The following question refers to Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.6 of the 2022 ACC/AHA/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 UTSW AHFT Cardiologist & CardioNerds FIT Ambassador Dr. Natalie Tapaskar, and then by expert faculty Dr. Robert Mentz.

Dr. Mentz is associate professor of medicine and section chief for Heart Failure at Duke University, a clinical researcher at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Dr. Mentz has been a mentor for the CardioNerds Clinical Trials Network as lead principal investigator for PARAGLIDE-HF and is a series mentor for this very Decipher the Guidelines Series. For these reasons and many more, he was awarded the Master CardioNerd Award during ACC22.

The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance.

Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.

• As 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!

Ms. Kay Lotsa is a 48-year-old woman with a history of CKD stage 2 (baseline creatinine ~1.2 mg/dL) & type 2 diabetes mellitus. She has recently noticed progressively reduced exercise tolerance, leg swelling, and trouble lying flat. This prompted a hospital admission with a new diagnosis of decompensated heart failure. A transthoracic echocardiogram reveals LVEF of 35%. Ms. Lotsa is diuresed to euvolemia, and she is started on carvedilol 25mg BID, sacubitril/valsartan 49-51mg BID, and empagliflozin 10mg daily, which she tolerates well. Her eGFR is at her baseline of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2 and serum potassium concentration is 3.9 mEq/L. Your team is anticipating she will be discharged home in the next one to two days and wants to start spironolactone. Which of the following is most important regarding her treatment with mineralocorticoid antagonists?

A

Spironolactone is contraindicated based on her level of renal impairment and should not be started

B

Serum potassium levels and kidney function should be assessed within 1-2 weeks of starting spironolactone

C

Eplerenone confers a higher risk of gynecomastia than does spironolactone

D

The patient will likely not benefit from initiation of spironolactone if her cardiomyopathy is ischemic in origin

Explanation

The correct answer is B – after starting a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), it is important to closely monitor renal function and serum potassium levels.

MRA (also known as aldosterone antagonists or anti-mineralocorticoids) show consistent improvements in all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, and SCD across a wide range of patients with HFrEF.

The RALES trial of spironolactone vs. placebo in highly symptomatic HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 35%, NYHA III-IV), trial of eplerenone vs placebo post-MI in patients with LVEF ≤ 40%, and EMPHASIS-HF trial of eplerenone vs placebo in less symptomatic HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 35%, NYHA II) altogether suggest MRAs confer improvements in all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, and sudden cardiac death in patients with HFrEF. Importantly, these benefits have been demonstrated across a wide range of HFrEF severity and etiologies, including ischemic cardiomyopathy (Option D).

Therefore, in patients with HFrEF and NYHA class II to IV symptoms, an MRA (spironolactone or eplerenone) is recommended to reduce morbidity and mortality, if eGFR is >30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and serum potassium is <5.0 mEq/L. Careful monitoring of potassium, renal function, and diuretic dosing should be performed at initiation and closely monitored thereafter to minimize risk of hyperkalemia and renal insufficiency (Class 1, LOE A). MRA therapy in this context provides high economic value.

Adverse Effects of MRAs

Both spironolactone and eplerenone are excreted by the kidney and due to their inhibition of aldosterone signaling, reduce potassium excretion in the urine. For these reasons, the initiation of MRAs is contraindicated in patients with eGFR of ≤30 mL/min/1.73m2 or serum potassium levels of ≥5.0 mEq/L. After starting or intensifying MRA therapy, serum potassium levels and renal function should be rechecked at approximately 1 week, at 4 weeks, and every 6 months thereafter, provided clinical stability. Hyperkalemia can increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and death. Unfortunately, this often results in de-escalation or discontinuation of RAASi and a subsequent loss of long-term cardiorenal benefits of maximally tolerated GDMT.

The utility of prescribing potassium binders (e.g., patiromer, sodium zirconium cyclosilicate) to improve outcomes by facilitating continuation of  Patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate remove potassium by exchanging cations leading to increased fecal excretion and thereby lowering serum potassium levels. These have been FDA approved for treatment of hyperkalemia for patients receiving RAASi.

