Search

Aims: Although cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the gold standard to assess exercise capacity, simpler tests (i.e., 6‐min walk test, 6MWT) are also commonly used. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between cardiorespiratory parameters during CPET and 6MWT in a large, multicentre, heterogeneous population. Methods: We included athletes, healthy subjects, and heart failure (HF) patients of different severity, including left ventricular assist device (LVAD) carriers, who underwent both CPET and 6MWT with oxygen consumption measurement. Results: We enrolled 186 subjects (16 athletes, 40 healthy, 115 non‐LVAD HF patients, and 15 LVAD carriers). CPET‐peakV̇O2 was 41.0 [35.0–45.8], 26.2 [23.1–31.0], 12.8 [11.1–15.3], and 15.2 [13.6–15.6] ml/Kg/min in athletes, healthy, HF patients, and LVAD carriers, respectively (P < 0.001). During 6MWT they used 63.5 [56.3–76.8], 72.0 [57.8–81.0], 95.5 [80.3–109], and 95.0 [92.0–99.0] % of their peakV̇O2, respectively. None of the athletes, 1 healthy (2.5%), 30 HF patients (26.1%), and 1 LVAD carrier (6.7%), reached a 6MWT‐V̇O2 higher than their CPET‐peakV̇O2. Both 6MWT‐V̇O2 and walked distance were significantly associated with CPET‐peakV̇O2 in the whole population (R2 = 0.637 and R2 = 0.533, P ≤ 0.001) but not in the sub‐groups. This was confirmed after adjustment for groups. Conclusions: The 6MWT can be a maximal effort especially in most severe HF patients and suggest that, in absence of prognostic studies related to 6MWT metabolic values, CPET should remain the first method of choice in the functional assessment of patients with HF as well as in sport medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: In the EXPLORER‐HCM trial, mavacamten reduced left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) and improved functional capacity of symptomatic hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) patients. We sought to define the potential use of mavacamten by comparing real‐world HOCM patients with those enrolled in EXPLORER‐HCM and assessing their eligibility to treatment. Methods and results: We collected information on HOCM patients followed up at 25 Italian HCM outpatient clinics and with significant LVOTO (i.e. gradient ≥30 mmHg at rest or ≥50 mmHg after Valsalva manoeuvre or exercise) despite pharmacological or non‐pharmacological therapy. Pharmacological or non‐pharmacological therapy resolved LVOTO in 1044 (61.2%) of the 1706 HOCM patients under active follow‐up, whereas 662 patients (38.8%) had persistent LVOTO. Compared to the EXPLORER‐HCM trial population, these real‐world HOCM patients were older (62.1 ± 14.3 vs. 58.5 ± 12.2 years, p = 0.02), had a lower body mass index (26.8 ± 5.3 vs. 29.7 ± 4.9 kg/m2, p < 0.0001) and a more frequent history of atrial fibrillation (21.5% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.027). At echocardiography, they had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, 66 ± 7% vs. 74 ± 6%, p < 0.0001), higher left ventricular outflow tract gradients at rest (60 ± 27 vs. 52 ± 29 mmHg, p = 0.003), and larger left atrial volume index (49 ± 16 vs. 40 ± 12 ml/m2, p < 0.0001). Overall, 324 (48.9%) would have been eligible for enrolment in the EXPLORER‐HCM trial and 339 (51.2%) for treatment with mavacamten according to European guidelines. Conclusions: Real‐world HOCM patients differ from the EXPLORER‐HCM population for their older age, lower LVEF and larger atrial volume, potentially reflecting a more advanced stage of the disease. About half of real‐world HOCM patients were found eligible to mavacamten. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction is a major goal of heart failure (HF) treatment. However, data on clinical characteristics, exercise performance and prognosis in HF patients who improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) are scarce. The study aimed to determine whether HFimpEF patients have a distinct clinical phenotype, biology and prognosis than HF patients with persistently reduced ejection fraction (pHFrEF). Methods and results: A total of 7948 patients enrolled in the Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score database were evaluated (median follow‐up of 1490 days). We analysed clinical, laboratory, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, exercise, and survival data from HFimpEF (n = 1504) and pHFrEF (n = 6017) patients. The primary endpoint