Search

There are varied opinions in the United States regarding many aspects of care related to COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to examine the opinions of health care personnel and the policies of heart transplant centers concerning practices for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in donors and recipients of heart transplants.Two anonymous, electronic web-based surveys were developed: 1 was administered to health care personnel through a mailing list maintained by the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA); another was administered to U.S. medical adult and pediatric heart transplant (HT) program directors. Individual and group e-mails were sent with an embedded link to the respective surveys in February 2022.A total of 176 individuals (8.6%) responded to the survey administered through the HFSA. Of medical directors of transplant programs, 78 (54% response rate) completed a separate survey on their centers' policies. Although 95% (n = 167) of individuals indicated vaccination against COVID-19 should be required prior to HT, only 67% (n = 52) of centers mandated that practice. Similarly, 61% of individuals thought vaccination should be required prior to HT for caregivers, but only 13% of transplant centers mandated caregiver vaccination. Of the centers, 63% reported considering donors despite histories of recent COVID-19 infection (within 3 months), and 47% considered donors with current positive polymerase chain reaction tests. Regarding post-transplant care, only 22% of programs routinely measured antibodies to COVID-19, and 71% used tixagevimab/cilgavimab (Evusheld) for pre-exposure prophylaxis.There were significant differences between individual preferences and centers' practices with respect to COVID-19 management of candidates for and recipients of HT. Additionally, there was wide variation in policies among centers, reflecting the need for further study to inform consistent guidance and recommendations across centers to optimize equitable care for this high-risk patient population.

The thermodilution (TD) method is routinely used for the estimation of cardiac output (Q̇

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Bendopnea, or dyspnoea with bending forward, is a recently described symptom of heart failure that is associated with elevated ventricular filling pressures. Here, we describe a case of superior vena cava (SVC) stenosis that presented with bendopnea and resolved with SVC recanalisation. We suggest that SVC stenosis be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients who experience bendopnea.

The V122I variant in transthyretin (TTR) is the most common amyloidogenic mutation worldwide. The aim of this study is to describe the cardiac phenotype and risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes of young V122I TTR carriers in the general population.TTR genotypes were extracted from whole-exome sequence data in participants of the Dallas Heart Study. Participants with African ancestry, available V122I TTR genotypes (N = 1818) and either cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (n = 1364) or long-term follow-up (n = 1532) were included. The prevalence of V122I TTR carriers (45 ± 10 years) was 3.2% (n/N = 59/1818). The V122I TTR carriers had higher baseline left ventricular wall thickness (8.52 ± 1.82 vs 8.21 ± 1.62 mm, adjusted P = .038) than noncarriers, but no differences in other cardiac magnetic resonance imaging measures (P.05 for all). Although carrier status was not associated with amino terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at baseline (P = .79), V122I TTR carriers had a greater increase in NT-proBNP on follow-up than noncarriers (median 28.5 pg/mL, interquartile range 11.4-104.1 pg/mL vs median 15.9 pg/mL, interquartile range 0.0-43.0 pg/mL, adjusted P = .018). V122I TTR carriers were at a higher adjusted risk of heart failure (hazard ratio 3.82, 95% confidence interval 1.80-8.13, P.001), cardiovascular death (hazard ratio 2.65, 95% confidence interval 1.14-6.15, P = .023), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.08-3.51, P = .026) in comparison with noncarriers.V122I TTR carrier status was associated with a greater increase in NT-proBNP, slightly greater left ventricular wall thickness, and a higher risk for heart failure, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality. These findings suggest the need to develop amyloidosis screening strategies for V122I TTR carriers.

