key: cord-0025367-wofli4p4
authors: Kamran, Hayaan; Tang, W H Wilson
title: Medical management of acute heart failure
date: 2021-12-06
journal: Fac Rev
DOI: 10.12703/r/10-82
sha: 983aa5d777d6ec276f9f8c6da47dd2d1044aae3f
doc_id: 25367
cord_uid: wofli4p4

Despite recent advances in the treatment of chronic heart failure, therapeutic options for acute heart failure (AHF) remain limited. AHF admissions are associated with significant multi-organ dysfunction, especially worsening renal failure, which results in significant morbidity and mortality. There are several aspects of AHF management: diagnosis, decongestion, vasoactive therapy, goal-directed medical therapy initiation and safe transition of care. Effective diagnosis and prognostication could be very helpful in an acute setting and rely upon biomarker evaluation with noninvasive assessment of fluid status. Decongestive strategies could be tailored to include pharmaceutical options along with consideration of utilizing ultrafiltration for refractory hypervolemia. Vasoactive agents to augment cardiac function have been evaluated in patients with AHF but have shown to only have limited efficacy. Post stabilization, initiation of quadruple goal-directed medical therapy—angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, mineral receptor antagonists, sodium glucose type 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, and beta blockers—to prevent myocardial remodeling is being advocated as a standard of care. Safe transition of care is needed prior to discharge to prevent heart failure rehospitalization and mortality. Post-discharge close ambulatory monitoring (including remote hemodynamic monitoring), virtual visits, and rehabilitation are some of the strategies to consider. We hereby review the contemporary approach in AHF diagnosis and management.

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a complex heterogeneous clinical syndrome associated with cardiac dysfunction leading to pulmonary and systemic congestion or hypoperfusion or both. Increasingly, hospital admissions or emergency department visits rather than physiologic manifestations, are the metrics being used to assess the clinical outcomes of AHF patients. Novel drugs are being investigated to mitigate the physiological burden of AHF hospitalizations. Appropriate pharmaceutical interventions are important, as prevalence of AHF is increasing with the aging population in the US, where there are more than one million hospitalizations per year 1 . AHF is also associated with significant readmission rates exceeding 25% at 3 months and 50% at 6 months 2 . The 5-year mortality rate remains exceptionally high at 50 to 60% 1,2 . This imposes a significant financial burden with a projected increase in health-care costs to $78 billion by the end of this decade 3 . The majority of AHF cases are indeed preventable and hence more effort should be put forth toward applying disease-modifying therapy both before and during AHF hospitalizations, a period that can be viewed as a continuum of the natural history of heart failure (HF). Timely initiation helps prevent cardiac remodeling and disease progression of HF. We hereby critically review the major developments that have shaped our contemporary diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in AHF.

For years, natriuretic peptides (NPs) have been the cornerstone for AHF diagnosis and prognostication. In the setting of volume and pressure overload, NPs are produced by dilated ventricles, which are catabolized into active B-type NP (BNP) and an inactive more stable form, N-terminal-proBNP (NT-proBNP). NPs have a high negative predictive value for AHF, and established cutoffs are less than 100 pg/mL and less than 300 ng/mL for BNP and NT-proBNP, respectively 4 . No one type of NP is proven to be superior over another, and quantitatively they are not equivalent but are largely concordant. Among patients taking angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), NT-proBNP levels are theoretically more useful than BNP levels as the former have a longer half-life and are unaffected by neprilysin inhibition 5 . In morbidly obese patients with AHF, a lower cutoff for NPs should be considered given that these patients tend to have low NP levels despite being in HF 6,7 . In contrast, among elderly patients, higher cutoffs have been proposed 8 . NPs also continue to be an effective prognostic marker in HF patients with renal dysfunction, but higher cut points maybe more useful because of their decreased excretion 9 . There is also an important prognostic role of NP in patients presenting with AHF when measured at admission (class I indication) or even at the time of discharge (class IIa indication) 10 . Higher levels of NPs on admission are associated with an independent all-cause risk for cardiovascular (CV) mortality and morbidity 11 . Decreases in NPs during admission and pre-discharge NP levels are also associated with decrease in mortality and recurrent hospitalization 12 . No universal cutoffs have been shown to predict improved outcomes, although the consensus is that a more than 30% reduction in NP levels portends a better overall prognosis 13 .

Cardiac troponins (both troponin T or I) are also released in the setting of AHF exacerbation, which in the absence of acute coronary syndrome, have been associated with an independent risk of mortality and readmission 13 . Temporal reductions in troponin levels through the hospitalization have also been associated with the risk mitigation of adverse events 14 . The high-sensitivity troponins were also evaluated in a prospective observational study and were not found to be a useful marker for risk stratification of AHF patients who were at high risk of hospitalization and mortality 15 . Novel inflammatory biomarkers such as soluble sT2, a soluble form of interleukin 1 (IL-1) receptor-like 1 and IL-1β, are also being evaluated to prognosticate AHF-related mortality and rehospitalization 16 . Higher levels of galectin 3 (a biomarker of myocardial fibroblast activation) and soluble ST2 (a biomarker of myocardial stretch) have also been associated with adverse short-term events, including mortality in patients with AHF 17,18 . GlycA, a nuclear magnetic composite marker of systemic inflammation, which is associated with glycosation state of main acute phase reactants, has been shown to be associated with increased risk of developing any HF in particular HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) 19 Another marker that has prospectively been shown to be promising in AHF patients, especially in setting of renal dysfunction, is plasma carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125). CA125 is a surrogate marker of fluid overload, which, when prospectively used to guide diuresis, has been shown to significantly improve diuresis and renal function at 72 hours 20 . Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of CA125 in decongestive therapies. These biomarkers, in combination with NPs, could further help prognosticate and risk-stratify patients with AHF 21 . In summary, other factors such as left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) have failed to demonstrate prognostic utility beyond that of NPs or cardiac troponins 22 . Revised guidelines published by the ACC/AHA/HFSA (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America) in 2017 recommend the use of NPs and troponins for diagnosis and risk stratification of patients presenting with AHF exacerbation. Pre-discharge measurement of levels of NPs was also recommended for prognostication of post-discharge course 10 .

