On this page
Quick Reference
Overview and Recommendations
Background
- •HFrEF — heart failure with LVEF ≤ 40 % — accounts for approximately 50 % of the global heart failure population and carries a 1-year mortality of 17 % at class IV despite optimal therapy.
- •The four pillars of GDMT (ARNI, beta-blocker, MRA, SGLT2 inhibitor) replaced the legacy ACE-I + BB + diuretic triad following landmark trials such as PARADIGM-HF (2014), DAPA-HF (2019), and EMPEROR-Reduced (2020), which collectively demonstrated that multi-pathway modulation is superior to simple neurohormonal blockade.
- •Maladaptive activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) drives the central pathophysiology — including eccentric ventricular remodeling, chamber dilation, and progressive fibrosis — while the counter-regulatory natriuretic peptide system is often overwhelmed or degraded by .
- •Ischemic etiology (coronary artery disease) dominates approximately 60 % of cases, but non-ischemic causes are increasingly recognized, including hypertension, valvular disease, viral , genetic cardiomyopathies, and toxin exposure such as or alcohol.
- •Prognostic stakes are high, as each heart failure hospitalization serves as a sentinel event for increased mortality; however, cardiac reverse remodeling (improvement in LVEF and reduction in chamber size) is achievable in a significant subset of patients who reach target GDMT doses.
- •Emerging biomarkers and imaging parameters, such as levels and left atrial (LA) reservoir strain, provide deeper insights into the HFrEF phenotype and help predict the risk of cardiovascular death and recurrent hospitalizations.
Evaluation
- •Suspect HFrEF in any patient presenting with exertional dyspnea, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, or unexplained fatigue accompanied by peripheral edema.
- •Examine for specific signs of systemic venous congestion, most notably an elevated (JVP), which is highly specific for increased pulmonary capillary wedge pressure.
- •Auscultate for a third heart sound (S3 gallop), a hallmark of rapid ventricular filling into a dilated, non-compliant chamber, and assess for displaced apical impulses indicating cardiomegaly.
- •Order a (TTE) as the gold-standard initial imaging to confirm an LVEF ≤40 %, assess chamber dimensions, and evaluate for secondary or other valvular pathologies.
- •Measure natriuretic peptides ( or ) to support the diagnosis and establish a prognostic baseline; note that levels may be disproportionately high in or low in patients with obesity.
- •Obtain a 12-lead to assess for rhythm (e.g., ) and QRS duration; a QRS ≥150 ms with left bundle-branch block (LBBB) morphology is a key threshold for future (CRT) eligibility.
- •Evaluate renal function (eGFR) and serum potassium (K+) before initiating RAAS inhibitors or MRAs, as baseline hyperkalemia or severe renal impairment may require modified titration strategies.
- •Screen for iron deficiency, defined as a ferritin <100 μg/L or a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20 %, which is present in up to 50 % of patients and contributes to functional decline regardless of anemia status.
- •Consider (CMR) if the etiology remains uncertain after initial workup, particularly to assess for myocardial viability, infiltrative diseases like , or late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) patterns.
- •Utilize the (KCCQ-12) to quantify patient-reported health status, as lower scores are strongly correlated with higher risks of hospitalization and mortality.
Management
- •Initiate the four-pillar GDMT simultaneously or in rapid sequence (within 1-2 weeks) to maximize early survival benefits: ARNI + beta-blocker + MRA + SGLT2 inhibitor.
- •Administer (ARNI) as the preferred first-line RAS inhibitor; start at 49/51 mg BID and titrate to the target dose of 97/103 mg BID as tolerated by blood pressure.
- •Prescribe an evidence-based beta-blocker once the patient is euvolemic: (target 25-50 mg BID), (target 200 mg daily), or (target 10 mg daily).
- •Add a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) such as or at 25 mg daily, titrating to 50 mg daily; monitor potassium closely and maintain K+ <5.0 mEq/L.
- •Initiate an SGLT2 inhibitor, either 10 mg daily or 10 mg daily, regardless of the presence of type 2 diabetes, to provide early hemodynamic and renal protection.
- •Manage fluid overload with IV loop diuretics (e.g., or ); for refractory congestion, consider the addition of a thiazide-like diuretic or small-volume hypertonic saline.
- •Add (soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator) starting at 2.5 mg daily and titrating to 10 mg daily for patients with a recent worsening heart failure event despite foundational GDMT.
- •Consider for patients in sinus rhythm with a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm who are already on maximally tolerated beta-blocker doses.
- •Administer IV ferric carboxymaltose for patients with iron deficiency (ferritin <100 or TSAT <20 %) to improve functional capacity and reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalizations.
- •Re-evaluate LVEF after 90 days of optimized GDMT; if LVEF remains ≤35 %, refer for an (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.
- •Refer for (CRT) in patients with LVEF ≤35 %, NYHA Class II-IV symptoms, and a QRS duration ≥150 ms with LBBB morphology.
- •Avoid non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (e.g., , ) and most NSAIDs, as these can exacerbate heart failure symptoms and increase the risk of decompensation.
- •Refer to an advanced heart failure specialist for evaluation of (LVAD) or heart transplantation if the patient remains in NYHA Class III-IV despite optimal therapy.
- •Monitor for by tracking eGFR and K+; do not reflexively discontinue GDMT for minor, stable declines in renal function (e.g., <30 % increase in creatinine).
Board Review — High Yield
- •S3 Gallop — Highly specific physical exam finding for HFrEF, representing rapid ventricular filling into a dilated chamber.
- •Eccentric Remodeling — The structural hallmark of HFrEF, characterized by chamber dilation and wall thinning (vs. concentric hypertrophy in HFpEF).
- •Neprilysin Inhibition — The mechanism of Sacubitril, which prevents the breakdown of beneficial natriuretic peptides (BNP, ANP).
- •90-Day Rule — The mandatory period of optimal medical therapy required before considering primary prevention ICD or CRT implantation.
- •Iron Deficiency — Defined as Ferritin <100 or TSAT <20 %; treatment with IV iron improves symptoms even without anemia.
- •SGLT2 Inhibitors — Provide mortality benefit in HFrEF regardless of diabetes status and help mitigate MRA-induced hyperkalemia.
- •LBBB and QRS ≥150ms — The strongest predictors of a positive response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT).
- •Cardiorenal Syndrome — The bidirectional dysfunction of the heart and kidneys; GDMT (especially SGLT2i) often provides long-term renal protection despite initial eGFR dips.
Deep Dive — Evidence Details
Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology
- ▸HFrEF is defined by an LVEF **≤40%**, a threshold that identifies patients who benefit most from neurohormonal blockade.
- ▸The global prevalence of HFrEF is rising due to improved post-myocardial infarction survival and the aging of the population [16].
- ▸Accurate classification into HFrEF, HFmrEF, or HFpEF is essential for selecting evidence-based therapies and predicting clinical outcomes [1, 19].
Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a clinical syndrome characterized by the presence of symptoms and signs of heart failure resulting from a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% [1]A1b[8]B2b. This threshold distinguishes HFrEF from other heart failure phenotypes and identifies a patient population that derives significant mortality and morbidity benefits from guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) [16]D5[18]B3b. While the clinical diagnosis relies on the ≤40% cutoff, many landmark clinical trials and device interventions utilize a more restrictive threshold of ≤35% to target patients at the highest risk for and [4]A1b[6]A1b.
Synonyms and Terminology
- HFrEF (Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction)
- Systolic heart failure (Historical term)
- Systolic dysfunction
- Chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
Classification and Phenotypes
Clinicians categorize heart failure based on the LVEF spectrum to guide therapeutic decision-making. HFrEF represents the end of the spectrum where myocardial contractility is most severely impaired, often accompanied by significant and ventricular remodeling [16]D5. In contrast, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) serves as a transitional zone (LVEF 41%–49%), where patients may either be transitioning toward HFrEF or recovering from it [1]A1b[7]A1b. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is defined by an LVEF ≥50% and is increasingly recognized as a distinct syndrome driven by diastolic dysfunction and metabolic comorbidities [3]B2b[19]A1a.
is a specific subgroup within the HFrEF population, often defined by the ESC-HFA criteria, characterized by persistent severe symptoms ( III or IV), severe cardiac dysfunction, and recurrent hospitalizations despite optimal GDMT [6]A1b. Identifying these stages is critical for determining eligibility for advanced therapies such as mechanical circulatory support or transplantation.
and Global Impact
Heart failure remains a major global health challenge, characterized by high morbidity, mortality, and escalating healthcare costs [16]D5. The increasing prevalence of HFrEF reflects a "success paradox" in modern cardiology: improved survival rates following acute and better of chronic coronary artery disease have created a growing population of survivors living with damaged myocardium [16]D5. Furthermore, the rising burden of cardiometabolic diseases, including obesity and type 2 diabetes, contributes to the clinical heterogeneity of the condition [16]D5[19]A1a.
Socioeconomic factors significantly influence HFrEF outcomes. The condition imposes a substantial economic burden due to frequent hospitalizations for acute decompensation and the need for long-term pharmacological and device-based therapies [16]D5. In aging populations, HFrEF is frequently complicated by physical frailty, cognitive impairment, and multi-organ dysfunction, which further exacerbate the risk of rehospitalization and loss of independence [10]D5.
Prognostic Indicators
Beyond the LVEF, emerging biomarkers and imaging parameters provide deeper insights into the HFrEF phenotype. Left atrial (LA) strain, specifically left atrial reservoir strain (LA RS), has emerged as a potent independent predictor of all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients [13]B3b. Additionally, the volume and density of epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) are increasingly recognized as metabolically active factors that influence myocardial function and long-term prognosis across the ejection fraction spectrum [15]D5.
| Phenotype | LVEF Threshold | Key Clinical Features |
|---|---|---|
| HFrEF | ≤40% | Significant systolic dysfunction; robust response to GDMT [1]A1b[8]B2b |
| HFmrEF | 41%–49% | Transitional phenotype; shares features with HFrEF and HFpEF [1]A1b[7]A1b |
| HFpEF | ≥50% | Predominantly diastolic dysfunction; high comorbidity burden [3]B2b[19]A1a |
Etiology and Risk Factors
- ▸Ischemic heart disease is the leading cause of HFrEF, but non-ischemic etiologies like Chagas disease and cardiotoxicity from chemotherapy are significant global contributors.
- ▸Comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease (40-60% prevalence) and obesity drive disease progression through neurohormonal activation and systemic inflammation.
- ▸Emerging risk factors, including clonal hematopoiesis and IL-6-mediated inflammation, represent critical pathways for myocardial fibrosis and adverse remodeling.
Ischemic cardiomyopathy remains the most prevalent driver of systolic dysfunction, yet the etiology of HFrEF is increasingly characterized by a diverse array of non-ischemic, metabolic, and inflammatory triggers. While coronary artery disease accounts for a substantial portion of cases, non-ischemic causes such as Chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy (CCC) represent a significant burden in specific geographic regions, particularly Latin America [25]A1b[27]A1b. These etiologies are not mutually exclusive; rather, they often coexist with systemic comorbidities that accelerate myocardial decline and complicate strategies.
Ischemic and Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathies
Ischemic insults lead to permanent loss of myocytes and subsequent adverse remodeling, but non-ischemic pathways are equally critical in the global HFrEF burden. Chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy, caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, is a leading cause of non-ischemic HFrEF in endemic areas, characterized by intense inflammation and progressive fibrosis [25]A1b. In randomized trials such as ANSWER-HF, patients with CCC and HFrEF (LVEF <40%) demonstrate significant cardiac remodeling that may respond differently to standard neurohormonal antagonism compared to other etiologies [25]A1b[27]A1b.
Cardiotoxicity from antitumor agents has emerged as a major cause of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) [31]D5. Traditional chemotherapeutics like anthracyclines cause dose-dependent damage via Topoisomerase IIβ inhibition, while newer agents such as HER2 signaling disruptors and immunotherapies introduce novel mechanisms of myocardial injury [31]D5. The risk of HFrEF in these patients is often compounded by the "collateral damage" of life-saving treatments, necessitating close cardio-oncological surveillance.
Metabolic and Inflammatory Risk Factors
Obesity serves as a central driver of HFrEF, contributing to increased morbidity and healthcare costs through systemic inflammation and hemodynamic strain [32]D5. Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT), a metabolically active fat depot, directly interacts with the myocardium; its volume and density are associated with adverse outcomes across all ejection fraction phenotypes [15]D5. In patients with type 2 diabetes, the risk of heart failure is markedly elevated, though the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and oral has shown promise in modifying cardiovascular trajectories and reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [23]A1b[33]D5.