Therefore, the use of potassium binders (patiromer, sodium zirconium cyclosilicate) to improve outcomes by facilitating the continuation of RAASi therapy in patients with HF who experience hyperkalemia (serum potassium level ≥5.5 mEq/L) received a Class 2b recommendation (LOE B-R), but overall utility remains uncertain.

In the DIAMOND trial, patients with HFrEF and hyperkalemia were randomized to patiromer vs. control. In the run-in phase, all patients were started on patiromer, and subsequently, RAASi therapy was initiated/optimized. After this, patients were randomized to continue vs stop patiromer. Hard clinical primary endpoints of time to CV death or first CV hospitalization were changed to mean change in serum potassium due to challenges with recruitment related to the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant reduction in the mean change of potassium (0.03 mEq/L in the patiromer group vs. 0.13 mEq/L in the control). Additionally, 85% of the patiromer arm was able to be optimized on RAASi.

Aside from hyperkalemia, troublesome side effects of MRAs include gynecomastia and vaginal bleeding. Eplerenone results in lower rates of these side effects than spironolactone given greater specificity for the aldosterone receptor (Option C).

Main Takeaway

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, like spironolactone and eplerenone, reduce all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, and sudden cardiac death in a wide range of patients with HFrEF. Monitoring renal function and potassium levels while on MRA therapy is imperative.

Guideline Loc.

Section 7.3.3
Section 7.3.6

Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 Heart Failure Guidelines Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to 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.

• As 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!

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?

A

Continue maximally tolerated GDMT; no other changes

B

Refer for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)

C

Refer for transcatheter mitral valve intervention

Explanation

Choice 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 <50%) who have persistent symptoms (NYHA class II, III, or IV) while on optimal GDMT for HF (Stage D), M-TEER is reasonable in patients with appropriate anatomy as defined on TEE and with LVEF between 20% and 50%, LVESD ≤70 mm, and pulmonary artery systolic pressure ≤70 mmHg (Class 2a, LOE B-R).

Conversely, mitral valve surgery may have a role in the following contexts:

• Severe secondary MR when CABG is planned (Class 2a, LOE B-NR)
• Chronic severe secondary MR related to atrial annular dilation with preserved LV systolic function (LVEF ≥50%) who have severe persistent symptoms (NYHA class III or IV) despite therapy for HF and therapy for associated AF or other comorbidities (Stage D) (Class 2b, LOE B-NR)
• Chronic severe secondary MR related to LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF <50%) who have persistent severe symptoms (NYHA class III or IV) while on optimal GDMT for HF (Stage D) (Class 2b, LOE B-NR).

Choice A is incorrect. GDMT has been shown to improve MR and LV dimensions in patients with HFrEF and secondary MR, and it is a Class 1 recommendation (LOE B-R) to optimize GDMT before any intervention for secondary MR related to LV dysfunction. This includes both medical GDMT and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) where appropriate. Our patient is still having symptoms despite being on the maximally tolerated doses of medical GDMT. This highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the management of valvular heart disease in patients with HF in accordance with clinical practice guidelines to prevent worsening of HF and adverse clinical outcomes (Class 1, LOE B-R). A cardiologist with expertise in the management of HF is integral in the shared decision-making for valve intervention and should guide optimization of GDMT to ensure that medical options for HF and secondary MR have been effectively applied for an appropriate time-period and exhausted before considering intervention.

Choice B is incorrect. While CRT has been shown to improve MR, LV dimensions, and outcomes in patients with HFrEF and secondary MR in appropriately selected patients, our patient would not be a candidate given that her QRS duration was < 120ms (Class 3: no benefit, LOE B-R).

Main Takeaway

In patients with severe secondary MR and reduced ejection fraction with persistent symptoms despite GDMT, M-TEER is reasonable in patients with appropriate anatomy as defined on TEE and with LVEF between 20% and 50%, LVESD ≤70 mm, and pulmonary artery systolic pressure ≤70 mmHg. Conversely, surgery may be appropriate for some patients. HF ad VHD should be managed in a multidisciplinary fashion. 

Guideline Loc.

Sections 7.4-7.5

Figure 10

Also: Section 7.3 from “Otto, C. M., Nishimura, R. A., Bonow, R. O., Carabello, B. A., rwin, J. P., Gentile, F., Jneid, H., Krieger, ric v., Mack, M., McLeod, C., O’Gara, P. T., Rigolin, V. H., Sundt, T. M., Thompson, A., & Toly, C. (2021). 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. In Circulation (Vol. 143, Issue 5, pp. E72–E227). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000923”

Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 Heart Failure Guidelines Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Section 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.

