Understanding Heart Failure: Evolution of Concepts and Treatments

Anton Šmalcelj

doi:10.15836/ccar2024.251

Abstract

Senior cardiologists can recall the evolution of cardiologists’ views on heart failure (HF) pathophysiology and treatment approaches during their professional career. Milton Packer has recently formulated the progress of HF concepts in four stages: 1) the cardiorenal model (1940s through the 1960s), 2) the cardiocirculatory model or hemodynamic hypothesis (1970s and 1980s), 3) the neurohormonal model (from 1990s up to recently), and 4) the recent cellular stress model. The cardiorenal model relied on digitalis and diuretics. Vasodilators and positive inotropes were viewed with hope at the time of the prevalence of the hemodynamic hypothesis, but did not meet expectations. Only the neurohormonal model with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and beta-blockers as acting drugs provided permanent improvement in substantial clinical outcomes, including death rates. However, those treatments were ineffective in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), comprising half of all patients with HF. The serendipitous discovery that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, first introduced as antidiabetic drugs, have beneficial cardiac effects, led to clinical trials which proved substantial outcome benefits not only in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but also in HFpEF. As the mystery shrouding the mechanisms of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors actions began to be unraveled, the cellular stress model of HF was introduced. This review is focused on historical and recent HF pathophysiological concepts, along with the drugs associated with them, but non-pharmacological treatments are also addressed. Finally, the prospects for advancements in the understanding and treatment of HF are also discussed.