Background Clinical congestion is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure. The pathophysiological mediators of this association remain uncertain. Methods and Results We prospectively enrolled a cohort of patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and performed a detailed clinical examination followed on the same day by an invasive right heart catheterization and blood sampling for biomarkers. High-sensitivity troponin T and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were measured. A clinical congestion score was calculated based on jugular venous pressure (cm H20 14 = 2 points), bendopnea (0 vs 1), a third heart sound (0 vs 1), or peripheral edema (0–2). Congestion was categorized into tiers as absent (0 points), mild (1 point), or moderate to severe (≥ 2 points). We tested for associations of high-sensitivity troponin T, NT-proBNP, and elevated ventricular filling pressures with clinical congestion in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Of 153 participants, 65 (42%) had absent, 35 mild (23%), and 53 (35%) had moderate to severe clinical congestion. Congestion tier was associated with higher NT-proBNP and hs-troponin levels, and the right atrial pressure and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (P Conclusions Clinical congestion is a phenotype in which there is a high coexistent presence of elevated ventricular filling pressures, elevated natriuretic peptide levels, and subclinical myocardial injury. An elevated troponin was associated with clinical congestion in multivariable models that adjusted for ventricular filling pressures and natriuretic peptide levels. These data strengthen the evidence base for an association of elevated troponin with clinical congestion, suggesting that subclinical myocardial injury may be an important contributor to the pathophysiology of the congested state.

Patients with continuous flow destination therapy (DT) left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) comprise a heterogeneous population. We hypothesized that phenotypic clustering of individuals with DT LVADs by their implantation characteristics will be associated with different long-term risk profiles. We analyzed 5,999 patients with continuous flow DT LVADs in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support using 18 continuous variable baseline characteristics. We Z-transformed the variables and applied a Gaussian finite mixture model to perform unsupervised clustering resulting in identification of 4 phenogroups. Survival analyses considered the competing risk for cumulative incidence of transplant or the composite end point of death or heart transplant where appropriate. Phenogroup 1 (n = 1,163, 19%) was older (71 years) and primarily white (81%). Phenogroups 2 (n = 648, 11%) and 3 (n = 3,671, 61%) were of intermediate age (70 and 62 years), weight (85 and 87 kg), and ventricular size. Phenogroup 4 (n = 517, 9%) was younger (40 years), heavier (108 kg), and more racially diverse. The cumulative incidence of death, heart transplant, bleeding, LVAD malfunction, and LVAD thrombosis differed among phenogroups. The highest incidence of death and the lowest rate of heart transplant was seen in phenogroup 1 (p0.001). For adverse outcomes, phenogroup 4 had the lowest incidence of bleeding, whereas LVAD device thrombosis and malfunction were lowest in phenogroup 1 (p0.001 for all). Finally, the incidence of stroke, infection, and renal dysfunction were not statistically different. In conclusion, the present unsupervised machine learning analysis identified 4 phenogroups with different rates of adverse outcomes and these findings underscore the influence of phenotypic heterogeneity on post-LVAD implantation outcomes.

Decreased exercise capacity portends a poor prognosis in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The hemodynamic gain index (HGI) is an integrated marker of hemodynamic reserve measured during exercise stress testing and is associated with survival. The goal of this study was to establish the association of HGI with exercise capacity, serum biomarkers, and echocardiography features in subjects with HFpEF. In 209 subjects with HFpEF enrolled in the RELAX (Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Diastolic Heart Failure) trial who underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing, we calculated the HGI ([peak heart rate [HR] × peak systolic blood pressure [SBP]-[HR at rest × SBP at rest])/(HR at rest × SBP at rest) and tested associations with outcomes of interest. The median (interquartile range) HGI was 0.94 (0.5 to 1.3) beats per min/mm Hg. In multivariable-adjusted linear regression, higher HGI was associated with greater peak oxygen consumption (VO

Aim: The “2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” replaces the “2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” and the “2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.” The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Aim: The “2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” replaces the “2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure” and the “2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.” The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure replaces the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure and the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with heart failure.A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews and other evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies published through September 2021 were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments that have high-quality published economic analyses.