• As 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!

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?

A

Monitor for LVEF improvement for a total of 60 days prior to further intervention

B

Implantation of a dual-chamber ICD

C

Implantation of a CRT-D

D

Continue current management as device implantation is contraindicated given his advanced age

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, or

ambulatory 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. S therefore meets criteria for both ICD and CRT.

Choice A is incorrect. All patients should be on maximally tolerated doses of GDMT prior to consideration of device implantation to allow for assessment of LVEF recovery. Patients who have experienced myocardial infarction should be reassessed 40 days after the event and after achieving maximally tolerated doses of GDMT. 

Choice B in incorrect. For patients in sinus rhythm with a LBBB morphology and QRS duration >150 ms with an LVEF ≤35%, there were significant improvements in 6-minute walk test performance, quality of life, NYHA classification, and LVEF after implantation of CRT. Mortality and hospitalizations were also found to be decreased in patients with CRT-P & CRT-D. Overall, CRT has been shown to have high economic value in these patients.

It should be noted that CRT has the most benefit in patients with a wide QRS (>150 ms), LBBB morphology, and LVEF ≤35%, though trials have shown a modest benefit in special populations. CRT has a Class 2a recommendation (LOE B-NR) in patients with LVEF ≤35%, sinus rhythm, and NYHA Class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms on GDMT, with either:

a)    Non-LBBB pattern with a QRS duration ≥150 ms

b)    LBBB with a QRS duration of 120 to 149 ms

Choice D is incorrect. If LVEF remains ≤35% in a patient with a life expectancy >1 year, trials have shown that ICD placement for primary prevention reduces sudden cardiac death and also has a high economic value. There is no indication that this patient has a life expectancy < 1 year.

Main Takeaway

In patients 40 days post-MI on GDMT with an LVEF that remains ≤35%, ICD therapy for primary prevention is appropriate and cost effective.  For those additional with a LBBB and QRS >150 ms, CRT-D is also appropriate and cost effective.

Guideline Loc.

Section 7.4

Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 Heart Failure Guidelines Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Sections 2.1

The question is asked by CardioNerds Academy Intern Dr. Adriana Mares, answered first by CardioNerds FIT Trialist Dr. Christabel Nyange, and then by expert faculty Dr. Shelley Zieroth.

Dr. Zieroth is an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist, Head of the Medical Heart Failure Program, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Cardiac Sciences Program, and an Associate Professor in the Section of Cardiology at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Zieroth is a past president of the Canadian Heart Failure Society. She has been a PI Mentor for 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.

• As 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!

A 50-year-old woman presents to establish care. Her medical history includes COPD, prediabetes, and hypertension. She is being treated with chlorthalidone, amlodipine, lisinopril, and a tiotropium inhaler. She denies chest pain, dyspnea on exertion, or lower extremity edema.

On physical exam, blood pressure is 154/88 mmHg, heart rate is 90 beats/min, and respiration rate is 22 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation of 94% breathing ambient room air. BMI is 36 kg/m2. Jugular venous pulsations are difficult to assess due to her body habitus. Breath sounds are distant, with occasional end-expiratory wheezing. Heart sounds are distant, and extra sounds or murmurs are not detected. Extremities are warm and without peripheral edema. B-type natriuretic peptide level is 28 pg/mL (28 ng/L).

A chest radiograph shows increased radiolucency of the lungs, flattened diaphragms, and a narrow heart shadow consistent with COPD. An electrocardiogram shows evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy. The echocardiogram showed normal LV and RV function with no significant valvular abnormalities.

In which stage of HF would this patient be classified?

A

Stage A: At Risk for HF

B

Stage B: Pre-HF

C

Stage C: Symptomatic HF

D

Stage D: Advanced HF

Explanation 

The correct answer is A – Stage A or at risk for HF.

This asymptomatic patient with no evidence of structural heart disease or positive cardiac biomarkers for stretch or injury would be classified as Stage A or “at risk” for HF.

