Search

AimsTroponin levels are commonly elevated among patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF), but the prevalence and prognostic significance of early post-discharge troponin elevation are unclear. This study sought to describe the frequency and prognostic value of pre-discharge and post-discharge troponin elevation, including persistent troponin elevation from the inpatient to outpatient settings.Methods and resultsThe ASTRONAUT trial (NCT00894387; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) enrolled hospitalized HF patients with ejection fraction ≤40% and measured troponin I prior to discharge (i.e. study baseline) and at 1-month follow-up in a core laboratory (elevation defined as >0.04 ng/mL). This analysis included 1469 (91.0%) patients with pre-discharge troponin data. Overall, 41.5% and 29.9% of patients had elevated pre-discharge [median: 0.09 ng/mL; interquartile range (IQR): 0.06-0.19 ng/mL] and 1-month (median: 0.09 ng/mL; IQR: 0.06-0.15 ng/mL) troponin levels, respectively. Among patients with pre-discharge troponin elevation, 60.4% had persistent elevation at 1 month. After adjustment, pre-discharge troponin elevation was not associated with 12-month clinical outcomes. In contrast, 1-month troponin elevation was independently predictive of increased all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-2.13] and cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.58) at 12 months. Associations between 1-month troponin elevation and outcomes were similar among patients with newly elevated (i.e. normal pre-discharge) and persistently elevated levels (interaction P ≥ 0.16). The prognostic value of 1-month troponin elevation for 12-month mortality was driven by a pronounced association among patients with coronary artery disease (interaction P = 0.009).ConclusionsIn this hospitalized HF population, troponin I elevation was common during index hospitalization and at 1-month follow-up. Elevated troponin I level at 1 month, but not pre-discharge, was independently predictive of increased clinical events at 12 months. Early post-discharge troponin I measurement may offer a practical means of risk stratification and should be investigated as a therapeutic target.

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multifactorial condition with a variety of pathophysiological causes and morphological manifestations. The inclusion criteria and patient classification have become overly simplistic due to the customary differentiation regarding the ejection fraction (EF) cutoff. EF is considered a measure of systolic function; nevertheless, it only represents a portion of the true contractile state and has been shown to have certain limits due to methodological and hemodynamic irregularities. Methods: As a result, broader randomized clinical trials have yet to incorporate the most recent criteria for HFpEF diagnosis, leading to a lack of data consistency and confusion in interpreting the results. The primary variations between the bigger clinical trials published in this context concerning patient selection and echocardiographic characteristics were analyzed. For all these reasons, we aim to clarify the main features and clinical impact of HFpEF in a study combining imaging, bio-humoral analysis, and clinical history to identify the specific subgroups that respond better to tailored treatment. Results: Disparate clinical characteristics and a lack of uniform diagnostic standards may cause suboptimal therapeutic feedback. To optimize treatment, we suggest shifting the paradigm from the straightforward EF measurement to a more comprehensive model that considers additional information, such as structural traits, related disorders, and biological and environmental data. Therefore, by evaluating certain echocardiographic and clinical factors, a stepwise diagnostic procedure may be useful in identifying patients at high risk, subjects with early HFpEF, and those with evident HFpEF. Conclusions: The present assessment underscores the significance of the precision medicine approach in guaranteeing optimal patient outcomes by providing the best care according to each distinct profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The burden of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considerable and is projected to worsen. To date, there are no approved therapies available for reducing mortality or hospitalizations for these patients. The pathophysiology of HFpEF is complex and includes alterations in cardiac structure and function, systemic and pulmonary vascular abnormalities, end-organ involvement, and comorbidities. There remain major gaps in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology. To facilitate a discussion of how to proceed effectively in future with development of therapies for HFpEF, a meeting was facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration and included representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. This document summarizes the proceedings from this meeting.

There are over 1 million hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) annually in the United States alone, and a similar number has been reported in Europe. Recent clinical trials investigating novel therapies in patients with hospitalized HF (HHF) have been negative, and the post-discharge event rate remains unacceptably high. The lack of success with HHF trials stem from problems with understanding the study drug, matching the drug to the appropriate HF subgroup, and study execution. Related to the concept of study execution is the importance of including appropriate study sites in HHF trials. Often overlooked issues include consideration of the geographic region and the number of patients enrolled at each study center. Marked differences in baseline patient co-morbidities, serum biomarkers, treatment utilization and outcomes have been demonstrated across geographic regions. Furthermore, patients from sites with low recruitment may have worse outcomes compared to sites with higher enrollment patterns. Consequently, sites with poor trial enrollment may influence key patient end points and likely do not justify the costs of site training and maintenance. Accordingly, there is an unmet need to develop strategies to identify the right study sites that have acceptable patient quantity and quality. Potential approaches include, but are not limited to, establishing a pre-trial registry, developing site performance metrics, identifying a local regionally involved leader and bolstering recruitment incentives. This manuscript summarizes the roundtable discussion hosted by the Food and Drug Administration between members of academia, the National Institutes of Health, industry partners, contract research organizations and academic research organizations on the importance of selecting optimal sites for successful trials in HHF.

Serum magnesium levels may be impacted by neurohormonal activation, renal function, and diuretics. The clinical profile and prognostic significance of serum magnesium level concentration in patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unclear. In this retrospective analysis of the placebo group of the Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan trial, we evaluated 1,982 patients hospitalized for worsening HF with ejection fractions ≤40%. Baseline magnesium levels were measured within 48 hours of admission and analyzed as a continuous variable and in quartiles. The primary end points of all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiovascular mortality or HF rehospitalization were analyzed using Cox regression models. Mean baseline magnesium level was 2.1 ± 0.3 mg/dl. Compared with the lowest quartile, patients in the highest magnesium level quartile were more likely to be older, men, have lower heart rates and blood pressures, have ischemic HF origin, and have higher creatinine and natriuretic peptide levels (all p

Advanced heart failure (AHF) presents a complex landscape with challenges spanning diagnosis, management, and patient outcomes. In response, the integration of multimodality imaging techniques has emerged as a pivotal approach. This comprehensive review delves into the profound significance of these imaging strategies within AHF scenarios. Multimodality imaging, encompassing echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), nuclear imaging and cardiac computed tomography (CCT), stands as a cornerstone in the care of patients with both short- and long-term mechanical support devices. These techniques facilitate precise device selection, placement, and vigilant monitoring, ensuring patient safety and optimal device functionality. In the context of orthotopic cardiac transplant (OTC), the role of multimodality imaging remains indispensable. Echocardiography offers invaluable insights into allograft function and potential complications. Advanced methods, like speckle tracking echocardiography (STE), empower the detection of acute cell rejection. Nuclear imaging, CMR and CCT further enhance diagnostic precision, especially concerning allograft rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy. This comprehensive imaging approach goes beyond diagnosis, shaping treatment strategies and risk assessment. By harmonizing diverse imaging modalities, clinicians gain a panoramic understanding of each patient's unique condition, facilitating well-informed decisions. The aim is to highlight the novelty and unique aspects of recently published papers in the field. Thus, this review underscores the irreplaceable role of multimodality imaging in elevating patient outcomes, refining treatment precision, and propelling advancements in the evolving landscape of advanced heart failure management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]