Clinical evaluation of volume overload helps with diagnosis and treatment of AHF exacerbation. One novel physical exam finding that has correlated well with clinical congestion is "bendopenia", which is defined as dyspnea starting within 30 seconds of bending forward 22 . The prevalence of bendopenia among patients with AHF is reported to be anywhere between 18 to 49% 23 . The clinical exam has been associated with elevated filling pressures, especially in the presence of low cardiac index. Bendopenia is also associated with worsening functional status. The relief of bendopenia through the hospitalization is associated with a decrease in NPs 24 . This physical exam finding may further help with the initial assessment of patients with AHF. One evolving concept related to the importance of reliable assessments of volume and perfusion status is the recognition of the intricate pathophysiology of deranged hemodynamics on end-organ perfusion, which is a major driver of disease progression 25 . A bedside classification proposed by Forrester and Waters for patients admitted with AHF was expanded by Nohria et al. 25, 26 . These patients were categorized into four profiles based on signs of volume ("wet" vs. dry") and perfusion ("cold" vs. "warm"). Patients were categorized into "wet-warm" (that is, congestion with adequate perfusion), "wet-cold" (congestion with hypoperfusion), "dry-cold" (no congestion with hypoperfusion), or "dry-warm" (no congestion or hypoperfusion) 26 (Figure 1 ).

According to large-scale multinational European registry data, admission and discharge classification based on congestion/perfusion correlated with high mortality rates of 12.1% for the "wet-cold" profile, 9.1% for "dry-cold", 3.6% for "wet-warm", and 2% for "dry-warm". The 1-year all-cause mortality ranged from 12.1% in "dry-warm" patients to 26.4% in "wet-cold" patients 27 . Therefore, evaluation based on congestion/perfusion at admission and discharge could provide invaluable prognostic evaluation in patients presenting with AHF. However, traditional signs and symptoms have shown limited discriminative ability for congestion assessment 28 . Additionally, efforts for routine hemodynamic stratification for AHF in the clinical setting over the past decade have been hampered by the primary findings from the The Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE) trial, which showed that the addition of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC)-guided strategy did not affect overall mortality and hospitalization 29 . Of note patients with significant renal dysfunction (creatinine >3.5mg/dl) and cardiogenic shock requiring inotropes were excluded from the trial, which may have reduced the utility of PACs. The findings of the trial has resulted in less and less PAC utilization in the clinical setting 30 . With many noninvasive strategies (for example, impedance cardiography) being tested, the majority were not as reproducible in diagnosing low cardiac output or optimizing hemodynamics and few had been prospectively tested in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), especially in the AHF setting. With advances in temporary mechanical circulatory support for acute cardiogenic shock and the resurgence of hemodynamic parameters in the new cardiogenic shock classification scheme, there has been a resurgence in PAC-guided strategies 31,32 . Recently published real-world retrospective data showed that utilization of PAC-guided therapy resulted in decreased mortality among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock 33 . Among the whole cohort of these patients, having no PAC assessment was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-2.33) 33 . Guidelines recommend invasive hemodynamic assessment amongst AHF patients with recurrent exacerbations, or requiring vasopressor support, or have uncertain volume, or perfusion status, or both (Class 1) 34 . Deciphering the volume and perfusion status could help tailor appropriate therapies to AHF patients in a timely manner.

Two promising strategies that have recently evolved to assess congestion involve the use of point-of-care ultrasound technology beyond assessing cardiac structure and function. Central venous congestion, so-called "thoracic comets", identification of B lines at the thoracic cavity to assess extravascular lung water has gained some popularity 35 . Persistence of B lines prior to discharge is associated with increased incidence of HF readmissions and mortality, therefore routine evaluation upon admission and discharge could guide decongestive strategies and help assess prognostication 36,37 . Extended to broader assessment of venous congestion, inferior vena cava diameter and intrahepatic and intrarenal Doppler flow parameters have also been associated with organ congestion and impaired natriuretic responses to diuretic therapy [38] [39] [40] . A physiological study demonstrated that volume expansion in patients with HF irrespective of EF led to significant blunting of venous wavefoms, in setting of elevated central venous pressures, which could lead to increased renal capillary pressure and congestion 40 . Recently, the venous excess ultrasound score (VExUS) was devised on the basis of the ultrasound findings of congestion. It has been reported that dilated inferior vena cava (≥2 cm) along with severe flow abnormalities in intrahepatic and intrarenal vessels outperformed central venous pressures in predicting the risk of acute kidney injury (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.82, 95% CI 1.2-6.6, P = 0.02) 41 ( Figure 2a ). Along with volume assessment, point-of-care ultrasound can also be used for evaluation of cardiac function in patients with AHF. Left ventricle outflow tract volume time integral (LVOT VTI) is a surrogate marker of stroke volume and is measured in centimeters by placement of pulsed-wave Doppler below the aortic valve in either apical five-or three-chamber view 42 . Studies have shown that low LVOT VTIs are better than EF in predicting mortality and placement of left ventricle assist devices (LVADs), indicating the potential of LVOT VTI in risk-stratifying patients with AHF 43,44 (Figure 2b ). More studies are needed to determine the universal LVOT VTI cutoff to predict the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with AHF. Routine point-of-care ultrasound assessment of patients presenting with AHF may assist in assessing cardiac function, guiding diuretic regimen, and identifying patients at risk of hemodynamic collapse.

Another noninvasive method is the Remote Dielectric Sensing (ReDS) system (Sensible Medical Innovations, Netanya, Israel), which is being explored to quantify pulmonary congestion. It is a miniature radar system which emits electromagnetic signals in a quick reproducible manner that can help provide percentage of fluid content compared with lung volume, and normal values range between 20 to 35%. The device has correlated with computed tomography-measured lung fluid content 45 . A prospective pilot study showed that ReDS technology helped identify about one third of the patients with residual congestion, who were clinically deemed to be decongested and were near discharge 46 . This could help avert HF readmissions. Preliminary primary results from a prospective multicenter study presented in 2019 showed no differences in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis but significant reduction in number of HF readmissions in a modified ITT analysis, yet a peer-reviewed manuscript has not been published. An ongoing prospective trial is evaluating ReDS for a SAFE Discharge in Patients with Acutely Decompensated Heart Failure: The ReDS-SAFE HF Study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04305717).

