In patients with hyperkalemia, education regarding a low potassium diet should be provided. In addition, newer potassium binders (patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate) are now approved by the Food and Drug Administration and may be considered; however, more data are needed regarding use of such agents in patients with HFrEF, as their use has not been shown to increase GDMT use or have an impact on outcomes in patients. Additionally, these agents raise concerns in terms of cost/ access and their contribution to polypharmacy. A trial examining whether a strategy of potassium binding will potentiate GDMT prescription and improve HFrEF Maddox et al. J outcomes is ongoing, and more data may be available in the future. For patients with established renal disease, caution may be necessary when starting GDMT. In patients with ), no adjustment is needed when deciding the starting dose of the ARNI sacubitril/valsar- tan. In those with severe renal impairment (eGFR <30 mL/ ), the starting dose of sacubitril/valsartan should be reduced to 24/26 mg twice daily (Table 4). ACEIs/ARBs are generally considered safe in patients with severe renal impairment, although de nitive data are lacking. Aldosterone antagonists are contraindicated in patients with severe renal impairment (eGFR <30 mL/ , or creatinine >2.5 mg/dL in men or creati- nine >2 mg/dL in women) or with potassium >5.0 mEq/L (Figure 2). Renal function and potassium should be assessed within 1 to 2 weeks after initiation or dose increase of an ARNI/ACEI/ARB. In patients with preserved renal func- tion or mild to moderate renal impairment, renal function and potassium after initiation and titration of aldosterone antagonists should be assessed within 2 to 3 days and again at 7 days.


In patients with preserved renal func- tion or mild to moderate renal impairment, renal function and potassium after initiation and titration of aldosterone antagonists should be assessed within 2 to 3 days and again at 7 days. The schedule for subsequent monitoring should be dictated by the clinical stability of renal func- tion and volume status but should occur at least monthly for the rst 3 months and every 3 months thereafter (3). During the initiation and titration of agents that affect renal function, a decrease in eGFR of >30% or the development of hyperkalemia should alert the clinician that a reduction in doses may be necessary, even though short-term changes in eGFR during intense diuretic therapy or with the initiation of an ACEI or ARB do not predict longer-term adverse outcomes (48), and initial mild worsening of renal function after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may also occur before longer-term renal func- tion preservation (13). In patients with evidence of hypovolemia, the dose of diuretic agents should be reduced. The ARNI dose may also need to be reduced in the setting of renal insuf ciency or hypotension. Hyper- kalemia may also require changes in medical therapy. Among SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with chronic HFrEF, clinical trial experience with dapagli ozin is lacking in , whereas for empagli ozin, there is a similar lack of clinical trial data for those with an eGFR <20 mL/min/1.73 m2 . Volume status should be closely monitored, as intravascular vol- ume contraction may necessitate a reduction in loop diuretic dosing. Clinical assessment and renal stability in each patient dictates whether clinicians may need to monitor certain patients more closely than others. Socioeconomic barriers to care may undermine the ability to achieve GDMT.


Socioeconomic barriers to care may undermine the ability to achieve GDMT. For example, the cost of thera- pies poses a substantial barrier to care, particularly for an ARNI, SGLT2 inhibitor, and ivabradine (see the discussion on costs of care in Section 5.7). In such cases, if all solu- tions are exhausted, optimizing care with the most nancially manageable program is recommended. Simi- larly, some patients have a limited ability to attend frequent of ce visits for GDMT optimization. For example, homebound patients or those with limited ability to travel may be unable to have blood pressure, heart rate, or renal function assessed in a timely fashion. In these cases, options such as virtual care and home visiting nurse services may aid in remote optimization of GDMT (49). Virtual care in particular may be a more viable strategy, with the recent increases in its use due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Useful guidance exists regarding the use of virtual visits to allow for medical access, moni- toring of symptoms/signs, and adjustments of GDMT (50). 5.2.3. Clinical Assessment Figure 4 details a reasonable strategy for patient evalua- tion and management following a diagnosis of HFrEF. After GDMT is initiated and titrated with the goal of achieving clinical trial doses or maximally tolerated doses, patients with chronic HFrEF should be evaluated on a regularly scheduled basis. For most patients, a reasonable interval is every 3 to 6 months, although many may require more frequent follow-up to monitor clinical stability and revisit opportunities for further GDMT titration. Cardiac rehabilitation is helpful to support drug titration, monitor symptoms, improve health status, and increase exercise tolerance, but remains underused in terms of both prescription and access (51).


Cardiac rehabilitation is helpful to support drug titration, monitor symptoms, improve health status, and increase exercise tolerance, but remains underused in terms of both prescription and access (51). During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual care to allow for outpatient GDMT titration has been useful in certain patients (52) and will likely take on a larger role in HFrEF care post- pandemic. High-risk features (conveniently summarized by the acronym I NEED HELP in Figure 4 and Table 6) should trigger consideration for referral for an advanced HF consultation (53). Features triggering referral to advanced HF care are also discussed in Section 5.3 and Table 6. 5.2.4. Imaging When to Order an Echocardiogram An echocardiogram, with strain imaging when available, is recommended in the evaluation of the patient with incident HF to assess LVEF, diastolic function, chamber size, ventricular wall thickness, valvular abnormalities, and hemodynamic parameters including estimated right ventricular systolic pressure, central venous pressure, and LV lling pressures. Once optimal doses of GDMT have been achieved for 3 to 6 months, repeat imaging can be useful in making decisions regarding device therapy (implantable cardioverter de brillator, cardiac resynch- ronization therapy, or transcatheter mitral valve repair) or referral for advanced therapies (ventricular assist device J Maddox et al. or transplant). In some patients, it may be reasonable to wait longer for such decisions if there is an expectation that LV remodeling might further progress. For example, in the PROVE-HF study, increases in LVEF and reduction in LV volumes continued over 12 months in some patients (11). Repeat imaging may also be considered at the time of important changes in clinical status (3). Routine surveil- lance echocardiograms (e.g., annually) in the absence of FIGURE 4 Testing and Medication Titration Following Diagnosis of HFrEF Maddox et al.


, annually) in the absence of FIGURE 4 Testing and Medication Titration Following Diagnosis of HFrEF Maddox et al. J change in clinical status or some other signal of risk are unwarranted. If echocardiography does not provide an assessment of LVEF, guidelines recommend other mo- dalities including radionuclide ventriculography or mag- netic resonance imaging (3). When recovery of LVEF to >40% is noted in the setting of prior HFrEF, outcomes improve (54). Clinicians are often faced with the question of whether to continue GDMT or reduce/eliminate it in patients with complete LVEF recovery. The recent TRED-HF (Withdrawal of Pharmacological Treatment for Heart Failure in Patients with Recovered Dilated Cardiomyopathy) study examined this question, nding that nearly 50% of subjects with- drawn from GDMT had an HF event within 6 months (55). Therefore, in the absence of a de ned, reversible cause for HFrEF (e.g., tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy), current GDMT should be continued (56). 5.2.5. Biomarkers When to Order Natriuretic Peptides B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and NT-proBNP are the most studied biomarkers in HF. They play a role in diag- nosis and prognostication: higher concentrations of BNP or NT-proBNP in an ambulatory patient with HFrEF inform high risk, particularly when the concentrations are rising. Current clinical practice guidelines give a Class I recommendation to measure BNP or NT-proBNP to support a clinical diagnosis of HF, assess disease severity, or establish prognosis (3). More recently, biomarkers have been examined for their role as markers of clinical responsiveness to GDMT. This is due, in part, to the fact that a wide range of GDMTs may reduce BNP and NT-proBNP concentrations in par- allel with the bene ts of these therapies. Patients whose natriuretic peptide concentrations do not fall with GDMT ( nonresponders ) have a worse prognosis and more deleterious LV remodeling (7,57,58).


Patients whose natriuretic peptide concentrations do not fall with GDMT ( nonresponders ) have a worse prognosis and more deleterious LV remodeling (7,57,58). In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensi ed Treatment in HF) trial, among patients with HFrEF, lowering NT-proBNP to <1,000 pg/mL was asso- ciated with signi cant reverse remodeling and improved outcomes (59). Similarly, in the PROVE-HF study, the speed and magnitude of NT-proBNP lowering after ARNI initiation were associated with greater degrees of reverse cardiac remodeling and improved outcomes (7,54). Therefore, measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP is useful to monitor risk, assist in decision-making regarding the ordering of imaging studies to evaluate LV remodeling, and to provide helpful objective data regarding decision- making for referral to advanced HF therapies (Figure 4, Table 6). Concentrations of BNP or NT-proBNP are sup- ported with a Class I guideline recommendation to determine prognosis. In the setting of worsening TABLE 6 Triggers for HF Patient Referral to a Specialist/Program Clinical Scenario 1. New-onset HF (regardless of EF): Refer for evaluation of etiology, guideline-directed evaluation and management of recommended therapies, and assistance in disease management, including consideration of advanced imaging, endomyocardial biopsy, or genetic testing for primary evaluation of new-onset HF 2.


New-onset HF (regardless of EF): Refer for evaluation of etiology, guideline-directed evaluation and management of recommended therapies, and assistance in disease management, including consideration of advanced imaging, endomyocardial biopsy, or genetic testing for primary evaluation of new-onset HF 2. Chronic HF with high-risk features, such as development or persistence of one or more of the following risk factors: n Need for chronic intravenous inotropes n Persistent NYHA functional class III IV symptoms of congestion or profound fatigue n Systolic blood pressure #90 mm Hg or symptomatic hypotension n Creatinine $1.8 mg/dL or BUN $43 mg/dL n Onset of atrial brillation, ventricular arrhythmias, or repetitive ICD shocks n Two or more emergency department visits or hospitalizations for worsening HF in the prior 12 months n Inability to tolerate optimally dosed beta-blockers and/or ACEI/ARB/ARNI and/or aldosterone antagonists n Clinical deterioration, as indicated by worsening edema, rising biomarkers (BNP, NT-proBNP, others), worsened exercise testing, decompensated hemodynamics, or evidence of progressive remodeling on imaging n High mortality risk using a validated risk model for further assessment and consideration of advanced therapies, such as the Seattle Heart Failure Model 3. Persistently reduced LVEF #35% despite GDMT for $3 months: refer for consideration of device therapy in those patients without prior placement of ICD or CRT, unless device therapy is contraindicated or inconsistent with overall goals of care 4. Second opinion needed regarding etiology of HF; for example: n Coronary ischemia and the possible value of revascularization n Valvular heart disease and the possible value of valve repair n Suspected myocarditis n Established or suspected speci c cardiomyopathies (e.g., hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia, Chagas disease, restrictive cardiomyopathy, cardiac sarcoidosis, amyloid, aortic stenosis) 5.


, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia, Chagas disease, restrictive cardiomyopathy, cardiac sarcoidosis, amyloid, aortic stenosis) 5. Annual review needed for patients with established advanced HF in which patients/caregivers and clinicians discuss current and potential therapies for both anticipated and unanticipated events, possible HF disease trajectory and prognosis, patient preferences, and advanced care planning 6. Assessment of patient for possible participation in a clinical trial ACEI angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB angiotensin receptor blockers; ARNI angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor; BNP B-type natriuretic peptide; BUN blood, urea, nitrogen; CRT cardiac resynchronization therapy; EF ejection fraction; GDMT guideline-directed medical therapy; HF heart failure; ICD implantable cardioverter- de brillator; LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction; NT-proBNP N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; NYHA New York Heart Association; SGLT2 sodium-glucose cotransporter-2. J Maddox et al. symptoms (60), the reassessment of BNP or NT-proBNP may be informative. Severe renal dysfunction may inter- fere with the interpretation of natriuretic peptide con- centrations. Importantly, current evidence does not suggest targeting treatment to speci c BNP or NT-proBNP levels. Although rising natriuretic peptide concentrations are correlated with adverse outcomes, this relationship can be confounded by the use of sacubitril/valsartan. Due to neprilysin inhibition, concentrations of BNP sometimes modestly rise in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and tend not to rapidly return to baseline despite chronic therapy. In contrast, NT-proBNP concentrations typically decrease much more consistently than do BNP concen- trations, as NT-proBNP is not a substrate for neprilysin (61). Clinicians should interpret natriuretic peptides in the context of GDMT; caution is advised when attempting to interpret BNP values in the context of ARNI treatment, and NT-proBNP measurement may be preferable in this setting. However, during treatment, either biomarker predicts the risk of major adverse outcomes in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan (8). 5.2.6.


However, during treatment, either biomarker predicts the risk of major adverse outcomes in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan (8). 5.2.6. Filling Pressure Assessment When and How to Measure Filling Pressures Whereas routine pulmonary artery catheterization is not recommended to manage congestion, invasive hemody- namic and lling pressure assessment may occasionally be useful to support decision-making. For example, in patients who have refractory symptoms despite perceived adequate use of diuretic agents, those who develop worsening renal function with attempts to increase doses of diuretic agents, or those with repeated hospitalization for congestion, a better understanding of lling pressures and hemodynamics might assist in pivotal changes in HF therapies. Pulmonary artery catheterization results may also help select candidates for advanced therapies, including transplantation or mechanical circulatory support. Recent attention has focused on the use of implantable sensors to guide lling pressure assessment in ambula- tory patients with HF. In the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III HF Patients) study, patients with NYHA class III HF symptoms were randomly assigned to receive a wireless implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor versus usual care (62). Patients who were managed with data from implantable pulmo- nary artery pressure monitoring experienced more changes in GDMT and diuretic doses (63). In addition, those managed with implantable pulmonary artery pres- sure monitoring had a 28% relative reduction in HF hos- pitalization (0.49 events/patient/year in the treatment arm versus 0.69 events/patient/year in the control arm; p < 0.001). Such improvement was seen in patients with both HFrEF and HF with preserved EF. This suggests that in well-selected patients with recurrent congestion, this highly specialized monitoring strategy may guide thera- peutic decision-making.


This suggests that in well-selected patients with recurrent congestion, this highly specialized monitoring strategy may guide thera- peutic decision-making. The impact on mortality is un- known but is being evaluated in an ongoing randomized clinical trial, GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-Guided Manage- ment of HF). A team-based approach may be necessary to best deploy this monitoring strategy (see Section 5.8). Patients on optimal GDMT who have either high-risk features (Section 5.3 and Table 6) or a poor response to therapy should be considered for referral to an advanced HF specialist, as discussed in the next section. 5.3. When to Refer to an HF Specialist Appropriate and timely referral to an HF specialist and/or HF program is essential in selected patients to optimize therapies and evaluate advanced HF care options (Table 6) (3,64). Referrals should be made for consultation and, if indicated, for comanagement as well as consider- ation of advanced therapies (heart transplantation or mechanical circulatory support), recognition and man- agement of speci c or unusual cardiomyopathies, or annual review (3,65 71). Clinical triggers for referral (Table 6) include persistent or worsening symptoms, adverse clinical events, or other features suggesting that the patient is at high risk for disease progression or death (53,72 75). 5.4. How to Address Challenges of Care Coordination Delivering optimal patient-centered HF care is complex. The range of treatments available, particularly those for patients with HFrEF, include multiple medications, car- diac devices, surgery, and lifestyle adaptations, all of which require education, monitoring, and engagement. For example, patients with HFrEF frequently require consultative care delivered by electrophysiology special- ists to implant, monitor, and adjust devices such as implantable cardioverter-de brillator or cardiac resynch- ronization therapy devices.


For example, patients with HFrEF frequently require consultative care delivered by electrophysiology special- ists to implant, monitor, and adjust devices such as implantable cardioverter-de brillator or cardiac resynch- ronization therapy devices. As outlined in Section 5.9, the complexity of HF care is further exacerbated by the frequent coexistence of both cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities found in patients with HF. Comorbidities are particularly common in the elderly. More than 50% of patients with HF on Medicare have 4 or more non-CV comorbidities and more than 25% have 6 or more (76). The care needs for comorbidities can complicate and in some cases prevent the optimal use of HF therapies. Finally, the medical complexity inherent in most patients with HF generally requires the involvement of multiple clinicians across many care settings (e.g., hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, and ambulatory clinics). This raises the risk of inef ciencies in care delivery, miscom- munication, potential drug drug interactions and drug Maddox et al. J disease interactions, and missed opportunities to achieve optimal HF outcomes. As new medications and devices become available that require optimal communication between multiple parties, including the patient, care coordination is especially important. For example, when caring for patients with HF who have comorbid T2D and are being considered for new glucose modifying therapies (SGLT2 inhibitors), possible approaches include a consultative approach or a team approach. In a consultative approach, the CV specialist consults with the diabetes clinician and/or the patient in the provision of their care (31). In a team approach, an interprofessional multidisciplinary group of clinicians (e.g., primary care, endocrinologists, cardiologists, phar- macists, nurses, advanced practice professionals, and di- eticians) consider novel therapies collectively (31). Regardless, all approaches to HFrEF management need to be patient-centered, use shared decision-making, and involve communication across disciplines (31).


Regardless, all approaches to HFrEF management need to be patient-centered, use shared decision-making, and involve communication across disciplines (31). Randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of the team-based approach over usual care in patients with HF (77 80) with respect to the risks of death, hos- pitalization, lengths of stay, and quality of life (81 84). These outcomes are generally attributed to greater adherence to GDMT, higher proportions of patients receiving effective medication doses, and earlier recog- nition of HF signs and symptoms (85,86). Team-based HF care is thus recommended in the most recent HF guide- lines (3). Necessary skills for care teams include pro ciency in monitoring for HF progression and exacerbation, care coordination, treatment prescription and monitoring, and education for patients and their caregivers (Table 7). Effective team-based HF care may be possible with small teams as long as the requisite skills are available. Composition of care teams may continue to evolve. For example, transcatheter mitral valve intervention pro- grams require collaboration with cardiology, cardiac sur- gery, anesthesiology, imaging, nursing, and social services. They also require other medical professionals to be involved with preprocedural patient selection, intra- procedural management, postprocedural in-hospital and post-discharge care, and follow-up outcome reporting. Each program will de ne the roles and responsibilities of various care team members in an effort to effectively communicate and obtain optimal patient outcomes (87). In addition, recent innovations in HF care delivery, such as group visits, remote specialist video consultation, and telemonitoring programs, may also be useful (88 93). As previously noted, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the uptake and reimbursement of virtual care, including telephone and video visits.


As previously noted, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the uptake and reimbursement of virtual care, including telephone and video visits. In addition, remote patient monitoring programs to monitor patients with HF for early signs of clinical decompensation have also been accelerated by the pandemic, given their ability to assess patients without unnecessarily exposing them to COVID- 19. These advances may ultimately have an impact on HF care well after the pandemic subsides. For example, communication may be enhanced with telehealth by leveraging remote symptom monitoring captured be- tween visits, which can be used to inform clinical de- cisions through patient engagement in self-care (94). It will be important to rigorously study the ability of tele- health to effectively manage patients with HFrEF. In the interim, virtual visits serve as one avenue to avoid delays in care, including titration of GDMT remotely, if needed, while taking appropriate precautions to keep patients and caregivers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Potential infrastructure components to support team- based HF care are detailed in Table 8. Electronic health records are essential to communica- tion and coordination of care. Patient monitoring and engagement tools that can detect early signs of HF decompensation and encourage adherence to effective therapies are also important adjuncts. Many recent tech- nological innovations in this area, such as implantable pulmonary arterial pressure monitoring devices (62), wearable activity monitors (95), and smartphone and other mobile applications (96), have the potential to improve monitoring and patient engagement (96). These advances have been accompanied by new billing codes for remote monitoring activities. However, as previously noted, these innovations are largely unproven, so the focus should remain on the effectiveness and evidence, rather than the form of these tools.


