Background and aims STRONG-HF showed that rapid up-titration of guideline-recommended medical therapy (GRMT), in a high intensity care (HIC) strategy, was associated with better outcomes compared to usual care (UC). The aim of this study was to assess the role of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at baseline and its changes early during up-titration. Methods A total of 1077 patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF) and with a >10% NT-proBNP decrease from screening (i.e. admission) to randomization (i.e. pre-discharge), were included. Patients in HIC were stratified by further NT-proBNP changes from randomization to 1 week later as decreased (≥30% decrease), stable (<30% decrease to ≤10% increase) or increased (>10% increase). The primary endpoint was 180-day HF readmission or death. Results The effect of HIC vs. UC was independent of baseline NT-proBNP. Patients in the HIC group with stable or increased NT-proBNP were older, with more severe acute HF and worse renal and liver function. Per protocol, patients with increased NT-proBNP received more diuretics and were up-titrated more slowly during the first weeks after discharge. However, by 6 months they reached 70.4% optimal GRMT doses, compared with 80.3% for those with NT-proBNP decrease. As a result, the primary endpoint at 60 and 90 days occurred in 8.3% and 11.1% of patients with increased NT-proBNP vs 2.2% and 4.0% in those with decreased NT-proBNP (p=0.039 and p=0.045, respectively). However, no difference in outcome was found at 180 days (13.5% vs. 13.2%; p=0.93). Conclusions Among patients with acute HF enrolled in STRONG-HF, HIC reduced 180-day HF readmission or death regardless of baseline NT-proBNP. GRMT up-titration early post-discharge utilizing increased NT-proBNP as guidance to increase diuretic therapy and reduce the GRMT up-titration rate resulted in the same 180-day outcomes regardless of early post-discharge NT-proBNP change.

AimsSTRONG‐HF examined a high‐intensity care (HIC) strategy of rapid up‐titration of guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) and close follow‐up after acute heart failure (AHF) admission. We assess the role of age on efficacy and safety of HIC.Methods and resultsHospitalized AHF patients, not treated with optimal GDMT were randomized to HIC or usual care. The primary endpoint of 180‐day death or HF readmission occurred equally in older (>65 years, n = 493, 74 ± 5 years) and younger patients (53 ± 11 years, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73–1.43, p = 0.89). Older patients received slightly lower GDMT to day 21, but same doses at day 90 and 180. The effect of HIC on the primary endpoint was numerically higher in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.82) than older patients (aHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46–1.15, adjusted interaction p = 0.30), partially related to COVID‐19 deaths. After exclusion of COVID‐19 deaths, the effect of HIC was similar in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.82) and older patients (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32–1.02, adjusted interaction p = 0.56), with no treatment‐by‐age interaction (interaction p = 0.57). HIC induced larger improvements in quality of life to day 90 in younger (EQ‐VAS adjusted‐mean difference 5.51, 95% CI 3.20–7.82) than in older patients (1.77, 95% CI −0.75 to 4.29, interaction p = 0.032). HIC was associated with similar rates of adverse events in older and younger patients.ConclusionHigh‐intensity care after AHF was safe and resulted in a significant reduction of all‐cause death or HF readmission at 180 days across the study age spectrum. Older patients have smaller benefits in terms of quality of life.

AimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of rapid up‐titration of guideline‐directed medical therapies (GDMT) in men and women hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF).Methods and resultsIn STRONG‐HF, AHF patients were randomized just prior to discharge to either usual care (UC) or a high‐intensity care (HIC) strategy of GDMT up‐titration. In these analyses, we compared the implementation, efficacy, and safety of the HIC strategy between men and women. In the randomized AHF population, 416/1078 (39%) were women. By day 90, a higher proportion of both sexes in the HIC group had been up‐titrated to full doses of GDMT compared to UC. Overall, there were no differences in the primary endpoint between the sexes. The primary endpoint, 180‐day heart failure readmission or death, occurred in 15.8% HIC women versus 23.5% women in the UC group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–1.13) and in 14.9% HIC men versus 23.5% UC men (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38–0.88) (adjusted interaction p = 0.65). There was no significant treatment‐by‐sex interaction in quality‐of‐life improvement or in adverse events, including serious or fatal adverse events.ConclusionThe results of the current analyses suggest that a rapid up‐titration of GDMT immediately after an AHF hospitalization can and should be implemented similarly in men and women, as it results in reduction of 180‐day all‐cause death or heart failure readmission, quality‐of‐life improvement in both men and women with a similar safety profile.

Background Collateral damage of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular health is increasingly studied. This is a population-based study addressing multiple aspects of cardiovascular care during the pandemic in a country of Lithuania, in which pandemic waves were significantly different. Methods Data on cardiology outpatient care, hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality in 2019 and 2020 were collected from Lithuanian nationwide administrative databases and registries. Weekly data and aggregated numbers of corresponding 6-week phases were analyzed comparing the numbers between 2019 and 2020. Age, sex and regional subgroup analysis was performed. Results Both cardiovascular outpatient care visits and hospitalizations decreased dramatically in 2020 compared to 2019 with a peak reduction (up to − 60% for both) during the first pandemic wave in spring of 2020. Simultaneously, cardiovascular mortality was much higher in 2020, with a pronounced peak at the end of the year compared to 2019 (up to 46%). The increase was even more staggering when analyzing home deaths, which rose up to 91% by the end of 2020. Notable differences between age groups, regions and sexes were documented. Conclusion A profound indirect damage of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular care was observed in this study, with striking decreases in cardiovascular care provision and concurrent increase in cardiovascular mortality, both overall and, even more dramatically, at home. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05021575 (registration date 25–08–2021, retrospectively registered). Graphical abstract Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00392-022-02033-y.

Background and objectives: early reports showed a decrease in admission rates and an increase in mortality of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown had an impact on the ischemia time and prognosis of patients suffering from AMI in the settings of low COVID-19 burden. Materials and Methods: we conducted a retrospective data analysis from a tertiary center in Lithuania of 818 patients with AMI. Data were collected from 1 March to 30 June in 2020 during the peri-lockdown period (2020 group; n = 278) and compared to the same period last year (2019 group; n = 326). The primary study endpoint was all-cause mortality during 3 months of follow-up. Secondary endpoints were heart failure severity (Killip class) on admission and ischemia time in patients with acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Results: there was a reduction of 14.7% in admission rate for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the peri-lockdown period. The 3-month mortality rate did not differ significantly (6.9% in 2020 vs. 10.5% in 2019, p = 0.341 for STEMI patients; 5.3% in 2020 vs. 2.6% in 2019, p = 0.374 for patients with acute myocardial infarction without ST segment elevation (NSTEMI)). More STEMI patients presented with Killip IV class in 2019 (13.5% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.043, respectively). There was an increase of door-to-PCI time (54.0 [42.0–86.0] in 2019; 63.5 [48.3–97.5] in 2020, p = 0.018) and first medical contact (FMC)-to-PCI time (101.0 [82.5–120.8] in 2019; 115 [97.0–154.5] in 2020, p = 0.01) during the pandemic period. Conclusions: There was a 14.7% reduction of admissions for AMI during the first wave of COVID-19. FMC-to-PCI time increased during the peri-lockdown period, however, it did not translate into worse survival during follow-up.