Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 23, 2026.

SGLT‐2 Inhibitors in Heart Failure: Current Management, Unmet Needs, and Therapeutic Prospects

Carolyn S. P. Lam, Chanchal Chandramouli, Vineeta Ahooja and 1 more (opens in a new tab)

Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019 · Review

doi:10.1161/jaha.119.013389 (opens in a new tab)

Abstract

of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 23, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) is a growing public health issue. As many as 1 in 5 people are expected to develop HF during their lifetime,1 with an estimated 63 million people affected worldwide.2 In 2012 HF was responsible for an estimated health expenditure of $31 billion USD, a figure anticipated to see an increase of 127% by 2030.3 The increasing burden of HF on health care is primarily due to an aging population, as evidenced by the predominance of HF as a cause of hospitalization in individuals aged over 65 years.4 HF comprises an array of patients categorized by their symptoms and ejection fraction (EF), including those with reduced EF (EF<40%; HFrEF), midrange EF (EF between 40% and 49%), and preserved EF (EF>50%; HFpEF).5 Recent trends indicate that the prevalence of HFpEF is increasing relative to HFrEF, with estimates suggesting that 65% of patients with HF will have an EF>40% by 2020.4 Here, we review the current unmet needs in the management of HF and discuss how these needs may be addressed, focusing on the potential role of sodium‐glucose cotransporter‐2 (SGLT‐2) inhibitors.

Urgent Need for Prevention of HF in Individuals at Risk, as Well as Early Recognition to Facilitate Treatment Before Hospitalization

The importance of prevention of symptomatic HF is highlighted in current international HF guidelines,5, 6 where the progressive nature of HF, from preclinical to clinical stages, is emphasized. Recognition of individuals at risk and the presence of preclinical cardiac structural/functional HF precursors are critical, because starting treatment at the preclinical stage may prevent HF progression and improve outcomes.7, 8, 9 Current US guidelines even recommend the use of biomarker screening to identify patients at increased risk of HF and, accordingly, adoption of preventative interventions.6

Even with symptomatic disease, major barriers to early diagnosis and treatment of HF remain, such as poor awareness of the disease among the general population10, 11, 12, 13 and suboptimal diagnosis by nonspecialist healthcare practitioners, who may have limited access to diagnostic tools such as echocardiography.14, 15 This is of particular concern in view of the variable clinical presentation of HF,16 as well as the overlap of symptoms (eg, shortness of breath, exercise intolerance) of the condition with common comorbidities, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease (CKD), anemia, and diabetes mellitus.17, 18, 19 Delay in diagnosis of HF is associated with prolonged time to treatment and increased length of hospital stay and mortality.20, 21 As patient hospitalization is associated with an increased risk of mortality, early diagnosis is imperative.22 Studies indicate that patients hospitalized for HF have a 10% mortality rate at 30 days postdischarge23 and that the mortality rate at 1 year for patients admitted to a hospital is ≈20%.24 Furthermore, the readmission rate for HF at 6 months is 50%,25, 26 and the risk of mortality increases with each hospitalization.13

Established Treatments for HFrEF Are Associated With Reduced Mortality

Although established treatments for HFrEF are associated with reduced mortality, these patients continue to have a poor prognosis, with many patients not receiving recommended doses of treatment. Neurohormonal antagonists (angiotensin‐converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], β‐blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRA]) have been shown to reduce risk of mortality in patients with HFrEF.27, 28, 29 In addition, the PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor] with ACEI [angiotensin‐converting‐enzyme inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial showed benefit with ARNI, valsartan/sacubitril.30 Consequently, both European5 and US6 guidelines make the strongest recommendation for use of these neurohormonal agents, up‐titrated to optimal doses shown to be beneficial in clinical trials, to treat appropriate patients with HFrEF.

Despite these guideline‐recommended treatment options, mortality for patients with HFrEF remains high,31 with recent US registry data showing extremely poor 5‐year mortality (75%) and hospital readmission (82%) rates.32 A critical challenge in the management of HFrEF pertains to the large proportion of patients who do not receive guideline‐directed doses of treatment. A prospective European study found that of 2100 patients with HFrEF from 11 countries, only 22% were successfully up‐titrated over a 3‐month period to the recommended dose of ACE inhibitors/ARBs, and only 12% to the recommended dose of β‐blockers.33 The same study showed that patients with HFrEF treated with less than 50% of the recommended dose of ACE inhibitors/ARBs and β‐blockers had a greater risk of death and/or hospitalization for HF (hHF) than those reaching maximum dose.33 Moreover, in the prospective multinational ASIAN‐HF (Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure) registry, only 17% of patients received recommended doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and 13% for β‐blockers.34 It is likely that failure to achieve recommended dosing is partly attributable to the length of time required to up‐titrate to maximum dose, with patients less likely to adhere to lengthy treatment processes without benefiting from immediate clinical improvements, as well as adverse events associated with current therapies (eg, hypotension, worsening of renal function, and hyperkalemia).

Considering the significant residual risk associated with HFrEF, there is an unmet need for disease‐modifying therapies that have an immediate impact on patient well‐being without dose‐limiting side effects. At the same time, optimizing treatment of HFrEF with existing therapies remains a key therapeutic goal. Initiatives that support implementation of best practice (eg, installation of in‐ and outpatient protocols within practices, ensuring that guidelines are readily available to all healthcare practitioners) may be valuable in facilitating appropriate management of HFrEF.

No Therapy Has Been Shown to Convincingly Reduce Mortality in HFpEF

Several established treatments for HFrEF have shown no efficacy in trials of HFpEF, with no benefit demonstrated in the CHARM‐Preserved (Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity; candesartan),35 PEP‐CHF (Perindopril for Elderly People with Chronic Heart Failure; perindopril),36 I‐PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction; irbesartan),37 or TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist; spironolactone) trials.38 Consequently, current European Society of Cardiology guidelines continue to state that “no treatment has yet been shown, convincingly, to reduce morbidity or mortality in patients with HFpEF,” with the only class I recommendations being diuretics for symptom control and treatment of comorbidities.5 The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines similarly emphasize diuretics with a class I recommendation to relieve the symptoms of HF, with the only other class I recommendation being control of blood pressure. The American guidelines also recommend management of atrial fibrillation, addressing any myocardial ischemia with coronary revascularization, and use of other guideline‐recommended therapies for comorbid conditions. These guidelines also include a new class IIb recommendation for consideration of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in appropriately selected patients with symptomatic HFpEF, particularly those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, with close monitoring of potassium levels and renal function.6 This is based on a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial, which showed efficacy of spironolactone in patients with HFpEF in the Americas but not in Russia/Georgia.39

Cardiorenal Syndrome

The kidney and heart are inextricably linked, with acute or chronic disorder of 1 organ system capable of damaging the other; an interplay often referred to as cardiorenal syndrome.40 Studies have indicated that between 20% and 67% of patients with HF have CKD.41 Patients with both HF and renal insufficiency have ≈25% to 30% increased risk of mortality compared with patients with HF alone.42 The pathophysiology of renal disease in HF is complex: HF can lead to CKD through increased venous pressure and low cardiac output resulting in renal hypoperfusion, inflammation, and sympathetic activation. Conversely, kidney dysfunction may worsen HF through increased sodium and fluid retention, accelerated atherosclerosis, inflammation, anemia, uremic toxins, and neurohormonal activation.43 The progression of renal impairment in cardiorenal syndrome is often difficult to predict, making its management challenging. For instance, acute increases in serum creatinine and cystatin C of ≈0.3 mg/dL each may be prognostic for acute kidney injury and increased risk of hHF or death.44 However, transient worsening of renal function with appropriate neurohormonal blockade and/or diuresis, together with cardiovascular improvement, may not affect patient outcomes postdischarge.44 Most importantly, the presence of significant concomitant renal dysfunction severely limits the use of proven HF medications, such as ACE inhibitors, ARBs, MRAs, and ARNIs. In the absence of evidence‐based therapies capable of both renal and cardiovascular protection, outcomes for patients with cardiorenal syndrome may continue to be poor. Figure 1 summarizes the key unmet needs in HF.

