In heart failure (HF), acute decompensation can occur quickly and unexpectedly because of worsening of chronic HF or to new‐onset HF diagnosed for the first time (‘de novo’). Patients presenting with acute HF (AHF) have a poor prognosis comparable with those with acute myocardial infarction, and any delay of treatment initiation is associated with worse outcomes. Recent HF guidelines and recommendations have highlighted the importance of a timely diagnosis and immediate treatment for patients presenting with AHF to decrease disease progression and improve prognosis. However, based on the available data, there is still uncertainty regarding the optimal ‘time‐to‐treatment’ effect in AHF. Furthermore, the immediate post‐worsening HF period plays an important role in clinical outcomes in HF patients after hospitalization and is known as the ‘vulnerable phase’ characterized by high risk of readmission and early death. Early and intensive treatment for HF patients in the ‘vulnerable phase’ might be associated with lower rates of early readmission and mortality. Additionally, in the chronic stable HF outpatient, treatments are often delayed or not initiated when symptoms are stable, ignoring the risk for adverse outcomes such as sudden death. Consequently, there is a dire need to better identify HF patients during hospitalization and after discharge and treating them adequately to improve their prognosis. HF is an urgent clinical scenario along all its stages and disease conditions. Therefore, time plays a significant role throughout the entire patient's journey. Therapy should be optimized as soon as possible, because this is beneficial regardless of severity or duration of HF. Time lavished before treatment initiation is recognized as important modifiable risk factor in HF.

In contrast to the wealth of proven therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), therapeutic efforts in the past have failed to improve outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Moreover, to this day, diagnosis of HFpEF remains controversial. However, there is growing appreciation that HFpEF represents a heterogeneous syndrome with various phenotypes and comorbidities which are hardly to differentiate solely by LVEF and might benefit from individually tailored approaches. These hypotheses are supported by the recently presented PARAGON-HF trial. Although treatment with LCZ696 did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among HFpEF patients, subanalyses suggest beneficial effects in female patients and those with an LVEF between 45 and 57%. In the future, prospective randomized trials should focus on dedicated, well-defined subgroups based on various information such as clinical characteristics, biomarker levels, and imaging modalities. These could clarify the role of LCZ696 in selected individuals. Furthermore, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have just proven efficient in HFrEF patients and are currently also studied in large prospective clinical trials enrolling HFpEF patients. In addition, several novel disease-modifying drugs that pursue different strategies such as targeting cardiac inflammation and fibrosis have delivered preliminary optimistic results and are subject of further research. Moreover, innovative device therapies may enhance management of HFpEF, but need prospective adequately powered clinical trials to confirm safety and efficacy regarding clinical outcomes. This review highlights the past, present, and future therapeutic approaches in HFpEF.

Due to remarkable improvements in heart failure (HF) management over the last 30 years, a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization rates in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been observed. Currently, the optimization of guideline-directed chronic HF therapy remains the mainstay to further improve outcomes for patients with HFrEF to reduce mortality and HF hospitalization. This includes established device therapies, such as implantable defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapies, which improved patients' symptoms and prognosis. Over the last 10 years, new HF drugs have merged targeting various pathways, such as those that simultaneously suppress the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and the breakdown of endogenous natriuretic peptides (e.g., sacubitril/valsartan), and those that inhibit the If channel and, thus, reduce heart rate (e.g., ivabradine). Furthermore, the treatment of patient comorbidities (e.g., iron deficiency) has shown to improve functional capacity and to reduce hospitalization rates, when added to standard therapy. More recently, other potential treatment mechanisms have been explored, such as the sodium/glucose co-transporter inhibitors, the guanylate cyclase stimulators and the cardiac myosin activators. In this review, we summarize the novel developments in HFrEF pharmacological and device therapy and discuss their implementation strategies into practice to further improve outcomes.

No abstract