The ACC/AHA stages of HF emphasize the development and progression of disease with specific therapeutic interventions at each stage. Advanced stages and disease progression are associated with reduced survival. The stages were revised in this edition of guidelines to emphasize new terminologies of “at risk” for Stage A and “pre-HF” for Stage B.

At Stage A, emphasis is placed on the prevention of structural heart disease by aggressive risk factor modification. Healthy lifestyle habits, including regular physical activity, maintaining a normal weight, healthy dietary habits, and avoiding smoking, help reduce the future risk of HF.

For patients with established hypertension, coronary disease, or diabetes, optimal control of risk factors is crucial.

For hypertension, the SPRINT trial and subsequent meta-analysis of 35 BP-lowering trials have demonstrated a substantial reduction in incident HF and mortality with aggressive BP control.

For diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors have demonstrated reductions in HF hospitalizations regardless of baseline HF status.

Screening patients “at risk” for HF for disease progression may be beneficial. The STOP-HF study randomized patients with risk factors but without established LV systolic dysfunction or symptomatic HF to screening with BNP testing or usual care. Screening with BNP followed by an echocardiogram and referral to a cardiovascular specialist for those with levels ≥50 pg/mL led to a reduction in the composite endpoint of incident asymptomatic LV dysfunction with or without newly diagnosed HF. Accordingly, BNP or NT–proBNP–based screening followed by team-based care, including a cardiovascular specialist, has a Class 2a (LOE B-R) recommendation in patients at risk of developing HF to prevent the development of LV dysfunction or new-onset HF.

Our patients should be counseled on healthy lifestyles, smoking cessation, and weight loss. Her anti-hypertensive regimen should be intensified for blood pressure optimization. Her ASCVD risk should be calculated, and counseling regarding statin use should be provided accordingly. If she develops overt diabetes, she should be started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor. Given her BNP level, she does not currently warrant further evaluation with an echocardiogram or referral to a specialist.

Main Takeaway

Patients with Stage A HF are those who are at risk for HF but are without symptoms, structural heart disease, or cardiac biomarkers of stretch or injury. At this stage, the emphasis should be on identifying and modifying risk factors.

Guideline Loc.

Sections 2.1 and 4.2

Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 Heart Failure Guidelines Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Section 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.

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)

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%, and
evidence 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

Classification of Heart failure helps direct and track management.

Guideline Loc.

Section 2.2

Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 Heart Failure Guidelines Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Sections 6.1 and 7.4 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 Stem

A 72-year-old woman with a history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and a recent myocardial infarction is seen in your clinic. Two months previously, she was hospitalized with a myocardial infarction and underwent successful revascularization of the left anterior descending artery with a drug-eluting stent. Following her myocardial infarction, an echocardiogram revealed an ejection fraction of 17%, and she was discharged on metoprolol succinate, lisinopril, spironolactone, and dapagliflozin with escalation to maximal tolerated doses over subsequent visits. A repeat echocardiogram performed today in your clinic reveals an ejection fraction of 26%. An electrocardiogram reveals normal sinus rhythm with a narrow QRS at a heart rate of 65 beats per minute. She is grateful for her cardiac rehabilitation program and reports no ongoing symptoms. Which of the following devices is indicated for placement at this time?

Answer choices

A

Implantable loop recorder

B

ICD

C

CRT-D

D

CRT-P

Explanation

The correct answer is B.

This patient suffered a myocardial infarction more than 40 days ago and has been on appropriate guideline-directed medical therapy since that time. Her left ventricular ejection fraction has improved but remains under 30%. For patients who have suffered a myocardial infarction over 40 days prior with LVEF ≤ 30% and NYHA Class I symptoms while receiving GDMT and have a reasonable expectation of meaningful survival for >1 year, an ICD is recommended for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death to reduce total mortality (Class I, LOE B-R).

