Search

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure. Although these devices effectively improve survival, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are common with a prevalence of 20-50% at one year after LVAD implantation. Arrhythmias predispose these patients to additional risk and are associated with considerable morbidity from recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, progressive failure of the unsupported right ventricle, and herald an increased risk of mortality. Management of patients with arrhythmias and LVAD differs in many aspects from the general population heart failure patients. These include ruling out the reversible causes of arrhythmias that in LVAD patients may include mechanical irritation from the inflow cannula and suction events. For patients with symptomatic arrhythmias refractory to medical treatment, catheter ablation might be relevant. There are specific technical and procedural challenges perceived to be unique to LVAD-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation such as vascular and LV access, signal filtering, catheter manoeuvrability within decompressed chambers, and electroanatomic mapping system interference. In some patients, the arrhythmogenic substrate might not be readily accessible by catheter ablation after LVAD implantation. In this regard, the peri-implantation period offers a unique opportunity to surgically address arrhythmogenic substrate and suppress future VT recurrences. This document aims to address specific aspects of the management of arrhythmias in LVAD patients focusing on anti-arrhythmic drug therapy and ablations., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: O.A. serves as an advisor for Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Bayer, Pfizer, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and reports consulting fees from Medical Consults: Restore -Medical, Cordio-Medical, and Boehringer Ingelheim. A.B-G. serves as an advisor for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, Medtronic, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor. F.G. serves as an advisor for Abbott, FineHeart, AdjuCor, Corwave, Bayer, Astra-Zeneca, Ionis, Alnylam, and Roche. M.PE. reports research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, SQ Innovations, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pharmacosmos, and consultancy for Abott, Akero, Applied Therapeutics, Amgen, AnaCardio, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corteria, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Novo Nordisk, Abbvie, Bayer, Horizon Therapeutics, Foundry, Takeda, Cardiorentis, Pharmacosmos, Siemens, Eli Lilly, Vifor, New Amsterdam, Moderna, Teikoku, LIB Therapeutics, 3R Lifesciences, Reprieve, FIRE 1, Corvia, Regeneron. M.PA. reports fees from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. P.P. reports speakers’ honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Biotronik. F.S. reports speakers’ honoraria from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from Inheart. Others report no relevant conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is still an underdiagnosed cause of heart failure (HF) and early disease recognition and timely disease-modifying therapy (DMT) administration translate to better outcomes. We aimed to assess CA screening and management approaches for patients with HF preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) among physicians worldwide. An independent academic web-based survey was distributed worldwide between May 2023 and July 2023. Overall, 1,460 physicians (61% were men, median age was 42 [34 to 49] years) from 95 countries completed the survey. A total of 2/3 of respondents had experience diagnosing CA and reported having 10% of patients with CA in patients with HFpEF. Systematic screening for CA of all patients with HFpEF was performed by 10% of responders, whereas 24% did not consider the screening. Most responders (39%) used left ventricular hypertrophy as a screening criterion. Serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation of free light chain and urine protein electrophoresis or cardiac magnetic resonance were selected by half of the responders as a first-line diagnostic tool. The combination of serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation free light chain, urine protein electrophoresis, and bone scintigraphy was considered by 32% of the participants. CA DMT was available for 48% of the physicians. About 82% of responders would administrate HF to patients with HFpEF with CA, with the most preferable drugs being diuretics, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors. In conclusion, the results reveal the uncertainties among physicians worldwide regarding the need for CA screening of patients with HFpEF. CA remains a disease with very heterogeneous management, particularly, in the screening and diagnostic workup. The HF community should aim to educate on CA and improve access to DMT., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Mewton reports consulting fees from Bayer, Novartis, Amgen, and AstraZeneca and payment or honoraria for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Niederseer reports consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Gerson Lehman Group (GLG) Consulting, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer (New York, New York), and Zoll and payment or honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim (Ingelheim, Germany), Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Kida reports payment or honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca K.K., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co., Ltd., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.. Dr. Duval reports grants or contracts from Pfizer and Alnylam. Dr. Milinkovic reports payment or honoraria for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim and support for attending meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Oerlemans reports payment or honoraria for lectures to the institution from Novartis and Pfizer. Dr. Barasa reports consulting fees, payment, or honoraria for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca (to the institution); support for attending meetings from Novartis, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim (to the institution), AstraZeneca (to the institution); participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim (to the institution); and membership of Heart Failure Task Force under the Danish Society of Cardiology. Dr. Tokmakova reports being HFA board member. Dr. Skouri reports payment or honoraria for lectures or advisory board meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Servier, Abbott, Roche, and Vifor. Dr. Ruschitzka has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers in the last 3 years (remuneration for the time spent in activities, e.g., participation as steering committee member of clinical trials and member of the Pfizer Research Award selection committee in Switzerland, were made directly to the University of Zurich). The Department of Cardiology (University Hospital of Zurich/University of Zurich) reports research-, educational-, and/or travel grants from Abbott, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, At the Limits Ltd., Bayer, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bracco, CM MicroPort, Concept Medical, CTI, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, FomF GmbH, Hamilton Health Sciences, IHF, Innosuisse, IumiraDX, Kantar, LabPoint, MedAlliance, Medcon International, Medical Education Global Solutions, Medtronic, MicroPort, Monocle, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, OM Pharma, Pfizer, Quintiles Switzerland Sarl, RecorMedical, Roche Diagnostics (Pleasanton, California), Roche Pharma, Sahajanand IN, Sanofi, Sarstedt AG, Servier, Terumo Deutschland, Trama Solutions, V- Wave, Vifor, and ZOLL. These grants do not impact Prof. Ruschitzka's personal remuneration. Remuneration for the time spent in following consulting activities were made directly to the University of Zurich and do not impact Prof. Ruschitzka's personal remuneration: AstraZeneca (IMC), Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Citi Research, Klub Class, Novo Nordisk, Radcliffe Group, Stiftung Pfizer Forschungspreis, and Vifor. Remuneration for following lectures were made directly to the University of Zurich and do not impact Prof. Ruschitzka's personal remuneration: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca (A+ Science AB), Bayer (At the Limits), Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific (CCE Services), Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, C.T.I GmbH, FomF, Hôpitaux Universitaires des Genève (GECORE), Luzerner Kantonsspital, Sanofi-Aventis (Bridgewater, New Jersey), Servier, Medcon, Medscape (WebMD), Medtronic, Medworld, Novartis, Roche, Ruwag, Swiss Heart Failure Academy, the Hong Kong Heart Failure Society, Trama Solutions SL, Inselspital Bern, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Medical Education Global Solutions), Romanian Society of Cardiology, ÖKG Österreichische Gesellschaft für Kardiologie, and Zoll; reports support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca (IMC / A+ Science AB), Boehringer Ingelheim, Centro Hospitaler de Vila Nova de Gaia, C.T.I. GmbH (Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf), European Society of Cardiology, Monocle, Novartis, Spektar Putovanja, Austrian Heart Failure Association, and Heart Failure Association of the ESC. Remuneration for following advisory boards were made directly to the University of Zurich and do not impact Prof. Ruschitzka's personal remuneration: Bayer: HF Expert Summit, advisory board meeting Roche: advisory board meeting IMC/AstraZeneca: advisory board meeting Amgen: advisory board meeting. Dr. Saldarriaga reports grants/contracts from Novartis, Merck, and Bayer; payment or honoraria for lectures from Servier, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Ely Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi and participation in advisory board for Merck, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The advent of immunological therapies has revolutionized the treatment of solid and haematological cancers over the last decade. Licensed therapies which activate the immune system to target cancer cells can be broadly divided into two classes. The first class are antibodies that inhibit immune checkpoint signalling, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The second class are cell-based immune therapies including chimeric antigen receptor T lymphocyte (CAR-T) cell therapies, natural killer (NK) cell therapies, and tumour infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapies. The clinical efficacy of all these treatments generally outweighs the risks, but there is a high rate of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often