Diuretics are the mainstay therapy for patients presenting with AHF exacerbation. Loop diuretics (LDs) remain the initial choice of management. The Diuretic Strategies in Patients with Acute Decompensated heart failure (DOSE-AHF), a 2×2 factorial trial, evaluated high-dose LDs versus low-dose LDs and bolus LD versus continuous LD infusion. High-dose LD (2.5 times the home dose) in comparison with low-dose LD (home dose) was associated with a statistically significant improvement in dyspnea, weight loss, and negative fluid balance after 72 hours of admission 47 Worsening renal function (WRF), defined by a rise in creatinine by 0.3 mg/dL at 72 hours, was more frequently reported in the high-dose LD group but compared to stable renal function, was not associated with worse outcomes (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77-1.78, P = 0.47) 47-49 . Instead improving renal function compared with those who had stable renal function was more likely to have composite outcome of death and/or HF hospitalization (HR 2.52, 95% CI 1.57-4.03, P <0.001) 49 . Similarly posthoc analysis of the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation (ROSE) trial, which used high-dose LD for diuresis in AHF patients demonstrated that increase in creatinine or cystatin C was not associated with elevation of urinary renal tubular injury biomarkers such as neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin 50 . These findings indicate that bumps in creatinine in setting of diuresis are associated with benign changes in filtration fraction and are not necessarily indicative of tubular injury. However amongst AHF patients undergoing aggressive diuresis who both had WRF and increase in markers of tubular injury, paradoxically trended towards improved survival (adjusted P = 0.045) as compared to patients who had improving renal function and decrease in markers of tubular injury 50 These studies underscore the importance of not discontinuing diuretics in clinically congested patients, as mild decreases in renal filtration fractions amongst AHF patients receiving decongestive therapies is not associated with renal tubular injury and worsening survival. Instead withdrawal of diuretic therapies in the setting of worsening filtration fraction in clinically congested patients is associated with adverse outcomes. Post-hoc analysis of DOSE-AHF patients showed that patients who received a high dose of LD, when adjusted for diuretic dose, had improved outcomes with decreases in mortality, HF admissions, and hospitalizations (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95, P = 0.028). This supports the beneficial role of an aggressive diuretic regimen in AHF patients 51 .

In the DOSE-AHF trial, which also evaluated bolus dosing verus continuous diuretic infusion, continuous infusion did not result in improvement of symptoms and increase in urine output and neither was associated with decrease in HF hospitalizations or mortality. It is important to note that unlike common clinical practice, patients in the diuretic infusion arm did not receive loading dose prior to initiation. Lack of initial bolus dose may have masked the effectiveness of the continuous diuretic infusion. The bolus group more often required escalation of diuretic dose and need for thiazide diuretics as compared with continuous infusion. This led to a non-significant higher cumulative diuretic dosing in the bolus group (592 vs. 480 mg, P = 0.06) 47,48 . Diuretic infusions are intended to prevent post-diuretic sodium retention, which is one of the mechanisms of diuretic resistance. A meta-analysis comparing continuous versus bolus dosing did report significant increase in urine output and weight loss without any decrease in mortality with continuous infusion of LDs 52 . The Diuretic Response in Advanced Heart Failure: Bolus Intermittent vs. Continuous Infusion (DRAIN) trial was a prospective RCT, amongst 80 HF patients with reduced EF <30%, which compared infusion versus bolus dosing of LDs. Continuous infusion of LDs was more often associated with relief of congestive symptoms (25% vs. 48%, P = 0.04) with significantly increased urine output (10,020 ± 3032 vs. 8612 ± 2984 ml, P = 0.04) and less likelihood of treatment failure without significant WRF 53 . Therefore, the continuous infusion of furosemide remains a viable option, especially for AHF patients with refractory hypervolemia.

Further analysis of the DOSE trial also demonstrated differential response to high-dose diuresis based on underlying EF. Amongst patients with HFpEF, high-dose diuresis was associated with significant increase in creatinine (+ 0.16 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.02-0.30 mg/dL, P = 0.03), but did not result in net fluid or weight loss or improvement in global congestive symptoms. Comparitvely, patients with HF with reduced ejection (HFrEF) responded well to high-dose diuretics with significant increase in net fluid and weight loss, improvement in congestive symptoms and decrease in HF hospitalizations without increasing creatinine. (− 0.05 mg/dL, 95% CI −0.14-0.03 mg/dL, P = 0.23) 54 The difference in response to diuresis between HFpEF and HFrEF could be secondary to differences in distribution of volume. In a study, it was noted that in response to volume expansion, HFpEF patients as compared to HFrEF patients, were less likely to have intravascular volume expansion and more likely to have interstitial congestion with decreased effective circulating volume 55 . This could make HFpEF patients more sensitive to intravascular volume contraction in setting of diuresis leading to WRF. It is also thought that HFpEF patients are preload-dependent and agressive diuresis can decrease the venous return leading to decrease in left ventricle stroke volume, resulting in decreased renal perfusion. To further investigate this a single center Randomized Evaluation of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Patients with Acute Heart Failure and Dopamine (ROPA-DOP) trial was conducted which showed addition of low-dose dopamine did not significantly decrease incidence of WRF and was associated with a non-significant trend towards increase of diuresis. Additionally compared to bolus dosing, continuous diuretic infusion was significantly associated with WRF (OR 4.32, 95% CI 1.26-14.74, P = 0.02) 56 . These findings suggest that amongst HFpEF patients low-dose bolus dosing may be more effective than continuous infusion. More studies are needed to investigate effective diuretic strategies in decompensated HFpEF patients.

The European Society of Cardiology 2021 guidelines recommend the utility of spot urinary sodium or volume of diuresis (or both) to assess diuretic response 57 . Assessing spot urine sodium 2 hours after diuretic administration and checking average hourly urine output after 6 hours of diuretic administration are recommended to assess diuretic response. A spot urine sodium of less than 50 to 70 mEq/L or an hourly urine output of less than 100 to 150 mL/hour is associated with insufficient diuretic response 48 (Figure 3) . A recent publication showed that lower urinary sodium after 6 hours of diuresis was associated with lower urine output on the first day and was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR 3.81, 95% CI 1.92-7.57, P <0.001) 58 . Therefore, spot urine sodium check after initiation of diuresis is increasingly recognized as an early marker for diuretic response and an independent prognostic marker for all-cause mortality in patients with AHF 48,58 . A daily dose of 400 to 600 mg furosemide and 10 to 15 mg bumetanide is the maximal daily dose of LD that could be administered 48 . Previously, an open-labeled RCT showed that HF outpatients who received torsemide as compared with furosemide had a decrease in HF hospitalization by 15% with significant improvement in symptomology 59 . The TRANSFORM-HF trial, a large-scale RCT, is under way to compare the effectiveness of torsemide against furosemide in patients with AHF (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813).

