ECDPs follow ACC RWI Policy in determining what con- stitutes a relevant relationship, with additional vetting by the SSOC. ECDP writing groups must be chaired or co-chaired by an individual with no relevant RWI. Although vice chairs and writing group members may have relevant RWI, they must constitute <50% of the writing group. Relevant disclosures for the writing group, external reviewers, and SSOC members can be found in Appendixes 1 and 2. To ensure complete transparency, a full list of disclosure in- formation, including relationships not pertinent to this document, is available in Supplemental Appendix 1. Participants are discouraged from acquiring relevant RWI throughout the writing process. 3. ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS To limit inconsistencies in interpretation, speci c as- sumptions (e.g., treatment effects in varied populations) were considered by the writing group in development of the ECDP. References are supplied when applicable or appropriate. 3.1. General Clinical Assumptions 1. Although many topics are generalizable to all patients with HF, the focus of this effort, including pathway recommendations, is on patients with HFrEF. 2. Although some of the recommendations may be rele- vant to patients hospitalized with acute HF or in those with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs) higher than 40%, this document mainly focuses on the man- agement of patients with chronic ambulatory HFrEF with LVEF #40%. 3. The expert consensus writing committee endorses the evidence-based approaches to HF therapy and man- agement enumerated in the 2013 ACC/AHA HF guide- line (3) and the subsequent 2016 and 2017 ACC/AHA/ HFSA focused updates (4,6). 4. These algorithms assume the clinician will seek input as needed from a pharmacist, a cardiologist, an HF specialist, and/or a disease management program, and/ or other relevant medical specialists (e.g., endocrinol- ogists or nephrologists) to guide clinical management. 5. 