Full Text

## Historical background William Harvey’s epochal discovery of blood circulation driven by a heart pump in 1628 provided a framework for the basic concept of heart failure (HF). Ancient Greek and Roman physicians attributed edema, anasarca, and dyspnea to a variety of causes other than heart disease; pleural effusions were thought to originate in the brain, and the heart was believed to heat and distribute the vital spirit. Linking cardiac pathology to hemodynamic and clinical disorders following Harvey’s discovery took time. G.M. Lancisi (1654-1720) observed that dilatation weakens the heart. J.N. Corvisart wrote in 1806 that marked cardiac dilatation in association with valvular regurgitation portends HF and a bad prognosis. In 1892, W. Osler viewed cardiac hypertrophy as a step towards HF (“broken compensation”). Those and many other physicians, whether famous or less known, elaborated the clinical presentation and course of HF (1–3). Early pathophysiological concepts were simplistic, limited to cardiac weakness causing low cardiac output and extracellular fluid retention with pulmonary and systemic congestion. Treatment options were empirical and ineffective. Lifestyle changes provided some relief. Bloodletting and leeches were used for centuries. Southey tubes for edema drainage have been long forgotten. Among many herbal treatments that have been tried, only digitalis (foxglove) preparations proved to be a lucky hit. Since introduction to medical use by W. Withering in 1785, digitalis had been a pillar of HF treatment for about 200 years until recently (4–9). ## Approaching modern times: the story of diuretics The creation of effective diuretics in late the 1950s heralded the modern era of pharmacological HF management. Until 1957, the only diuretics used in HF were intravenous or intramuscular mercurial agents, which were difficult to use and fraught with toxicity. The serendipitous discovery of modern diuretics took place during the study of sulphonamide side-effects. In 1937/8, research on sulphonamides revealed their diuretic effects. In 1945, the development of the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor acetazolamide improved the understanding of diuretic mechanisms in renal tubules. Among many compounds synthesized in the search for potent carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, researchers stumbled on chlorothiazide, which inhibited not only carbonic anhydrase but also the sodium chloride cotransport system. Introduced in 1958, chlorothiazide was the first useful oral diuretic. It is still used widely, but much more as an antihypertensive agent than a HF drug (10–12). Thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics may be useful in the management of mild HF, but more potent diuretics are needed in severe forms. Furosemide, with a brand-name Lasix (“lasts six hours”), came to the rescue. The introduction of the loop diuretics furosemide and ethacrynic acid in the early 1960s dramatically improved medical practice. Until then, HF had been considered a terminal condition, but new diuretics allowed amazing relief of fluid retention. It was obvious that they worked, and little in the way of clinical trials was needed to accept them in clinical practice. Furosemide, as an archetype of potent loop diuretics, was followed by now forgotten ethacrynic acid and bumetanide, in addition to its current rival torasemide, and has remained a cornerstone in the treatment of congestive HF (12–14). Spironolactone, a nonselective steroid aldosterone receptor antagonist, appeared in 1957 (15). Its independent diuretic action is weak, but the synergism with loop diuretics is strong, in addition to potassium-sparing effects. The value of spironolactone became evident in the RALES trial (1999) which showed a reduction in morbidity and death among patients with severe HF (16). Those data suggested a paradigm-shift in the concept of HF, demonstrating the neurohormonal actions of spironolactone. The selective aldosterone receptor antagonist epleronone shares beneficial effects with spironolactone but is devoid of side-effects on sexual steroid hormones (17). Finally, the use of a novel nonsteroidal aldosterone receptor antagonist fineronone is advantageous in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes (18). Diuretics were accepted as symptom-relieving and lifesaving drugs before the days of large clinical trials with mortality and survival endpoints. Even nowadays, the lack of alternative to loop diuretics makes it hard to envision how to design such trials (19, 20). ## Practice, theories, and pathophysiological concepts With digoxin, furosemide, and spironolactone available, the stage was set for a dynamic era of HF management. Past stagnation and incapacity gave way to active pursuit of advances in HF treatment that dominated in the decades to follow. This pursuit rekindled research on HF pathophysiology (21). Research requires concepts that representing the basic models of HF. Those have changed significantly since the middle of the 20th century. Senior cardiologists may recall them from their own professional experience. The formulation of those models may vary somewhat, but some of them, e.g. the neurohormonal model, have been widely accepted. Milton Packer has proposed four concepts: 1) the cardiorenal model (1940s through the 1960s), 2) the cardiocirculatory model or hemodynamic hypothesis (1970s and 1980s), 3) the neurohormonal model (from 1990s up to recently), and 4) the recent cellular stress model (22–24). Such a conceptual framework is interesting as it may explain many advancements but also some side-tracks. We will try to explicate the concepts, adding some remarks. ## THE CARDIORENAL MODEL The cardiorenal model regarded HF as an edematous disorder with salt and water retention. The pillars of treatment were digitalis and diuretics. Although the congestion seen to be due mostly to increased venous pressures (“backward HF”) dominated the concept, low cardiac output (“forward HF”) was duly appreciated. Moreover, renal hypoperfusion due to low cardiac output was deemed essential for extracellular fluid retention by activating renal (glomerular, tubular, and peritubular) mechanisms of volume conservation. These may be viewed as atavistic responses to hypovolemia due to fluid loss. In due course, the concept was expanded by adrenal and neurohormonal (e.g. antidiuretic hormone secretion) mechanisms of volume retention with dilutional hyponatremia as an epiphenomenon. Late additions were synthesis with the neurohormonal HF concept. The erstwhile cardiorenal concept views HF as a cardiac disorder with anticipatable renal response (without disease), at variance with the modern concept of cardiorenal syndrome where the disease of any of those two organs induces the disorder of the other (21, 22). The central tenet of the erstwhile cardiorenal concept assumes the main role of the heart disorder in the pathogenesis of HF, with the kidneys playing supporting roles. The widespread use of digitalis preparations (mostly digoxin) was intended to alleviate cardiac disorder as the origin of HF. The evaluation of efficacy and clinical utility was based on clinical observations, experience, and judgement; only later were some respectable randomized trials conducted, with neutral results on mortality (25–29). The weak positive inotropy of digitalis, due to the inhibition of Na+/K+-ATPase in cardiac myocytes with a consequent increase in cytosolic Ca2+ content through Na+/Ca2+ exchanger, was overrated. Negative chronotropy, desirable in tachycardia due to atrial fibrillation, was limited because of narrow therapeutic width. Despite limitations, digitalis preparations had remained the mainstay of HF treatment for two centuries (6). Perhaps M. Packer, when giving the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Rene Laennec Lecture on Clinical Cardiology at the ESC Congress 2023, dated the cardiorenal model to the 1748-1965 period correctly; digitalis use dates back that far (24). Potent diuretics became available not earlier than in the 1960s, when this period was at an end. The diuretics revolutionized HF treatment and have remained its mainstay irrespectively of the overall concept. They are needed whenever an excess of extracellular fluid arises (12, 14). Finally, sticking to the cardiorenal model impeded advances in HF treatment. Lowering arterial pressure was deemed risky because of renal and myocardial hypoperfusion. The use of vasodilators was avoided except in severe hypertension. Similarly, the use of beta-blockers (BB) was restrained (propranolol appeared in the 1960s as an antianginal drug), fearing not only arterial hypotension but also negative inotropy (22, 30, 31). ## THE CARDIOCIRCULATORY MODEL The cardiocirculatory model or the hemodynamic hypothesis (1965-1992), as it was formulated by M. Packer, followed the cardiorenal model. The quest for new treatment strategies spurred by the unmet expectations of digoxin and diuretics led to reappraisal of pathophysiological concepts. The ensuing paradigm shift viewed HF principally as a hemodynamic disorder involving the whole cardiovascular system, not only the heart but also the vessels. The focus shifted from the kidneys to peripheral vessels and redistribution of intravascular volumes (22). In HF, adrenergically mediated arterial and venous vasoconstriction devastatingly impairs hemodynamics. The resulting increase in afterload exhausts the myocardium and impedes cardiac output. Reduction of the venous reservoir increases cardiac preload and aggravates congestion. The rationale for the use of **vasodilating drugs** was to relieve the failing heart of preload and afterload burden, expecting a recovery in cardiac function (21, 22). The whole array of vasodilators was tested intravenously or orally to relieve vasoconstriction and to achieve a breakthrough in HF management. Senior cardiologists may recall the fear of causing hypotension with those unorthodox innovations (30, 31). The use of some initially promising vasodilators, e.g. the adrenergic alpha-receptor blockers phentolamine and prazosin, remained a dead-end attempt (32–36). Hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate held some promise, which was not fulfilled (36–38). Calcium channel blockers were expected to improve hemodynamics, but controlled clinical trials showed worsening of HF (39–43). At best, oral vasodilators provided some temporary relief without long-term benefits on outcomes. Intravenously administered vasoactive agents for acute HF fared better, especially if guided by hemodynamic monitoring. Intravenous nitroglycerine, acting mostly as a venous vasodilator, is still valuable in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, while combined arterial and venous vasodilator sodium nitroprusside is helpful in severe acute HF in a critical care setting (44–47). Disappointment with oral vasodilators shifted the focus to the heart itself. As the impairment of myocardial contractility was deemed to be the primary problem, the whole array of **inotropic agents** was created. The basic approach was to increase contractility, stimulating the influx of calcium ions or maintaining higher calcium levels in the cytosol of cardiac myocytes throughout the action potential. Dozens of such drugs progressed to phase 3 clinical trials. Among them, dobutamine, amrinone, milrinone, enoximone, levosimendan, pimobendane, and xamoterol were the most promising. Dobutamine was the first of them, created in 1975 by modifying the chemical structure of isoproterenol. The rationale was to benefit from adrenergic stimulation but to avoid detrimental vasoconstriction. A series of phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) inhibitors followed, amrinone first, followed by milrinone and enoximone. Calcium sensitizers were developed in the 1980s, with levosimendan as a prototype. It increases contractile apparatus sensitivity to calcium ions during systole, not interfering with their diastolic release. Levosimendan also inhibits PDE-3 and activates ATP sensitive K+ channels, causing strong vasodilation. Pimobendan shares calcium sensitizing and PDE-3 inhibiting effects. Xamoterol is a beta1 selective partial adrenergic agonist. The ideal was to develop a positive inotropic agent with vasodilator properties, like levosimendan, or a vasodilator with positive inotropic properties, like flosequinan. This drug has both vasodilating and inotropic properties that are not entirely understood but are believed to be distinct from β-adrenergic receptor agonists and PDE inhibitors (48). Those and other positive inotropic agents, irrespective of mode of action, provided a transient hemodynamic and clinical improvement but failed to reduce mortality and morbidity. Moreover, they were associated with increased mortality, except the prognostically neutral digoxin (25, 48, 49). Many inotropic drugs were created, but only those designed for short-term intravenous use (e.g. 48 h) in severe acute HF remained in use. Dobutamine, milrinone, and levosimendan are still indispensable in our cardiac care units (50–53). The failure of inotropic agents to convert short-term improvements into long-term benefits, with an excess of mortality, can be explained only speculatively. A mechanistic explanation suggests that overstrain of an injured organ shortens its lifespan. Overstimulating sick myocardium unduly depletes its meagre stores of energy. The persistent adrenergic overstimulation is detrimental, whereas BBs reduce mortality and morbidity. In addition, the chronic use of drugs acting via cAMP modulation, like PDE-3 inhibitors and adrenergic stimulants, disrupts calcium homeostasis with desensitization of the contractile apparatus to calcium through impairment of early diastolic relaxation and ventricular arrhythmias. Disruption of cardiac myocyte energetics and calcium ion homeostasis are detrimental for cardiac myocytes. Furthermore, HF is a heterogeneous syndrome comprising a diverse spectrum of diseases. The harmful effects of chronic treatment with milrinone were conspicuously more prevalent in ischemic than in non-ischemic HF. The doses of inotropic agents used were perhaps too high, adjusted to achieve maximal immediate inotropic effect, notwithstanding later consequences. The two-century-long history of digitalis parallels the positive inotropes of the 1980s in overuse and overdosage deviations. More judicious and selective use of those inotropes may have yielded different end-results (48, 49, 54). Even if the attempts to treat HF with inotropes failed, the concept itself may not be doomed to failure. Strengthening the weak heart was the primordial aim which appeared self-evident for generations of physicians and was incorporated in wishful thinking on digitalis inotropy. Positive inotropes are still expected to have significant roles in chronic HF treatment, but as part of an elaborate framework of concepts and not as a blunt overstimulation of already exhausted cardiac myocytes. A hiatus in the development of positive inotropes was followed by new cellular targets in the 2000s. Pharmacological and gene therapy approaches were directed at a key enzyme responsible for myocardial calcium homeostasis that is downregulated in HF: sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase (SERCA2a). Another concept is related to cardiac myosin activators, which are a new class of myotropes that improve myocardial function by directly augmenting cardiac sarcomere function. Omecamtiv mecarbil, the first of this class, augments cardiac contractility by selectively binding to cardiac myosin, thus increasing the number of myosin heads that can bind to the actin filament and initiate a power stroke at the start of systole (48, 54). The GALACTIC-HF trial (2021) showed that omecamtiv mecarbil reduced the incidence of a composite of a heart failure events and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (55, 56). However, FDA has declined to approve omecamtiv mecarbil, citing a lack of evidence on efficacy in 2023. No positive inotrope is currently approved for long-term use in HF. M. Packer, who formulated the hemodynamic model of HF in his original article (1993), did not pay much attention to the recognition of diastolic left ventricular dysfunction as the cause of HF. Though the pressure-volume relations during the cardiac cycle had already been recognized in the early 20th century and the term left ventricular lusitropy, denoting the rate of early diastolic relaxation, predated clinical concepts, clinical research did not recognize the concept of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction until the 1970s and clinical practice did not use it until the 1980s (57–66). This was a real paradigm shift, since until then only the impairment of left ventricular systolic function (i.e. contractility) was regarded as a cause of HF. It was only then that cardiologists realized that left ventricular systolic function was preserved in 40-50% of HF cases. It was assumed that diastolic dysfunction was the main culprit, accounting for at least 30% of all HF cases (62, 67–69). This led to the confusing question of how to treat those patients. Use of positive inotropic agents seemed senseless and diuretics necessary; the excess of fluid should be removed in any case. It was advised to do this cautiously, since the Frank Starling curve was supposed to be steep and shifted to the right. Therefore, a sudden contraction of intravascular volume could precipitate a sudden drop in stroke volume and cardiac output. Many small clinical studies and later some landmark hypertension trials showed that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists may improve left ventricular diastolic function in parallel with left ventricular hypertrophy regression better than BBs. The latter may yet provide beneficial effects on diastolic function by prolonging diastole. Calcium channel blockers proved to be controversial. The evidence on efficacy of those treatments in HF was only circumstantial, limited to surrogate hemodynamic data without the data on morbidity and mortality outcomes (66, 70, 71). The uncertainties about the treatment of HF due to the left ventricular diastolic dysfunction have been never resolved by clinical trials since the hemodynamic hypothesis fell into disrepute. The assessment of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in clinical practice is often indeterminate or elusive (72, 73). The conceptual advancements made clear that HF in patients with preserved systolic function cannot be simplistically reduced to diastolic dysfunction. The role of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in the pathophysiology of HF has not been ignored but has instead been incorporated into broader and more comprehensive concepts of HF with preserved systolic function, normal ejection fraction (HFNEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (74–79). These concepts outgrew the hemodynamically frame (77–81). ## THE NEUROHORMONAL HYPOTHESIS The neurohormonal hypothesis (1992-2019), as it was named, formulated, and dated by M. Packer, presented a radical paradigm-shift and a conceptual breakthrough which viewed HF as a systemic disorder involving a complex neurohormonal response with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone (RAAS) and adrenergic systems in protagonist roles (21–23). Senior cardiologists may remember that this approach emerged gradually, not because of ingenious thinking which revised pathophysiological concepts but rather arising empirically through studies on vasodilators. The first angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) captopril, first isolated from snake venom, introduced in 1981 and initially considered a plain vasodilator useful in arterial hypertension, proved to be superior to prazosin, hydralazine, and other pure vasodilators in the treatment of chronic HF. The advantage was explained by the blockade of detrimental neuroendocrine responses (34–36, 82). Following captopril, many other ACEis with specific qualities were developed. They provided a quantum leap in the treatments across the cardiovascular continuum. A series of landmark clinical trials evaluating the treatment of chronic HF with impaired left ventricular systolic function demonstrated that ACEis provided not only short-term hemodynamic improvements but also long-term benefits to morbidity and mortality. The most cited game-changing trials were CONSENSUS I (enalapril, 1987), VHeFT I (enalapril, 1991), SOLVD (enalapril, 1991), SAVE (captopril after myocardial infarction, 1992), AIRE (ramipril after myocardial infarction, 1993), and TRACE (trandolapril, after myocardial infarction, 1995) (83–89). An unprecedented breakthrough in HF trials with ACEs reinvigorated experimental scientific research on RAAS to explain those results and chart further advances. It became clear that besides of the endocrine component of RAAS, there was also a widespread tissue RAAS, with the heart, vessels, nervous system, and the kidneys as the main players. Endocrine (in blood), paracrine (in the tissues), and intracrine (in the cells), signaling was identified in addition to autocrine and juxtacrine RAAS. RAAS was recognized as a ubiquitous system for homeostasis and pathologies, biologically fundamental, with deep evolutionary roots and composed of ancient molecules. Its pivotal molecule, angiotensin II, an octapeptide with strong vasoconstrictive properties, arose in the early Cambrian ~500 million years ago, primarily as an epigenetic regulator of protein synthesis and growth-promoting factor. It is a key molecule in the signaling pathway of pathological myocardial hypertrophy and a potent promotor of atherogenesis (90–94). Until the 90s, positive inotropic agents (mainly digoxin) were deemed a mainstay of HF treatment. As the poor left ventricular systolic function was viewed as the main cause of HF, all drugs with negative inotropic effect were “absolutely contraindicated” according to the practice guidelines up to 1995 (95). The idea of using BBs as a primary therapy for congestive HF to improve symptoms and prognosis seemed paradoxical and dissenting. The cardiac community reacted with skepticism and disbelief when, in 1975, the pioneering report of Waagstein et al. gave an account on 7 cases of refractory HF in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy treated successfully by already forgotten BBs alprenolol and practolol (96, 97). This unorthodox approach may be viewed as a bailout in a desperate situation. Waagstein violated a taboo and stirred controversy. A change of opinion took time. Many small studies with surrogate endpoints only added to confusion. Decades were needed for scientific research to recognize the detrimental effects of maladaptive adrenergic response to declining systolic function and vindicate large controlled clinical trials (98). The methodology was honed in HF trials with ACEs. Landmark clinical trials convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of four BBs in improving morbidity and reducing mortality in the patients with “systolic” HF. Pioneering trials were: CIBIS I (bisoprolol, 1994), CIBIS II (bisoprolol 1999), US Carvedilol HF Trials Program (1996, carvedilol), and MERIT-HF (metoprolol, 2000) (99–103). Other important trials with bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol followed, while the SENIORS trial affirming nebivolol took place slightly later (2005) (104). While the ACEIs were introduced as vasodilators in the treatment of HF to improve hemodynamics and were only later recognized as neurohormonal agents, BBs were introduced primarily as neurohormonal agents. When M. Packer proposed his neurohormonal model of HF pathophysiology in 1993, BBs were only envisaged, but neither evaluated in clinical trials nor approved for the treatment of HF (23). The trials opened the door to the extensive use of BBs in the treatment of “systolic” HF and firmly established the neurohormonal concept. ACEIs and BBs took pole position in the guidelines for HF treatment on both sides of the Atlantic, sharing the first two positions (46, 105). The neurohormonal concept led to reappraisal of spironolactone. After 40 years spent in a modest role as an adjunct potassium sparing diuretic, following the RAALES trial (1999) spironolactone was revisited as an essential neurohormonal drug which reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with HF (16). Considering the key role of aldosterone receptors in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular and renal pathologies, the results of RAALES trial might have been expected, but the clear reduction in all-cause mortality sent a clear message. The EPHESUS trial (2003) showed that the selective aldosterone receptor blocker eplerenone reduced mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by HF (17). This evidence positioned mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) firmly in third place on the list of preferred HF drugs, after ACEIs and BBs, while digoxin was relegated to the low fourth position (106, 107). In 1992, research on angiotensin II led to losartan, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist with antihypertensive properties (108). It was a forerunner of the whole class of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) which have been used as an alternative to ACEs ever since. Candesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, valsartan, telmisartan, and olmesartan followed. Affirmed as an antihypertensive drug with heart and kidney protecting properties (RENAAL 2001; LIFE 2002), losartan was compared to captopril in the treatment of systolic HF ((ELITE I 1997; ELITE II, 2000) and acute myocardial infarction (OPTIMAAL 2002), showing non-inferiority with better tolerability (70, 109–113). The trials with newer ARBs upheld the message: ARBs are a noninferior alternative to ACEs in left ventricular systolic failure. Only valsartan (2001), candesartan (CHARM-Alternative 2003, CHARM-Added, 2023), losartan again (HEAAL, 2012), and to a lesser extent telmisartan (1999, 2010) were evaluated in “systolic” HF trials, while candesartan (CHARM-Preserved, 2003) and irbesartan (2008) were appraised in HF with preserved systolic function trials (114–121). European HF guidelines (2021) do not claim any preference for ACEs or ARBs, recommending them both as an alternative (IA). American guidelines (2022) prefer ACEs as the first choice in RAAS-naive patients (46, 105). The use of ARBs in the treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been upgraded recently by neprilysin inhibition which fits neatly with the neurohormonal concept of HF (122). In PARADIGM-HF Trial (2014) the dual-acting angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril valsartan reduced the composite endpoint of HF hospitalization and death in comparison with standard enalapril treatment (123, 124). ARNI therapy now has a class I indication for the treatment of patients with HFrEF (46, 105, 125). The evolutionarily highly conserved family of natriuretic peptides comprises the atrial, brain, and C-type peptides (ANP, BNP, and CNP). ANP and BNP, secreted by the atria and ventricles, operate via the natriuretic peptide receptors type A (NPR-A) and type B (NPR-B), which are coupled to guanyl cyclase, mediating biological effects. Those include vasodilatation, natriuresis, and diuresis, inhibition of the RAAS, endothelin, and vasopressin, along with lipid mobilization. ANP is degraded rapidly by endopeptidase neprilysin. The inhibition of neprilysin increases the levels of ANP in circulation, with beneficial effects in HF (122, 126, 127). Mechanistic reasoning may turn out to be overly simplistic when faced with the complexity of clinical medicine. Promising concepts may not work in clinical practice. Clinical trials may dash hopes placed in promising treatments. Nesiritide, a human recombinant B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) with vasodilatory properties, binds to receptors in the vasculature, kidney, and other organs to mimic the actions of endogenous natriuretic peptides. It was approved by the FDA in 2001 for use in patients with acute HF based on studies showing hemodynamic and symptomatic improvements. A few years after its approval (2005), nesiritide fell out of use because small studies seemed to indicate an increased risk of kidney problems and an increased death rate. The ASCEND-HF study (2011) showed no impact of nesiritide on death or HF hospitalization (128–132). Elevated resting heart rate has been linked to poor outcomes in patients with chronic systolic HF. Ivabradine may be added to neurohormonal treatments as the adjunctive therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to slow sinus rhythm. It inhibits “funny” pacemaker current (If) of the sinoatrial node, not affecting the AV node, inotropy, diastolic function, cardiac output, vascular resistance, or blood pressure (133, 134). Ivabradine should be considered (IIa indication) in the patients with LVEF ≤35% in sinus rhythm and with a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm who remain symptomatic despite optimally up-titrated BBs, ACEi/ARNI, and MRA based treatment (or in BB intolerant patients) to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death (46). Ivabradine is not a substitute for BBs (133). Neurohormonal activation is the crucial mechanism underlying the progression of HF, and therapeutic antagonism of neurohormonal systems has become the cornerstone of pharmacotherapy for HF. The perception of HF has changed: it is no longer regarded as a terminal syndrome with a dismal prognosis but as a treatable disorder (92). However, it was not possible to ignore the fact that neurohormonal inhibition did not work in patients with HFpEF, representing at least a half of all patients with HF. Their share has risen to >50%, owing mostly to the aging of the population. The typical phenotype are obese elderly women with a small, well-contracting left ventricle, diabetes, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation (77, 135). Diastolic left ventricular dysfunction is a risk factor but not the main cause of HF. Landmark HF studies with RAAS antagonists and BBs excluded patients with LV EF ≥40%. Trials with candesartan, irbesartan, and spironolactone, designed to explicitly address the efficacy of RAAS antagonists in patients with EF ≥40%, yielded disappointing results. The CHARM-Preserved trial with candesartan (2003) showed only a moderate reduction in hospital admissions among patients with HF with LVEF >40%. The I-PRESERVE trial (2008) with irbesartan was neutral about outcomes in patients with HF with LVEF ≥45%. The TOPCAT trial (2014) demonstrated that in patients with HF and LVEF ≥45%, the treatment with spironolactone did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalisation (120, 121, 136). Failure of neurohormonal inhibition to improve HFpEF took the cardiac community aback since the prognosis of HFpEF may be as grave as that of HFrEF (137). Cardiologists were at a loss since a huge population of patients with HFpEF was left without any treatment strategy. Judicious use of diuretics for decongestion was the only treatment remaining, along with the treatment of comorbidities (138, 139). HFpEF is a phenotypically and pathophysiologically heterogeneous disorder in which therapy should target the underlying phenotypes, etiologies, and comorbidities, but such an approach was frustratingly complex (140). Relying on speculative treatment of LV diastolic dysfunction based on hemodynamics did not help. New treatment strategies were needed. The cut-off point for HFpEF of 40-45% was set to distinguish HFpEF from HFrEF of earlier HF trials. However, trials like CHARM-Preserved and TOPCAT indicated the presence of a transitional EF range from 40% to 49% where the beneficial effects of candesartan and spironolactone were better than with EF ≥50%, albeit not as good as with 2+. This is due to SGLT2i-induced decline in hepcidin and ferritin levels. which alleviates functional iron deficit mediated by the HF inflammatory milieu (156, 162, 163). In the failing heart, glucose transporter type 1 (GLUT1) levels are upregulated, along with excessive glycolysis and defective glucose oxidation, causing cytosolic accumulation of injurious glucose intermediates that activate mTOR and suppress nutrient-deprivation signaling. The uptake of long-chain fatty acids rises, but their oxidation is defective, impairing ATP production and causing cytosolic accumulation of toxic lipid intermediates, worsened by mitochondrial and nutrient-deprivation signaling dysfunction. The ensuing cytosolic accumulation of amino acids activates mTOR. SGLT2is cure the abnormalities in glucose, long-chain fatty acid, and amino acid metabolism by inhibiting GLUT1, stimulating nutrient-deprivation signaling, and restoring mitochondrial vitality. This improves nutrient oxidation and oxidative phosphorylation, preventing cytosolic accumulation of harmful glucose and lipid by-products (162, 163). With regard to HF, fluid accumulation pattern is critical. SGLT2is may differentially regulate the interstitial vs. intravascular compartment when compared with loop diuretics. In congestive HF, interstitial edema is the hallmark of disease. SGLT2 inhibitors may selectively reduce interstitial volume with minimal change in blood volume, whereas loop diuretics reduce both interstitial and intravascular volume. It has been assumed that this differential volume regulation by SGLT2is (interstitial > intravascular) may limit the aberrant reflex neurohormonal stimulation induced by intravascular volume depletion (153). The crucial question arises how SGLT2is work in HFpEF. The answer is complex, reflecting the heterogeneity of HFpEF phenotypes and the intricacy of SGLT2i actions. Many pieces of this jigsaw puzzle have been put together, noting the considerable overlapping between HFpEF and HFrEF. SGLT2is have been shown to induce a nutrient-deprivation and hypoxic-like transcriptional paradigm, with increased ketosis, erythropoietin, and autophagic flux in addition to altering iron homeostasis, which may improve cardiac energetics and function. These agents also reduce epicardial adipose tissue and modify adipokine signaling attenuating inflammation and oxidative stress. SGLT2is may affect cardiomyocyte ionic homeostasis. Finally, they have been shown to reduce myofilament stiffness as well as extracellular matrix remodeling/fibrosis in the heart, improving diastolic function. The research on the salutary mechanisms of SGLT2is in HFpEF is expected to improve both the understanding of HFpEF and its treatment (164). The key-message from SGLT2i trials is that cellular stress, unrecognized in previous concepts, is essential for HF pathophysiology. The quest for efficient treatments was the main driver behind this evolution of concepts. The new concept did not repeal but instead revised the previous ones, improving treatment strategies. Modern HFrEF and partly HFmrEF treatments are based on four pillars (besides diuretics): 1) ACEIs or ARBs, preferably in ARNI combination, 2) BBs, 3) MRAs, and 4) SGLT2is (listed chronologically). With regard to HFpEF, besides omnipresent diuretics, there are SGLT2is which span the entire EF spectrum, rendering EF irrelevant. Quadruple therapy with ARNI, BB, MRAs, and SGLT2is has been established as first-line therapy for patients with HFrEF in current HF guidelines. There is increasing evidence that many patients with HF with an LVEF >40% may benefit from these medications. SGLT2is are beneficial regardless of ejection fraction. HFpEF treatment should be targeted according to the underlying phenotype, comorbidities ant etiology. The hypertensive phenotype often requires ACEIs, ARBs, BBs, and not rarely MRAs, irrespectively of preserved EF, blurring the distinction between HFrEF and HFpEF. Obese and diabetic phenotypes may benefit greatly from GLP1 receptor agonists, in addition to SGLT2i (140, 165). Some inconsistencies may be observed in clinical practice with regard to the use of MRAs in patients with HFpEF. The guidelines neither recommend the use of MRAs in those patients, nor oppose it. The question has been addressed in the 2023 update, since many patients with HFpEF who benefited from SGLT2i received MRAs and other neurohormonal inhibitors. The TOPCAT trial with spironolactone found generally neutral results but with ambiguity in interpretation due to marked regional differences in patient selection. A small trial (RAAM-PEF, 2011) demonstrated that the use of epleronone in patients with HFpEF was associated with significant reduction in markers of collagen turnover and improvement in diastolic function. Thus, it may make sense to prescribe a MRA drug along with a loop diuretic in patients with HFpEF (125, 166, 167). A new entity called HF with recovered (or improved) ejection fraction (HFrecEF) has been recently recognized, along with uncertainties about prognosis and treatment (168–171). The data from the DELIVER trial indicate that these patients benefit from SGLT2 inhibition (161). The idea that the failing myocardium recapitulates the fetal signaling program has been generally accepted but has been recently revisited and reinvigorated. The reactivation of fetal beta-myosin heavy chain isoform replacing the mature α variant and the shift from fatty acids to glucose as the main “fuel” in the myocytes of the failing heart are well-known examples. Fetal reprogramming is adaptive in the short time but is deleterious if sustained for long periods (172). The uridine diphosphate N-acetylglucosamine (UDP-GlcNAc) molecule has been identified recently as a hub of fetal reprogramming in the failing heart. Prolonged increases in glucose uptake in overburdened cardiac myocytes, especially when SIRT1 and AMPK signaling is suppressed, enhances the hexosamine biosynthesis pathway. Its final product, UDP-GlcNAc, acts as a critical nutrient surplus sensor. UDP-GlcNAc is the key step for O-GlcNAcylation, which in collusion with mTOR-mediated phosphorylation rapidly and reversibly modifies a multitude of intracellular proteins in the nucleus, cytoplasm, and mitochondria. The deleterious effects are impaired calcium kinetics with contractile dysfunction, arrhythmias related to activation of voltage-gated sodium channels and Ca2+/CaMKII, mitochondrial dysfunction, maladaptive hypertrophy, fibrosis, and HF. Damage can be prevented by muting of O-GlcNAcylation, which poses a challenge for innovations, including the use of m-RNA technologies (173). It turns out that chronic HF is heterogeneous disorder defying unifying concepts and treatment approaches. Ejection fraction is only an imperfect tool to distinguish between the phenotypes with different treatment strategies (174). The concept of cellular stress identifies common denominators at a cellular level. This raises hopes that experimental research will create new drugs based on this concept. Unfortunately, the experience of previous blind alleys in research paths teaches that disappointment is a companion of hope. Positive inotropic agents and nesiritide are the examples. Monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) etanercept and infliximab raised high hopes in the treatment of HF, considering the role of detrimental inflammatory response in the process of adverse myocardial remodeling. However, the clinical trials RECOVER, RENNESAINCE, and ATTACH dashed these hopes in 2001 (175, 176). ## Concluding remarks All that remains is to briefly comment on the evolving understanding of HF from simplistic clinical concepts to the thesis of a complex multicausal and multiorgan disorder. Viewpoints shifted from a mechanistic approach all the way down to the cellular level. Osler viewed HF as a terminal decompensated stage of many cardiac diseases. The diagnosis was based on clinical symptoms and signs alone. The traditional approach prevailed up to the 70s, when cardiac imaging provided hemodynamic quantitation. At the end of century, the neurohormonal concept stimulated the progress of laboratory diagnostics, leading to the launch of the NT-proBNP assay which enabled early recognition and monitoring of HF. Traditionally, the severity of symptoms was graded by NYHA functional classes from I to IV. The A-B-C-D HF staging was introduced in the USA in 2001. It describes the development of HF ranging from risk factors (A), structural heart disease without (B) and with prior or current failure symptoms (C), to refractory HF (D). European guidelines do not use such symbolic numeration but also describe the course of HF comprehensively, ranging from etiological factors to the advanced stage. Such a view contrasts with the historical notion of HF as a terminal edematous state with an ominous prognosis and detrimental clinical course (24, 177, 178). This review focused on the pathophysiological concepts of HF in line with pharmacological management. A comprehensive approach includes other aspects, starting with preventive lifestyle changes. Devices, like cardiac resynchronization, physiological pacing, and implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD), have improved clinical outcomes in addition to the drugs. Older outcome trials with HF drugs, conducted before the ICDs became a standard of care, are difficult to compare with the newer ones. Conversely, new HF treatments appear to reduce the benefit of ICD by decreasing the risk of sudden cardiac death (179, 180). Surgical or alternatively percutaneous revascularization has showed hardly any benefits on outcomes in the treatment of HF (HFrEF) due to ischemic heart disease. It may (or should) yet be considered in patients carefully selected on an individual basis (181–183). Epigenetic modulation, including mRNA technologies, is offering new prospects for treatment (184, 185). Regenerative strategies, which caused enthusiasm in the cardiac community two decades ago but then stalled, have been recently revisited (186–190). The modern armamentarium for HF treatment includes a gamut of approaches with cellular drugs and heart transplant at opposite sides of the spectrum. However, heart transplant is a bail-out action, while the drugs are the mainstay. The diversity of treatment approaches reflects the complexity of HF pathophysiology, unmet needs (HF is still a detrimental disorder), and insufficient understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Reducing HF pathophysiology to the malfunction of the heart pump, with failure of the kidneys to excrete the excess of retained extracellular fluid, proved to be a simplistic concept insufficient for efficient treatment strategies. Adding the hemodynamics of circulation to the concept did not help much either; the resulting pharmacological interventions may have brought some temporary relief but without any impact on the final outcomes. Only a paradigm shift, discovering that the hub of HF pathophysiology is a detrimental systemic neurohormonal response, led to a breakthrough with reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including mortality) by pharmacological neurohormonal inhibition. HFpEF, where neurohormonal inhibition did not work, exposed the gaps in understanding. Chance discovery of SGLT2is, which are also beneficial for HFpEF and cardiorenal syndrome, highlighted the cellular aspects of HF. Revisiting cellular pathophysiology of the failing heart and the related organs, especially of the kidneys, holds promise to find new avenues of HF treatment. From the viewpoint of experimental research in cardiology, modulation of mitochondrial function may be one of those avenues (191–194).

Literature

Katz AM. The “modern” view of heart failure: how did we get here? Circ Heart Fail. 2008 May;1(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.108.772756

Katz AM. Evolving concepts of heart failure: cooling furnace, malfunctioning pump, enlarging muscle. Part II: Hypertrophy and dilatation of the failing heart. J Card Fail. 1998 March;4(1):67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-9164(98)90509-7

Osler W. Practice of medicine, designed for the use of practitioners and students of medicine. New York: A. Appleton and Company; 1892. p 634.

