Search

Right heart failure (RHF) following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a common and potentially serious condition with a wide spectrum of clinical presentations with an unfavourable effect on patient outcomes. Clinical scores that predict the occurrence of right ventricular (RV) failure have included multiple clinical, biochemical, imaging and haemodynamic parameters. However, unless the right ventricle is overtly dysfunctional with end-organ involvement, prediction of RHF post-LVAD implantation is, in most cases, difficult and inaccurate. For these reasons optimization of RV function in every patient is a reasonable practice aiming at preparing the right ventricle for a new and challenging haemodynamic environment after LVAD implantation. To this end, the institution of diuretics, inotropes and even temporary mechanical circulatory support may improve RV function, thereby preparing it for a better adaptation post-LVAD implantation. Furthermore, meticulous management of patients during the perioperative and immediate postoperative period should facilitate identification of RV failure refractory to medication. When RHF occurs late during chronic LVAD support, this is associated with worse long-term outcomes. Careful monitoring of RV function and characterization of the origination deficit should therefore continue throughout the patient's entire follow-up. Despite the useful information provided by the echocardiogram with respect to RV function, right heart catheterization frequently offers additional support for the assessment and optimization of RV function in LVAD-supported patients. In any patient candidate for LVAD therapy, evaluation and treatment of RV function and failure should be assessed in a multidimensional and multidisciplinary manner., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Implantable devices form an integral part of the management of patients with heart failure (HF) and provide adjunctive therapies in addition to cornerstone drug treatment. Although the number of these devices is growing, only few are supported by robust evidence. Current devices aim to improve haemodynamics, improve reverse remodelling, or provide electrical therapy. A number of these devices have guideline recommendations and some have been shown to improve outcomes such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and long-term mechanical support. For others, more evidence is still needed before large-scale implementation can be strongly advised. Of note, devices and drugs can work synergistically in HF as improved disease control with devices can allow for further optimization of drug therapy. Therefore, some devices might already be considered early in the disease trajectory of HF patients, while others might only be reserved for advanced HF. As such, device therapy should be integrated into HF care programmes. Unfortunately, implementation of devices, including those with the greatest evidence, in clinical care pathways is still suboptimal. This clinical consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describes the physiological rationale behind device-provided therapy and also device-guided management, offers an overview of current implantable device options recommended by the guidelines and proposes a new integrated model of device therapy as a part of HF care., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Acute heart failure is a major cause of urgent hospitalizations. These are followed by marked increases in death and rehospitalization rates, which then decline exponentially though they remain higher than in patients without a recent hospitalization. Therefore, optimal management of patients with acute heart failure before discharge and in the early post-discharge phase is critical. First, it may prevent rehospitalizations through the early detection and effective treatment of residual or recurrent congestion, the main manifestation of decompensation. Second, initiation at pre-discharge and titration to target doses in the early post-discharge period, of guideline-directed medical therapy may improve both short- and long-term outcomes. Third, in chronic heart failure, medical treatment is often left unchanged, so the acute heart failure hospitalization presents an opportunity for implementation of therapy. The aim of this scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology is to summarize recent findings that have implications for clinical management both in the pre-discharge and the early post-discharge phase after a hospitalization for acute heart failure., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

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)., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

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., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Sudden death is a devastating complication of heart failure (HF). Current guidelines recommend an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for prevention of sudden death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) specifically those with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% after at least 3 months of optimized HF treatment. The benefit of ICD in patients with symptomatic HFrEF caused by coronary artery disease has been well documented; however, the evidence for a benefit of prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with HFrEF of non-ischaemic aetiology is less strong. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) block the deleterious actions of angiotensin II, norepinephrine, and aldosterone, respectively. Neprilysin inhibition potentiates the actions of endogenous natriuretic peptides that mitigate adverse ventricular remodelling. BB, MRA, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) have a favourable effect on reduction of sudden cardiac death in HFrEF. Recent data suggest a beneficial effect of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in reducing serious ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in patients with HFrEF. So, in the current era of new drugs for HFrEF and with the optimal use of disease-modifying therapies (BB, MRA, ARNI and SGLT2i), we might need to reconsider the need and timing for use of ICD as primary prevention of sudden death, especially in HF of non-ischaemic aetiology., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Temporal changes in patient selection and major technological developments have occurred in the field of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), yet analyses depicting this trend are lacking for Europe. We describe the advances of European LVAD programmes from the PCHF-VAD registry across device implantation eras., Methods and Results: Of 583 patients from 13 European centres in the registry, 556 patients (mean age 53 ± 12 years, 82% male) were eligible for this analysis. Patients were divided into eras (E) by date of LVAD implantation: E1 from December 2006 to December 2012 (6 years), E2 from January 2013 to January 2020 (7 years). Patients implanted more recently were older with more comorbidities, but less acutely ill. Receiving an LVAD in E2 was associated with improved 1-year survival in adjusted analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.98; p = 0.043). LVAD implantation in E2 was associated with a significantly lower chance of heart transplantation (adjusted HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.67; p = 0.001), and lower risk of LVAD-related infections (adjusted HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95; p = 0.027), both in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. The adjusted risk of haemocompatibility-related events decreased (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.91; p = 0.016), while heart failure-related events increased in E2 (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.02-2.75; p = 0.043)., Conclusion: In an analysis depicting the evolving landscape of continuous-flow LVAD carriers in Europe over 13 years, a trend towards better survival was seen in recent years, despite older recipients with more comorbidities, potentially attributable to increasing expertise of LVAD centres, improved patient selection and pump technology. However, a smaller chance of undergoing heart transplantation was noted in the second era, underscoring the relevance of improved outcomes on LVAD support., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