Emerging Evidence Suggests SGLT‐2 Inhibitors May Be Effective in Prevention of HF in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for HF,45 with studies showing that subclinical atherosclerotic and nonatherosclerotic myocardial damage occurs early in the natural history of diabetes mellitus, often before diagnosis of the condition.46 SGLT‐2 inhibitors are approved for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and have recently been investigated in several large, placebo‐controlled trials for cardiovascular safety as well as efficacy in patients with T2D.

Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials of SGLT‐2 Inhibitors in Patients With T2D

EMPA‐REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) was the first cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) to investigate the effects of SGLT‐2 inhibition with empagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes in T2D.47 In patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic disease (N=7020), empagliflozin met an exploratory end point of statistically significant reduction in hHF versus placebo.47 An absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1.4% and relative risk reduction of 35% in hHF was observed in the empagliflozin group.47 Moreover, the cardiovascular benefits were shown to be independent of renal function47, 48 and glucose levels,49 as well as consistent when adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels.49, 50

Building on results from the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME trial, the CANVAS study program (integrated data from 2 trials, CANVAS [Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study] and CANVAS‐R [Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study ‐ Renal]) investigated the SGLT‐2 inhibitor canagliflozin in patients with T2D and either established atherosclerotic disease (n=6656; 66%) or at high risk for cardiovascular events (n=3486; 34%).51 Canagliflozin significantly reduced the exploratory endpoint of hHF versus placebo (3.2% ARR; 33% relative risk reduction) in both patient subsets and also in patients with and without history of HF.51, 52

The DECLARE‐TIMI 58 (Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events‐Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58) trial, published in November 2018, is the first CVOT to include hHF or cardiovascular death as 1 of its primary end points. The DECLARE‐TIMI 58 trial investigated the effects of dapagliflozin versus placebo in a broad population of patients (N=17 160) with T2D who had either multiple cardiovascular risk factors (59.4%) or established atherosclerotic disease (40.6%).53 Dapagliflozin met 1 of its primary end points of a statistically significant reduction in hHF or cardiovascular death versus placebo, which was driven by a lower rate in hHF. Dapagliflozin was associated with an 0.8% ARR and 27% relative risk reduction in hHF. The benefit in hHF was consistent in patients with and without recognized atherosclerotic disease and also in patients with and without a previous history of HF.53 Recent subanalyses of the DECLARE‐TIMI 58 trial have shown that reductions in hHF with dapagliflozin also occurred both in patients with and without a previous MI and both in patients with and without peripheral artery disease, although those with previous MI and those with peripheral artery disease had a greater ARR.54, 55

A recent meta‐analysis of the three CVOT analyses showed that SGLT‐2 inhibitors, as a class, reduced the risk of hHF by 31%, and again that this risk reduction was consistent in patients with and without recognized atherosclerotic disease (≈30% reduction in risk of hHF in both subgroups) and in patients with and without a history of HF.56 Real‐world studies, such as CVD‐REAL (Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of SGLT‐2 Inhibitors) and the ongoing EMPRISE (Non‐interventional Study on the Effectiveness and Safety of Empagliflozin Compared With DPP‐4 Inhibitors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in the United States) trial, have also demonstrated the positive effects of SGLT‐2 inhibitors on hHF prevention in patients with T2D irrespective of atherosclerotic disease status, providing consistent results in a practice‐based setting.57, 58, 59

Safety of SGLT‐2 Inhibitors

Current evidence from trials of SGLT‐2 inhibitors in patients with T2D suggests these drugs are generally well tolerated. A common side effect of SGLT‐2 inhibitors is genital infections, which typically manifest early during treatment exposure.47, 52, 53, 60 Infections can be prevented if appropriate hygiene measures are taken, but should infection occur, it can be effectively managed.60 Diabetic ketoacidosis can occur in patients treated with SGLT‐2 inhibitors, although cases are very rare and mainly associated with the use of insulin.47, 52, 53, 60 Current guidance suggests that, should symptoms of diabetic ketoacidosis arise in patients receiving SGLT‐2 inhibitors, treatment should be discontinued immediately.61, 62

In the CANVAS trial, although the overall incidence of lower limb amputations was low, the frequency of these events was significantly greater in patients treated with canagliflozin versus placebo.52 Accordingly, European Medicines Agency guidance highlights the need for caution when prescribing SGLT‐2 inhibitors in patients at high risk of amputation.63 Whether the increased risk of amputation observed in the CANVAS trial is the result of a class effect across all SGLT‐2 inhibitors is the subject of significant debate. Notably, neither the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME nor DECLARE‐TIMI 58 trial showed an increase in the incidence of amputations with empagliflozin and dapagliflozin, respectively, compared with placebo.47, 53 Furthermore, a meta‐analysis of the results from the CANVAS, EMPA‐REG OUTCOME, and DECLARE‐TIMI 58 trials showed significant heterogeneity among the 3 trials with respect to amputations, suggesting that an increased risk of these events was evident only in the CANVAS trial.56 Conversely, recent registry data demonstrated an increased risk of amputation with SGLT‐2 inhibitors as compared with glucagon‐like peptide‐1 agonists.64 Although the study was confounded by performing analyses for SGLT‐2 inhibitors as a class, it is noteworthy that the study reports the use of canagliflozin to be rare, considering outcomes of the 3 major CVOTs concerning amputations.

Data are also inconsistent with regard to risk of bone fractures during SGLT‐2 inhibitor treatment. Although the incidence of fractures was significantly greater with canagliflozin versus placebo in the CANVAS trial, this finding was not mirrored in the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME, DECLARE‐TIMI 58, and CANVAS‐R trials47, 52, 53 or in registry data.64

Further research is clearly required to ascertain whether there is a genuine increased risk of amputations and fractures associated with SGLT‐2 inhibitor treatment and, if so, whether it is applicable to all drugs in that class or specific to an individual agent.

Can SGLT‐2 Inhibitors Be Beneficial in the Treatment of HF?

Results from current CVOTs show promise for SGLT‐2 inhibitors in the prevention of HF in patients with T2D across a spectrum of cardiovascular risk. Whether SGLT‐2 inhibitors can be beneficial in the treatment of HF remains to be elucidated; efficacy in the prevention of HF does not necessarily translate to efficacy in the treatment of HF—the GISSI‐HF (GISSI Heart Failure) and CORONA (Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure) trials exemplify this notion. Despite statins being the cornerstone pharmacological intervention in the prevention of heart disease, in both the GISSI‐HF and CORONA trials, rosuvastatin failed to show benefit in patients with chronic HF.65, 66

However, there is rationale to suggest that SGLT‐2 inhibitors may be beneficial in the treatment of established HF in patients with T2D. As previously discussed, a meta‐analysis of EMPA‐REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, and DECLARE‐TIMI 58 demonstrated cardiovascular benefit with SGLT‐2 inhibitors in patients with and without a history of HF.56 Moreover, subanalyses of the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME and CANVAS trials demonstrated that the ARR in hHF may be greater in patients with a history of HF than in those without; that is, at least for patients with high cardiovascular risk.67, 68 Only a minority of patients in the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, and DECLARE‐TIMI 58 trials had investigator‐reported HF (≈10%), and no HF phenotyping (by EF or natriuretic peptide levels) was initially performed for these patients in the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME and CANVAS trials.53, 68, 69 The DECLARE‐TIMI 58 trial collected data on HF phenotype in patients with a history of HF (including history and etiology of HF, baseline EF, and functional class). Of the total 17 160 patients enrolled, 671 (4%) had an EF<45% and were classified as HFrEF; 1316 (8%) had a history of HF without a reduced EF (808 with recorded EF≥45% and 508 without a documented EF).70 Dapagliflozin reduced the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or hHF to a greater extent in patients with HFrEF than in those without.70 This difference was driven by significant reductions in cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF but not in those without; all‐cause mortality was also reduced in patients with HFrEF but not in those without. Reductions in hHF were seen irrespective of baseline EF. Of note, patients with reduced EF, in particular an EF<30%, derived greater relative cardiovascular benefit than those with a higher EF.70 It is also noteworthy that the cardiovascular benefits in patients with HFrEF were seen in patients previously treated with current evidence‐based therapies (eg, ACE inhibitors, β‐blockers, ARBs).70