The MADIT-II trial enrolled 1,232 patients with a prior myocardial infarction and LVEF ≤ 30% to prophylactic ICD or medical therapy. At a median follow-up of 20 months, the trial was terminated early for reduced all-cause mortality with prophylactic ICD. The DINAMIT trial later investigated the implantation of ICD in patients with MI and an LVEF of ≤ 35% at 6 to 40 days after the initial myocardial infarction. This trial found no differences in all-cause mortality between the two groups. Therefore, the current recommendation is to wait at least 40 days with GDMT prior to re-evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction before proceeding with ICD implantation.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy entails implanted pacemakers to simultaneously pace both the RV and LV in order to improve electrical synchrony and generally provides benefit in those with systolic dysfunction and a wide left bundle branch block. Specifically, for patients who have LVEF ≤35%, sinus rhythm, left bundle branch block (LBBB) with a QRS duration ≥150 ms, and NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms on GDMT, CRT is indicated to reduce total mortality, reduce hospitalizations, and improve symptoms and QOL (Class I, LOE B-R). CRT implantation provides high economic value in this setting. CRT implantation carries a Class 2a recommendation for those with reduced LVEF (≤35%) and either a non-LBBB pattern with a QRS ≥150 ms or a LBBB with QRS duration 120-149ms. This patient with a narrow QRS does not have indications for CRT placement at this time.

Main Takeaway

ICD implantation is recommended as primary prophylaxis against ventricular arrhythmias for patients with LVEF ≤30% after 40 days following myocardial infarction despite use of GDMT.

Guideline Loc.

Section 6.1 and 7.4

Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 Heart Failure Guidelines Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Section 5.1 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 advanced heart failure faculty at the University of Chicago and Co-Chair for the CardioNerds Critical Care Cardiology Series Dr. Mark Belkin, and then by expert faculty Dr. Biykem Bozkurt.

Dr. Bozkurt is the Mary and Gordon Cain Chair, Professor of Medicine, Director of the Winters Center for Heart Failure Research, and an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX. She is former President of HFSA, former senior associate editor for Circulation, and current Editor-In-Chief of JACC Heart Failure. Dr. Bozkurt was the Vice Chair of the writing committee for the 2022 Heart Failure 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.

A 63-year-old man with a past medical history of hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus presents for routine follow-up. He reports feeling in general good health and enjoys 2-mile walks daily. A review of systems is negative for any symptoms. Which of the following laboratory studies may be beneficial for screening?

A

NT-proBNP

B

CK-MB

C

Troponin

D

C-reactive protein

E

None of the above

Explanation

The correct answer is A – NT-proBNP.

This patient is at risk for HF (Stage A) given the presence of risk factors (hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus) but the absence of signs or symptoms of heart failure.

Patients at risk for HF screened with BNP or NT-proBNP followed by collaborative care, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment in those with elevated levels can reduce combined rates of LV systolic dysfunction, diastolic dysfunction, and HF.

The STOP-HF (St Vincent’s Screening to Prevent Heart Failure) study was a large single-center trial of patients at risk of HF that showed BNP-based screening reduced the composite endpoint of incident asymptomatic LV dysfunction with or without newly diagnosed HF.

Therefore, for patients at risk of developing HF, natriuretic peptide biomarker-based screening followed by team-based care, including a cardiovascular specialist optimizing GDMT, can be useful to

prevent the development of LV dysfunction (systolic or diastolic) or new-onset HF (Class 2a, LOE B-R).

There is no indication for measuring troponin, CK-MB, or CRP at this time.

Main Takeaway

In patients at risk for HF, screening for pre-HF using natriuretic peptide testing followed by team-based care may be helpful for preventing disease progression.  

Guideline Loc.

Section 5.1

Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 Heart Failure Guidelines Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Section 13 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 Faculty Dr. Dinu Balanescu, and then by expert faculty Dr. Harriette Van Spall.

Dr. Van Spall is an Associate Professor of Medicine, cardiologist, and Director of E-Health at McMaster University. Dr Van Spall is a Canadian Institutes of Health Research-funded clinical trialist and researcher with a focus on heart failure, health services, and health disparities.

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.

Palliative and supportive care has a role for patients with heart failure only in the end stages of their disease.

TRUE

FALSE

Explanation

The correct answer is False

Palliative care is patient- and family-centered care that optimizes health-related quality of life by anticipating, preventing, and treating suffering and should be integrated into the management of all stages of heart failure throughout the course of illness. The wholistic model of palliative care includes high-quality communication, estimation of prognosis, anticipatory guidance, addressing uncertainty, shared decision-making about medically reasonable treatment options, advance care planning; attention to physical, emotional, spiritual, and psychological distress; relief of suffering; and inclusion of family caregivers in patient care and attention to their needs during bereavement.