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., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

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., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Novel pharmacologic treatment options reduce mortality and morbidity in a cost-effective manner in patients with heart failure (HF). Undisputedly, the effective implementation of these agents is an essential element of good clinical practice, which is endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on acute and chronic HF. Yet, physicians struggle to implement these therapies as they have to balance the true and/or perceived risks versus their substantial benefits in clinical practice. Any worsening of biomarkers of renal function is often perceived as being disadvantageous and is in clinical practice one of the most common reasons for ineffective drug implementation. However, even in this context, they clearly reduce mortality and morbidity in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, even in patients with poor renal function. Furthermore these agents are also beneficial in HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors more recently demonstrated a beneficial effect in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The emerge of several new classes (angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI], SGLT2 inhibitors, vericiguat, omecamtiv mecarbil) and the recommendation by the 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF of early initiation and titration of quadruple disease-modifying therapies (ARNI/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor + beta-blocker + mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and SGLT2 inhibitor) in HFrEF increases the likelihood of treatment-induced changes in renal function. This may be (incorrectly) perceived as deleterious, resulting in inertia of starting and uptitrating these lifesaving therapies. Therefore, the objective of this consensus document is to provide advice of the effect HF drugs on renal function., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Patients with heart failure (HF) who contract SARS-CoV-2 infection are at a higher risk of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Regardless of therapeutic attempts in COVID-19, vaccination remains the most promising global approach at present for controlling this disease. There are several concerns and misconceptions regarding the clinical indications, optimal mode of delivery, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with HF. This document provides guidance to all healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination scheme in patients with HF. COVID-19 vaccination is indicated in all patients with HF, including those who are immunocompromised (e.g. after heart transplantation receiving immunosuppressive therapy) and with frailty syndrome. It is preferable to vaccinate against COVID-19 patients with HF in an optimal clinical state, which would include clinical stability, adequate hydration and nutrition, optimized treatment of HF and other comorbidities (including iron deficiency), but corrective measures should not be allowed to delay vaccination. Patients with HF who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 need to continue precautionary measures, including the use of facemasks, hand hygiene and social distancing. Knowledge on strategies preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (including the COVID-19 vaccination) should be included in the comprehensive educational programmes delivered to patients with HF., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD supported patients. Device-related, and patient-device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of LVAD implanting centres. The probability of an LVAD supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local ambulance team, emergency department medical team and internal or surgical wards in a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this paper is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician - ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, and internists - to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department, and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually back to the general practitioner., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Despite guideline recommendations and available evidence, implementation of treatment in heart failure (HF) is poor. The majority of patients are not prescribed drugs at target doses that have been proven to positively impact morbidity and mortality. Among others, tolerability issues related to low blood pressure, heart rate, impaired renal function or hyperkalaemia are responsible. Chronic kidney disease plays an important role as it affects up to 50% of patients with HF. Also, dynamic changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate may occur during the course of HF, resulting in inappropriate dose reduction or even discontinuation of decongestive or neurohormonal modulating therapy in clinical practice. As patients with HF are rarely naïve to pharmacologic therapies, the challenge is to adequately prioritize or select the most appropriate up-titration schedule according to patient profile. In this consensus document, we identified nine patient profiles that may be relevant for treatment implementation in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction. These profiles take into account heart rate (<60 bpm or >70 bpm), the presence of atrial fibrillation, symptomatic low blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (<30 or >30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) or hyperkalaemia. The pre-discharge patient, frequently still congestive, is also addressed. A personalized approach, adjusting guideline-directed medical therapy to patient profile, may allow to achieve a better and more comprehensive therapy for each individual patient than the more traditional, forced titration of each drug class before initiating treatment with the next., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Iron deficiency (ID) is a common co-morbidity in heart failure (HF), associated with impaired functional capacity, poor quality of life and increased morbidity and mortality. Treatment with intravenous (i.v.) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has shown improvements in functional capacity, symptoms and quality of life in stable HF patients with reduced ejection fraction. The effect of i.v. iron supplementation on morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalised for acute HF (AHF) and who have ID has yet to be established. The objective of the present article is to present the rationale and design of the AFFIRM-AHF trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02937454) which will investigate the effect of i.v. FCM (vs. placebo) on recurrent HF hospitalisations and cardiovascular (CV) mortality in iron-deficient patients hospitalised for AHF., Methods: AFFIRM-AHF is a multicentre, randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial which recruited 1100 patients hospitalised for AHF and who had iron deficiency ID defined as serum ferritin <100 ng/mL or 100-299 ng/mL if transferrin saturation <20%. Eligible patients were randomised (1:1) to either i.v. FCM or placebo and received the first dose of study treatment just prior to discharge for the index hospitalisation. Patients will be followed for 52 weeks. The primary outcome is the composite of recurrent HF hospitalisations and CV mortality. The main secondary outcomes include the composite of recurrent CV hospitalisations and CV mortality, recurrent HF hospitalisations and safety-related outcomes., Conclusion: The AFFIRM-AHF trial will evaluate, compared to placebo, the effect of i.v. FCM on morbidity and mortality in iron-deficient patients hospitalised for AHF., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology.)