of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death, left ventricular assist device implantation, and urgent heart transplantation. HFimpEF patients had lower HF severity: left ventricular ejection fraction 44.0 [41.0–47.0] versus 29.7 [24.1–34.5]%, B‐type natriuretic peptide 122 [65–296] versus 373 [152–888] pg/ml, haemoglobin 13.5 [12.2–14.6] versus 13.7 [12.5–14.7] g/dl, renal function by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation 72.0 [56.7–89.3] versus 70.4 [54.5–85.3] ml/min, peak oxygen uptake 62.2 [50.7–74.1] versus 52.6 [41.8–64.3]% predicted, minute ventilation‐to‐carbon dioxide output slope 30.0 [26.9–34.4] versus 32.1 [28.0–38.0] in HFimpEF and pHFrEF, respectively (p < 0.001 for all). Cardiovascular mortality rates were 26.6 and 46.9 per 1000 person‐years for HFimpEF and pHFrEF, respectively (p < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that HFimpEF had better a long‐term prognosis compared with pHFrEF patients. After adjustment for variables differentiating HFimpEF from pHFrEF, except echocardiographic parameters, the Kaplan–Meier curves showed the same prognosis. Conclusions: Heart failure with improved ejection fraction represents a peculiar group of HF patients whose clinical, laboratory, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and exercise characteristics parallel the recovery of systolic function. Nonetheless, these patients remain at risk for adverse outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amount of evidence for guideline‐directed new heart failure (HFrEF) disease‐modifying drugs in the context of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is relatively modest, especially in end‐stage CKD. We report a case of dramatic reverse remodelling and disease regression in a naïve HFrEF young woman on haemodialysis treated with sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2i. At 10‐month follow‐up, the patient normalized left ventricle and atrial volumes and improved ejection fraction to the normal range, assessed both by echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. Cardiac biomarkers and exercise performance improved consensually. The haemodialysis protocol and the loop diuretic dose were unchanged within the whole period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differences between heart failure specialists and non-specialists regarding heart failure drug implementation and up-titration Following the 2021 heart failure (HF) European guidelines,[1] an extensive web-based international survey questioning more than 600 cardiologists about their perception of HF sequencing and titrating approach of therapy in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was published.[2] This study raises queries about the optimal sequencing approach and how to apply a simple algorithm for the cardiology community, keeping in mind that the therapeutic HF arsenal continues to increase and considering individual patients' particularities. Indeed, since HF prevalence is rising worldwide,[3] "HF specialists" cannot manage all HFrEF patients. [Extracted from the article]

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a rare multisystem disorder; cardiac involvement may include eosinophilic myocarditis. A 67‐year‐old woman presented with 1‐week history of dyspnoea and orthopnoea. She had a history of adult‐onset asthma and peripheral eosinophilia. The investigations showed T‐wave inversion on lateral leads, peripheral eosinophilia, elevated troponin and BNP values, and severe biventricular systolic dysfunction with diffuse hypokinesia and apical akinesia. Computed tomography excluded coronary disease and showed bilateral basal ground‐glass opacities, air‐space consolidation, and bilateral reticular‐nodular pattern. Cardiac magnetic resonance findings were compatible with active myocardial inflammation. An endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) confirmed the diagnosis of eosinophilic myocarditis, and a therapy with oral corticosteroids and heart failure medications was started. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: In symptomatic patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), recent international guidelines recommend initiating four major therapeutic classes rather than sequential initiation. It remains unclear how this change in guidelines is perceived by practicing cardiologists versus heart failure (HF) specialists. Methods and results: An independent academic web‐based survey was designed by a group of HF specialists and posted by email and through various social networks to a broad community of cardiologists worldwide 1 year after the publication of the latest European HF guidelines. Overall, 615 cardiologists (38 [32–47] years old, 63% male) completed the survey, of which 58% were working in a university hospital and 26% were HF specialists. The threshold to define HFrEF was ≤40% for 61% of the physicians. Preferred drug prescription for the sequential approach was angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors first (74%), beta‐blockers second (55%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists third (52%), and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (53%) fourth. Eighty‐four percent of participants felt that starting all four classes was feasible within the initial hospitalization, and 58% felt that titration is less important than introducing a new class. Age, status in training, and specialization in HF field were the principal characteristics that significantly impacted the answers. Conclusion: In a broad international cardiology community, the 'historical approach' to HFrEF therapies remains the preferred sequencing approach. However, accelerated introduction and uptitration are also major treatment goals. Strategy trials in treatment guidance are needed to further change practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: In heart failure (HF), anaerobic threshold (AT) may be indeterminable but its value held a relevant prognostic role. AT is evaluated joining three methods: V‐slope, ventilatory equivalent, and end‐tidal methods. The possible non‐concordance between the V‐slope (met AT) and the other two methods (vent AT) has been highlighted in healthy individuals and named double threshold (DT). Methods and results: We reanalysed 1075 cardiopulmonary exercise tests of HF patients recruited in the Metabolic Exercise test data combined with Cardiac and Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score database. We identified DT in 43% of cases. Met AT precedes vent AT being met–ventΔVO2 221 (interquartile range: 129–319) mL/min. Peak VO2, 1307 ± 485 vs. 1343 ± 446 mL/min (63 ± 17 vs. 63 ± 17 percentage of predicted), was similar between DT+ and DT− patients. Differently, DT+ showed a lower ventilatory vs. carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) slope (29.6 ± 6.1 vs. 31.0 ± 6.3), a lower peak exercise end‐tidal oxygen tension (PetO2) 115.3 (111.5–118.9) vs. 116.4 (112.4–120.2) mmHg, and a higher carbon dioxide tension (PetCO2) 34.2 (30.9–37.1) vs. 32.4 (28.7–35.5) mmHg. Vent AT showed a significant higher VO2, 957 ± 318 vs. 719 ± 252 mL/min, VCO2, 939 ± 319 vs. 627 ± 226 mL/min, ventilation, 31.0 ± 8.3 vs. 22.5 ± 6.3 L/min, respiratory exchange ratio, 0.98 ± 0.08 vs. 0.87 ± 0.07, PetO2, 108 (104–112) vs. 105 (101–109) mmHg, PetCO2, 37 (34–40) vs. 36 (33–39) mmHg, and VE/VO2 ratio, 33.5 ± 6.7 vs. 32.6 ± 6.9, but lower VE/VCO2 ratio, 33 (30–37) vs. 36 (32–41), compared with met AT. At 2 year survival by Kaplan–Meier analysis, even adjusted for confounders, DT resulted not associated with survival. Conclusions: Double threshold is frequently observed in HF patients. DT+ is associated to a decreased ventilatory response during exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) and 6 min walking test (6MWT) are frequently used in heart failure (HF). CPET is a maximal exercise, whereas 6MWT is a self‐selected constant load test usually considered a submaximal, and therefore safer, exercise, but this has not been tested previously. The aim of this study was to compare the cardiorespiratory parameters collected during CPET and 6MWT in a large group of healthy subjects and patients with HF of different severity. Methods and results: Subjects performed a standard maximal CPET and a 6MWT wearing a portable device allowing breath‐by‐breath measurement of cardiorespiratory parameters. HF patients were grouped according to their CPET peak oxygen uptake (peakV̇O2). One hundred and fifty‐five subjects were enrolled, of whom 40 were healthy (59 ± 8 years; male 67%) and 115 were HF patients (69 ± 10 years; male 80%; left ventricular ejection fraction 34.6 ± 12.0%). CPET peakV̇O2 was 13.5 ± 3.5 mL/kg/min in HF patients and 28.1 ± 7.4 mL/kg/min in healthy subjects (P < 0.001). 6MWT‐V̇O2 was 98 ± 20% of the CPET peakV̇O2 values in HF patients, while 72 ± 20% in healthy subjects (P < 0.001). 