However, as previously noted, these innovations are largely unproven, so the focus should remain on the effectiveness and evidence, rather than the form of these tools. In addition, these programs will require a clear and effective way for care teams to receive, analyze, and act on the information. Low-tech approaches, such as daily weights and algo- rithms for management of HF, may be suf cient for some patients to assist in self-management. In all cases, un- derstanding who receives and acts upon the data is as important as having established programs for monitoring patient-generated data. Patient and caregiver educational tools also support team-based HF care. Recent advances in optimizing health literacy and empowering patient engagement and self-management in HF care are TABLE 7 Essential Skills for an HF Team n HF diagnosis and monitoring for progression n Treatment prescription, titration, and monitoring n Patient and caregiver education on disease and treatments n Lifestyle prescription (e.g., diet, exercise), education, and monitoring n Psychological and social support assessment, treatment, and monitoring n Palliative and end-of-life counseling and care n Coordination of care for concomitant comorbidities HF heart failure. J Maddox et al. promising in this respect (97,98). Ongoing monitoring of team-based care implementation, outcomes, and safety through periodic data collection, analysis, benchmarking, and as needed process improvements are an essential aspect of optimal team-based HF care. 5.5. How to Improve Adherence 5.5.1. Medication Nonadherence Patient adherence is fundamental to the therapeutic effectiveness of GDMT. Medication adherence is de ned as the extent to which medications are taken as pre- scribed, such that nonadherence is not dichotomous, but rather a spectrum of types and degrees of discordance with medication prescription (99).


Medication adherence is de ned as the extent to which medications are taken as pre- scribed, such that nonadherence is not dichotomous, but rather a spectrum of types and degrees of discordance with medication prescription (99). Estimates of signi cant nonadherence in patients with HFrEF vary from 20% to 50% (100 103), with some difference by drug (104). Such nonadherence is associated with worse outcomes in HF (105,106). In addition to nonadherence, a large proportion of patients with HFrEF do not receive target doses of medical therapies (107), even in the absence of docu- mented intolerance. Reasons for nonadherence are complex (108,109), as outlined in Table 9. Unintentional nonadherence is thought to be more common than intentional non- adherence (99,110). As Table 9 shows, the ability of pa- tients to follow treatment plans in an optimal manner is frequently compromised by more than 1 barrier (111,112). Patients with HF, especially those with HFrEF, have indications for multiple medication therapies. In addi- tion, the HF population has a rising prevalence of comorbidities that necessitate their own pharmacological therapies. As a result, patients with HF are prescribed an average of 6 different medications totaling more than 10 daily doses (113,114). Consequently, interventions that target adherence in HF must be multidisciplinary, multi- factorial, and personalized to the particular demands experienced by the patient. 5.5.2. General Approaches to Improving Adherence Regularly assessing adherence helps guide individual approaches and tailor the intensity and type of adherence interventions. Notably, however, clinicians tend to over- estimate actual adherence, and no perfect measure of adherence exists.


Notably, however, clinicians tend to over- estimate actual adherence, and no perfect measure of adherence exists. The past decade has seen a transition away from a hi- erarchical approach to medication adherence and more TABLE 8 Potential Infrastructure Components to Support Team-Based HF Care Modality Challenges Potential Bene ts Electronic health records n Ease of access n Interoperability with other electronic data repositories n Data accuracy including missing data n Reduction in errors n Decision support (e.g., ACC TreatHF mobile app) n Accurate medication reconciliation to facilitate guideline adherence n Patient portal to facilitate patient/caregiver engage- ment, including patient-reported outcomes and other patient-generated data (if available) Patient monitoring devices: (e.g., scales, implanted devices, bioimpedance devices, wearable hemodynamic sensors) n Accuracy n False alert n Cost-effectiveness n Infrastructure/resource needs, including accurate data management and triage n Early warning and a reduction in morbidity Wearable activity monitors n Accuracy n Physical activity coaching/adherence n Early detection of arrhythmias (e.g., AF) Smartphones or other mobile technologies n Need for more useful apps or other mobile tech- nologies, including support systems in place for providing equipment and training for use n Potential privacy issues n Activity tracking n Diet records n Weight management n Communication with HF team n Prompts for medication and lifestyle adherence ACC American College of Cardiology; AF atrial brillation; HF heart failure. Reasons for Nonadherence (World Health Organization) Patient n Perceived lack of effect n Poor health literacy n Physical impairment (vision, cognition) n Mental health conditions (depression, anxiety) n Social isolation n Cognitive impairment (dementia) Medical condition n High HF regimen complexity n Impact of comorbidities (e.g.


Reasons for Nonadherence (World Health Organization) Patient n Perceived lack of effect n Poor health literacy n Physical impairment (vision, cognition) n Mental health conditions (depression, anxiety) n Social isolation n Cognitive impairment (dementia) Medical condition n High HF regimen complexity n Impact of comorbidities (e.g., depression) n Polypharmacy due to multiple comorbidities Therapy n Frequency of dosing n Polypharmacy n Side effects Socioeconomic n Out-of-pocket cost n Dif cult access to pharmacy n Lack of social support n Homelessness Health system n Poor communication n Silos of care n No automatic re lls n Dif culty navigating patient assistance programs HF heart failure. Maddox et al. J toward a shared approach, with greater focus on systems solutions (Table 10). As such, the language has shifted from patient compliance to adherence and now to activation, engagement, and empowerment (115). Within this new paradigm, patients are seen as needing support, whereas blame is counterproductive. Shared decision- making, holistic approaches to multiple chronic condi- tions, cost transparency, personal responsibility, and behavioral theories underlie many of the evolving ap- proaches to enhancing medication adherence (116,117). Six categories of interventions have been identi ed: pa- tient education; medication regimen management; clin- ical pharmacist consultation for chronic disease comanagement; cognitive behavioral therapies; medication-taking reminders; and incentives to promote adherence (102). A systematic review and meta-analysis of 771 intervention trials on medication adherence TABLE 10 Ten Considerations to Improve Adherence 1. Capitalize on opportunities when patients are most predisposed to adherence n In-hospital/pre-discharge initiation following decompensation 2.


Capitalize on opportunities when patients are most predisposed to adherence n In-hospital/pre-discharge initiation following decompensation 2. Consider the patient s perspective n Start with the goals of therapy (feeling better and living longer) and then discuss how speci c actions (medication initiation, intensi cation, monitoring, and adherence) support those goals (example: ACC s My Heart Failure Action Plan) n Use decision aids when available (example: CardioSmart Heart Failure Resources) n Ask patient how they learn best and provide education accordingly n Use culturally relevant patient education materials 3. Simplify medication regimens whenever possible 4. Consider costs and access n Become familiar with and advocate for systems that help make cost sharing automatic, immediate, and transparent n Prescribe lower-cost medications if of similar ef cacy n Facilitate access to copay assistance n Discuss out-of-pocket copays proactively n Prescribe 90-day quantities for re lls 5. Communicate with other clinicians involved in care, ideally facilitated by electronic health records 6. Educate using practical, patient-friendly information n Provide a written explanation of the purpose of each medication prescribed n Plan pharmacist visits for complex medication regimens n Use the teach back principle to reinforce education 7. Recommend tools that support adherence in real time n Pill boxes to be lled by patient or care partner a week at a time n Alarms for each time of the day medications are due n Smartphone or other mobile health applications that provide an interactive platform for education, reminders, warnings, and adherence tracking 8. Consider behavioral supports n Motivational interviewing n Participate in engaged bene t designs 9. Anticipate problems n Communicate common side effects n Provide instructions on when to call for re lls or report problems n Remind patients using pharmacy assistance programs that re lls/reorders are not automatic 10.


Anticipate problems n Communicate common side effects n Provide instructions on when to call for re lls or report problems n Remind patients using pharmacy assistance programs that re lls/reorders are not automatic 10. Monitor adherence and target patients at risk n Inquire patients directly (e.g., How many times in a week do you miss taking your medications? Have you run out of your medications recently? )n Carry out medicine reconciliation at visits, with focus on discrepancies n Assess remaining dosage units (i.e., count excess remaining tablets) n Monitor pharmacy lls, using available clinical databases or automated alerts for failed lls and re lls n Review available drug levels (e.g., digoxin, INR) or concentrations of BNP/NT-proBNP n Plan home-based nursing visits for appropriate patients ACC American College of Cardiology; BNP B-type natriuretic peptide; INR international normalized ratio; NT-proBNP N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide. J Maddox et al. demonstrated that the most effective interventions were delivered face-to-face by pharmacists and administered directly to patients, with a speci c focus on habit-based interventions (118). In a systematic review of 57 studies (119), interventions to enhance adherence for patients with HF were associated with lower mortality (relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.99) and hospital readmission (odds ratio: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89). A systematic re- view of 27 studies of mobile health interventions for CV diseases including HF (120,121) found that mobile health signi cantly improved adherence to medical therapy (odds ratio: 4.51; p < 0.00001). 5.5.3. Systems and Policies to Promote Adherence Individual patients and clinicians must be supported by systems that help the right patient get the right therapy at the right time (122). Automated screening and assessment tools can identify and target patients who are at the greatest risk for nonadherence (e.g.


Automated screening and assessment tools can identify and target patients who are at the greatest risk for nonadherence (e.g., those with dementia, depression, homelessness, or drug use) (123). Health in- formation technologies increasingly have the ability to collect pooled data on prescription lls as well as to share these data among care providers and across settings. This offers the potential to characterize patient medication adherence in real time and automatically identify prob- lems. Electronic health record-based algorithms to iden- tify and optimize use of GDMT are already in use for these purposes (124 126). Several other mechanisms can help to optimize adherence: 1. Integration of pharmacists, patient navigators, and registered nurses in collaborative practice may help with optimization of GDMT (127 131). 2. Limiting copays has been associated with small in- creases in patient prescription lls (101,132). Value- based insurance designs that tailor cost sharing to value are promising. 3. The CMS Innovation Center s Bene ciary Engagement and Incentives models aim to support patient adher- ence (https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/ bene ciary-engagement-and-incentives-models-shared- decision-making-model). 4. Monetary incentives or other rewards for adherence to medications may be cost-saving for highly ef cacious and inexpensive drugs, such as beta-blockers, in HFrEF. 5.6. What Is Needed in Speci c Patient Cohorts: African Americans, Older Adults, and the Frail Randomized clinical trials typically enroll only a subset of patients with HFrEF, resulting in limited demographic, economic, and clinical diversity. Consequently, there is uncertainty about the bene ts and risks of HFrEF thera- pies in patients not resembling those studied. As a result, only approximations of risks and bene ts can guide therapy in the least-studied populations (Table 11) (133). Examples of populations that have been relatively understudied in HFrEF trials include African Americans, older adults ($75 years), and frail patients. African Americans.