A subanalysis of the CANVAS trial retrospectively assessed type of HF events in the study (HFrEF or HFpEF) using patients’ medical records data (reviewed by an original member of the Adjudication Committee who was blinded to patient treatment assignment). Of the 10 142 patients enrolled in the study, 101 had a first HF event considered as HFpEF (EF≥50%), 122 had a first event considered HFrEF (EF<50%), and 61 had a first event with unknown EF.71 The overall risk of HF events was shown to be reduced with canagliflozin versus placebo. The hazard ratio for HFrEF events was 0.69 (95% CI 0.48‐1.00), that for HFpEF events was 0.83 (95% CI 0.55‐1.25), and that for HF events with unknown EF was 0.54 (95% CI 0.32‐0.89). In the sensitivity analysis, where unknown EF events were assumed to be HFpEF, the updated hazard ratio for HFpEF events was 0.71 (95% CI 0.52‐0.97), and if the unknown EF events were assumed to be HFrEF events, the updated hazard ratio for HFrEF events was 0.64 (95% CI 0.48‐0.86). The authors, therefore, concluded that canagliflozin reduced the overall risk of HF events in patients with T2D and high cardiovascular risk, with no clear difference in effects on HFrEF versus HFpEF events.71 Unfortunately, EF at baseline was not available in this study. It will be interesting to see whether results from this subanalysis are reflected in ongoing dedicated HFrEF and HFpEF trials of SGLT‐2 inhibitors, particularly the latter in view of the lack of available treatment options for patients with HFpEF.

Accumulating mechanistic insights (Table) suggest that SGLT‐2 inhibitors may be valuable in the treatment of HF regardless of diabetes mellitus status and EF. SGLT‐2 inhibitors may exert cardioprotective effects through several distinct mechanisms, including (1) improvement in ventricular loading conditions secondary to reductions in preload (mediated by osmotic diuresis and natriuresis)72, 73 and afterload (potentially occurring via lowering of arterial pressure and stiffness);74, 75 (2) provision of an alternative cardiac energy supply in the form of cardiac ketones (specifically β‐hydroxybutyrate);76, 77 (3) direct inhibition of the sodium/hydrogen (Na+/H) exchanger in the myocardium,78 leading to reduction in or reversing of cardiac injury, hypertrophy, fibrosis, remodeling, and systolic dysfunction;79, 80, 81 (4) reduction in left ventricular mass and improvement in diastolic function82, 83 through inhibition of cardiac fibrosis (a feature of HF);80, 84, 85 (5) improvement in endothelial dysfunction;86, 87 and (6) stimulation of increased glucagon secretion,88, 89 potentially improving cardiac performance by either increasing cardiac index and fuel availability or decreasing peripheral vascular resistance.90

Renal Disease Adversely Impacts HF Outcomes, and SGLT‐2 Inhibitors May Offer Renal Protection

The recent CARMALINA trial highlights the deleterious effects of renal dysfunction on HF outcomes in patients with T2D, with or without prior history of HF. In the placebo group of the trial, there was a 2.7‐fold and a 4.2‐fold higher risk of hHF in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and <30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, respectively, compared with those with eGFR ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.95 Moreover, in the SAVOR‐TIMI 53 (Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus‐Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53) trial, worsening renal function was associated with a higher risk of both hHF and atherothrombotic events in patients with T2D during a median follow‐up of 2 years.96 Notably, with worsening renal function, risk of hHF was shown to be much higher than risk of atherothrombotic events. Whether improvement in renal function translates to cardiovascular benefit in patients with HF remains to be seen. However, it has been postulated that the kidney protection and natriuretic effects induced by SGLT‐2 inhibitors may account for the reductions in hHF in the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, and DECLARE‐TIMI 58 trials. Moreover, the reduction in hHF in these trials was greater in patients with worse baseline renal function; a 40% reduction in hHF was observed in patients with eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 compared with 31% and 12% reductions in patients with eGFR ≥60 to <90 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and eGFR ≥90 mL/min per 1.73 m2, respectively.56 Interestingly, although the magnitude of benefit from SGLT‐2 inhibition on hHF was greater (P value for interaction=0.0073) in patients with more severe renal disease at baseline, the benefit on progression of renal disease was lower in these patients (P value for interaction=0.0258). Most recently, results from the CREDENCE (Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation) trial, which investigated canagliflozin versus placebo on renal outcomes in 4401 patients with T2D and albuminuric CKD, support the notion that renal protection and cardiovascular benefit induced by SGLT‐2 inhibitors may be interlinked. The trial was prematurely stopped based on achievement of the prespecified efficacy criteria for the primary composite end point of time to first occurrence of end‐stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, or cardiovascular/renal death. Canagliflozin recipients also benefited from significant reductions in secondary end points of cardiovascular death or hHF and of hHF versus those on placebo. As in the DECLARE‐TIMI 58 trial, cardiovascular death was not reduced in the CREDENCE trial, suggesting that the reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death or hHF was driven by a reduction in hHF.97

SGLT‐2 Inhibitors May Have Beneficial Effects in Patients Without Diabetes Mellitus

Patients with HF, regardless of EF, have sodium and fluid retention as well as coronary, myocardial, and systemic endothelial dysfunction, even in the absence of overt diabetes mellitus. As the natriuretic (most notably), glucosuric, and metabolic effects of SGLT‐2 inhibitors have been demonstrated in patients with and without diabetes mellitus,98, 99, 100 it has been postulated that SGLT‐2 inhibitors may benefit patients with HF regardless of diabetes mellitus status (Figure 2). This has been demonstrated in several preclinical studies.85, 101, 102, 103 In a preclinical model of HF, empagliflozin treatment (or gene knockout simulation of SGLT‐2 inhibition) improved cardiac function.101 In preclinical models of MI, dapagliflozin has demonstrated attenuation of cardiac fibrosis, and empagliflozin has been shown to improve cardiac function and remodeling.85, 102 In other experimental models of HF without diabetes mellitus, empagliflozin prevented worsening of cardiac function.103

Unanswered Questions and Future Direction

Outcomes of several ongoing prospective studies of SGLT‐2 inhibitors in HF (Figure 3) are needed to fully evaluate the therapeutic potential of SGLT‐2 inhibitors in HF, with and without diabetes mellitus and with preserved or reduced EF. Of particular interest are the larger upcoming dapagliflozin and empagliflozin outcome trials (N>2000) in both HFrEF (DAPA‐HF [Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse‐outcomes in Heart Failure] and EMPEROR‐Reduced [Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction]) and HFpEF (DELIVER [Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure] and EMPEROR‐Preserved [Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction]), which are due to read out from 2019 onward (Figure 3) and may help establish whether there is a role for these SGLT‐2 inhibitors in HF independent of diabetes mellitus.

