The committee considered the different regimens of IV iron in various trials and in the real-life situation. Practice tends to be moving from multiple long infusions to shorter injections to replace iron more quickly. The patient representatives expressed a preference for large infusion if this completely replaced their iron more quickly, as they felt this would quickly improve their quality of life. There was consensus that we should be moving towards a separate pathway for iron deficiency in HF, in a manner similar to the pathway for anaemia in CKD, and that this was likely to include IV iron. However, the committee considered that a general recommendation at this time would be a change in practice with an impact from both testing and treatment, without high quality evidence that this would be beneficial. It was felt that when further evidence was published in the future, this should be revisited. The committee was aware of the currently active IRONMAN trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02642562), funded by the British Heart Foundation, that will look at longer time points. It was commented that this will be useful to find out whether the effect is simply on symptoms due to replacing iron, or whether it has an effect on HF pathophysiology (a feasible mechanism was offered involving myocyte iron use). It should also provide long term data on clinical effectiveness. The committee noted that the trials had only included people with reduced ejection fraction. It was decided that it would not be possible to generalise the evidence in these trials to people with HFPEF, as the patholophysiology differs, and therefore the balance of benefits and harms may be different. The committee were aware of a clinical trial which was currently active and included people with HFpEF. 