Leech CB. An improvement of Southey’s tubes. J Am Med Assoc. 1936;106(22):1895–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1936.92770220001009a

Jacobs MS. The history of digitalis therapy. Ann Med Hist. 1936;8(6):492–9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33943518/

Hauptman PJ, Kelly RA. Digitalis. Circulation. 1999 March 9;99(9):1265–70. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.99.9.1265

Wade OL. Digoxin 1785-1985. I. Two hundred years of digitalis. J Clin Hosp Pharm. 1986 February;11(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2710.1986.tb00822.x

Fisch C. William Withering: An account of the foxglove and some of its medical uses 1785-1985. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985 May;5(5) Suppl A:1A–2A. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(85)80456-3

Davis RC, Hobbs FD, Lip GY. ABC of heart failure. History and epidemiology. BMJ. 2000 January 1;320(7226):39–42. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7226.39

Ray CT. Mercurial diuretics; their mechanism of action and application. AMA Arch Intern Med. 1958 December;102(6):1016–23. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1958.00260230162020

Moser M, Feig PU. Fifty years of thiazide diuretic therapy for hypertension. Arch Intern Med. 2009 November 9;169(20):1851–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.342

Felker GM, Ellison DH, Mullens W, Cox ZL, Testani JM. Diuretic Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 March 17;75(10):1178–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.059

Stokes W. A NEW EFFECTIVE DIURETIC--LASIX. BMJ. 1964 October 10;2(5414):910–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.5414.910

Mullens W, Damman K, Harjola VP, Mebazaa A, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Martens P, et al. The use of diuretics in heart failure with congestion - a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019 February;21(2):137–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1369

Sabbadin C, Calò LA, Armanini D. The story of spironolactones from 1957 to now: from sodium balance to inflammation. G Ital Nefrol. 2016 Feb;33 Suppl 66:33.S66.12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26913880/

Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, Cody R, Castaigne A, Perez A, et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999 September 2;341(10):709–17. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199909023411001

Pitt B, Remme W, Zannad F, Neaton J, Martinez F, Roniker B, et al. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003 April 3;348(14):1309–21. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa030207

Agarwal R, Filippatos G, Pitt B, Anker SD, Rossing P, Joseph A, et al. Cardiovascular and kidney outcomes with finerenone in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: the FIDELITY pooled analysis. Eur Heart J. 2022 February 10;43(6):474–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab777

Hampton JR. Results of clinical trials with diuretics in heart failure. Br Heart J. 1994 August;72(2) Suppl:S68–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.72.2_Suppl.S68

Cody RJ. Clinical trials of diuretic therapy in heart failure: research directions and clinical considerations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 October;22(4) Suppl A:165A–71A. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(93)90484-I

Packer M. Pathophysiology of chronic heart failure. Lancet. 1992 July 11;340(8811):88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(92)90405-R

Packer M. How should physicians view heart failure? The philosophical and physiological evolution of three conceptual models of the disease. Am J Cardiol. 1993 March 25;71(9):3C–11C. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(93)90081-M

Packer M. The neurohormonal hypothesis: a theory to explain the mechanism of disease progression in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992 July;20(1):248–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(92)90167-L

Packer M. ESC Rene Laennec Lecture on Clinical Cardiology. In: ESC Congress, 25 Aug 2023.

Digitalis Investigation Group. The effect of digoxin on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1997 February 20;336(8):525–33. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199702203360801

Digitalis Investigation Group, Ahmed A, Waagstein F, Pitt B, White M, Zannad F, Young JB, et al. Effectiveness of digoxin in reducing one-year mortality in chronic heart failure in the Digitalis Investigation Group trial. Am J Cardiol. 2009 January 1;103(1):82–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.06.068

Lopes RD, Rordorf R, De Ferrari GM, Leonardi S, Thomas L, Wojdyla DM, et al. Digoxin and Mortality in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 March 13;71(10):1063–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.060

Aguirre Dávila L, Weber K, Bavendiek U, Bauersachs J, Wittes J, Yusuf S, et al. Digoxin-mortality: randomized vs. observational comparison in the DIG trial. Eur Heart J. 2019 October 21;40(40):3336–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz395

Vamos M, Erath JW, Hohnloser SH. Digoxin-associated mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur Heart J. 2015 July 21;36(28):1831–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv143

Packer M, Meller J. Oral vasodilator therapy for chronic heart failure: a plea for caution. Am J Cardiol. 1978 October;42(4):686–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(78)90642-2

Packer M. Vasodilator and inotropic therapy for severe chronic heart failure: passion and skepticism. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983 November;2(5):841–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(83)80230-7

Perret C, Gardaz JP, Reynaert M, Grimbert F, Enrico JF. Phentolamine for vasodilator therapy in left ventricular failure complicating acute myocardial infarction. Haemodynamic study. Br Heart J. 1975 June;37(6):640–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.37.6.640

Aronow WS, Lurie M, Turbow M, Whittaker K, Van Camp S, Hughes D. Effect of prazosin vs placebo on chronic left ventricular heart failure. Circulation. 1979 February;59(2):344–50. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.59.2.344

Mettauer B, Rouleau JL, Bichet D, Kortas C, Manzini C, Tremblay G, et al. Differential long-term intrarenal and neurohormonal effects of captopril and prazosin in patients with chronic congestive heart failure: importance of initial plasma renin activity. Circulation. 1986 March;73(3):492–502. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.73.3.492

Bayliss J, Norell MS, Canepa-Anson R, Reid C, Poole-Wilson P, Sutton G. Clinical importance of the renin-angiotensin system in chronic heart failure: double blind comparison of captopril and prazosin. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985 June 22;290(6485):1861–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.290.6485.1861

Rouleau JL, Chatterjee K, Benge W, Parmley WW, Hiramatsu B. Alterations in left ventricular function and coronary hemodynamics with captopril, hydralazine and prazosin in chronic ischemic heart failure: a comparative study. Circulation. 1982 April;65(4):671–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.65.4.671

Loeb HS, Johnson G, Henrick A, Smith R, Wilson J, Cremo R, et al. Effect of enalapril, hydralazine plus isosorbide dinitrate, and prazosin on hospitalization in patients with chronic congestive heart failure. The V-HeFT VA Cooperative Studies Group. Circulation. 1993 Jun;87(6 Suppl):VI78-87. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8500244/

Cole RT, Kalogeropoulos AP, Georgiopoulou VV, Gheorghiade M, Quyyumi A, Yancy C, et al. Hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate in heart failure: historical perspective, mechanisms, and future directions. Circulation. 2011 May 31;123(21):2414–22. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.012781

Elkayam U, Shotan A, Mehra A, Ostrzega E. Calcium channel blockers in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 October;22(4) Suppl A:139A–44A. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(93)90478-J

Elkayam U. Calcium channel blockers in heart failure. Cardiology. 1998;89 Suppl 1:38–46. https://doi.org/10.1159/000047278

Konstam MA, Smith JJ, Patten R, Udelson JE. Calcium channel blockers in heart failure: help or hindrance? J Card Fail. 1996 December;2(4) Suppl:S251–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-9164(96)80085-6

Packer M. Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the adverse effects of calcium channel-blocking drugs in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation. 1989 Dec;80(6 Suppl):IV59-67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2688986/

Packer M, Kessler PD, Lee WH. Calcium-channel blockade in the management of severe chronic congestive heart failure: a bridge too far. Circulation. 1987 Jun;75(6 Pt 2):V56-64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3552317/

Arrigo M, Jessup M, Mullens W, Reza N, Shah AM, Sliwa K, et al. Acute heart failure. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020 March 5;6(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-020-0151-7

Metra M, Teerlink JR, Voors AA, Felker GM, Milo-Cotter O, Weatherley B, et al. Vasodilators in the treatment of acute heart failure: what we know, what we don’t. Heart Fail Rev. 2009 December;14(4):299–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10741-008-9127-5

McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021 September 21;42(36):3599–726. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368

Mullens W, Abrahams Z, Francis GS, Skouri HN, Starling RC, Young JB, et al. Sodium nitroprusside for advanced low-output heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 July 15;52(3):200–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.02.083

Ahmad T, Miller PE, McCullough M, Desai NR, Riello R, Psotka M, et al. Why has positive inotropy failed in chronic heart failure? Lessons from prior inotrope trials. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019 September;21(9):1064–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1557

Packer M. The development of positive inotropic agents for chronic heart failure: how have we gone astray? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 October;22(4) Suppl A:119A–26A. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(93)90474-F

Petersen JW, Felker GM. Inotropes in the management of acute heart failure. Crit Care Med. 2008 January;36(1) Suppl:S106–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000296273.72952.39

Amin A, Maleki M. Positive inotropes in heart failure: a review article. Heart Asia. 2012 January 1;4(1):16–22. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartasia-2011-010068

Belletti A, Castro ML, Silvetti S, Greco T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Pasin L, et al. The Effect of inotropes and vasopressors on mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Br J Anaesth. 2015 November;115(5):656–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev284

Bistola V, Arfaras-Melainis A, Polyzogopoulou E, Ikonomidis I, Parissis J. Inotropes in Acute Heart Failure: From Guidelines to Practical Use: Therapeutic Options and Clinical Practice. Card Fail Rev. 2019 November 4;5(3):133–9. https://doi.org/10.15420/cfr.2019.11.2

Francis GS, Bartos JA, Adatya S. Inotropes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 May 27;63(20):2069–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.01.016

Teerlink JR, Diaz R, Felker GM, McMurray JJV, Metra M, Solomon SD, et al. GALACTIC-HF Investigators. Cardiac Myosin Activation with Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Systolic Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2021 January 14;384(2):105–16. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2025797

Cleland JG, Teerlink JR, Senior R, Nifontov EM, Mc Murray JJ, Lang CC, et al. The effects of the cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, on cardiac function in systolic heart failure: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, dose-ranging phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2011 August 20;378(9792):676–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61126-4

Katz AM. Influence of altered inotropy and lusitropy on ventricular pressure-volume loops. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988 February;11(2):438–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(88)90113-1

Gibson DG, Brown D. Measurement of instantaneous left ventricular volumes and filling rate in man by echocardiography. Br Heart J. 1973 May;35(5):559. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4716043/

Upton MT, Gibson DG, Brown DJ. Echocardiographic assessment of abnormal left ventricular relaxation in man. Br Heart J. 1976 October;38(10):1001–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.38.10.1001

Gaasch WH, Levine HJ, Quinones MA, Alexander JK. Left ventricular compliance: mechanisms and clinical implications. Am J Cardiol. 1976 November 4;38(5):645–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(76)80015-X

Ng KS, Gibson DG. Impairment of diastolic function by shortened filling period in severe left ventricular disease. Br Heart J. 1989 October;62(4):246–52. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.62.4.246

Vasan RS, Benjamin EJ, Levy D. Prevalence, clinical features and prognosis of diastolic heart failure: an epidemiologic perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 December;26(7):1565–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(95)00381-9

Yamamoto K, Redfield MM, Nishimura RA. Analysis of left ventricular diastolic function. Heart. 1996 June;75(6) Suppl 2:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.75.6_Suppl_2.27

Vasan RS, Levy D. Defining diastolic heart failure: a call for standardized diagnostic criteria. Circulation. 2000 May 2;101(17):2118–21. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.101.17.2118

van Kraaij DJ, van Pol PE, Ruiters AW, de Swart JB, Lips DJ, Lencer N, et al. Diagnosing diastolic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2002 August;4(4):419–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-9842(02)00020-X

Jorge García M. Diagnóstico y guía terapéutica de la insuficiencia cardíaca diastólica [Diagnosis and therapeutic guidance of diastolic heart failure]. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2003 Apr;56(4):396-406. Spanish. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-8932(03)76884-5

Zile MR, Baicu CF, Gaasch WH. Diastolic heart failure--abnormalities in active relaxation and passive stiffness of the left ventricle. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 6;350(19):1953–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa032566

Bursi F, Weston SA, Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Pakhomov S, Nkomo VT, et al. Systolic and diastolic heart failure in the community. JAMA. 2006 November 8;296(18):2209–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.18.2209

Kane GC, Karon BL, Mahoney DW, Redfield MM, Roger VL, Burnett JC, et al. Progression of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and risk of heart failure. JAMA. 2011 August 24;306(8):856–63. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1201

Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, de Faire U, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002 March 23;359(9311):995–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08089-3

Greve AM, Olsen MH, Bella JN, Lønnebakken MT, Gerdts E, Okin PM, et al. Contrasting hemodynamic mechanisms of losartan- vs. atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment: a LIFE study. Am J Hypertens. 2012 September;25(9):1017–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajh.2012.81

Oh JK, Miranda WR, Bird JG, Kane GC, Nagueh SF. The 2016 Diastolic Function Guideline: Is it Already Time to Revisit or Revise Them? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 January;13(1 Pt 2):327–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.12.004

Nagueh SF. Left Ventricular Diastolic Function: Understanding Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Prognosis With Echocardiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 January;13(1 Pt 2):228–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.10.038

Senni M, Redfield MM. Heart failure with preserved systolic function. A different natural history? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 November 1;38(5):1277–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01567-4

Burkhoff D, Maurer MS, Packer M. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction: is it really a disorder of diastolic function? Circulation. 2003 February 11;107(5):656–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000053947.82595.03

Maurer MS. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction (HFNEF): embracing complexity. J Card Fail. 2009 September;15(7):561–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2009.04.004

Lewis GA, Schelbert EB, Williams SG, Cunnington C, Ahmed F, McDonagh TA, et al. Biological Phenotypes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 October 24;70(17):2186–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.006

Sanderson JE. HFNEF, HFpEF, HF-PEF, or DHF: what is in an acronym? JACC Heart Fail. 2014 February;2(1):93–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2013.09.006

Sanderson JE. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction. Heart. 2007 February;93(2):155–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2005.074187

Parikh KS, Sharma K, Fiuzat M, Surks HK, George JT, Honarpour N, et al. Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Expert Panel Report: Current Controversies and Implications for Clinical Trials. JACC Heart Fail. 2018 August;6(8):619–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2018.06.008

Mishra S, Kass DA. Cellular and molecular pathobiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021 June;18(6):400–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-020-00480-6

Cleland JG, Dargie HJ, Hodsman GP, Ball SG, Robertson JI, Morton JJ, et al. Captopril in heart failure. A double blind controlled trial. Br Heart J. 1984 November;52(5):530–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.52.5.530

CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure. Results of the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS). N Engl J Med. 1987 June 4;316(23):1429–35. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198706043162301

Cohn JN, Johnson G, Ziesche S, Cobb F, Francis G, Tristani F, et al. A comparison of enalapril with hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1991 August 1;325(5):303–10. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199108013250502

Francis GS, Cohn JN, Johnson G, Rector TS, Goldman S, Simon A. Plasma norepinephrine, plasma renin activity, and congestive heart failure. Relations to survival and the effects of therapy in V-HeFT II. The V-HeFT VA Cooperative Studies Group. Circulation. 1993 Jun;87(6 Suppl):VI40-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8500238/

SOLVD Investigators, Yusuf S, Pitt B, Davis CE, Hood WB, Cohn JN. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1991 August 1;325(5):293–302. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199108013250501

Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moyé LA, Basta L, Brown EJ, Cuddy TE, et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Results of the survival and ventricular enlargement trial. The SAVE Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1992 September 3;327(10):669–77. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199209033271001

Effect of ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivors of acute myocardial infarction with clinical evidence of heart failure. The Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study Investigators. Lancet. 1993 Oct 2;342(8875):821-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8104270/

Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C, Carlsen JE, Bagger H, Eliasen P, Lyngborg K, et al. A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation (TRACE) Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1995 December 21;333(25):1670–6. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199512213332503

Patel S, Rauf A, Khan H, Abu-Izneid T. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone (RAAS): The ubiquitous system for homeostasis and pathologies. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017 October;94:317–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2017.07.091

Muñoz-Durango N, Fuentes CA, Castillo AE, González-Gómez LM, Vecchiola A, Fardella CE, et al. Role of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System beyond Blood Pressure Regulation: Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms Involved in End-Organ Damage during Arterial Hypertension. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 June 23;17(7):797. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17070797

Hartupee J, Mann DL. Neurohormonal activation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017 January;14(1):30–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2016.163

Fournier D, Luft FC, Bader M, Ganten D, Andrade-Navarro MA. Emergence and evolution of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. J Mol Med (Berl). 2012 May;90(5):495–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00109-012-0894-z

Katz AM. Angiotensin II: hemodynamic regulator or growth factor? J Mol Cell Cardiol. 1990 July;22(7):739–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2828(90)90086-H

Maggioni AP. Heart Failure: Treatment strategies for heart failure: beta blockers and antiarrhythmics. Heart. 2001 January;85(1):97–103. https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.85.1.97

Waagstein F, Hjalmarson A, Varnauskas E, Wallentin I. Effect of chronic beta-adrenergic receptor blockade in congestive cardiomyopathy. Br Heart J. 1975 October;37(10):1022–36. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.37.10.1022

Nicholls M. Finn Waagstein MD PhD: Finn Waagstein reflects on his work and research which saw beta-blockers revolutionise the treatment of heart failure patients. Mark Nicholls reports. Eur Heart J. 2017 November 21;38(44):3249–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx618

Waagstein F, Rutherford JD. The Evolution of the Use of β-Blockers to Treat Heart Failure: A Conversation With Finn Waagstein, MD. Circulation. 2017 September 5;136(10):889–93. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029934

A randomized trial of beta-blockade in heart failure. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS). CIBIS Investigators and Committees. Circulation. 1994 October;90(4):1765–73. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.90.4.1765

The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II). a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999 Jan 2;353(9146):9-13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10023943/

Erdmann E, Lechat P, Verkenne P, Wiemann H. Results from post-hoc analyses of the CIBIS II trial: effect of bisoprolol in high-risk patient groups with chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2001 August;3(4):469–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-9842(01)00174-X

Packer M, Bristow MR, Cohn JN, Colucci WS, Fowler MB, Gilbert EM, et al. The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996 May 23;334(21):1349–55. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199605233342101

Hjalmarson A, Goldstein S, Fagerberg B, Wedel H, Waagstein F, Kjekshus J, et al. Effects of controlled-release metoprolol on total mortality, hospitalizations, and well-being in patients with heart failure: the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in congestive heart failure (MERIT-HF). MERIT-HF Study Group. JAMA. 2000 March 8;283(10):1295–302. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.10.1295

Flather MD, Shibata MC, Coats AJ, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Parkhomenko A, Borbola J, et al. SENIORS Investigators. Randomized trial to determine the effect of nebivolol on mortality and cardiovascular hospital admission in elderly patients with heart failure (SENIORS). Eur Heart J. 2005 February;26(3):215–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi115

Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022 May 3;145(18):e895–1032. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063

Struthers AD. Aldosterone blockade in heart failure. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst. 2004 September;5 Suppl 1:S23–7. https://doi.org/10.3317/JRAAS.2004.021

Struthers AD. Angiotensin blockade or aldosterone blockade as the third neuroendocrine-blocking drug in mild but symptomatic heart failure patients. Heart. 2006 December;92(12):1728–31. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2005.068668