Examples of populations that have been relatively understudied in HFrEF trials include African Americans, older adults ($75 years), and frail patients. African Americans. ARNIs, SGLT2 inhibitors, and ivabradine were tested in clinical trial populations with few or no African Americans. In fact, the landmark ivab- radine study SHIFT included almost no African Americans (12,28,135). Nonetheless, no signi cant differences in the ef cacy of ARNIs or SGLT2 inhibitors have been observed by race. Ivabradine is now actively being studied in Afri- can Americans with HF. Given the established bene ts in the general public, we recommend that African Americans receive these newer medications as part of their HF GDMT. TABLE 11 Speci c Patient Cohorts in HF Care Patient Cohorts Description Evidence-based recommendations Risks Uncertainties African-American patients Self-identi ed GDMT n ARNIs, ACEIs, and ARBs: possibly higher risk of angioedema compared with Caucasian patients n Uncertain risk of hypotension when combining new drugs with HYD/ISDN Expected outcomes of ARNI, SGLT2 inhibitors, and/or ivabradine in those treated with HYD/ISDN Older adults $75 years of age n GDMT, but recognize that this pop- ulation is excluded from many trials supporting GDMT n Consider starting with lower doses of GDMT n Potential falls n Worsening of renal function n Polypharmacy n Comorbidity Ef cacy of lower-dose GDMT on outcomes Frail patients Meets established frailty GDMT as tolerated n Uncertain response to GDMT n Possibly increased risk for adverse drug reactions Ability to have an impact on natural history in the frail with HF ACEI angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB angiotensin receptor blockers; ARNI angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor; GDMT guideline-directed medical therapy; HF heart failure; HYD/ISDN hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate. Maddox et al. J A key therapy among African Americans with HFrEF is HYD/ISDN.


J A key therapy among African Americans with HFrEF is HYD/ISDN. However, the combined bene t of HYD/ISDN with an ARNI, SGLT2 inhibitor, and/or ivabradine is less clear nevertheless, this lack of clarity should not prevent prescription of these new medications. African Americans are underprescribed HYD/ISDN, a treatment with survival bene ts isolated to those of self-de ned African-Amer- ican race; it should be a priority to initiate evidence-based medications in all applicable populations. We recommend consideration of both HYD/ISDN and ARNI prescriptions for African-American patients, with the acknowledgment that both purportedly act via upregulation of cyclic gua- nosine monophosphate (cGMP) pathways and could in- crease the risk of hypotension. Additionally, the risk of angioedema with both ACEIs and ARNIs is higher in African-American patients (136). Clinical guidance for treating HF in African-American patients includes: a. Establish GDMT with an ARNI/ACEI/ARB (ARNI preferred, if possible), a beta-blocker, and an aldoste- rone antagonist; if stable, follow with titration of HYD/ ISDN (starting at a low dose, but aim for doses used in the pivotal randomized trials [Table 1, Figure 3G]). For those with persistent NYHA class III to IV symptoms, titration should proceed with careful blood pressure monitoring and close monitoring of other side effects (e.g., headache, dizziness). (Note: HYD/ISDN are avail- able as a xed-dose combination or as individual medi- cations. The ACC/AHA/HFSA guideline considers either form acceptable in this context.) b. Avoid ARNIs in settings of known or hereditary angioe- dema with ACEIs or ARBs. c. If the heart rate remains above goal in sinus rhythm, ivabradine may be considered; however, given the paucity of data in African Americans, optimize beta- blocker dosing preferentially. d. Use of an SGLT2 inhibitor should also be considered as concomitant treatment for HFrEF in African Americans.


d. Use of an SGLT2 inhibitor should also be considered as concomitant treatment for HFrEF in African Americans. Importantly, given the risk of HF in African Americans, use of an SGLT2 inhibitor is especially important in the pre-HF stage to reduce the onset of the disease in those with known diabetes. e. Social barriers to GDMT and optimal HFrEF manage- ment should be assessed and, where present, addressed to avoid health inequities in HFrEF outcomes (137). f. All treatment decisions should be determined in the context of an informed, culturally competent, shared decision-making discussion with the patient that con- siders the risks and bene ts of treatment. Older adults. Older adults, especially the very elderly, represent yet another conundrum for treatment of HF. The upper range for inclusion in HF clinical trials has typically been age 75  5 years; in essence, there are no randomized data for drugs or devices in patients older than 80 years of age. And although data from DAPA-HF can inform the use of a SGLT2 inhibitor in persons over the age of 75 years, for other evidence-based therapies in HFrEF, observational data represent the only lines of evidence supporting similar treatment bene ts in older patients. Nevertheless, target doses for GDMT should be attempted in older patients, with close surveillance for any adverse drug reactions. The pharmacokinetic pro le for GDMT as a function of age is not known, and higher risks of adverse events (133) have been described in older populations. Accordingly, optimal doses for older patients may be lower than those studied in trials or tolerated in younger patients. Furthermore, medication and dosing decisions should be made in a holistic context of the pa- tient.


Furthermore, medication and dosing decisions should be made in a holistic context of the pa- tient. At times, deprescribing, or the process of medi- cation withdrawal or dose reduction to correct or prevent medication-related complications, is an appropriate ac- tion (138). Frailty. Frailty is a speci c pathophysiological entity affecting at least 20% of those over the age of 80 years and ampli es cachexia, muscle wasting, and neurological decline. Frailty increases the risk for HF and, when HF is already present, exaggerates both morbidity and mortal- ity. No evidence exists to suggest that any current ther- apies should be withheld or doses modi ed in the setting of frailty. Potential interventions include multidomain rehabilitation along with cognitive and nutritional sup- port programs to accompany standard GDMT for HFrEF (139,140). Standard assessments of frailty are available (134). 5.7. How to Manage Your Patients Costs and Access to HF Medications The economic burden of HF is substantial and is expected to increase markedly in parallel with increases in HF prevalence. Between 2012 and 2030, total direct medical costs for HF are projected to increase from $21 billion to $53 billion (141), while total costs (including indirect outlay) are estimated to increase from $30.7 billion to $69.8 billion (5). After hospital costs, the cost of CV medications is the second most important cost for pa- tients with HF, accounting for 15.6% of direct costs (142). This creates a nancial barrier for many patients, which is compounded by the fact that most patients with HF also have several comorbidities requiring additional medica- tions. For example, diabetes is present in over 40% of all patients with HF, and polypharmacy for diabetes treat- ment is also growing rapidly (143).


For example, diabetes is present in over 40% of all patients with HF, and polypharmacy for diabetes treat- ment is also growing rapidly (143). Cost Reduction Measures: A variety of cost reduction measures should be considered in patients with HF (Table 12). Whenever possible, generic equivalents for GDMT should be considered. Pricing for common generic HF drugs (digoxin, carvedilol, and lisinopril) varies J Maddox et al. widely, even within a limited geographic area (144). This variability in pricing could potentially have negative im- plications for adherence, encouraging patients to shop around for the best price, increasing time and travel costs, and leading patients to obtain drugs at multiple pharmacies. The use of multiple pharmacies prevents the ef ciencies of having a single pharmacist overseeing all of a patient s medications, identifying potential drug in- teractions, performing medication synchronization, and assessing adherence, as well as providing disease man- agement programs and ensuring that vaccinations are current. As such, patients and clinicians should be encouraged to work with pharmacists, social workers, and/or patient navigators to help identify copay assis- tance programs and request price matching, when possible, should another pharmacy be found to have the medication at a lower cost. In addition, price-checker tools (e.g., GoodRx) can be used to assist patients in locating the retailers with the lowest cost medications. Medication Access Measures: Newer HFrEF therapies are often expensive, with higher monthly costs and copays, and frequently more time and effort are required to obtain them. For example, prior authorization from payers is often required before these medications will be covered, which can serve as a signi cant barrier to GDMT.


For example, prior authorization from payers is often required before these medications will be covered, which can serve as a signi cant barrier to GDMT. In 2017, the ACC and a coalition of 16 medical or- ganizations called for reform of the prior authorization process and utilization management requirements that increase clinical workload and limit patient access to care (see: https://www.aacap.org/App_Themes/AACAP/docs/ homepage/2017/PA_Reform_Principles.pdf) (145). Managing approvals for medications may be time- consuming; tips for managing such processes are out- lined in Table 13. It is important to consider the cost-effectiveness of any new therapy to justify out-of-pocket costs. Cost- effectiveness analyses of sacubitril/valsartan and ivabra- dine showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that compares favorably to other accepted CV therapies when they were rst adopted or approved (146 148). Pharma- cists can help navigate insurance coverage and patient assistance programs to make sure that patients have ac- cess to the appropriate medications. Standard requests through patient assistance programs allow for 90-day supplies with 3 re lls to provide coverage for 1 year. However, income veri cation and reordering procedures are among the most challenging aspects of patient assis- tance programs for patients and clinicians (149). Many pharmaceutical companies accept signed letters from clinicians indicating that the patient has no known in- come. This can be used in place of of cial income docu- mentation, although this option is not clearly apparent on many of the patient assistance program websites. Like- wise, patients and clinicians need to be cognizant of reordering procedures, which becomes especially impor- tant if doses are changed re lls/reorders are not always sent and, unfortunately, re lls/reorders cannot be requested before the 60-day post-approval date.