Aims Patients with obesity and ischaemic heart failure may counter‐intuitively have better outcomes compared with patients with normal body weight due to an ‘obesity paradox’. This study sought to determine if body mass index (BMI) impacts the treatment effects or safety outcomes of the treatment of ischaemic heart failure with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods and results We obtained and reviewed the Surgical Treatment of Ischaemic Heart Failure (STICHES) data for 1212 patients. We categorized obesity by the World Health Organization (WHO) classes to define baseline characteristics and test for treatment interactions for the primary and secondary STICHES outcomes by treatment groups. While CABG decreased the risk of death, there was no evidence of treatment interaction by BMI per 5 kg/m2 (P = 0.83) or WHO obesity class. For the overall cohort, there was no interaction by WHO obesity class for the cumulative incidence of death in either the medical therapy or CABG plus medical therapy (P‐interaction = 0.90). There was a non‐significant trend for higher BMI and a lower risk of death [hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85–1.00, P = 0.051]. Increasing body size (per 5 kg/m2) was associated with return to the operating room (odds ratio 2.48, 95% CI 1.45–4.26, P

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly expanding global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. A substantial minority of patients hospitalized develop an acute COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, which can manifest with a variety of clinical presentations but often presents as an acute cardiac injury with cardiomyopathy, ventricular arrhythmias, and hemodynamic instability in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease. The cause of this injury is uncertain but is suspected to be related to myocarditis, microvascular injury, systemic cytokine-mediated injury, or stress-related cardiomyopathy. Although histologically unproven, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has the potential to directly replicate within cardiomyocytes and pericytes, leading to viral myocarditis. Systemically elevated cytokines are also known to be cardiotoxic and have the potential to result in profound myocardial injury. Prior experience with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 has helped expedite the evaluation of several promising therapies, including antiviral agents, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and convalescent serum. Management of acute COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome should involve a multidisciplinary team including intensive care specialists, infectious disease specialists, and cardiologists. Priorities for managing acute COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome include balancing the goals of minimizing healthcare staff exposure for testing that will not change clinical management with early recognition of the syndrome at a time point at which intervention may be most effective. This article aims to review the best available data on acute COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. From these data, we propose a surveillance, diagnostic, and management strategy that balances potential patient risks and healthcare staff exposure with improvement in meaningful clinical outcomes.

Background: A malignant subphenotype of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has been described, in which minimal elevations in cardiac biomarkers identify individuals with LVH at high risk for developing heart failure (HF). We tested the hypothesis that a higher prevalence of malignant LVH among blacks may contribute to racial disparities in HF risk. Methods: Participants (n=15 710) without prevalent cardiovascular disease were pooled from 3 population-based cohort studies, the ARIC Study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities), the DHS (Dallas Heart Study), and the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). Participants were classified into 3 groups: those without ECG-LVH, those with ECG-LVH and normal biomarkers (hs-cTnT (high sensitivity cardiac troponin-T) Results: Over the 10-year follow-up period, HF occurred in 512 (3.3%) participants, with 5.2% in black men, 3.8% in white men, 3.2% in black women, and 2.2% in white women. The prevalence of malignant LVH was 3-fold higher among black men and women versus white men and women. Compared with participants without LVH, the adjusted hazard ratio for HF was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.1–3.5) in those with malignant LVH and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6–1.5) in those with LVH and normal biomarkers, with similar findings in each race/sex subgroup. Mediation analyses indicated that 33% of excess hazard for HF among black men and 11% of the excess hazard among black women was explained by the higher prevalence of malignant LVH in blacks. Of black men who developed HF, 30.8% had malignant LVH at baseline, with a corresponding population attributable fraction of 0.21. The proportion of HF cases occurring among those with malignant LVH, and the corresponding population attributable fraction, were intermediate and similar among black women and white men and lowest among white women. Conclusions: A higher prevalence of malignant LVH may in part explain the higher risk of HF among blacks versus whites. Strategies to prevent development or attenuate risk associated with malignant LVH should be investigated as a strategy to lower HF risk and mitigate racial disparities.