A recent randomized trial of empagliflozin versus placebo (EMPA‐HEART [Effects of Empagliflozin on Cardiac Structure, Function, and Circulating Biomarkers in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes]) in patients with T2D showed that empagliflozin treatment resulted in early and significant reduction in left ventricular mass regression, as detected by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, which suggests reverse cardiac remodeling may be a possible contributor to the cardioprotective effects of SGLT‐2 inhibitors.115 By investigating the effects of SGLT‐2 inhibitors on HF‐specific biomarkers, hemodynamics, and cardiac structure/function, the PRESERVED‐HF (Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure; primary end point: change from baseline in N‐terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide [NTproBNP] at weeks 6 and 12 in patients with HFpEF), DEFINE‐HF (Dapagliflozin Effect on Symptoms and Biomarkers in Patients with Heart Failure; primary end point: change in NTproBNP at weeks 6 and 12 in patients with HFrEF), and EMBRACE‐HF (Empagliflozin Evaluation by Measuring Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients with Heart Failure; primary end point: change in pulmonary artery diastolic pressure from baseline to end of treatment with empagliflozin versus placebo) trials will help to further elucidate the potential beneficial effects of SGLT‐2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without T2D. Sotagliflozin, currently being investigated in the SOLOIST‐WHF(Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Post Worsening Heart Failure) trial, is a dual SGLT‐1/SGLT‐2 antagonist. Accordingly, the biology of this agent differs slightly from the 3 SGLT‐2 inhibitors prospectively studied to date. Thus, it is possible sotagliflozin may exhibit some drug‐specific effects, and it will be interesting to see whether the safety and efficacy impacts of this agent replicate those observed with SGLT‐2 inhibitors.

In addition to the recently published CREDENCE trial, several other trials dedicated to investigating renal and cardiovascular outcomes with SGLT inhibitors, which may shed light on the extent to which the renal effects of SGLT‐2 inhibitors contribute to the cardiovascular benefits these drugs appear to provide, are ongoing. These trials include, but are not restricted to, DAPA‐CKD (A Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on Renal Outcomes and Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease; primary composite end point: time to first occurrence of ≥50% sustained decline in eGFR, reaching end‐stage renal disease or cardiovascular/renal death) and EMPA‐KIDNEY (A Multicentre International Randomized Parallel Group Double‐blind Placebo‐controlled Clinical Trial of Empagliflozin Once Daily to Assess Cardio‐renal Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease; primary composite end point: time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression [defined as end‐stage kidney disease, a sustained decline in eGFR to <10 mL/min per 1.73 m2, renal death, or a sustained decline of ≥40% in eGFR from randomization] or cardiovascular/renal death).

Conclusion

HF is a highly debilitating condition affecting millions of individuals worldwide for which there remains substantial unmet needs for (1) prevention of HF by early recognition and treatment of individuals at risk; (2) improved adherence to treatment guidelines with respect to up‐titration of evidence‐based therapies among patients with established disease; and (3) additional effective and well‐tolerated therapeutic options, particularly in patients with HFpEF, as well as those with cardiorenal disease. SGLT‐2 inhibitors have emerged as a potential effective class of drug for the prevention of HF in patients with T2D. Mounting mechanistic evidence indicates that these drugs may also induce combined cardiac and renal beneficial effects and hold promise for the treatment of HF in patients with and without diabetes mellitus, as well as in both HFpEF and HFrEF. Whether this promise translates to clinical efficacy remains to be seen, but results of highly anticipated ongoing trials may help to provide the answer to this question.

Sources of Funding

Funding for medical writing assistance was provided by AstraZeneca.

Disclosures

Lam is supported by a Clinician Scientist Award from the National Medical Research Council of Singapore; has received research support from Boston Scientific, Bayer, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Vifor Pharma; has served as consultant or on the Advisory Board/Steering Committee/Executive Committee for Boston Scientific, Bayer, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Vifor Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Merck, Janssen Research & Development LLC, Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Diagnostics, Corvia, Stealth BioTherapeutics, JanaCare, Biofourmis, Darma, Applied Therapeutics, WebMD Global LLC, Radcliffe Group Ltd and Corpus. Subodh Verma is national coordinator for clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Novonordisk; serves on the Study Executive Committee for clinical trials sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim; is principal investigator for the NEWTON‐CABG, CAMRA‐1, ACE, and ENABLE‐CHIROPODY studies; and has received speaking and/or research support from Amgen, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Merck, Janssen, Sanofi, Novartis, Lilly, and Novonordisk. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.

References 115

  1. 1.

    Heidenreich PA, Albert NM, Allen LA, Bluemke DA, Butler J, Fonarow GC, Ikonomidis JS, Khavjou O, Konstam MA, Maddox TM, Nichol G, Pham M, Pina IL, Trogdon JG. Forecasting the impact of heart failure in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6:606–619.

    Not in our library10.1161/hhf.0b013e318291329a (opens in a new tab)

  2. 2.
    Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 · 2017
    No notice
  3. 3.

    Savarese G, Lund LH. Global public health burden of heart failure. Card Fail Rev. 2017;3:7–11.

    Not in our library10.15420/cfr.2016:25:2 (opens in a new tab)

  4. 4.

    Oktay AA, Rich JD, Shah SJ. The emerging epidemic of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2013;10:401–410.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11897-013-0155-7 (opens in a new tab)

  5. 5.

    Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, Falk V, Gonzalez‐Juanatey JR, Harjola VP, Jankowska EA, Jessup M, Linde C, Nihoyannopoulos P, Parissis JT, Pieske B, Riley JP, Rosano GMC, Ruilope LM, Ruschitzka F, Rutten FH, van der Meer P. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2129–2200.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128 (opens in a new tab)

  6. 6.

    Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Colvin MM, Drazner MH, Filippatos GS, Fonarow GC, Givertz MM, Hollenberg SM, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, McBride PE, Peterson PN, Stevenson LW, Westlake C. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA focused update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. J Card Fail. 2017;23:628–651.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cardfail.2017.04.014 (opens in a new tab)

  7. 7.

    Yusuf S, Pitt B, Davis CE, Hood WB Jr, Cohn JN. Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:685–691.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm199209033271003 (opens in a new tab)

  8. 8.

    Ledwidge M, Gallagher J, Conlon C, Tallon E, O'Connell E, Dawkins I, Watson C, O'Hanlon R, Bermingham M, Patle A, Badabhagni MR, Murtagh G, Voon V, Tilson L, Barry M, McDonald L, Maurer B, McDonald K. Natriuretic peptide‐based screening and collaborative care for heart failure: the STOP‐HF randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;310:66–74.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2013.7588 (opens in a new tab)

  9. 9.

    Huelsmann M, Neuhold S, Resl M, Strunk G, Brath H, Francesconi C, Adlbrecht C, Prager R, Luger A, Pacher R, Clodi M. PONTIAC (NT‐proBNP selected prevention of cardiac events in a population of diabetic patients without a history of cardiac disease): a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1365–1372.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.069 (opens in a new tab)

  10. 10.

    Lainscak M, Letonja M, Kovacic D, Hodoscek LM, Marolt A, Bartolic CM, Mulej M, Penko M, Poles J, Ravnikar T, Iskra MS, Pusnik CS, Jug B. General public awareness of heart failure: results of questionnaire survey during Heart Failure Awareness Day 2011. Arch Med Sci. 2014;10:355–360.

    Not in our library10.5114/aoms.2014.42589 (opens in a new tab)

  11. 11.

    Zelenak C, Radenovic S, Musial‐Bright L, Tahirovic E, Sacirovic M, Lee CB, Jahandar‐Lashki D, Inkrot S, Trippel TD, Busjahn A, Hashemi D, Wachter R, Pankuweit S, Stork S, Pieske B, Edelmann F, Dungen HD. Heart failure awareness survey in Germany: general knowledge on heart failure remains poor. ESC Heart Fail. 2017;4:224–231.

    Not in our library10.1002/ehf2.12144 (opens in a new tab)

  12. 12.

    Stork S, Kavoliuniene A, Vinereanu D, Ludwig R, Seferovic P, Dickstein K, Anker SD, Filippatos G, Ponikowski P, Lainscak M. What does the lay public know about heart failure? Findings from the Heart Failure Awareness Day Initiative. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:66–70.

    Not in our library10.1002/ejhf.425 (opens in a new tab)

  13. 13.

