Search

Takotsubo syndrome (TTS), also known as the broken-heart syndrome, is a reversible condition typically observed in female patients presenting for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Despite its increasing incidence, TTS often remains undiagnosed due to its overlap with ACS. The pathophysiology of TTS is complex and involves factors such as coronary vasospasm, microcirculatory dysfunction, increased catecholamine levels, and overactivity of the sympathetic nervous system. Diagnosing TTS requires a comprehensive approach, starting with clinical suspicion and progressing to both non-invasive and invasive multimodal tests guided by a specific diagnostic algorithm. Management of TTS should be personalized, considering potential complications, the presence or absence of coronary artery disease (CAD), diagnostic test results, and the patient's clinical course. The current data primarily derive from case series, retrospective analyses, prospective registries, and expert opinions. In recent years, there has been growing recognition of gender differences in the pathophysiology, presentation, and outcomes of TTS. This review provides an updated overview of gender disparities, highlighting the importance of tailored diagnostic and management strategies.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents the most common sustained arrhythmia necessitating dual focus: acute complication management and sustained longitudinal oversight to modulate disease progression and ensure comprehensive patient care over time. AF is a multifaceted disorder; due to such a great number of potential exacerbating conditions, a multidisciplinary team (MDT) should manage AF patients by cooperating with a cardiologist. Effective management of AF patients necessitates the implementation of a well-coordinated and tailored care pathway aimed at delivering optimized treatment through collaboration among various healthcare professionals. Management of AF should be carefully evaluated and mutually agreed upon in consultation with healthcare providers. It is crucial to recognize that treatment may evolve due to the emergence of new risk factors, symptoms, disease progression, and advancements in treatment modalities. In the context of multidisciplinary AF teams, a coordinated approach involves assembling a diverse team tailored to meet individual patients' unique needs based on local services' availability.

Based on a wealth of evidence, aspirin is one of the cornerstones of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, despite several studies showing efficacy also in primary prevention, an unopposed excess risk of bleeding leading to a very thin safety margin is evident in subjects without a clear acute cardiovascular event. Overall, the variability in recommendations from different scientific societies for aspirin use in primary prevention is a classic example of failure of simple risk stratification models based on competing risks (atherothrombosis vs. bleeding), perceived to be opposed but intertwined at the pathophysiological level. Notably, cardiovascular risk is dynamic in nature and cannot be accurately captured by scores, which do not always consider risk enhancers. Furthermore, the widespread use of other potent medications in primary prevention, such as lipid-lowering and anti-hypertensive drugs, might be reducing the benefit of aspirin in recent trials. Some authors, drawing from specific pathophysiological data, have suggested that specific subgroups might benefit more from aspirin. This includes patients with diabetes and those with obesity; sex-based differences are considered as well. Moreover, molecular analysis of platelet reactivity has been proposed. A beneficial effect of aspirin has also been demonstrated for the prevention of cancer, especially colorectal. This review explores evidence and controversies concerning the use of aspirin in primary prevention, considering new perspectives in order to provide a comprehensive individualized approach.

A notable increase in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use has been observed in the last decade. This trend has surpassed the prescription of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) due to the absence of the need for regular laboratory monitoring and the more favorable characteristics in terms of efficacy and safety. However, it is very common that patients on DOACs need an interventional or surgical procedure, requiring a careful evaluation and a challenging approach. Therefore, perioperative anticoagulation management of patients on DOACs represents a growing concern for clinicians. Indeed, while several surgical interventions require temporary discontinuation of DOACs, other procedures that involve a lower risk of bleeding can be conducted, maintaining a minimal or uninterrupted DOAC strategy. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of patient characteristics, including age, susceptibility to stroke, previous bleeding complications, concurrent medications, renal and hepatic function, and other factors, in addition to surgical considerations, is mandatory to establish the optimal discontinuation and resumption timing of DOACs. A multidisciplinary approach is required for managing perioperative anticoagulation in order to establish how to face these circumstances. This narrative review aims to provide physicians with a practical guide for DOAC perioperative management, addressing the most controversial issues.

In clinical practice, the number of patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has consistently increased over the years. Since anticoagulant therapy has been associated with an annual incidence of major bleeding (MB) events of approximately 2% to 3.5%, it is of paramount importance to understand how to manage anticoagulated patients with major or life-threatening bleeding. A considerable number of these patients' conditions necessitate hospitalization, and the administration of reversal agents may be imperative to manage and control bleeding episodes effectively. Importantly, effective strategies for reversing the anticoagulant effects of DOACs have been well recognized. Specifically, idarucizumab has obtained regulatory approval for the reversal of dabigatran, and andexanet alfa has recently been approved for reversing the effects of apixaban or rivaroxaban in patients experiencing life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding events. Moreover, continuous endeavors are being made to develop supplementary reversal agents. In emergency scenarios where specific reversal agents might not be accessible, non-specific hemostatic agents such as prothrombin complex concentrate can be utilized to neutralize the anticoagulant effects of DOACs. However, it is paramount to emphasize that specific reversal agents, characterized by their efficacy and safety, should be the preferred choice when suitable. Moreover, it is worth noting that adherence to the guidelines for the reversal agents is poor, and there is a notable gap between international recommendations and actual clinical practices in this regard. This narrative review aims to provide physicians with a practical approach to managing specific reversal agents.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by a notable heterogeneity in both phenotypic and pathophysiological features, with a growing incidence due to the increase in median age and comorbidities such as obesity, arterial hypertension, and cardiometabolic disease. In recent decades, the development of new pharmacological and non-pharmacological options has significantly impacted outcomes, improving clinical status and reducing mortality. Moreover, a more personalized and accurate therapeutic management has been demonstrated to enhance the quality of life, diminish hospitalizations, and improve overall survival. Therefore, assessing the peculiarities of patients with HFpEF is crucial in order to obtain a better understanding of this disorder. Importantly, comorbidities have been shown to influence symptoms and prognosis, and, consequently, they should be carefully addressed. In this sense, it is mandatory to join forces with a multidisciplinary team in order to achieve high-quality care. However, HFpEF remains largely under-recognized and under-treated in clinical practice, and the diagnostic and therapeutic management of these patients remains challenging. The aim of this paper is to articulate a pragmatic approach for patients with HFpEF focusing on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of HFpEF.

Chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), which encompasses a broad spectrum of clinical presentations of coronary artery disease (CAD), is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Recent guidelines for the management of CCS emphasize the dynamic nature of the CAD process, replacing the term "stable" with "chronic", as this disease is never truly "stable". Despite significant advances in the treatment of CAD, patients with CCS remain at an elevated risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE) due to the so-called residual cardiovascular risk. Several pathogenetic pathways (thrombotic, inflammatory, metabolic, and procedural) may distinctly contribute to the residual risk in individual patients and represent a potential target for newer preventive treatments. Identifying the level and type of residual cardiovascular risk is essential for selecting the most appropriate diagnostic tests and follow-up procedures. In addition, new management strategies and healthcare models could further support available treatments and lead to important prognostic benefits. This review aims to provide an overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in the management of patients with CCS and to promote more effective multidisciplinary care.

It is well established that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the cornerstone of anticoagulant strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and should be preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) since they are superior or non-inferior to VKAs in reducing thromboembolic risk and are associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage (IH). In addition, many factors, such as fewer pharmacokinetic interactions and less need for monitoring, contribute to the favor of this therapeutic strategy. Although DOACs represent a more suitable option, several issues should be considered in clinical practice, including drug-drug interactions (DDIs), switching to other antithrombotic therapies, preprocedural and postprocedural periods, and the use in patients with chronic renal and liver failure and in those with cancer. Furthermore, adherence to DOACs appears to remain suboptimal. This narrative review aims to provide a practical guide for DOAC prescription and address challenging scenarios.

The combination of oral anticoagulants (OAC) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the mainstay for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or undergoing PCI. However, this treatment leads to a significant increase in risk of bleeding. In most cases, according to the most recent guidelines, triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) consisting of OAC and DAPT, typically aspirin and clopidogrel, should be limited to one week after ACS and/or PCI (default strategy). On the other hand, in patients with a high ischemic risk (i.e., stent thrombosis) and without increased risk of bleeding, TAT should be continued for up to one month. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in triple or dual antithrombotic therapy (OAC and P2Y12 inhibitor) should be favored over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) because of their favorable risk/benefit profile. The choice of the duration of TAT (one week or one month) depends on a case-by-case evaluation of a whole series of hemorrhagic or ischemic risk factors for each patient. Likewise, the specific DOAC treatment should be selected according to the clinical characteristics of each patient. We propose a series of paradigmatic clinical cases to illustrate the decision-making work-up in clinical practice.

There is uncertainty in cardiologists’ attitudes for prolonging dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor 60 mg beyond 12 months in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients. We aimed at characterizing the Italian cardiologists’ perceptions and needs in the management of such patients. Two consecutive questionnaires were proposed between June and November 2021, and compiled by 122 and 87 Cardiologists, respectively. Agreement among cardiologists was defined as either a >70% frequency of concordant responses relative to total respondents or following the Delphi method as developed by the RAND Corporation. An agreement was reached on the indication of ticagrelor as the first choice P2Y12 inhibitor in MI patients, irrespective of the presentation [ST elevation MI (STEMI), 72%, vs. non-ST elevation MI (NSTEMI), 71%] or the management [invasive vs. conservative (75%)]. A consensus was also achieved on the possibility to consider a patient suitable for long-term DAPT with ticagrelor 60 mg even in case of another P2Y12 inhibitor used in the first year after the acute event (74, 85%). To define ischemic and bleeding risks, a consensus was reached on the utilization of one or more scores (87, 71%).

The therapeutic dilemma between rhythm and rate control in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) is still unresolved and electrical or pharmacological cardioversion (CV) frequently represents a useful strategy. The most recent guidelines recommend anticoagulation according to individual thromboembolic risk. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been routinely used to prevent thromboembolic events. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) represent a significant advance due to their more predictable therapeutic effect and more favorable hemorrhagic risk profile. In hemodynamically unstable patients, an emergency electrical cardioversion (ECV) must be performed. In this situation, intravenous heparin or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) should be administered before CV. In patients with AF occurring within less than 48 h, synchronized direct ECV should be the elective procedure, as it restores sinus rhythm quicker and more successfully than pharmacological cardioversion (PCV) and is associated with shorter length of hospitalization. Patients with acute onset AF were traditionally considered at lower risk of thromboembolic events due to the shorter time for atrial thrombus formation. In patients with hemodynamic stability and AF for more than 48 h, an ECV should be planned after at least 3 weeks of anticoagulation therapy. Alternatively, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) to rule out left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) should be performed, followed by ECV and anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks. Theoretically, the standardized use of TEE before CV allows a better stratification of thromboembolic risk, although data available to date are not univocal.