Search

Introduction: Evidence on myocardial deformation, detected by speckle tracking echocardiography (STE), in patients with acromegaly is scanty. Aim: The aim of the present meta-analysis was to provide an updated information on left ventricular (LV) systolic function assessed by global longitudinal strain (GLS) in patients with acromegaly and preserved LVEF. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, systematic searches were conducted across bibliographic databases (Pub-Med, OVID, EMBASE and Cochrane library) to identify eligible studies from inception up to June 30-2024. Clinical studies published in English reporting data on LV mechanics in patients with acromegaly and controls were included. The statistical difference of the echocardiographic variables of interest between groups such as LVEF and global longitudinal strain (GLS) was calculated by standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) by using random-effects models. Results: Seven studies including 288 patients with acromegaly and 294 healthy individuals were considered for the analysis. Pooled average LVEF values were 64.6 ± 1.5% in the healthy control group and 64.0 ± 1.3% in the acromegaly group (SMD: − 0.21 ± 0.22, CI -0.62/0.22, p = 0.34); the corresponding values of GLS were − 19.1.1 ± 1.2% and − 17.5 ± 1.2% (SMD: -0.52 ± 0.27, CI − 1.05/0.01, p = 0.05). No difference was found between the two groups for both global circumferential strain (GCS) and global radial strain (GRS). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that patients with acromegaly in which LVEF is completely comparable to healthy controls show an impairment in GLS of borderline statistical significance. Whether GLS assessment can actually unmask early alterations of systolic function in patients with acromegaly better than LVEF will need to be investigated by future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent valvular heart disease in developed countries. Heart failure (HF) is a frequent comorbidity of this condition and represents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The spectrum of both conditions has become progressively wider in the last decade; HF has been divided in three groups according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and severe AS has been reclassified into four groups according to aortic valve (AV) gradient, AV flow measured by LV stroke index, and LVEF. Although all four AS types may be found in patients with signs and symptoms of HF, low-flow AS with low or normal gradient is the most common type in these patients. Several studies have documented that patients with low-flow severe AS have a higher mortality risk than patients with normal-flow and high-gradient AS not only during the natural progression of the disease, but also after either interventional or surgical AV replacement. Existing data support transcatheter AV replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe AS, irrespective of AV gradient, AV flow, and LVEF. Controversial issues, however, are still present on this topic, which has not been adequately addressed by large studies and trials. This clinical review summarizes the epidemiology of the different HF types in patients with severe AS, as well as the impact of HF and LVEF on clinical outcomes of AS patients either untreated or after AV replacement. In particular, we addressed the influence of AV gradient and AV flow on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in AS patients after TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New antidiabetic therapy that includes sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors showed significant benefit on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus, and this was particularly confirmed for SGLT2 inhibitors in subjects with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Their role on patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is still not elucidated, but encouraging results coming from the clinical studies indicate their beneficial role. The role of GLP-1R agonists and particularly DPP-4 inhibitors is less clear and debatable. Findings from the meta-analyses are sending positive message about the use of GLP-1R agonists in HFrEF therapy and revealed the improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in HFpEF. Nevertheless, the relevant medical societies still consider their effect as neutral or insufficiently investigated in HF patients. The impact of DPP-4 inhibitors in HF is the most controversial due to conflicting data that range from negative impact and increased risk of hospitalization due to HF, throughout neutral effect, to beneficial influence on LV diastolic dysfunction. However, this is a very heterogeneous group of medications and some professional societies made clear discrepancy between saxagliptin that might increase risk of HF hospitalization and those DPP-4 inhibitors that have no effect on hospitalization. The aim of this review is to summarize current clinical evidence about the effect of new antidiabetic medications on LV diastolic function and their potential benefits in HFpEF patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ponatinib (Iclusig, ARIAD Pharmaceuticals-Incyte Co.) is a third-generation structure-guided tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is approved for treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukaemias resistant or intolerant to other inhibitors. The clinical use of ponatinib is complicated by the possible development of cardiovascular events, primarily hypertension and arterial or venous thrombotic events. The