Search

Heart failure (HF) and frailty are two distinct yet commonly associated conditions. The interplay between the two conditions is complex, due to overlaps in underlying mechanisms, symptoms and prognosis. The assessment of frailty in patients with HF is crucial, as it is associated with both unfavourable outcomes and reduced access and tolerance to treatments. However, to date a consensus definition of frailty in patients with HF remains lacking and the need for a validated assessment score, for identifying those HF patients with frailty, is high and timely. This position paper proposes a new definition of frailty for use by healthcare professionals in the setting of HF and creates a foundation for the design of a tailored and validated score for this common condition.

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: Classification of acute heart failure (AHF) patients into four clinical profiles defined by evidence of congestion and perfusion is advocated by the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)guidelines. Based on the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry, we compared differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes among congestion/perfusion profiles using this classification. Methods and results: We included 7865 AHF patients classified at admission as: ‘dry-warm’ (9.9%), ‘wet-warm’ (69.9%), ‘wet-cold’ (19.8%) and ‘dry-cold’ (0.4%). These groups differed significantly in terms of baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 2.0% in ‘dry-warm’, 3.8% in ‘wet-warm’, 9.1% in ‘dry-cold’ and 12.1% in ‘wet-cold’ patients. Based on clinical classification at admission, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.78 (1.43–2.21) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 1.33 (1.19–1.48). For profiles resulting from discharge classification, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.46 (1.31–1.63) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 2.20 (1.89–2.56). Among patients discharged alive, 30.9% had residual congestion, and these patients had higher 1-year mortality compared to patients discharged without congestion (28.0 vs. 18.5%). Tricuspid regurgitation, diabetes, anaemia and high New York Heart Association class were independently associated with higher risk of congestion at discharge, while beta-blockers at admission, de novo heart failure, or any cardiovascular procedure during hospitalization were associated with lower risk of residual congestion. Conclusion: Classification based on congestion/perfusion status provides clinically relevant information at hospital admission and discharge. A better understanding of the clinical course of the two entities could play an important role towards the implementation of targeted strategies that may improve outcomes. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

Natriuretic peptide [NP; B-type NP (BNP), N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP), and midregional proANP (MR-proANP)] concentrations are quantitative plasma biomarkers for the presence and severity of haemodynamic cardiac stress and heart failure (HF). End-diastolic wall stress, intracardiac filling pressures, and intracardiac volumes seem to be the dominant triggers. This paper details the most important indications for NPs and highlights 11 key principles underlying their clinical use shown below. NPs should always be used in conjunction with all other clinical information. NPs are reasonable surrogates for intracardiac volumes and filling pressures. NPs should be measured in all patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of HF such as dyspnoea and/or fatigue, as their use facilitates the early diagnosis and risk stratification of HF. NPs have very high diagnostic accuracy in discriminating HF from other causes of dyspnoea: the higher the NP, the higher the likelihood that dyspnoea is caused by HF. Optimal NP cut-off concentrations for the diagnosis of acute HF (very high filling pressures) in patients presenting to the emergency department with acute dyspnoea are higher compared with those used in the diagnosis of chronic HF in patients with dyspnoea on exertion (mild increase in filling pressures at rest). Obese patients have lower NP concentrations, mandating the use of lower cut-off concentrations (about 50% lower). In stable HF patients, but also in patients with other cardiac disorders such as myocardial infarction, valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation or pulmonary embolism, NP concentrations have high prognostic accuracy for death and HF hospitalization. Screening with NPs for the early detection of relevant cardiac disease including left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with cardiovascular risk factors may help to identify patients at increased risk, therefore allowing targeted preventive measures to prevent HF. BNP, NT-proBNP and MR-proANP have comparable diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. In patients with shock, NPs cannot be used to identify cause (e.g. cardiogenic vs. septic shock), but remain prognostic. NPs cannot identify the underlying cause of HF and, therefore, if elevated, must always be used in conjunction with cardiac imaging. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

