The recommended treatments of heart failure aim to make patients feel better and to improve their prognosis as much as possible. The effects of the treatments differ between patients with HFrEF, HFpEF or HFmrEF. The table below shows which favourable prognostic effects each treatment has demonstrated in clinical studies. An additional goal is to reduce readmissions of heart failure patients as much as possible. Of course, every heart failure patient still has a residual risk of hospitalisation or mortality despite optimal treatment.
Especially in the treatment of HFrEF progress has been made in the past 3 decades. Mortality and hospitalizations due to heart failure have decreased significantly since the introduction of ACE inhibitors / ARB, beta -blockers, MRA, implantable devices (ICD, CRT), later ivabradine (2013), ARNI (2016) and most recently SGLT-2 inhibitors (2021). In advanced heart failure without further therapeutic options, heart transplantation and/or LVAD also improve the prognosis.
The treatment of HFpEF remained understudied for a long time and studies with standard treatments for HFrEF have been disappointing, without significant improvement in prognosis by therapy with ACE inhibitors/ARB, beta -blockers, MRA and ARNI. This is explained by the fact that HFpEF has a different pathophysiology and a different hemodynamic profile than HFrEF. The SGLT-2 inhibitors are the first class of drugs that have been shown to improve the prognosis of patients with HFpEF by significantly reducing hospitalizations for heart failure and slightly reducing cardiovascular mortality.
Patients with HFmrEF were mostly excluded in older heart failure studies. Therefore, it remained unclear for a long time how these patients are best treated. Subgroup analyses and the 2023 update of the ESC guidelines state that HFrEF treatments should also be considered in these patients. The SGLT-2 inhibitors are the first class of drugs that could demonstrate in specific studies the prognosis of patients with HFmrEF. ARNI could also demonstrate prognostic benefit in heart failure with an LVEF < 50% (PARAGON study), but the reimbursement criteria in Belgium have not yet followed this in 2024.
* Diuretics are old drugs that have never been studied in large randomized placebo-controlled trials. They have been a basic treatment for heart failure for decades. Their effects on prognosis have therefore never been studied like more recent heart failure therapies. They are only indicated for fluid retention at the lowest effective dose to maintain euvolemia. Presumably, both a too low dose and a too high dose worsen the patient's prognosis. A too low dose leads to fluid retention, cardiac decompensation and hospitalizations. A too high dose leads to dehydration, renal failure and hospitalizations. Proper titration of the diuretic dose during the course of the disease is therefore crucial.
A proportion of patients hospitalised for heart failure are hospitalised again within the first 30 days after discharge. In studies and in practice this varies between 5 and 15%, with variation between hospitals and the department in which the patient was hospitalised.
The main causes are:
These readmissions should be prevented as much as possible by:
Read: Strong-HF
Despite optimal heart failure therapy, there is still a risk of hospitalizations due to heart failure and mortality: the residual risk. This is determined by many factors (the severity of the heart failure, the etiology of the heart failure, the LVEF, the NYHA class, co- morbidities, etc.). Due to improved treatments, this residual risk has decreased over the years.
Also read: The impact of heart failure