As such, for all patients with HF, palliative and supportive care—including high-quality communication, conveyance of prognosis, clarifying goals of care, shared decision-making, symptom management, and caregiver support—should be provided to improve QOL and relieve suffering (Class 1, LOE C-LD).

For conveyance of prognosis, objective risk models can be incorporated along with discussion of uncertainty since patients may overestimate survival and the benefits of specific treatments – “hope for the best, plan for the worst.”

For clarifying goals of care, the exploration of each patient’s values and concerns through shared decision-making is essential in important management decisions such as when to discontinue treatments, when to initiate palliative treatments that may hasten death but provide symptom management, planning the location of death, and the incorporation of home services or hospice.

It is a Class I indication that for patients with HF being considered for, or treated with life-extending therapies, the option for discontinuation should be anticipated and discussed through the continuum of care, including at the time of initiation, and reassessed with changing medical conditions and shifting goals of care (LOE C-LD).

Caregiver support should also be offered to family members even beyond death to help them cope with the grieving process.

A formal palliative care consult is not needed for each patient, but the primary team should exercise the above domains to improve processes of care and patient outcomes.

Specialist palliative care consultation can be useful to improve QOL and relieve suffering for patients with heart failure—particularly those with stage D HF who are being evaluated for advanced therapies, patients requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical support, patients experiencing uncontrolled symptoms, major medical decisions, or multimorbidity, frailty, and cognitive impairment (Class 2a, LOE B). Studies have been mixed on if the palliative team itself improves quality of life and well-being so these interventions should be tailored to each patient and caregiver.

For patients with HF, execution of advanced directives can be useful to improve documentation of treatment preferences, delivery of patient-centered care, and dying in a preferred place (Class 2a, LOE C-LD).

In patients with advanced HF with expected survival < 6 months, timely referral to hospice can be useful to improve QOL (Class 2a, LOE C-LD)

Main Takeaway

In summary, the core principles of palliative care that include communication, transparency on prognosis, clarification of goals of care, shared decision-making, symptom management, and caregiver support should be integrated into each patient’s treatment plan regardless of the stage of heart failure

Guideline Loc.

Section 13, Figure 15, Table 32

Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 Heart Failure Guidelines Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Section 9.5 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.

The question is asked by Keck School of Medicine USC medical student & former CardioNerds Intern Hirsh Elhence, answered first by Vanderbilt Cardiology Fellow and CardioNerds Academy Faculty Dr. Breana Hansen, and then by expert faculty Dr. Javed Butler.

Dr. Butler is an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist, President of the Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Senior Vice President for the Baylor Scott and White Health, and Distinguished Professor of Medicine at the University of Mississippi

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.

Mrs. Hart is a 70-year-old woman who was admitted to the CICU two days ago for signs and symptoms consistent with cardiogenic shock. Since her admission, she has been on maximal diuretics, requiring greater doses of intravenous dobutamine. Unfortunately, her liver and renal function continue to worsen, and urine output is decreasing. A right heart catheterization reveals elevated biventricular filling pressures with a cardiac index of 1.7 L/min/m2 by the Fick method.

What is the next best step?

A

Continue current measures and monitor for improvement

B

Switch from dobutamine to norepinephrine

C

Place an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)

D

Resume guideline directed medical therapy

Explanation

The Correct answer is C – Place an intra-aortic balloon pump.

This patient is between the SCAI Shock Stages C and D with elevated venous pressures, decreased urine output, and worsening signs of hypoperfusion. She has been started on appropriate therapies, including diuresis and inotropic support. The relevant Class 2a recommendation is that in patients with cardiogenic shock, temporary MCS is reasonable when end-organ function cannot be maintained by pharmacologic means to support cardiac function (LOE B-NR). Thus, the next best step is a form of temporary MCS. IABP is appropriate to help increase coronary perfusion and offload the left ventricle. In fact, for patients who are not rapidly responding to initial shock measures, triage to centers that can provide temporary MCS may be considered to optimize management (Class 2b, LOE C-LD).