    Solomon SD, Dobson J, Pocock S, Skali H, McMurray JJ, Granger CB, Yusuf S, Swedberg K, Young JB, Michelson EL, Pfeffer MA. Influence of nonfatal hospitalization for heart failure on subsequent mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2007;116:1482–1487.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.107.696906 (opens in a new tab)

  14. 14.

    Remme WJ, McMurray JJ, Hobbs FD, Cohen‐Solal A, Lopez‐Sendon J, Boccanelli A, Zannad F, Rauch B, Keukelaar K, Macarie C, Ruzyllo W, Cline C. Awareness and perception of heart failure among European cardiologists, internists, geriatricians, and primary care physicians. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:1739–1752.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurheartj/ehn196 (opens in a new tab)

  15. 15.

    Howlett J, Comin‐Colet J, Dickstein K, Fuat A, Polzl G, Delaney S. Clinical practices and attitudes regarding the diagnosis and management of heart failure: findings from the CORE Needs Assessment Survey. ESC Heart Fail. 2018;5:172–183.

    Not in our library10.1002/ehf2.12205 (opens in a new tab)

  16. 16.

    Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Drazner MH, Fonarow GC, Geraci SA, Horwich T, Januzzi JL, Johnson MR, Kasper EK, Levy WC, Masoudi FA, McBride PE, McMurray JJ, Mitchell JE, Peterson PN, Riegel B, Sam F, Stevenson LW, Tang WH, Tsai EJ, Wilkoff BL. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2013;128:1810–1852.

    Not in our library10.1161/cir.0b013e31829e8807 (opens in a new tab)

  17. 17.

    Rutten FH, Cramer MJ, Grobbee DE, Sachs AP, Kirkels JH, Lammers JW, Hoes AW. Unrecognized heart failure in elderly patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1887–1894.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurheartj/ehi291 (opens in a new tab)

  18. 18.

    Levy D, Larson MG, Vasan RS, Kannel WB, Ho KK. The progression from hypertension to congestive heart failure. JAMA. 1996;275:1557–1562.

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    Streng KW, Nauta JF, Hillege HL, Anker SD, Cleland JG, Dickstein K, Filippatos G, Lang CC, Metra M, Ng LL, Ponikowski P, Samani NJ, van Veldhuisen DJ, Zwinderman AH, Zannad F, Damman K, van der Meer P, Voors AA. Non‐cardiac comorbidities in heart failure with reduced, mid‐range and preserved ejection fraction. Int J Cardiol. 2018;271:132–139.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.04.001 (opens in a new tab)

  20. 20.

    Sethares KA, Chin E, Jurgens CY. Predictors of delay in heart failure patients and consequences for outcomes. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2015;12:94–105.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11897-014-0241-5 (opens in a new tab)

  21. 21.

    Maisel AS, Peacock WF, McMullin N, Jessie R, Fonarow GC, Wynne J, Mills RM. Timing of immunoreactive B‐type natriuretic peptide levels and treatment delay in acute decompensated heart failure: an ADHERE (Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry) analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:534–540.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.010 (opens in a new tab)

  22. 22.
    Trends in survival after a diagnosis of heart failure in the United Kingdom 2000-2017: population based cohort study · 2019
    Corrected
  23. 23.

    Loehr LR, Rosamond WD, Chang PP, Folsom AR, Chambless LE. Heart failure incidence and survival (from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study). Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:1016–1022.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.11.061 (opens in a new tab)

  24. 24.

    National Heart Failure Audit 2016‐2017. National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR). Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London. 2016 Available at: https://www.nicor.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Heart-Failure-Summary-Report-2016-17.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2019.

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, Jessup M, Konstam MA, Mancini DM, Michl K, Oates JA, Rahko PS, Silver MA, Stevenson LW, Yancy CW. 2009 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Circulation. 2009;119:e391–e479.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.109.192065 (opens in a new tab)

  26. 26.

    Maggioni AP, Dahlström U, Filippatos G, Chioncel O, Crespo Leiro M, Drozdz J, Fruhwald F, Gullestad L, Logeart D, Fabbri G, Urso R, Metra M, Parissis J, Persson H, Ponikowski P, Rauchhaus M, Voors AA, Nielsen OW, Zannad F, Tavazzi L. EURObservational Research Programme: regional differences and 1‐year follow‐up results of the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC‐HF Pilot). Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:808–817.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurjhf/hft050 (opens in a new tab)

  27. 27.

    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;325:293–302.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm199108013250501 (opens in a new tab)

  28. 28.

    The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS‐II): a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;353:9–13.

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, Cody R, Castaigne A, Perez A, Palensky J, Wittes J. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:709–717.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm199909023411001 (opens in a new tab)

  30. 30.

    McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, Rouleau JL, Shi VC, Solomon SD, Swedberg K, Zile MR. Angiotensin‐neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:993–1004.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1409077 (opens in a new tab)

  31. 31.

    Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jane‐Llopis E, Abrahams‐Gessel S, Bloom LR, Fathima S, Feigl AB, Gaziano T, Mowafi M, Pandya A, Prettner K, Rosenberg L, Seligman B, Stein AZ, Weinstein C. The global economic burden of non‐communicable diseases. Geneva: World Economic Forum. 2011 Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harvard_HE_GlobalEconomicBurdenNonCommunicableDiseases_2011.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2016.

    Not in our library

  32. 32.

    Shah KS, Xu H, Matsouaka RA, Bhatt DL, Heidenreich PA, Hernandez AF, DeVore AD, Yancy CW, Fonarow GC. Heart failure with preserved, borderline, and reduced ejection fraction: 5‐year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2476–2486.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.074 (opens in a new tab)

  33. 33.

    Ouwerkerk W, Voors AA, Anker SD, Cleland JG, Dickstein K, Filippatos G, van der Harst P, Hillege HL, Lang CC, Ter Maaten JM, Ng LL, Ponikowski P, Samani NJ, van Veldhuisen DJ, Zannad F, Metra M, Zwinderman AH. Determinants and clinical outcome of uptitration of ACE‐inhibitors and beta‐blockers in patients with heart failure: a prospective European study. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:1883–1890.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurheartj/ehx026 (opens in a new tab)

  34. 34.

    Teng TK, Tromp J, Tay WT, Anand I, Ouwerkerk W, Chopra V, Wander GS, Yap JJ, MacDonald MR, Xu CF, Chia YM, Shimizu W, Richards AM, Voors A, Lam CS. Prescribing patterns of evidence‐based heart failure pharmacotherapy and outcomes in the ASIAN‐HF registry: a cohort study. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6:e1008–e1018.

    Not in our library10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30306-1 (opens in a new tab)

  35. 35.

    Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, Michelson EL, Olofsson B, Ostergren J. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left‐ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM‐Preserved Trial. Lancet. 2003;362:777–781.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14285-7 (opens in a new tab)

  36. 36.

    Cleland JG. Chronic aspirin therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events: a waste of time, or worse? Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med. 2006;3:234–235.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncpcardio0540 (opens in a new tab)

  37. 37.

    Massie BM, Carson PE, McMurray JJ, Komajda M, McKelvie R, Zile MR, Anderson S, Donovan M, Iverson E, Staiger C, Ptaszynska A. Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2456–2467.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa0805450 (opens in a new tab)

  38. 38.

    Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Claggett B, Clausell N, Desai AS, Diaz R, Fleg JL, Gordeev I, Harty B, Heitner JF, Kenwood CT, Lewis EF, O'Meara E, Probstfield JL, Shaburishvili T, Shah SJ, Solomon SD, Sweitzer NK, Yang S, McKinlay SM. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1383–1392.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1313731 (opens in a new tab)

  39. 39.

    Pfeffer MA, Claggett B, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Clausell N, Desai AS, Diaz R, Fleg JL, Gordeev I, Heitner JF, Lewis EF, O'Meara E, Rouleau JL, Probstfield JL, Shaburishvili T, Shah SJ, Solomon SD, Sweitzer NK, McKinlay SM, Pitt B. Regional variation in patients and outcomes in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial. Circulation. 2015;131:34–42.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.114.013255 (opens in a new tab)

  40. 40.