Clonal hematopoiesis (CH), defined by the expansion of somatically mutated hematopoietic clones, is an emerging age-related risk factor for HFrEF [34]D5. These mutant clones promote a pro-inflammatory immune environment, specifically through IL-6/STAT signaling pathways, which drive myocardial fibrosis and adverse remodeling [34]D5[37]D5. Persistent IL-6 activation is implicated in endothelial dysfunction and serves as a key prognostic marker in chronic heart failure [37]D5.
Renal and Comorbid Influences
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and HFrEF exist in a bidirectional, maladaptive relationship, with CKD prevalence estimated between 40% and 60% in the HFrEF population [36]D5. Reduced cardiac output leads to impaired renal blood flow and perfusion gradients, which in turn activate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and the sympathetic nervous system, further accelerating both cardiac and renal deterioration [21]A1c[36]D5. This cardiorenal syndrome is a primary determinant of hospitalization and death, particularly in patients requiring maintenance dialysis [30]B2a.
Other systemic factors, such as anemia, hyperuricemia, and the presence of thyroid nodules, further increase the comorbidity burden [22]B3b. The presence of thyroid nodules in HFrEF patients is associated with worse long-term prognosis and higher cardiovascular event rates [22]B3b.
Valvular and Arrhythmic Triggers
Secondary (SMR) frequently complicates HFrEF as a result of left ventricular dilation and papillary muscle displacement [35]D5. This valvular dysfunction creates a vicious cycle of volume overload and further ventricular remodeling, significantly worsening survival and quality of life [35]D5. Similarly, (AF) maintains a complex cause-and-effect relationship with HFrEF [24]B2b. AF can both cause and result from heart failure, and its presence is associated with specific plasma protein biomarkers that predict a higher risk of HF-related hospitalization [24]B2b. Catheter ablation has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with concomitant AF and HFrEF, highlighting the importance of rhythm control in this population [1]A1b.
| Factor | Impact / Prevalence | Evidence Level |
|---|---|---|
| Chronic Kidney Disease | 40-60% prevalence; bidirectional risk | 5 [36]D5 |
| Obesity | Key driver of systemic inflammation and EAT volume | 5 [32]D5 |
| Chagas Disease | Major non-ischemic cause in Latin America | 1b [25]A1b |
| Atrial Fibrillation | Increases hospitalization risk; bidirectional relationship | 2b [24]B2b |
| Clonal Hematopoiesis | Age-related pro-inflammatory risk factor | 5 [34]D5 |
| Anthracyclines | Dose-dependent Topoisomerase IIβ inhibition | 5 [31]D5 |
Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation
- ▸Chronic activation of the SNS and RAAS is maladaptive, driving myocyte death, fibrosis, and progressive ventricular dilation.
- ▸Left atrial strain (reservoir and contractile) is an independent predictor of mortality in HFrEF, reflecting chronic pressure overload [13].
- ▸The cardiorenal syndrome represents a bidirectional failure where HF and CKD exacerbate each other through shared neurohormonal and inflammatory pathways [21].
Myocardial injury initiates a complex sequence of hemodynamic and neurohormonal adaptations that initially preserve systemic perfusion but eventually catalyze progressive cardiac failure. This transition from compensation to decompensation is driven by the chronic activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), which exert direct toxic effects on the myocardium and peripheral vasculature [21]A1c[43]B2a.
The Neurohormonal Hypothesis
The central tenet of HFrEF pathophysiology is that heart failure is not merely a hemodynamic disorder but a systemic neurohormonal syndrome. When cardiac output falls, baroreceptor unloading triggers an immediate increase in sympathetic outflow. While this increases heart rate and contractility in the short term, chronic exposure to high levels of norepinephrine leads to β-receptor downregulation, myocyte apoptosis, and increased arrhythmogenicity [6]A1b. Simultaneously, reduced renal perfusion activates the RAAS, leading to elevated levels of Angiotensin II and Aldosterone. These mediators promote systemic vasoconstriction, sodium and water retention, and progressive myocardial fibrosis [21]A1c.
The Natriuretic Peptide System and Counter-Regulation
In response to increased ventricular wall stress and volume overload, the heart secretes atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). These peptides serve as a crucial counter-regulatory system by promoting vasodilation, natriuresis, and inhibition of the RAAS and SNS. However, in chronic HFrEF, this system is often overwhelmed or blunted. The enzyme neprilysin degrades these beneficial peptides, limiting their protective effects. Therapeutic inhibition of neprilysin, typically combined with angiotensin receptor blockade, has been shown to facilitate cardiac reverse remodeling, reducing ventricular volumes and improving ejection fraction over long-term follow-up [43]B2a.
Cardiac Remodeling and Structural Failure
Ventricular remodeling is the structural hallmark of HFrEF, characterized by eccentric hypertrophy and chamber dilation. This process is not limited to the left ventricle; left atrial (LA) strain has emerged as a critical prognostic marker. Reductions in LA reservoir strain (LA RS) and contractile strain (LA CS) are strongly associated with increased all-cause mortality, reflecting the burden of elevated filling pressures and atrial myopathy [13]B3b. Furthermore, structural changes often lead to electrical dyssynchrony, such as left bundle-branch block (LBBB), which further impairs mechanical efficiency and accelerates the cycle of remodeling [5]A1b[47]B2a.
Cardiorenal and Endothelial Dynamics
The heart and kidneys exist in a bidirectional, pathological relationship often termed the cardiorenal syndrome. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and HFrEF share overlapping risk factors and pathophysiological pathways, where renal dysfunction exacerbates fluid overload and neurohormonal toxicity, while low cardiac output impairs renal filtration [21]A1c. Beyond macro-hemodynamics, endothelial dysfunction plays a pivotal role. Impairment of the nitric oxide (NO)-soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC)-cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) pathway leads to increased vascular stiffness and impaired myocardial relaxation. Enhancing this pathway via sGC stimulators like vericiguat (starting at 2.5 mg once daily) aims to restore endothelial function and reduce cardiovascular events [11]B2b.
Arrhythmogenesis and Functional Decline
Structural and electrical remodeling create a substrate for life-threatening arrhythmias. The use of cardiac myosin activators, such as omecamtiv mecarbil, can improve systolic function by increasing the number of active actin-myosin cross-bridges, though clinicians must monitor for potential increases in and sudden death in severe HF populations [6]A1b. Additionally, the development of (AF) often complicates HFrEF, as the loss of the "atrial kick" and rapid ventricular rates further depress cardiac output and worsen functional capacity [1]A1b. Interestingly, changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) do not always correlate linearly with patient-reported health status or functional capacity, suggesting that peripheral factors and systemic congestion also significantly influence the clinical phenotype [41]A1b.
| System | Primary Mediators | Acute Compensatory Effect | Chronic Maladaptive Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sympathetic (SNS) | Norepinephrine, Epinephrine | ↑ Heart rate, ↑ Contractility | Myocyte toxicity, β-receptor downregulation, Arrhythmias |
| RAAS | Angiotensin II, Aldosterone | Vasoconstriction, Na+ retention | Myocardial fibrosis, Ventricular remodeling, Hypervolemia |
| Natriuretic Peptides | ANP, BNP | Vasodilation, Natriuresis | Blunted by neprilysin-mediated degradation |
| Endothelial (NO-sGC) | Nitric Oxide, cGMP | Vasodilation, Myocardial relaxation | Endothelial dysfunction, increased vascular stiffness |
Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation
- ▸HFrEF diagnosis requires an LVEF ≤40% alongside clinical symptoms, though peripheral skeletal muscle remodeling significantly contributes to exercise intolerance.
- ▸Biomarker interpretation must account for renal function and pharmacological influences, particularly the divergent response of BNP and NT-proBNP under ARNI therapy.
- ▸Advanced echocardiographic parameters, such as left atrial strain and restrictive filling patterns (E/A ratio ≥2), provide superior prognostic value compared to LVEF alone.
Clinical recognition of the syndrome relies on identifying the constellation of symptoms and signs resulting from impaired ventricular contraction and subsequent systemic congestion. While the diagnosis is confirmed by an ejection fraction ≤40%, the clinical phenotype is often defined by the patient's functional limitations and the presence of neurohormonal and inflammatory activation [21]A1c[41]A1b.
Presenting Symptoms
Dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea (PND) remain the hallmark symptoms of pulmonary venous congestion. However, exercise intolerance and fatigue are equally prevalent and often stem from peripheral factors beyond the failing heart, including skeletal muscle metabolic remodeling [52]D5. This remodeling involves a shift in fiber type composition and mitochondrial dysfunction, which reduces respiratory capacity and compromises performance [52]D5.
Patient-reported health status is increasingly quantified using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12), where lower scores correlate with higher risks of hospitalization and mortality [41]A1b[53]B2c. In clinical practice, the New York Heart Association ( ) classification remains the standard for grading functional severity, with Class III–IV representing those with marked limitation or symptoms at rest [41]A1b[48]B2a.
Physical Examination Findings
Physical signs of HFrEF reflect either systemic venous congestion or low cardiac output. Elevated jugular venous pressure (JVP) is the most specific sign of fluid overload and correlates with increased pulmonary capillary wedge pressure. Auscultation may reveal a third heart sound (S3 gallop), indicating rapid ventricular filling into a non-compliant, dilated chamber.
Peripheral findings include dependent pitting edema, hepatomegaly, and . In advanced stages, clinicians must assess for signs of Group 2 pulmonary , where elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) significantly worsens the prognosis and may necessitate evaluation for advanced therapies like [54]B2b.
Biomarker Interpretation
Natriuretic peptides, specifically B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), are essential for both diagnosis and risk stratification. However, their interpretation requires nuance in the presence of comorbidities. For instance, chronic kidney disease (CKD) can lead to disproportionately elevated levels due to reduced renal clearance [21]A1c. Conversely, the initiation of causes an immediate increase in BNP (as it is a neprilysin substrate) while NT-proBNP typically decreases, reflecting reduced myocardial wall stress [56]B3b[57]B2b.
Emerging biomarkers provide additional prognostic depth. Glypican-4 (GPC-4), an endothelial surface protein, is released during ischemia and neurohormonal stress; elevated levels are independent predictors of cardiovascular death [51]B2b. In acute decompensation, markers of inflammation and remodeling, such as s-ST2, galectin-3, and IL-6, are often elevated and may guide the intensity of diuretic therapy [39]A1b.
Diagnostic Imaging and Functional Assessment
Transthoracic echocardiography is the primary diagnostic tool to establish an LVEF ≤40% and assess for structural abnormalities. Beyond LVEF, left atrial (LA) strain has emerged as a powerful prognostic marker; reduced LA reservoir strain is strongly associated with all-cause mortality [13]B3b. Diastolic function should also be evaluated, as a restrictive filling pattern (early-to-late diastolic transmitral flow velocity [E/A] ratio ≥2) signifies advanced disease and high filling pressures [50]B3b.
Cardiac MRI is indicated when echocardiography is inconclusive or when specific etiologies, such as infiltrative cardiomyopathies or myocardial viability, must be assessed. In patients with left bundle-branch block (LBBB), imaging helps determine the potential for reverse remodeling with (CRT) or conduction system pacing [5]A1b[46]B2a.
Red Flags and Atypical Presentations
Clinicians must remain vigilant for "red flag" symptoms that signal a high risk of (SCD) or rapid decline. Frequent or a history of cardiac arrest in patients with LVEF ≤35% are critical indicators for urgent device evaluation [6]A1b.
Atypical presentations may involve non-cardiac symptoms. Iron deficiency, defined by a ferritin <100 μg/L or a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20%, is present in up to 50% of HFrEF patients and contributes to fatigue even in the absence of anemia [55]B3b. Additionally, the presence of thyroid nodules in patients with HFrEF, anemia, and hyperuricemia has been linked to a higher burden of cardiovascular comorbidities and poorer long-term outcomes [22]B3b.
| Variant | Key Features | Clinical Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ischemic | Regional wall motion abnormalities; energy metabolism shifts [49]D5 | Post-myocardial infarction |
| Non-ischemic | Global hypokinesis; often associated with LBBB [5]A1b[41]A1b | Dilated cardiomyopathy |
| CTRCD | Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction [31]D5 | Post-anthracycline or HER2 inhibitors |
| Arrhythmia-induced | Tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy [1]A1b[7]A1b | Persistent Atrial Fibrillation |
| Cardiorenal | Bidirectional heart and kidney dysfunction [21]A1c | Coexisting CKD |
Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars
- ▸The 'Four Pillars' (ARNI, Beta-blocker, MRA, SGLT2i) should be initiated as early as possible, often during the index hospitalization, to maximize survival benefit [71, 72].
- ▸Achieving >50% of the target dose for beta-blockers and RAS inhibitors is associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality compared to submaximal dosing [69, 77].
