Next Article in Journal
Endometrial Infusion with Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF) in IVF Cycles: Randomized Clinical Trial in Very Thin Endometrium and Observational Uncontrolled Follow-Up After the Randomized Clinical Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges in Parathyroid Cancers: 15 Years’ Experience in a Tertiary Center and an Endocrine Surgery Referral Hospital
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/jcm14061951
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Eligibility of Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure for Vericiguat and Omecamtiv Mecarbil: From Clinical Trials to the Real-World Practice

by
Paolo Basile
1,
Alessio Falagario
1,
Maria Cristina Carella
1,
Marco Maria Dicorato
1,
Francesco Monitillo
1,
Daniela Santoro
1,
Maria Ludovica Naccarati
1,
Gianluca Pontone
2,3,
Marco Matteo Ciccone
1,
Vincenzo Ezio Santobuono
1 and
Andrea Igoren Guaricci
1,*
1
Cardiology Unit, Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Polyclinic University Hospital, 70121 Bari, Italy
2
Department of Perioperative Cardiology and Cardiovascular Imaging, IRCCS Centro Cardiologico Monzino, 20138 Milan, Italy
3
Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(6), 1951; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14061951
Submission received: 31 January 2025 / Revised: 3 March 2025 / Accepted: 12 March 2025 / Published: 13 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnostic and Therapeutic Pathways in Cardiac Heart Failure)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Several drugs are emerging as potential therapeutic resources in the context of chronic heart failure (CHF), although their impact on daily clinical practice remains unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate the theoretical eligibility for vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) in a real-world outpatient setting. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted, enrolling all patients with CHF who had at least one visit between January 2023 and January 2024 in a dedicated outpatient clinic of a tertiary referral center. Theoretical eligibility for vericiguat and OM in our population was assessed by adopting the criteria of the respective phase III clinical trials (VICTORIA trial for vericiguat and GALACTIC-HF trial for OM). Results: In 350 patients with CHF, the rate of individuals eligible was 2% for vericiguat and 4% for OM. A value for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) over the clinical trials’ cutoffs was observed in 41% of cases for vericiguat and 69% for OM. The absence of a recent heart failure (HF) worsening was found in 78% of cases for vericiguat and 72% for OM. Conclusions: Only a small proportion of CHF patients would be eligible for vericiguat and OM in a real-world outpatient setting. The absence of a recent HF worsening and an LVEF over the established trials’ cutoffs are the main causes of non-eligibility. Further studies are required to assess the efficacy of these drugs in a wider population in order to increase the candidates for these beneficial treatments.

1. Introduction

Chronic heart failure (CHF) remains a major cause of mortality and a significant public health concern on a global scale [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. In recent years, advancements in imaging and laboratory techniques have facilitated enhanced diagnostic support of CHF [9,10,11,12]. Moreover, technological innovation has developed new devices for a more precise monitoring of clinical conditions [13,14,15,16]. In the near future, artificial intelligence tools will provide further improvements in the management of these patients [17,18,19,20,21,22]. However, the most significant advancements were obtained in the therapeutic field, with the advent of novel drugs that have demonstrated to improve the prognosis and the quality of life of these patients [23,24,25,26,27]. Recently, the SGLT2 inhibitors have revolutionized the therapeutic scenario of CHF thanks to their beneficial effects on the cardiovascular system and high safety [28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. In particular, these antidiabetic drugs were demonstrated to improve prognosis also in patients with CHF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a specific and large group of patients without treatments capable of significantly changing their prognosis until not so long ago [35,36,37]. Other innovative medications, which have yet to be widely adopted in routine therapeutic management, are emerging as promising resources [38,39,40,41]. Among these, the most relevant are vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil (OM). The former is an oral soluble Guanylate Cyclase (sGC) stimulator, a class of drugs widely adopted in the treatment of pulmonary hypertension and, for the first time, considered in worsening CHF [42,43,44,45,46,47]. The VICTORIA trial, a large phase III trial, demonstrated that vericiguat may reduce cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations compared to placebo in CHF patients with reduced LVEF and a recent hospitalization (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.82 to 0.98; p = 0.02) [48]. OM, a cardiac myosin activator, represents a drug acting on an unexplored target with the potential to improve myocardial function augmenting cardiac sarcomere function in patients with severe CHF [49,50,51,52]. A beneficial effect of OM in CHF population with reduced LVEF was observed in a large phase III trial, the GALACTIC-HF, demonstrating a lower incidence of a composite outcome, including an HF event or cardiovascular death, compared to placebo (HR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.86 to 0.99; p = 0.03) [53]. The full extent of the potential impact of these innovative drugs on clinical practice needs to be further explored. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of theoretical eligibility for vericiguat and OM in patients with CHF in a real-world outpatient setting, according to eligibility criteria adopted in the respective phase III clinical trials [48,53].

2. Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted, enrolling all patients with CHF who had at least one visit between January 2023 and January 2024 in a dedicated clinic of a tertiary referral center. The study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Local Ethics Committee (Protocol Number 58102 by Comitato Etico Territoriale Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Consorziale Policlinico di Bari). Written informed consent was obtained from each patient before enrolment in the study. For each patient, we collected anamnestic, clinical, echocardiographic, and laboratory data. The diagnosis of CHF was made according to the definitions outlined in the updated European guidelines [23,24]. The eligibility of the participants was assessed by evaluating, for each patient, the presence of inclusion and exclusion criteria of the respective phase III trials (VICTORIA trial for vericiguat and GALACTIC HF for OM) [48,53]. More specifically, we adopted the following criteria of the respective phase III clinical trials:
  • VICTORIA trial—inclusion criteria: Patients aged 18 years or older with symptomatic (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV) CHF on standard therapy, with LVEF <45% and a previous HF hospitalization within 6 months or IV diuretic treatment for HF (without hospitalization) within 3 months, increased B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values. Exclusion criteria: Clinically unstable patients; systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg or symptomatic hypotension; use of long-acting nitrates/nitric oxide (NO) donors, phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, or sGC stimulators; patients awaiting heart transplantation or receiving continuous IV infusion of inotrope or implanted ventricular assist device; presence of primary valvular heart disease requiring or within 3 months after surgery/intervention; hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy; acute myocarditis; amyloidosis; sarcoidosis; takotsubo cardiomyopathy post-heart transplant cardiomyopathy; tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy and/or uncontrolled tachyarrhythmia; acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularization within 60 days or indication for coronary revascularization; symptomatic carotid stenosis; transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke within 60 days; complex congenital heart disease; active endocarditis or constrictive pericarditis; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 or chronic dialysis; severe hepatic insufficiency; malignancy or other non-cardiac condition limiting life expectancy to <3 years; continuous home oxygen for severe pulmonary disease; current alcohol and/or drug abuse; interstitial lung disease; and pregnancy or breastfeeding [48].
  • GALACTIC HF trial—inclusion criteria: Patients ≥ 18 to ≤85 years of age, symptomatic (NYHA class II to IV) CHF and LVEF ≤ 35%, managed with HF SoC therapies with a recent (within 1 year) hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) or urgent visit to emergency department (ED) for heart failure, and increased BNP or NT-proBNP levels. Exclusion criteria: Patients with malignancies (latest 5 years); mechanical hemodynamic support; IV treatment with inotropes, vasopressors, diuretics, or vasodilators; supplemental oxygen therapy; non-invasive mechanical ventilation; recent (within 3 months) acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or TIA; recent cardiac surgery or percutaneous interventions; recent (30 days) insertion of other cardiac devices; severe uncorrected valvular heart disease; hypertrophic or infiltrative cardiomyopathy, active myocarditis; constrictive pericarditis; clinically significant congenital heart disease; untreated severe arrhythmias; systolic blood pressure > 140 mmHg or <85 mmHg, or diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg, or heart rate > 110 beats per minute, or < 50 beats per minute; eGFR < 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 or receiving dialysis; hepatic impairment; and pregnancy or breastfeeding [53].
This process was conducted independently by two cardiologists with extensive experience in the management of CHF (F.M. and D.S.). Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus or adjudication from a third senior cardiologist (A.I.G.). All statistical analysis were conducted using SPSS version 25 software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). For continuous variables, the normal distribution was evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test and, in the case of a normal distribution, expressed as mean and standard deviation. Otherwise, they were described in terms of median and interquartile range (IQR). They were compared using the two-tailed t-test for independent variables in the case of normal distribution; otherwise, they were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test. The data of the categorical variables were presented as frequencies (percentage) and compared with χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, when appropriate. For eligibility rates of vericiguat and OM, we calculated the relative 95% confidence intervals for a single proportion.