    Ronco C, Haapio M, House AA, Anavekar N, Bellomo R. Cardiorenal syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1527–1539.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.051 (opens in a new tab)

  41. 41.

    Sarraf M, Masoumi A, Schrier RW. Cardiorenal syndrome in acute decompensated heart failure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:2013–2026.

    Not in our library10.2215/cjn.03150509 (opens in a new tab)

  42. 42.

    Ather S, Chan W, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Ramasubbu K, Zachariah AA, Wehrens XH, Deswal A. Impact of noncardiac comorbidities on morbidity and mortality in a predominantly male population with heart failure and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:998–1005.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.040 (opens in a new tab)

  43. 43.

    Mentz RJ, Kelly JP, von Lueder TG, Voors AA, Lam CS, Cowie MR, Kjeldsen K, Jankowska EA, Atar D, Butler J, Fiuzat M, Zannad F, Pitt B, O'Connor CM. Noncardiac comorbidities in heart failure with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2281–2293.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jacc.2014.08.036 (opens in a new tab)

  44. 44.

    Harjola VP, Mullens W, Banaszewski M, Bauersachs J, Brunner‐La Rocca HP, Chioncel O, Collins SP, Doehner W, Filippatos GS, Flammer AJ, Fuhrmann V, Lainscak M, Lassus J, Legrand M, Masip J, Mueller C, Papp Z, Parissis J, Platz E, Rudiger A, Ruschitzka F, Schafer A, Seferovic PM, Skouri H, Yilmaz MB, Mebazaa A. Organ dysfunction, injury and failure in acute heart failure: from pathophysiology to diagnosis and management. A review on behalf of the Acute Heart Failure Committee of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19:821–836.

    Not in our library10.1002/ejhf.872 (opens in a new tab)

  45. 45.

    Nichols GA, Hillier TA, Erbey JR, Brown JB. Congestive heart failure in type 2 diabetes: prevalence, incidence, and risk factors. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1614–1619.

    Not in our library10.2337/diacare.24.9.1614 (opens in a new tab)

  46. 46.

    Selvin E, Lazo M, Chen Y, Shen L, Rubin J, McEvoy JW, Hoogeveen RC, Sharrett AR, Ballantyne CM, Coresh J. Diabetes mellitus, prediabetes, and incidence of subclinical myocardial damage. Circulation. 2014;130:1374–1382.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.114.010815 (opens in a new tab)

  47. 47.

    Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, Fitchett D, Bluhmki E, Hantel S, Mattheus M, Devins T, Johansen OE, Woerle HJ, Broedl UC, Inzucchi SE. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117–2128.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1504720 (opens in a new tab)

  48. 48.

    Fitchett D, McKnight J, Lee J. Empagliflozin reduces heart failure irrespective of control of blood pressure, low density lipoprotein cholesterol and HbA1c. Eur Heart J. 2017;38 Available at:.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurheartj/ehx493.p4903 (opens in a new tab)

  49. 49.

    Fitchett D, Lee J, George JT, Hehnke U, Woerle HJ, Inzucchi SE. Empagliflozin reduces heart failure irrespective of control of blood pressure, low density lipoprotein cholesterol and HbA1c. 77th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association. San Diego, CA, June 9‐13, 2017; Abst 1172‐P.

    Not in our library

  50. 50.

    Fitchett DH, Udell JA, Inzucchi SE. Heart failure outcomes in clinical trials of glucose‐lowering agents in patients with diabetes. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19:43–53.

    Not in our library10.1002/ejhf.633 (opens in a new tab)

  51. 51.

    Mahaffey KW, Neal B, Perkovic V, de Zeeuw D, Fulcher G, Erondu N, Shaw W, Fabbrini E, Sun T, Li Q, Desai M, Matthews DR. Canagliflozin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events: results from the CANVAS program (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study). Circulation. 2018;137:323–334.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.117.032038 (opens in a new tab)

  52. 52.

    Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, de Zeeuw D, Fulcher G, Erondu N, Shaw W, Law G, Desai M, Matthews DR. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:644–657.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1611925 (opens in a new tab)

  53. 53.

    Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, Mosenzon O, Kato ET, Cahn A, Silverman MG, Zelniker TA, Kuder JF, Murphy SA, Bhatt DL, Leiter LA, McGuire DK, Wilding JPH, Ruff CT, Gause‐Nilsson IAM, Fredriksson M, Johansson PA, Langkilde AM, Sabatine MS. Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2018;380:347–357.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1812389 (opens in a new tab)

  54. 54.

    Furtado RHM, Bonaca MP, Raz I, Zelniker TA, Mosenzon O, Cahn A, Kuder J, Murphy SA, Bhatt DL, Leiter LA, McGuire DK, Wilding JPH, Ruff CT, Nicolau JC, Gause‐Nilsson IAM, Fredriksson M, Langkilde AM, Sabatine MS, Wiviott SD. Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction: a sub‐analysis from DECLARE TIMI‐58 trial. Circulation. 2019;139:2516–2527.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.119.039996 (opens in a new tab)

  55. 55.

    Bonaca MP, Wiviott SD, Zelniker TA, Mosenzon O, Furtado RHM, Goodrich E, Bhatt DL, Leiter LA, McQuire D, Wilding JPH, Gause‐Nilsson IAM, Johanson P, Johansson PA, Langkilde AM, Raz I, Sabatine M. Dapagliflozin and Outcomes in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease: Insights from DECLARE‐TIMI 58. American College of Cardiology. 68th Annual Scientific Session and Expo. New Orleans, LA, March 16‐18, 2019.

    Not in our library

  56. 56.

    Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, Im K, Goodrich EL, Bonaca MP, Mosenzon O, Kato ET, Cahn A, Furtado RHM, Bhatt DL, Leiter LA, McGuire DK, Wilding JPH, Sabatine MS. SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials. Lancet. 2018;393:31–39.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32590-x (opens in a new tab)

  57. 57.
    Lower Risk of Heart Failure and Death in Patients Initiated on Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors Versus Other Glucose-Lowering Drugs · 2017
    No notice
  58. 58.

    Cavender MA, Steg PG, Smith SC Jr, Eagle K, Ohman EM, Goto S, Kuder J, Im K, Wilson PW, Bhatt DL. Impact of diabetes mellitus on hospitalization for heart failure, cardiovascular events, and death: outcomes at 4 years from the reduction of atherothrombosis for continued health (REACH) Registry. Circulation. 2015;132:923–931.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.114.014796 (opens in a new tab)

  59. 59.

    Patorno E, Pawar A, Franklin J, Najafzadeh M, Déruaz‐Luyet A, Brodovicz K, Bartels D, Gopalakrishnan C, Kulldorff M, Schneeweiss S. Empagliflozin and the risk of heart failure hospitalization in routine clinical care: a first analysis from the empagliflozin comparative effectiveness and safety (EMPRISE) study. Circulation. 2019;138:2822–2830.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.118.039177 (opens in a new tab)

  60. 60.

    Wilding J, Fernando K, Milne N, Evans M, Ali A, Bain S, Hicks D, James J, Newland‐Jones P, Patel D, Viljoen A. SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes management: key evidence and implications for clinical practice. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9:1757–1773.

    Not in our library10.1007/s13300-018-0471-8 (opens in a new tab)

  61. 61.

    European Medicines Agency. EMA confirms recommendations to minimise ketoacidosis risk with SGLT2 inhibitors for diabetes. 2016 Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Referrals_document/SGLT2_inhibitors-20/European_Commission_final_decision/WC500202393.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2018.

    Not in our library

  62. 62.

    FDA. Drug safety communication: FDA revises labels of SGLT2 inhibitors for diabetes to include warnings about too much acid in the blood and serious urinary tract infections. 2015 Available at: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm475463.htm. Accessed December 20, 2018.

    Not in our library

  63. 63.