- ▸SGLT2 inhibitors provide early hemodynamic benefits, including reduced pulmonary artery pressures, and help stabilize serum potassium and magnesium levels [60, 66].
Simultaneous or rapid sequential initiation of the four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) reduces all-cause mortality by approximately 73% compared to conventional therapy [64]A1a (1a). This foundational regimen—comprising an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), an evidence-based beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i)—targets distinct but overlapping pathophysiological pathways to arrest cardiac remodeling and prevent clinical progression [65]A1a (1a). Real-world data indicate that while quadruple therapy significantly improves outcomes, only a minority of patients achieve target doses, highlighting a critical gap between clinical evidence and practice [68]B3b[71]B2c (3b, 2c).
Step 1: Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibition with ARNI
Sacubitril/ is the preferred first-line agent for RAS inhibition in HFrEF, demonstrating superiority over ACE inhibitors in reducing cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) [64]A1a (1a). The standard target dose is 97/103 mg twice daily [27]A1b. Initiation leads to a rapid decline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, reflecting immediate reductions in myocardial wall stress [57]B2b (2b). In specific populations, such as those with Chagas cardiomyopathy, ARNI therapy has shown consistent efficacy in reducing biomarkers compared to [27]A1b (1b). While major trials excluded patients on dialysis, real-world evidence suggests ARNI use in end-stage renal disease is associated with improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and manageable safety profiles [30]B2a (2a).
Step 2: Sympathetic Blockade with Evidence-Based Beta-Blockers
Beta-blockers remain a cornerstone of therapy, provided the patient is clinically stable and euvolemic. Only three agents have definitive evidence for mortality reduction in HFrEF: (target 25–50 mg BID), succinate (target 200 mg daily), and (target 10 mg daily) [69]B3b. The benefit is dose-dependent; patients achieving >50% of the target dose experience significantly lower all-cause mortality compared to those on lower doses (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26–0.65) [69]B3b (3b). Clinicians should prioritize up-titration every 2 weeks as tolerated, monitoring for bradycardia or symptomatic hypotension [14]B2b.
Step 3: Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonism
MRAs provide essential neurohormonal blockade by competing with aldosterone at the mineralocorticoid receptor. Steroidal MRAs, such as (target 25–50 mg daily) and (target 50 mg daily), are foundational but often underutilized due to risks of hyperkalemia and, for spironolactone, [75]D5 (5). Non-steroidal MRAs like finerenone are emerging as alternatives; in the FINEARTS-HF trial, finerenone reduced the composite of CV death and HF events in patients with LVEF ≥40%, and its use is being explored in HFrEF for patients prone to hyperkalemia or those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) [7]A1b[62]A1b (1b). Monitoring is vital: potassium should be <5.0 mEq/L and eGFR >30 mL/min/1.73m² for safe initiation [62]A1b.
Step 4: SGLT2 Inhibition and Hemodynamic Optimization
SGLT2 inhibitors, specifically 10 mg daily or 10 mg daily, must be initiated regardless of glycemic status [58]A1a (1a). These agents provide early benefit, often within weeks of initiation, by reducing pulmonary artery pressures and improving myocardial energetics [66]B2a[72]B2c (2a, 2c). In the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, empagliflozin reduced the risk of CV death or HFH by 25% (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.86) [60]A1b (1b). Furthermore, SGLT2i therapy may mitigate the risk of hyperkalemia associated with MRAs and help maintain serum magnesium levels, which is associated with better clinical outcomes [59]A1b[60]A1b (1b).
Titration and Implementation Strategies
Delaying GDMT titration increases the risk of preventable events. The use of digital remote monitoring and chatbot-based titration protocols has been shown to increase the proportion of patients reaching target doses within 6 weeks of discharge [14]B2b (2b). Even if target doses of conventional triple therapy cannot be reached due to hypotension or renal dysfunction, the addition of an SGLT2i to low-dose GDMT is superior to high-dose triple therapy without an SGLT2i [18]B3b (3b). A computable medication optimization score (MOS) can help clinicians identify patients who are candidates for further up-titration, as higher MOS values correlate strongly with reduced mortality [77]B3b (3b).
Treatment Failure and Escalation
If symptoms persist ( II–IV) despite quadruple therapy at maximum tolerated doses, clinicians must evaluate for secondary therapies. For patients with persistent congestion, repeated use of the inodilator levosimendan (0.1 µg/kg/min for 24 hours) every 3 weeks may reduce NT-proBNP and hospitalization rates, particularly when combined with SGLT2i [63]A1b (1b). Persistent tachycardia in sinus rhythm (HR >70 bpm) despite max-dose beta-blockers warrants the addition of ivabradine, while worsening renal function or hyperkalemia may require the transition from steroidal MRAs to non-steroidal options or the use of potassium binders [75]D5 (5).
| Pillar | Preferred Agents | Target Dose | Key Evidence | Primary Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARNI | Sacubitril/Valsartan | 97/103 mg BID | [64]A1a[65]A1a | ↓ CV Death & HFH (1a) |
| Beta-Blocker | Metoprolol Succinate, Carvedilol, Bisoprolol | 200 mg QD, 25-50 mg BID, 10 mg QD | [69]B3b | ↓ Mortality & Sudden Death (3b) |
| MRA | Spironolactone, Eplerenone | 25-50 mg QD | [75]D5 | ↓ Mortality & Remodeling (5) |
| SGLT2i | Dapagliflozin, Empagliflozin | 10 mg QD | [58]A1a[60]A1b | ↓ CV Death & HFH; Renal protection (1a) |
Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies
- ▸Vericiguat is indicated for patients with HFrEF to reduce the risk of CV death and HFH, particularly following a recent worsening event.
- ▸Ivabradine is a high-yield intervention for patients in sinus rhythm with a heart rate ≥70 bpm despite maximally tolerated beta-blockers.
- ▸Secondary therapies should be integrated only after optimizing the four foundational pillars, as they target complementary but distinct pathways.
Patients remaining symptomatic despite optimized foundational therapy require a tailored approach using secondary agents that target distinct pathophysiological pathways, such as the cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) and sinoatrial node currents. While the "four pillars" of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) remain the most effective regimen for reducing all-cause mortality, add-on therapies provide incremental benefits in reducing the burden of recurrent hospitalizations and improving quality of life [95]A1a[96]A1a.
Vericiguat and sGC Stimulation
is an oral (sGC) stimulator that directly enhances the nitric oxide-sGC-cGMP pathway, which is typically impaired in HFrEF due to oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction [11]B2b[86]D5. Its clinical role is primarily defined by the risk profile of the patient. In the VICTORIA trial, vericiguat reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) in high-risk patients with a recent worsening event (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82–0.98; P=0.02) [88]A1b. Conversely, the VICTOR trial evaluated ambulatory patients without recent worsening; while it did not significantly reduce the primary composite endpoint, it demonstrated a significant reduction in CV mortality [80]A1b[82]A1b[83]A1b.
Prescribing vericiguat requires a stepwise titration protocol. The starting dose is 2.5 mg once daily, which is doubled every 2 weeks to a target dose of 10 mg once daily [80]A1b[86]D5. Efficacy is consistent across various subgroups, including those with type 2 diabetes and those already receiving foundational therapies like or [78]A1b[90]A1b. However, clinicians must monitor for symptomatic hypotension, particularly in patients with a baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤110 mmHg, those older than 75 years, or those on high-dose loop diuretics [78]A1b[91]A1b.
Ivabradine and Heart Rate Optimization
acts as a selective inhibitor of the $I_f$ current in the , providing heart rate reduction without the negative inotropic effects associated with beta-blockers [94]A1a. It is indicated for patients in sinus rhythm with a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm who are either on maximally tolerated beta-blocker doses or have contraindications to beta-blockade [94]A1a. Meta-analysis data involving 18,972 patients confirms that ivabradine significantly decreases the risk of HF mortality (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64–0.98) and HF hospitalizations (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66–0.83) [94]A1a.
The Declining Role of Digoxin and Digitoxin
While foundational therapies have largely superseded digitalis glycosides, agents like and are still considered for symptom control in patients with advanced HFrEF or concomitant [84]A1b. The ongoing DIGIT-HF trial is re-evaluating the efficacy and safety of digitoxin in a contemporary HFrEF population (LVEF ≤30% for II or ≤40% for NYHA III-IV) to determine if it provides incremental benefit on top of modern GDMT [84]A1b. Current use is generally reserved for patients who remain symptomatic despite quadruple therapy and device interventions.
| Agent | Mechanism | Key Indication | Primary Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vericiguat | sGC Stimulator | Post-worsening HF or high-risk ambulatory | Reduced CV death and total HF events [81]A1a[83]A1b |
| Ivabradine | $I_f$ Current Inhibitor | Sinus rhythm, HR ≥70 bpm on max BB | Reduced HF mortality and hospitalizations [94]A1a |
| Digoxin | Na+/K+-ATPase Inhibitor | Symptom control or AF rate control | Reduced HF hospitalizations (historical data) [84]A1b |
Device Therapy: ICD and CRT
- ▸ICD benefit in non-ischemic HFrEF may be attenuated by age and frailty, requiring individualized shared decision-making [97, 106].
- ▸Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a valid, non-inferior alternative to biventricular pacing for achieving resynchronization in LBBB [5, 110].
- ▸A mandatory 90-day GDMT period is required before device implantation, as 34% of patients may recover LVEF above the ICD threshold [115, 118].
Implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device follows a mandatory 90-day period of optimized guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to allow for potential myocardial recovery [118]B2b (2b). This waiting period is critical, as approximately 34% of patients may experience an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to >35% with intensive GDMT, significantly reducing the risk of appropriate ICD therapy [115]B3b (3b). However, LVEF recovery does not entirely eliminate the risk of , particularly in those with persistent myocardial scarring [115]B3b (3b).
Step 1: Primary Prevention ICD Selection
Prophylactic ICD implantation is indicated for patients with symptomatic HFrEF ( II–III) and an LVEF ≤35% despite ≥3 months of OMT [97]A1b (1b). In ischemic heart disease, the benefit is robustly established; however, in non-ischemic HFrEF, the long-term mortality benefit may be attenuated over time, as demonstrated by the extended follow-up of the DANISH trial [97]A1b (1b). Clinicians must weigh the risk of (SCD) against non-arrhythmic mortality, particularly in older or frail patients where the ICD benefit is less pronounced [106]A1b (1b). Baseline (AF) does not appear to modify the long-term survival benefit of ICDs in non-ischemic disease [98]A1b (1b).
Step 2: CRT and Electrical Resynchronization
CRT is indicated for patients in sinus rhythm with LVEF ≤35%, class II–IV symptoms, and a QRS duration ≥150 ms with a left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology [117]B2b (2b). For patients with a QRS of 120–149 ms or non-LBBB morphologies, the evidence for benefit is less robust, though still considered in symptomatic individuals [107]B2a (2a). CRT has also shown efficacy in patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction (36%–50%) and LBBB, potentially halting HF progression [103]A1b (1b). In patients with sarcoidosis and HFrEF, CRT is associated with higher rates of LVEF recovery to >40% compared to ICD-only therapy [116]B3b (3b).
Step 3: Upgrading Existing Devices
Patients with a pre-existing pacemaker or ICD who develop worsening HFrEF and have a high right ventricular (RV) pacing burden (≥20%) should be considered for a CRT upgrade [100]A1b (1b). The BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial demonstrated that upgrading to biventricular pacing (BiVP) in this population improves mortality, morbidity, and left ventricular reverse remodeling [100]A1b (1b). This benefit is sustained even in patients with concomitant AF or flutter [102]A1b (1b).
Step 4: Conduction System Pacing (CSP)
CSP, including His-bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as a physiological alternative to traditional BiVP [5]A1b (1b). The PhysioSync-HF trial found CSP to be non-inferior to BiVP regarding heart failure-related outcomes in patients with HFrEF and LBBB [5]A1b (1b). CSP often achieves superior electrical resynchronization, evidenced by significantly shorter paced QRS durations compared to BiVP, particularly in non-LBBB morphologies [107]B2a (2a). LBBAP is increasingly preferred due to more stable lead parameters and higher success rates compared to His-bundle pacing [47]B2a (2a).
Step 5: of Non-Responders and Optimization
Approximately one-third of patients do not clinically respond to standard CRT [113]B3b (3b). For these individuals, multipoint pacing (MPP) using quadripolar leads may improve response rates by activating multiple left ventricular sites [101]A1b (1b). Leadless CRT systems, such as endocardial electrodes, are emerging options for patients with difficult venous access or previous lead failures [108]B2a (2a). Pre-implantation markers, such as AI-enabled ECG biological age, are being investigated to better predict survival and response post-CRT [113]B3b (3b).