US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency recommend that the cardiovascular profile of patients candidate for ponatinib should be carefully evaluated. For patients deemed to carry a high risk of cardiovascular events, other life-saving therapeutic options should be considered. When alternative options are not available, treatment with ponatinib is indicated but requires that haematologists and cardiologists collaborate and identify modalities of surveillance and risk mitigation in the best interest of the patient. This article reports on the expert opinion provided by a panel of Italian haematologists, cardiologists and clinical pharmacologists. It summarises suggestions that may help to improve the therapeutic index of ponatinib, primarily in the settings of chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Definition of white coat hypertension (WCH) traditionally relies on elevated office blood pressure (BP) during repeated visits concomitant with normal out-of-office BP values, as assessed by home and/or 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring measurements. Accumulating evidence focusing on the association of WCH with target organ damage and, more importantly, with cardiovascular events indicates that the risk conveyed by this condition is intermediate between normotension and sustained hypertension. This article will review a number of issues concerning WCH with particular emphasis on the following: (1) prevalence and clinical correlates, (2) association with target organ damage and cardiovascular events, (3) therapeutic interventions. Data will refer to the original WCH definition, based on out-of-office BP determined by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring; at variance from home BP measurement, this approach rules out the potentially confounding effect of a clinically relevant abnormal BP phenotype such as isolated nocturnal hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific authorities recommend that patients with arterial hypertension should be managed not only on the basis of blood pressure (BP) levels, but also on the assemement of total cardiovascular risk. In particular, evaluation of target organ damage (TOD) is of major relevance for identifying hypertensive individuals at high cardiovascular risk independently of clinic BP levels. Evidence of cardiac and extra-cardiac TOD has been consistently associated with worse cardiovascular prognosis. Unfortunately, detection of TOD markedly depends on sensitivity of diagnostic tools, at difference from evaluation of risk factors and associated diseases, usually reliably provided by accurate clinical examination and routine investigation. The purpose of this paper was to provide an updated, comprehensive review on the role of echocardiography in identifying hypertensive patients apparently uncomplicated, but exposed to a high cardiovascular risk due to the presence of subclinical structural and functional cardiac alterations of adverse prognostic significance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The electrocardiogram (ECG) is listed among the routine diagnostic examinations for hypertensive patients according to international guidelines. Objective: The aim of this survey was to investigate whether an ECG is routinely prescribed before an echocardiographic examination by general practitioners for the evaluation of subclinical cardiac damage in uncomplicated hypertensive patients in a suburban area of Italy. Methods: A total of 60 consecutive hypertensive patients (45 % men, mean age 60 ± 14 years) referred to a single out-patient cardiology service by their general practitioners for the assessment of cardiac organ damage by echocardiography were enrolled in the study. Patients' demographic data and medical history were collected at the echocardiographic laboratory on a questionnaire administered by the attending physician. Results: Less than 40 % of the study sample had undergone an ECG during the 12-month period preceding the echocardiographic examination. Notably, only 60 % of newly diagnosed hypertensive patents had an ECG done after the discovery of their hypertensive status. Conclusions: These findings show that an ECG is not routinely prescribed as a first-line examination in the assessment of cardiac organ damage related to hypertension by a large fraction of general practitioners in current clinical practice in a northern area of Italy. This contrasts with available evidence that the combined assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy by ECG and echocardiogram provides the best evaluation of cardiac damage and stratification of cardiovascular risk in hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a cardinal manifestation of organ damage in patients with arterial hypertension. Identifying LVH is a fundamental step in evaluating hypertensive patients, because clinical and epidemiologic studies have shown this condition has a strong independent adverse prognostic significance. LVH is an integrated marker of cardiovascular risk, reflecting hypertension’s hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic effects on the heart. Reversing LVH is an intermediate goal of antihypertensive therapy. Pharmacologic strategies to reverse LVH should be based on combining two or more drugs: a renin-angiotensin system blocker (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor antagonist), and a calcium antagonist or low-dose diuretic. Successful therapeutic plans should also include nonpharmacologic interventions to promote LVH regression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]