Like- wise, patients and clinicians need to be cognizant of reordering procedures, which becomes especially impor- tant if doses are changed re lls/reorders are not always sent and, unfortunately, re lls/reorders cannot be requested before the 60-day post-approval date. Supplemental Appendix 2 provides product-speci c in- formation on assistance in payment for newer HF thera- pies and appropriate use criteria to assist in the prior authorization process. 5.8. How to Manage the Increasing Complexity of HF Management The 2017 HF ECDP was motivated by an increasingly complex HFrEF management environment and the need to assist clinicians in navigating it (2). In the 3 years since its publication, GDMT for HFrEF now has additional medications that improve patient outcomes, thus further increasing the complexity of achieving target GDMT in all TABLE 12 Strategies to Reduce Patients Cost of Care n Coordinate care (including labs and imaging) among clinicians to mini- mize unnecessary duplication n Consider limitations of medication coverage (insurance, Medicaid, etc.) when prescribing n Use generic equivalents for GDMT whenever possible n Work with a pharmacist, social worker, or patient navigator to identify and navigate Patient Assistance Programs n Request price matching if a drug is found at a lower cost at another pharmacy GDMT guideline-directed medical therapy.


when prescribing n Use generic equivalents for GDMT whenever possible n Work with a pharmacist, social worker, or patient navigator to identify and navigate Patient Assistance Programs n Request price matching if a drug is found at a lower cost at another pharmacy GDMT guideline-directed medical therapy. Helpful Information for Completion of Prior Authorization Forms* Patient Criteria n Include HF phenotype: HFrEF; HFpEF n Identify NYHA functional class n Include recent measurement of LVEF with source documentation if requested n Identify the treatment requested or the additional testing required, with indications supported by evidence and/or guideline statements where applicable; clinical judgment, especially for testing requests, is an appropriate rationale n Address previous therapies used and the rationale for switching to or adding the requested treatment n Address known contraindications to use, adverse effects, and steps intended to minimize the risks of drugs or procedures n Document, when appropriate, that delays or interruptions in therapy may cause harm to the patient n Work with local pharmacy resources and pharmacy professionals to jointly address prior authorization requirements; do not hesitate to ap- peal decisions that are contrary to the best patient care. Document all steps taken in the patient s health record. *Required information may vary depending on payer and state. HF heart failure; HFpEF heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HFrEF heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction; NYHA New York Heart Association. Maddox et al. J patients with HFrEF. As detailed in Table 14, the modu- lation of 12 pathophysiological targets has now been shown to improve symptoms and/or outcomes for pa- tients with HFrEF. These targets include not only those modulated by the recommended treatments in this document, but also emerging treatments.


These targets include not only those modulated by the recommended treatments in this document, but also emerging treatments. For example, vericiguat, a soluble guanylyl cyclase stimulator, has demonstrated bene t for the combined outcome of death from CV causes or rst hospitalization for HF (150). The large and growing target and therapy list in HFrEF signi cantly complicates HF management for both patients and their care teams. However, several guiding principles can improve decision-making for and adherence to GDMT, which, in turn, is likely to improve patient outcomes. Principle 1: GDMT is the foundation of HF care, and the GDMT with the highest expected bene t should be prioritized. Based on large randomized trials for HFrEF, ARNIs, evidence-based beta-blockers, aldosterone antag- onists, and SGLT2 inhibitors are rst-line medications for all populations. HYD/ISDN is also a rst-line medication for self-identi ed African Americans. Ivabradine is a second-line medication for select populations. Principle 2: Target doses are associated with best outcomes. Attempt to achieve target doses of all recom- mended therapies in the absence of contraindications and/or intolerance. Titration should occur even if the patient appears stable or their symptoms and/or EF improve. Principle 3: Start GDMT immediately. Delayed initia- tion of GDMT is associated with never initiating GDMT (151). Principle 4: Attention to the clinical, social, and nancial barriers to achieving GDMT should be priori- tized. Multidisciplinary care should be targeted to the individual patient s barriers. Consider early referral to an HF team for assistance. Principle 5: Diligent management of volume status will reduce patient symptoms. Congestion drives symp- toms and hospitalizations. If the volume status is unclear, consider performing right heart catheterization and/or referral to an HF specialist.


If the volume status is unclear, consider performing right heart catheterization and/or referral to an HF specialist. Chronic ambulatory pulmo- nary artery pressure monitoring may be considered in patients with hospitalizations in the past year who have persistent symptoms with minimal exertion. Principle 6: Tolerability and side effects depend, in part, on how and when GDMT is prescribed. Scenario: Worsening renal function or hyperkalemia. Use less than target doses of an ARNI/ACEI/ARB and discontinue aldosterone antagonist if estimated creati- nine clearance <30 ml/min or serum potassium >5.0 mEq/L. Available data support a survival bene t even with a low-dose ACEI, which may be the default choice in the setting of renal insuf ciency and marginal blood pressure. Scenario: Symptomatic hypotension. Hypotensive symptoms may be due to over-diuresis, use of non-CV drugs with hemodynamic effects (e.g., anticholinergic agents, treatments for prostate enlarge- ment, others), autonomic dysfunction, or simultaneous administration of multiple HF medications. All of these should be addressed before deciding to lower doses of evidence-based therapies. After excluding other causes of hypotension, use best-tolerated doses of GDMT, accept- ing that less data exist for the impact of lower doses in HF management. Clinical comorbidities and clinical judge- ment should be used to guide which GDMTs are reduced. For persistent hypotension, consider referral to an advanced HF specialist. Principle 7: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter-de brillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy should be considered after consistent use of optimal doses of all GDMTs for at least 3 to 6 months, followed by reassessment of EF and other indications for device therapy. Principle 8: Transcatheter mitral valve repair may be considered among symptomatic patients with chronic moderate-severe to severe mitral regurgitation despite optimal doses of all GDMTs. Principle 9: Focus on the patient s symptoms, func- tional capacity, and cardiac function.


Principle 9: Focus on the patient s symptoms, func- tional capacity, and cardiac function. Maintain surveil- lance of the patient s health status using validated symptom questionnaires (e.g., the Kansas City Important Pathophysiological Targets in Chronic, Hemodynamically Stable HFrEF and Treatments Target Therapy Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system ARNIs/ACEIs/ARBs, aldosterone antagonists Sympathetic nervous system Beta-blockers Natriuretic and other vasodilator peptides Neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) Balanced vasodilation and oxidative stress modulation HYD/ISDN Elevated heart rate Beta-blocker, ivabradine Guanylyl cyclase Soluble guanylyl cyclase stimulators Relief of congestion Diuretic agents Ventricular arrhythmias Implantable cardioverter- de brillators Ventricular dyssynchrony due to conduction abnormalities Cardiac resynchronization therapy Mitral regurgitation Surgical or percutaneous mitral valve repair Reduced aerobic capacity Aerobic exercise training ACEI angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB angiotensin receptor blocker; ARNI angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor; HFrEF heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; HYD/ISDN hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate; SGLT2 sodium- glucose cotransporter-2. J Maddox et al. Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire). This could be achieved during cardiac rehabilitation, which should be used to improve patient-reported outcomes, reduce hospitaliza- tions, and improve aerobic tness. Principle 10: The value of a therapy to a patient is the combination of bene ts and burdens as they relate to that patient s values, goals, and preferences. Shared decision-making will help patients and the healthcare team reach the best treatment plan for the individual patient. Principle 11: Team-based care is critical to optimizing GDMT and may include frequent follow-up visits, tele- health visits, and remote monitoring. Employ multidisciplinary teams that include advanced practice professionals, clinical nurses, and pharmacists to help titrate GDMT. Team management also facilitates se- rial assessments and longitudinal care, including man- agement of comorbidities. 5.9.


Team management also facilitates se- rial assessments and longitudinal care, including man- agement of comorbidities. 5.9. How to Manage Common Comorbidities In many cases, there is a bidirectional relationship be- tween HF and certain comorbidities whereby the pres- ence of one may increase the risk of the other, and the prognosis for the patient may be worse if both are present simultaneously. Patients with HF, particularly older patients, frequently have other CV and non-CV comorbidities that affect their prognosis. The presence of multiple chronic conditions is associated with increased symptom burden, may contribute to progression of underlying disease, and often plays a role in a large proportion of hospitalizations in patients with HF. Furthermore, these comorbid con- ditions can greatly affect the treatment of HF and the ability to optimize therapies. To optimally manage these patients and improve clinical outcomes, clinicians must increasingly consider diagnosis and treatment of relevant comorbidities alongside the use of evidence-based HF therapies. Appropriate referral to clinicians with experi- ence treating the various comorbidities is another important aspect of management and lays the foundation for effective team-based care. Diabetes is a common comorbidity that deserves care- ful attention (152,153). Diabetes is strongly associated with the risk of both incident HF and adverse clinical outcomes and is also closely linked to other relevant co- morbid conditions such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Treatment of pa- tients with T2D with SGLT2 inhibitors improves glycemic control but also signi cantly reduces HF events in pa- tients with established CV disease or CV risk factors (154 156). Among patients with chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors also decrease the risk of renal disease progres- sion in a manner additive to renin-angiotensin- aldosterone system inhibitors (145).


Among patients with chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors also decrease the risk of renal disease progres- sion in a manner additive to renin-angiotensin- aldosterone system inhibitors (145). As already indicated, the recent DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced trials demonstrated that SGLT2 in- hibitor therapy reduced the risk of the composite of CV death or worsening HF in patients with HFrEF, regardless of whether they had T2D (12,44). Dapagli ozin is now approved for this indication, and the role of empagli ozin is under review by the Food and Drug Administration. SGLT2 inhibitors must now be included among the established, evidence-based therapies available to clini- cians managing patients with HFrEF. Dapagli ozin has also demonstrated ef cacy among patients with chronic kidney disease in reducing the composite of disease pro- gression, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or CV causes. This effect was independent of the presence of diabetes (157). In a similar manner, empagli ozin slowed the decline of kidney function among patients treated in the EMPEROR-Reduced study (13). Table 15 classi es comorbidities into CV and non-CV processes and provides guidance on appropriate management options. Finally, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated an association between underlying CV disease, including HF, and worse clinical outcomes (171). It is now known that in patients with HFrEF, renin-angiotensin- aldosterone system inhibition is not associated with risk of infection or severity of disease and should be continued, even in the setting of COVID-19 infection, as long as hemodynamically tolerated (172 176). As ap- proaches to management continue to evolve, readers are encouraged to follow the scienti c literature for updated evidence and recommendations for optimal management of these patients. 5.10.