Treatment Failure Protocol
If a patient fails to improve after device implantation:
- Assess Pacing Percentage: Ensure BiVP or CSP is >98%. If low, evaluate for frequent PVCs or AF with rapid ventricular response [101]A1b.
- Optimize Lead Position: Consider MPP or surgical lead placement if the current LV lead is in a suboptimal vein [101]A1b.
- Evaluate for CSP Upgrade: Transition from BiVP to LBBAP if electrical resynchronization is inadequate [47]B2a.
- Review Medical Therapy: Ensure the patient is on maximum tolerated doses of the 'four pillars' [104]A1b.
| Modality | Primary Indication | Key Evidence | Clinical Outcome | Evidence Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICD | LVEF ≤35%, NYHA II-III, SCD prevention | DANISH [97]A1b, VICTORIA [99]B2b | Reduced SCD; variable all-cause mortality in non-ischemic | 1b |
| CRT-D/P | LVEF ≤35%, QRS ≥150ms, LBBB | BUDAPEST-CRT [100]A1b | Reduced mortality and HF hospitalization | 1b |
| CSP (LBBAP) | Alternative to BiVP for resynchronization | PhysioSync-HF [5]A1b | Non-inferior to BiVP; better QRS narrowing | 1b |
| MPP | CRT non-responders | MORE-CRT MPP [101]A1b | Improved LV reverse remodeling | 1b |
| Leadless CRT | Failed conventional CRT access | Meta-analysis [108]B2a | Improved LVEF and QRS duration | 2a |
Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency
- ▸Catheter ablation is superior to medical rate control for improving LVEF in HFrEF patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, including older populations.
- ▸SGLT2 inhibitors provide consistent cardiorenal protection in HFrEF regardless of the presence of atrial fibrillation or baseline renal function.
- ▸Sacubitril/valsartan (ARNI) has demonstrated safety and potential efficacy in reducing hospitalizations for patients with HFrEF on maintenance dialysis.
Multimorbidity is the clinical norm in HFrEF, where non-cardiac conditions frequently drive hospitalization and mortality independent of left ventricular function. The of these conditions requires a bidirectional approach, particularly regarding the cardiorenal axis and the pro-arrhythmic environment of the failing heart.
Step 1: Cardiorenal Optimization and CKD Integration
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and HFrEF share a complex, bidirectional relationship where shared risk factors and overlapping pathophysiology accelerate the progression of both organs [21]A1c (1c). The KDIGO 2024 Controversies Conference emphasizes that while serum creatinine and natriuretic peptides are harder to interpret in this population, they remain essential for monitoring [21]A1c.
- GDMT Persistence: Do not reflexively discontinue GDMT for moderate declines in eGFR. SGLT2 inhibitors, such as 10 mg daily, provide consistent cardiovascular and renal protection regardless of baseline renal function or the presence of [120]A1b (1b).
- Advanced CKD and Dialysis: Emerging evidence suggests that sacubitril/ is safe and potentially effective in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on maintenance dialysis [30]B2a (2a). Meta-analyses of observational data indicate improvements in LVEF and reductions in heart failure hospitalizations (HHF) in this high-risk cohort [30]B2a.
- Prognostic Monitoring: Albuminuria and eGFR are independent predictors of adverse outcomes; elevated albuminuria specifically signals higher risk for HHF and mortality across all EF phenotypes [125]B2a (2a).
Step 2: Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and Rhythm Control
Atrial fibrillation is present in approximately 37.5% of patients with non-ischaemic HFrEF and significantly complicates management [98]A1b (1b). While AF increases the risk of , data from the DANISH trial suggest that the benefit of primary prevention ICD implantation remains consistent regardless of AF status [98]A1b.
- Catheter Ablation (CA): In patients with persistent AF and HFrEF, catheter ablation is superior to medical rate control (MRC) for improving LVEF and functional status [122]A1b (1b). In older patients (mean age 69.5 years), CA significantly improved echocardiographic parameters compared to MRC [122]A1b.
- Ablation Strategy: For persistent AF, extensive electrogram-anatomic-guided ablation may offer better long-term outcomes than anatomic-guided strategies alone [1]A1b (1b).
- Pharmacological Adjuncts: GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as oral , reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes and HF, though their primary impact is on atherosclerotic risk rather than direct HF reversal [23]A1b (1b).
Step 3: Sleep-Disordered Breathing (SDB)
Sleep-disordered breathing, including obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and central sleep apnea (CSA), promotes adverse LV remodeling and systolic dysfunction [123]A1b (1b).
- Adaptive Servo-Ventilation (ASV): The ADVENT-HF trial demonstrated that treating SDB with peak-flow-triggered ASV can lead to modest improvements in LV structure and function, though it does not necessarily translate to a mortality benefit in all CSA populations [123]A1b.
- Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy (NOT): For patients with CSA and HFrEF, NOT has been investigated as an alternative to positive airway pressure. However, the LOFT-HF trial was terminated prematurely, leaving the definitive impact of NOT on mortality and HHF uncertain [121]A1b (1b).
Step 4: Iron Deficiency and Metabolic Management
Iron deficiency (ID) is a common, independent predictor of poor functional capacity in HFrEF. While specific trial data for ferric carboxymaltose were not detailed in the provided recent abstracts, clinical guidelines prioritize the identification of ID (ferritin <100 ng/mL or ferritin 100–299 ng/mL with TSAT <20%) and treatment with intravenous iron to improve quality of life and reduce HHF [68]B3b (3b).
| Comorbidity | Intervention | Clinical Impact | Evidence Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atrial Fibrillation | Catheter Ablation | Improved LVEF and functional status vs. rate control | 1b [1]A1b[122]A1b |
| Chronic Kidney Disease | SGLT2 inhibitors | Reduced HHF and slowed eGFR decline | 1b [120]A1b |
| End-Stage Renal Disease | Sacubitril/Valsartan | Safe; reduced HHF and improved LVEF in dialysis | 2a [30]B2a |
| Central Sleep Apnea | Nocturnal Oxygen | Uncertain; LOFT-HF trial terminated early | 1b [121]A1b |
| Type 2 Diabetes | Oral Semaglutide | Reduced MACE (CV death, MI, stroke) | 1b [23]A1b |
Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation
- ▸Early referral to advanced heart failure centers is critical when patients exhibit persistent NYHA Class III-IV symptoms despite optimal medical therapy.
- ▸LVAD success is contingent upon preserved right ventricular function, as the device only provides systemic circulatory support.
- ▸Heart transplantation remains the gold standard for definitive treatment, with recent expansions in the donor pool through DCD and desensitization protocols.
Progression to Stage D heart failure occurs when persistent severe symptoms and functional limitations remain refractory to optimal medical therapy [145]D5. This advanced stage affects more than 250,000 patients and carries significant morbidity and mortality, necessitating early referral to specialized centers for evaluation of advanced therapies [145]D5[147]D5. While pharmacological advances like sacubitril/ (97/103 mg twice daily) have improved outcomes in milder HFrEF, the LIFE trial highlighted that data for IV patients remain limited, as this population comprised <1% of the pivotal PARADIGM-HF cohort [131]D5.
Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS)
Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs), such as the HeartMate III, serve as a definitive therapeutic bridge or destination [147]D5. These devices are categorized by their clinical intent: Bridge-to-Transplant (BTT) for patients expected to survive until a donor organ is available, and Destination Therapy (DT) for those ineligible for transplantation [133]D5[147]D5. Unlike heart transplantation, LVAD success depends heavily on native right ventricular (RV) function [143]D5. Pre-operative assessment must identify RV failure (RVF) early, as systemic venous congestion and oxidative stress from a failing RV lead to progressive end-organ dysfunction [143]D5.
of LVAD Complications
Post-implantation management requires rigorous control of hemodynamics and rhythm. in LVAD patients must be aggressively managed to prevent stroke and pump thrombosis, though the constant physiological interplay between the pump and native heart complicates traditional blood pressure measurement [141]A1c. Arrhythmias are prevalent, occurring frequently due to underlying myocardial scars [133]D5[140]D5. While sustained (VA) may be hemodynamically tolerated due to pump support, they often trigger implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks and precipitate RV failure [140]D5.
Clinicians must also navigate technical challenges such as electromagnetic interference (EMI) between the LVAD and ICDs [144]C4. In cases where EMI prevents device interrogation, simple maneuvers like extending the patient's arm above their can increase the distance between the devices to allow successful communication [144]C4.
Heart Transplantation (HTx)
Heart transplantation remains the only definitive therapy for end-stage HFrEF [139]D5. The evaluation process is a multidisciplinary effort to ensure the patient has limited cardiac reserve despite GDMT, lacks prohibitive extracardiac comorbidities, and possesses adequate social support [146]D5. Recent advances have expanded the donor pool through Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) and improved the management of sensitized patients using novel desensitization strategies like anti-CD38 blockade [139]D5.
Disparities and Special Populations
Significant inequities persist in the delivery of advanced therapies. Women and racial/ethnic minorities are less likely to receive LVADs or heart transplants compared to white men, despite similar lifetime risks for heart failure [40]D5[142]D5. Women account for <25% of LVAD and HTx recipients, a disparity that remains incompletely characterized but is not explained by outcomes, which are comparable between sexes [40]D5. In the pediatric population, management is increasingly specialized, with updated guidelines focusing on the unique etiologies of childhood HF, including congenital heart disease and specific cardiomyopathies [129]A1c[136]A1c.
| Category | Requirements and Considerations |
|---|---|
| Cardiac Status | Refractory symptoms, peak VO2 <12-14 mL/kg/min, or intractable arrhythmias [146]D5 |
| Comorbidities | Absence of irreversible end-organ damage (e.g., severe renal failure or fixed pulmonary hypertension) [138]D5[146]D5 |
| Psychosocial | Demonstrated compliance, strong social support system, and absence of active substance abuse [146]D5 |
| Surgical Risk | Assessment of prior sternotomies and vascular access [147]D5 |
| Complication | Clinical Impact and Management |
|---|---|
| Right Ventricular Failure | Leading cause of early post-op mortality; requires inotropic support or temporary RVAD [143]D5 |
| Ventricular Arrhythmias | Can lead to ICD shocks and RV failure; managed with antiarrhythmics or ablation [133]D5[140]D5 |
| Hypertension | Increases risk of hemorrhagic stroke; requires strict MAP monitoring [141]A1c |
| EMI | Electromagnetic interference with ICDs; may require physical repositioning for interrogation [144]C4 |
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF
- ▸Hemodynamic profiling using the Forrester classification (Wet/Dry, Warm/Cold) is the primary step in directing ADHF therapy.
- ▸The addition of hypertonic saline to loop diuretics can enhance decongestion and reduce inflammatory markers like NT-proBNP and IL-6.
- ▸Initiation of quadruple GDMT (ARNI, beta-blocker, MRA, SGLT2i) prior to hospital discharge is critical for reducing 1-year mortality.
Hemodynamic stabilization in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) requires immediate categorization based on perfusion and congestion status. Clinicians utilize the Forrester classification to guide therapy, identifying patients as Warm and Wet (congested but perfused), Cold and Wet (congested and hypoperfused), or Cold and Dry (hypoperfused without congestion). In the acute setting, a restrictive filling pattern on echocardiography, defined by an E/A ratio ≥2, serves as a critical marker of elevated left ventricular filling pressures and correlates with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization [50]B3b. focuses on rapid decongestion while maintaining systemic perfusion to prevent end-organ damage, particularly in the context of , as chronic kidney disease (CKD) is prevalent in 40–60% of HFrEF patients [36]D5.
Diuretic Strategies and Volume Management
Intravenous loop diuretics remain the cornerstone of decongestion. For patients with refractory congestion, the addition of small-volume hypertonic saline solution (HSS) to intravenous has demonstrated clinical benefit [39]A1b. This combination significantly reduces serum concentrations of inflammatory and remodeling markers, including NT-proBNP, high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6), compared to furosemide monotherapy [39]A1b. Furthermore, magnesium homeostasis is vital during aggressive diuresis; low serum magnesium is associated with worse clinical outcomes, and the initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors like has been shown to help maintain or slightly increase magnesium levels [59]A1b.
Inotropic Support and Hemodynamic Optimization
In patients presenting with low output states (Cold and Wet or Cold and Dry), inotropic support is indicated to maintain end-organ perfusion. Traditional agents like milrinone and dobutamine are standard, but newer therapies are emerging. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer, administered as a 24-hour infusion at 0.1 µg/kg/min, has shown safety and efficacy in reducing NT-proBNP levels, particularly when used in combination with SGLT2 inhibitors [63]A1b. Additionally, cimlanod (a nitroxyl donor) is being investigated for its unique vasodilatory, inotropic, and lusitropic properties, which may offer a favorable hemodynamic profile without the pro-arrhythmic risks of traditional inotropes [45]A1a. Cardiac myosin activators (CMAs) are also under evaluation for their ability to enhance contractility without increasing intracellular calcium, though their impact on hard clinical outcomes in the acute setting requires further validation [148]A1a.