Limited studies have evaluated the role of subcutaneous diuretics for the outpatient management of worsening HF in an attempt to avert hospitalization. A small phase II study showed that subcutaneous and intravenous (IV) furosemide were equally effective in diuresis and weight change 60 . However, a systemic review of various studies evaluating outpatient subcutaneous and IV furosemide did report a higher admission rate among patients receiving subcutaneous furosemide 61 . Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the role of subcutaneous diuretics in managing AHF exacerbation in outpatient setting. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved extended-release torsemide (once-a-day formulation) for patients with HF and persistent edema 62 . The formulation results in prolonged drug levels in urine, which has been shown to improve natriuresis by preventing post-diuretic sodium retention 63 . Faculty Reviews 2021 10: (82) Faculty Opinions

A recent analysis observed that two thirds of patients with AHF did not require any further treatment beyond initial IV diuretic therapy 64 . However, over 30% of patients with AHF do not achieve clinical decongestion upon discharge, which is associated with higher one-year mortality and HF rehospitalizations 65 . Inability to achieve substantial decongestion coupled with decreased natriuresis in spite of escalating dose of LDs is a phenomenon known as diuretic resistance (DR). This is driven by a multitude of factors, including impaired renal perfusion in the setting of low systemic perfusion, decreased renal filtration, neurohumoral activation, increased renal venous, abdominal pressures, and post-diuretic sodium retention 66 . This leads to increased renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation and distal tubular sodium uptake. Risk factors for DR include right ventricle dysfunction, chronic kidney disease, and RAAS activation 67 . In such patients, the efficacy of LDs needs to be augmented by other means and alternative pharmacological targets need to be considered.

In patients with DR, there is an increased renal affinity for sodium. Some studies have evaluated the affect of diuresis with the administration of hypertonic saline (HS). The goal is to acquiesce the sodium avid state of the kidney by delivering sodium to suppress neurohumoral activation and increase intravascular volume/refill rate. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of administering HS among patients admitted with refractory acute decompensated HF. Co-administration of HS therapy with diuretics among patients admitted with refractory AHF has been associated with statistically significant increases in urine output and weight loss (3.1 ± 0.5 kg at 72 h (P <0.001), alongside improvement in sodium and creatinine concentrations. No side effects such as worsening in respiratory or neurological status were reported 68 . A prospective randomized trial also demonstrated that HS addition to diuretis amongst AHF patients was associated with decreases in hospitalization rates (18.5% vs. 34.2%, P <0.0001) and mortality (12.9% vs. 23.8%, P <0.0001) 69 . Despite positive results from observational studies, physicians have been reluctant to adopt HS as an adjunctive therapy because of concerns for volume and salt overload and need for a critical care setting 67-70 . Further RCTs evaluating the efficacy of HS as an adjunctive to diuretics should be undertaken. A RCT is underway evaluating if oral sodium chloride supplementation increases diuretic efficiency in patients admitted with AHF (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04334668).

Another potential therapeutic approach aims to block sodium re-uptake at the site of maximal reabsorption site in the kidneys, namely the proximal convoluted tubule (PCT), where two thirds of the excreted sodium is reabsorbed. Acetazolamide is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that blocks sodium bicarbonate reabsorption at the PCT, which in turn suppresses neurohumoral activation by increasing distal delivery of sodium 71 . In a small RCT, Verbrugge et al. randomly assigned patients to acetazolamide with bumetanide versus high-dose bumetanide 71 .

Diuretic efficiency, defined as natriuresis per LD dose administered, was higher in the acetazolamide group (84 ± 46 vs. 52 ± 42 mmol/mg, P = 0.048). There was also a trend toward decrease in all-cause mortality and hospital readmissions but this did not meet statistical significance 71 . The use of acetazolamide may be effective in augmenting diuresis but further comparative studies are required to establish its efficacy. The data from Acetazolamide in Decompensated Heart Failure With Volume OveRload (ADVOR) RCT is pending (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03505788). Thiazide diuretics constitute the most frequently used strategy to augment efficacy of LDs. Thiazide diuretics counteract the effect of increased sodium uptake in the setting of distal tubular hypertrophy, a phenomenon present among patients with prolonged exposure to LDs. Their use is further considered in patients with low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 71 . Thiazide diuretics can worsen hyponatremia; therefore, sodium levels should be monitored closely in these patients. Not one thiazide diuretic is proven to be superior than the other. Pharmacokinetically, compared with chlorothiazide, metolazone does have a slower absorption and uptake and a prolonged duration of action 65,71 .

Tolvaptan is a vasopressin 2 receptor antagonist that inhibits the action of anti-diuretic hormone at the collecting tubule. The Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in HF Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial did not show decreases in long-term mortality outcomes and HF morbidity. Improvements in dyspnea, body weight, and hyponatremia were noted in patients who received tolvaptan compared with placebo 72 . More recently, the Targeting Acute Congestion with Tolvaptan in Congestive heart failure (TACTICS-HF) trial randomly assigned patients with AHF to tolvaptan versus placebo. The results showed increased weight loss and fluid loss at the expense of WRF but failed to show symptom relief of dyspnea 73,74 . A small randomized Comparison of Oral or Intravenous Thiazides vs. tolvaptan in Diuretic Resistant Decompensated HF (3T) trial compared efficacy of metolazone, chlorothiazide, and tolvaptan against each other among patients refractory to high-dose LDs. All three groups showed increased weight loss and enhanced diuretic efficacy with no statistically significant difference between groups. As predicted, compared with metolazone and chlorothiazide, tolvaptan was associated with a decreased effect on serum sodium 75 . Therefore, the use of tolvaptan is reserved for AHF patients undergoing aggressive diuresis with concurrent severe hyponatremia as outlined by recommendations from ACC Foundation/AHA guidelines 76 . However, the expense of the drug, risk of liver injury rarely requiring transplantation and the lack of supportive efficacy data have limited its broad clinical use for primary diuretic purposes, especially with the availability of other strategies.