3. Results

A total of 350 patients were enrolled in the study, with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range (IQR), 17 years) and a clear predominance of male sex (77% of cases). The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors is notable, particularly arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia, which were observed in 66% and 63% of cases, respectively. Approximately one-third of the population was obese. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was a prevalent comorbidity, affecting 35% of cases. Of these, only a small proportion (1.4%) was undergoing dialysis. With regard to the clinical evaluation, a majority of patients were in NYHA classes II and III (80%). A high percentage of patients were treated with guidelines-directed medical therapy. In particular, beta-blockers were taken by 93% of our population, and ACE inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors were taken by 84%. Lower rates were observed for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (67%) and SGLT2 inhibitors (55%). A total of 70% of patients received loop diuretics for symptom control. The main characteristics of the study population are displayed in Table 1.

3.1. Eligibility for Vericiguat

Upon applying the criteria of the VICTORIA trial to our population, it was found that the percentage of individuals eligible for vericiguat was 2.0% (IC 95% = 0.8 to 4.0%). The most significant reason for non-eligibility was the absence of a recent (i.e., within 6 months) HHF or use of IV diuretics (i.e., within 3 months) found in 78% of patients. In 12% of cases, we observed an HHF or treatment with IV diuretics, despite occurring beyond the time limits set by the trial. Another frequent cause of exclusion (41% of cases) was the presence of an LVEF of ≥45%. Other contributing factors included the presence of atrial natriuretic peptide (BNP/NT-pro-BNP) values below the established trial cutoff and a NYHA class I (38% and 17%, respectively), as shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Eligibility for Omecamtiv Mecarbil

The eligibility of patients for OM was evaluated in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the GALACTIC HF trial. The rate of patients eligible for this drug was 3.7% (IC 95% = 2.0 to 6.3). The most important cause of non-eligibility was the absence of recent HHF/IV diuretics, identified in 72% of cases. Another significant factor, found in 69% of patients, was the presence of an LVEF over the established trial cutoff (35%). Other causes included the presence of atrial natriuretic peptide values below the predicted cutoffs and NYHA class I (36% and 17% of cases, respectively), as shown in Figure 1.

3.3. Comparison of Eligible and Non-Eligible Patients for Vericiguat and OM

Although the analysis may have been affected by the large discrepancy in the sample size of the two groups, interesting differences emerge between the two groups. All eligible patients have a recent HHF with higher values of natriuretic peptides compared to non-eligible patients (p = 0.012 for vericiguat and p = 0.001 for OM). An interesting finding, although not statistically significant, is the presence of a higher number of eligible patients with signs of congestion, requiring more frequently the use of diuretic therapy and higher daily doses of loop diuretics. Moreover, the percentage of eligible patients with a recent dosage increase in diuretic therapy tends to be higher, although non-statistically significant (p = 0.418 for vericiguat and p = 0.100 for OM). Regarding echocardiographic data, eligible patients show lower values of LVEF (p = 0.002 for vericiguat and p < 0.001 for OM), a more dilated left ventricle (LVESV, p = 0.035 for vericiguat and p < 0.001 for OM) and a tendency toward a more severe diastolic dysfunction with higher rates of E/A > 2 and more prominent mitral and tricuspid regurgitations. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1.

4. Discussion

Vericiguat and OM are two novel drugs with the potential to positively impact the clinical outcome of CHF [48,53,54,55,56]. Their mechanism of action differs from that of currently available treatments. Vericiguat represents the first oral sGC activator approved for symptomatic chronic HFrEF in several countries, including Europe [57]. This drug, stimulating sGC enzymes, part of the NO-sGC-cyclic guanosine monophosphate signaling pathway, proved beneficial effects on both the myocardial and vascular endothelial cells [58,59,60,61]. In the VICTORIA trial, it was pointed out that vericiguat compared to placebo induced a reduction in mortality due to cardiovascular causes or HHF in patients with LVEF < 45%, elevated natriuretic peptide concentrations, and a recent HF worsening [48]. In light of these encouraging outcomes, the latest European guidelines now recommend the use of this drug for the management of CHF in adults with reduced LVEF who have stabilized following a recent HHF or IV therapy diuretics [23,24]. A large registry of 23,573 HF patients in Sweden estimated that 21.4% of patients would be eligible for vericiguat according to the criteria of the VICTORIA trial, while a higher proportion (47.4%) could be eligible according to European guidelines [62]. In a further large-scale Korean study of 3014 patients with HFrEF and a recent rehospitalization, the eligibility rate was 95% in accordance with the FDA label criteria, while a lower percentage (58%) met the criteria of the VICTORIA study [63]. Similar results were also pointed out by Moghaddam et al. [64]. These findings, obtained in patients discharged from hospital after HHF, were at odds with the proportions of eligible patients observed in our study, which was conducted in an outpatient setting. Indeed, the most frequent exclusion criterion in our population was the absence of a recent HHF episode, which is a well-known predictive factor for mortality in patients with CHF [65,66,67,68]. We have postulated that the discrepancy in eligibility rates may be attributed to the different settings in which these studies were conducted. Moreover, in our population, a considerable proportion of patients were treated using the four disease-modifying drugs recommended by European guidelines, thereby reducing the risk of further episodes of HHF. In fact, in previous studies, including the VICTORIA trial, SGLT2 inhibitors were not considered, although they demonstrated the capability to reduce the risk of worsening CHF [28,31,69]. Therefore, our data suggest that the presence of a recent HHF episode could be a limiting factor in the large-scale use of this drug in an outpatient setting. In the near future, the results of the ongoing VICTOR trial (NCT05093933), testing the effects of vericiguat in CHF patients without recent HHF, may represent a turning point in this context [70]. OM is a selective cardiac myosin activator that has not yet been approved for clinical use. Its mechanism of action provides a new therapeutic target that is completely different from currently used drugs, based upon the improvement of myocardial contractility by the increase in the number of cardiac myosin heads linked to actin filaments [71,72,73,74]. The phase III trial GALACTIC HF pointed out a lower incidence of heart-failure events in HFrEF patients treated with OM compared to placebo [53]. Another important observation emerging from our data is that a significant exclusion criterion both for vericiguat and OM was an LVEF over the established trials cutoffs. Indeed, data from large registries have indicated that only approximately 50% of patients were classified with HFrEF [75,76,77]. Preliminary studies pointed out conflicting results on the role of these drugs in patients with preserved LVEF requiring further large-scale investigations with longer follow-up [78,79,80]. Moreover, we should emphasize the potential role that vericiguat and OM could play in certain high-risk subcategories of CHF patients, such as advanced NYHA class or subjects with CKD, as suggested by recent evidence [81].

