Search

In the recent years, there has been a burgeoning interest in Takotsubo syndrome (TTS), which is renowned as a specific form of reversible myocardial dysfunction. Despite the extensive literature available on TTS, clinicians still face several practical challenges associated with the diagnosis and management of this phenomenon. This potentially results in the underdiagnosis and improper management of TTS in clinical practice. The present paper, the first part (part-1) of the consensus report, aims to cover diagnostic and therapeutic challenges associated with TTS along with certain recommendations to combat these challenges., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) still remains as an enigmatic phenomenon. In particular, long-term challenges (including clinical recurrence and persistent symptoms) and specific entities in the setting of TTS have been the evolving areas of interest. On the other hand, a significant gap still exists regarding the proper risk-stratification of this phenomenon in the short and long terms. The present paper, the second part (part-2) of the consensus report, aims to discuss less well-known aspects of TTS including specific entities, challenges after recovery and risk-stratification., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Aims: Reverse ventricular remodelling, defined as a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area (LVESVI) or an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms remain unclear., Methods and Results: We evaluated paired core-lab assessed echocardiograms and measurements of 92 biomarkers at baseline and 8 months thereafter in 419 participants with HFrEF. Reverse ventricular remodelling was defined as a >5% LVEF increase or >15% LVESVI relative decrease between baseline and 8 months. We evaluated the association between baseline biomarkers and their changes with reverse ventricular remodelling in the prospectively randomized controlled VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial. Of 419 patients (median age 66 [interquartile range 57-74] years, 27.4% women), 206 (49.2%) had reverse ventricular remodelling (either a 5% LVEF increase or a 15% LVESVI decrease). There were no differences in baseline biomarker concentrations between patients with versus those without reverse ventricular remodelling on follow-up. However, in patients with reverse ventricular remodelling there were significant decreases in biomarkers relating to inflammation and cardiac metabolism; particularly the tumour necrosis factor superfamily member 13B (ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.88), growth differentiation factor-15 (ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.88)., Conclusions: Reverse ventricular remodelling in patients with HFrEF is associated with a decrease of biomarkers related to inflammation and cardiac metabolism., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality when started within 14 days of acute myocardial infarction (AMI)., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the association of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), congestion, or both, with outcomes and the impact of empagliflozin in reducing HF risk post-AMI., Methods: In the EMPACT-MI (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, patients were randomized within 14 days of an AMI complicated by either newly reduced LVEF<45%, congestion, or both, to empagliflozin (10 mg daily) or placebo and were followed up for a median of 17.9 months., Results: Among 6,522 patients, the mean baseline LVEF was 41 ± 9%; 2,648 patients (40.6%) presented with LVEF <45% alone, 1,483 (22.7%) presented with congestion alone, and 2,181 (33.4%) presented with both. Among patients in the placebo arm of the trial, multivariable adjusted risk for each 10-point reduction in LVEF included all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.31-1.69; P < 0.0001), first HF hospitalization (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.37-1.96; P < 0.0001), and total HF hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.51-2.36; P < 0.0001). The presence of congestion was also associated with a significantly higher risk for each of these outcomes (HR: 1.52, 1.94, and RR: 2.03, respectively). Empagliflozin reduced the risk for first (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and total (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.89) HF hospitalizations, irrespective of LVEF or congestion, or both. The safety profile of empagliflozin was consistent across baseline LVEF and irrespective of congestion status., Conclusions: In patients with AMI, the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the presence of congestion was associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced first and total HF hospitalizations across the range of LVEF with and without congestion. (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction [EMPACT-MI]; NCT04509674)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding support was provided by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Udell has served on the advisory boards of Boehringer Ingelheim, Novavax, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly; and has received research funding to his institution from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Dr Petrie has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, SQ Innovations, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Pharmacosmos; and has served as a consultant and on trial committees for Akero, Applied Therapeutics, Amgen, AnaCardio, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, AbbVie, Bayer, Horizon Therapeutics, Takeda, Cardiorentis, Pharmacosmos, Siemens, Eli Lilly, Vifor, New Amsterdam, Moderna, Teikoku, LIB Therapeutics, and 3R Lifesciences. Dr Jones has received research grants from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, PCORI, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr Mattheus is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Seide is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Amir has served as a national principal investigator and as a steering committee member for the study; has participated in paid lectures and advisory board meetings and has clinical trials with Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Bahit has received modest honoraria from MSD, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Anthos Therapeutics. Dr Bauersachs has received honoraria for lectures or consulting from Novartis, Vifor, Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Cardior, CVRx, BMS, Amgen, Corvia, Norgine, Edwards