Search

Cardiac remodelling refers to changes in left ventricular structure and function over time, with a progressive deterioration that may lead to heart failure (HF) development (adverse remodelling) or vice versa a recovery (reverse remodelling) in response to HF treatment. Adverse remodelling predicts a worse outcome, whilst reverse remodelling predicts a better prognosis. The geometry, systolic and diastolic function and electric activity of the left ventricle are affected, as well as the left atrium and on the long term even right heart chambers. At a cellular and molecular level, remodelling involves all components of cardiac tissue: cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial cells and leucocytes. The molecular, cellular and histological signatures of remodelling may differ according to the cause and severity of cardiac damage, and clearly to the global trend toward worsening or recovery. These processes cannot be routinely evaluated through endomyocardial biopsies, but may be reflected by circulating levels of several biomarkers. Different classes of biomarkers (e.g. proteins, non‐coding RNAs, metabolites and/or epigenetic modifications) and several biomarkers of each class might inform on some aspects on HF development, progression and long‐term outcomes, but most have failed to enter clinical practice. This may be due to the biological complexity of remodelling, so that no single biomarker could provide great insight on remodelling when assessed alone. Another possible reason is a still incomplete understanding of the role of biomarkers in the pathophysiology of cardiac remodelling. Such role will be investigated in the first part of this review paper on biomarkers of cardiac remodelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Pathophysiological differences between patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (EF) remain unclear. Therefore we used a phenomics approach, integrating selected proteomics data with patient characteristics and cardiac structural and functional parameters, to get insight into differential pathophysiological mechanisms and identify potential treatment targets. Methods and results: We report data from a representative subcohort of the prospective Singapore Heart Failure Outcomes and Phenotypes (SHOP), including patients with HFrEF (EF <40%, n = 217), HFpEF (EF ≥50%, n = 213), and age‐ and sex‐matched controls without HF (n = 216). We measured 92 biomarkers using a proximity extension assay and assessed cardiac structure and function in all participants using echocardiography. We used multi‐block projection to latent structure analysis to integrate clinical, echocardiographic, and biomarker variables. Candidate biomarker targets were cross‐referenced with small‐molecule and drug databases. The total cohort had a median age of 65 years (interquartile range 60–71), and 50% were women. Protein profiles strongly discriminated patients with HFrEF (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.89) and HFpEF (AUC = 0.94) from controls. Phenomics analyses identified unique druggable inflammatory markers in HFpEF from the tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily (TNFRSF), which were positively associated with hypertension, diabetes, and increased posterior and relative wall thickness. In HFrEF, interleukin (IL)‐8 and IL‐6 were possible targets related to lower EF and worsening renal function. Conclusion: We identified pathophysiological mechanisms related to increased cardiac wall thickness parameters and potentially druggable inflammatory markers from the TNFRSF in HFpEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The approval of new heart failure (HF) therapies has slowed over the past two decades in part due to the high costs of conducting large randomized clinical trials that are needed to adequately power major clinical endpoint studies. Several biomarkers have been identified reflecting different elements of HF pathophysiology, with possible applications in diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment monitoring, and even in the design of clinical trials. Biomarkers could potentially be used to refine study inclusion criteria to enable enrolment of patients who are more likely to respond to a therapeutic intervention, despite being at sufficient risk to meet pre‐determined study endpoint rates. When there is a close relationship between biomarker levels and clinical endpoints, changes in biomarker levels after a given treatment can act as a surrogate endpoint, potentially reducing the duration and cost of a clinical trial. Natriuretic peptides have been widely used in clinical trials with a variable amount of added value, which such variation being probably due to the absence of a close pathophysiological connection to the study drug. Notable exceptions to this include sacubitril/valsartan and vericiguat. Future studies should seek to adopt unbiased approaches for discovery of true companion diagnostics; with ‐omics‐based tools, biomarkers might be more precisely selected for use in clinical trials to identify responses that closely reflect the biological effects of the drug under investigation. Finally, biomarkers associated with cardiac damage and remodelling, such as cardiac troponin, could be employed as safety endpoints provided that standardization between different assays is achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congestion is a cardinal sign of heart failure (HF). In the past, it was seen as a homogeneous epiphenomenon that identified patients with advanced HF. However, current evidence shows that congestion in HF varies in quantity and distribution. This updated view advocates for a congestive‐driven classification of HF according to onset (acute vs. chronic), regional distribution (systemic vs. pulmonary), compartment of distribution (intravascular vs. extravascular), and clinical vs. subclinical. Thus, this review will focus on the utility of circulating biomarkers for assessing and managing the different fluid overload phenotypes. This discussion focused on the clinical utility of the natriuretic peptides, carbohydrate antigen 125 (also called mucin 16), bio‐adrenomedullin and mid‐regional pro‐adrenomedullin, ST2 (also known as interleukin‐1 receptor‐like 1), cluster of differentiation 146, troponin, C‐terminal pro‐endothelin‐1, and parameters of haemoconcentration. The utility of circulation biomarkers on top of clinical evaluation, haemodynamics, and imaging needs to be better determined by dedicated studies. Some multiparametric frameworks in which these tools contribute to management are proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In patients with heart failure, the beneficial effects of drug and device therapies counteract to some extent ongoing cardiac damage. According to the net balance between these two factors, cardiac geometry and function may improve (reverse remodelling, RR) and even completely normalize (remission), or vice versa progressively deteriorate (adverse remodelling, AR). RR or remission predict a better prognosis, while AR has been associated with worsening clinical status and outcomes. The remodelling process ultimately involves all cardiac chambers, but has been traditionally evaluated in terms of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. This is the second part of a review paper by the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology dedicated to ventricular remodelling. This document examines the proposed criteria to diagnose RR and AR, their prevalence and prognostic value, and the variables predicting remodelling in patients managed according to current guidelines. Much attention will be devoted to RR in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction because most studies on cardiac remodelling focused on this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New biomarkers are being evaluated for their ability to advance the management of patients with heart failure. Despite a large pool of interesting candidate biomarkers, besides natriuretic peptides virtually none have succeeded in being applied into the clinical setting. In this review, we examine the most promising emerging candidates for clinical assessment and management of patients with heart failure. We discuss high‐sensitivity cardiac troponins (Tn), procalcitonin, novel kidney markers, soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2), galectin‐3, growth differentiation factor‐15 (GDF‐15), cluster of differentiation 146 (CD146), neprilysin, adrenomedullin (ADM), and also discuss proteomics and genetic‐based risk scores. We focused on guidance and assistance with daily clinical care decision‐making. For each biomarker, analytical considerations are discussed, as well as performance regarding diagnosis and prognosis. Furthermore, we discuss potential implementation in clinical algorithms and in ongoing clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]