The guidelines further state that in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock, placement of a pulmonary arterial line may be considered to define hemodynamic subsets and appropriate management strategies (Class 2B, LOE B-NR). And so, if time allows escalation to MCS should be guided by invasively obtained hemodynamic data via PA catheterization. Several observational experiences have associated PA catheterization use with improved outcomes, particularly in conjunction with short-term MCS. Additionally, PA catheterization is useful when there is diagnostic uncertainty as to the cause of hypotension or end-organ dysfunction, particularly when the patient in shock is not responding to empiric initial measures, such as in this patient.

There are additional appropriate measures at this time that are more institution-dependent. An institutional shock team would be very helpful here as they often comprise multidisciplinary teams of heart failure and critical care specialists, interventional cardiologists, surgeons, and palliative care specialists. As such, there is a Class 2a recommendation that in patients with cardiogenic shock, management by a multidisciplinary team experienced in shock is reasonable (LOE B-NR). Most documented experiences have suggested outcomes improve after shock teams are instituted. For instance, in one such experience, using a shock team was associated with improved 30-day all-cause mortality (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41–0.93) and reduced in-hospital mortality (61.0% vs. 47.9%; P=0.041).

Choice A – Continue current measures and monitor for improvement – is incorrect. This patient has been deteriorating on current measures since admission and is at higher risk for SCAI Shock Stage E – extremis, refractory hypotension/hypoperfusion, and cardiac arrest and, therefore requires escalation of therapy

Choice B- Switch from dobutamine to norepinephrine – is incorrect. The Class 1 LOE B-NR recommendation is that in patients with cardiogenic shock, intravenous inotropic support should be used to maintain systemic perfusion and maintain end-organ performance. Dobutamine is a more potent inotropic agent than norepinephrine. Stopping dobutamine in the setting of her low cardiac index would be incorrect.

Choice D – Resume guideline-directed medical therapy – is incorrect. This patient’s shock is getting worse. The Class 1 LOE B-NR recommendation is that in patients with HFrEF, GDMT should be initiated during hospitalization after clinical stability is achieved. Restarting medications now would be premature.

Main Takeaway

In patients with cardiogenic shock, temporary MCS is reasonable when end-organ function cannot be maintained by pharmacologic means to support cardiac function.

Guideline Loc.

Section 9.5

Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 Heart Failure Guidelines Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Section 4.9 of the 2021 ESC CV Prevention Guidelines. The question is asked by Dr. Christian Faaborg-Andersen, answered first by UCSD fellow Dr. Patrick Azcarate, and then by expert faculty Dr. Melissa Tracy.

Dr. Tracy is a preventive cardiologist, former Director of the Echocardiography Lab, Director of Cardiac Rehabilitation, and solid organ transplant cardiologist at Rush University.

The CardioNerds Decipher The Guidelines Series for the 2021 ESC CV Prevention Guidelines represents a collaboration with the ACC Prevention of CVD Section, the National Lipid Association, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association.

Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.

In patients with a low risk of cardiovascular disease, which of the following is true?

A

Aspirin does not affect the risk of ischemic stroke

B

Aspirin increases the risk of fatal bleeding.

C

Aspirin reduces the risk of non-fatal MI.

D

Aspirin reduces cardiovascular mortality

Explanation

In 2019, an updated meta-analysis of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events found that patients with a low risk of CVD taking aspirin did not have a reduction in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. There was a lower risk of non-fatal MI (RR 0.82) and ischemic stroke (RR 0.87). However, aspirin was also associated with a  higher risk of major bleeding (RR 1.50), intracranial bleeding (RR 1.32), and major GI bleeding (RR 1.52). There was no difference in the risk of fatal bleeding (RR 1.09).

Accordingly, the ESC does not recommend antiplatelet therapy in individuals with low/moderate CV risk due to the increased risk of major bleeding (Class III, LOE A).

Although aspirin should not be given routinely to patients without established ASCVD, we cannot exclude that in some patients at high or very high CVD risk, the benefits may outweigh the risks.

Main Takeaway

In patients with low/moderate risk of CVD, aspirin for primary prevention is not recommended due to the higher risk of bleeding. For those at higher risk of CVD, low-dose aspirin may be considered for prevention in the absence of contraindications.

Guideline Loc.

Section 4.9.1, Page 3291

CardioNerds Decipher the Guidelines – 2021 ESC Prevention Series
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!