6MWT‐V̇O2 was >110% of CPET peakV̇O2 in 42% of more severe HF patients (peakV̇O2 < 12 mL/kg/min). Similar results have been found for ventilation and heart rate. Of note, the slope of the relationship between V̇O2 at 6MWT, reported as a percentage of CPET peakV̇O2 vs. 6MWT V̇O2 reported as the absolute value, progressively increased as exercise limitation did. Conclusions: In conclusion, the last minute of 6MWT must be perceived as a maximal or even supramaximal exercise activity in patients with more severe HF. Our findings should influence the safety procedures needed for the 6MWT in HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Myocardial injury (MI) in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is quite prevalent at admission and affects prognosis. Little is known about troponin trajectories and their prognostic role. We aimed to describe the early in-hospital evolution of MI and its prognostic impact. Methods and results We performed an analysis from an Italian multicentre study enrolling COVID-19 patients, hospitalized from 1 March to 9 April 2020. MI was defined as increased troponin level. The first troponin was tested within 24 h from admission, the second one between 24 and 48 h. Elevated troponin was defined as values above the 99th percentile of normal values. Patients were divided in four groups: normal, normal then elevated, elevated then normal, and elevated. The outcome was in-hospital death. The study population included 197 patients; 41% had normal troponin at both evaluations, 44% had elevated troponin at both assessments, 8% had normal then elevated troponin, and 7% had elevated then normal troponin. During hospitalization, 49 (25%) patients died. Patients with incident MI, with persistent MI, and with MI only at admission had a higher risk of death compared with those with normal troponin at both evaluations (P < 0.001). At multivariable analysis, patients with normal troponin at admission and MI injury on Day 2 had the highest mortality risk (hazard ratio 3.78, 95% confidence interval 1.10–13.09, P = 0.035). Conclusions In patients admitted for COVID-19, re-test MI on Day 2 provides a prognostic value. A non-negligible proportion of patients with incident MI on Day 2 is identified at high risk of death only by the second measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Ventilation vs. carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) is among the strongest cardiopulmonary exercise testing prognostic parameters in heart failure (HF). It is usually reported as an absolute value. The current definition of normal VE/VCO2 slope values is inadequate, since it was built from small groups of subjects with a particularly limited number of women and elderly. We aimed to define VE/VCO2 slope prediction formulas in a sizable population and to test whether the prognostic power of VE/VCO2 slope in HF was different if expressed as a percentage of the predicted value or as an absolute value. Methods and results: We calculated the linear regressions between age and VE/VCO2 slope in 1136 healthy subjects (68% male, age 44.9 ± 14.5, range 13–83 years). We then applied age‐adjusted and sex‐adjusted formulas to predict VE/VCO2 slope to HF patients included in the metabolic exercise test data combined with cardiac and kidney indexes score database, which counts 6112 patients (82% male, age 61.4 ± 12.8, left ventricular ejection fraction 33.2 ± 10.5%, peakVO2 14.8 ± 4.9, mL/min/kg, VE/VCO2 slope 32.7 ± 7.7) from 24 HF centres. Finally, we evaluated whether the use of absolute values vs. percentages of predicted VE/VCO2 affected HF prognosis prediction (composite of cardiovascular mortality + urgent transplant or left ventricular assist device). We did so in the entire cardiac and kidney indexes score population and separately in HF patients with severe (peakVO2 < 14 mL/min/kg, n = 2919, 61.1 events/1000 pts/year) or moderate (peakVO2 ≥ 14 mL/min/kg, n = 3183, 19.9 events/1000 pts/year) HF. In the healthy population, we obtained the following equations: female, VE/VCO2 = 0.052 × Age + 23.808 (r = 0.192); male, VE/VCO2 = 0.095 × Age + 20.227 (r = 0.371) (P = 0.007). We applied these formulas to calculate the percentages of predicted VE/VCO2 values. The 2‐year survival prognostic power of VE/VCO2 slope was strong, and it was similar if expressed as absolute value or as a percentage of predicted value (AUCs 0.686 