Study Strengths and Limitations

To the best of our knowledge, for the first time, we provide real-world data on potential eligible patients for vericiguat and OM in an outpatient setting. This analysis could provide useful insights to guide further studies, with the aim of increasing the number of patients who could benefit from these drugs. The monocentric design and the low sample size represent important limitations that should be taken into account in the interpretation and generalization of these results. A selection bias related to missing data may have influenced the eligibility rates and should be considered in the evaluation of these results.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that a limited proportion of patients diagnosed with CHF would meet the criteria for prescription of these novel drugs in a real-world outpatient context. The absence of recent HHF/IV diuretics and LVEF over the established trials cutoffs are the primary causes of non-eligibility. Further studies are required to assess the efficacy of these drugs in the population of HF patients excluded by clinical trials in order to increase the candidates for these beneficial treatments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.B. and A.I.G.; methodology, M.M.D. and G.P.; formal analysis, M.C.C. and V.E.S.; investigation, A.F., F.M. and D.S.; data curation, M.M.D.; writing—original draft preparation, P.B., A.F. and F.M.; writing—review and editing, D.S., M.L.N., G.P., M.M.C. and V.E.S.; visualization, M.C.C. and M.L.N.; supervision, M.M.C. and A.I.G.; project administration, A.I.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of “Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Consorziale Policlinico” of Bari (protocol code 58102—17 July 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

CHFchronic heart failure
LVEFleft ventricular ejection fraction
OMomecamtiv mecarbil
sGCsoluble guanylate cyclase
NYHANew York Heart Association
NOnitric oxide
PDE5phosphodiesterase type 5
HHFhospitalization for heart failure
EDemergency department
TIAtransient ischemic attack
eGFRestimated glomerular filtration rate
IQRinterquartile range
CKDchronic kidney disease
BNPB-type natriuretic peptide
NT-pro-BNPamino terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide

References

  1. Savarese, G.; Becher, P.M.; Lund, L.H.; Seferovic, P.; Rosano, G.M.C.; Coats, A.J.S. Global burden of heart failure: A comprehensive and updated review of epidemiology. Cardiovasc. Res. 2023, 118, 3272–3287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dunlay, S.M.; Roger, V.L. Understanding the epidemic of heart failure: Past, present, and future. Curr. Heart Fail. Rep. 2014, 11, 404–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Roger, V.L. Epidemiology of Heart Failure: A Contemporary Perspective. Circ. Res. 2021, 128, 1421–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bui, A.L.; Horwich, T.B.; Fonarow, G.C. Epidemiology and risk profile of heart failure. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2011, 8, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Levy, D.; Kenchaiah, S.; Larson, M.G.; Benjamin, E.J.; Kupka, M.J.; Ho, K.K.; Murabito, J.M.; Vasan, R.S. Long-term trends in the incidence of and survival with heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 347, 1397–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Yan, T.; Zhu, S.; Yin, X.; Xie, C.; Xue, J.; Zhu, M.; Weng, F.; Zhu, S.; Xiang, B.; Zhou, X.; et al. Burden, Trends, and Inequalities of Heart Failure Globally, 1990 to 2019: A Secondary Analysis Based on the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Study. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2023, 12, e027852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Emmons-Bell, S.; Johnson, C.; Roth, G. Prevalence, incidence and survival of heart failure: A systematic review. Heart 2022, 108, 1351–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pontone, G.; Guaricci, A.I.; Fusini, L.; Baggiano, A.; Guglielmo, M.; Muscogiuri, G.; Volpe, A.; Abete, R.; Aquaro, G.; Barison, A.; et al. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Prophylactic Implantable-Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The DERIVATE-ICM International Registry. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2023, 16, 1387–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Di Cesare, E.; Carerj, S.; Palmisano, A.; Carerj, M.L.; Catapano, F.; Vignale, D.; Di Cesare, A.; Milanese, G.; Sverzellati, N.; Francone, M.; et al. Multimodality imaging in chronic heart failure. Radiol. Med. 2021, 126, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cameli, M.; Sciaccaluga, C.; Loiacono, F.; Simova, I.; Miglioranza, M.H.; Nistor, D.; Bandera, F.; Emdin, M.; Giannoni, A.; Ciccone, M.M.; et al. The analysis of left atrial function predicts the severity of functional impairment in chronic heart failure: The FLASH multicenter study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2019, 286, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Merlo, M.; Gagno, G.; Baritussio, A.; Bauce, B.; Biagini, E.; Canepa, M.; Cipriani, A.; Castelletti, S.; Dellegrottaglie, S.; Guaricci, A.I.; et al. Clinical application of CMR in cardiomyopathies: Evolving concepts and techniques: A position paper of myocardial and pericardial diseases and cardiac magnetic resonance working groups of Italian society of cardiology. Heart Fail. Rev. 2023, 28, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ghio, S.; Acquaro, M.; Agostoni, P.; Ambrosio, G.; Carluccio, E.; Castiglione, V.; Colombo, D.; D’Alto, M.; Delle Grottaglie, S.; Dini, F.L.; et al. Right heart failure in left heart disease: Imaging, functional, and biochemical aspects of right ventricular dysfunction. Heart Fail. Rev. 2023, 28, 1009–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Santini, L.; Adamo, F.; Mahfouz, K.; Colaiaco, C.; Finamora, I.; De Lucia, C.; Danisi, N.; Gentile, S.; Sorrentino, C.; Romano, M.G.; et al. Remote Management of Heart Failure in Patients with Implantable Devices. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Craig, W.; Ohlmann, S. The Benefits of Using Active Remote Patient Management for Enhanced Heart Failure Outcomes in Rural Cardiology Practice: Single-Site Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024, 26, e49710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. De Lathauwer, I.L.J.; Nieuwenhuys, W.W.; Hafkamp, F.; Regis, M.; Brouwers, R.W.M.; Funk, M.; Kemps, H.M.C. Remote patient monitoring in heart failure: A comprehensive meta-analysis of effective programme components for hospitalization and mortality reduction. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Peretto, G.; Barison, A.; Forleo, C.; Di Resta, C.; Esposito, A.; Aquaro, G.D.; Scardapane, A.; Palmisano, A.; Emdin, M.; Resta, N.; et al. Late gadolinium enhancement role in arrhythmic risk stratification of patients with LMNA cardiomyopathy: Results from a long-term follow-up multicentre study. Europace 2020, 22, 1864–1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yoon, M.; Park, J.J.; Hur, T.; Hua, C.H.; Hussain, M.; Lee, S.; Choi, D.J. Application and Potential of Artificial Intelligence in Heart Failure: Past, Present, and Future. Int. J. Heart Fail. 2024, 6, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yasmin, F.; Shah, S.M.I.; Naeem, A.; Shujauddin, S.M.; Jabeen, A.; Kazmi, S.; Siddiqui, S.A.; Kumar, P.; Salman, S.; Hassan, S.A.; et al. Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and detection of heart failure: The past, present, and future. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 22, 1095–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yu, C.S.; Wu, J.L.; Shih, C.M.; Chiu, K.L.; Chen, Y.D.; Chang, T.H. Exploring Mortality and Prognostic Factors of Heart Failure with In-Hospital and Emergency Patients by Electronic Medical Records: A Machine Learning Approach. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2025, 18, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Seringa, J.; Hirata, A.; Pedro, A.R.; Santana, R.; Magalhaes, T. Health Care Professionals and Data Scientists’ Perspectives on a Machine Learning System to Anticipate and Manage the Risk of Decompensation from Patients with Heart Failure: Qualitative Interview Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2025, 27, e54990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Muscogiuri, G.; Martini, C.; Gatti, M.; Dell’Aversana, S.; Ricci, F.; Guglielmo, M.; Baggiano, A.; Fusini, L.; Bracciani, A.; Scafuri, S.; et al. Feasibility of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in ischemic cardiomyopathy using 2D-multisegment LGE combined with artificial intelligence reconstruction deep learning noise reduction algorithm. Int. J. Cardiol. 2021, 343, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ghanbari, F.; Joyce, T.; Lorenzoni, V.; Guaricci, A.I.; Pavon, A.G.; Fusini, L.; Andreini, D.; Rabbat, M.G.; Aquaro, G.D.; Abete, R.; et al. AI Cardiac MRI Scar Analysis Aids Prediction of Major Arrhythmic Events in the Multicenter DERIVATE Registry. Radiology 2023, 307, e222239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. McDonagh, T.A.; Metra, M.; Adamo, M.; Gardner, R.S.; Baumbach, A.; Bohm, M.; Burri, H.; Butler, J.; Celutkiene, J.; Chioncel, O.; et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2022, 24, 4–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. McDonagh, T.A.; Metra, M.; Adamo, M.; Gardner, R.S.; Baumbach, A.; Bohm, M.; Burri, H.; Butler, J.; Celutkiene, J.; Chioncel, O.; 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, 44, 3627–3639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Van der Linden, L.; Hias, J.; Walgraeve, K.; Petrovic, M.; Tournoy, J.; Vandenbriele, C.; Van Aelst, L. Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure with a Reduced Ejection Fraction in Older Adults: A Narrative Review on Efficacy, Safety and Timeliness. Drugs Aging 2023, 40, 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tang, H.; Germinal, K.; Milfort, A.; Chen, W.H.; Chang, S.H.; Huang, W.; Li, Y.; Lu, Y.; Ahmed, M.M.; Kimmel, S.E.; et al. The most effective combination of pharmacological therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord. 2024, 24, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Colombo, G.; Biering-Sorensen, T.; Ferreira, J.P.; Lombardi, C.M.; Bonelli, A.; Garascia, A.; Metra, M.; Inciardi, R.M. Cardiac remodelling in the era of the recommended four pillars heart failure medical therapy. ESC Heart Fail. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. McMurray, J.J.V.; Solomon, S.D.; Inzucchi, S.E.; Kober, L.; Kosiborod, M.N.; Martinez, F.A.; Ponikowski, P.; Sabatine, M.S.; Anand, I.S.; Belohlavek, J.; et al. Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 1995–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zannad, F.; Ferreira, J.P.; Pocock, S.J.; Anker, S.D.; Butler, J.; Filippatos, G.; Brueckmann, M.; Ofstad, A.P.; Pfarr, E.; Jamal, W.; et al. SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A meta-analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF trials. Lancet 2020, 396, 819–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Packer, M.; Anker, S.D.; Butler, J.; Filippatos, G.; Ferreira, J.P.; Pocock, S.J.; Sattar, N.; Brueckmann, M.; Jamal, W.; Cotton, D.; et al. Empagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure, Reduced Ejection Fraction, and Volume Overload: EMPEROR-Reduced Trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 77, 1381–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Packer, M.; Anker, S.D.; Butler, J.; Filippatos, G.; Pocock, S.J.; Carson, P.; Januzzi, J.; Verma, S.; Tsutsui, H.; Brueckmann, M.; et al. Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin in Heart Failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 383, 1413–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Tentolouris, A.; Vlachakis, P.; Tzeravini, E.; Eleftheriadou, I.; Tentolouris, N. SGLT2 Inhibitors: A Review of Their Antidiabetic and Cardioprotective Effects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. McGill, J.B.; Subramanian, S. Safety of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors. Am. J. Cardiol. 2019, 124 (Suppl. S1), S45–S52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Basile, P.; Monitillo, F.; Santoro, D.; Falco, G.; Carella, M.C.; Khan, Y.; Moretti, A.; Santobuono, V.E.; Memeo, R.; Pontone, G.; et al. Impact on ventricular arrhythmic burden of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure evaluated with cardiac implantable electronic device monitoring. J. Cardiol. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Maged, R.; Sinha, M.; Koneru, H.M.; Sarwar, H.; Bandi, V.V.; Tarar, P.; Halawa, N. Efficacy of Sodium-Glucose 2 Transporter Inhibitors in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Narrative Review. Cureus 2024, 16, e69623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Anker, S.D.; Butler, J.; Filippatos, G.; Ferreira, J.P.; Bocchi, E.; Bohm, M.; Brunner-La Rocca, H.P.; Choi, D.J.; Chopra, V.; Chuquiure-Valenzuela, E.; et al. Empagliflozin in Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 1451–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Solomon, S.D.; McMurray, J.J.V.; Claggett, B.; de Boer, R.A.; DeMets, D.; Hernandez, A.F.; Inzucchi, S.E.; Kosiborod, M.N.; Lam, C.S.P.; Martinez, F.; et al. Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 387, 1089–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Haghighat, L.; DeJong, C.; Teerlink, J.R. New and future heart failure drugs. Nat. Cardiovasc. Res. 2024, 3, 1389–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ismail, Z.; Aboughdir, M.; Duric, B.; Kakar, S.; Chan, J.S.K.; Bayatpoor, Y.; Harky, A. Advances in pharmacotherapy for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: What’s new in 2024? Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2024, 25, 1887–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sapna, F.; Raveena, F.; Chandio, M.; Bai, K.; Sayyar, M.; Varrassi, G.; Khatri, M.; Kumar, S.; Mohamad, T. Advancements in Heart Failure Management: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Emerging Therapies. Cureus 2023, 15, e46486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Basile, P.; Guaricci, A.I.; Piazzolla, G.; Volpe, S.; Vozza, A.; Benedetto, M.; Carella, M.C.; Santoro, D.; Monitillo, F.; Baggiano, A.; et al. Improvement of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain after 6-Month Therapy with GLP-1RAs Semaglutide and Dulaglutide in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Pilot Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Humbert, M.; Kovacs, G.; Hoeper, M.M.; Badagliacca, R.; Berger, R.M.F.; Brida, M.; Carlsen, J.; Coats, A.J.S.; Escribano-Subias, P.; Ferrari, P.; et al. 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 3618–3731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hoeper, M.M.; Simonneau, G.; Corris, P.A.; Ghofrani, H.A.; Klinger, J.R.; Langleben, D.; Naeije, R.; Jansa, P.; Rosenkranz, S.; Scelsi, L.; et al. RESPITE: Switching to riociguat in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients with inadequate response to phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Eur. Respir. J. 2017, 50, 1602425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Makowski, C.T.; Rissmiller, R.W.; Bullington, W.M. Riociguat: A novel new drug for treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Pharmacotherapy 2015, 35, 502–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jais, X.; Brenot, P.; Bouvaist, H.; Jevnikar, M.; Canuet, M.; Chabanne, C.; Chaouat, A.; Cottin, V.; De Groote, P.; Favrolt, N.; et al. Balloon pulmonary angioplasty versus riociguat for the treatment of inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (RACE): A multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial and ancillary follow-up study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2022, 10, 961–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wiedenroth, C.B.; Ghofrani, H.A.; Adameit, M.S.D.; Breithecker, A.; Haas, M.; Kriechbaum, S.; Rieth, A.; Hamm, C.W.; Mayer, E.; Guth, S.; et al. Sequential treatment with riociguat and balloon pulmonary angioplasty for patients with inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Pulm. Circ. 2018, 8, 2045894018783996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Triposkiadis, F.; Xanthopoulos, A.; Skoularigis, J.; Starling, R.C. Therapeutic augmentation of NO-sGC-cGMP signalling: Lessons learned from pulmonary arterial hypertension and heart failure. Heart Fail. Rev. 2022, 27, 1991–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Armstrong, P.W.; Pieske, B.; Anstrom, K.J.; Ezekowitz, J.; Hernandez, A.F.; Butler, J.; Lam, C.S.P.; Ponikowski, P.; Voors, A.A.; Jia, G.; et al. Vericiguat in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1883–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shoji, S.; Mentz, R.J. Beyond quadruple therapy: The potential roles for ivabradine, vericiguat, and omecamtiv mecarbil in the therapeutic armamentarium. Heart Fail. Rev. 2024, 29, 949–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Teerlink, J.R.; Felker, G.M.; McMurray, J.J.; Solomon, S.D.; Adams, K.F., Jr.; Cleland, J.G.; Ezekowitz, J.A.; Goudev, A.; Macdonald, P.; Metra, M.; et al. Chronic Oral Study of Myosin Activation to Increase Contractility in Heart Failure (COSMIC-HF): A phase 2, pharmacokinetic, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2016, 388, 2895–2903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Harrington, J.; Sun, J.L.; Fonarow, G.C.; Heitner, S.B.; Divanji, P.H.; Allen, L.A.; Alhanti, B.; Yancy, C.W.; Albert, N.M.; DeVore, A.D.; et al. Potential Applicability of Omecamtiv Mecarbil to Patients Hospitalized for Worsening Heart Failure. Am. J. Cardiol. 