As ap- proaches to management continue to evolve, readers are encouraged to follow the scienti c literature for updated evidence and recommendations for optimal management of these patients. 5.10. How to Integrate Palliative Care and Transition to Hospice Care Advances in care have delayed the progression of disease but rarely lead to a cure, such that the palliative care needs of patients, caregivers, and healthcare systems are as great as ever. Most palliative care is provided by non- palliative care specialists. Accordingly, such clinicians shoulder the primary responsibility for coordinating an end-of-life plan consistent with values and goals expressed by patient and family. The following are important points to consider regarding palliative care and transition to hospice. Principle 1: Palliative care strives to reduce suffering through the relief of pain and other distressing symptoms while integrating psychological and spiritual aspects of care. Action: Soliciting goals of care and focusing on quality of life are appropriate throughout the clinical course of HF and become increasingly important as the disease progresses. Principle 2: Good HF management is the cornerstone of symptom palliation. Maddox et al.


Principle 2: Good HF management is the cornerstone of symptom palliation. Maddox et al. J TABLE 15 Common Cardiovascular and Noncardiovascular Comorbidities Encountered in Patients With HFrEF Comorbidity Association With Heart Failure Outcomes Clinical Trial Evidence for Modulating Comorbidity Suggested Action Cardiovascular Coronary artery disease Strong Strong n Evaluate and revascularize in appropriate patients Atrial brillation/ utter Strong Intermediate n Treat according to the current AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (158,159) Mitral regurgitation Strong Intermediate n Refer to a structural heart disease expert n Treat according to the current AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease (160,161) and ACC ECDP on the Management of MR (162) n Consider transcatheter intervention in carefully selected patients with symptomatic HF and secondary MR (163) Aortic stenosis Strong Strong n Refer to a structural heart disease expert n Treat according to current AHA/ACC Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease Hypertension Uncertain Strong for prevention n Treat according to current ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Pre- vention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults (164) Dyslipidemia Uncertain Strong for prevention n Treat according to current AHA/ACC Guidelines on the Man- agement of Blood Cholesterol (165) and the ACC ECDP on the Role of Non-Statin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of ASCVD Risk (166) Peripheral vascular disease Moderate None n Treat according to current AHA/ACC Guidelines on the Man- agement of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Cerebrovascular disease Moderate Weak n Treat according to current ASA/AHA Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke (168) Noncardiovascular Obesity Moderate (inverse association) Weak n Further data needed Chronic lung disease Strong Weak n Smoking cessation n Optimize therapy n Consider pulmonary consultation Diabetes Strong Strong n Optimize therapy n Administer SGLT2 inhibitor n Consider consult with endocrinologist n Treat according to the ACC ECDP on Novel Therapies for CV Risk Reduction in Patients with T2D (31) and ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (169) Chronic kidney disease Strong Strong n Optimize RAAS inhibitor therapy n Use hydralazine/ISDN if an ARNI/ACEI/ARB cannot be used n Administer SGLT2 inhibitor n Consider nephrology consult Anemia Moderate Weak n Evaluate secondary causes n Consider transfusion in severe cases Iron de ciency Strong Intermediate n Consider intravenous iron replacement for symptom improvement Thyroid disorder (hypo or hyper) Strong Weak n Evaluate and initiate treatment n Consider referral to endocrinologist Sleep disordered breathing Strong Intermediate; note that in patients with symptomatic HFrEF and central sleep apnea, adaptive servo- ventilation is harmful (170) n Refer for sleep study n Treat severe obstructive sleep apnea n Consider referral to sleep medicine specialist Hyperkalemia Uncertain; may limit initiation and titration of GDMT Weak n Recommend dietary modi cations n Consider treating with patiromer (note: data regarding clin- ical outcomes are pending [NCT03888066]) or sodium zir- conium cyclosilicate ACC American College of Cardiology; ACEI angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ADA American Diabetes Association; AHA American Heart Association; ARB angiotensin receptor blocker; ARNI angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor; ASCVD atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CV cardiovascular; ECDP Expert Consensus Decision Pathway; GDMT guideline-directed medical therapy; HF heart failure; HFrEF heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; HRS Heart Rhythm Society; ISDN iso- sorbide dinitrate; LDL low-density lipoprotein; MR mitral regurgitation; RAAS renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system; SGLT2 sodium-glucose cotransporter-2; T2D type 2 diabetes.


J Maddox et al. Action: Meticulous management of HF therapies particularly diuretic agents is a critical component of symptom management and should continue through the end of life. Principle 3: Palliative care consultation and comple- mentary approaches to care may further ameliorate re- fractory HF symptoms of dyspnea, fatigue, and pain, although study results have been mixed. These ap- proaches also improve patient satisfaction and quality-of- life metrics. Action: Targeted specialty palliative care consultation can be helpful for especially complex decisions, refractory symptoms, and end of life. Palliative care teams should have expertise in management of both HF- and non HF- related symptoms. Principle 4: Patients with HF often face major treat- ment decisions over time and should be provided with support when thinking through the bene ts and burdens of each treatment option. Action: Decision support tools (patient decision aids) help frame options, which should then be followed by dynamic and personalized conversations. Principle 5: Proactive shared decision-making discus- sions simplify dif cult decisions in the future. Action: Preparedness planning discussions should occur at least annually between patients and clinicians, leading to review of clinical status and current thera- pies, estimates of prognosis, clari cation of patient values and beliefs, anticipation of treatment decisions, and advanced care directives that identify surrogate decision-makers and healthcare proxies (3). Resources to assist patients in these dif cult discussions may be useful (e.g., the Advanced Care Training module from HFSA: hfsa.org). Similar preparedness-planning discus- sions should occur at the time of major procedural in- terventions (e.g., LV assist device implantation, heart transplantation). Principle 6: Attention to the clinical trajectory is required to calibrate expectations and guide timely de- cisions, but prognostic uncertainty is inevitable and should be included in discussions with patients and caregivers. Action: Worsening disease and milestone events (e.g.


Principle 6: Attention to the clinical trajectory is required to calibrate expectations and guide timely de- cisions, but prognostic uncertainty is inevitable and should be included in discussions with patients and caregivers. Action: Worsening disease and milestone events (e.g., recurrent hospitalization or progressive intolerance of medications due to hypotension and kidney dysfunc- tion) should trigger heightened preparation with patients and families, but without speci c estimates of how much time remains due to high levels of unpredictability in the clinical course of HF. Principle 7: The transition from do everything to comfort only/hospice is often bridged through a phase of quality survival, during which time patients increasingly weigh the bene ts, risks, and burdens of initiating or continuing life-sustaining treatments. Action: Revising the medical regimen for symptom relief and quality of life may involve discontinuation of some recommended therapies (e.g., reducing neurohor- monal antagonists in the setting of symptomatic hypo- tension, deactivation of de brillator therapy) and the addition of therapies not usually recommended (e.g., opioids for refractory dyspnea). These decisions should be individualized and made in partnership with the patient, their caregivers, and their care team. 6. DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF PATHWAY The primary objective of this updated ECDP is to provide a framework for the many decisions required in the man- agement of patients with HFrEF. Most importantly, the checklists and algorithms provided in this ECDP should be applied only in the context of the most recent update to the AHA/ACC guidelines for management of adults with chronic HF and, in this case, patients with HFrEF. No guideline, pathway, or algorithm should ever supersede clinical judgment. Management of HFrEF often involves multidisciplinary care, may require complex decision-making, and bene ts from a solid foundation of knowledge to manage these occasionally fragile patients.


Management of HFrEF often involves multidisciplinary care, may require complex decision-making, and bene ts from a solid foundation of knowledge to manage these occasionally fragile patients. HF is a major public health concern, one in which broader clinician experience in GDMT would be expected to signi cantly bene t affected patients. With recent changes in available diagnostics and therapeutics for HFrEF, along with the evolution in rec- ommended management strategies for affected patients, many questions have emerged regarding optimal deploy- ment of these newer approaches to patient care. Addi- tionally, clinical practice guidelines continue to evolve. In this context, we have highlighted important literature ci- tations explaining the rationale for this changing picture in HFrEF care, candidate best practices, and, where evidence or best practices are lacking, templates for clinical decision-making to manage patients rationally. As more evidence emerges, many more topics will be clari ed ACC PRESIDENT AND STAFF Athena Poppas, MD, FACC, President Cathleen C. Gates, Chief Executive Of cer John Rumsfeld, MD, PhD, FACC, Chief Science and Quality Of cer Joseph M. Allen, MA, Team Leader, Clinical Standards and Solution Sets Amy Dearborn, Team Leader, Clinical Policy Content Development Ashleigh M. Covington, MA, Team Leader, Clinical Pathways and Heart House Roundtables Severa Chavez, Manager, Clinical Pathways and Policy Grace D. Ronan, Team Lead, Clinical Policy Publication Maddox et al. J R E F E R E N C E S 1. Januzzi JL Jr., Ahmad T, Binder LG, et al. 2019 methodology for creating expert consensus decision pathways: a report of the American College of Cardi- ology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:1138 50. 2. Yancy CW, Januzzi JL Jr., Allen LA, et al.