Timmermans PB, Duncia JV, Carini DJ, Chiu AT, Wong PC, Wexler RR, et al. Discovery of losartan, the first angiotensin II receptor antagonist. J Hum Hypertens. 1995 Nov;9 Suppl 5:S3-18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8583479/

Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Keane WF, Mitch WE, Parving HH, et al. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001 September 20;345(12):861–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa011161

Pitt B, Segal R, Martinez FA, Meurers G, Cowley AJ, Thomas I, et al. Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE). Lancet. 1997 March 15;349(9054):747–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)01187-2

Pitt B, Poole-Wilson PA, Segal R, Martinez FA, Dickstein K, Camm AJ, et al. Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial--the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II. Lancet. 2000 May 6;355(9215):1582–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02213-3

Pitt B. Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE) Trial: clinical implications. Eur Heart J. 1997 August;18(8):1197–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a015425

Dickstein K, Kjekshus J, OPTIMAAL Steering Committee of the OPTIMAAL Study Group. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan. Lancet. 2002 September 7;360(9335):752–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09895-1

Cohn JN, Tognoni G, Valsartan Heart Failure Trial Investigators. A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001 December 6;345(23):1667–75. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa010713

Granger CB, McMurray JJ, Yusuf S, Held P, Michelson EL, Olofsson B, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative trial. Lancet. 2003 September 6;362(9386):772–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14284-5

McMurray JJ, Ostergren J, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, Michelson EL, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial. Lancet. 2003 September 6;362(9386):767–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14283-3

Weir RA, McMurray JJ, Puu M, Solomon SD, Olofsson B, Granger CB, et al. CHARM Investigators. Efficacy and tolerability of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with heart failure already receiving an angiotensin-converting inhibitor plus aldosterone antagonist, with or without a beta blocker. Findings from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Added trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2008 February;10(2):157–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejheart.2007.12.006

Kiernan MS, Wentworth D, Francis G, Martinez FA, Dickstein K, Komajda M, et al. Predicting adverse events during angiotensin receptor blocker treatment in heart failure: results from the HEAAL trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012 December;14(12):1401–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfs145

Parker AB, Azevedo ER, Baird MG, Smith SJ, Arnold JM, Humen DP, et al. ARCTIC: assessment of haemodynamic response in patients with congestive heart failure to telmisartan: a multicentre dose-ranging study in Canada. Am Heart J. 1999 November;138(5 Pt 1):843–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8703(99)70008-6

Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial. Lancet. 2003 September 6;362(9386):777–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14285-7

Massie BM, Carson PE, McMurray JJ, Komajda M, McKelvie R, Zile MR, et al. I-PRESERVE Investigators. Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2008 December 4;359(23):2456–67. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0805450

Hubers SA, Brown NJ. Combined Angiotensin Receptor Antagonism and Neprilysin Inhibition. Circulation. 2016 March 15;133(11):1115–24. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018622

McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, et al. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014 September 11;371(11):993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1409077

Docherty KF, Vaduganathan M, Solomon SD, McMurray JJV. Sacubitril/Valsartan: Neprilysin Inhibition 5 Years After PARADIGM-HF. JACC Heart Fail. 2020 October;8(10):800–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2020.06.020

McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2023 October 1;44(37):3627–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad195

Inoue K, Naruse K, Yamagami S, Mitani H, Suzuki N, Takei Y. Four functionally distinct C-type natriuretic peptides found in fish reveal evolutionary history of the natriuretic peptide system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003 August 19;100(17):10079–84. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1632368100

Fu S, Ping P, Wang F, Luo L. Synthesis, secretion, function, metabolism and application of natriuretic peptides in heart failure. J Biol Eng. 2018 January 12;12:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-017-0093-0

Wylie JV, Tsao L. Nesiritide for the treatment of decompensated heart failure. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2004 November;2(6):803–13. https://doi.org/10.1586/14779072.2.6.803

Topol EJ. Nesiritide - not verified. N Engl J Med. 2005 July 14;353(2):113–6. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp058139

O’Connor CM, Starling RC, Hernandez AF, Armstrong PW, Dickstein K, Hasselblad V, et al. Effect of nesiritide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2011 July 7;365(1):32–43. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1100171

Egom EE. BNP and Heart Failure: Preclinical and Clinical Trial Data. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2015 April;8(3):149–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-015-9619-3

Kittleson MM. Nesiritide and Me. Circ Heart Fail. 2018 August;11(8):e005440. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.118.005440

Psotka MA, Teerlink JR. Ivabradine: Role in the Chronic Heart Failure Armamentarium. Circulation. 2016 May 24;133(21):2066–75. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018094

Orasanu G, Al-Kindi SG, Oliveira GH. Ivabradine in Management of Heart Failure: a Critical Appraisal. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2016 February;13(1):60–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-016-0276-x

Lam CSP, Chandramouli C. Fat, Female, Fatigued: Features of the Obese HFpEF Phenotype. JACC Heart Fail. 2018 August;6(8):710–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2018.06.006

Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Claggett B, et al. TOPCAT Investigators. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2014 April 10;370(15):1383–92. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1313731

Liang M, Bian B, Yang Q. Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2022 January;45(1):5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.23754

Komajda M, Lam CS. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a clinical dilemma. Eur Heart J. 2014 April;35(16):1022–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu067

Talha KM, Butler J. Breakthroughs in the treatment of heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Clin Cardiol. 2022 Jun;45 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S31-S39. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.23846

Senni M, Paulus WJ, Gavazzi A, Fraser AG, Díez J, Solomon SD, et al. New strategies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the importance of targeted therapies for heart failure phenotypes. Eur Heart J. 2014 October 21;35(40):2797–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu204

Lam CS, Teng TH. Understanding Heart Failure With Mid-Range Ejection Fraction. JACC Heart Fail. 2016 June;4(6):473–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2016.03.025

Lam CS, Solomon SD. The middle child in heart failure: heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (40-50%). Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 October;16(10):1049–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.159

Savarese G, Stolfo D, Sinagra G, Lund LH. Heart failure with mid-range or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2022 February;19(2):100–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-021-00605-5

Trujillo ME, Ayalasomayajula S, Blaustein RO, Gheyas F. Vericiguat, a novel sGC stimulator: Mechanism of action, clinical, and translational science. Clin Transl Sci. 2023 December;16(12):2458–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13677

Armstrong PW, Pieske B, Anstrom KJ, Ezekowitz J, Hernandez AF, Butler J, et al. Vericiguat in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 14;382(20):1883–93. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1915928

Teerlink JR, Diaz R, Felker GM, McMurray JJV, Metra M, Solomon SD, et al. Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of GALACTIC-HF. JACC Heart Fail. 2020 April;8(4):329–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2019.12.001

Felker GM, Solomon SD, Claggett B, Diaz R, McMurray JJV, Metra M, et al. Assessment of Omecamtiv Mecarbil for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Heart Failure: A Post Hoc Analysis of Data From the GALACTIC-HF Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022 January 1;7(1):26–34. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2021.4027

Rieg T, Vallon V. Development of SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitors. Diabetologia. 2018 October;61(10):2079–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-018-4654-7

Wilcox T, De Block C, Schwartzbard AZ, Newman JD. Diabetic Agents, From Metformin to SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP1 Receptor Agonists: JACC Focus Seminar. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 April 28;75(16):1956–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.056

Helvacı Ö, Helvacı B. A Story of Serendipities: From Phlorizin to Gliflozins. Exp Clin Transplant. 2023 June;21 Suppl 2:105–8. https://doi.org/10.6002/ect.IAHNCongress.25

Newman JD, Vani AK, Aleman JO, Weintraub HS, Berger JS, Schwartzbard AZ. The Changing Landscape of Diabetes Therapy for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 October 9;72(15):1856–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.071

Savage P, Dixon L, Grieve D, Watson C. SGLT2 Inhibition in Heart Failure: Clues to Cardiac Effects? Cardiol Rev. 2024 January 8. https://doi.org/10.1097/CRD.0000000000000637

Verma S, McMurray JJV. SGLT2 inhibitors and mechanisms of cardiovascular benefit: a state-of-the-art review. Diabetologia. 2018 October;61(10):2108–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-018-4670-7

Garg V, Verma S, Connelly K. Mechanistic insights regarding the role of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonist drugs on cardiovascular disease in diabetes. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2019 July-August;62(4):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2019.07.005

Vasquez-Rios G, Nadkarni GN. SGLT2 Inhibitors: Emerging Roles in the Protection Against Cardiovascular and Kidney Disease Among Diabetic Patients. Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis. 2020 October 28;13:281–96. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJNRD.S268811

Packer M. SGLT2 Inhibitors Produce Cardiorenal Benefits by Promoting Adaptive Cellular Reprogramming to Induce a State of Fasting Mimicry: A Paradigm Shift in Understanding Their Mechanism of Action. Diabetes Care. 2020 March;43(3):508–11. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0074

Chen K, Nie Z, Shi R, Yu D, Wang Q, Shao F, et al. Time to Benefit of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors Among Patients With Heart Failure. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 August 1;6(8):e2330754. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.30754

McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, Køber L, Kosiborod MN, Martinez FA, et al. Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019 November 21;381(21):1995–2008. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1911303

Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, Pocock SJ, Carson P, et al. Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin in Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2020 October 8;383(15):1413–24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2022190

Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, Ferreira JP, Bocchi E, Böhm M, et al. Empagliflozin in Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2021 October 14;385(16):1451–61. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2107038

Solomon SD, Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL, de Boer RA, DeMets D, Hernandez AF, et al. Baseline Characteristics of Patients With HF With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: DELIVER Trial. JACC Heart Fail. 2022 March;10(3):184–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2021.11.006

Packer M. SGLT2 inhibitors: role in protective reprogramming of cardiac nutrient transport and metabolism. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2023 July;20(7):443–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-022-00824-4

Packer M. Critical Reanalysis of the Mechanisms Underlying the Cardiorenal Benefits of SGLT2 Inhibitors and Reaffirmation of the Nutrient Deprivation Signaling/Autophagy Hypothesis. Circulation. 2022 November;146(18):1383–405. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061732

Pandey AK, Bhatt DL, Pandey A, Marx N, Cosentino F, Pandey A, et al. Mechanisms of benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur Heart J. 2023 October 1;44(37):3640–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad389

Docherty KF, Bayes-Genis A, Butler J, Coats AJS, Drazner MH, Joyce E, et al. The four pillars of HFrEF therapy: is it time to treat heart failure regardless of ejection fraction? Eur Heart J Suppl. 2022 December 19;24 Suppl L:L10–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suac113

Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E. Treatment of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Reflections on Its Treatment With an Aldosterone Antagonist. JAMA Cardiol. 2016 April 1;1(1):7–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0356

Deswal A, Richardson P, Bozkurt B, Mann DL. Results of the Randomized Aldosterone Antagonism in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction trial (RAAM-PEF). J Card Fail. 2011 August;17(8):634–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2011.04.007

Punnoose LR, Givertz MM, Lewis EF, Pratibhu P, Stevenson LW, Desai AS. Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: a distinct clinical entity. J Card Fail. 2011 July;17(7):527–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2011.03.005

Basuray A, French B, Ky B, Vorovich E, Olt C, Sweitzer NK, et al. Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: clinical description, biomarkers, and outcomes. Circulation. 2014 June 10;129(23):2380–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006855

Kalogeropoulos AP, Fonarow GC, Georgiopoulou V, Burkman G, Siwamogsatham S, Patel A, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of Adult Outpatients With Heart Failure and Improved or Recovered Ejection Fraction. JAMA Cardiol. 2016 August 1;1(5):510–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1325

Wilcox JE, Fang JC, Margulies KB, Mann DL. Heart Failure With Recovered Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 August 11;76(6):719–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.075

Barth AS, Kumordzie A, Frangakis C, Margulies KB, Cappola TP, Tomaselli GF. Reciprocal transcriptional regulation of metabolic and signaling pathways correlates with disease severity in heart failure. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2011 October;4(5):475–83. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.110.957571

Packer M. Foetal recapitulation of nutrient surplus signalling by O-GlcNAcylation and the failing heart. Eur J Heart Fail. 2023 August;25(8):1199–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2972

Cikes M, Solomon SD. Beyond ejection fraction: an integrative approach for assessment of cardiac structure and function in heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2016 June 1;37(21):1642–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv510

Louis A, Cleland JG, Crabbe S, Ford S, Thackray S, Houghton T, et al. Clinical Trials Update: CAPRICORN, COPERNICUS, MIRACLE, STAF, RITZ-2, RECOVER and RENAISSANCE and cachexia and cholesterol in heart failure. Highlights of the Scientific Sessions of the American College of Cardiology, 2001. Eur J Heart Fail. 2001 June;3(3):381–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-9842(01)00149-0

Coletta AP, Clark AL, Banarjee P, Cleland JG. Clinical trials update: RENEWAL (RENAISSANCE and RECOVER) and ATTACH. Eur J Heart Fail. 2002 August;4(4):559–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-9842(02)00121-6

Hunt SA, Baker DW, Chin MH, Cinquegrani MP, Feldman AM, Francis GS, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 December;38(7):2101–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01683-7

Stevenson LW, Naftilan AJ. Changing the Stage Directions for Heart Failure? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 March 31;75(12):1439–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.027

Disertori M, Masè M, Rigoni M, Nollo G, Ravelli F. Declining clinical benefit of ICD in heart failure patients: Temporal trend of mortality outcomes from randomized controlled trials. J Cardiol. 2020 February;75(2):148–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2019.06.001

Seferovic PM, Ponikowski P, Anker SD, Bauersachs J, Chioncel O, Cleland JGF, et al. Clinical practice update on heart failure 2019: pharmacotherapy, procedures, devices and patient management. An expert consensus meeting report of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019 October;21(10):1169–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1531

Li Kam Wa ME, Assar SZ, Kirtane AJ, Perera D. Revascularisation for Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy. Interv Cardiol. 2023 August 1;18:e24. https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2023.06

Liga R, Colli A, Taggart DP, Boden WE, De Caterina R. Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 March 21;12(6):e026943. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.026943

Ryan M, Morgan H, Petrie MC, Perera D. Coronary revascularisation in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Heart. 2021 April;107(8):612–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316856

Gorica E, Mohammed SA, Ambrosini S, Calderone V, Costantino S, Paneni F. Epi-Drugs in Heart Failure. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 July 13;9:923014. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.923014

Ambrosini S, Gorica E, Mohammed SA, Costantino S, Ruschitzka F, Paneni F. Epigenetic remodeling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2022 May 1;37(3):219–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000000961

Ptaszek LM, Mansour M, Ruskin JN, Chien KR. Towards regenerative therapy for cardiac disease. Lancet. 2012 March 10;379(9819):933–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60075-0

Doppler SA, Deutsch MA, Lange R, Krane M. Cardiac regeneration: current therapies-future concepts. J Thorac Dis. 2013 October;5(5):683–97. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.08.71

Bartunek J, Behfar A, Dolatabadi D, Vanderheyden M, Ostojic M, Dens J, et al. Cardiopoietic stem cell therapy in heart failure: the C-CURE (Cardiopoietic stem Cell therapy in heart failURE) multicenter randomized trial with lineage-specified biologics. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 June 11;61(23):2329–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.071

Silvestre JS, Menasché P. The Evolution of the Stem Cell Theory for Heart Failure. EBioMedicine. 2015 November 5;2(12):1871–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.11.010

Tzahor E, Poss KD. Cardiac regeneration strategies: Staying young at heart. Science. 2017 June 9;356(6342):1035–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5894

Rosca MG, Hoppel CL. Mitochondria in heart failure. Cardiovasc Res. 2010 October 1;88(1):40–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvq240

Brown DA, Perry JB, Allen ME, Sabbah HN, Stauffer BL, Shaikh SR, et al. Expert consensus document: Mitochondrial function as a therapeutic target in heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017 April;14(4):238–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2016.203

Zhou B, Tian R. Mitochondrial dysfunction in pathophysiology of heart failure. J Clin Invest. 2018 August 31;128(9):3716–26. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI120849

Kumar AA, Kelly DP, Chirinos JA. Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. Circulation. 2019 March 12;139(11):1435–50. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036259

Back to search

Understanding Heart Failure: Evolution of Concepts and Treatments

Review Article

Issue7-8

PublishedJune 2024

Pages251-269

PDF via DOIhttps://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2024.251

zatajivanje srca

neurohormonalna inhibicija

stanično opterećenje

heart failure

neurohormonal inhibition

cellular stress

Authors

Anton Šmalcelj*ORCIDMedicinski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu i Klinički bolnički centar Zagreb, Zagreb, Hrvatska

*Correspondence email: dr.anton.smalcelj@gmail.com

Abstract

Full Text

Historical background

William Harvey’s epochal discovery of blood circulation driven by a heart pump in 1628 provided a framework for the basic concept of heart failure (HF). Ancient Greek and Roman physicians attributed edema, anasarca, and dyspnea to a variety of causes other than heart disease; pleural effusions were thought to originate in the brain, and the heart was believed to heat and distribute the vital spirit. Linking cardiac pathology to hemodynamic and clinical disorders following Harvey’s discovery took time. G.M. Lancisi (1654-1720) observed that dilatation weakens the heart. J.N. Corvisart wrote in 1806 that marked cardiac dilatation in association with valvular regurgitation portends HF and a bad prognosis. In 1892, W. Osler viewed cardiac hypertrophy as a step towards HF (“broken compensation”). Those and many other physicians, whether famous or less known, elaborated the clinical presentation and course of HF (1–3).

Early pathophysiological concepts were simplistic, limited to cardiac weakness causing low cardiac output and extracellular fluid retention with pulmonary and systemic congestion. Treatment options were empirical and ineffective. Lifestyle changes provided some relief. Bloodletting and leeches were used for centuries. Southey tubes for edema drainage have been long forgotten. Among many herbal treatments that have been tried, only digitalis (foxglove) preparations proved to be a lucky hit. Since introduction to medical use by W. Withering in 1785, digitalis had been a pillar of HF treatment for about 200 years until recently (4–9).

Approaching modern times: the story of diuretics

The creation of effective diuretics in late the 1950s heralded the modern era of pharmacological HF management. Until 1957, the only diuretics used in HF were intravenous or intramuscular mercurial agents, which were difficult to use and fraught with toxicity. The serendipitous discovery of modern diuretics took place during the study of sulphonamide side-effects. In 1937/8, research on sulphonamides revealed their diuretic effects. In 1945, the development of the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor acetazolamide improved the understanding of diuretic mechanisms in renal tubules. Among many compounds synthesized in the search for potent carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, researchers stumbled on chlorothiazide, which inhibited not only carbonic anhydrase but also the sodium chloride cotransport system. Introduced in 1958, chlorothiazide was the first useful oral diuretic. It is still used widely, but much more as an antihypertensive agent than a HF drug (10–12).

Thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics may be useful in the management of mild HF, but more potent diuretics are needed in severe forms. Furosemide, with a brand-name Lasix (“lasts six hours”), came to the rescue. The introduction of the loop diuretics furosemide and ethacrynic acid in the early 1960s dramatically improved medical practice. Until then, HF had been considered a terminal condition, but new diuretics allowed amazing relief of fluid retention. It was obvious that they worked, and little in the way of clinical trials was needed to accept them in clinical practice. Furosemide, as an archetype of potent loop diuretics, was followed by now forgotten ethacrynic acid and bumetanide, in addition to its current rival torasemide, and has remained a cornerstone in the treatment of congestive HF (12–14).

Spironolactone, a nonselective steroid aldosterone receptor antagonist, appeared in 1957 (15). Its independent diuretic action is weak, but the synergism with loop diuretics is strong, in addition to potassium-sparing effects. The value of spironolactone became evident in the RALES trial (1999) which showed a reduction in morbidity and death among patients with severe HF (16). Those data suggested a paradigm-shift in the concept of HF, demonstrating the neurohormonal actions of spironolactone. The selective aldosterone receptor antagonist epleronone shares beneficial effects with spironolactone but is devoid of side-effects on sexual steroid hormones (17). Finally, the use of a novel nonsteroidal aldosterone receptor antagonist fineronone is advantageous in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes (18).

Diuretics were accepted as symptom-relieving and lifesaving drugs before the days of large clinical trials with mortality and survival endpoints. Even nowadays, the lack of alternative to loop diuretics makes it hard to envision how to design such trials (19, 20).

Practice, theories, and pathophysiological concepts

With digoxin, furosemide, and spironolactone available, the stage was set for a dynamic era of HF management. Past stagnation and incapacity gave way to active pursuit of advances in HF treatment that dominated in the decades to follow. This pursuit rekindled research on HF pathophysiology (21). Research requires concepts that representing the basic models of HF. Those have changed significantly since the middle of the 20th century. Senior cardiologists may recall them from their own professional experience. The formulation of those models may vary somewhat, but some of them, e.g. the neurohormonal model, have been widely accepted. Milton Packer has proposed four concepts: 1) the cardiorenal model (1940s through the 1960s), 2) the cardiocirculatory model or hemodynamic hypothesis (1970s and 1980s), 3) the neurohormonal model (from 1990s up to recently), and 4) the recent cellular stress model (22–24). Such a conceptual framework is interesting as it may explain many advancements but also some side-tracks. We will try to explicate the concepts, adding some remarks.

THE CARDIORENAL MODEL

The cardiorenal model regarded HF as an edematous disorder with salt and water retention. The pillars of treatment were digitalis and diuretics. Although the congestion seen to be due mostly to increased venous pressures (“backward HF”) dominated the concept, low cardiac output (“forward HF”) was duly appreciated. Moreover, renal hypoperfusion due to low cardiac output was deemed essential for extracellular fluid retention by activating renal (glomerular, tubular, and peritubular) mechanisms of volume conservation. These may be viewed as atavistic responses to hypovolemia due to fluid loss. In due course, the concept was expanded by adrenal and neurohormonal (e.g. antidiuretic hormone secretion) mechanisms of volume retention with dilutional hyponatremia as an epiphenomenon. Late additions were synthesis with the neurohormonal HF concept. The erstwhile cardiorenal concept views HF as a cardiac disorder with anticipatable renal response (without disease), at variance with the modern concept of cardiorenal syndrome where the disease of any of those two organs induces the disorder of the other (21, 22).

The central tenet of the erstwhile cardiorenal concept assumes the main role of the heart disorder in the pathogenesis of HF, with the kidneys playing supporting roles. The widespread use of digitalis preparations (mostly digoxin) was intended to alleviate cardiac disorder as the origin of HF. The evaluation of efficacy and clinical utility was based on clinical observations, experience, and judgement; only later were some respectable randomized trials conducted, with neutral results on mortality (25–29). The weak positive inotropy of digitalis, due to the inhibition of Na+/K+-ATPase in cardiac myocytes with a consequent increase in cytosolic Ca2+ content through Na+/Ca2+ exchanger, was overrated. Negative chronotropy, desirable in tachycardia due to atrial fibrillation, was limited because of narrow therapeutic width. Despite limitations, digitalis preparations had remained the mainstay of HF treatment for two centuries (6). Perhaps M. Packer, when giving the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Rene Laennec Lecture on Clinical Cardiology at the ESC Congress 2023, dated the cardiorenal model to the 1748-1965 period correctly; digitalis use dates back that far (24).

Potent diuretics became available not earlier than in the 1960s, when this period was at an end. The diuretics revolutionized HF treatment and have remained its mainstay irrespectively of the overall concept. They are needed whenever an excess of extracellular fluid arises (12, 14).

Finally, sticking to the cardiorenal model impeded advances in HF treatment. Lowering arterial pressure was deemed risky because of renal and myocardial hypoperfusion. The use of vasodilators was avoided except in severe hypertension. Similarly, the use of beta-blockers (BB) was restrained (propranolol appeared in the 1960s as an antianginal drug), fearing not only arterial hypotension but also negative inotropy (22, 30, 31).

THE CARDIOCIRCULATORY MODEL

The cardiocirculatory model or the hemodynamic hypothesis (1965-1992), as it was formulated by M. Packer, followed the cardiorenal model. The quest for new treatment strategies spurred by the unmet expectations of digoxin and diuretics led to reappraisal of pathophysiological concepts. The ensuing paradigm shift viewed HF principally as a hemodynamic disorder involving the whole cardiovascular system, not only the heart but also the vessels. The focus shifted from the kidneys to peripheral vessels and redistribution of intravascular volumes (22).

In HF, adrenergically mediated arterial and venous vasoconstriction devastatingly impairs hemodynamics. The resulting increase in afterload exhausts the myocardium and impedes cardiac output. Reduction of the venous reservoir increases cardiac preload and aggravates congestion. The rationale for the use of vasodilating drugs was to relieve the failing heart of preload and afterload burden, expecting a recovery in cardiac function (21, 22). The whole array of vasodilators was tested intravenously or orally to relieve vasoconstriction and to achieve a breakthrough in HF management. Senior cardiologists may recall the fear of causing hypotension with those unorthodox innovations (30, 31). The use of some initially promising vasodilators, e.g. the adrenergic alpha-receptor blockers phentolamine and prazosin, remained a dead-end attempt (32–36). Hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate held some promise, which was not fulfilled (36–38). Calcium channel blockers were expected to improve hemodynamics, but controlled clinical trials showed worsening of HF (39–43). At best, oral vasodilators provided some temporary relief without long-term benefits on outcomes. Intravenously administered vasoactive agents for acute HF fared better, especially if guided by hemodynamic monitoring. Intravenous nitroglycerine, acting mostly as a venous vasodilator, is still valuable in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, while combined arterial and venous vasodilator sodium nitroprusside is helpful in severe acute HF in a critical care setting (44–47).

Disappointment with oral vasodilators shifted the focus to the heart itself. As the impairment of myocardial contractility was deemed to be the primary problem, the whole array of inotropic agents was created. The basic approach was to increase contractility, stimulating the influx of calcium ions or maintaining higher calcium levels in the cytosol of cardiac myocytes throughout the action potential. Dozens of such drugs progressed to phase 3 clinical trials. Among them, dobutamine, amrinone, milrinone, enoximone, levosimendan, pimobendane, and xamoterol were the most promising. Dobutamine was the first of them, created in 1975 by modifying the chemical structure of isoproterenol. The rationale was to benefit from adrenergic stimulation but to avoid detrimental vasoconstriction. A series of phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE-3) inhibitors followed, amrinone first, followed by milrinone and enoximone. Calcium sensitizers were developed in the 1980s, with levosimendan as a prototype. It increases contractile apparatus sensitivity to calcium ions during systole, not interfering with their diastolic release. Levosimendan also inhibits PDE-3 and activates ATP sensitive K+ channels, causing strong vasodilation. Pimobendan shares calcium sensitizing and PDE-3 inhibiting effects. Xamoterol is a beta1 selective partial adrenergic agonist. The ideal was to develop a positive inotropic agent with vasodilator properties, like levosimendan, or a vasodilator with positive inotropic properties, like flosequinan. This drug has both vasodilating and inotropic properties that are not entirely understood but are believed to be distinct from β-adrenergic receptor agonists and PDE inhibitors (48).

Those and other positive inotropic agents, irrespective of mode of action, provided a transient hemodynamic and clinical improvement but failed to reduce mortality and morbidity. Moreover, they were associated with increased mortality, except the prognostically neutral digoxin (25, 48, 49). Many inotropic drugs were created, but only those designed for short-term intravenous use (e.g. 48 h) in severe acute HF remained in use. Dobutamine, milrinone, and levosimendan are still indispensable in our cardiac care units (50–53).

The failure of inotropic agents to convert short-term improvements into long-term benefits, with an excess of mortality, can be explained only speculatively. A mechanistic explanation suggests that overstrain of an injured organ shortens its lifespan. Overstimulating sick myocardium unduly depletes its meagre stores of energy. The persistent adrenergic overstimulation is detrimental, whereas BBs reduce mortality and morbidity. In addition, the chronic use of drugs acting via cAMP modulation, like PDE-3 inhibitors and adrenergic stimulants, disrupts calcium homeostasis with desensitization of the contractile apparatus to calcium through impairment of early diastolic relaxation and ventricular arrhythmias. Disruption of cardiac myocyte energetics and calcium ion homeostasis are detrimental for cardiac myocytes. Furthermore, HF is a heterogeneous syndrome comprising a diverse spectrum of diseases. The harmful effects of chronic treatment with milrinone were conspicuously more prevalent in ischemic than in non-ischemic HF. The doses of inotropic agents used were perhaps too high, adjusted to achieve maximal immediate inotropic effect, notwithstanding later consequences. The two-century-long history of digitalis parallels the positive inotropes of the 1980s in overuse and overdosage deviations. More judicious and selective use of those inotropes may have yielded different end-results (48, 49, 54).

Even if the attempts to treat HF with inotropes failed, the concept itself may not be doomed to failure. Strengthening the weak heart was the primordial aim which appeared self-evident for generations of physicians and was incorporated in wishful thinking on digitalis inotropy. Positive inotropes are still expected to have significant roles in chronic HF treatment, but as part of an elaborate framework of concepts and not as a blunt overstimulation of already exhausted cardiac myocytes. A hiatus in the development of positive inotropes was followed by new cellular targets in the 2000s. Pharmacological and gene therapy approaches were directed at a key enzyme responsible for myocardial calcium homeostasis that is downregulated in HF: sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase (SERCA2a). Another concept is related to cardiac myosin activators, which are a new class of myotropes that improve myocardial function by directly augmenting cardiac sarcomere function. Omecamtiv mecarbil, the first of this class, augments cardiac contractility by selectively binding to cardiac myosin, thus increasing the number of myosin heads that can bind to the actin filament and initiate a power stroke at the start of systole (48, 54). The GALACTIC-HF trial (2021) showed that omecamtiv mecarbil reduced the incidence of a composite of a heart failure events and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (55, 56). However, FDA has declined to approve omecamtiv mecarbil, citing a lack of evidence on efficacy in 2023. No positive inotrope is currently approved for long-term use in HF.

M. Packer, who formulated the hemodynamic model of HF in his original article (1993), did not pay much attention to the recognition of diastolic left ventricular dysfunction as the cause of HF. Though the pressure-volume relations during the cardiac cycle had already been recognized in the early 20th century and the term left ventricular lusitropy, denoting the rate of early diastolic relaxation, predated clinical concepts, clinical research did not recognize the concept of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction until the 1970s and clinical practice did not use it until the 1980s (57–66). This was a real paradigm shift, since until then only the impairment of left ventricular systolic function (i.e. contractility) was regarded as a cause of HF. It was only then that cardiologists realized that left ventricular systolic function was preserved in 40-50% of HF cases. It was assumed that diastolic dysfunction was the main culprit, accounting for at least 30% of all HF cases (62, 67–69).

This led to the confusing question of how to treat those patients. Use of positive inotropic agents seemed senseless and diuretics necessary; the excess of fluid should be removed in any case. It was advised to do this cautiously, since the Frank Starling curve was supposed to be steep and shifted to the right. Therefore, a sudden contraction of intravascular volume could precipitate a sudden drop in stroke volume and cardiac output. Many small clinical studies and later some landmark hypertension trials showed that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists may improve left ventricular diastolic function in parallel with left ventricular hypertrophy regression better than BBs. The latter may yet provide beneficial effects on diastolic function by prolonging diastole. Calcium channel blockers proved to be controversial. The evidence on efficacy of those treatments in HF was only circumstantial, limited to surrogate hemodynamic data without the data on morbidity and mortality outcomes (66, 70, 71).

The uncertainties about the treatment of HF due to the left ventricular diastolic dysfunction have been never resolved by clinical trials since the hemodynamic hypothesis fell into disrepute. The assessment of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in clinical practice is often indeterminate or elusive (72, 73). The conceptual advancements made clear that HF in patients with preserved systolic function cannot be simplistically reduced to diastolic dysfunction. The role of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in the pathophysiology of HF has not been ignored but has instead been incorporated into broader and more comprehensive concepts of HF with preserved systolic function, normal ejection fraction (HFNEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (74–79). These concepts outgrew the hemodynamically frame (77–81).

THE NEUROHORMONAL HYPOTHESIS

The neurohormonal hypothesis (1992-2019), as it was named, formulated, and dated by M. Packer, presented a radical paradigm-shift and a conceptual breakthrough which viewed HF as a systemic disorder involving a complex neurohormonal response with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone (RAAS) and adrenergic systems in protagonist roles (21–23). Senior cardiologists may remember that this approach emerged gradually, not because of ingenious thinking which revised pathophysiological concepts but rather arising empirically through studies on vasodilators. The first angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) captopril, first isolated from snake venom, introduced in 1981 and initially considered a plain vasodilator useful in arterial hypertension, proved to be superior to prazosin, hydralazine, and other pure vasodilators in the treatment of chronic HF. The advantage was explained by the blockade of detrimental neuroendocrine responses (34–36, 82). Following captopril, many other ACEis with specific qualities were developed. They provided a quantum leap in the treatments across the cardiovascular continuum. A series of landmark clinical trials evaluating the treatment of chronic HF with impaired left ventricular systolic function demonstrated that ACEis provided not only short-term hemodynamic improvements but also long-term benefits to morbidity and mortality. The most cited game-changing trials were CONSENSUS I (enalapril, 1987), VHeFT I (enalapril, 1991), SOLVD (enalapril, 1991), SAVE (captopril after myocardial infarction, 1992), AIRE (ramipril after myocardial infarction, 1993), and TRACE (trandolapril, after myocardial infarction, 1995) (83–89).

An unprecedented breakthrough in HF trials with ACEs reinvigorated experimental scientific research on RAAS to explain those results and chart further advances. It became clear that besides of the endocrine component of RAAS, there was also a widespread tissue RAAS, with the heart, vessels, nervous system, and the kidneys as the main players. Endocrine (in blood), paracrine (in the tissues), and intracrine (in the cells), signaling was identified in addition to autocrine and juxtacrine RAAS. RAAS was recognized as a ubiquitous system for homeostasis and pathologies, biologically fundamental, with deep evolutionary roots and composed of ancient molecules. Its pivotal molecule, angiotensin II, an octapeptide with strong vasoconstrictive properties, arose in the early Cambrian ~500 million years ago, primarily as an epigenetic regulator of protein synthesis and growth-promoting factor. It is a key molecule in the signaling pathway of pathological myocardial hypertrophy and a potent promotor of atherogenesis (90–94).

Until the 90s, positive inotropic agents (mainly digoxin) were deemed a mainstay of HF treatment. As the poor left ventricular systolic function was viewed as the main cause of HF, all drugs with negative inotropic effect were “absolutely contraindicated” according to the practice guidelines up to 1995 (95). The idea of using BBs as a primary therapy for congestive HF to improve symptoms and prognosis seemed paradoxical and dissenting. The cardiac community reacted with skepticism and disbelief when, in 1975, the pioneering report of Waagstein et al. gave an account on 7 cases of refractory HF in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy treated successfully by already forgotten BBs alprenolol and practolol (96, 97). This unorthodox approach may be viewed as a bailout in a desperate situation. Waagstein violated a taboo and stirred controversy. A change of opinion took time. Many small studies with surrogate endpoints only added to confusion. Decades were needed for scientific research to recognize the detrimental effects of maladaptive adrenergic response to declining systolic function and vindicate large controlled clinical trials (98). The methodology was honed in HF trials with ACEs. Landmark clinical trials convincingly demonstrated the efficacy of four BBs in improving morbidity and reducing mortality in the patients with “systolic” HF. Pioneering trials were: CIBIS I (bisoprolol, 1994), CIBIS II (bisoprolol 1999), US Carvedilol HF Trials Program (1996, carvedilol), and MERIT-HF (metoprolol, 2000) (99–103). Other important trials with bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol followed, while the SENIORS trial affirming nebivolol took place slightly later (2005) (104).

While the ACEIs were introduced as vasodilators in the treatment of HF to improve hemodynamics and were only later recognized as neurohormonal agents, BBs were introduced primarily as neurohormonal agents. When M. Packer proposed his neurohormonal model of HF pathophysiology in 1993, BBs were only envisaged, but neither evaluated in clinical trials nor approved for the treatment of HF (23). The trials opened the door to the extensive use of BBs in the treatment of “systolic” HF and firmly established the neurohormonal concept. ACEIs and BBs took pole position in the guidelines for HF treatment on both sides of the Atlantic, sharing the first two positions (46, 105).

The neurohormonal concept led to reappraisal of spironolactone. After 40 years spent in a modest role as an adjunct potassium sparing diuretic, following the RAALES trial (1999) spironolactone was revisited as an essential neurohormonal drug which reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with HF (16). Considering the key role of aldosterone receptors in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular and renal pathologies, the results of RAALES trial might have been expected, but the clear reduction in all-cause mortality sent a clear message. The EPHESUS trial (2003) showed that the selective aldosterone receptor blocker eplerenone reduced mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by HF (17). This evidence positioned mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) firmly in third place on the list of preferred HF drugs, after ACEIs and BBs, while digoxin was relegated to the low fourth position (106, 107).

In 1992, research on angiotensin II led to losartan, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist with antihypertensive properties (108). It was a forerunner of the whole class of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) which have been used as an alternative to ACEs ever since. Candesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, valsartan, telmisartan, and olmesartan followed. Affirmed as an antihypertensive drug with heart and kidney protecting properties (RENAAL 2001; LIFE 2002), losartan was compared to captopril in the treatment of systolic HF ((ELITE I 1997; ELITE II, 2000) and acute myocardial infarction (OPTIMAAL 2002), showing non-inferiority with better tolerability (70, 109–113). The trials with newer ARBs upheld the message: ARBs are a noninferior alternative to ACEs in left ventricular systolic failure. Only valsartan (2001), candesartan (CHARM-Alternative 2003, CHARM-Added, 2023), losartan again (HEAAL, 2012), and to a lesser extent telmisartan (1999, 2010) were evaluated in “systolic” HF trials, while candesartan (CHARM-Preserved, 2003) and irbesartan (2008) were appraised in HF with preserved systolic function trials (114–121). European HF guidelines (2021) do not claim any preference for ACEs or ARBs, recommending them both as an alternative (IA). American guidelines (2022) prefer ACEs as the first choice in RAAS-naive patients (46, 105).