and 0.690, respectively). In contrast, in severe HF patients, AUCs significantly differed between absolute values (0.637) and percentages of predicted values (0.650, P = 0.0026). Moreover, VE/VCO2 slope expressed as a percentage of predicted value allowed to reclassify 6.6% of peakVO2 < 14 mL/min/kg patients (net reclassification improvement = 0.066, P = 0.0015). Conclusions: The percentage of predicted VE/VCO2 slope value strengthens the prognostic power of VE/VCO2 in severe HF patients, and it should be preferred over the absolute value for HF prognostication. Furthermore, the widespread use of VE/VCO2 slope expressed as percentage of predicted value can improve our ability to identify HF patients at high risk, which is a goal of utmost clinical relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A pandemic by a novel coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) has been declared by the World Health Organization. Lombardy, the region of our tertiary referral centre for heart diseases in Northern Italy, has been particularly hit by the pandemic. According to the government's prescriptions, all elective activities and procedures in the last months were suspended in order to concentrate our efforts on COVID‐19 patients' care. Entire departments have been turned into 'COVID‐19 units', where healthcare professionals are daily involved in supporting critically ill patients. On a personal level, this was a period of special feelings and peculiar unexpected events. People close to healthcare workers have been affected, and our lives have been turned upside down. Furthermore, right in this period, few colleagues (and friends) are facing entirely new events in their lives, such as fatherhood with its load of joy and concern. Through the case of a young woman recently admitted to our department with a severe heart failure due to a peripartum cardiomyopathy, described in narrative form, this manuscript would help all those involved in the front line in the fight against the pandemic in these difficult times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Risk stratification in heart failure (HF) is crucial for clinical and therapeutic management. A multiparametric approach is the best method to stratify prognosis. In 2012, the Metabolic Exercise test data combined with Cardiac and Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score was proposed to assess the risk of cardiovascular mortality and urgent heart transplantation. The aim of the present study was to compare the prognostic accuracy of MECKI score to that of HF Survival Score (HFSS) and Seattle HF Model (SHFM) in a large, multicentre cohort of HF patients with reduced ejection fraction.Methods and Results: We collected data on 6112 HF patients and compared the prognostic accuracy of MECKI score, HFSS, and SHFM at 2- and 4-year follow-up for the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, urgent cardiac transplantation, or ventricular assist device implantation. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.67 years, and 931 cardiovascular deaths, 160 urgent heart transplantations, and 12 ventricular assist device implantations were recorded. At 2-year follow-up, the prognostic accuracy of MECKI score was significantly superior [area under the curve (AUC) 0.781] to that of SHFM (AUC 0.739) and HFSS (AUC 0.723), and this relationship was also confirmed at 4 years (AUC 0.764, 0.725, and 0.720, respectively).Conclusion: In this cohort, the prognostic accuracy of the MECKI score was superior to that of HFSS and SHFM at 2- and 4-year follow-up in HF patients in stable clinical condition. The MECKI score may be useful to improve resource allocation and patient outcome, but prospective evaluation is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The use of β-blockers represents a milestone in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Few studies have compared β-blockers in HFrEF, and there is little data on the effects of different doses. The present study aimed to investigate in a large database of HFrEF patients (MECKI score database) the association of β-blocker treatment with a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation, addressing the role of β-selectivity and dosage regimens.Methods and Results: In 5242 HFrEF patients, we investigated the role of: (i) β-blocker treatment vs. non-β-blocker treatment, (ii) β1-/β2-receptor-blockers vs. β1-selective blockers, and (iii) daily β-blocker dose. Patients were followed for 3.58 years, and 1101 events (18.3%) were observed; 4435 patients (86.8%) were on β-blockers, while 807 (13.2%) were not. At 5 years, β-blocker-patients showed a better outcome than non-β-blocker-subjects [hazard ratio (HR) 0.48, P < 0.0001], while also considering potential confounders. A comparable prognosis was observed at 5 years in the β1-/β2-receptor-blocker (n = 2219) vs. β1-selective group (n = 2216) (HR 0.95, P = ns). A better prognosis was observed in high-dose (>2 5 mg carvedilol equivalent daily dose, n = 1005) patients than in both medium dose (12.5-25 mg, n = 1431) and low dose (<12.5 mg, n = 1960) (HR 1.97, P < 0.001; HR 1.95, P = 0.001, respectively), with no differences between the last two groups (HR 0.84, P = ns).Conclusion: In a large population of chronic HFrEF patients, β-blockers were associated with a more favourable prognosis without any difference between β1- and β2-receptor-blockers vs. β1-selective blockers. A better outcome was observed in subjects receiving a high daily dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The use of 𝛽-blockers represents a milestone in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Few studies have compared 𝛽-blockers in HFrEF, and there is little data on the effects of different doses. The present study aimed to investigate in a large database of HFrEF patients (MECKI score database) the association of 𝛽-blocker treatment with a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation, addressing the role of 𝛽-selectivity and dosage regimens. Methods and results In 5242 HFrEF patients, we investigated the role of: (i) 𝛽-blocker treatment vs. non-𝛽-blocker treatment, (ii) 𝛽1-/𝛽2-receptor-blockers vs. 𝛽1-selective blockers, and (iii) daily 𝛽-blocker dose. Patients were followed for 3.58 years, and 1101 events (18.3%) were observed; 4435 patients (86.8%) were on 𝛽-blockers, while 807 (13.2%) were not. At 5 years, 𝛽-blocker-patients showed a better outcome than non-𝛽-blocker-subjects [hazard ratio (HR) 0.48, P <0.0001], while also considering potential confounders. A comparable prognosis was observed at 5 years in the 𝛽1-/𝛽2-receptor-blocker (n=2219) vs. 𝛽1-selective group (n=2216) (HR 0.95, P =ns). A better prognosis was observed in high-dose (>2 5 mg carvedilol equivalent daily dose, n=1005) patients than in both medium dose (12.5–25mg, n=1431) and low dose (<12.5mg, n=1960) (HR 1.97, P <0.001; HR 1.95, P =0.001, respectively), with no differences between the last two groups (HR 0.84, P =ns). Conclusion In a large population of chronic HFrEF patients, 𝛽-blockers were associated with a more favourable prognosis without any difference between 𝛽1- and 𝛽2-receptor-blockers vs. 𝛽1-selective blockers. A better outcome was observed in subjects receiving a high daily dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods and results Conclusions Iron deficiency (ID) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and is associated with poor outcomes, regardless of anaemia status. Iron supplementation has been demonstrated to improve exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with HF with an ejection fraction <50% and ID. This survey aimed to provide data on real‐world practices related to ID screening and management.We designed and distributed an online survey (23 questions) regarding ID screening and management in the HF setting. Overall, 256 cardiologists completed the survey (59.8% male, mostly between 30 and 50 years). The majority of physicians defined ID according to the most recent HF recommendations (98.4%) and reported screening for ID in more than half of their patients (68.4%). However, only 54.3% of the respondents performed periodic screening (every 6 months to 1 year). A total of 93.0% of participants prescribed and/or administered iron supplementation, using intravenous iron as the preferred method of administration (86.3%). After iron supplementation, 96.1% of the respondents reassessed ID, most frequently at 3–6 months (67.6%). Most physicians (93.8%) perceived ID as an underestimated comorbidity in HF. Cardiologists' age, training status, subspecialty and work setting (academic vs. non‐academic hospitals) were associated with heterogeneity in the answers.The results of this survey highlight the need for more consistent strategies of ID screening and treatment for patients with HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]