often underestimate risk in these ambulatory patients and may hesitate to add therapies when GDMT appears to be working well. Tune in to learn best practices for patient selection and the implementation of added sGC therapy.

CME credits: 0.75 Valid until: 13-02-2027 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/evidence-at-a-glance-the-totality-of-evidence-impacting-clinical-decision-making-in-patients-with-hfref-without-a-recent-worsening-event/54634/ Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who have not experienced a recent worsening event pose a major clinical challenge: persistent and under-recognized cardiovascular (CV) risk. Recent findings show that these patients carry significant annual rates of CV death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization, despite adherence to quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and device support. For cardiologists, the challenge is twofold: accurately identifying high-risk individuals without overt clinical deterioration and knowing when and how to intensify therapy in patients who appear stable but remain vulnerable. Recent data show that soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) may provide significant reductions in CV death and all-cause mortality, particularly in individuals with moderately elevated NT-proBNP (≤6,000 pg/mL). These findings are especially important because this population is far more common in routine cardiology practice and has historically been overlooked in discussions of additional therapy. However, cardiologists often underestimate risk in these ambulatory patients and may hesitate to add therapies when GDMT appears to be working well. Tune in to learn best practices for patient selection and the implementation of added sGC therapy.

CME credits: 0.75 Valid until: 13-02-2027 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/do-not-delay-timing-triggers-and-identifying-the-right-patient-for-additional-therapies-in-hfref/54633/ Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who have not experienced a recent worsening event pose a major clinical challenge: persistent and under-recognized cardiovascular (CV) risk. Recent findings show that these patients carry significant annual rates of CV death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization, despite adherence to quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and device support. For cardiologists, the challenge is twofold: accurately identifying high-risk individuals without overt clinical deterioration and knowing when and how to intensify therapy in patients who appear stable but remain vulnerable. Recent data show that soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) may provide significant reductions in CV death and all-cause mortality, particularly in individuals with moderately elevated NT-proBNP (≤6,000 pg/mL). These findings are especially important because this population is far more common in routine cardiology practice and has historically been overlooked in discussions of additional therapy. However, cardiologists often underestimate risk in these ambulatory patients and may hesitate to add therapies when GDMT appears to be working well. Tune in to learn best practices for patient selection and the implementation of added sGC therapy.

CME credits: 0.75 Valid until: 13-02-2027 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/gdmt-is-working-fine-why-add-more-therapies-the-clinical-rationale-for-layering-therapies-in-patients-with-hfref/54632/ Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who have not experienced a recent worsening event pose a major clinical challenge: persistent and under-recognized cardiovascular (CV) risk. Recent findings show that these patients carry significant annual rates of CV death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization, despite adherence to quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and device support. For cardiologists, the challenge is twofold: accurately identifying high-risk individuals without overt clinical deterioration and knowing when and how to intensify therapy in patients who appear stable but remain vulnerable. Recent data show that soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) may provide significant reductions in CV death and all-cause mortality, particularly in individuals with moderately elevated NT-proBNP (≤6,000 pg/mL). These findings are especially important because this population is far more common in routine cardiology practice and has historically been overlooked in discussions of additional therapy. However, cardiologists often underestimate risk in these ambulatory patients and may hesitate to add therapies when GDMT appears to be working well. Tune in to learn best practices for patient selection and the implementation of added sGC therapy.

CME credits: 0.75 Valid until: 13-02-2027 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/when-gdmt-isnt-enough-understanding-residual-risk-in-patients-with-hfref/51036/ Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who have not experienced a recent worsening event pose a major clinical challenge: persistent and under-recognized cardiovascular (CV) risk. Recent findings show that these patients carry significant annual rates of CV death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization, despite adherence to quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and device support. For cardiologists, the challenge is twofold: accurately identifying high-risk individuals without overt clinical deterioration and knowing when and how to intensify therapy in patients who appear stable but remain vulnerable. Recent data show that soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) may provide significant reductions in CV death and all-cause mortality, particularly in individuals with moderately elevated NT-proBNP (≤6,000 pg/mL). These findings are especially important because this population is far more common in routine cardiology practice and has historically been overlooked in discussions of additional therapy. However, cardiologists often underestimate risk in these ambulatory patients and may hesitate to add therapies when GDMT appears to be working well. Tune in to learn best practices for patient selection and the implementation of added sGC therapy.

CME credits: 0.25 Valid until: 10-02-2027 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/gdmt-is-working-fine-so-why-add-more-therapies-for-patients-with-hfref/48811/ Contemporary trial data and global registries consistently show that ambulatory patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who have not experienced a recent worsening event still carry residual risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations. These annual rates have been estimated to exceed 10%–20%, despite adherence to quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and device support. This paradox of clinical stability on the surface, yet significant residual risk underneath, creates a critical blind spot in the management of chronic HFrEF. Recent data show that the addition of soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators provides significant reductions in CV death and all-cause mortality, particularly in individuals with moderately elevated NT-proBNP (≤6,000 pg/mL). These findings are especially important because this population is far more common in routine cardiology practice and has historically been overlooked in discussions of additional therapy. Tune in to explore a case to better understand which patients can derive the most benefit from added therapy.=

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)

CME credits: 0.25 Valid until: 30-01-2027 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/missing-the-window-in-ambulatory-patients-with-hfref-on-gdmt-strategies-for-cv-risk-reduction/48813/ For ambulatory patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who have not experienced a recent worsening event, cardiologists continue to face a major clinical challenge: persistent and under-recognized cardiovascular (CV) risk. Despite adherence to quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and device support, these “stable,” guideline-treated patients carry residual risk for CV death. Recent evidence shows that the addition of soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators provides significant reductions in CV death and all-cause mortality, particularly in individuals with moderately elevated NT-proBNP (≤6,000 pg/mL). However, cardiologists often underestimate risk in these ambulatory patients and may hesitate to add therapies when GDMT appears to be working well. Our experts break down a case to illustrate how and when to employ recent data regarding the use of additional sGC in appropriate patients with HFrEF.=

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

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.

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,

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

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...