none 53 si The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these guidelines are available on the ESC website http://www.escardio.org/guidelines. Representing the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM); Representing the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID); and Representing the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis Habib G; Lancellotti P; Antunes MJ; Bongiorni MG; Casalta JP; Del Zotti F; Dulgheru R; El Khoury G; Erba PA; Iung B; Miro JM; Mulder BJ; Plonska-Gosciniak E; Price S; Roos-Hesselink J; Snygg-Martin U; Thuny F; Tornos Mas P; Vilacosta I; Zamorano JL; Document Reviewers.; Erol Ç; Nihoyannopoulos P; Aboyans V; Agewall S; Athanassopoulos G; Aytekin S; Benzer W; Bueno H; Broekhuizen L; Carerj S; Cosyns B; De Backer J; De Bonis M; Dimopoulos K; Donal E; Drexel H; Flachskampf FA; Hall R; Halvorsen S; Hoen B; Kirchhof P; Lainscak M; Leite-Moreira AF; Lip GY; Mestres CA; Piepoli MF; Punjabi PP; Rapezzi C; Rosenhek R; Siebens K; Tamargo J; Walker DM Habib G; Lancellotti P; Antunes MJ; Bongiorni MG; Casalta JP; Del Zotti F; Dulgheru R; El Khoury G; Erba PA; Iung B; Miro JM; Mulder BJ; Plonska-Gosciniak E; Price S; Roos-Hesselink J; Snygg-Martin U; Thuny F; Tornos Mas P; Vilacosta I; Zamorano JL; Document Reviewers.; Erol Ç; Nihoyannopoulos P; Aboyans V; Agewall S; Athanassopoulos G; Aytekin S; Benzer W; Bueno H; Broekhuizen L; Carerj S; Cosyns B; De Backer J; De Bonis M; Dimopoulos K; Donal E; Drexel H; Flachskampf FA; Hall R; Halvorsen S; Hoen B; Kirchhof P; Lainscak M; Leite-Moreira AF; Lip GY; Mestres CA; Piepoli MF; Punjabi PP; Rapezzi C; Rosenhek R; Siebens K; Tamargo J; Walker DM

Renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors/antagonists/blockers (RAASi) are a cornerstone in treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases especially in those with heart failure (HF) due to their proven effect on surrogate and hard end-points. RAASi are also the basis in treatment of arterial hypertension and they are furthermore indicated to reduce events and target organ damage in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, where they have specific indication because of the evidence of benefit. RAASi therapy, however, is associated with an increased risk of hyperkalaemia. Patients with chronic kidney disease and HF are at increased risk of hyperkalaemia and ∼50% of these patients experience two or more yearly recurrences. A substantial proportion of patients receiving RAASi therapy have their therapy down-titrated or more often discontinued even after a single episode of elevated potassium (K+) level.

Aims: Hyperkalaemia risk precludes optimal renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor use in patients with heart failure (HF), particularly those with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patiromer is a sodium-free, non-absorbed potassium (K+)-binding polymer approved for the treatment of hyperkalaemia. In PEARL-HF, patiromer 25.2 g (fixed dose) prevented hyperkalaemia in HF patients with or without CKD initiating spironolactone. The current study evaluated the effectiveness of a lower starting dose of patiromer (16.4 g/day) followed by individualized titration in preventing hyperkalaemia and hypokalaemia when initiating spironolactone. Methods and results: This open-label 8-week study enrolled 63 patients with CKD, serum K+ 4.3–5.1 mEq/L, and chronic HF, who, based on investigator opinion, should receive spironolactone. Eligible patients started spironolactone 25 mg/day and patiromer 16.8 g/day (divided into two doses), with patiromer titrated to maintain serum K+ 4.0–5.1 mEq/L. Mean (standard deviation) serum K+ was 4.78 (0.51) mEq/L at baseline; weekly values were 4.48–4.70 mEq/L during treatment. Serum K+ of 3.5–5.5 mEq/L at the end of study treatment (primary endpoint) was achieved by 57 (90.5%) patients; 53 (84.1%) had serum K+ 4.0–5.1 mEq/L. One patient (1.6%) developed hypokalaemia, and two patients (3.2%) developed hypomagnesaemia. Spironolactone was increased to 50 mg/day in all patients; 43 (68%) patients required one or more patiromer dose titration. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 36 (57.1%) patients, with a low rate of discontinuations [four (6.3%) patients]. The most common AE was mild to moderate abdominal discomfort [four (6.3%) patients]. Conclusions: In this open-label study, patiromer 16.8 g/day followed by individualized titration maintained serum K+ within the target range in the majority of patients with HF and CKD, all of whom were uptitrated to spironolactone 50 mg/day, patiromer was well tolerated, with a low incidence of hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, and hypomagnesaemia. © 2018 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors/antagonists/blockers (RAASi) are a cornerstone in treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases especially in those with heart failure (HF) due to their proven effect on surrogate and hard endpoints. Renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors are also the basis in treatment of arterial hypertension, and they are furthermore indicated to reduce events and target organ damage in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, where they have specific indication because of the evidence of benefit. Renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor therapy, however, is associated with an increased risk of hyperkalaemia. Patients with chronic kidney disease and HF are at increased risk of hyperkalaemia and 50% of these patients experience two or more yearly recurrences. A substantial proportion of patients receiving RAASi therapy have their therapy down-titrated or more often discontinued even after a single episode of elevated potassium (K\+) level. Since RAASi therapy reduces mortality and morbidity in patients with cardiovascular disease steps should, when hyperkalaemia develops, be considered to lower K\+ level and enable patients to continue their RAASi therapy. The use of such measures are especially important in those patients with the most to gain from RAASi therapy. © 2017 The Author.