James A. Arrighi, MD, FACC, Chair Lisa A. Mendes, MD, FACC, Co-Chair Jesse E. Adams III, MD, FACC[‡][1] John E. Brush, Jr, MD, FACC[‡][1] G. William Dec, Jr, MD, FACC Ali Denktas, MD, FACC Susan Fernandes, LPD, PA-C Rosario Freeman, MD, MS, FACC[‡][1] Sanjeev A. Francis, MD, FACC

Supranormal ejection fraction by echocardiography in clinically referred patient populations has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The prognostic implication of supranormal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)-assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-in healthy, community-dwelling individuals is unknown.The purpose of this study is to investigate the prognostic implication of supranormal LVEF as assessed by CMR and its inter-relationship with stroke volume among community-dwelling adults without CVD.Participants from the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) and DHS (Dallas Heart Study) cohorts free of CVD who underwent CMR with LVEF above the normal CMR cutoff (≥57%) were included. The association between cohort-specific LVEF categories and risk of clinically adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was assessed using adjusted Cox models. Subgroup analysis was also performed to evaluate the association of LVEF and risk of MACE among individuals stratified by left ventricular stroke volume index.The study included 4,703 participants from MESA and 2,287 from DHS with 727 and 151 MACE events, respectively. In adjusted Cox models, the risk of MACE was highest among individuals in LVEF Q4 (vs Q1) in both cohorts after accounting for potential confounders (MESA: HR = 1.27 [95% CI: 1.01-1.60], P = 0.04; DHS: HR = 1.72 [95% CI: 1.05-2.79], P = 0.03). A significant interaction was found between the continuous measures of LVEF and left ventricular stroke volume index (P interaction = 0.02) such that higher LVEF was significantly associated with an increased risk of MACE among individuals with low but not high stroke volume.Among community-dwelling adults without CVD, LVEF in the supranormal range is associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, particularly in those with lower stroke volume.

Introduction: Cardiomyopathy is a common complication in muscular dystrophy (MD) patients, though the mechanism is not clear. Retrospective data from adults with Duchenne muscular dystrophy suggest they have reduced LV mass compared to adults with other forms of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. This raises the question whether pathologic hypertrophy contributes to the development of neuromuscular-associated cardiomyopathies. In this study, we hypothesized that MD patients have lower LV mass and associated changes in cardiac function as compared to healthy individuals. Methods: Utilizing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) data, a retrospective study was undertaken to compare LV mass, structure, and function between adults with MD and healthy age-, sex-, weight-matched controls from the Dallas Heart Study (DHS). Types of MD included dystrophinopathies, facioscapulohumeral MD, Freidreich ataxia, limb-girdle MD, myotonic dystrophy, and other rare MD. Approximately 50% of the MD patients were able to ambulate. MD patients were stratified into normal and reduced LVEF, defined as < 62% on cMRI, for further comparison. Statistical analysis was done using a two-sample, two-tailed t-test. Results: There were 339 MD patients (221 male) of mean age 40 and 417 DHS patients (187 male) of mean age 42. MD patients had a significantly lower LV mass, LV mass index, and LVEF than DHS adults. They also had significantly higher absolute and indexed volumes. In those with normal LVEF, all variables except LVESVi were significantly different from DHS. In those with reduced LVEF, all variables were significantly different from DHS. The results are summarized in Table 1. Conclusions: Collectively, MD patients have a reduced LV mass compared to healthy adults. In addition, MD patients with normal LVEF have lower LV mass than those patients with reduced LV function. Whether this observed decrease in LV mass represents cardiac hypoplasia or atrophy warrants further investigation.

Introduction: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a rare X-linked neuromuscular disorder affecting 1:5,000 males that results in terminal injury to the skeletal muscle and the heart. Recent evidence suggests that DMD female carriers are also at increased risk of developing cardiomyopathy. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists reduce morbidity and mortality and inhibit adverse left ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The benefit of RAAS inhibition in DMD carriers has not been studied to date. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that RAAS inhibition will improve left ventricular function and induce favorable left ventricular structural changes in DMD carriers over time. Methods: A retrospective, single-center cohort study was undertaken to compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) parameters in DMD carriers at the time of RAAS inhibitor initiation and after treatment with RAAS inhibitors for at least 12 months. RAAS inhibitors included angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors. Through EMR review, demographic data and cMRI parameters were collected retrospectively on 20 consecutive DMD carriers. Results: The average time elapsed between cMRIs was 39 months. Overall, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased in DMD carriers over time, though the improvement in LVEF did not reach significance (57% + 8 vs 59% + 6, p=0.2). However, subgroup analysis of 16 DMD carriers with reduced LVEF (defined as LVEF + 6 vs 58% + 7; p= 0.004). DMD carriers with reduced LVEF additionally demonstrated a significant decrease in left ventricular end systolic volume index (LVESVi) after RAAS inhibition (38 + 10 vs 32 + 10 ml/m2; p= 0.013). Conclusions: DMD carriers with reduced LVEF showed significant improvement in LVEF and LVESVi following RAAS inhibition. Collectively, the data suggest that RAAS inhibition significantly improves left ventricular systolic function and significantly reduces maladaptive left ventricular remodeling and dilation in this population.

