Search

Many biomarkers that could be used to assess ejection fraction, heart failure, or myocardial infarction fail to translate into clinical practice because they lack essential performance characteristics or fail to meet regulatory standards for approval. Despite their potential, new technologies have added to the complexities of successful translation into clinical practice. Biomarker discovery and implementation requires a standardised approach that includes: identification of a clinical need; identification of a valid surrogate biomarker; stepwise assay refinement, demonstration of superiority over current standard-of-care; development and understanding of a clinical pathway; and demonstration of real-world performance. Successful biomarkers should improve efficacy or safety of treatment, while being practical at a realistic cost. Everyone involved in cardiovascular healthcare, including researchers, clinicians, and industry partners, are important stakeholders in facilitating the development and implementation of biomarkers. This paper provides suggestions for a development pathway for new biomarkers, discusses regulatory issues and challenges, and suggestions for accelerating the pathway to improve patient outcomes. Real life examples of successful biomarkers-high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn), T2* cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, and echocardiography-are used to illustrate the value of a standardised development pathway in the translation of concepts into routine clinical practice.

Aims: Use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure (HF) have been shown to be suboptimal. Among new users of GDMT in HF, we followed the real-life patterns of dose titration and discontinuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI). Methods and results: New users were identified in health care databases in Sweden, UK and US between 2016–2019. Inclusion criterion was a recent HF hospitalization (HHF) triggering the initiation of GDMT. Patients were grouped by GDMT, i.e. ACEi, ARB, beta-blocker, MRA and ARNI, and stratified by initial dose. Follow-up was 12 months, until death or study end. Outcomes were dose titration within each drug class, discontinuation and first HHF or death. Dose/discontinuation follow-up was assessed daily based on the coverage length of a filled prescription and reported on day 365. New users of ACEi (n = 8426), ARB (n = 2303), beta-blockers (n = 10 476), MRA (n = 17 421), and ARNI (n = 29 546) were identified. Over 12 months, target dose achievement was 15%, 10%, 12%, 30%, and discontinuation was 55%, 33%, 24% and 27% for ACEi, ARB, beta-blockers and ARNI, respectively. MRA was rarely titrated and discontinuation rates were high (40%). Event rates for HHF or death ranged from 40.0–86.9 per 100 patient-years across the treatment groups. Conclusion: Despite high risk of clinical events following HHF, new initiation of GDMT was followed by consistent patterns of low up-titration and early GDMT discontinuation in three countries with different health care and economies. Our data highlight the urgent need for moving away from long sequential approach when initiating HF treatment and for improving just-in-time decision support for patients and health care providers., CC BY-NC 4.0Corresponding author: Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Norrbacka, S1:02, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm 171 76, Sweden. Tel: +46764165215, Email: gianluigi.savarese@ki.se

Commercially available health technologies such as smartphones and smartwatches, activity trackers and eHealth applications, commonly referred to as wearables, are increasingly available and used both in the leisure and healthcare sector for pulse and fitness/activity tracking. The aim of the Position Paper is to identify specific barriers and knowledge gaps for the use of wearables, in particular for heart rate (HR) and activity tracking, in clinical cardiovascular healthcare to support their implementation into clinical care. The widespread use of HR and fitness tracking technologies provides unparalleled opportunities for capturing physiological information from large populations in the community, which has previously only been available in patient populations in the setting of healthcare provision. The availability of low-cost and high-volume physiological data from the community also provides unique challenges. While the number of patients meeting healthcare providers with data from wearables is rapidly growing, there are at present no clinical guidelines on how and when to use data from wearables in primary and secondary prevention. Technical aspects of HR tracking especially during activity need to be further validated. How to analyse, translate, and interpret large datasets of information into clinically applicable recommendations needs further consideration. While the current users of wearable technologies tend to be young, healthy and in the higher sociodemographic strata, wearables could potentially have a greater utility in the elderly and higher-risk population. Wearables may also provide a benefit through increased health awareness, democratization of health data and patient engagement. Use of continuous monitoring may provide opportunities for detection of risk factors and disease development earlier in the causal pathway, which may provide novel applications in both prevention and clinical research. However, wearables may also have potential adver

Commercially available health technologies such as smartphones and smartwatches, activity trackers and eHealth applications, commonly referred to as wearables, are increasingly available and used both in the leisure and healthcare sector for pulse and fitness/activity tracking. The aim of the Position Paper is to identify specific barriers and knowledge gaps for the use of wearables, in particular for heart rate (HR) and activity tracking, in clinical cardiovascular healthcare to support their implementation into clinical care. The widespread use of HR and fitness tracking technologies provides unparalleled opportunities for capturing physiological information from large populations in the community, which has previously only been available in patient populations in the setting of healthcare provision. The availability of low-cost and high-volume physiological data from the community also provides unique challenges. While the number of patients meeting healthcare providers with data from wearables is rapidly growing, there are at present no clinical guidelines on how and when to use data from wearables in primary and secondary prevention. Technical aspects of HR tracking especially during activity need to be further validated. How to analyse, translate, and interpret large datasets of information into clinically applicable recommendations needs further consideration. While the current users of wearable technologies tend to be young, healthy and in the higher sociodemographic strata, wearables could potentially have a greater utility in the elderly and higher-risk population. Wearables may also provide a benefit through increased health awareness, democratization of health data and patient engagement. Use of continuous monitoring may provide opportunities for detection of risk factors and disease development earlier in the causal pathway, which may provide novel applications in both prevention and clinical research. However, wearables may also have potential adverse, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSR) may trigger ventricular arrhythmia in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and central sleep apnoea (CSA). This study determined the prevalence and predictors of a high nocturnal ventricular arrhythmia burden in patients with HFrEF and CSA (with and without CSR) and to evaluate the temporal association between CSR and the ventricular arrhythmia burden.This cross-sectional ancillary analysis included 239 participants from the SERVE-HF major sub-study who had HFrEF and CSA, and nocturnal ECG from polysomnography. CSR was stratified in >= 20% and 30 premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) per hour of TRT. A sub-analysis was performed to evaluate the temporal association between CSR and ventricular arrhythmias in sleep stage N2.High ventricular arrhythmia burden was observed in 44% of patients. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, male sex, lower systolic blood pressure, non-use of antiarrhythmic medication and CSR.20% were significantly associated with PVCs >30.h(-1) (OR 5.49, 95% CI 1.51-19.91, p=0.010; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-1.00, p=0.017; OR 5.02, 95% CI 1.51- 19.91, p=0.001; and OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.22-4.05, p=0.009; respectively). PVCs occurred more frequently during sleep phases with versus without CSR (median (interquartile range): 64.6 (24.8-145.7) versus 34.6 (4.8-75.2).h(-1) N2 sleep; p=0.006).Further mechanistic studies and arrhythmia analysis of major randomised trials evaluating the effect of treating CSR on ventricular arrhythmia burden and arrhythmia-related outcomes are warranted to understand how these data match with the results of the parent SERVE-HF study.