    European Medicines Agency. Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) assessment report. 2018 Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-Assessment_Report_-_Variation/human/002656/WC500230546.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2018.

    Not in our library

  64. 64.

    Ueda P, Svanstrom H, Melbye M, Eliasson B, Svensson AM, Franzen S, Gudbjornsdottir S, Hveem K, Jonasson C, Pasternak B. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and risk of serious adverse events: nationwide register based cohort study. BMJ. 2018;363:k4365.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.k4365 (opens in a new tab)

  65. 65.

    Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Marchioli R, Barlera S, Franzosi MG, Latini R, Lucci D, Nicolosi GL, Porcu M, Tognoni G. Effect of rosuvastatin in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI‐HF trial): a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372:1231–1239.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61240-4 (opens in a new tab)

  66. 66.

    Kjekshus J, Apetrei E, Barrios V, Bohm M, Cleland JG, Cornel JH, Dunselman P, Fonseca C, Goudev A, Grande P, Gullestad L, Hjalmarson A, Hradec J, Janosi A, Kamensky G, Komajda M, Korewicki J, Kuusi T, Mach F, Mareev V, McMurray JJ, Ranjith N, Schaufelberger M, Vanhaecke J, van Veldhuisen DJ, Waagstein F, Wedel H, Wikstrand J. Rosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2248–2261.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa0706201 (opens in a new tab)

  67. 67.

    Fitchett D, Butler J, van de Borne P, Zinman B, Lachin JM, Wanner C, Woerle HJ, Hantel S, George JT, Johansen OE, Inzucchi SE. Effects of empagliflozin on risk for cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization across the spectrum of heart failure risk in the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME® trial. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:363–370.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurheartj/ehx511 (opens in a new tab)

  68. 68.
    Canagliflozin and Heart Failure in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus · 2018
    No notice
  69. 69.

    Fitchett D, Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, Hantel S, Salsali A, Johansen OE, Woerle HJ, Broedl UC, Inzucchi SE. Heart failure outcomes with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk: results of the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME® trial. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1526–1534.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurheartj/ehv728 (opens in a new tab)

  70. 70.

    Kato ET, Silverman MG, Mosenzon O, Zelniker TA, Cahn A, Furtado RHM, Kuder J, Murphy SA, Bhatt DL, Leiter LA, McGuire DK, Wilding JPH, Bonaca MP, Ruff CT, Desai AS, Goto S, Johansson PA, Gause‐Nilsson I, Johanson P, Langkilde AM, Raz I, Sabatine MS, Wiviott SD. Effect of dapagliflozin on heart failure and mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2019;139:2528–2536.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.119.040130 (opens in a new tab)

  71. 71.

    Figtree GA, Radholm K, Barrett TD, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, de Zeeuw D, Fulcher G, Matthews DR, Shaw W, Neal B. Effects of canagliflozin on heart failure outcomes associated with preserved and reduced ejection fraction in Type 2 diabetes: results from the CANVAS program. Circulation. 2019;139:2591–2593.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.119.040057 (opens in a new tab)

  72. 72.

    Verma S, McMurray JJV, Cherney DZI. The metabolodiuretic promise of sodium‐dependent glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition: the search for the sweet spot in heart failure. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:939–940.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamacardio.2017.1891 (opens in a new tab)

  73. 73.

    Hallow KM, Helmlinger G, Greasley PJ, McMurray JJV, Boulton DW. Why do SGLT2 inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalization? A differential volume regulation hypothesis. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20:479–487.

    Not in our library10.1111/dom.13126 (opens in a new tab)

  74. 74.

    Striepe K, Jumar A, Ott C, Karg MV, Schneider MP, Kannenkeril D, Schmieder RE. Effects of the selective sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin on vascular function and central hemodynamics in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2017;136:1167–1169.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.117.029529 (opens in a new tab)

  75. 75.

    Chilton R, Tikkanen I, Cannon CP, Crowe S, Woerle HJ, Broedl UC, Johansen OE. Effects of empagliflozin on blood pressure and markers of arterial stiffness and vascular resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015;17:1180–1193.

    Not in our library10.1111/dom.12572 (opens in a new tab)

  76. 76.

    Ferrannini E, Mark M, Mayoux E. CV Protection in the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME Trial: a “thrifty substrate” hypothesis. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:1108–1114.

    Not in our library10.2337/dc16-0330 (opens in a new tab)

  77. 77.

    Verma S, Rawat S, Ho KL, Wagg CS, Zhang L, Teoh H, Dyck JE, Uddin GM, Oudit GY, Mayoux E, Lehrke M, Marx N, Lopaschuk GD. Empagliflozin increases cardiac energy production in diabetes: novel translational insights into the heart failure benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2018; 3:575–587.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jacbts.2018.07.006 (opens in a new tab)

  78. 78.
    Empagliflozin decreases myocardial cytoplasmic Na+ through inhibition of the cardiac Na+/H+ exchanger in rats and rabbits · 2016
    No notice
  79. 79.

    Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, Zannad F. Effects of sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with heart failure: proposal of a novel mechanism of action. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:1025–1029.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2275 (opens in a new tab)

  80. 80.

    Kang S, Verma S, Teng G, Belke D, Svystonyuk D, Guzzardi D, Park D, Turnbull J, Malik G, Fedak P. Direct effects of empagliflozin on extracellular matrix remodeling in human cardiac fibroblasts: novel translational clues to EMPA‐REG outcome. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33:S169. Abs 274.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cjca.2019.08.033 (opens in a new tab)

  81. 81.

    Baartscheer A, Hardziyenka M, Schumacher CA, Belterman CN, van Borren MM, Verkerk AO, Coronel R, Fiolet JW. Chronic inhibition of the Na+/H+ ‐ exchanger causes regression of hypertrophy, heart failure, and ionic and electrophysiological remodelling. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;154:1266–1275.

    Not in our library10.1038/bjp.2008.189 (opens in a new tab)

  82. 82.

    Verma S, Garg A, Yan AT, Gupta AK, Al‐Omran M, Sabongui A, Teoh H, Mazer CD, Connelly KA. Effect of empagliflozin on left ventricular mass and diastolic function in individuals with diabetes: an important clue to the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME trial? Diabetes Care. 2016;39:e212–e213.

    Not in our library10.2337/dc16-1312 (opens in a new tab)

  83. 83.
    Impact of dapagliflozin on left ventricular diastolic function of patients with type 2 diabetic mellitus with chronic heart failure · 2018
    No notice
  84. 84.

    Travers JG, Kamal FA, Robbins J, Yutzey KE, Blaxall BC. Cardiac fibrosis: the fibroblast awakens. Circ Res. 2016;118:1021–1040.

    Not in our library10.1161/circresaha.115.306565 (opens in a new tab)

  85. 85.

    Lee TM, Chang NC, Lin SZ. Dapagliflozin, a selective SGLT2 Inhibitor, attenuated cardiac fibrosis by regulating the macrophage polarization via STAT3 signaling in infarcted rat hearts. Free Radic Biol Med. 2017;104:298–310.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.01.035 (opens in a new tab)

  86. 86.

    Sena CM, Pereira AM, Seica R. Endothelial dysfunction—a major mediator of diabetic vascular disease. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1832:2216–2231.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbadis.2013.08.006 (opens in a new tab)

  87. 87.
    Dapagliflozin acutely improves endothelial dysfunction, reduces aortic stiffness and renal resistive index in type 2 diabetic patients: a pilot study · 2017
    No notice
  88. 88.

    Bonner C, Kerr‐Conte J, Gmyr V, Queniat G, Moerman E, Thevenet J, Beaucamps C, Delalleau N, Popescu I, Malaisse WJ, Sener A, Deprez B, Abderrahmani A, Staels B, Pattou F. Inhibition of the glucose transporter SGLT2 with dapagliflozin in pancreatic alpha cells triggers glucagon secretion. Nat Med. 2015;21:512–517.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.3828 (opens in a new tab)

  89. 89.

    Solini A, Sebastiani G, Nigi L, Santini E, Rossi C, Dotta F. Dapagliflozin modulates glucagon secretion in an SGLT2‐independent manner in murine alpha cells. Diabetes Metab. 2017;43:512–520.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.diabet.2017.04.002 (opens in a new tab)

  90. 90.

    Ceriello A, Genovese S, Mannucci E, Gronda E. Glucagon and heart in type 2 diabetes: new perspectives. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2016;15:123.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12933-016-0440-3 (opens in a new tab)

  91. 91.

    Hess DA, Terenzi DC, Trac JZ, Quan A, Mason T, Al‐Omran M, Bhatt DL, Dhingra N, Rotstein OD, Letier LA, Zinman B, Yan AT, Connelly KA, Mazer CD, Verma S. A novel effect of SGLT2 inhibition to increase circulating pro‐vascular progenitor cells in patients with type 2 diabetes. Cell Metab. 2019; In press.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2019.08.015 (opens in a new tab)

  92. 92.

    Mustroph J, Wagemann O, Lucht CM, Trum M, Hammer KP, Sag CM, Lebek S, Tarnowski D, Reinders J, Perbellini F, Terracciano C, Schmid C, Schopka S, Hilker M, Zausig Y, Pabel S, Sossalla ST, Schweda F, Maier LS, Wagner S. Empagliflozin reduces Ca/calmodulin‐dependent kinase II activity in isolated ventricular cardiomyocytes. ESC Heart Fail. 2018;5:642–648.

    Not in our library10.1002/ehf2.12336 (opens in a new tab)

  93. 93.

    Sano M. Inter‐organ communication pathway manifested by non‐physiological stress to the kidney in type II diabetic patients: why are diabetic patients prone to develop heart failure? Intern Med. 2019 Available at:.

    Not in our library10.2169/internalmedicine.2870-19 (opens in a new tab)

  94. 94.
    Empagliflozin rescues diabetic myocardial microvascular injury via AMPK-mediated inhibition of mitochondrial fission · 2018
    Not checked
  95. 95.

    McGuire DK, Alexander JH, Johansen OE, Perkovic V, Rosenstock J, Cooper ME, Wanner C, Kahn SE, Toto RD, Zinman B, Baanstra D, Pfarr E, Schnaidt S, Meinicke T, George JT, von Eynatten M, Marx N. Linagliptin effects on heart failure and related outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus at high cardiovascular and renal risk in CARMELINA. Circulation. 2019;139:351–361.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.118.038352 (opens in a new tab)

  96. 96.

    Udell JA, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, Cavender MA, Mosenzon O, Steg PG, Davidson JA, Nicolau JC, Corbalan R, Hirshberg B, Frederich R, Im K, Umez‐Eronini AA, He P, McGuire DK, Leiter LA, Raz I, Scirica BM. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment: observations from the SAVOR‐TIMI 53 Trial. Diabetes Care. 2015;38:696–705.

    Not in our library10.2337/dc14-1850 (opens in a new tab)

  97. 97.

    Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, Bompoint S, Heerspink HJL, Charytan DM, Edwards R, Agarwal R, Bakris G, Bull S, Cannon CP, Capuano G, Chu PL, de Zeeuw D, Greene T, Levin A, Pollock C, Wheeler DC, Yavin Y, Zhang H, Zinman B, Meininger G, Brenner BM, Mahaffey KW. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2295–2306.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1811744 (opens in a new tab)

  98. 98.

    Al‐Jobori H, Daniele G, Cersosimo E, Triplitt C, Mehta R, Norton L, DeFronzo RA, Abdul‐Ghani M. Empagliflozin and kinetics of renal glucose transport in healthy individuals and individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2017;66:1999–2006.

    Not in our library10.2337/db17-0100 (opens in a new tab)

  99. 99.

    Heise T, Seewaldt‐Becker E, Macha S, Hantel S, Pinnetti S, Seman L, Woerle HJ. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics following 4 weeks’ treatment with empagliflozin once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013;15:613–621.

    Not in our library10.1111/dom.12073 (opens in a new tab)

  100. 100.

    Seman L, Macha S, Nehmiz G, Simons G, Ren B, Pinnetti S, Woerle HJ, Dugi K. Empagliflozin (BI 10773), a potent and selective SGLT2 inhibitor, induces dose‐dependent glucosuria in healthy subjects. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2013;2:152–161.

    Not in our library10.1002/cpdd.16 (opens in a new tab)

  101. 101.

    Shi X, Verma S, Yun J, Brand‐Arzamendi K, Singh KK, Liu X, Garg A, Quan A, Wen XY. Effect of empagliflozin on cardiac biomarkers in a zebrafish model of heart failure: clues to the EMPA‐REG OUTCOME trial? Mol Cell Biochem. 2017;433:97–102.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11010-017-3018-9 (opens in a new tab)

  102. 102.

    Yurista SR, Sillje HHW, Oberdorf‐Maass SU, Schouten EM, Pavez Giani MG, Hillebrands JL, van Goor H, van Veldhuisen DJ, de Boer RA, Westenbrink BD. Sodium‐glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin improves cardiac function in non‐diabetic rats with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21;862–873.

    Not in our library10.1002/ejhf.1473 (opens in a new tab)

  103. 103.

    Byrne NJ, Parajuli N, Levasseur JL, Boisvenue J, Beker DL, Masson G, Fedak PWM, Verma S, Dyck JRB. Empagliflozin prevents worsening of cardiac function in an experimental model of pressure overload‐induced heart failure. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2017;2:347–354.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jacbts.2017.07.003 (opens in a new tab)

  104. 104.

    NCT02998970. Effects of Empagliflozin on Cardiac Structure in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (EMPA‐HEART). 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02998970. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  105. 105.

    NCT03036124. Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure (DAPA‐HF). 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03036124. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  106. 106.

    NCT03030235. Dapagliflozin in PRESERVED Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (PRESERVED‐HF). 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03030235. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  107. 107.

    NCT03448419. This Study Tests Empagliflozin in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF). The Study Looks at How Far Patients Can Walk in 6 Minutes and at Their Heart Failure Symptoms. 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03448419. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  108. 108.

    NCT03448406. This Study Tests Empagliflozin in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF). The Study Looks at How Far Patients Can Walk in 6 Minutes and at Their Heart Failure Symptoms. 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03448406. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  109. 109.

    NCT03030222. Empagliflozin Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients With Heart Failure (EMBRACE‐HF). 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03030222. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  110. 110.

    NCT02920918. Treatment of Diabetes in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure. 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02920918. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  111. 111.

    NCT03057977. Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR‐Reduced). 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03057977. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  112. 112.

    NCT03057951. Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR‐Preserved). 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03057951. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  113. 113.

    NCT03619213. Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER). 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03619213. Accessed July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  114. 114.

    NCT03521934. Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Post Worsening Heart Failure (SOLOIST‐WHF Trial). 2019 Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03521934. Accessed: July 22, 2019.

    Not in our library

  115. 115.

    Verma S, Mazer CD, Yan AT, Mason T, Slabiak A, Bello OO, Opingari E, Fitchett DH, Goldenberg RM, Goodman SG, Farkouh ME, Partridge A, Bonneau C, Bakbak E, Dhingra N, Williams AH, Lambotharan SG, Gupta N, Chowdhury B, Dai DHH, Jüni P, Teoh H, Quan A, Liuni A, Leiter LA, Bhatt DL, Zinman B, Connelly KA. EMPA‐HEART Cardiolink‐6: A Randomized Trial Evaluating the Effect of Empagliflozin on Left Ventricular Structure, Function and Biomarkers in People With Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) and Coronary Heart Disease. American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2019. Chicago, IL, November 10‐12, 2018; Abst 19332.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 2

Questions about this paper

We email you if it is retracted, withdrawn, corrected or flagged.

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.