Inotropic and vasodilator therapy is used with the goal to increase cardiac output by augmenting cardiac contractility and reducing afterload among patients presenting with decompensated HF. In patients admitted with AHF without hypotension, vasodilators with nitrates (IV nitroglycerin and sodium nitroprusside) are commonly used. Their use is generally considered to be safe in patients presenting with AHF and is associated with symptom improvement. No mortality benefit is reported and routine use has not been recommended 77 . Inotropic therapy is used in patients with a "cold" profile, especially when there is evidence for systemic hypoperfusion in the setting of low cardiac output state. Data from the Acute Decompensated HF National Registry (ADHERE) indicate significantly increased mortality in patients who are given inotropes, dobutamine, or milrinone compared with vasodilator therapy nitroglycerin or nesiritide 78 . The propensity score-adjusted ORs for nesiritide compared with milrinone and dobutamine were 0.59 (95% CI 0.48-0.73, P <0.05) and 0.47 (95% CI 0.39-0.56, P <0.05), respectively for in-hospital mortality. For nitroglycerin, adjusted ORs for mortality were 0.69 (95% CI 0.53-0.89, P <0.05) and 0.46 (95% CI 0.37-0.57, P <0.05) compared with milrinone and dobutamine, respectively. Between nesiritide and nitroglycerin, there was no difference in mortality (95% CI 0.77-1.16, P = 0.58) but inotropic use was associated with increased risk 78 . Therefore, inotrope use is generally unfavorable and their role is limited in the setting of palliative care in end-stage HF patients, who have limited options for advanced therapies.

In the Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated heart failure (ASCEND-HF) trial, the addition of nesiritide to diuretic therapy in patients with AHF did not result in a decrease in mortality or AHF rehospitalization (9.4% vs. 10.1%, respectively; P = 0.31) but did increase episodes of hypotension (26.6% vs. 15.3%, respectively; P <0.001) 79 . The ROSE-AHF trial showed that adding either low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide to the standard diuretic regimen did not improve decongestion or renal function 80 . Therefore, the addition of low-dose dopamine and nesiritide to improve renal function in patients with AHF is generally not recommended. However, a post-hoc analysis of the ROSE-AHF trial did reveal differential affect of low-dose dobutamine in HFrEF patients compared to HFpEF. Low-dose dobutamine infusion was associated with more urinary output and significant decrease in mortality in HFrEF patients. In contrast, HFpEF patients with dobutamine were more likely to experience adverse outcomes with increased trend towards mortality. The differential response to inotropy is worth further investigation 81 . In the US, production of nesiritide has been discontinued and nesiritide is no longer commercially available. A recently published RCT showed similar potency of milrinone as compared with dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock with no difference in mortality, need for mechanical circulatory support and/or renal replacement therapies (relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% CI, 0.69-1.19, P = 0.47) 82 . The efficacy of vasodilator therapy, though limited, can still be used in the setting of AHF refractory to diuresis, but the use of inotropes to augment cardiac function is associated with increased mortality, limiting their therapeutic utility, especially in a prolonged setting.

Vericiguat is one of the novel agents which is an oral soluble guanylate cyclase activator and enhances the effect of nitrous oxide to increase production of cyclic guanosine monophosphate, which in turn modulates cardiac contraction and vasodilatation 83 . In the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (<45%), the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization was significantly reduced among patients who received vericiguat compared with placebo (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.98, P = 0.02) and the benefit was derived primarily by decreases in HF hospitalization 84 . Further analysis of the trial showed 50% increases in CV mortality and HF hospitalizations among patients who were randomly assigned within 3 months of AHF hospitalization compared with those who received vericiguat without a recent hospitalization 85 . This signifies that patients with recent AHF admission are too sick to benefit from vericiguat. The observation of decreased benefit of vericiguat among the sicker patients with HF was further strengthened by post-hoc analysis aimed at reviewing the efficacy of vericiguat on the basis of NT-proBNP at the time of enrollment. Among patients with NT-proBNP of not more than 8,000 pg/mL, the HRs were 0.85 (95% CI 0. 76-0.95) for the primary composite outcome, 0.84 (95% CI 0.75-0.95) for HF hospitalization, and 0.84 (95% CI 0.71-0.99) for CV deaths as compared with HR of 1.16 (95% CI 0.94-1.41) for the primary outcome among patients with NT-proBNP of greater than 8,000 pg/mL 86 . Therefore, NP levels beyond risk stratification could help identify patients who would benefit the most from vericiguat therapy.

Omecamtiv, an inotropic agent under investigation, augments myocardial contractility by enhancing actomyosin interaction without increasing intracellular calcium or oxygen demand. In the Acute treatment with Omecamtiv mecarbil to Increase Contractility in Acute Heart Failure (ATOMIC AHF) phase II trial, higher dose of omecamtiv was associated with improved dyspnea relief and a decrease in left ventricle end-systolic dimension 87 . In the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) phase III trial, omecamtiv administration among patients with chronic HF with reduced EF (≤35%) had a significantly decreased composite endpoint of HF hospitalization and mortality (37 vs. 39.1%, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.99, P = 0.03) 88 . The effect of baseline left ventricular EF was the strongest predictor of omecamtiv among patients, and a nearly 1.8 times greater effect was noted among the lowest (≤22%) compared with the highest (≥33%) EF quartile 89 . Further studies are needed to elicit the potential role of omecamtiv among AHF patients who are presenting with a concurrent low output state.

Serelaxin, a recombinant form of human relaxin 2 peptide, was evaluated in the RELAX-AHF-2 (Relaxin in AHF 2) trial. The results showed that 48-hour infusion of serelaxin was not associated with a decrease in mortality (8.7% vs. 8.9%, respectively, P = 0.77) or worsening HF (5.9% vs. 7.7%, respectively, P = 0.19) 90 . Ularitide, a chemical synthesized analogue of naturally occurring vasodilator, was also evaluated in the Trial of Ularitide Efficacy and Safety in ACUTE heart failure (TRUE-AHF). Ularitide infusion compared with placebo was associated with decreases in systolic blood pressure (decrease by 3.9 mm Hg at 48 hours compared with the placebo group, P <0.001) and NT-proBNP levels (−3816 vs. −2595 pg/mL, P <0.001) but this did not correlate with a decrease in CV mortality (21.7% vs. 21.0%, P = 0.75) 91 .