2. Yancy CW, Januzzi JL Jr., Allen LA, et al. 2017 ACC expert consensus decision pathway for optimization of heart failure treatment: answers to 10 pivotal issues about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:201 30. 3. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/ AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foun- dation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:e147 239. 4. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2017 ACC/ AHA/HFSA focused update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:776 803. 5. Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics 2020 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141: e139 596. 6. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2016 ACC/ AHA/HFSA focused update on the new pharmacolog- ical therapy for heart failure: an update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1476 88. 7. Januzzi JL, Butler J, Fombu E, et al. Rationale and methods of the prospective study of biomarkers, symptom improvement, and ventricular remodeling during sacubitril/valsartan therapy for heart failure (PROVE-HF). Am Heart J. 2018;199:130 6. 8. Myhre PL, Vaduganathan M, Claggett B, et al. B- type natriuretic peptide during treatment with sacu- bitril/valsartan: the PARADIGM-HF trial.


B- type natriuretic peptide during treatment with sacu- bitril/valsartan: the PARADIGM-HF trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:1264 72. 9. Senni M, McMurray JJV, Wachter R, et al. Impact of systolic blood pressure on the safety and tolerability of initiating and up-titrating sacubitril/valsartan in pa- tients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: insights from the TITRATION study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20:491 500. 10. Khariton Y, Fonarow GC, Arnold SV, et al. Associ- ation between sacubitril/valsartan initiation and health status outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2019;7:933 41. 11. Januzzi JL Jr., Prescott MF, Butler J, et al. Associ- ation of change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide following initiation of sacubitril-valsartan treatment with cardiac structure and function in pa- tients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. JAMA. 2019;322:1 11. 12. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagli ozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1995 2008. 13. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagli ozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1413 24. 14. Vardeny O, Miller R, Solomon SD. Combined neprilysin and renin-angiotensin system inhibition for the treatment of heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2014;2:663 70. 15. Packer M, Califf RM, Konstam MA, et al. Compari- son of omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure: the omapatrilat versus enalapril randomized trial of utility in reducing events (OVER- TURE). Circulation. 2002;106:920 6. 16. McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, et al. Angio- tensin neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:993 1004. 17. The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions.


Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:685 91. 18. Lewis EF, Claggett BL, McMurray JJV, et al. Health- related quality of life outcomes in PARADIGM-HF. Circ Heart Fail. 2017;10:e003430. 19. Martens P, Nuyens D, Rivero-Ayerza M, et al. Sacubitril/valsartan reduces ventricular arrhythmias in parallel with left ventricular reverse remodeling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019;108:1074 82. 20. Desai AS, Solomon SD, Shah AM, et al. Effect of sacubitril-valsartan vs enalapril on aortic stiffness in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection frac- tion: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322:1 10. 21. Senni M, McMurray JJ, Wachter R, et al. Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18: 1193 202. 22. Hollenberg SM, Warner Stevenson L, Ahmad T, et al. 2019 ACC expert consensus decision pathway on risk assessment, management, and clinical trajectory of patients hospitalized with heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:1966 2011. 23. Velazquez EJ, Morrow DA, DeVore AD, et al. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in acute decom- pensated heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:539 48. 24. Wachter R, Senni M, Belohlavek J, et al. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in haemodynamically stabilised heart failure patients in hospital or early after discharge: primary results of the randomised TRANSI- TION study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21:998 1007. 25. Mann DL, Greene SJ, Givertz MM, et al. Sacubitril/ valsartan in advanced heart failure with reduced ejec- tion fraction: rationale and design of the LIFE Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2020;8:789 99. 26. Velazquez EJ, Morrow DA, DeVore AD, et al.


2020;8:789 99. 26. Velazquez EJ, Morrow DA, DeVore AD, et al. Rationale and design of the comparIson of sacubitril/ valsartan versus enalapril on effect on NT-Pro-BNP in patients stabilized from an acute heart failure episode (PIONEER-HF) trial. Am Heart J. 2018;198:145 51. 27. McAlister F, Wiebe N, Ezekowitz J, et al. Meta- analysis: beta-blocker dose, heart rate reduction, and death in patients with heart failure. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:784 94. 28. Swedberg K, Komajda M, Bohm M, et al. Ivabradine and outcomes in chronic heart failure (SHIFT): a rand- omised placebo-controlled study. Lancet. 2010;376: 875 85. 29. Swedberg K, Komajda M, Bohm M, et al. Effects on outcomes of heart rate reduction by ivabradine in pa- tients with congestive heart failure: is there an in u- ence of beta-blocker dose? Findings from the SHIFT (Systolic Heart failure treatment with the I(f) inhibitor ivabradine Trial) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59: 1938 45. 30. Bohm M, Borer J, Ford I, et al. Heart rate at baseline in uences the effect of ivabradine on cardio- vascular outcomes in chronic heart failure: analysis from the SHIFT study. Clin Res Cardiol. 2013;102:11 22. 31. Das SR, Everett BM, Birtcher KK, et al. 2020 expert consensus decision pathway on novel therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes: a report of the American College of Cardiol- ogy Solution Set Oversight Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:1117 45. 32. Zelniker TA, Braunwald E. Mechanisms of car- diorenal effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:422 34. 33. Nassif ME, Windsor SL, Tang F, et al. Dapagli ozin effects of biomarkers, symptoms, and functional status in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the DEFINE-HF Trial. Circulation. 2019;140: 1463 76. 34.


Dapagli ozin effects of biomarkers, symptoms, and functional status in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the DEFINE-HF Trial. Circulation. 2019;140: 1463 76. 34. Zannad F, Ferreira JP, Pocock SJ, et al. SGLT2 in- hibitors in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis of the EMPEROR- Reduced and DAPA-HF trials. Lancet. 2020;396:819 29. 35. Hickey A, Suna J, Marquart L, et al. Improving medication titration in heart failure by embedding a structured medication titration plan. Int J Cardiol. 2016;224:99 106. 36. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/ EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2739 91. 37. Obadia JF, Messika-Zeitoun D, Leurent G, et al. Percutaneous repair or medical treatment for second- ary mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2297 306. 38. Asch FM, Grayburn PA, Siegel RJ, et al. Echocar- diographic outcomes after transcatheter lea et approximation in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation: the COAPT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 74:2969 79. 39. Kang DH, Park SJ, Shin SH, et al. Angiotensin re- ceptor neprilysin inhibitor for functional mitral regur- gitation. Circulation. 2019;139:1354 65. 40. Merit-HF Study Group. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: metoprolol CR/XL randomised intervention trial in-congestive heart failure (MERIT- HF). Lancet. 1999;353:2001 7. 41. CIBIS-II Investigators Committee. The cardiac insuf ciency bisoprolol study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;353:9 13. J Maddox et al. 42. Packer M, Bristow MR, Cohn JN, et al. The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1349 55. 43. Bristow MR, Gilbert EM, Abraham WT, et al. Car- vedilol produces dose-related improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure. MOCHA Investigators. Circula- tion. 1996;94:2807 16. 44.


Car- vedilol produces dose-related improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure. MOCHA Investigators. Circula- tion. 1996;94:2807 16. 44. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Empagli- ozin meets primary endpoint in Phase III heart failure trial [Press Release] Published July 30, 2020. Available at: https://www.boehringer-ingelheim.in/press- release/empagli ozin-meets-primary-endpoint-phase- iii-heart-failure-trial. Accessed October 15, 2020. 45. Solomon SD, Jhund PS, Claggett BL, et al. Effect of dapagli ozin in patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan: the DAPA-HF Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2020;8:811 8. 46. Honigberg MC, Vardeny O, Vaduganathan M. Practical considerations for the use of sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors in heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2020;13:e006623. 47. Taylor AL, Ziesche S, Yancy C, et al. Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2049 57. 48. Testani JM, Stevens SR, Brisco MA, et al. In- uence of diuretic dose and route of administration on loop diuretic ef ciency: insights from the Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure (DOSE-AHF) trial. J Card Fail. 2014; 20:S40. 49. Fera LE, MacLean TE, Fischer CM, et al. Navigator- driven remote optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: program design and initial feasibility. J Card Fail. 2018;24:S99. 50. Gorodeski EZ, Goyal P, Cox ZL, et al. Virtual visits for care of patients with heart failure in the era of COVID-19: a statement from the Heart Failure Society of America. J Card Fail. 2020;26:448 56. 51. Forman DE, Sanderson BK, Josephson RA, et al. Heart failure as a newly approved diagnosis for cardiac rehabilitation: challenges and opportunities. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2652 9. 52. DeFilippis EM, Reza N, Donald E, et al. Consider- ations for heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2020;8:681 91. 53.


Consider- ations for heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2020;8:681 91. 53. Baumwol J. I Need Help a mnemonic to aid timely referral in advanced heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36:593 4. 54. Januzzi JL Jr., Camacho A, Pina IL, et al. Reverse cardiac remodeling and outcome after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. Circ Heart Fail. 2020;13:e006946. 55. Halliday BP, Wassall R, Lota AS, et al. Withdrawal of pharmacological treatment for heart failure in pa- tients with recovered dilated cardiomyopathy (TRED- HF): an open-label, pilot, randomised trial. Lancet. 2019;393:61 73. 56. Wilcox JE, Fang JC, Margulies KB, et al. Heart failure with recovered left ventricular ejection fraction: JACC Scienti c Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 76:719 34. 57. Karlstr m P, Alehagen U, Boman K, et al. Brain natriuretic peptide-guided treatment does not improve morbidity and mortality in extensively treated patients with chronic heart failure: responders to treatment have a signi cantly better outcome. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13:1096 103. 58. Ibrahim NE, Januzzi JL Jr. The future of biomarker- guided therapy for heart failure after the guiding evi- dence based therapy using biomarker intensi ed treatment in heart failure (GUIDE-IT) study. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2018;15:37 43. 59. Daubert MA, Adams K, Yow E, et al. NT-proBNP goal achievement is associated with signi cant reverse remodelings and improved clinical outcomes in HFrEF. J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2019;7:158 68. 60. Weiner RB, Baggish AL, Chen-Tournoux A, et al. Improvement in structural and functional echocardio- graphic parameters during chronic heart failure therapy guided by natriuretic peptides: mechanistic insights from the ProBNP Outpatient Tailored Chronic Heart Failure (PROTECT) study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:342 51. 61. Langenickel TH, Dole WP. Angiotensin receptor- neprilysin inhibition with LCZ696: a novel approach for the treatment of heart failure.