The use of ARBs in the treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been upgraded recently by neprilysin inhibition which fits neatly with the neurohormonal concept of HF (122). In PARADIGM-HF Trial (2014) the dual-acting angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril valsartan reduced the composite endpoint of HF hospitalization and death in comparison with standard enalapril treatment (123, 124). ARNI therapy now has a class I indication for the treatment of patients with HFrEF (46, 105, 125).

The evolutionarily highly conserved family of natriuretic peptides comprises the atrial, brain, and C-type peptides (ANP, BNP, and CNP). ANP and BNP, secreted by the atria and ventricles, operate via the natriuretic peptide receptors type A (NPR-A) and type B (NPR-B), which are coupled to guanyl cyclase, mediating biological effects. Those include vasodilatation, natriuresis, and diuresis, inhibition of the RAAS, endothelin, and vasopressin, along with lipid mobilization. ANP is degraded rapidly by endopeptidase neprilysin. The inhibition of neprilysin increases the levels of ANP in circulation, with beneficial effects in HF (122, 126, 127).

Mechanistic reasoning may turn out to be overly simplistic when faced with the complexity of clinical medicine. Promising concepts may not work in clinical practice. Clinical trials may dash hopes placed in promising treatments. Nesiritide, a human recombinant B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) with vasodilatory properties, binds to receptors in the vasculature, kidney, and other organs to mimic the actions of endogenous natriuretic peptides. It was approved by the FDA in 2001 for use in patients with acute HF based on studies showing hemodynamic and symptomatic improvements. A few years after its approval (2005), nesiritide fell out of use because small studies seemed to indicate an increased risk of kidney problems and an increased death rate. The ASCEND-HF study (2011) showed no impact of nesiritide on death or HF hospitalization (128–132).

Elevated resting heart rate has been linked to poor outcomes in patients with chronic systolic HF. Ivabradine may be added to neurohormonal treatments as the adjunctive therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to slow sinus rhythm. It inhibits “funny” pacemaker current (If) of the sinoatrial node, not affecting the AV node, inotropy, diastolic function, cardiac output, vascular resistance, or blood pressure (133, 134). Ivabradine should be considered (IIa indication) in the patients with LVEF ≤35% in sinus rhythm and with a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm who remain symptomatic despite optimally up-titrated BBs, ACEi/ARNI, and MRA based treatment (or in BB intolerant patients) to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death (46). Ivabradine is not a substitute for BBs (133).

Neurohormonal activation is the crucial mechanism underlying the progression of HF, and therapeutic antagonism of neurohormonal systems has become the cornerstone of pharmacotherapy for HF. The perception of HF has changed: it is no longer regarded as a terminal syndrome with a dismal prognosis but as a treatable disorder (92).

However, it was not possible to ignore the fact that neurohormonal inhibition did not work in patients with HFpEF, representing at least a half of all patients with HF. Their share has risen to >50%, owing mostly to the aging of the population. The typical phenotype are obese elderly women with a small, well-contracting left ventricle, diabetes, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation (77, 135). Diastolic left ventricular dysfunction is a risk factor but not the main cause of HF. Landmark HF studies with RAAS antagonists and BBs excluded patients with LV EF ≥40%. Trials with candesartan, irbesartan, and spironolactone, designed to explicitly address the efficacy of RAAS antagonists in patients with EF ≥40%, yielded disappointing results. The CHARM-Preserved trial with candesartan (2003) showed only a moderate reduction in hospital admissions among patients with HF with LVEF >40%. The I-PRESERVE trial (2008) with irbesartan was neutral about outcomes in patients with HF with LVEF ≥45%. The TOPCAT trial (2014) demonstrated that in patients with HF and LVEF ≥45%, the treatment with spironolactone did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalisation (120, 121, 136).

Failure of neurohormonal inhibition to improve HFpEF took the cardiac community aback since the prognosis of HFpEF may be as grave as that of HFrEF (137). Cardiologists were at a loss since a huge population of patients with HFpEF was left without any treatment strategy. Judicious use of diuretics for decongestion was the only treatment remaining, along with the treatment of comorbidities (138, 139). HFpEF is a phenotypically and pathophysiologically heterogeneous disorder in which therapy should target the underlying phenotypes, etiologies, and comorbidities, but such an approach was frustratingly complex (140). Relying on speculative treatment of LV diastolic dysfunction based on hemodynamics did not help. New treatment strategies were needed.

The cut-off point for HFpEF of 40-45% was set to distinguish HFpEF from HFrEF of earlier HF trials. However, trials like CHARM-Preserved and TOPCAT indicated the presence of a transitional EF range from 40% to 49% where the beneficial effects of candesartan and spironolactone were better than with EF ≥50%, albeit not as good as with <40%. The term HF mid-range EF (40-49%) was introduced (≈2014) and soon (2021) renamed to HF with mildly reduced EF (41-49%) or HFmrEF. It is an intermediate category between HFrEF and HFpEF with an estimated prevalence of 10% to 20% among all patients with HF. The 2021 ESC guidelines on HF stated that “although no strong recommendations for this HF phenotypes can be made ACEIs, ARBs, MRAs, BBs, and ARNI can be considered to reduce the risk of death and HF hospitalization in HFmEF (IIb)”. In other words, pharmacological neurohormonal inhibition may be beneficial in patients with HFmEF, but not as much as in patients with HFrEF, since the evidence is far weaker (46, 139–143). According to the 2023 ESC HF guidelines update, neurohormonal inhibitors comprising ACEI/ARNI/ARBs, BBs, and MRAs may be considered (class IIb recommendation) in patients with HFmrEF, while diuretics for fluid retention and dapagliflozin/empagliflozin are indicated with class I recommendation (125).

Two peculiar new non-neurohormonal drugs have raised hopes for the treatment of patients with HFrEF in addition to the standard neurohormonal inhibition. Vericiguat works via stimulation of soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) in the NO-sGC-cGMP pathway, with resulting improvements in myocardial function and vasodilation (144). The cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil, which potentiates the effects of myosin on actin, exerts positive inotropic effects. Both drugs reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and hospitalization in HFrEF trials, vericiguat in VICTORIA and omecamtiv mecarbil in GALACTIC-HF (55, 56, 145–147).

THE CELLULAR STRESS HYPOTHESIS

The cellular stress hypothesis (2019-) is the final concept of HF pathophysiology proposed by M. Packer. It filled the substantial gaps in the understanding of HF left by the neurohormonal and the previous hypotheses. It has been inspired by the “game changer” role of SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2is). The essence is that cellular dysfunction perpetuates chronic HF. Once again, chance observations, clinical practice, and trials led the way.

Sodium-glucose cotransporters SGLT1 and SGLT2 are mediators of epithelial glucose transport. While SGLT1 accounts for most of the dietary glucose uptake in the intestine, SGLT2 is accountable for the majority of glucose reuptake in the tubular system of the kidney. The medications that inhibit SGLT2 suffix with flozins. The prototype phlorizin was identified in root bark from trees as early as in 1835. Although phlorizin did not show any obvious medicinal value, its blood glucose-lowering and glucosuric effects were described as early as 1886. Only recently (2012) was dapagliflozin introduced as antidiabetic drug. SGLT2is modulate the sodium-glucose cotransporter on the nephron, inhibiting glucose reuptake, inducing glucosuria, and lowering the serum glucose levels. In a way, SGLT2is act as diuretics stimulating osmotic diuresis along with glucosuria and natriuresis. Compared with placebo, SGLT2is reduce HbA1c levels by an average of 0.5-0.8% when used as monotherapy or add-on therapy (along with a modest weight loss). As antidiabetic agents, which was the primary indication, SGLT2is are modestly effective, but they proved to be exceptional in cardiac and renal protection (148–151).

The stir caused by rosiglitazone, which was found to increase cardiovascular mortality in post-marketing surveillance, required that new antidiabetic drugs undergo cardiovascular outcome trials prior to FDA approval. This led to the EMPA-REG OUTCOME empagliflozin trial (2015) which unexpectedly revealed a significant reduction in primary composite outcomes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in the treatment group (152). The serendipitous discovery led to several landmark confirmatory trials on cardiovascular outcomes including CANVAS (canagliflozin, 2017) and DECLARE-TIMI (dapagliflozin, 2019), with positive results, indicating that the favorable outcomes were attributable to a class effect of SGLT2 receptor inhibition. The risk of HF hospitalization was reduced in patients with and without HF history. As the benefits were observed already within 2 months, they were not attributed to the regulation of diabetes but to independent effects of SGLT2i (153, 154). Moreover, marked beneficial effects on chronic kidney disease were also observed (155–157).

Four landmark trials (two for HFrEF and two for HFpEF) set the standard for HF treatment, establishing the strongest (IA) recommendations for SGLT2is use across the whole EF range (HFrEF, HFmrEF, HFpEF) in HF guidelines (2022) (105, 125). Those trials were: DAPA-HF (dapagliflozin 2019), EMPEROR REDUCED (empagliflozin 2020), EMPEROR PRESERVED (empagliflozin 2021), and DELIVER (dapagliflozin 2022). The results for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin were highly congruent: both reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization by nearly 20% (158–161).

The chance discovery which promoted the modest class of antidiabetic agents to a game changer in HF treatment stirred excitement but also took the cardiac community aback. The mechanisms behind the phenomenon were shrouded in mystery. The upheaval among clinical cardiologists stimulated a huge research effort to provide scientific explanations for the mechanisms of action. Experimental research proposed many explanations, mostly related to cytoprotection. SGLT2is exert cytoprotective effects on the failing heart via SGLT2-independent pathways to increase nutrient-deprivation signaling and autophagic flux, thus reducing cellular stress, improving mitochondrial vitality, and suppressing inflammatory signaling and apoptosis (162).

In the surge of data on the cellular effects of SGLT2, it is hardly possible to concisely outline a unifying concept. Perhaps closest to it is the hypothesis that SGLT2s provide cardiac and renal protection by inducing a state of fasting mimicry through the activation of low-energy sensors, which is not mediated through the SGLT2 protein. This state activates SIRT1/AMPK and suppresses Akt/mTOR signaling, which lead to a reduction in oxidative stress, normalized mitochondrial structure and function, suppression of inflammation, minimization of coronary microvascular injury, enhanced contractile performance, and myocardial protection. SGLT2is promote autophagy, independent of their effects on glucose. SGLT2is might enhance ATP and hemoglobin production by expanding the pool of reactive cytosolic Fe2+. This is due to SGLT2i-induced decline in hepcidin and ferritin levels. which alleviates functional iron deficit mediated by the HF inflammatory milieu (156, 162, 163).

In the failing heart, glucose transporter type 1 (GLUT1) levels are upregulated, along with excessive glycolysis and defective glucose oxidation, causing cytosolic accumulation of injurious glucose intermediates that activate mTOR and suppress nutrient-deprivation signaling. The uptake of long-chain fatty acids rises, but their oxidation is defective, impairing ATP production and causing cytosolic accumulation of toxic lipid intermediates, worsened by mitochondrial and nutrient-deprivation signaling dysfunction. The ensuing cytosolic accumulation of amino acids activates mTOR. SGLT2is cure the abnormalities in glucose, long-chain fatty acid, and amino acid metabolism by inhibiting GLUT1, stimulating nutrient-deprivation signaling, and restoring mitochondrial vitality. This improves nutrient oxidation and oxidative phosphorylation, preventing cytosolic accumulation of harmful glucose and lipid by-products (162, 163).

With regard to HF, fluid accumulation pattern is critical. SGLT2is may differentially regulate the interstitial vs. intravascular compartment when compared with loop diuretics. In congestive HF, interstitial edema is the hallmark of disease. SGLT2 inhibitors may selectively reduce interstitial volume with minimal change in blood volume, whereas loop diuretics reduce both interstitial and intravascular volume. It has been assumed that this differential volume regulation by SGLT2is (interstitial > intravascular) may limit the aberrant reflex neurohormonal stimulation induced by intravascular volume depletion (153).

The crucial question arises how SGLT2is work in HFpEF. The answer is complex, reflecting the heterogeneity of HFpEF phenotypes and the intricacy of SGLT2i actions. Many pieces of this jigsaw puzzle have been put together, noting the considerable overlapping between HFpEF and HFrEF. SGLT2is have been shown to induce a nutrient-deprivation and hypoxic-like transcriptional paradigm, with increased ketosis, erythropoietin, and autophagic flux in addition to altering iron homeostasis, which may improve cardiac energetics and function. These agents also reduce epicardial adipose tissue and modify adipokine signaling attenuating inflammation and oxidative stress. SGLT2is may affect cardiomyocyte ionic homeostasis. Finally, they have been shown to reduce myofilament stiffness as well as extracellular matrix remodeling/fibrosis in the heart, improving diastolic function. The research on the salutary mechanisms of SGLT2is in HFpEF is expected to improve both the understanding of HFpEF and its treatment (164).

The key-message from SGLT2i trials is that cellular stress, unrecognized in previous concepts, is essential for HF pathophysiology. The quest for efficient treatments was the main driver behind this evolution of concepts. The new concept did not repeal but instead revised the previous ones, improving treatment strategies.

Modern HFrEF and partly HFmrEF treatments are based on four pillars (besides diuretics): 1) ACEIs or ARBs, preferably in ARNI combination, 2) BBs, 3) MRAs, and 4) SGLT2is (listed chronologically). With regard to HFpEF, besides omnipresent diuretics, there are SGLT2is which span the entire EF spectrum, rendering EF irrelevant. Quadruple therapy with ARNI, BB, MRAs, and SGLT2is has been established as first-line therapy for patients with HFrEF in current HF guidelines. There is increasing evidence that many patients with HF with an LVEF >40% may benefit from these medications. SGLT2is are beneficial regardless of ejection fraction. HFpEF treatment should be targeted according to the underlying phenotype, comorbidities ant etiology. The hypertensive phenotype often requires ACEIs, ARBs, BBs, and not rarely MRAs, irrespectively of preserved EF, blurring the distinction between HFrEF and HFpEF. Obese and diabetic phenotypes may benefit greatly from GLP1 receptor agonists, in addition to SGLT2i (140, 165).

Some inconsistencies may be observed in clinical practice with regard to the use of MRAs in patients with HFpEF. The guidelines neither recommend the use of MRAs in those patients, nor oppose it. The question has been addressed in the 2023 update, since many patients with HFpEF who benefited from SGLT2i received MRAs and other neurohormonal inhibitors. The TOPCAT trial with spironolactone found generally neutral results but with ambiguity in interpretation due to marked regional differences in patient selection. A small trial (RAAM-PEF, 2011) demonstrated that the use of epleronone in patients with HFpEF was associated with significant reduction in markers of collagen turnover and improvement in diastolic function. Thus, it may make sense to prescribe a MRA drug along with a loop diuretic in patients with HFpEF (125, 166, 167).

A new entity called HF with recovered (or improved) ejection fraction (HFrecEF) has been recently recognized, along with uncertainties about prognosis and treatment (168–171). The data from the DELIVER trial indicate that these patients benefit from SGLT2 inhibition (161).

The idea that the failing myocardium recapitulates the fetal signaling program has been generally accepted but has been recently revisited and reinvigorated. The reactivation of fetal beta-myosin heavy chain isoform replacing the mature α variant and the shift from fatty acids to glucose as the main “fuel” in the myocytes of the failing heart are well-known examples. Fetal reprogramming is adaptive in the short time but is deleterious if sustained for long periods (172).

The uridine diphosphate N-acetylglucosamine (UDP-GlcNAc) molecule has been identified recently as a hub of fetal reprogramming in the failing heart. Prolonged increases in glucose uptake in overburdened cardiac myocytes, especially when SIRT1 and AMPK signaling is suppressed, enhances the hexosamine biosynthesis pathway. Its final product, UDP-GlcNAc, acts as a critical nutrient surplus sensor. UDP-GlcNAc is the key step for O-GlcNAcylation, which in collusion with mTOR-mediated phosphorylation rapidly and reversibly modifies a multitude of intracellular proteins in the nucleus, cytoplasm, and mitochondria. The deleterious effects are impaired calcium kinetics with contractile dysfunction, arrhythmias related to activation of voltage-gated sodium channels and Ca2+/CaMKII, mitochondrial dysfunction, maladaptive hypertrophy, fibrosis, and HF. Damage can be prevented by muting of O-GlcNAcylation, which poses a challenge for innovations, including the use of m-RNA technologies (173).

It turns out that chronic HF is heterogeneous disorder defying unifying concepts and treatment approaches. Ejection fraction is only an imperfect tool to distinguish between the phenotypes with different treatment strategies (174). The concept of cellular stress identifies common denominators at a cellular level. This raises hopes that experimental research will create new drugs based on this concept.

Unfortunately, the experience of previous blind alleys in research paths teaches that disappointment is a companion of hope. Positive inotropic agents and nesiritide are the examples. Monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) etanercept and infliximab raised high hopes in the treatment of HF, considering the role of detrimental inflammatory response in the process of adverse myocardial remodeling. However, the clinical trials RECOVER, RENNESAINCE, and ATTACH dashed these hopes in 2001 (175, 176).

Concluding remarks

All that remains is to briefly comment on the evolving understanding of HF from simplistic clinical concepts to the thesis of a complex multicausal and multiorgan disorder. Viewpoints shifted from a mechanistic approach all the way down to the cellular level. Osler viewed HF as a terminal decompensated stage of many cardiac diseases. The diagnosis was based on clinical symptoms and signs alone. The traditional approach prevailed up to the 70s, when cardiac imaging provided hemodynamic quantitation. At the end of century, the neurohormonal concept stimulated the progress of laboratory diagnostics, leading to the launch of the NT-proBNP assay which enabled early recognition and monitoring of HF. Traditionally, the severity of symptoms was graded by NYHA functional classes from I to IV. The A-B-C-D HF staging was introduced in the USA in 2001. It describes the development of HF ranging from risk factors (A), structural heart disease without (B) and with prior or current failure symptoms (C), to refractory HF (D). European guidelines do not use such symbolic numeration but also describe the course of HF comprehensively, ranging from etiological factors to the advanced stage. Such a view contrasts with the historical notion of HF as a terminal edematous state with an ominous prognosis and detrimental clinical course (24, 177, 178).

This review focused on the pathophysiological concepts of HF in line with pharmacological management. A comprehensive approach includes other aspects, starting with preventive lifestyle changes. Devices, like cardiac resynchronization, physiological pacing, and implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD), have improved clinical outcomes in addition to the drugs. Older outcome trials with HF drugs, conducted before the ICDs became a standard of care, are difficult to compare with the newer ones. Conversely, new HF treatments appear to reduce the benefit of ICD by decreasing the risk of sudden cardiac death (179, 180). Surgical or alternatively percutaneous revascularization has showed hardly any benefits on outcomes in the treatment of HF (HFrEF) due to ischemic heart disease. It may (or should) yet be considered in patients carefully selected on an individual basis (181–183). Epigenetic modulation, including mRNA technologies, is offering new prospects for treatment (184, 185). Regenerative strategies, which caused enthusiasm in the cardiac community two decades ago but then stalled, have been recently revisited (186–190). The modern armamentarium for HF treatment includes a gamut of approaches with cellular drugs and heart transplant at opposite sides of the spectrum. However, heart transplant is a bail-out action, while the drugs are the mainstay.