unpredictable in timing with clinical sequalae ranging from mild (e.g. rash) to severe or even fatal (e.g. myocarditis, cytokine release syndrome) and reversible to permanent (e.g. endocrinopathies).The mechanisms underpinning irAE pathology vary across different irAE complications and syndromes, reflecting the broad clinical phenotypes observed and the variability of different individual immune responses, and are poorly understood overall. Immune-related cardiovascular toxicities have emerged, and our understanding has evolved from focussing initially on rare but fatal ICI-related myocarditis with cardiogenic shock to more common complications including less severe ICI-related myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, including conduction system disease and heart block, non-inflammatory heart failure, takotsubo syndrome and coronary artery disease. In this scientific statement on the cardiovascular toxicities of immune therapies for cancer, we summarize the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of ICI, CAR-T, NK, and TIL therapies. We also highlight gaps in the literature and where future research should focus., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

The prevalence of HF with preserved ejection raction (HFpEF, with EF ≥50%) is increasing across all populations with high rates of hospitalization and mortality, reaching up to 80% and 50%, respectively, within a 5-year timeframe. Comorbidity-driven systemic inflammation is thought to cause coronary microvascular dysfunction and increased epicardial adipose tissue, leading to downstream friborsis and molecular changes in the cardiomyocyte, leading to increased stiffness and diastolic dynsfunction. HFpEF poses unique challenges in terms of diagnosis due to its complex and diverse nature. The diagnosis of HFpEF relies on a combination of clinical assessment, imaging studies, and biomarkers. An additional important step in diagnosing HFpEF involves excluding certain cardiac diagnoses that may be specific underlying causes of HFpEF or may be masquerading as HFpEF and require specific alternative treatment approaches. In addition to administering sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors to all patients, the most effective approach to enhance clinical outcomes may involve tailored therapy based on each patient's unique clinical profile. Exercise should be recommended for all patients to improve the quality of life. Glucagon-like peptide-1 1 agonists are a promising treatment option in obese HFpEF patients. Novel approaches targeting inflammation are also in early phase trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Despite the progress in the care of individuals with heart failure (HF), important sex disparities in knowledge and management remain, covering all the aspects of the syndrome, from aetiology and pathophysiology to treatment. Important distinctions in phenotypic presentation are widely known, but the mechanisms behind these differences are only partially defined. The impact of sex-specific conditions in the predisposition to HF has gained progressive interest in the HF community. Under-recruitment of women in large randomized clinical trials has continued in the more recent studies despite epidemiological data no longer reporting any substantial difference in the lifetime risk and prognosis between sexes. Target dose of medications and criteria for device eligibility are derived from studies with a large predominance of men, whereas specific information in women is lacking. The present scientific statement encompasses the whole scenario of available evidence on sex-disparities in HF and aims to define the most challenging and urgent residual gaps in the evidence for the scientific and clinical HF communities., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) reduces morbidity and mortality, but its implementation is often poor in daily clinical practice. Barriers to implementation include clinical and organizational factors that might contribute to clinical inertia, i.e. avoidance/delay of recommended treatment initiation/optimization. The spectrum of strategies that might be applied to foster GDMT implementation is wide, and involves the organizational set-up of heart failure care pathways, tailored drug initiation/optimization strategies increasing the chance of successful implementation, digital tools/telehealth interventions, educational activities and strategies targeting patient/physician awareness, and use of quality registries. This scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC provides an overview of the current state of GDMT implementation in HFrEF, clinical and organizational barriers to implementation, and aims at suggesting a comprehensive framework on how to overcome clinical inertia and ultimately improve implementation of GDMT in HFrEF based on up-to-date evidence., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Implantable devices form an integral part of the management of patients with heart failure (HF) and provide adjunctive therapies in addition to cornerstone drug treatment. Although the number of these devices is growing, only few are supported by robust evidence. Current devices aim to improve haemodynamics, improve reverse remodelling, or provide electrical therapy. A number of these devices have guideline recommendations and some have been shown to improve outcomes such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and