The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), either with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is frequent (30–40% of patients) and associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization, all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The most important causes of HF in T2DM are coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension and a direct detrimental effect of T2DM on the myocardium. T2DM is often unrecognized in HF patients, and vice versa, which emphasizes the importance of an active search for both disorders in the clinical practice. There are no specific limitations to HF treatment in T2DM. Subanalyses of trials addressing HF treatment in the general population have shown that all HF therapies are similarly effective regardless of T2DM. Concerning T2DM treatment in HF patients, most guidelines currently recommend metformin as the first-line choice. Sulphonylureas and insulin have been the traditional second- and third-line therapies although their safety in HF is equivocal. Neither glucagon-like preptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, nor dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors reduce the risk for HF hospitalization. Indeed, a DPP4 inhibitor, saxagliptin, has been associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization. Thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are contraindicated in patients with (or at risk of) HF. In recent trials, sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have both shown a significant reduction in HF hospitalization in patients with established CV disease or at risk of CV disease. Several ongoing trials should provide an insight into the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF in the absence of T2DM. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology

Myriad advances in all fields of cardiac imaging have stimulated and reflected new understanding of cardiac performance, myocardial damage and the mechanisms of heart failure. In this paper, the Heart Failure Association assesses the potential usefulness of innovative imaging modalities in enabling more precise diagnostic and prognostic evaluation, as well as in guiding treatment strategies. Many new methods have gradually penetrated clinical practice and are on their way to becoming a part of routine evaluation. This paper focuses on myocardial deformation and three-dimensional ultrasound imaging; stress tests for the evaluation of contractile and filling function; the progress of magnetic resonance techniques; molecular imaging and other sound innovations. The Heart Failure Association aims to highlight the ways in which paradigms have shifted in several areas of cardiac assessment. These include reassessing of the simplified concept of ejection fraction and implementation of the new parameters of cardiac performance applicable to all heart failure phenotypes; switching from two-dimensional to more accurate and reproducible three-dimensional ultrasound volumetric evaluation; greater tissue characterization via recently developed magnetic resonance modalities; moving from assessing cardiac function and congestion at rest to assessing it during stress; from invasive to novel non-invasive hybrid techniques depicting coronary anatomy and myocardial perfusion; as well as from morphometry to the imaging of pathophysiologic processes such as inflammation and apoptosis. This position paper examines the specific benefits of imaging innovations for practitioners dealing with heart failure aetiology, risk stratification and monitoring, and, in addition, for scientists involved in the development of future research. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology

Cancer and heart failure (HF) are common medical conditions with a steadily rising prevalence in industrialized countries, particularly in the elderly, and they both potentially carry a poor prognosis. A new diagnosis of malignancy in subjects with pre-existing HF is not infrequent, and challenges HF specialists as well as oncologists with complex questions relating to both HF and cancer management. An increased incidence of cancer in patients with established HF has also been suggested. This review paper summarizes the epidemiology and the prognostic implications of cancer occurrence in HF, the impact of pre-existing HF on cancer treatment decisions and the impact of cancer on HF therapeutic options, while providing some practical suggestions regarding patient care and highlighting gaps in knowledge. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology

Aims: The objectives of the present study were to describe epidemiology and outcomes in ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to identify predictors for mortality at 1 year in each group. Methods and results: The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting epidemiological information and 1-year follow-up data in 9134 HF patients. Patients were classified according to baseline LVEF into HF with reduced EF [EF 50% (HFpEF)]. In comparison with HFpEF subjects, patients with HFrEF were younger (64 years vs. 69 years), more commonly male (78% vs. 52%), more likely to have an ischaemic aetiology (49% vs. 24%) and left bundle branch block (24% vs. 9%), but less likely to have hypertension (56% vs. 67%) or atrial fibrillation (18% vs. 32%). The HFmrEF group resembled the HFrEF group in some features, including age, gender and ischaemic aetiology, but had less left ventricular and atrial dilation. Mortality at 1 year differed significantly between HFrEF and HFpEF (8.8% vs. 6.3%); HFmrEF patients experienced intermediate rates (7.6%). Age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV status and chronic kidney disease predicted mortality in all LVEF groups. Low systolic blood pressure and high heart rate were predictors for mortality in HFrEF and HFmrEF. A lower body mass index was independently associated with mortality in HFrEF and HFpEF patients. Atrial fibrillation predicted mortality in HFpEF patients. Conclusions: Heart failure patients stratified according to different categories of LVEF represent diverse phenotypes of demography, clinical presentation, aetiology and outcomes at 1 year. Differences in predictors for mortality might improve risk stratification and management goals. © 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology

Organ injury and impairment are commonly observed in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), and congestion is an essential pathophysiological mechanism of impaired organ function. Congestion is the predominant clinical profile in most patients with AHF; a smaller proportion presents with peripheral hypoperfusion or cardiogenic shock. Hypoperfusion further deteriorates organ function. The injury and dysfunction of target organs (i.e. heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, intestine, brain) in the setting of AHF are associated with increased risk for mortality. Improvement in organ function after decongestive therapies has been associated with a lower risk for post-discharge mortality. Thus, the prevention and correction of organ dysfunction represent a therapeutic target of interest in AHF and should be evaluated in clinical trials. Treatment strategies that specifically prevent, reduce or reverse organ dysfunction remain to be identified and evaluated to determine if such interventions impact mortality, morbidity and patient-centred outcomes. This paper reflects current understanding among experts of the presentation and management of organ impairment in AHF and suggests priorities for future research to advance the field. © 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology

Aim The objective behind the Euro Heart Survey on diabetes and the heart was to study the prevalence of abnormal glucose regulation in adult patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and results The survey engaged 110 centres in 25 countries recruiting 4196 patients referred to a cardiologist due to CAD out of whom 2107 were admitted on an acute basis and 2854 had an elective consultation. Patient data were collected via a web-based case record form. An oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was used for the characterisation of the glucose metabolism. Thirty-one per cent of the patients had diabetes. An OGTT was performed on the 1920 patients without known diabetes, of whom 923 had acute and 997 had a stable manifestation of CAD, respectively. In patients with acute CAD, 36% had impaired glucose regulation and 22% newly detected diabetes. In the stable group these proportions were 37% and 14%. Conclusion This survey demonstrates that normal glucose regulation is less common than abnormal glucose regulation in patients with CAD. OGTT easily discloses the glucometabolic state and should be a routine procedure. The knowledge of glucometabolic state among these patients should influence their future management because it has great potential to improve the outcome.

To evaluate how recommendations of European guidelines regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for heart failure (HF) are adopted in clinical practice. The ESC-HF Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study conducted in 211 Cardiology Centres of 21 European and Mediterranean countries, members of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). From May 2011 to April 2013, a total of 12 440 patients were enrolled, 40.5 with acute HF and 59.5 with chronic HF. Intravenous treatments for acute HF were heterogeneously administered, irrespective of guideline recommendations. In chronic HF, with reduced EF, reninangiotensin system (RAS) blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs) were used in 92.2, 92.7, and 67.0 of patients, respectively. When reasons for non-adherence were considered, the real rate of undertreatment accounted for 3.2, 2.3, and 5.4 of the cases, respectively. About 30 of patients received the target dosage of these drugs, but a documented reason for not achieving the target dosage was reported in almost two-thirds of them. The more relevant reasons for non-implantation of a device, when clinically indicated, were related to doctor uncertainties on the indication, patient refusal, or logistical/cost issues. This pan-European registry shows that, while in patients with acute HF, a large heterogeneity of treatments exists, drug treatment of chronic HF can be considered largely adherent to recommendations of current guidelines, when the reasons for non-adherence are taken into account. Observations regarding the real possibility to adhere fully to current guidelines in daily clinical practice should be seriously considered when clinical practice guidelines have to be written.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia, and is associated with increased risk of stroke and death. Most of present knowledge is derived from studies in patients with cardiac disease whilst limited information is available for patients with several chronic non-cardiac conditions like cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic kidney disease. Although millions of patients are affected and are at risk of adverse prognosis due to co-existent atrial fibrillation, we are left with very limited guidance for management of atrial fibrillation itself and prevention of complications in those patients. In this paper, we review data on incidence, prognostic importance and treatment modalities of atrial fibrillation in patients with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic kidney disease. © 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

AIMS: To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17). CONCLUSION: In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.