Background: In ≈25% of patients with heart failure and reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction, right-ventricular (RV), and left-ventricular (LV) filling pressures are discordant (ie, one is elevated while the other is not). Whether clinical assessment allows detection of this discordance is unknown. We sought to determine the agreement of clinically versus invasively determined patterns of ventricular congestion. Methods: In 156 heart failure and reduced LV ejection fraction subjects undergoing invasive hemodynamic assessment, we categorized patterns of ventricular congestion (no congestion, RV only, LV only, or both) based on clinical findings of RV (jugular venous distention) or LV (hepatojugular reflux, orthopnea, or bendopnea) congestion. Agreement between clinically and invasively determined (RV congestion if right atrial pressure [RAP] ≥10 mm Hg and LV congestion if pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [PCWP] ≥22 mm Hg) categorizations was the primary end point. Results: The frequency of clinical patterns of congestion was: 51% no congestion, 24% both RV and LV, 21% LV only, and 4% RV only. Jugular venous distention had excellent discrimination for elevated RAP (C=0.88). However, agreement between clinical and invasive congestion patterns was poor, к=0.44 (95% CI, 0.34–0.55). While those with no clinical congestion usually had low RAP and PCWP (67/79, 85%), over one-half (24/38, 64%) with isolated LV clinical congestion had PCWP Conclusions: While clinical examination allows accurate detection of elevated RAP, it does not allow accurate detection of discordant RV and LV filling pressures.

Aim: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) associate with structural heart disease and heart failure risk in individuals without known cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, few data are available regarding whether factors influencing levels of these two biomarkers are similar or distinct. We performed serial measurement of NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT in a contemporary multiethnic cohort with extensive phenotyping, with the goal of identifying their respective biological determinants in a population without known or suspected CVD. Methods: We evaluated 1877 participants of the Dallas Heart Study who had NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT measured and were free from clinical CVD at the each of its two examinations (2000–2002 and 2007–2009). Variables collected included demographic and risk factors, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, body composition via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, coronary artery calcium by computed tomography, and cardiac dimensions and function by cardiac MRI. Linear regression was used to identify associations of these factors with each biomarker at baseline and with changes in biomarkers over follow-up. Results: NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT were poorly correlated at baseline (Spearman rho 0.083, p = 0.015), with only moderate correlation between change values (rho 0.18, p

Among the estimated 6.2 million Americans living with heart failure (HF), ≈5%/y may progress to advanced, or stage D, disease. Advanced HF has a high morbidity and mortality, such that early recognition of this condition is important to optimize care. Delayed referral or lack of referral in patients who are likely to derive benefit from an advanced HF evaluation can have important adverse consequences for patients and their families. A 2-step process can be used by practitioners when considering referral of a patient with advanced HF for consideration of advanced therapies, focused on recognizing the clinical clues associated with stage D HF and assessing potential benefits of referral to an advanced HF center. Although patients are often referred to an advanced HF center to undergo evaluation for advanced therapies such as heart transplantation or implantation of a left ventricular assist device, there are other reasons to refer, including access to the infrastructure and multidisciplinary team of the advanced HF center that offers a broad range of expertise. The intent of this statement is to provide a framework for practitioners and health systems to help identify and refer patients with HF who are most likely to derive benefit from referral to an advanced HF center.