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has published a series of guidelines on heart failure (HF) over the last 25 years, most recently in 2016. Given the amount of new information that has become available since then, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC recognized the need to review and summarise recent developments in a consensus document. Here we report from the HFA workshop that was held in January 2019 in Frankfurt, Germany. This expert consensus report is neither a guideline update nor a position statement, but rather a summary and consensus view in the form of consensus recommendations. The report describes how these guidance statements are supported by evidence, it makes some practical comments, and it highlights new research areas and how progress might change the clinical management of HF. We have avoided re-interpretation of information already considered in the 2016 ESC/HFA guidelines. Specific new recommendations have been made based on the evidence from major trials published since 2016, including sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus, MitraClip for functional mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation ablation in HF, tafamidis in cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis, rivaroxaban in HF, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in non-ischaemic HF, and telemedicine for HF. In addition, new trial evidence from smaller trials and updated meta-analyses have given us the chance to provide refined recommendations in selected other areas. Further, new trial evidence is due in many of these areas and others over the next 2 years, in time for the planned 2021 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: To compare characteristics of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients receiving a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) with a defibrillator component (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillation, CIED-D) vs. those without one, and to assess whether carrying such a device contiguously with an LVAD is associated with outcomes., Methods and Results: Overall, 448 patients were analysed (mean age 52 ± 13 years, 82% male) in the multicentre European PCHF-VAD registry. To account for all active CIED-Ds during ongoing LVAD treatment, outcome analyses were performed by a time-varying analysis with active CIED-D status post-LVAD as the time-varying covariate. At the time of LVAD implantation, 235 patients (52%) had an active CIED-D. Median time on LVAD support was 1.1 years (interquartile range 0.5-2.0 years). A reduction of 36% in the risk of all-cause mortality was observed in patients with an active CIED-D [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.91; P = 0.012), increasing to 41% after adjustment for baseline covariates (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.87; P = 0.008) and 39% after propensity score adjustment (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.94; P = 0.027). Other than CIED-D, age, LVAD implant as redo surgery, number of ventricular arrhythmia episodes and use of vasopressors pre-LVAD were remaining significant risk factors of all-cause mortality. Incident ventricular arrhythmias post-LVAD portended a 2.4-fold and 2.6-fold increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death, respectively; carrying an active CIED-D remained associated with a 47% and 43% reduction in these events, respectively., Conclusions: In an analysis accounting for all active CIED-Ds, including those implanted during LVAD support, carrying such a device was associated with significantly better survival during LVAD support., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology.)

This article updates the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2007 classification of advanced heart failure and describes new diagnostic and treatment options for these patients. Recognizing the patient with advanced heart failure is critical to facilitate timely referral to advanced heart failure centres. Unplanned visits for heart failure decompensation, malignant arrhythmias, co-morbidities, and the 2016 ESC guidelines criteria for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are included in this updated definition. Standard treatment is, by definition, insufficient in these patients. Inotropic therapy may be used as a bridge strategy, but it is only a palliative measure when used on its own, because of the lack of outcomes data. Major progress has occurred with short-term mechanical circulatory support devices for immediate management of cardiogenic shock and long-term mechanical circulatory support for either a bridge to transplantation or as destination therapy. Heart transplantation remains the treatment of choice for patients without contraindications. Some patients will not be candidates for advanced heart failure therapies. For these patients, who are often elderly with multiple co-morbidities, management of advanced heart failure to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life should be emphasized. Robust evidence from prospective studies is lacking for most therapies for advanced heart failure. There is an urgent need to develop evidence-based treatment algorithms to prolong life when possible and in accordance with patient preferences, increase life quality, and reduce the burden of hospitalization in this vulnerable patient population., (© 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology.)