Calcium-sensitizing agents (calcitropic agents) such as levosimendan are also available for use as inotropic agents. These agents increase sensitivity of troponin C to calcium in myocardial cells, enhancing inotropic effects without increasing oxygen consumption of the myocardium along with peripheral vasodilation 92 . In two sequential trials (Randomized Evaluation of Intravenous Levosimendan Efficacy I and II), levosimendan infusion of 24 hours compared with placebo was associated with significant improvement in short-term symptoms, decrease in NPs and days in hospital stay. There was a trend towards non-significant increase in mortality alongside significant increase in episodes of hypotension and cardiac arrhythmias. Adverse CV events may be in part due to the study design, which used a loading dose of levosimendan, a practice that has changed since then. This was alongside the addition of other inotropes among patients who were clinically deteriorating despite being on levosimendan, which may have further contributed to adverse CV events 93 . Another prospective RCT, The Survival of Patients With Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE), which compared levosimendan with dobutamine in AHF patients with HFrEF (EF 30%) failed to show a decrease in all-cause mortality (26% vs. 28% respectively, HR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.74-1.13, P = 0.40) 94 . Several meta-analyses have shown a decrease in mortality and improvements in hemodynamics, symptom relief, and hospitalization rate among patients receiving levosimendan 95, 96 . Further RCTs may help elucidate its utility, especially among patients with AHF complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Another calcitropic agent currently under investigation of AHF treatment is istaroxime, which inhibits the Na + /K + pump and results in activation of the sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca 2+ -ATPase to increase intracellular calcium and therefore increasing contractility. In a small RCT, 24-hour istaroxime infusion in patients with AHF was associated with improvement in hemodynamic parameters and decreases in heart rate, NT-proBNP, and self-reported dyspnea 97 . The study also reported improvements in cardiac systolic and diastolic function. No increase in the incidence of adverse CV events was reported 97 . A multinational double-blinded RCT, the Safety and Efficacy of Istaroxime for Pre-Cardiogenic Shock (SEISMiC), is under way to evaluate the efficacy of istaroxime in AHF complicated by cardiogenic shock (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04325035). Other agents under investigation for patients with HF are listed in Table 1 .

A significant proportion of patients with AHF develop cardiorenal syndrome and become refractory to aggressive diuretic management. Ultrafiltration (UF) is the physical removal of isotonic plasma from the patient 98 . In the UF Versus Intravenous Diuretics for Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated heart failure (UNLOAD) trial, 200 patients were randomly assigned to UF or LD. UF was superior to LDs in weight loss (5 ± 3.1 kg vs. 3.1 ± 3.5 kg, respectively; P<0.001) and net fluid removal at 48 hours (4.6 ± 2.1 L vs. 3.3 ± 2.6 L, respectively; P <0.001), and HF rehospitalization was significantly lower with UF (22 ± 54% vs. 46 ± 76%, respectively; P = 0.022) 99 . However, in a follow-up Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated heart failure (CARRESS-HF) trial, 188 patients were randomly assigned to UF or stepped pharmacological therapy. UF was inferior to stepped pharmacological therapy as there was a significant rise in mean creatinine in the UF arm (+0.23 ± 0.70 mg/dL vs. −0.04 ± 0.53 mg/ dL, respectively; P = 0.03) without a significant difference in weight loss (−5.7 ± 3.9 kg vs. −5.5 ± 5.1 kg, respectively; P = 0.58). There was no change in 60-day mortality in UF versus the stepped pharmacological group (17% vs. 12%, respectively; P = 0.47) and no decrease in composite rate of mortality or HF rehospitalization (38% and 35%, respectively; P = 0.96). There was a significant risk of adverse events, including higher incidence of renal failure, IV catheter-related complications, and bleeding complications (72% vs. 57%, P = 0.03) 100 . Of note, in the UF arm, there was fixed rate of fluid removal rather than adjustable rate of fluid removal determined by hemodynamics of patients. This may have predisposed patients to adverse clinical outcomes in the UF arm given the increased risk of hypotension 100 .

A later study named Aquapheresis Versus Intravenous Diuretics and Hospitalizations for heart failure (AVOID HF) compared outcomes among AHF patients who received either adjustable UF or adjustable diuretics. The trial was stopped prematurely because of slower-than-expected enrollment. The average rate of UF was 138 mL/hour, which was lower than the fixed rate of 200 mL/hour used in the CARRESS-HF trial. Patients in the adjustable UF arm compared with adjustable diuretics had a non-significant longer time to first HF readmission (62 vs. 34 days, respectively; P = 0.10) and a similar 90-day mortality (15% vs. 13%, P = 0.87). In regard to secondary outcomes in the UF arm, there was a significant decrease in the number of patients with HF rehospitalization (9.5% vs. 20.4%, respectively; P = 0.034) and fewer patients were admitted with CV events (14.3% vs. 25%, respectively; P = 0.042). More patients in the UF arm experienced adverse events of special interest, such as central line-associated bloodstream infections, bleeding requiring transfusion, symptomatic hypotension necessitating intervention, and acute coronary syndrome (31% vs. 17%, respectively; P = 0.018) 101 . UF is reserved for patients who have AHF refractory to aggressive diuretic management. Another UF modality with a potentially milder impact on hemodynamic shifts among patients with HF is peritoneal dialysis. One study linked peritoneal dialysis use among patients with refractory HF to improved New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification and a significant decrease in the rate of HF hospitalizations 107 . Further studies comparing UF modalities among patients with HF refractory to diuretics are needed.

In recent years, there have been several advances in disease-modifying pharmacotherapy for patients with HF. With the advent of newer drugs such as ARNI and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, providers now have more tools to combat adverse outcomes in HF. Over time, quadruple therapy with ARNI, SGLT-2 inhibitors, beta blockers, and mineral receptor antagonists has repeatedly been shown to be effective in significantly reducing mortality and HF readmissions 108,109 . The benefit could be seen within days to weeks of starting these medications as event curves diverge quite early in the course of treatment. However, owing to concerns for hypotension, WRF, or hyperkalemia, providers are reluctant to initiate ARNI or mineral receptor antagonist (MRA) in patients admitted with AHF 110 . Simultaneous initiation of these medications may enhance tolerance. ARNI, when compared with enalapril, decreased the risk of hyperkalemia, which thus less likely resulted in MRA discontinuation 111 . Initiation of quadruple therapy could be started at low doses and with slow uptitration. SGLT-2 inhibitors and MRA have minimal to no effect on systolic blood pressure in studies and therefore may be better tolerated 109 . Further studies are needed to evaluate tolerance of initiating these medications together along with the possibility of polypill. Studies have shown that the failure to initiate goal-directed medical therapy (GDMT) during hospitalization often results in less likelihood of outpatient initiation or post-discharge adherence 109,112 .