2023, 205, 524–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Malik, F.I.; Hartman, J.J.; Elias, K.A.; Morgan, B.P.; Rodriguez, H.; Brejc, K.; Anderson, R.L.; Sueoka, S.H.; Lee, K.H.; Finer, J.T.; et al. Cardiac myosin activation: A potential therapeutic approach for systolic heart failure. Science 2011, 331, 1439–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Teerlink, J.R.; Diaz, R.; Felker, G.M.; McMurray, J.J.V.; Metra, M.; Solomon, S.D.; Adams, K.F.; Anand, I.; Arias-Mendoza, A.; Biering-Sorensen, T.; et al. Cardiac Myosin Activation with Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Systolic Heart Failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Galvan Ruiz, M.; Fernandez de Sanmamed Giron, M.; del Val Groba Marco, M.; Rojo Jorge, L.; Pena Saavedra, C.; Martin Bou, E.; Andrade Guerra, R.; Caballero Dorta, E.; Garcia Quintana, A. Clinical profile, associated events and safety of vericiguat in a real-world cohort: The VERITA study. ESC Heart Fail. 2024, 11, 4222–4230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hashimoto, T.; Yoshitake, T.; Suenaga, T.; Yamamoto, S.; Fujino, T.; Shinohara, K.; Matsushima, S.; Ide, T.; Kinugawa, S.; Abe, K. Effectiveness of Vericiguat on right ventricle to pulmonary artery uncoupling associated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Int. J. Cardiol. 2024, 415, 132441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vannuccini, F.; Campora, A.; Barilli, M.; Palazzuoli, A. Vericiguat in Heart Failure: Characteristics, Scientific Evidence and Potential Clinical Applications. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 2471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gheorghiade, M.; Marti, C.N.; Sabbah, H.N.; Roessig, L.; Greene, S.J.; Bohm, M.; Burnett, J.C.; Campia, U.; Cleland, J.G.; Collins, S.P.; et al. Soluble guanylate cyclase: A potential therapeutic target for heart failure. Heart Fail. Rev. 2013, 18, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hulot, J.S.; Trochu, J.N.; Donal, E.; Galinier, M.; Logeart, D.; De Groote, P.; Juilliere, Y. Vericiguat for the treatment of heart failure: Mechanism of action and pharmacological properties compared with other emerging therapeutic options. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2021, 22, 1847–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sandner, P. From molecules to patients: Exploring the therapeutic role of soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators. Biol. Chem. 2018, 399, 679–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Russo, P.; Vitiello, L.; Milani, F.; Volterrani, M.; Rosano, G.M.C.; Tomino, C.; Bonassi, S. New Therapeutics for Heart Failure Worsening: Focus on Vericiguat. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 4209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Emdin, M.; Aimo, A.; Castiglione, V.; Vergaro, G.; Georgiopoulos, G.; Saccaro, L.F.; Lombardi, C.M.; Passino, C.; Cerbai, E.; Metra, M.; et al. Targeting Cyclic Guanosine Monophosphate to Treat Heart Failure: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 1795–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Nguyen, N.V.; Lindberg, F.; Benson, L.; Ferrannini, G.; Imbalzano, E.; Mol, P.G.M.; Dahlstrom, U.; Rosano, G.M.C.; Ezekowitz, J.; Butler, J.; et al. Eligibility for vericiguat in a real-world heart failure population according to trial, guideline and label criteria: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2023, 25, 1418–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Oh, J.; Lee, C.J.; Park, J.J.; Lee, S.E.; Kim, M.S.; Cho, H.J.; Choi, J.O.; Lee, H.Y.; Hwang, K.K.; Kim, K.H.; et al. Real-world eligibility for vericiguat in decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. ESC Heart Fail. 2022, 9, 1492–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Moghaddam, N.; Hawkins, N.M.; McKelvie, R.; Poon, S.; Joncas, S.X.; MacFadyen, J.; Honos, G.; Wang, J.; Rojas-Fernandez, C.; Kok, M.; et al. Patient Eligibility for Established and Novel Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies After Acute Heart Failure Hospitalization. JACC Heart Fail. 2023, 11, 596–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lahoz, R.; Fagan, A.; McSharry, M.; Proudfoot, C.; Corda, S.; Studer, R. Recurrent heart failure hospitalizations are associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in patients with heart failure in Clinical Practice Research Datalink. ESC Heart Fail. 2020, 7, 1688–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gheorghiade, M.; Vaduganathan, M.; Fonarow, G.C.; Bonow, R.O. Rehospitalization for heart failure: Problems and perspectives. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013, 61, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Setoguchi, S.; Stevenson, L.W.; Schneeweiss, S. Repeated hospitalizations predict mortality in the community population with heart failure. Am. Heart J. 2007, 154, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Solomon, S.D.; Dobson, J.; Pocock, S.; Skali, H.; McMurray, J.J.; Granger, C.B.; Yusuf, S.; Swedberg, K.; Young, J.B.; Michelson, E.L.; et al. Influence of nonfatal hospitalization for heart failure on subsequent mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation 2007, 116, 1482–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cardoso, R.; Graffunder, F.P.; Ternes, C.M.P.; Fernandes, A.; Rocha, A.V.; Fernandes, G.; Bhatt, D.L. SGLT2 inhibitors decrease cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2021, 36, 100933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Reddy, Y.N.V.; Butler, J.; Anstrom, K.J.; Blaustein, R.O.; Bonaca, M.P.; Corda, S.; Ezekowitz, J.A.; Lam, C.S.P.; Lewis, E.F.; Lindenfeld, J.; et al. Vericiguat Global Study in Participants with Chronic Heart Failure: Design of the VICTOR trial. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2025, 27, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhou, S.; Liu, Y.; Huang, X.; Wu, C.; Porszasz, R. Omecamtiv Mecarbil in the treatment of heart failure: The past, the present, and the future. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2024, 11, 1337154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Planelles-Herrero, V.J.; Hartman, J.J.; Robert-Paganin, J.; Malik, F.I.; Houdusse, A. Mechanistic and structural basis for activation of cardiac myosin force production by omecamtiv mecarbil. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Liu, L.C.; Dorhout, B.; van der Meer, P.; Teerlink, J.R.; Voors, A.A. Omecamtiv mecarbil: A new cardiac myosin activator for the treatment of heart failure. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 2016, 25, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Scellini, B.; Piroddi, N.; Dente, M.; Pioner, J.M.; Ferrantini, C.; Poggesi, C.; Tesi, C. Myosin Isoform-Dependent Effect of Omecamtiv Mecarbil on the Regulation of Force Generation in Human Cardiac Muscle. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 9784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Steinberg, B.A.; Zhao, X.; Heidenreich, P.A.; Peterson, E.D.; Bhatt, D.L.; Cannon, C.P.; Hernandez, A.F.; Fonarow, G.C. Trends in patients hospitalized with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: Prevalence, therapies, and outcomes. Circulation 2012, 126, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ambrosy, A.P.; Fonarow, G.C.; Butler, J.; Chioncel, O.; Greene, S.J.; Vaduganathan, M.; Nodari, S.; Lam, C.S.P.; Sato, N.; Shah, A.N.; et al. The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: Lessons learned from hospitalized heart failure registries. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014, 63, 1123–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yancy, C.W.; Lopatin, M.; Stevenson, L.W.; De Marco, T.; Fonarow, G.C.; ADHERE Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators. Clinical presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes of patients admitted with acute decompensated heart failure with preserved systolic function: A report from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) Database. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2006, 47, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Armstrong, P.W.; Lam, C.S.P.; Anstrom, K.J.; Ezekowitz, J.; Hernandez, A.F.; O’Connor, C.M.; Pieske, B.; Ponikowski, P.; Shah, S.J.; Solomon, S.D.; et al. Effect of Vericiguat vs Placebo on Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: The VITALITY-HFpEF Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2020, 324, 1512–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhao, D.; Zhang, Y.; Yong, Y.; Wang, L.; Liu, J. Vericiguat combined with “new quadruple” therapy enhances cardiac function and life quality in patients with heart failure: A single-center prospective study. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2024, 11, 1476976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pieske, B.; Maggioni, A.P.; Lam, C.S.P.; Pieske-Kraigher, E.; Filippatos, G.; Butler, J.; Ponikowski, P.; Shah, S.J.; Solomon, S.D.; Scalise, A.V.; et al. Vericiguat in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: Results of the SOluble guanylate Cyclase stimulatoR in heArT failurE patientS with PRESERVED EF (SOCRATES-PRESERVED) study. Eur. Heart J. 2017, 38, 1119–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lavalle, C.; Mariani, M.V.; Severino, P.; Palombi, M.; Trivigno, S.; D’Amato, A.; Silvetti, G.; Pierucci, N.; Di Lullo, L.; Chimenti, C.; et al. Efficacy of Modern Therapies for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in Specific Population Subgroups: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Cardiorenal Med. 2024, 14, 570–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 14 01951 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical eligibility for vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil. (A) Eligibility for vericiguat and the principal reasons for ineligibility, as determined by the VICTORIA trial. (B) Eligibility for omecamtiv mecarbil and the main causes of non-eligibility according to the GALACTIC HF trial. LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; HHV = hospitalization for heart failure; IV = intravenous; BNP = B-type natriuretic peptide; NT-proBNP = amino terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide; NYHA = New York Heart Association; SBP = systolic blood pressure; eGFR= estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Figure 1. Theoretical eligibility for vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil. (A) Eligibility for vericiguat and the principal reasons for ineligibility, as determined by the VICTORIA trial. (B) Eligibility for omecamtiv mecarbil and the main causes of non-eligibility according to the GALACTIC HF trial. LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; HHV = hospitalization for heart failure; IV = intravenous; BNP = B-type natriuretic peptide; NT-proBNP = amino terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide; NYHA = New York Heart Association; SBP = systolic blood pressure; eGFR= estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Jcm 14 01951 g001
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study population and a comparison between eligible and non-eligible patients for vericiguat and OM. CVD = cardiovascular disease; ACS = acute coronary syndrome; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; TIA = transient ischemic attack; OHT = orthotopic heart transplantation GDMT = guidelines-directed medical therapy; ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker; ARNI = angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor; MRA = mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; SGLT2i = sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors; PDE5 = phosphodiesterase-5; HHF = heart failure hospitalization; CIED = cardiac implantable electronic device; BMI = Body Mass Index; NYHA = New York Heart Association; HR= heart rate; SBP = systolic blood pressure; DBP = diastolic blood pressure; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; AST = aspartate transaminase; ALT = alanine aminotransferase; NT-proBNP= N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide; IVS = interventricular septum; LVEDD = left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVEDV = left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVESV = left ventricular end-systolic volume; LAAPD = left atrium antero-posterior diameter; SPAP = systolic pulmonary artery pressure; TAPSE = tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion; IVC = inferior vena cava; MR = mitral regurgitation; TR = tricuspid regurgitation. Bold has been used to differentiate statistically significant p-values.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study population and a comparison between eligible and non-eligible patients for vericiguat and OM. CVD = cardiovascular disease; ACS = acute coronary syndrome; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; TIA = transient ischemic attack; OHT = orthotopic heart transplantation GDMT = guidelines-directed medical therapy; ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker; ARNI = angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor; MRA = mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; SGLT2i = sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors; PDE5 = phosphodiesterase-5; HHF = heart failure hospitalization; CIED = cardiac implantable electronic device; BMI = Body Mass Index; NYHA = New York Heart Association; HR= heart rate; SBP = systolic blood pressure; DBP = diastolic blood pressure; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; AST = aspartate transaminase; ALT = alanine aminotransferase; NT-proBNP= N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide; IVS = interventricular septum; LVEDD = left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVEDV = left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVESV = left ventricular end-systolic volume; LAAPD = left atrium antero-posterior diameter; SPAP = systolic pulmonary artery pressure; TAPSE = tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion; IVC = inferior vena cava; MR = mitral regurgitation; TR = tricuspid regurgitation. Bold has been used to differentiate statistically significant p-values.