Transition to Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT)
The transition from acute stabilization to discharge is a high-risk period that necessitates the early initiation of the "four pillars" of GDMT. Prescribing quadruple therapy—comprising an ARNI, beta-blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor—at the time of discharge is associated with significantly lower 1-year mortality and HF readmission rates [76]B3b. Despite these benefits, real-world data indicate significant treatment gaps, with many patients not receiving optimized doses or the full quadruple regimen [68]B3b[71]B2c. For patients with a recent worsening HF event, the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator vericiguat (titrated to 10 mg daily) reduces the composite risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, particularly in high-risk cohorts [80]A1b[81]A1a. Vericiguat may also improve endothelial function, as evidenced by increased brachial artery flow-mediated vasodilation [11]B2b.
Post-Discharge Monitoring and Follow-up
To mitigate the risk of early readmission, digital remote monitoring has emerged as an effective tool for dose titration and symptom management. Utilizing messenger-based questionnaires (chatbots) for weekly vital sign monitoring and therapy optimization recommendations for 6 weeks post-discharge has been shown to increase the achievement of target GDMT doses and reduce decompensation rates [14]B2b. Intensive follow-up is essential, as contemporary registries show that even with high-quality care, approximately 4.4% of HFrEF patients die within 6 months of an acute event [73]B2b.
| Profile | Perfusion (Warm/Cold) | Congestion (Wet/Dry) | Clinical Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warm and Wet | Adequate | Present | IV Diuretics, Vasodilators |
| Cold and Wet | Decreased | Present | Inotropes, IV Diuretics, Vasopressors |
| Cold and Dry | Decreased | Absent | Fluid Challenge, Inotropes |
| Warm and Dry | Adequate | Absent | Optimize Oral GDMT |
Landmark Trials and Key Evidence
- ▸The 'four pillars' of HFrEF therapy (ARNI, beta-blockers, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitors) are supported by high-quality RCT evidence showing significant mortality and morbidity reductions.
- ▸SGLT2 inhibitors like dapagliflozin and empagliflozin provide consistent benefits across diverse subgroups, including patients without diabetes and those with varying degrees of renal impairment.
- ▸Continuous therapy is essential; blinded withdrawal of SGLT2 inhibitors leads to a rapid increase in adverse clinical events within weeks.
Mortality in HFrEF decreased significantly following the transition from simple neurohormonal blockade to the multi-pathway modulation established by pivotal phase III trials. These studies have redefined the standard of care, moving beyond the traditional ACE inhibitor and beta-blocker foundation to include angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as foundational therapies.
PARADIGM-HF: The ARNI Breakthrough
The PARADIGM-HF trial established as a superior alternative to ACE inhibition for reducing morbidity and mortality. In this double-blind RCT of 8,399 patients, sacubitril/ 200 mg twice daily reduced the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization by 20% compared to 10 mg twice daily (HR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.87) [154]B2b[156]B2b. The benefit was consistent across various subgroups, including those with or without background beta-blocker therapy [156]B2b.
Safety analyses from PARADIGM-HF revealed that while symptomatic hypotension was more frequent with sacubitril/valsartan (11.1% vs. 9.2% for enalapril), it did not necessitate treatment discontinuation in most patients and was not associated with worse clinical outcomes [157]B2b[172]B2b. Furthermore, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated a protective renal effect, slowing the decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) more effectively than enalapril across all stages of chronic kidney disease [163]B2b[170]B2b. It also appeared to ameliorate the hemoglobin-lowering effects typically seen with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, potentially reducing the incidence of anemia [169]B2b.
DAPA-HF: SGLT2 Inhibitors in HFrEF
The DAPA-HF trial expanded the role of SGLT2 inhibitors from diabetes to foundational HFrEF therapy. This trial randomized 4,744 patients (with and without type 2 diabetes) to 10 mg daily or placebo. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome (worsening HF or CV death) by 26% (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65–0.85) [61]A1b[165]B2b. The efficacy of dapagliflozin remained robust regardless of race, baseline inflammatory markers like interleukin-6 (IL-6), or history of myocardial infarction [155]B2b[165]B2b[171]B2b.
Beyond mortality, dapagliflozin significantly improved health-related quality of life, as measured by the EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) scale [162]B2b. Hierarchical "win statistics" analyses further confirmed its benefit on kidney outcomes, showing a significant reduction in the composite of eGFR decline, end-stage kidney disease, or renal death [161]B2b. Biomarker substudies indicated that higher baseline levels of growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) and cellular adhesion molecules (VCAM-1) are strongly prognostic of adverse events, though the relative benefit of dapagliflozin remains consistent across these biomarker strata [151]B2b[152]B2b.
EMPEROR-Reduced: Empagliflozin and Renal Protection
The EMPEROR-Reduced trial confirmed the class effect of SGLT2 inhibitors in HFrEF. Randomizing 3,730 patients to 10 mg daily or placebo, the trial demonstrated a 25% reduction in the primary composite endpoint (HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65–0.86) [60]A1b[166]B2b. Notably, empagliflozin slowed the annual rate of eGFR decline by 1.73 mL/min/1.73 m² compared to placebo [120]A1b.
Mechanistic insights from the EMPEROR program suggest that empagliflozin modulates cellular homeostasis by increasing serum magnesium levels, which may contribute to its anti-arrhythmic and metabolic benefits [60]A1b. The efficacy of empagliflozin was consistent regardless of the presence of or the intensity of background diuretic therapy [120]A1b[166]B2b. A blinded withdrawal study demonstrated that the clinical benefits of empagliflozin are rapidly lost within 30 days of discontinuation, emphasizing the necessity of long-term, uninterrupted therapy [167]A1b. Pharmacokinetic data show that empagliflozin systemic exposure is approximately 1.47-fold higher in patients with HFrEF compared to those with type 2 diabetes alone, likely due to differences in volume of distribution and renal clearance [160]B2b.
VICTORIA: Vericiguat for High-Risk HFrEF
The VICTORIA trial targeted a higher-risk population—those with a recent HF hospitalization or requiring IV diuretics. Vericiguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulator, reduced the primary composite endpoint by 10% (HR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82–0.98) [87]B2c. While the absolute risk reduction was significant (4.2 events per 100 patient-years), the relative effect was more modest than that seen in PARADIGM-HF or DAPA-HF, likely reflecting the advanced disease state of the participants [87]B2c.
Emerging Evidence and Biomarkers
Recent evidence emphasizes the role of in monitoring treatment response. In the PANORAMA-HF trial, reductions in NT-proBNP levels in pediatric patients correlated with improved clinical outcomes, mirroring the relationship observed in adult populations in PARADIGM-HF [153]B2b. Proteomic analyses from the PARAGON-HF and EMPEROR trials have identified hundreds of circulating proteins associated with HF progression, providing a roadmap for future targeted therapies [158]B2b[159]B2b.
| Trial | Year | N | Intervention | Primary Outcome (HR) | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARADIGM-HF | 2014 | 8,399 | Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril | 0.80 (0.73–0.87) | 20% reduction in CV death/HF hospitalization; superior to ACEi. |
| DAPA-HF | 2019 | 4,744 | Dapagliflozin vs. Placebo | 0.74 (0.65–0.85) | 26% reduction in worsening HF/CV death; benefit independent of diabetes. |
| EMPEROR-Reduced | 2020 | 3,730 | Empagliflozin vs. Placebo | 0.75 (0.65–0.86) | 25% reduction in CV death/HF hospitalization; significant renal protection. |
| VICTORIA | 2020 | 5,050 | Vericiguat vs. Placebo | 0.90 (0.82–0.98) | Benefit in high-risk patients recently hospitalized for heart failure. |
| CANVAS | 2017 | 10,142 | Canagliflozin vs. Placebo | 0.67 (0.52–0.87)* | Reduced HF hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes [175]B2b. |
*Hazard ratio specifically for HF hospitalization.
Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care
- ▸The Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) remains the primary validated tool for 1-year mortality prediction in HFrEF patients.
- ▸Sacubitril/valsartan reduces all-cause mortality by up to 25% and HF hospitalizations by up to 38% in real-world clinical practice.
- ▸Left atrial reservoir strain and NT-proBNP levels are critical independent predictors of long-term survival and therapeutic response.
Mortality rates in HFrEF remain substantial despite the widespread adoption of quadruple therapy, though real-world evidence confirms that initiating sacubitril/ (Sac/Val) reduces all-cause mortality by 10% to 25% and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations by 10% to 38% [43]B2a. The clinical trajectory is often characterized by a progressive decline punctuated by acute decompensations, with each hospitalization serving as a sentinel event for increased mortality risk. While cardiac reverse remodeling is achievable with optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), a significant proportion of patients transition to advanced stages where the focus shifts from life extension to symptom palliation and quality of life (QoL) preservation [43]B2a[63]A1b.
Validated Risk Stratification Models
Clinicians utilize standardized prognostic models to estimate survival and guide the timing of advanced interventions like or transplantation. The Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) is the most extensively validated tool for predicting 1-year mortality, incorporating clinical variables, laboratory data, and medication use [48]B2a. A meta-analysis of 58 prognostic models involving over 360,000 patients highlights that while statistical models are robust, their predictive performance for hospitalization is generally lower than for mortality [48]B2a. The MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) score provides another validated framework, utilizing 13 clinical variables to predict 1-year and 3-year mortality risk.
Clinical and Biomarker Predictors
Beyond standardized scores, specific physiological and biochemical markers provide granular prognostic insight. Left atrial (LA) reservoir strain has emerged as a potent independent predictor of all-cause mortality; lower strain values correlate with higher mortality regardless of traditional risk factors [13]B3b. Elevated NT-proBNP levels remain the gold standard for monitoring disease progression and response to therapy, with significant reductions observed following the initiation of Sac/Val or qiliqiangxin (QLQX) [43]B2a[177]A1a.
Metabolic and comorbid factors also influence the long-term outlook. Serum magnesium derangements are associated with adverse outcomes, and maintaining levels within the normal range may be protective [59]A1b. In patients with concomitant type 2 diabetes, the use of oral has been shown to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), potentially altering the long-term vascular prognosis [23]A1b. Furthermore, the presence of thyroid nodules in patients with HFrEF, anemia, and hyperuricemia is associated with a higher comorbidity burden and poorer long-term prognosis [22]B3b.
Impact of Interventional Strategies
The integration of device therapy and procedural interventions significantly modifies the natural history of HFrEF. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has shown promise in restoring ventricular synchrony and improving left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) compared to traditional biventricular pacing [5]A1b[47]B2a. For patients with persistent , catheter ablation reduces the composite risk of cardiovascular death and HF-related hospitalization [1]A1b. Additionally, the use of cardiac myosin activators like omecamtiv mecarbil has been evaluated for its impact on and sudden death, though it does not significantly reduce the risk of these specific events compared to placebo [6]A1b.
Palliative Care and Quality of Life
Palliative care should be integrated early in the disease course, rather than reserved for the end-of-life phase. The primary goal is the mitigation of the high symptom burden, including dyspnea, fatigue, and psychological distress. Interventions such as vericiguat and repeated levosimendan infusions have demonstrated improvements in health-related QoL and functional capacity [11]B2b[63]A1b. Systemic inflammation, often measured by C-reactive protein (CRP), remains a target for improving functional status; however, IL-1 blockade with anakinra has not consistently improved peak oxygen consumption (VO2) in recently decompensated patients [176]A1b.
Advanced care planning must address the deactivation of (ICDs) and the transition to home-based supportive care when GDMT no longer provides clinical benefit. The use of traditional Chinese medicine, specifically QLQX, as an adjunctive therapy has shown a 10% to 15% reduction in cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations, offering an additional layer of symptomatic and prognostic support [8]B2b[177]A1a.
| Factor | Good Prognosis | Poor Prognosis |
|---|---|---|
| LVEF | Improvement/Recovery | Persistent ≤25% [8]B2b |
| NT-proBNP | Significant reduction with therapy | Persistently elevated [11]B2b[63]A1b |
| LA Reservoir Strain | Preserved/Higher values | Reduced/Low values [13]B3b |
| Functional Capacity | High peak VO2 | Low peak VO2/Severe dyspnea [176]A1b |
| Comorbidities | Controlled BP/Glucose | Anemia, Hyperuricemia, ESRD [22]B3b[30]B2a |
| Heart Rate | Sinus rhythm 60-70 bpm | Tachycardia or AF with high HR [7]A1b |
References
- [1]
Li K, Wang X, Qin M et al.. “Optimal Ablation Strategies for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation With Heart Failure: Three-Year Follow-Up of a Prospective Multicenter Randomized Trial.” Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology (2026). PMID: 41914182 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [2]
Choi KH, Kang D, Kim W et al.. “Discontinuation of Beta-Blocker Therapy after Myocardial Infarction.” The New England journal of medicine (2026). PMID: 41910427 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [3]
Zang H, Jia C, Pan Y et al.. “Left Atrial Volume Index and Left Ventricular Mass Index Determine the Benefits of Spironolactone in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.” Journal of the American Heart Association (2026). PMID: 41848036 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [4]
Chen X, Liu X, Li R et al.. “Long-Term Outcomes of Left Bundle-Branch Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing in Heart Failure: The HeartSync-LBBP Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA cardiology (2026). PMID: 41811342 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [5]
Zimerman A, Dal Forno A, Rohde LE et al.. “Conduction System vs Biventricular Pacing in Heart Failure: The PhysioSync-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA cardiology (2026). PMID: 41811324 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Device Therapy: ICD and CRT, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [6]
Foà A, Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL et al.. “Effect of the cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil on ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and sudden death in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the GALACTIC-HF trial.” European journal of heart failure (2026). PMID: 41771140 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [7]
Chimura M, Jhund PS, Henderson AD et al.. “Efficacy of finerenone in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a prespecified analysis of heart rate and heart rhythm in the FINEARTS-HF trial.” European journal of heart failure (2026). PMID: 41771075 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [8]
Shen L, Shen L, Cheang I et al.. “The efficacy and safety of qiliqiangxin according to baseline ejection fraction in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in QUEST.” European journal of heart failure (2026). PMID: 41771073 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [9]
Awashra A, Emara A, Amin AM et al.. “Beta-Blockers After Myocardial Infarction Without Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier Reconstructed Individual Patient Data.” American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions (2026). PMID: 41714516 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [10]
Pastva AM, Reeves GR, Whellan DJ et al.. “Physical rehabilitation for older patients with acute HFpEF (REHAB-HFpEF) trial: Design and rationale.” American heart journal (2026). PMID: 41812966 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [11]
Sideris K, Bunsawat K, Brinker L et al.. “The Effect of Vericiguat on Endothelial Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Pilot Randomized Study.” The American journal of cardiology (2026). PMID: 41765262 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [12]
Zhang L, Szili-Torok T, Lamont L et al.. “Pre- and post-diagnosis signalling lipid profiles in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a prospective cohort study.” EBioMedicine (2026). PMID: 41903475 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [13]
Özbek BT, Modin D, Sengeløv M et al.. “Left atrial strain and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a retrospective cohort study.” BMJ open (2026). PMID: 41730559 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [14]
Kozhevnikova MV, Emelianov AV, Zheleznykh EA et al.. “Impact of Digital Remote Monitoring on the Optimization of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Titration in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.” Kardiologiia (2026). PMID: 41925172 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [15]
Nowakowski M, Mazuruk M, Nogajski Ł et al.. “Epicardial adipose tissue as a determinant of heart failure prognosis: insights across ejection fraction phenotypes.” Cardiovascular diabetology (2026). PMID: 41803855 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors - [16]
Biegus J, Bayes-Genis A, von Haehling S et al.. “Contemporary heart failure evidence in 2025: a joint summary of key trials from the European Journal of Heart Failure and ESC Heart Failure Journal.” European journal of heart failure (2026). PMID: 41771104 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [17]
Imran TF, Kadivar N, Gillotti J et al.. “Translating Mechanistic Insights Into Action and Revealing New Pathways: Machine Learning Approaches in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.” Journal of the American Heart Association (2026). PMID: 41717938 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology - [18]
Khamboonruang S, Bunditboondee P, Jittham P et al.. “Comparative Cardiovascular Outcomes of SGLT2i Plus Low-Dose of Conventional Triple Therapy Versus High-Dose of Conventional Triple Therapy for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF): A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2026). PMID: 42075652 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [19]
Parizad R, Hatwal J, Taban Sadeghi M et al.. “Clinical Advances in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review of Therapeutic and Mechanistic Evidence.” Vascular health and risk management (2026). PMID: 41953528 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [20]
Han W, Jiao Y, Chen W et al.. “PRIME-HFrEF Trial: a randomized, double-blind, multi-dose umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cell regimen for heart failure.” Signal transduction and targeted therapy (2026). PMID: 41888108 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Definition, Classification, and Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [21]
Lam CSP, Bozkurt B, Cherney DZI et al.. “Kidney Disease and Heart Failure: Recent Advances and Current Challenges: Conclusions From a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference.” JACC. Heart failure (2026). PMID: 41793402 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [22]
Huang D, Liang J, Zhou Y et al.. “Association of thyroid nodules with comorbidity burden and prognosis in patients with heart failure, anemia, and hyperuricemia: a retrospective cohort study.” Frontiers in endocrinology (2026). PMID: 41890186 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [23]
Pop-Busui R, Rasmussen S, Deanfield JE et al.. “Oral Semaglutide and Heart Failure Outcomes in Persons With Type 2 Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the SOUL Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA internal medicine (2026). PMID: 41627802 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [24]
Pol T, Lindbäck J, Oldgren J et al.. “Plasma Biomarkers Associated With Heart Failure Hospitalization Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Subtypes of Heart Failure.” Journal of the American Heart Association (2026). PMID: 41532553 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [25]
Madrini V, Souza PVR, Fernandes F et al.. “Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Enalapril in Heart Failure Due to Chagas Disease: Primary Results of ANSWER-HF Randomized Trial.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2026). PMID: 41396086 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors - [26]
Foà A, Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL et al.. “Finerenone-Related Risk of Hypotension in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.” JACC. Heart failure (2026). PMID: 41364043 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [27]
Lopes RD, Bocchi EA, Echeverría LE et al.. “Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Enalapril in Heart Failure Due to Chagas Disease: An Open-Label, Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA (2026). PMID: 41335448 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [28]
Shetty VV, Patil LR, Patil SG et al.. “Exploring the mechanisms of yoga-based cardiac rehabilitation in heart failure via assessment of endothelial function, genomics and arterial health (Yoga-EndOmics): a study protocol.” BMJ open (2026). PMID: 41529878 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors - [29]
Meyer P, Rocca A, Banus J et al.. “Study Protocol for HeartMagic: A Prospective Observational Cohort Characterizing Subtypes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.” Journal of the American Heart Association (2025). PMID: 41378481 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors - [30]
Tu KC, Weng YC, Liao CT et al.. “The effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in real-world dialysis patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction.” Medicine (2026). PMID: 41630233 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [31]
Tana M, Piccinini R, Pinterpe G et al.. “Cardiotoxicity of Antitumor Agents: Therapeutic Challenges in Heart Failure with Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction.” International journal of molecular sciences (2026). PMID: 41977162 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [32]
Antza C, Jordan J, McGowan B et al.. “Treating obesity and heart failure: a how-to-manage guide from the European Association for the Study of Obesity and the European Society of Hypertension working group on diabetes and metabolic risk factors.” Journal of hypertension (2026). PMID: 41818428 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Etiology and Risk Factors - [33]
Avogaro A. “Beyond glycemic control: How incretins are changing the cardiovascular trajectories of diabetes and obesity.” European journal of clinical investigation (2026). PMID: 41653035 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Etiology and Risk Factors - [34]
Evans MA, Walsh K. “The Immunological Consequences of Clonal Hematopoiesis in Heart Failure.” Immunological reviews (2026). PMID: 41546079 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Etiology and Risk Factors - [35]
Rodés-Cabau J, Mengi S, Salaun E et al.. “Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair in secondary mitral regurgitation.” EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology (2025). PMID: 41489737 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Etiology and Risk Factors - [36]
Russo E, Venturelli E, Leoncini G et al.. “Renal protection in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: not all that glitters is gold.” European journal of internal medicine (2026). PMID: 41407587 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [37]
Preda A, Tirandi A, Leo G et al.. “IL-6 in the spotlight: From cardiovascular pathophysiology to therapy.” European journal of clinical investigation (2026). PMID: 41340186 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Etiology and Risk Factors - [38]
Chaves VB, Barbosa LM, Oliveira VMR et al.. “VEXUS protocol as a prognostic tool in acute heart failure: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.” Current problems in cardiology (2026). PMID: 41747972 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors - [39]
Daidone M, Casuccio A, Soldano JS et al.. “Effects of intravenous furosemide plus small-volume hypertonic saline solutions on inflammatory, remodelling markers and epigenetics signatures of patients with congestive acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).” Aging (2026). PMID: 41915883 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [40]
Barghash MH. “Sex-Based Differences in Advanced Heart Failure.” Heart failure clinics (2026). PMID: 41895895 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Etiology and Risk Factors, Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [41]
Fudim M, Kovacevic-Preradovic T, Zdravkovic M et al.. “Association between functional Status and cardiac function in chronic heart failure: insights from the C-MIC II Trial.” ESC heart failure (2026). PMID: 41941602 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [42]
Buswell V, Massie E, Tessitore E et al.. “Impact of the Cardio-Meds Mobile App on Heart Failure Knowledge and Medication Adherence: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.” JMIR cardio (2026). PMID: 41730174 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation - [43]
Savarese G, Basile C, Mebazaa A et al.. “Ten years real-world experience with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.” ESC heart failure (2026). PMID: 41920861 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [44]
Irlik K, Piaśnik J, Hendel M et al.. “Mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” ESC heart failure (2026). PMID: 41711724 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [45]
Dandamudi M, Ho VQT, Samaniego-Laguna MA et al.. “Cimlanod, a Second-Generation Nitroxyl Donor, in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis of Hemodynamic Efficacy and Safety Profile.” American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions (2026). PMID: 41686423 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [46]
Kotte M, Sibhai I, Shaikh Z et al.. “Conduction System Pacing Versus Biventricular Cardiac Resynchronization in HFmrEF: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc (2026). PMID: 41902448 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Device Therapy: ICD and CRT, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [47]
Siddiqui HA, Kotte M, Omar HS et al.. “Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Heart Failure Patients: A Systematic Review.” Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc (2026). PMID: 41630541 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and Neurohormonal Activation, Device Therapy: ICD and CRT, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [48]
Occhino G, Musa A, Andreano A et al.. “Prognostic models in populations with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Systematic reviews (2026). PMID: 41715180 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [49]
Guo J, Miao R, Fan Q et al.. “Yangxinshi Tablet protects against post-myocardial infarction heart failure with reduced ejection fraction by improving energy metabolism through inhibition of FOXO1/PDK4 signaling.” Chinese journal of natural medicines (2026). PMID: 42062031 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [50]
Miyoshi Y, Kato T, Morimoto T et al.. “Restrictive filling pattern of transmitral inflow in acute decompensated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: insights from the KCHF registry.” Open heart (2026). PMID: 41997617 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [51]
Schwegel N, Höller V, Santner V et al.. “Prognostic value of circulating glypican-4 in chronic heart failure.” Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) (2026). PMID: 41944882 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [52]
Chaudhari M, Makhloufi J, Doelling B et al.. “Structural and Metabolic Remodeling of Skeletal Muscle in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Review: Beyond the Failing Heart.” International journal of molecular sciences (2026). PMID: 41898746 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [53]
Khan MN, Soomro NA, Iqbal MN et al.. “Quality of Life Assessment in Heart Failure Patients: Insights from a Low- to Middle-Income Country.” Global heart (2026). PMID: 41867907 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [54]
Satoh T, Sugimura K, Fukumoto Y et al.. “Prognostic Impact of Elevated Pulmonary Vascular Resistance in Group 2 Pulmonary Hypertension: Insights From a Japanese Multicenter Registry.” Journal of the American Heart Association (2026). PMID: 41859897 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [55]
Johansson JSM, Henrysson J, Basic C et al.. “Biomarkers of iron deficiency and prognosis in patients hospitalised with new-onset heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.” Open heart (2026). PMID: 41856675 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [56]
Dattilo G, Licordari R, Imbalzano E et al.. “Long-term outcomes following sacubitril/valsartan therapy for chronic HFrEF: an Italian real-world multicentre study.” ESC heart failure (2026). PMID: 41843757 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation - [57]
Bruno J, Daghmouri A, Sadoune M et al.. “Cardiac biomarkers response under angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor: a sub-analysis of the NATRIUM-HF study.” ESC heart failure (2026). PMID: 41834516 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation, Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [58]
Zuin M, Temporelli P, Bilato C et al.. “Robustness of randomized controlled trial evidence for SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction.” European journal of internal medicine (2026). PMID: 41314931 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [59]
Ferreira JP, Packer M, Butler J et al.. “Serum Magnesium, Outcomes, and the Effect of Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Findings From EMPEROR-Preserved.” JACC. Heart failure (2026). PMID: 41493412 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF, Landmark Trials and Key Evidence, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [60]
Ferreira JP, Anker SD, Butler J et al.. “Serum Magnesium and the Effect of Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Findings From EMPEROR-Reduced.” JACC. Heart failure (2026). PMID: 41171249 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [61]
Myte R, Mattsson A, Poole M et al.. “Survival Odds to Minimize Risk Heterogeneity Bias in Heart Failure Trials: Application to Dapagliflozin.” Circulation. Heart failure (2025). PMID: 41170566 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [62]
Ferreira JP, Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL et al.. “Interplay of serum potassium and kidney function with finerenone in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: Findings from FINEARTS-HF.” European journal of heart failure (2025). PMID: 41039732 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [63]
Semenycheva I, Larina S, Zakharova L et al.. “Safety of Repeated Levosimendan Use in Chronic Heart Failure.” Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology (2026). PMID: 41568919 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [64]
Jiang N, Zhang Y, Tang Y et al.. “Comparative efficacy and safety of different SGLT2 inhibitor-based combination strategies in HFrEF: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.” Frontiers in endocrinology (2025). PMID: 41550872 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [65]
Suzuki K, Osa S, Takeshita S et al.. “Additive Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors and Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors on Neurohormonal Inhibition Therapy in Severe HFrEF: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.” American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions (2026). PMID: 41549334 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [66]
Bhandari K, Qadri M, Dhakal R et al.. “The Impact of SGLT2 Inhibitors on Pulmonary Artery Pressures and Pulmonary Hemodynamics in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review.” Cardiovascular therapeutics (2025). PMID: 41164749 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [67]
Barbosa AV, Araújo Silva LC, Rotta I et al.. “Does Sex Affect the Efficacy, Safety, and Quality of Life Outcomes for Patients Using Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor, Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulators, and Cardiac Myosin Activators in Heart Failure? A Systematic Review.” Heart, lung & circulation (2025). PMID: 41062399 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [68]
Senanayake S, Lee ASY, Graves N et al.. “Treatment gaps in guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF in Singapore: findings from a multicentre retrospective cohort study.” BMJ open (2026). PMID: 41819588 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [69]
Li JJ, Parajuli DR, Brown J et al.. “Maximum tolerated medication dose and other predictors of mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: retrospective cohort study.” BMC cardiovascular disorders (2025). PMID: 41146052 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [70]
Albalushi MA, Neshat-Mokadem L, Al-Mawaali G. “Evaluation of prescribing adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with chronic heart failure: a retrospective study at the National Heart Centre in Oman.” BMC cardiovascular disorders (2025). PMID: 41136931 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [71]
Greene SJ, Adam A, Schmedt N et al.. “Contemporary Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Heart Failure in the United States: The EMPACE Study.” Journal of the American Heart Association (2026). PMID: 41804888 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [72]
Kobayashi M, Monzo L, Baudry G et al.. “Real-world data on early initiation of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in newly diagnosed heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.” ESC heart failure (2026). PMID: 41711250 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [73]
Oliva F, Orso F, Colivicchi F et al.. “Medical treatments at 6 months in hospitalized and ambulatory HFrEF patients in the BRING-UP 3 Heart Failure study.” ESC heart failure (2026). PMID: 41711238 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [74]
Sauer AJ, Ter Maaten JM, Savarese G. “Established and emerging pharmacologic options and unmet needs in HFpEF and HFmrEF.” ESC heart failure (2026). PMID: 41711220 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [75]
Erzeel J, van Es M, Mullens W et al.. “Evolving Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonism: a Narrative Review on Differences between Steroidal MRAs, Non-Steroidal MRAs and Aldosterone Synthase Inhibitors in Cardiorenal Disease.” Current heart failure reports (2026). PMID: 41615644 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [76]
Greene SJ, Xu H, Chiswell K et al.. “One-Year Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Prescribed Quadruple Medical Therapy at Discharge.” JAMA cardiology (2026). PMID: 41604197 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [77]
Ali MS, Greer KM, Ganai S et al.. “Association of an Algorithm-Generated Medication Optimization Score With Clinical Outcomes in Ambulatory Patients With Heart Failure.” Pharmacotherapy (2026). PMID: 41548207 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Pharmacological Management: The Four Pillars - [78]
Mentz RJ, Butler J, McMullan CJ et al.. “Blood pressure, safety and clinical efficacy of vericiguat in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Insights from the VICTOR trial.” European journal of heart failure (2025). PMID: 41020754 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [79]
Westerhout CM, Alemayehu W, Cohen-Solal A et al.. “Geographic region variation in patient characteristics, clinical outcomes and treatment of HFrEF in the VICTORIA trial.” ESC heart failure (2025). PMID: 40977249 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [80]
Butler J, McMullan CJ, Anstrom KJ et al.. “Vericiguat in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (VICTOR): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.” Lancet (London, England) (2025). PMID: 40897189 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [81]
Zannad F, O'Connor CM, Butler J et al.. “Vericiguat for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction across the risk spectrum: an individual participant data analysis of the VICTORIA and VICTOR trials.” Lancet (London, England) (2025). PMID: 40897188 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [82]
Zannad F, Reddy YNV, Barash I et al.. “Effect of Vericiguat on Total Heart Failure Events in Compensated Outpatients With HFrEF: Insights From VICTOR.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2025). PMID: 40892609 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [83]
Butler J, Fioretti F, McMullan CJ et al.. “Vericiguat and mortality in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: the VICTOR trial.” European heart journal (2026). PMID: 40884032 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [84]
Bavendiek U, Thomas NH, Berliner D et al.. “DIGitoxin to Improve ouTcomes in patients with advanced chronic Heart Failure (DIGIT-HF): Baseline characteristics compared to recent randomized controlled heart failure trials.” European journal of heart failure (2025). PMID: 40389288 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [85]
Saldarriaga CI, Zannad F, McMullan CJ et al.. “Baseline characteristics of contemporary trial participants with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: The VICTOR trial.” European journal of heart failure (2025). PMID: 39956649 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [86]
Reddy YNV, Butler J, Anstrom KJ et al.. “Vericiguat Global Study in Participants with Chronic Heart Failure: Design of the VICTOR trial.” European journal of heart failure (2025). PMID: 39473305 ↗
L5RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [87]
Kittipibul V, Mentz RJ, Young R et al.. “Projecting the benefit of vericiguat in PARADIGM-HF and DAPA-HF populations: Insights from the VICTORIA trial.” ESC heart failure (2025). PMID: 39434631 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies, Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [88]
Westerhout CM, Rathwell S, Anstrom KJ et al.. “Comparing Analytical Methods for Composite End Points in Clinical Trials: Insights from the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Trial.” Journal of cardiac failure (2025). PMID: 39182825 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [89]
Tromp J, Lam CSP, Alemayehu W et al.. “Biomarker profiles associated with reverse ventricular remodelling in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction: Insights from the echocardiographic substudy of the VICTORIA trial.” European journal of heart failure (2024). PMID: 39078607 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [90]
Khan MS, Butler J, Young R et al.. “Vericiguat and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Heart Failure by Baseline Diabetes Status: Insights From the VICTORIA Trial.” JACC. Heart failure (2024). PMID: 38934967 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [91]
Ezekowitz J, Alemayehu W, Edelmann F et al.. “Diuretic use and outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Insights from the VICTORIA trial.” European journal of heart failure (2024). PMID: 38450878 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [92]
Mentz RJ, Stebbins A, Butler J et al.. “Recurrent Hospitalizations and Response to Vericiguat in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.” JACC. Heart failure (2024). PMID: 38363272 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [93]
Tang H, Germinal K, Milfort A et al.. “The most effective combination of pharmacological therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” BMC cardiovascular disorders (2024). PMID: 39578732 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [94]
Waranugraha Y, Rizal A, Tjahjono CT et al.. “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Assessing Clinical and Haemodynamic Outcomes of Ivabradine in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients.” Heart, lung & circulation (2024). PMID: 38729854 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [95]
Margaryan R, Sepehrvand N, Ouwerkerk W et al.. “Network Meta-Analysis of Quality of Life in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.” Circulation. Heart failure (2025). PMID: 40910162 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies - [96]
van Essen BJ, Ceelen DCH, Ouwerkerk W et al.. “Pharmacologic Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2025). PMID: 40892608 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Secondary and Emerging Pharmacotherapies, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [97]
Butt JH, Doi SN, Thune JJ et al.. “Long-Term Effect of ICDs in Nonischemic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Extended Follow-Up Analysis of DANISH.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2025). PMID: 41123523 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [98]
Doi SN, Yafasova A, Thune JJ et al.. “Atrial fibrillation and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in non-ischaemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from the DANISH trial.” Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology (2025). PMID: 40990042 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT, Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [99]
Gouda P, Alemayehu W, Voors AA et al.. “Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in ischaemic versus non-ischaemic heart failure: Insights from the VICTORIA trial.” European journal of heart failure (2025). PMID: 40539883 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [100]
Merkel E, Hatala R, Szigeti M et al.. “Upgrading Right Ventricular Pacing to Cardiac Resynchronization in HFrEF Patients Improves Symptoms and Functional Outcomes.” JACC. Heart failure (2025). PMID: 39614838 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [101]
Leonardo C, Ermenegildo R, Christof K et al.. “Multipoint pacing is associated with improved prognosis and cardiac resynchronization therapy response: MORE-CRT MPP randomized study secondary analyses.” Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology (2024). PMID: 39365705 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [102]
Merkely B, Hatala R, Merkel E et al.. “Benefits of upgrading right ventricular to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.” Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology (2024). PMID: 38979560 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [103]
Cha YM, Lee HC, Mulpuru SK et al.. “Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with mild to moderately reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block.” Heart rhythm (2024). PMID: 38772431 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [104]
Yafasova A, Doi SN, Thune JJ et al.. “Effect of Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillators in Nonischemic Heart Failure According to Background Medical Therapy: Extended Follow-up of the DANISH Trial.” Journal of cardiac failure (2024). PMID: 38750689 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [105]
Karacan MN, Doi SN, Yafasova A et al.. “New York Heart Association functional class and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in non-ischaemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Extended follow-up of the DANISH trial.” European journal of heart failure (2024). PMID: 38733253 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [106]
Butt JH, Bundgaard JS, Schou M et al.. “Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Frailty in Non-ischemic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Extended Follow-Up of the DANISH Trial.” The American journal of cardiology (2026). PMID: 40998196 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [107]
Pung X, Chua JJL, Fong KY et al.. “Conduction System Pacing Versus Biventricular Cardiac Resynchronization Pacing: Meta-Analysis on Outcomes in Patients with Non-Left Bundle Branch Block.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2025). PMID: 40731870 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [108]
Kolokathis K, Doundoulakis I, Tsiachris D et al.. “Efficacy and safety of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy: An updated meta-analysis.” Journal of cardiology (2025). PMID: 40118339 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [109]
Goldenberg I, Zareba W, Ezekowitz JA et al.. “Rationale and design of the comparative effectiveness of ICD vs non-ICD therapy in contemporary heart failure patients at a low risk for arrhythmic death (CONTEMP-ICD) trial.” American heart journal (2026). PMID: 40914445 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [110]
Zimerman A, Dal Forno A, Rohde LE et al.. “Conduction system pacing vs biventricular resynchronization in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block: Rationale and design of the PhysioSync-HF Trial.” American heart journal (2025). PMID: 40473010 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [111]
Fudim M, Khan MS, Linz D et al.. “Safety and tolerability of the M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor modulator BAY 2413555 in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the REMOTE-HF study.” Scientific reports (2024). PMID: 39738130 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [112]
Decker SRR, Etges APBDS, Zimerman A et al.. “Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing in Chronic Heart Failure: Protocol for the Economic Analysis of the PhysioSync-HF Trial.” Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia (2025). PMID: 41779515 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [113]
Gupta AR, Kumar A, Cao JJL et al.. “Preimplantation AI-ECG Age as a Predictor of Survival Following Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.” JACC. Clinical electrophysiology (2026). PMID: 41441802 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [114]
Burri H, Leclercq C, Behar N et al.. “Controversy: in heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, conduction system pacing can be a valid alternative to biventricular pacing-pro and contra.” Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology (2025). PMID: 41433135 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [115]
Nakamura T, Ishibashi K, Ueda N et al.. “Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Improvement and Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk in Patients With Heart Failure.” Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society (2026). PMID: 41371693 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [116]