long-term mechanical support. For others, more evidence is still needed before large-scale implementation can be strongly advised. Of note, devices and drugs can work synergistically in HF as improved disease control with devices can allow for further optimization of drug therapy. Therefore, some devices might already be considered early in the disease trajectory of HF patients, while others might only be reserved for advanced HF. As such, device therapy should be integrated into HF care programmes. Unfortunately, implementation of devices, including those with the greatest evidence, in clinical care pathways is still suboptimal. This clinical consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describes the physiological rationale behind device-provided therapy and also device-guided management, offers an overview of current implantable device options recommended by the guidelines and proposes a new integrated model of device therapy as a part of HF care., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The Program for the Evaluation and Management of Cardiac Events in the Middle East and North Africa (PEACE MENA) is a prospective registry program in Arabian countries that involves in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or acute heart failure (AHF)., Methods: This prospective, multi-center, multi-country study is the first report of the baseline characteristics and outcomes of inpatients with AMI who were enrolled during the first 14-month recruitment phase. We report the clinical characteristics, socioeconomic, educational levels, and management, in-hospital, one month and one-year outcomes., Results: Between April 2019 and June 2020, 1377 patients with AMI were enrolled (79.1% males) from 16 Arabian countries. The mean age (± SD) was 58 ± 12 years. Almost half of the population had a net income < $500/month, and 40% had limited education. Nearly half of the cohort had a history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia; 53% had STEMI, and almost half (49.7%) underwent a primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) (lowest 4.5% and highest 100%). Thrombolytics were used by 36.2%. (Lowest 6.45% and highest (90.9%). No reperfusion occurred in 13.8% of patients (lowest was 0% and highest 72.7%).Primary PCI was performed less frequently in the lower income group vs. high income group (26.3% vs. 54.7%; P<0.001). Recurrent ischemia occurred more frequently in the low-income group (10.9% vs. 7%; P = 0.018). Re-admission occurred in 9% at 1 month and 30% at 1 year, whereas 1-month mortality was 0.7% and 1-year mortality 4.7%., Conclusion: In the MENA region, patients with AMI present at a young age and have a high burden of cardiac risk factors. Most of the patients in the registry have a low income and low educational status. There is heterogeneity among key performance indicators of AMI management among various Arabian countries., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Al Saleh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Cardiomyopathies are a significant contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, mainly due to the development of heart failure and increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Despite improvement in survival with contemporary treatment, SCD remains an important cause of mortality in cardiomyopathies. It occurs at a rate ranging between 0.15% and 0.7% per year (depending on the cardiomyopathy), which significantly surpasses SCD incidence in the age- and sex-matched general population. The risk of SCD is affected by multiple factors including the aetiology, genetic basis, age, sex, physical exertion, the extent of myocardial disease severity, conduction system abnormalities, and electrical instability, as measured by various metrics. Over the past decades, the knowledge on the mechanisms and risk factors for SCD has substantially improved, allowing for a better-informed risk stratification. However, unresolved issues still challenge the guidance of SCD prevention in patients with cardiomyopathies. In this review, we aim to provide an in-depth discussion of the contemporary concepts pertinent to understanding the burden, risk assessment and prevention of SCD in cardiomyopathies (dilated, non-dilated left ventricular, hypertrophic, arrhythmogenic right ventricular, and restrictive). The review first focuses on SCD incidence in cardiomyopathies and then summarizes established and emerging risk factors for life-threatening arrhythmias/SCD. Finally, it discusses validated approaches to the risk assessment and evidence-based measures for SCD prevention in cardiomyopathies, pointing to the gaps in evidence and areas of uncertainties that merit future clarification., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Cardiomyopathies represent significant contributors to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Over the past decades, a progress has occurred in characterization of the genetic background and major pathophysiological mechanisms, which has been incorporated into a more nuanced diagnostic approach and risk stratification. Furthermore, medications targeting core disease processes and/or their downstream adverse effects have been introduced for several cardiomyopathies. Combined with standard care and prevention of sudden cardiac death, these novel and emerging targeted therapies offer a possibility of improving the outcomes in several cardiomyopathies. Therefore, the aim of this