In the PARADIGM-HF study, among patients with HFrEF, sacubitril-valsartan initiation was compared with enalapril, and there was less primary composite outcome of CV death or HF hospitalization in the ARNI group (21.8% vs. 26.5%, respectively; P <0.001) 113 . In the PIONEER (Comparison of Sacubitril-Valsartan versus enalapril in hospital initiation among patients stabilized from an AHF Episode) trial, ARNI initiation was associated with much greater reduction in NT-proBNP levels (−46.7% vs. −25.3%, respectively; P <0.001), and a significant effect was seen as early as within the first week. ARNI was well tolerated clinically with no significant increased risk of renal dysfunction, electrolyte disturbances, and incidence of hypotension 114 120 . The role of ARNI initiation after myocardial infarction was compared with ramipril in the PARADISE-MI trial and results were presented in ACC 2021. Compared to ramapril, sacubitril-valsartan was associated with numerical decreases in primary composite outcome of CV death, first HF hospitalization or outpatient HF (13.2% vs. 11.9% respectively; P = 0.17). 121 . The role of ARNI compared with losartan was also evaluated in a LIFE trial among patients with advanced HF with an EF of not more than 20%, which failed to show significant decreases in CV events and HF exacerbations 122 . This indicates that patients with endstage HF could have only limited benefit from GDMT and that workup for advanced therapies should be considered.

Spironolactone is an MRA that acts as a neurohormonal antagonist. Its use is well established in patients with HFrEF. The Aldosterone Targeted Neurohormonal Combined with Natriuresis Therapy in Heart Failure (ATHENA-HF) RCT evaluated the effect of high-dose (100 mg) spironolactone compared with low-dose (25 mg) spironolactone or placebo in patients with AHF. At 96 hours, there was no significant difference in NT-proBNP or increase in urine output in the high-dose spironolactone arm. There was also no significant decrease in 30-day mortality or time to first HF rehospitalization or emergency visit between patients receiving two doses of spironolactone (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.68-2.19, P = 0.50). At 96 hours, initiation of high-dose spironolactone was well tolerated and there was no risk of hyperkalemia (only one patient in the low-dose spironolactone group had K + 5.5-5.9 mmol/L and no patient in the high-dose spironolactone group had hyperkalemia) or WRF (28% in high-dose spironolactone vs. 32% low-dose spironolactone group, P = 0.42). The safety profile cannot be extrapolated to patients with reduced GFR of less than 30 mL/min, as these patients were excluded from the trial 104 . Further analysis of the ATHENA-HF study showed that the levels of spironolactone metabolites were lower than expected in the high-dose spironolactone arm group, which may explain the lack of therapeutic benefit in the high-dose group 123 124 . SGLT-2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective pharmaceutical intervention during AHF exacerbation regardless of the underlying EF. Initiation of ARNI and SGLT-2 inhibitor have been associated with initial decline in renal function, however their long-term use was notably associated with improved CV outcomes and decreased progression of chronic kidney disease 125,126 . Therefore mild worsening of renal function during initial course of treatment should not deter the use of disease altering treatment.

The role of beta blockers in HF management is well established. Beta-blocker discontinuation is typically considered in AHF patients presenting with signs of the "wet-cold" hemodynamic profile, given concerns for hypoperfusion. A meta-analysis evaluating discontinuation of beta blockers in AHF showed increased in-hospital mortality (risk ratio 3.72, 95% CI 1.51-9.14), short-term mortality (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.04-2.49), and combined endpoint of short-term rehospitalization or mortality (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.03-2.45) 127 . Therefore, if a patient does not have signs of hypoperfusion on presentation, beta-blocker therapy should be continued. Ivabradine is a novel funny sodium channel blocker that results in negative chronotropy, decreasing myocardial stress. Along with GDMT, ivabradine addition in HFrEF patients with sinus rhythm (heart rate >70 bpm) on maximal tolerated beta-blocker therapy has been associated with decreases in composite HF mortality and hospitalization (24% vs. 29%, respectively; P <0.001), driven primarily by decrease in HF hospitalization 128 . The small randomized trial ETHIC-AHF showed statistically significant improvement in EF and a decrease in NPs at 4 months and no decrease in mortality or HF hospitalization 129 .

Iron deficiency is associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with HF. It results in mitochondrial dysfunction, increased oxidative stress, and reduced myocardial efficiency.

Oral iron supplementation has mostly been found to be ineffective given poor gastrointestinal absorption and tolerability. Trials with oral supplementation in HF have been negative. The role of intravenous iron supplementation has been well advised in chronic HF patients with reduced EF (<50%) given favorable results from several RCTs 130 . IV iron supplementation in patients with chronic HF is associated with improved quality of life and decreases in all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization 130 . A recently conducted RCT evaluating IV ferric carboxymaltose in AHF patients with iron deficiency (ferritin <100 μg/L or 100-299 μg/L with transferrin saturation <20%) and reduced EF of less than 50% (AFFIRM-AHF) showed a significant decrease in HF hospitalization during a 52-week follow-up (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94, P = 0.013), with no difference in mortality 106 . Patients who have recovered from AHF and have tolerated GDMT initiation should be prepared for discharge. A multidisciplinary team approach involving input from an experienced physician, nurses, social worker, physical therapist, and nutritionist should be in place for patients being discharged. Modifiable risk factors, which led to initial AHF decompensation, such as dietary intake, medication non-compliance, or missing physician appointments, should be addressed prior to discharge. Barriers to achieve optimal dietary intake or medication non-compliance due to lack of insurance coverage should be identified and addressed. Patient and family education should be instituted to discuss HF symptoms and prognosis, changes in medical regimen, and how to avail optimal care in a timely manner. Follow-up with an HF provider should be arranged within a few days after discharge. A concise summary of the hospitalization events should be documented and available to the outpatient team for review, such as to better respond if a patient calls back for symptom review or is readmitted with AHF 132 .

The need for physical rehabilitation among patients about to be discharged should be evaluated by trained physical therapists. Recently, a single-blind RCT, Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Acute Heart Failure Patients (REHAB-HF), showed promising results. Among frail elderly patients discharged after AHF hospitalization, a tailored transitional approach to physical rehabilitation compared with placebo resulted in improved primary outcome of short physical performance battery scores (composed of standing balance test, a gait-speed [4-m walk] test, and a strength test [as assessed by the time needed to rise from a chair five times]) at 3 months (mean between-group difference 1.5, 95% CI 0.9-2.0, P <0.001). Improvements in geriatric depression and functional status were also noted but this did not result in a decrease in rehospitalizations or mortality 133 .