Baseline ParametersTotal (n = 350)Eligible for Vericiguat (n = 7)Non-Eligible for Vericiguat (n = 343)p-ValueEligible for Omecamtiv (n = 13)Non-Eligible for Omecamtiv (n = 337)p-Value
Age, median [IQR]67 [17]72 [16]67 [17]0.48572 [17]67 [17]0.383
Sex male, n (%)270 (77.1)6 (85.7)264 (77.0)0.58511 (84.6)259 (76.9)0.513
Family history of CVD, n (%)94 (26.9)1 (14.3)93 (27.2)0.4463 (23.1)91 (27.1)0.749
Arterial hypertension, n (%)232 (66.5)4 (57.1)228 (66.7)0.6916 (46.2)226 (67.3)0.114
Dyslipidemia, n (%)220 (63.2)3 (42.9)217 (63.6)0.2676 (46.2)214 (63.9)0.193
Diabetes Mellitus, n (%)111 (32.1)3 (42.9)108 (31.9)0.6854 (30.8)107 (32.1)0.918
Smoking habit, n (%)163 (46.7)3 (42.9)160 (46.8)1.0006 (46.2)157 (46.7)0.968
Obesity, n (%)116 (33.3)2 (28.6)114 (33.4)1.0003 (23.1)113 (33.7)0.424
Ischemic etiology, n (%)137 (39.1)4 (57.1)133 (38.8)0.4399 (69.2)128 (38.0)0.024
Alcohol/drugs abuse, n (%)9 (2.6)0 (0.0)9 (2.6)0.6640 (0.0)9 (2.6)0.890
Chronic Kidney Disease, n (%)123 (35.2)3 (42.9)120 (35.1)0.7017 (53.8)116 (34.5)0.152
Chronic dialysis, n (%)5 (1.4)0 (0.0)5 (1.5)1.0000 (0.0)5 (1.5)1.000
Hepatic insufficiency, n (%)3 (0.9)0 (0.0)3 (0.9)1.0000 (0.0)3 (0.9)1.000
Interstitial Lung Disease, (%)22 (6.3)0 (0.0)22 (6.3)0.4880 (0.0)22 (6.5)0.341
ACS/PCI/CABG/STROKE/TIA, n (%)149 (42.7)3 (42.9)146 (42.7)1.0008 (61.5)141 (42.0)0.162
Active cancer, n (%)16 (4.6)0 (0.0)16 (4.7)0.5580 (0.0)16 (4.8)0.421
Enrolment in transplant list, n (%) 17 (4.9)0 (0.0)17 (4.9)0.5460 (0.0)17 (4.9)0.483
OHT, n (%)9 (2.6)0 (0.0)9 (2.6)0.6640 (0.0)9 (2.6)0.551
GDMT
–
ACEI/ARB/ARNI, n (%)
294 (84.2)7 (100)287 (83.9)0.24813 (100)281 (95.6)0.112
–
Beta blockers, n (%)
324 (92.8)7 (100)317 (97.8)0.45813 (100)311 (96.0)0.307
–
MRA, n (%)
235 (67.5)6 (85.7)229 (67.2)0.43512 (92.3)223 (66.6)0.052
–
SGLT2i, n (%)
193 (55.8)6 (85.7)187 (55.2)0.13911 (84.6)182 (54.7)0.033
–
Diuretics, n (%)
242 (69.5)7 (100)235 (68.9)0.10612 (92.3)230 (68.7)0.069
Diuretics daily dose (mg/die), median [IQR]25 [50]50 [75]25 [25]0.50262.5 [75]25 [25]0.128
Long-acting nitrates, n (%)1 (0.3)0 (0.0)1 (0.3)1.0000 (0.0)1 (0.3)1.000
PDE5 inhibitors, n (%)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)-0 (0.0)0 (0.0)-
IV infusion of inotrope, n (%)3 (0.9)0 (0.0)3 (0.9)1.0000 (0.0)3 (0.9)1.000
Oxygen therapy, n (%)2 (0.6)0 (0.0)2 (0.6)1.0000 (0.0)2 (0.6)1.000
Lipid lowering therapy, n (%)265 (75.9)5 (71.4)260 (76.0)0.77811 (84.6)254 (75.6)0.455
Anticoagulants, n (%)188 (53.9)4 (57.1)184 (53.8)1.0009 (4.8)179 (53.3)0.257
Anti-arrhythmic drugs, n (%)125 (35.8)1 (14.3)124 (36.3)0.4295 (38.5)120 (35.7)0.839
CIED, n (%)264 (75.9)6 (85.7)258 (75.7)0.53813 (100)251 (74.9)0.038
Recent HHF, n (%)45 (12.9) vericiguat—64 (18.3) OM 7 (100)38 (11.1)<0.00113 (100)51 (15.1)<0.001
Clinical parameters
BMI (Kg/m2), median [IQR]27.0 [6.9]26.0 [8.0]27.0 [6.9]0.32724.0 [5.0]28.0 [6.0]0.010
NYHA class, n (%) 0.635 0.229
I60 (17.2)0 (0.0)60 (17.5) 0 (0.0)60 (17.9)
II166 (47.6)4 (57.1)162 (47.4) 6 (46.2)160 (47.6)
III116 (33.2)3 (42.9)113 (33.0) 7 (53.8)109 (32.4)
IV7 (2.0)0 (0.0)7 (2.0) 0 (0.0)7 (2.1)
Pulmonary congestion, n (%)36 (10.3)0 (0.0)36 (10.3)0.6311 (7.7)35 (10.4)0.876
Jugular turgor, n (%)14 (4.0)0 (0.0)14 (4.1)0.5830 (0.0)14 (4.2)0.450
Peripheral oedema, n (%)70 (20.2)2 (28.6)68 (20.1)0.5797 (53.8)63 (18.9)0.002
Hepatomegaly, n (%)14 (4.0)0 (0.0)14 (4.1)0.5831 (7.7)13 (3.9)0.490
Cold extremities, n (%)1 (0.3)0 (0.0)1 (0.3)1.0000 (0.0)1 (0.3)1.000
Recent diuretic dose increase, n (%)23 (6.7)1 (14.3)22 (6.5)0.4186 (46.2)86 (25.7)0.100
Signs of vascular congestion, n (%)92 (26.4)2 (28.6)90 (25.9)0.8972 (15.4)21 (6.4)0.202
HR (bpm), median (IQR)67 [15]60 [6]67 [15]0.15360 [9]67 [15]0.103
SBP (mmHg), median [IQR]110 [20]110 [45]110 [20]0.525100 [23]110 [20]0.438
DBP (mmHg), median [IQR]70 [15]80 [20]70 [10]0.32260 [20]70 [15]0.697
Atrial fibrillation, n (%)166 (47.6)1 (14.3)165 (48.2)0.1246 (46.2)160 (47.6)0.917
Laboratory parameters
Creatinine (mg/dl), median [IQR]1.1 [0.5]1.0 [0.5]1.3 [0.5]0.5731.3 [0.9]1.1 [0.5]0.527
eGFR (ml/min/m2), median [IQR]64.7 [38.0]70.0 [30.0]64.5 [38.0]0.63853.0 [37.7]65.0 [38.0]0.524
Bilirubin (mg/dl), median [IQR]0.70 [0.44]1.20 [0.00]0.69 [0.45]0.1740.92 [0.96]0.70 [0.44]0.529
AST (UI), median [IQR]22 [10]25 [15]22 [10]0.60329 [12]21 [10]0.172
ALT (UI), median [IQR]20 [15]30 [0]20 [15]0.31931 [0]20 [15]0.260
BNP (pg/mL), median [IQR]79 [105]-79 [105]--79 [105]-
NTproBNP (pg/mL), median [IQR]1115 [2354]2202 [6095]1023 [2310]0.0122721 [5884]930 [2236]0.001
Echocardiographic parameters
IVS (mm), median (IQR)11 [3]10 [4]11 [3]0.22110 [3]11 [3]0.002
LVEDD (mm), median (IQR)55 [12]55 [18]55 [12]0.19363 [15]55 [11]0.002
LVEDV (mL), median (IQR)127 [62]173 [150]127 [62]0.175217 [156]125 [61]0.001
LVESV (mL), median (IQR)73 [55]133 [120]73 [54]0.035177 [139]73 [51]<0.001
LVEF (%), median (IQR)41 [19]25 [8]41 [18]0.00223 [18]41 [18]<0.001
LAAPD (mm), median (IQR)44 [10]46 [7]44 [10]0.84447 [9]44 [10]0.128
E/A > 2, n (%)29 (11.4)2 (33.3)27 (10.8)0.0862 (20.0)27 (11.0)0.381
E/E’, median [IQR]9.5 [4.9]8.5 [11.8]9.5 [4.9]0.82510.5 [11.8]9.5 [4.9]0.379
SPAP (mmHg), median [IQR]29 [10]35 [27]29 [10]0.45635 [14]29 [10]0.039
TAPSE (mm), median [IQR]19 [5]18 [8]19 [5]0.52619 [6]19 [5]0.557
S’ tricuspidal, median [IQR]10.7 [3.0]9.7 [4.0]10.7 [3.0]0.53111.5 [3.2]10.6 [3.0]0.783
IVC diameter (mm), median [IQR]16 [4]17 [4]16 [4]0.44216 [6]16 [4]0.618
IVC collapse, n (%)294 (87.5)6 (85.7)288 (87.5)0.88511 (84.6)283 (87.6)0.748
MR moderate or more, n (%)81 (23.6)2 (28.6)79 (23.6)0.3186 (46.2)75 (22.7)0.080
TR moderate or more, n (%)72 (21.0) 3 (42.9)69 (20.6)0.5176 (46.2)66 (19.9)0.082
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Basile, P.; Falagario, A.; Carella, M.C.; Dicorato, M.M.; Monitillo, F.; Santoro, D.; Naccarati, M.L.; Pontone, G.; Ciccone, M.M.; Santobuono, V.E.; et al. Eligibility of Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure for Vericiguat and Omecamtiv Mecarbil: From Clinical Trials to the Real-World Practice. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 1951. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14061951

AMA Style

Basile P, Falagario A, Carella MC, Dicorato MM, Monitillo F, Santoro D, Naccarati ML, Pontone G, Ciccone MM, Santobuono VE, et al. Eligibility of Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure for Vericiguat and Omecamtiv Mecarbil: From Clinical Trials to the Real-World Practice. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(6):1951. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14061951

Chicago/Turabian Style

Basile, Paolo, Alessio Falagario, Maria Cristina Carella, Marco Maria Dicorato, Francesco Monitillo, Daniela Santoro, Maria Ludovica Naccarati, Gianluca Pontone, Marco Matteo Ciccone, Vincenzo Ezio Santobuono, and et al. 2025. "Eligibility of Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure for Vericiguat and Omecamtiv Mecarbil: From Clinical Trials to the Real-World Practice" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 6: 1951. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14061951

APA Style

Basile, P., Falagario, A., Carella, M. C., Dicorato, M. M., Monitillo, F., Santoro, D., Naccarati, M. L., Pontone, G., Ciccone, M. M., Santobuono, V. E., & Guaricci, A. I. (2025). Eligibility of Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure for Vericiguat and Omecamtiv Mecarbil: From Clinical Trials to the Real-World Practice. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(6), 1951. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14061951

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop