This clinical consensus statement reviews the use of inotropic support in patients with advanced heart failure. The current guidelines only support use of inotropes in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure with evidence of organ malperfusion or shock. However, inotropic support may be reasonable in other patients with advanced heart failure without acute severe decompensation. The clinical evidence supporting use of inotropes in these situations is reviewed. Particularly, patients with persistent congestion, systemic hypoperfusion, or advanced heart failure with need for palliation, and specific situations relevant to implantation of left ventricular assist devices or heart transplantation are discussed. Traditional and novel drugs with inotropic effects are discussed and use of guideline-directed therapy during inotropic support is reviewed. Finally, home inotropic therapy is described, and palliative care and end-of-life aspects are reviewed in relation to management of ongoing inotropic support (including guidance for maintenance and weaning of chronic inotropic therapy support).

The wide overlap between the syndromes of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic heart failure (HF) means that familiarity with the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines is of importance to nephrologists. The common risk factors for the two syndromes together with the adverse cardiac structural remodelling associated with CKD means that many kidney disease patients experience breathlessness and fall within the HF phenotypes categorized in the guidelines. The management of HF is evolving rapidly leading to significant changes in the latest guideline iteration. The 2021 guidelines have changed from the 2016 version firstly by an increased focus on identifying the three phenotypes of HF to guide appropriate evidence-based management. Secondly, a new and simplified treatment algorithm for HF with reduced ejection fraction involving the rapid sequential initiation and up-titration of four \'pillars\' of drug treatment-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and now, thanks to convincing trial data, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Thirdly, guidelines for device therapy have been changed with down-graded advice on indications for primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy for patients with non-ischaemic HF and for cardiac resynchronization therapy with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and a QRS duration <150 ms. There are updated treatment plans for HF associated with non-cardiovascular comorbidities including CKD.

Reports of consensus conferences are usually valued less than reports of clinical trials even when rigorous methodology is used. However, limited data are available comparing the impact of these 2 methods of shaping clinical practice.
Compare the publication impact of consensus conferences and clinical trials.
Consensus publications from the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) from 2002 through 2017 were identified and classified by subject matter. Randomized trials were identified in the same publication year and subject in journals, starting with the highest impact factor. Both publication types were matched, and total citations were determined for each using Google Scholar. A secondary analysis compared total costs for each publication type.
Seventeen ADQI consensus conference reports and 17 randomized trials were identified. ADQI reports received a similar number of citations per paper (median, interquartile range) compared to randomized trials (132, 54-228; vs. 159, 60-340, p = ns). Similarly, 10 (58.8%) ADQI reports and 10 randomized trials were cited >100 times. On average, ADQI reports appeared in journals with lower impact factors compared to clinical trials (5.4 ± 4.6 vs. 25.4 ± 27.1; p < 0.01). The median cost per citation (USD 2017) for ADQI reports was USD 606.01 compared to almost twice this figure, USD 1,182.59, for clinical trials on the same topics (p = 0.09). Despite being published in lower impact factor journals, consensus reports on topics in critical care nephrology, received similar citations to randomized controlled trials published the same year.