Yeo YH, Ong TE, Vignarajah A et al.. “Propensity-Matched Five-Year Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Outcomes in Sarcoidosis With Heart Failure.” Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology (2026). PMID: 41286588 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [117]
Laborante R, Valente V, Benson L et al.. “Associations between cardiac resynchronization therapy and clinical outcomes according to the atrial fibrillation status in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.” Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology (2025). PMID: 41253706 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [118]
Ferreira DR, Cazeiro DI, Brito J et al.. “Impact of early intensive GDMT on LVEF recovery and ICD decision making in de novo HFrEF.” ESC heart failure (2025). PMID: 41206800 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Device Therapy: ICD and CRT - [119]
Ravikulan R, Chavali S, Gunton JE et al.. “Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists reduce atrial fibrillation among patients with heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” European journal of heart failure (2025). PMID: 41216984 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [120]
Böhm M, Butler J, Abdin A et al.. “Heart failure outcomes and empagliflozin effects in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation: Data from EMPEROR-Reduced.” European journal of heart failure (2025). PMID: 40956156 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency, Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [121]
Redline S, Li D, Javaheri S et al.. “Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy for Central Sleep Apnea in Patients with Heart Failure: A Multisite, Double-Blind, Sham-controlled Randomized Clinical Trial (LOFT-HF).” Annals of the American Thoracic Society (2025). PMID: 40929650 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [122]
Song Z, Wang SY, Qidong Z et al.. “Catheter ablation versus medical rate control for persistent atrial fibrillation in older heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction.” Heart (British Cardiac Society) (2025). PMID: 40393692 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [123]
Yatsu S, Woo A, Horvath CM et al.. “LV Structure and Function in HFrEF With and Without Peak-Flow-Triggered Adaptive Servo-Ventilation-Treated Sleep-Disordered Breathing.” JACC. Heart failure (2026). PMID: 40310326 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [124]
Martens P, Augusto SN, Erzeel J et al.. “Effects of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From CABANA.” JACC. Heart failure (2025). PMID: 40243977 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [125]
Palcău CA, Păduraru LF, Paraschiv C et al.. “Renal Biomarkers and Prognosis in HFpEF and HFrEF: The Role of Albuminuria and eGFR-A Systematic Review.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2025). PMID: 40870431 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [126]
Joshi M, Tran P, Barber TM et al.. “Arterial stiffness in acute decompensated heart failure and acute kidney injury: a prospective observational cohort study protocol in a tertiary hospital setting.” BMJ open (2025). PMID: 40550719 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [127]
Tang X, He R, Zhang P. “Association between ultra-short-term heart rate variability and atrial fibrillation in heart failure population: a protocol for a prospective observational cohort study.” BMJ open (2025). PMID: 40750283 ↗
L5COHORTCited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [128]
Boehmer AA, Ninni S, Heijman J et al.. “The clinical pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation: outstanding questions from bedside to bench and back.” Physiological reviews (2026). PMID: 41543444 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Management of Comorbidities and Iron Deficiency - [129]
Irving C, Azeka E, Adorisio R et al.. “The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Management of Pediatric Heart Failure (Update From 2014).” The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation (2025). PMID: 40838915 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [130]
Rorris FP, Antonopoulos CN, Kyriakopoulos CP et al.. “Implantable cardioverter defibrillators in left ventricular assist device patients: Α systematic review and meta-analysis.” The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation (2021). PMID: 34176727 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [131]
Mann DL, Greene SJ, Givertz MM et al.. “Sacubitril/Valsartan in Advanced Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of the LIFE Trial.” JACC. Heart failure (2020). PMID: 32641226 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [132]
Hitzeroth J, Mpe M, Klug E et al.. “2020 Heart Failure Society of South Africa perspective on the 2016 European Society of Cardiology Chronic Heart Failure Guidelines.” South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde (2020). PMID: 32880257 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [133]
Gravino R, Falco L, Amarelli C et al.. “Management of arrhythmias in left ventricular assist device recipients.” Heart failure reviews (2025). PMID: 41307738 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [134]
Barkoudah E, Yancy CW. “Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.” The Medical clinics of North America (2025). PMID: 41136059 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [135]
Wattanachayakul P, Kittipibul V, Abraham WT et al.. “Phenotype-guided approach for device-based therapies in heart failure.” Heart failure reviews (2025). PMID: 41028654 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [136]
Miyamoto SD, Irving C, Azeka E et al.. “Authors Insights on the Updated International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Management of Pediatric Heart Failure (Update From 2014).” The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation (2025). PMID: 40947169 ↗
L1REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [137]
Kim R, Kittipibul V, Bhatt S et al.. “Device-based therapies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.” Heart failure reviews (2025). PMID: 40180634 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [138]
Ilonze OJ, Ebong IA, Guglin M et al.. “Considerations in the Diagnosis and Management of Pulmonary Hypertension Associated With Left Heart Disease.” JACC. Heart failure (2024). PMID: 38970588 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [139]
Srivastava PK, Kittleson MM. “Modern advances in heart transplantation.” Progress in cardiovascular diseases (2024). PMID: 38244826 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [140]
Soni B, Gopinathannair R. “Managing ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardiac defibrillator shocks after left ventricular assist device implantation.” Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology (2024). PMID: 38013210 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [141]
Eisen HJ, Flack JM, Atluri P et al.. “Management of Hypertension in Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.” Circulation. Heart failure (2022). PMID: 35430896 ↗
L1REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [142]
Mwansa H, Lewsey S, Mazimba S et al.. “Racial/Ethnic and Gender Disparities in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.” Current heart failure reports (2021). PMID: 33666856 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [143]
DeFilippis EM, Guazzi M, Colombo PC et al.. “A right ventricular state of mind in the progression of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: implications for left ventricular assist device therapy.” Heart failure reviews (2021). PMID: 32162141 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [144]
Jin C, Hsu J, Frenkel D et al.. “Unique technique to relieve left ventricular assist device electromagnetic interference with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.” Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology (2021). PMID: 33345375 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [145]
Sreedhara K, Panjrath G. “Patient Selection, Referral Timing, and Advanced Heart Disease Therapy Options for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.” Heart failure clinics (2026). PMID: 41895891 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [146]
Kittleson MM. “Who is the Candidate? The Heart Transplant Evaluation Process.” Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal (2025). PMID: 40384741 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [147]
Bitar A, Aaronson K. “When all Else Fails, Try This: The HeartMate III Left Ventricle Assist Device.” Heart failure clinics (2024). PMID: 39216930 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Advanced Heart Failure: LVAD and Transplantation - [148]
Samaniego-Laguna MA, Tripoli A, Gamarra-Valverde NN et al.. “Efficacy of cardiac myosin activators compared to placebo in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” Heart & lung : the journal of critical care (2026). PMID: 41145106 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [149]
Wu J, Pei Y, Wu J et al.. “Efficacy and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” BMC cardiovascular disorders (2025). PMID: 41023853 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [150]
Chang HY, Liao CT, Heidenreich PA et al.. “Implementation of the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Adherence to Science, Implementation in Asia (GWTG-HF A.S.I.A.) Program in Taiwan.” Journal of the American Heart Association (2026). PMID: 41413759 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in HFrEF - [151]
Berg DD, Docherty KF, Talebi A et al.. “Growth Differentiation Factor-15 and the Effect of Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure: Insights From the DAPA-HF Trial.” Journal of cardiac failure (2026). PMID: 40819681 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [152]
McDowell K, Welsh P, Docherty KF et al.. “Cellular Adhesion Molecules and Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Heart Failure: Findings From the DAPA-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA cardiology (2025). PMID: 40465275 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [153]
Shaddy R, Gong J, Garito T et al.. “Association between NT-proBNP changes and clinical outcomes in paediatric patients with heart failure: Insights from PANORAMA-HF and PARADIGM-HF.” ESC heart failure (2025). PMID: 40353367 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [154]
Chimura M, Butt JH, Matsumoto S et al.. “Comprehensive Analysis of the Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan According to Sex Among Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF.” Journal of the American Heart Association (2025). PMID: 40265590 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [155]
Docherty KF, McDowell K, Welsh P et al.. “Interleukin-6 in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and the Effect of Dapagliflozin: An Exploratory Analysis of the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure Trial.” JACC. Heart failure (2025). PMID: 40088234 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [156]
Gupta SD, Butt JH, McMurray EGM et al.. “Effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to background beta-blocker therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Insights from PARADIGM-HF.” European journal of heart failure (2025). PMID: 39563094 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [157]
Matsumoto S, Shen L, Henderson AD et al.. “Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2024). PMID: 39320292 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [158]
Packer M, Ferreira JP, Butler J et al.. “Reaffirmation of Mechanistic Proteomic Signatures Accompanying SGLT2 Inhibition in Patients With Heart Failure: A Validation Cohort of the EMPEROR Program.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2024). PMID: 39217550 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [159]
Patel-Murray NL, Zhang L, Claggett BL et al.. “Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Proteomic Substudy.” Journal of the American Heart Association (2024). PMID: 38904251 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [160]
Rascher J, Cotton D, Haertter S et al.. “Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of empagliflozin in patients with heart failure.” British journal of clinical pharmacology (2024). PMID: 38852615 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [161]
Kondo T, Jhund PS, Gasparyan SB et al.. “A hierarchical kidney outcome using win statistics in patients with heart failure from the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials.” Nature medicine (2024). PMID: 38710952 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [162]
Yang M, Kondo T, Talebi A et al.. “Dapagliflozin and quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire in patients with heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction.” European journal of heart failure (2024). PMID: 38700986 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [163]
Chatur S, Neuen BL, Claggett BL et al.. “Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2024). PMID: 38588927 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [164]
Foà A, Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL et al.. “Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2024). PMID: 38537919 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [165]
Peikert A, Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL et al.. “Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and previous myocardial infarction: A participant-level pooled analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.” European journal of heart failure (2024). PMID: 38487939 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [166]
Dhingra NK, Verma S, Butler J et al.. “Efficacy and Safety of Empagliflozin According to Background Diuretic Use in HFrEF: Post-Hoc Analysis of EMPEROR-Reduced.” JACC. Heart failure (2024). PMID: 37715769 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [167]
Packer M, Butler J, Zeller C et al.. “Blinded Withdrawal of Long-Term Randomized Treatment With Empagliflozin or Placebo in Patients With Heart Failure.” Circulation (2023). PMID: 37621153 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [168]
Khan MS, Anker SD, Filippatos G et al.. “Vascular Disease Burden, Outcomes and Benefits with Empagliflozin in Heart Failure: Insights From the EMPEROR-Reduced Trial.” Journal of cardiac failure (2023). PMID: 37558088 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [169]
Curtain JP, Adamson C, Docherty KF et al.. “Prevalent and Incident Anemia in PARADIGM-HF and the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan.” JACC. Heart failure (2023). PMID: 37407154 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [170]
Pinsino A, Carey MR, Husain S et al.. “The Difference Between Cystatin C- and Creatinine-Based Estimated GFR in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARADIGM-HF.” American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation (2023). PMID: 37086965 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [171]
Butt JH, Docherty KF, Claggett BL et al.. “Dapagliflozin in Black and White Patients With Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum.” JACC. Heart failure (2023). PMID: 36881399 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [172]
Tsutsui H, Momomura SI, Saito Y et al.. “Incidence and risk factors of hypotension-related adverse events among Japanese patients with heart failure receiving sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril: Results from the PARALLEL-HF study.” Journal of cardiology (2025). PMID: 39284545 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [173]
Wang X, Pu J, Wang G et al.. “Efficacy and safety analysis of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition(ARNI)in patients with heart failure: a real-world retrospective study.” BMC cardiovascular disorders (2023). PMID: 37430227 ↗
L3RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [174]
Pavlu L, Vicha M, Flasik J et al.. “A comparison of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction in the Moravian Midlands Registry with the LCZ696 patients in the Paradigm-HF trial.” Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia (2024). PMID: 36748670 ↗
L3RCTCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [175]
Khan MS, Segar MW, Usman MS et al.. “Effect of Canagliflozin on Heart Failure Hospitalization in Diabetes According to Baseline Heart Failure Risk.” JACC. Heart failure (2023). PMID: 37227388 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Landmark Trials and Key Evidence - [176]
Van Tassell BW, Golino M, Canada JM et al.. “Resolution of Systemic Inflammation in Patients With Recently Decompensated Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction With and Without Interleukin-1 Blockade by Anakinra.” Circulation. Heart failure (2026). PMID: 41431894 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care - [177]
Li Y, Mao T, Qu X et al.. “Efficacy and safety of Qiliqiangxin capsule as adjunctive therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” Journal of ethnopharmacology (2026). PMID: 41500350 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Prognosis, Risk Stratification, and Palliative Care