The diversity of treatment approaches reflects the complexity of HF pathophysiology, unmet needs (HF is still a detrimental disorder), and insufficient understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Reducing HF pathophysiology to the malfunction of the heart pump, with failure of the kidneys to excrete the excess of retained extracellular fluid, proved to be a simplistic concept insufficient for efficient treatment strategies. Adding the hemodynamics of circulation to the concept did not help much either; the resulting pharmacological interventions may have brought some temporary relief but without any impact on the final outcomes. Only a paradigm shift, discovering that the hub of HF pathophysiology is a detrimental systemic neurohormonal response, led to a breakthrough with reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes (including mortality) by pharmacological neurohormonal inhibition. HFpEF, where neurohormonal inhibition did not work, exposed the gaps in understanding. Chance discovery of SGLT2is, which are also beneficial for HFpEF and cardiorenal syndrome, highlighted the cellular aspects of HF. Revisiting cellular pathophysiology of the failing heart and the related organs, especially of the kidneys, holds promise to find new avenues of HF treatment. From the viewpoint of experimental research in cardiology, modulation of mitochondrial function may be one of those avenues (191–194).

Literature

1.
Katz AM. The “modern” view of heart failure: how did we get here? Circ Heart Fail. 2008 May;1(1):63–71.DOI
2.
Katz AM. Evolving concepts of heart failure: cooling furnace, malfunctioning pump, enlarging muscle. Part II: Hypertrophy and dilatation of the failing heart. J Card Fail. 1998 March;4(1):67–81.DOI
3.
Osler W. Practice of medicine, designed for the use of practitioners and students of medicine. New York: A. Appleton and Company; 1892. p 634.
4.
Leech CB. An improvement of Southey’s tubes. J Am Med Assoc. 1936;106(22):1895–6.DOI
5.
Jacobs MS. The history of digitalis therapy. Ann Med Hist. 1936;8(6):492–9.PubMed
6.
Hauptman PJ, Kelly RA. Digitalis. Circulation. 1999 March 9;99(9):1265–70.DOI
7.
Wade OL. Digoxin 1785-1985. I. Two hundred years of digitalis. J Clin Hosp Pharm. 1986 February;11(1):3–9.DOI
8.
Fisch C. William Withering: An account of the foxglove and some of its medical uses 1785-1985. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985 May;5(5) Suppl A:1A–2A.DOI
9.
Davis RC, Hobbs FD, Lip GY. ABC of heart failure. History and epidemiology. BMJ. 2000 January 1;320(7226):39–42.DOI
10.
Ray CT. Mercurial diuretics; their mechanism of action and application. AMA Arch Intern Med. 1958 December;102(6):1016–23.DOI
11.
Moser M, Feig PU. Fifty years of thiazide diuretic therapy for hypertension. Arch Intern Med. 2009 November 9;169(20):1851–6.DOI
12.
Felker GM, Ellison DH, Mullens W, Cox ZL, Testani JM. Diuretic Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 March 17;75(10):1178–95.DOI
13.
Stokes W. A NEW EFFECTIVE DIURETIC--LASIX. BMJ. 1964 October 10;2(5414):910–4.DOI
14.
Mullens W, Damman K, Harjola VP, Mebazaa A, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Martens P, et al. The use of diuretics in heart failure with congestion - a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019 February;21(2):137–55.DOI
15.
Sabbadin C, Calò LA, Armanini D. The story of spironolactones from 1957 to now: from sodium balance to inflammation. G Ital Nefrol. 2016 Feb;33 Suppl 66:33.S66.12.PubMed
16.
Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, Cody R, Castaigne A, Perez A, et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999 September 2;341(10):709–17.DOI
17.
Pitt B, Remme W, Zannad F, Neaton J, Martinez F, Roniker B, et al. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003 April 3;348(14):1309–21.DOI
18.
Agarwal R, Filippatos G, Pitt B, Anker SD, Rossing P, Joseph A, et al. Cardiovascular and kidney outcomes with finerenone in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: the FIDELITY pooled analysis. Eur Heart J. 2022 February 10;43(6):474–84.DOI
19.
Hampton JR. Results of clinical trials with diuretics in heart failure. Br Heart J. 1994 August;72(2) Suppl:S68–72.DOI
20.
Cody RJ. Clinical trials of diuretic therapy in heart failure: research directions and clinical considerations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 October;22(4) Suppl A:165A–71A.DOI
21.
Packer M. Pathophysiology of chronic heart failure. Lancet. 1992 July 11;340(8811):88–92.DOI
22.
Packer M. How should physicians view heart failure? The philosophical and physiological evolution of three conceptual models of the disease. Am J Cardiol. 1993 March 25;71(9):3C–11C.DOI
23.
Packer M. The neurohormonal hypothesis: a theory to explain the mechanism of disease progression in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992 July;20(1):248–54.DOI
24.
Packer M. ESC Rene Laennec Lecture on Clinical Cardiology. In: ESC Congress, 25 Aug 2023.
25.
Digitalis Investigation Group. The effect of digoxin on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1997 February 20;336(8):525–33.DOI
26.
Digitalis Investigation Group, Ahmed A, Waagstein F, Pitt B, White M, Zannad F, Young JB, et al. Effectiveness of digoxin in reducing one-year mortality in chronic heart failure in the Digitalis Investigation Group trial. Am J Cardiol. 2009 January 1;103(1):82–7.DOI
27.
Lopes RD, Rordorf R, De Ferrari GM, Leonardi S, Thomas L, Wojdyla DM, et al. Digoxin and Mortality in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 March 13;71(10):1063–74.DOI
28.
Aguirre Dávila L, Weber K, Bavendiek U, Bauersachs J, Wittes J, Yusuf S, et al. Digoxin-mortality: randomized vs. observational comparison in the DIG trial. Eur Heart J. 2019 October 21;40(40):3336–41.DOI
29.
Vamos M, Erath JW, Hohnloser SH. Digoxin-associated mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur Heart J. 2015 July 21;36(28):1831–8.DOI
30.
Packer M, Meller J. Oral vasodilator therapy for chronic heart failure: a plea for caution. Am J Cardiol. 1978 October;42(4):686–9.DOI
31.
Packer M. Vasodilator and inotropic therapy for severe chronic heart failure: passion and skepticism. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983 November;2(5):841–52.DOI
32.
Perret C, Gardaz JP, Reynaert M, Grimbert F, Enrico JF. Phentolamine for vasodilator therapy in left ventricular failure complicating acute myocardial infarction. Haemodynamic study. Br Heart J. 1975 June;37(6):640–6.DOI
33.
Aronow WS, Lurie M, Turbow M, Whittaker K, Van Camp S, Hughes D. Effect of prazosin vs placebo on chronic left ventricular heart failure. Circulation. 1979 February;59(2):344–50.DOI
34.
Mettauer B, Rouleau JL, Bichet D, Kortas C, Manzini C, Tremblay G, et al. Differential long-term intrarenal and neurohormonal effects of captopril and prazosin in patients with chronic congestive heart failure: importance of initial plasma renin activity. Circulation. 1986 March;73(3):492–502.DOI
35.
Bayliss J, Norell MS, Canepa-Anson R, Reid C, Poole-Wilson P, Sutton G. Clinical importance of the renin-angiotensin system in chronic heart failure: double blind comparison of captopril and prazosin. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985 June 22;290(6485):1861–5.DOI
36.
Rouleau JL, Chatterjee K, Benge W, Parmley WW, Hiramatsu B. Alterations in left ventricular function and coronary hemodynamics with captopril, hydralazine and prazosin in chronic ischemic heart failure: a comparative study. Circulation. 1982 April;65(4):671–8.DOI
37.
Loeb HS, Johnson G, Henrick A, Smith R, Wilson J, Cremo R, et al. Effect of enalapril, hydralazine plus isosorbide dinitrate, and prazosin on hospitalization in patients with chronic congestive heart failure. The V-HeFT VA Cooperative Studies Group. Circulation. 1993 Jun;87(6 Suppl):VI78-87.PubMed
38.
Cole RT, Kalogeropoulos AP, Georgiopoulou VV, Gheorghiade M, Quyyumi A, Yancy C, et al. Hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate in heart failure: historical perspective, mechanisms, and future directions. Circulation. 2011 May 31;123(21):2414–22.DOI
39.
Elkayam U, Shotan A, Mehra A, Ostrzega E. Calcium channel blockers in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 October;22(4) Suppl A:139A–44A.DOI
40.
Elkayam U. Calcium channel blockers in heart failure. Cardiology. 1998;89 Suppl 1:38–46.DOI
41.
Konstam MA, Smith JJ, Patten R, Udelson JE. Calcium channel blockers in heart failure: help or hindrance? J Card Fail. 1996 December;2(4) Suppl:S251–7.DOI
42.
Packer M. Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the adverse effects of calcium channel-blocking drugs in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation. 1989 Dec;80(6 Suppl):IV59-67.PubMed
43.
Packer M, Kessler PD, Lee WH. Calcium-channel blockade in the management of severe chronic congestive heart failure: a bridge too far. Circulation. 1987 Jun;75(6 Pt 2):V56-64.PubMed
44.
Arrigo M, Jessup M, Mullens W, Reza N, Shah AM, Sliwa K, et al. Acute heart failure. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020 March 5;6(1):16.DOI
45.
Metra M, Teerlink JR, Voors AA, Felker GM, Milo-Cotter O, Weatherley B, et al. Vasodilators in the treatment of acute heart failure: what we know, what we don’t. Heart Fail Rev. 2009 December;14(4):299–307.DOI
46.
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021 September 21;42(36):3599–726.DOI
47.
Mullens W, Abrahams Z, Francis GS, Skouri HN, Starling RC, Young JB, et al. Sodium nitroprusside for advanced low-output heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 July 15;52(3):200–7.DOI
48.
Ahmad T, Miller PE, McCullough M, Desai NR, Riello R, Psotka M, et al. Why has positive inotropy failed in chronic heart failure? Lessons from prior inotrope trials. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019 September;21(9):1064–78.DOI
49.
Packer M. The development of positive inotropic agents for chronic heart failure: how have we gone astray? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 October;22(4) Suppl A:119A–26A.DOI
50.
Petersen JW, Felker GM. Inotropes in the management of acute heart failure. Crit Care Med. 2008 January;36(1) Suppl:S106–11.DOI
51.
Amin A, Maleki M. Positive inotropes in heart failure: a review article. Heart Asia. 2012 January 1;4(1):16–22.DOI
52.
Belletti A, Castro ML, Silvetti S, Greco T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Pasin L, et al. The Effect of inotropes and vasopressors on mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Br J Anaesth. 2015 November;115(5):656–75.DOI
53.
Bistola V, Arfaras-Melainis A, Polyzogopoulou E, Ikonomidis I, Parissis J. Inotropes in Acute Heart Failure: From Guidelines to Practical Use: Therapeutic Options and Clinical Practice. Card Fail Rev. 2019 November 4;5(3):133–9.DOI
54.
Francis GS, Bartos JA, Adatya S. Inotropes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 May 27;63(20):2069–78.DOI
55.
Teerlink JR, Diaz R, Felker GM, McMurray JJV, Metra M, Solomon SD, et al. GALACTIC-HF Investigators. Cardiac Myosin Activation with Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Systolic Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2021 January 14;384(2):105–16.DOI
56.
Cleland JG, Teerlink JR, Senior R, Nifontov EM, Mc Murray JJ, Lang CC, et al. The effects of the cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, on cardiac function in systolic heart failure: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, dose-ranging phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2011 August 20;378(9792):676–83.DOI
57.
Katz AM. Influence of altered inotropy and lusitropy on ventricular pressure-volume loops. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988 February;11(2):438–45.DOI
58.
Gibson DG, Brown D. Measurement of instantaneous left ventricular volumes and filling rate in man by echocardiography. Br Heart J. 1973 May;35(5):559.PubMed
59.
Upton MT, Gibson DG, Brown DJ. Echocardiographic assessment of abnormal left ventricular relaxation in man. Br Heart J. 1976 October;38(10):1001–9.DOI
60.
Gaasch WH, Levine HJ, Quinones MA, Alexander JK. Left ventricular compliance: mechanisms and clinical implications. Am J Cardiol. 1976 November 4;38(5):645–53.DOI
61.
Ng KS, Gibson DG. Impairment of diastolic function by shortened filling period in severe left ventricular disease. Br Heart J. 1989 October;62(4):246–52.DOI
62.
Vasan RS, Benjamin EJ, Levy D. Prevalence, clinical features and prognosis of diastolic heart failure: an epidemiologic perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 December;26(7):1565–74.DOI
63.
Yamamoto K, Redfield MM, Nishimura RA. Analysis of left ventricular diastolic function. Heart. 1996 June;75(6) Suppl 2:27–35.DOI
64.
Vasan RS, Levy D. Defining diastolic heart failure: a call for standardized diagnostic criteria. Circulation. 2000 May 2;101(17):2118–21.DOI
65.
van Kraaij DJ, van Pol PE, Ruiters AW, de Swart JB, Lips DJ, Lencer N, et al. Diagnosing diastolic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2002 August;4(4):419–30.DOI
66.
Jorge García M. Diagnóstico y guía terapéutica de la insuficiencia cardíaca diastólica [Diagnosis and therapeutic guidance of diastolic heart failure]. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2003 Apr;56(4):396-406. Spanish.DOI
67.
Zile MR, Baicu CF, Gaasch WH. Diastolic heart failure--abnormalities in active relaxation and passive stiffness of the left ventricle. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 6;350(19):1953–9.DOI
68.
Bursi F, Weston SA, Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Pakhomov S, Nkomo VT, et al. Systolic and diastolic heart failure in the community. JAMA. 2006 November 8;296(18):2209–16.DOI
69.
Kane GC, Karon BL, Mahoney DW, Redfield MM, Roger VL, Burnett JC, et al. Progression of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and risk of heart failure. JAMA. 2011 August 24;306(8):856–63.DOI
70.
Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, de Faire U, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002 March 23;359(9311):995–1003.DOI
71.
Greve AM, Olsen MH, Bella JN, Lønnebakken MT, Gerdts E, Okin PM, et al. Contrasting hemodynamic mechanisms of losartan- vs. atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment: a LIFE study. Am J Hypertens. 2012 September;25(9):1017–23.DOI
72.
Oh JK, Miranda WR, Bird JG, Kane GC, Nagueh SF. The 2016 Diastolic Function Guideline: Is it Already Time to Revisit or Revise Them? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 January;13(1 Pt 2):327–35.DOI
73.
Nagueh SF. Left Ventricular Diastolic Function: Understanding Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Prognosis With Echocardiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 January;13(1 Pt 2):228–44.DOI
74.
Senni M, Redfield MM. Heart failure with preserved systolic function. A different natural history? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 November 1;38(5):1277–82.DOI
75.
Burkhoff D, Maurer MS, Packer M. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction: is it really a disorder of diastolic function? Circulation. 2003 February 11;107(5):656–8.DOI
76.
Maurer MS. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction (HFNEF): embracing complexity. J Card Fail. 2009 September;15(7):561–4.DOI
77.
Lewis GA, Schelbert EB, Williams SG, Cunnington C, Ahmed F, McDonagh TA, et al. Biological Phenotypes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 October 24;70(17):2186–200.DOI
78.
Sanderson JE. HFNEF, HFpEF, HF-PEF, or DHF: what is in an acronym? JACC Heart Fail. 2014 February;2(1):93–4.DOI
79.
Sanderson JE. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction. Heart. 2007 February;93(2):155–8.DOI
80.
Parikh KS, Sharma K, Fiuzat M, Surks HK, George JT, Honarpour N, et al. Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Expert Panel Report: Current Controversies and Implications for Clinical Trials. JACC Heart Fail. 2018 August;6(8):619–32.DOI
81.
Mishra S, Kass DA. Cellular and molecular pathobiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021 June;18(6):400–23.DOI
82.
Cleland JG, Dargie HJ, Hodsman GP, Ball SG, Robertson JI, Morton JJ, et al. Captopril in heart failure. A double blind controlled trial. Br Heart J. 1984 November;52(5):530–5.DOI
83.
CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure. Results of the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS). N Engl J Med. 1987 June 4;316(23):1429–35.DOI
84.
Cohn JN, Johnson G, Ziesche S, Cobb F, Francis G, Tristani F, et al. A comparison of enalapril with hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1991 August 1;325(5):303–10.DOI
85.
Francis GS, Cohn JN, Johnson G, Rector TS, Goldman S, Simon A. Plasma norepinephrine, plasma renin activity, and congestive heart failure. Relations to survival and the effects of therapy in V-HeFT II. The V-HeFT VA Cooperative Studies Group. Circulation. 1993 Jun;87(6 Suppl):VI40-8.PubMed
86.
SOLVD Investigators, Yusuf S, Pitt B, Davis CE, Hood WB, Cohn JN. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1991 August 1;325(5):293–302.DOI
87.
Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moyé LA, Basta L, Brown EJ, Cuddy TE, et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Results of the survival and ventricular enlargement trial. The SAVE Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1992 September 3;327(10):669–77.DOI
88.
Effect of ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivors of acute myocardial infarction with clinical evidence of heart failure. The Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study Investigators. Lancet. 1993 Oct 2;342(8875):821-8.PubMed
89.
Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C, Carlsen JE, Bagger H, Eliasen P, Lyngborg K, et al. A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation (TRACE) Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1995 December 21;333(25):1670–6.DOI
90.
Patel S, Rauf A, Khan H, Abu-Izneid T. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone (RAAS): The ubiquitous system for homeostasis and pathologies. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017 October;94:317–25.DOI
91.
Muñoz-Durango N, Fuentes CA, Castillo AE, González-Gómez LM, Vecchiola A, Fardella CE, et al. Role of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System beyond Blood Pressure Regulation: Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms Involved in End-Organ Damage during Arterial Hypertension. Int J Mol Sci. 2016 June 23;17(7):797.DOI
92.
Hartupee J, Mann DL. Neurohormonal activation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017 January;14(1):30–8.DOI
93.
Fournier D, Luft FC, Bader M, Ganten D, Andrade-Navarro MA. Emergence and evolution of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. J Mol Med (Berl). 2012 May;90(5):495–508.DOI
94.
Katz AM. Angiotensin II: hemodynamic regulator or growth factor? J Mol Cell Cardiol. 1990 July;22(7):739–47.DOI
95.
Maggioni AP. Heart Failure: Treatment strategies for heart failure: beta blockers and antiarrhythmics. Heart. 2001 January;85(1):97–103.DOI
96.
Waagstein F, Hjalmarson A, Varnauskas E, Wallentin I. Effect of chronic beta-adrenergic receptor blockade in congestive cardiomyopathy. Br Heart J. 1975 October;37(10):1022–36.DOI
97.
Nicholls M. Finn Waagstein MD PhD: Finn Waagstein reflects on his work and research which saw beta-blockers revolutionise the treatment of heart failure patients. Mark Nicholls reports. Eur Heart J. 2017 November 21;38(44):3249–50.DOI