document is to summarize practical approaches to the treatment of cardiomyopathies, which includes the evidence-based novel therapeutic concepts and established principles of care, tailored to the individual patient aetiology and clinical presentation of the cardiomyopathy. The scope of the document encompasses contemporary treatment of dilated, hypertrophic, restrictive and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. It was based on an expert consensus reached at the Heart Failure Association online Workshop, held on 18 March 2021., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Although epidemiological data on heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are scarce in the Middle East, North Africa and Turkey (MENAT) region, Lancet Global Burden of Disease estimated the prevalence of HF in the MENAT region in 2019 to be 0.78%, versus 0.71% globally. There is also a high incidence of HFpEF risk factors and co-morbidities in the region, including coronary artery disease, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, anaemia and chronic kidney disease. For instance, 14.5-16.2% of adults in the region reportedly have diabetes, versus 7.0% in Europe. Together with increasing life expectancy, this may contribute towards a higher burden of HFpEF in the region than currently reported. This paper aims to describe the epidemiology and burden of HFpEF in the MENAT region, including unique risk factors and co-morbidities. It highlights challenges with diagnosing HFpEF, such as the prioritization of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the specific profile of HFpEF patients in the region and barriers to effective management associated with the healthcare system. Guidance is given on the diagnosis, prevention and management of HFpEF, including the emerging role of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors. Given the high burden of HFpEF coupled with the fact that its prevalence is likely to be underestimated, healthcare professionals need to be alert to its signs and symptoms and to manage patients accordingly. Historically, HFpEF treatments have focused on managing co-morbidities and symptoms, but new agents are now available with proven effects on outcomes in patients with HFpEF., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Acute heart failure (AHF) represents a broad spectrum of disease states, resulting from the interaction between an acute precipitant and a patient's underlying cardiac substrate and comorbidities. Valvular heart disease (VHD) is frequently associated with AHF. AHF may result from several precipitants that add an acute haemodynamic stress superimposed on a chronic valvular lesion or may occur as a consequence of a new significant valvular lesion. Regardless of the mechanism, clinical presentation may vary from acute decompensated heart failure to cardiogenic shock. Assessing the severity of VHD as well as the correlation between VHD severity and symptoms may be difficult in patients with AHF because of the rapid variation in loading conditions, concomitant destabilization of the associated comorbidities and the presence of combined valvular lesions. Evidence-based interventions targeting VHD in settings of AHF have yet to be identified, as patients with severe VHD are often excluded from randomized trials in AHF, so results from these trials do not generalize to those with VHD. Furthermore, there are not rigorously conducted randomized controlled trials in the setting of VHD and AHF, most of the data coming from observational studies. Thus, distinct to chronic settings, current guidelines are very elusive when patients with severe VHD present with AHF, and a clear-cut strategy could not be yet defined. Given the paucity of evidence in this subset of AHF patients, the aim of this scientific statement is to describe the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and overall treatment approach for patients with VHD who present with AHF., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a non-malignant precursor of multiple myeloma (MM). MGUS has been suggested to be associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases, including AFIB, but it is still unclear whether this association is real. Studies are lacking on the impact of atrial fibrillation on health outcomes in this population. The association of AFIB in this population is lagging and merits further investigation., Methods: The study conducted a retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) for 2018, including adult patients with primary diagnoses of MGUS and AFIB. Patients were divided into two groups based on AFIB presence. Outcomes assessed included complications, length of stay, mortality, hospital charges, and discharge disposition., Results: The study included 9007 patients with MGUS of whom 2404 had AFIB. Patients with both MGUS and AFIB had higher rates of acute kidney injury [AKI] (31.5% vs. 27.5%; p = 0.002) and pericarditis (2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.029). They also had longer hospital stays (5 vs. 4 days; p < 0.001) and higher hospitalization costs ($43,729 vs. $41,169; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The study showed that the prevalence of AFIB in MGUS patients is high. Patients with AFIB had increased rates of complications (AKI and pericarditis) and higher mortality compared to patients without AFIB. Further studies screening for AFIB in this patient population are warranted.