Angiotensin receptor- neprilysin inhibition with LCZ696: a novel approach for the treatment of heart failure. Drug Discov Today: Ther Strateg. 2012;9:e131 9. 62. Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377:658 66. 63. Costanzo MR, Stevenson LW, Adamson PB, et al. Interventions linked to decreased heart failure hospi- talizations during ambulatory pulmonary artery pres- sure monitoring. J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2016;4:333 44. 64. Fang JC, Ewald GA, Allen LA, et al. Advanced (stage D) heart failure: a statement from the Heart Failure Society of America Guidelines Committee. J Card Fail. 2015;21:519 34. 65. Allen LA, Stevenson LW, Grady KL, et al. Decision making in advanced heart failure: a scienti c statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125:1928 52. 66. Ehrmann Feldman D, Xiao Y, Bernatsky S, et al. Consultation with cardiologists for persons with new- onset chronic heart failure: a population-based study. Can J Cardiol. 2009;25:690 4. 67. Fanaroff AC, DeVore AD, Mentz RJ, et al. Patient selection for advanced heart failure therapy referral. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2014;13:1 5. 68. Feldman D, Pamboukian SV, Teuteberg JJ, et al. The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: executive summary. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:157 87. 69. Mehra MR, Kobashigawa J, Starling R, et al. Listing criteria for heart transplantation: International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for the care of cardiac transplant candidates 2006. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006;25:1024 42. 70. Mehra MR, Canter CE, Hannan MM, et al. The 2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation listing criteria for heart transplantation: a 10-year up- date. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35:1 23. 71. Guglin M, Zucker MJ, Borlaug BA, et al.


2016;35:1 23. 71. Guglin M, Zucker MJ, Borlaug BA, et al. Evaluation for heart transplanation and LVAD implantation: JACC council perspectives. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:1471 87. 72. Levy WC, Mozaffarian D, Linker DT, et al. The Seattle Heart Failure Model: prediction of survival in heart failure. Circulation. 2006;113:1424 33. 73. Chyu J, Fonarow GC, Tseng CH, et al. Four-variable risk model in men and women with heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2014;7:88 95. 74. Thorvaldsen T, Benson L, Stahlberg M, et al. Triage of patients with moderate to severe heart failure: who should be referred to a heart failure center? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:661 71. 75. Felker GM, Anstrom KJ, Adams KF, et al. Effect of natriuretic peptide-guided therapy on hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality in high-risk patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a random- ized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:713 20. 76. Vader JM, Rich MW. Team-based care for man- aging noncardiac conditions in patients with heart failure. Heart Fail Clin. 2015;11:419 29. 77. Wever-Pinzon O, Drakos SG, Fang JC. Team-based Care for advanced heart failure. Heart Fail Clin. 2015; 11:467 77. 78. Rich MW, Beckham V, Wittenberg C, et al. A multidisciplinary intervention to prevent the read- mission of elderly patients with congestive heart fail- ure. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1190 5. 79. Phillips CO, Wright SM, Kern DE, et al. Compre- hensive discharge planning with postdischarge support for older patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;291:1358 67. 80. Koelling TM, Johnson ML, Cody RJ, et al. Discharge education improves clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2005;111:179 85. 81. Kasper EK, Gerstenblith G, Hefter G, et al. A randomized trial of the ef cacy of multidisciplinary care in heart failure outpatients at high risk of hospital readmission. J Am Coll Cardiol.


A randomized trial of the ef cacy of multidisciplinary care in heart failure outpatients at high risk of hospital readmission. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:471 80. 82. White SM, Hill A. A heart failure initiative to reduce the length of stay and readmission rates. Prof Case Manag. 2014;19:276 84. 83. Feltner C, Jones CD, Cene CW, et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:774 84. 84. McAlister FA, Stewart S, Ferrua S, et al. Multidis- ciplinary strategies for the management of heart fail- ure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44:810 9. 85. Rich MW, Gray DB, Beckham V, et al. Effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on medication compli- ance in elderly patients with congestive heart failure. Am J Med. 1996;101:270 6. 86. McDonald K, Ledwidge M, Cahill J, et al. Elimina- tion of early rehospitalization in a randomized, controlled trial of multidisciplinary care in a high-risk, elderly heart failure population: the potential contri- butions of specialist care, clinical stability and optimal angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor dose at discharge. Eur J Heart Fail. 2001;3:209 15. 87. Bonow RO, O Gara PT, Adams DH, et al. 2019 AATS/ACC/SCAI/STS expert consensus systems of care document: operator and institutional recommenda- tions and requirements for transcatheter mitral valve intervention: a joint report of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardi- ology, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:96 117. Maddox et al. J 88. Slyer JT, Ferrara LR. The effectiveness of group visits for patients with heart failure on knowledge, quality of life, self-care, and readmissions: a systematic review protocol. JBI Libr Syst Rev.


The effectiveness of group visits for patients with heart failure on knowledge, quality of life, self-care, and readmissions: a systematic review protocol. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10:4647 58. 89. Arora S, Thornton K, Murata G, et al. Outcomes of treatment for hepatitis C virus infection by primary care providers. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2199 207. 90. Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, et al. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the out- comes of structured telephone support or tele- monitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13:1028 40. 91. Chaudhry SI, Mattera JA, Curtis JP, et al. Tele- monitoring in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2301 9. 92. Koehler F, Winkler S, Schieber M, et al. Impact of remote telemedical management on mortality and hospitalizations in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure: the telemedical interventional monitoring in heart failure study. Circulation. 2011;123:1873 80. 93. Hindricks G, Taborsky M, Glikson M, et al. Implant- based multiparameter telemonitoring of patients with heart failure (IN-TIME): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;384:583 90. 94. Poppas A, Rumsfeld JS, Wessler JD. Telehealth is having a moment: will it last? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 75:2989 91. 95. Anand IS, Tang WH, Greenberg BH, et al. Design and performance of a multisensor heart failure moni- toring algorithm: results from the multisensor moni- toring in congestive heart failure (MUSIC) study. J Card Fail. 2012;18:289 95. 96. Masterson Creber RM, Maurer MS, Reading M, et al. Review and analysis of existing mobile phone apps to support heart failure symptom monitoring and self-care management using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2016;4:e74. 97. Gardetto NJ.


Review and analysis of existing mobile phone apps to support heart failure symptom monitoring and self-care management using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2016;4:e74. 97. Gardetto NJ. Self-management in heart failure: where have we been and where should we go? J Multidiscip Healthc. 2011;4:39 51. 98. Peterson PN, Shetterly SM, Clarke CL, et al. Health literacy and outcomes among patients with heart fail- ure. JAMA. 2011;305:1695 701. 99. Riegel B, Dickson VV. A qualitative secondary data analysis of intentional and unintentional medication nonadherence in adults with chronic heart failure. Heart Lung. 2016;45:468 74. 100. Zhang Y, Baik SH. Race/ethnicity, disability, and medication adherence among Medicare bene ciaries with heart failure. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:602 7. 101. Choudhry NK, Avorn J, Glynn RJ, et al. Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2088 97. 102. Kini V, Ho PM. Interventions to improve medica- tion adherence: a review. JAMA. 2018;320:2461 73. 103. Vaduganathan M, Fonarow GC, Greene SJ, et al. Contemporary treatment patterns and clinical out- comes of comorbid diabetes mellitus and HFrEF: the CHAMP-HF Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2020;8: 469 80. 104. Khazanie P, Liang L, Curtis LH, et al. Clinical effectiveness of hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: ndings from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2016; 9:e002444. 105. Fitzgerald AA, Powers JD, Ho PM, et al. Impact of medication nonadherence on hospitalizations and mortality in heart failure. J Card Fail. 2011;17:664 9. 106. Chin KL, Skiba M, Tonkin A, et al. The treatment gap in patients with chronic systolic heart failure: a systematic review of evidence-based prescribing in practice. Heart Fail Rev. 2016;21:675 97. 107. Greene SJ, Fonarow GC, DeVore AD, et al.


2016;21:675 97. 107. Greene SJ, Fonarow GC, DeVore AD, et al. Titra- tion of medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:2365 83. 108. Garavalia L, Garavalia B, Spertus JA, et al. Exploring patients reasons for discontinuance of heart medications. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2009;24:371 9. 109. Dolansky MA, Hawkins MA, Schaefer JT, et al. Association between poorer cognitive function and reduced objectively monitored medication adherence in patients with heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2016;9: e002475. 110. Unni EJ, Farris KB. Unintentional non-adherence and belief in medicines in older adults. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83:265 8. 111. World Health Organization. Adherence to long- term therapies: evidence for action. Available at: http://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/ adherence_report/en/. Accessed September 1, 2020. 112. Ho PM, Bryson CL, Rumsfeld JS. Medication adherence: its importance in cardiovascular outcomes. Circulation. 2009;119:3028 35. 113. Masoudi FA, Baillie CA, Wang Y, et al. The complexity and cost of drug regimens of older patients hospitalized with heart failure in the United States, 1998-2001. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2069 76. 114. Allen LA, Fonarow GC, Liang L, et al. Medication initiation burden required to comply with heart failure guideline recommendations and hospital quality mea- sures. Circulation. 2015;132:1347 53. 115. Fumagalli LP, Radaelli G, Lettieri E, et al. Patient empowerment and its neighbours: clarifying the boundaries and their mutual relationships. Health Policy. 2015;119:384 94. 116. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Q. 1988;15:175 83. 117. Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol. 1989;44:1175 84. 118. Conn VS, Ruppar TM. Medication adherence out- comes of 771 intervention trials: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2017;99:269 76. 119. Ruppar TM, Cooper PS, Mehr DR, et al.