98.
Waagstein F, Rutherford JD. The Evolution of the Use of β-Blockers to Treat Heart Failure: A Conversation With Finn Waagstein, MD. Circulation. 2017 September 5;136(10):889–93.DOI
99.
A randomized trial of beta-blockade in heart failure. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS). CIBIS Investigators and Committees. Circulation. 1994 October;90(4):1765–73.DOI
100.
The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II). a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999 Jan 2;353(9146):9-13.PubMed
101.
Erdmann E, Lechat P, Verkenne P, Wiemann H. Results from post-hoc analyses of the CIBIS II trial: effect of bisoprolol in high-risk patient groups with chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2001 August;3(4):469–79.DOI
102.
Packer M, Bristow MR, Cohn JN, Colucci WS, Fowler MB, Gilbert EM, et al. The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996 May 23;334(21):1349–55.DOI
103.
Hjalmarson A, Goldstein S, Fagerberg B, Wedel H, Waagstein F, Kjekshus J, et al. Effects of controlled-release metoprolol on total mortality, hospitalizations, and well-being in patients with heart failure: the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in congestive heart failure (MERIT-HF). MERIT-HF Study Group. JAMA. 2000 March 8;283(10):1295–302.DOI
104.
Flather MD, Shibata MC, Coats AJ, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Parkhomenko A, Borbola J, et al. SENIORS Investigators. Randomized trial to determine the effect of nebivolol on mortality and cardiovascular hospital admission in elderly patients with heart failure (SENIORS). Eur Heart J. 2005 February;26(3):215–25.DOI
105.
Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022 May 3;145(18):e895–1032.DOI
106.
Struthers AD. Aldosterone blockade in heart failure. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst. 2004 September;5 Suppl 1:S23–7.DOI
107.
Struthers AD. Angiotensin blockade or aldosterone blockade as the third neuroendocrine-blocking drug in mild but symptomatic heart failure patients. Heart. 2006 December;92(12):1728–31.DOI
108.
Timmermans PB, Duncia JV, Carini DJ, Chiu AT, Wong PC, Wexler RR, et al. Discovery of losartan, the first angiotensin II receptor antagonist. J Hum Hypertens. 1995 Nov;9 Suppl 5:S3-18.PubMed
109.
Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Keane WF, Mitch WE, Parving HH, et al. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001 September 20;345(12):861–9.DOI
110.
Pitt B, Segal R, Martinez FA, Meurers G, Cowley AJ, Thomas I, et al. Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE). Lancet. 1997 March 15;349(9054):747–52.DOI
111.
Pitt B, Poole-Wilson PA, Segal R, Martinez FA, Dickstein K, Camm AJ, et al. Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial--the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II. Lancet. 2000 May 6;355(9215):1582–7.DOI
112.
Pitt B. Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE) Trial: clinical implications. Eur Heart J. 1997 August;18(8):1197–9.DOI
113.
Dickstein K, Kjekshus J, OPTIMAAL Steering Committee of the OPTIMAAL Study Group. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan. Lancet. 2002 September 7;360(9335):752–60.DOI
114.
Cohn JN, Tognoni G, Valsartan Heart Failure Trial Investigators. A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001 December 6;345(23):1667–75.DOI
115.
Granger CB, McMurray JJ, Yusuf S, Held P, Michelson EL, Olofsson B, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Alternative trial. Lancet. 2003 September 6;362(9386):772–6.DOI
116.
McMurray JJ, Ostergren J, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, Michelson EL, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial. Lancet. 2003 September 6;362(9386):767–71.DOI
117.
Weir RA, McMurray JJ, Puu M, Solomon SD, Olofsson B, Granger CB, et al. CHARM Investigators. Efficacy and tolerability of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with heart failure already receiving an angiotensin-converting inhibitor plus aldosterone antagonist, with or without a beta blocker. Findings from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Added trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2008 February;10(2):157–63.DOI
118.
Kiernan MS, Wentworth D, Francis G, Martinez FA, Dickstein K, Komajda M, et al. Predicting adverse events during angiotensin receptor blocker treatment in heart failure: results from the HEAAL trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012 December;14(12):1401–9.DOI
119.
Parker AB, Azevedo ER, Baird MG, Smith SJ, Arnold JM, Humen DP, et al. ARCTIC: assessment of haemodynamic response in patients with congestive heart failure to telmisartan: a multicentre dose-ranging study in Canada. Am Heart J. 1999 November;138(5 Pt 1):843–8.DOI
120.
Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial. Lancet. 2003 September 6;362(9386):777–81.DOI
121.
Massie BM, Carson PE, McMurray JJ, Komajda M, McKelvie R, Zile MR, et al. I-PRESERVE Investigators. Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2008 December 4;359(23):2456–67.DOI
122.
Hubers SA, Brown NJ. Combined Angiotensin Receptor Antagonism and Neprilysin Inhibition. Circulation. 2016 March 15;133(11):1115–24.DOI
123.
McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, et al. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014 September 11;371(11):993–1004.DOI
124.
Docherty KF, Vaduganathan M, Solomon SD, McMurray JJV. Sacubitril/Valsartan: Neprilysin Inhibition 5 Years After PARADIGM-HF. JACC Heart Fail. 2020 October;8(10):800–10.DOI
125.
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2023 October 1;44(37):3627–39.DOI
126.
Inoue K, Naruse K, Yamagami S, Mitani H, Suzuki N, Takei Y. Four functionally distinct C-type natriuretic peptides found in fish reveal evolutionary history of the natriuretic peptide system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003 August 19;100(17):10079–84.DOI
127.
Fu S, Ping P, Wang F, Luo L. Synthesis, secretion, function, metabolism and application of natriuretic peptides in heart failure. J Biol Eng. 2018 January 12;12:2.DOI
128.
Wylie JV, Tsao L. Nesiritide for the treatment of decompensated heart failure. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2004 November;2(6):803–13.DOI
129.
Topol EJ. Nesiritide - not verified. N Engl J Med. 2005 July 14;353(2):113–6.DOI
130.
O’Connor CM, Starling RC, Hernandez AF, Armstrong PW, Dickstein K, Hasselblad V, et al. Effect of nesiritide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2011 July 7;365(1):32–43.DOI
131.
Egom EE. BNP and Heart Failure: Preclinical and Clinical Trial Data. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2015 April;8(3):149–57.DOI
132.
Kittleson MM. Nesiritide and Me. Circ Heart Fail. 2018 August;11(8):e005440.DOI
133.
Psotka MA, Teerlink JR. Ivabradine: Role in the Chronic Heart Failure Armamentarium. Circulation. 2016 May 24;133(21):2066–75.DOI
134.
Orasanu G, Al-Kindi SG, Oliveira GH. Ivabradine in Management of Heart Failure: a Critical Appraisal. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2016 February;13(1):60–9.DOI
135.
Lam CSP, Chandramouli C. Fat, Female, Fatigued: Features of the Obese HFpEF Phenotype. JACC Heart Fail. 2018 August;6(8):710–3.DOI
136.
Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Claggett B, et al. TOPCAT Investigators. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2014 April 10;370(15):1383–92.DOI
137.
Liang M, Bian B, Yang Q. Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2022 January;45(1):5–17.DOI
138.
Komajda M, Lam CS. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a clinical dilemma. Eur Heart J. 2014 April;35(16):1022–32.DOI
139.
Talha KM, Butler J. Breakthroughs in the treatment of heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Clin Cardiol. 2022 Jun;45 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S31-S39.DOI
140.
Senni M, Paulus WJ, Gavazzi A, Fraser AG, Díez J, Solomon SD, et al. New strategies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the importance of targeted therapies for heart failure phenotypes. Eur Heart J. 2014 October 21;35(40):2797–815.DOI
141.
Lam CS, Teng TH. Understanding Heart Failure With Mid-Range Ejection Fraction. JACC Heart Fail. 2016 June;4(6):473–6.DOI
142.
Lam CS, Solomon SD. The middle child in heart failure: heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (40-50%). Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 October;16(10):1049–55.DOI
143.
Savarese G, Stolfo D, Sinagra G, Lund LH. Heart failure with mid-range or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2022 February;19(2):100–16.DOI
144.
Trujillo ME, Ayalasomayajula S, Blaustein RO, Gheyas F. Vericiguat, a novel sGC stimulator: Mechanism of action, clinical, and translational science. Clin Transl Sci. 2023 December;16(12):2458–66.DOI
145.
Armstrong PW, Pieske B, Anstrom KJ, Ezekowitz J, Hernandez AF, Butler J, et al. Vericiguat in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 14;382(20):1883–93.DOI
146.
Teerlink JR, Diaz R, Felker GM, McMurray JJV, Metra M, Solomon SD, et al. Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of GALACTIC-HF. JACC Heart Fail. 2020 April;8(4):329–40.DOI
147.
Felker GM, Solomon SD, Claggett B, Diaz R, McMurray JJV, Metra M, et al. Assessment of Omecamtiv Mecarbil for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Heart Failure: A Post Hoc Analysis of Data From the GALACTIC-HF Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022 January 1;7(1):26–34.DOI
148.
Rieg T, Vallon V. Development of SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitors. Diabetologia. 2018 October;61(10):2079–86.DOI
149.
Wilcox T, De Block C, Schwartzbard AZ, Newman JD. Diabetic Agents, From Metformin to SGLT2 Inhibitors and GLP1 Receptor Agonists: JACC Focus Seminar. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 April 28;75(16):1956–74.DOI
150.
Helvacı Ö, Helvacı B. A Story of Serendipities: From Phlorizin to Gliflozins. Exp Clin Transplant. 2023 June;21 Suppl 2:105–8.DOI
151.
Newman JD, Vani AK, Aleman JO, Weintraub HS, Berger JS, Schwartzbard AZ. The Changing Landscape of Diabetes Therapy for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 October 9;72(15):1856–69.DOI
152.
Savage P, Dixon L, Grieve D, Watson C. SGLT2 Inhibition in Heart Failure: Clues to Cardiac Effects? Cardiol Rev. 2024 January 8.DOI
153.
Verma S, McMurray JJV. SGLT2 inhibitors and mechanisms of cardiovascular benefit: a state-of-the-art review. Diabetologia. 2018 October;61(10):2108–17.DOI
154.
Garg V, Verma S, Connelly K. Mechanistic insights regarding the role of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonist drugs on cardiovascular disease in diabetes. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2019 July-August;62(4):349–57.DOI
155.
Vasquez-Rios G, Nadkarni GN. SGLT2 Inhibitors: Emerging Roles in the Protection Against Cardiovascular and Kidney Disease Among Diabetic Patients. Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis. 2020 October 28;13:281–96.DOI
156.
Packer M. SGLT2 Inhibitors Produce Cardiorenal Benefits by Promoting Adaptive Cellular Reprogramming to Induce a State of Fasting Mimicry: A Paradigm Shift in Understanding Their Mechanism of Action. Diabetes Care. 2020 March;43(3):508–11.DOI
157.
Chen K, Nie Z, Shi R, Yu D, Wang Q, Shao F, et al. Time to Benefit of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors Among Patients With Heart Failure. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 August 1;6(8):e2330754.DOI
158.
McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, Køber L, Kosiborod MN, Martinez FA, et al. Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019 November 21;381(21):1995–2008.DOI
159.
Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, Pocock SJ, Carson P, et al. Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin in Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2020 October 8;383(15):1413–24.DOI
160.
Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, Ferreira JP, Bocchi E, Böhm M, et al. Empagliflozin in Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2021 October 14;385(16):1451–61.DOI
161.
Solomon SD, Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL, de Boer RA, DeMets D, Hernandez AF, et al. Baseline Characteristics of Patients With HF With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: DELIVER Trial. JACC Heart Fail. 2022 March;10(3):184–97.DOI
162.
Packer M. SGLT2 inhibitors: role in protective reprogramming of cardiac nutrient transport and metabolism. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2023 July;20(7):443–62.DOI
163.
Packer M. Critical Reanalysis of the Mechanisms Underlying the Cardiorenal Benefits of SGLT2 Inhibitors and Reaffirmation of the Nutrient Deprivation Signaling/Autophagy Hypothesis. Circulation. 2022 November;146(18):1383–405.DOI
164.
Pandey AK, Bhatt DL, Pandey A, Marx N, Cosentino F, Pandey A, et al. Mechanisms of benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur Heart J. 2023 October 1;44(37):3640–51.DOI
165.
Docherty KF, Bayes-Genis A, Butler J, Coats AJS, Drazner MH, Joyce E, et al. The four pillars of HFrEF therapy: is it time to treat heart failure regardless of ejection fraction? Eur Heart J Suppl. 2022 December 19;24 Suppl L:L10–9.DOI
166.
Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E. Treatment of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Reflections on Its Treatment With an Aldosterone Antagonist. JAMA Cardiol. 2016 April 1;1(1):7–8.DOI
167.
Deswal A, Richardson P, Bozkurt B, Mann DL. Results of the Randomized Aldosterone Antagonism in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction trial (RAAM-PEF). J Card Fail. 2011 August;17(8):634–42.DOI
168.
Punnoose LR, Givertz MM, Lewis EF, Pratibhu P, Stevenson LW, Desai AS. Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: a distinct clinical entity. J Card Fail. 2011 July;17(7):527–32.DOI
169.
Basuray A, French B, Ky B, Vorovich E, Olt C, Sweitzer NK, et al. Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: clinical description, biomarkers, and outcomes. Circulation. 2014 June 10;129(23):2380–7.DOI
170.
Kalogeropoulos AP, Fonarow GC, Georgiopoulou V, Burkman G, Siwamogsatham S, Patel A, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of Adult Outpatients With Heart Failure and Improved or Recovered Ejection Fraction. JAMA Cardiol. 2016 August 1;1(5):510–8.DOI
171.
Wilcox JE, Fang JC, Margulies KB, Mann DL. Heart Failure With Recovered Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 August 11;76(6):719–34.DOI
172.
Barth AS, Kumordzie A, Frangakis C, Margulies KB, Cappola TP, Tomaselli GF. Reciprocal transcriptional regulation of metabolic and signaling pathways correlates with disease severity in heart failure. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2011 October;4(5):475–83.DOI
173.
Packer M. Foetal recapitulation of nutrient surplus signalling by O-GlcNAcylation and the failing heart. Eur J Heart Fail. 2023 August;25(8):1199–212.DOI
174.
Cikes M, Solomon SD. Beyond ejection fraction: an integrative approach for assessment of cardiac structure and function in heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2016 June 1;37(21):1642–50.DOI
175.
Louis A, Cleland JG, Crabbe S, Ford S, Thackray S, Houghton T, et al. Clinical Trials Update: CAPRICORN, COPERNICUS, MIRACLE, STAF, RITZ-2, RECOVER and RENAISSANCE and cachexia and cholesterol in heart failure. Highlights of the Scientific Sessions of the American College of Cardiology, 2001. Eur J Heart Fail. 2001 June;3(3):381–7.DOI
176.
Coletta AP, Clark AL, Banarjee P, Cleland JG. Clinical trials update: RENEWAL (RENAISSANCE and RECOVER) and ATTACH. Eur J Heart Fail. 2002 August;4(4):559–61.DOI
177.
Hunt SA, Baker DW, Chin MH, Cinquegrani MP, Feldman AM, Francis GS, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 December;38(7):2101–13.DOI
178.
Stevenson LW, Naftilan AJ. Changing the Stage Directions for Heart Failure? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 March 31;75(12):1439–42.DOI
179.
Disertori M, Masè M, Rigoni M, Nollo G, Ravelli F. Declining clinical benefit of ICD in heart failure patients: Temporal trend of mortality outcomes from randomized controlled trials. J Cardiol. 2020 February;75(2):148–54.DOI
180.
Seferovic PM, Ponikowski P, Anker SD, Bauersachs J, Chioncel O, Cleland JGF, et al. Clinical practice update on heart failure 2019: pharmacotherapy, procedures, devices and patient management. An expert consensus meeting report of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019 October;21(10):1169–86.DOI
181.
Li Kam Wa ME, Assar SZ, Kirtane AJ, Perera D. Revascularisation for Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy. Interv Cardiol. 2023 August 1;18:e24.DOI
182.
Liga R, Colli A, Taggart DP, Boden WE, De Caterina R. Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 March 21;12(6):e026943.DOI
183.
Ryan M, Morgan H, Petrie MC, Perera D. Coronary revascularisation in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Heart. 2021 April;107(8):612–8.DOI
184.
Gorica E, Mohammed SA, Ambrosini S, Calderone V, Costantino S, Paneni F. Epi-Drugs in Heart Failure. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 July 13;9:923014.DOI
185.
Ambrosini S, Gorica E, Mohammed SA, Costantino S, Ruschitzka F, Paneni F. Epigenetic remodeling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2022 May 1;37(3):219–26.DOI
186.
Ptaszek LM, Mansour M, Ruskin JN, Chien KR. Towards regenerative therapy for cardiac disease. Lancet. 2012 March 10;379(9819):933–42.DOI
187.
Doppler SA, Deutsch MA, Lange R, Krane M. Cardiac regeneration: current therapies-future concepts. J Thorac Dis. 2013 October;5(5):683–97.DOI
188.
Bartunek J, Behfar A, Dolatabadi D, Vanderheyden M, Ostojic M, Dens J, et al. Cardiopoietic stem cell therapy in heart failure: the C-CURE (Cardiopoietic stem Cell therapy in heart failURE) multicenter randomized trial with lineage-specified biologics. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 June 11;61(23):2329–38.DOI
189.
Silvestre JS, Menasché P. The Evolution of the Stem Cell Theory for Heart Failure. EBioMedicine. 2015 November 5;2(12):1871–9.DOI
190.
Tzahor E, Poss KD. Cardiac regeneration strategies: Staying young at heart. Science. 2017 June 9;356(6342):1035–9.DOI
191.
Rosca MG, Hoppel CL. Mitochondria in heart failure. Cardiovasc Res. 2010 October 1;88(1):40–50.DOI
192.
Brown DA, Perry JB, Allen ME, Sabbah HN, Stauffer BL, Shaikh SR, et al. Expert consensus document: Mitochondrial function as a therapeutic target in heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017 April;14(4):238–50.DOI
193.
Zhou B, Tian R. Mitochondrial dysfunction in pathophysiology of heart failure. J Clin Invest. 2018 August 31;128(9):3716–26.DOI
194.
Kumar AA, Kelly DP, Chirinos JA. Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. Circulation. 2019 March 12;139(11):1435–50.DOI

Authors

Abstract

Keywords

DOI

Full Text

Literature

Understanding Heart Failure: Evolution of Concepts and Treatments

Authors

Abstract

Full Text

Historical background

Approaching modern times: the story of diuretics

Practice, theories, and pathophysiological concepts

THE CARDIORENAL MODEL

THE CARDIOCIRCULATORY MODEL

THE NEUROHORMONAL HYPOTHESIS

THE CELLULAR STRESS HYPOTHESIS

Concluding remarks

Literature