It is standard of care to offer an outpatient discharge appointment to patients being discharged after AHF hospitalization. Over the last year, to limit the spread of coronavirus-19 disease , there has been a surge in virtual visits. Followup visits are essential for GDMT uptitration to target doses and to recognize patients at risk of clinical decompensation 134 .

In an RCT evaluating outcomes between virtual visits and in-person visits, no differences in composite (log-rank P = 0.18) or individual (P = 0.14) components of hospital readmission, emergency room visit (P = 0.52), or death (P = 0.61) were noted 135 . Further studies are needed to investigate the safety and feasibility of GDMT titration and clinical outcomes in HF patients being evaluated in virtual visits.

Among patients discharged after AHF hospitalization, noninvasive tele-monitoring systems, through daily monitoring of HF symptoms and weight changes, failed to demonstrate a reduction in rehospitalization rates 136 . Wireless direct pulmonary artery pressure monitoring by implantation of CardioMEMS has emerged as a potent technique for monitoring changes in hemodynamic parameters, which may precede clinical congestive symptoms. An RCT called the CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA functional Class III Heart Failure Patients (CHAMPION) trial showed that patients receiving medical management based on pulmonary artery pressures had a statistically significantly lower rate of HF hospitalization by 39% after an average follow-up of 15 months 137 . Similar outcomes were noted among HFpEF patients in the CHAMPION trial with a significant decrease in HF hospitalization by 50% at 17 months 138 . Moreover, CardioMEMS implantation was associated with a significant decrease in mortality by 57% among patients receiving GDMT, underscoring the importance of a synergistic ambulatory approach to decongestion and neurohormonal blockade 139 . The benefit of CardioMEMS-guided ambulatory therapy was further evaluated in the recent GUIDE-IT (hemodynamic-guided management of patients with NYHA class II-IV HF) trial.

Overall results failed to meet the primary outcome of CV mortality and HF. However, when the results were analyzed for patients enrolled before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the former seemed to have a significant decrease in HF hospitalization after CardioMEMS enrollment (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57-0.92, P = 0.007). The benefit did not seem to extend to the advanced NYHA class IV HF patient population 140 . Pour-Ghaz et al. also showed that 5-year post CardioMEMS implantation, compared with standard therapy, would be more cost-effective and could lead to better quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) among patients with HF 141 . Currently, the data seem to support remote monitoring of congestion through hemodynamic sensors in NYHA class II or III patients. Figure 4 summarizes several aspects of AHF management both during hospitalization and discharge.

Although there seemed to be paucity of novel therapies that changed the landscape of AHF treatment, there is much progress in our understanding and the strategic needs of bedside assessment and treatment planning, choices, and adjustments in drug regimens during hospitalization and postdischarge management of AHF. The field has now recognized the lack of robust consideration of the presenting AHF phenotype, the diverse and rather poorly defined therapeutic (both cardiac or comorbid) targets, the over-optimistic expectations of long-term benefits of short-term infusions, and the lack of insights into the determinants of poor outcomes after discharge from hospital. Nevertheless, our decade-long pursuit in clinical trials and registries has enlightened us to recognize three key points:

1. Hemodynamics and assessment of volume and perfusion are highly relevant, and efforts to better stratify endophenotypes to guide therapeutic strategies are much needed.

2. Effective diuretic strategies include both delivering adequate diuretic efficiencies and setting appropriate treatment goals.

3. Short-term interventions only stabilize decompensated states, whereas long-term disease-modifying drug therapies should remain the focus of primary therapeutic goals in AHF.

Heart disease and stroke statistics--2015 update: A report from the American Heart Association

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines

Vasodilator Therapies in the Treatment of Acute Heart Failure

In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Requiring Intravenous Vasoactive Medications. An Analysis From the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE)

Effect of nesiritide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure

Low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide in acute heart failure with renal dysfunction: The ROSE acute heart failure randomized trial

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Differential Response to Low-Dose Dopamine or Low-Dose Nesiritide in Acute Heart Failure With Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction: Results From the ROSE AHF Trial (Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure)

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock

Soluble guanylate cyclase: A potential therapeutic target for heart failure

Vericiguat in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Clinical Outcomes and Response to Vericiguat According to Index Heart Failure Event: Insights From the VICTORIA Trial

N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide and Clinical Outcomes: Vericiguat Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Study

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Acute Treatment With Omecamtiv Mecarbil to Increase Contractility in Acute Heart Failure: The ATOMIC-AHF Study

Cardiac Myosin Activation with Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Systolic Heart Failure

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation 89

Effect of Ejection Fraction on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Treated With Omecamtiv Mecarbil in GALACTIC-HF

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation 90

Effects of Serelaxin in Patients with Acute Heart Failure

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Effect of Ularitide on Cardiovascular Mortality in Acute Heart Failure

Levosimendan in Acute and Advanced Heart Failure: An Expert Perspective on Posology and Therapeutic Application

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Effect of levosimendan on the short-term clinical course of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure

Levosimendan vs dobutamine for patients with acute decompensated heart failure: The SURVIVE Randomized Trial

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Repeated or intermittent levosimendan treatment in advanced heart failure: An updated meta-analysis

Yat Wong PC: Levosimendan Treatment for Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation 97

Treatment with 24 hour istaroxime infusion in patients hospitalised for acute heart failure: A randomised, placebo-controlled trial

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Evaluation of kidney function throughout the heart failure trajectory -a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation 115

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Randomly Assigned to Sacubitril/ Valsartan or Enalapril in the PIONEER-HF Trial

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Initiation of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor in Heart Failure With Low Cardiac Output

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Is the glass half full or half empty after PARAGON-HF?

Prior Heart Failure Hospitalization, Clinical Outcomes, and Response to Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Valsartan in HFpEF

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

New FDA Indication Opens up Use OF SACUBITRIL/VALSARTAN In Hfpef

Prospective arni Vs. ace Inhibitor trial to Determine superiority in reducing heart failure events After myocardial infarction

LCZ696 in advanced heart failure American College of Cardiology. 2021. Reference Source

Spironolactone metabolite concentrations in decompensated heart failure: Insights from the ATHENA-HF trial

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation 125. Carnicelli AP, Mentz RJ: Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The Heart and Kidney Working Better Together

PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Neprilysin Inhibition and Effects on Kidney Function and Surrogates of Cardiovascular Risk in Chronic Kidney Disease

Effects of Beta-Blocker Withdrawal in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ivabradine and outcomes in chronic heart failure (SHIFT): A randomised placebo-controlled study