Lifesciences, and Roche, unrelated to this work; and has received research support for the department from Zoll, CVRx, Abiomed, Norgine, and Roche, unrelated to this work. Dr Bayes-Genis has lectured and/or participated in advisory boards for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Vifor. Dr Goodman has received research grant support (steering committee or data and safety monitoring committee) and/or speaker or consulting honoraria (advisory boards) from Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, CYTE Ltd, Daiichi-Sankyo/American Regent, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, JAMP Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk A/C, Pendopharm/Pharmascience, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, and Valeo Pharma; and has received salary support or honoraria from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, Canadian Heart Research Centre, and MD Primer, Canadian VIGOUR Centre, Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Jewish General Hospital, New York University Clinical Coordinating Centre, PERFUSE Research Institute, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre Clinical Trials and Translation Unit, and the TIMI Study Group (Brigham Health). Dr Goto has served on the advisory boards of Antos Therapeutic and Janssen; and has received honoraria from the American Heart Association (Associate Editor); and has served on the grant evaluation committee for the Nakatani Foundation and the Kaketsuken Foundation. Dr Gasior is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Jamal is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Januzzi has served as a trustee of the American College of Cardiology; has served as a board member of Imbria Pharmaceuticals; has served as director at Jana Care; has received research support from Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, HeartFlow, Innolife, Medtronic, and Roche; has received consulting income from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beckman, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Prevencio, Quidel/Ortho, and Roche; and has participated in clinical endpoint committees/data safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Axon, Bayer, CVRx, Medtronic, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Dr Lopes has received research grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi; has received funding for educational activities or lectures from Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Novo Nordisk; and has received funding for consulting or other services from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Martinez-Traba is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Parikh has served as a consultant for Medtronic; and has received institutional research grants from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Parkhomenko has received research grants and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squib/Pfizer, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Schou has received lecture fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr van der Meer has received grant support from the European Research Council (ERC CoG 101045236, DISSECT-HF) and the University Medical Centre Groningen; and Dr van der Meer’s employer, has received consultancy fees and/or grants from Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Vifor Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Pharma Nord, BridgeBio, Novo Nordisk, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Ionis. Dr Vinereanu has received research grants and consultancy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received research grants from Bayer Healthcare, Novartis, and Servier. Dr Zieroth has received research grant support, served on advisory boards for, or participated in speaker engagements with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Salubrisbio, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; has served on a clinical trial committee or as a national lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and has nonindustry relationships with the Canadian Medical and Surgical KT Group, CCS, CHFS, Charite, EOCI, Liv, Medscape, Ology, PACE-CME, Radcliffe, Reach MD, and the Translational Medicine Academy. Dr Brueckmann is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Sumin is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Bhatt has served on the advisory boards of Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Stasys; has served on the Board of Directors of the American Heart Association New York City, Angiowave (with stock options), Bristol Myers Squibb (with stock), DRS.LINQ (with stock options), and High Enroll (with stock); has served as a consultant for Broadview Ventures, GlaxoSmithKline, Hims, SFJ, and Youngene; has served on data monitoring committees for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi-Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical; for ALLAY-HF, funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; and Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (American Heart Association lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee); has served as Deputy Editor for Clinical Cardiology; has been named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which assigned it to Lexicon; neither Dr Bhatt nor Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives any income from this patent); has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); has served as site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; has served as a trustee of the American College of Cardiology; and has conducted unfunded research for FlowCo. Dr Hernandez has served as a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GlaxoSmithKline, Intellia, Intercept, Myokardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Prolaio, and TikkunLev; and has received research funding from American Regent, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Verily. Dr Butler has served as a consultant for Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AskBio, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimension, Cardiocell, Cardior, CSL Bearing, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Daxor, Edwards, Element Science, Faraday, Foundry, G3P, Innolife, Impulse Dynamics, Imbria, Inventiva, Ionis, Lexicon, Eli Lilly, LivaNova, Janssen, Medtronics, Merck, Occlutech, Owkin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Pharmain, Prolaio, Regeneron, Renibus, Roche, Salamandra, Sanofi, SC Pharma, Secretome, Sequana, SQ Innovation, Tenex, Tricog, Ultromics, Vifor, and Zoll. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Right heart failure (RHF) following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a common and potentially serious condition with a wide spectrum of clinical presentations with an unfavourable effect on patient outcomes. Clinical scores that predict the occurrence of right ventricular (RV) failure have included multiple clinical, biochemical, imaging and haemodynamic parameters. However, unless the right ventricle is overtly dysfunctional with end-organ involvement, prediction of RHF post-LVAD implantation is, in most cases, difficult and inaccurate. For these reasons optimization of RV function in every patient is a reasonable practice aiming at preparing the right ventricle for a new and challenging haemodynamic environment after LVAD implantation. To this end, the institution of diuretics, inotropes and even temporary mechanical circulatory support may improve RV function, thereby preparing it for a better adaptation post-LVAD implantation. Furthermore, meticulous management of patients during the perioperative and immediate postoperative period should facilitate identification of RV failure refractory to medication. When RHF occurs late during chronic LVAD support, this is associated with worse long-term outcomes. Careful monitoring of RV function and characterization of the origination deficit should therefore continue throughout the patient's entire follow-up. Despite the useful information provided by the echocardiogram with respect to RV function, right heart catheterization frequently offers additional support for the assessment and optimization of RV function in LVAD-supported patients. In any patient candidate for LVAD therapy, evaluation and treatment of RV function and failure should be assessed in a multidimensional and multidisciplinary manner., (© 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.)

Background: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown., Methods: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes., Results: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P =0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P =0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P <0.05)., Conclusions: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Hernandez has served as a consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Eidos, GlaxoSmithKline, Intellia, Intercept, MyoKardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Prolaio, and TikkunLev; and has received research funding from American Regent, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Verily. Dr Bhatt has served on advisory boards for ANGIOWave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Stasys; on the board of directors for American Heart Association New York City, ANGIOWave (stock options), Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), and High Enroll (stock); has served as a consultant for Broadview Ventures, GlaxoSmithKline, Hims, SFJ, and Youngene; has served on data monitoring committees for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical; for ALLAY-HF, funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); has received honoraria from American College of Cardiology (senior associate editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; chair, ACC accreditation oversight committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (editor-in-chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (editor-in-chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest editor; associate editor), K2P (co-chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (course director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), and Wiley (steering committee); other: Clinical Cardiology (deputy editor); is named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which was assigned to Lexicon (neither Dr Bhatt nor Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives any income from this patent); has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); has served as site coinvestigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; has served as trustee for American College of Cardiology; and performed unfunded research for FlowCo. Dr Butler has served as a consultant to Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AskBio, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimension, Cardiocell, Cardior, CSL Bearing, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Daxor, Edwards, Element Science, Faraday, Foundry, G3P, Innolife, Impulse Dynamics, Imbria, Inventiva, Ionis, Lexicon, Lilly, LivaNova, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Occlutech, Owkin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Pharmain, Prolaio, Regeneron, Renibus, Roche, Salamandra, Sanofi, SC Pharma, Secretome, Sequana, SQ Innovation, Tenex, Tricog, Ultromics, Vifor, and Zoll. Dr Goto reports serving as Associate Editor for Circulation and receipt of a steering committee fee from the Duke Clinical Research Institute for EMPACT-MI. Dr Lopes reports research grants or contracts from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis; funding for educational activities or lectures from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Novo Nordisk; and funding for consulting or other services from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Amir reports serving as National PI-Steering committee member for the study and participated in paid lectures and advisory board meetings and clinical trials in Dr Amir’s department at Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Beyes-Genis has lectured or participated in advisory boards for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor. Dr Bahit reports modest honorarium from MSD, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Anthos Therapeutics. Dr Bauersachs received honoraria for lectures/consulting from Novartis, Vifor, Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Cardior, CVRx, BMS, Amgen, Corvia, Norgine, Edwards, and Roche not related to this article; and research support for Dr Bauersachs’ department from Zoll, CVRx, Abiomed, Norgine, and Roche, not related to this article. Dr Schou reports lecture fees from Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Bohringer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Steg reports research grants from Amarin and Sanofi; clinical trial participation for Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Idorsia, Janssen, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, and Sanofi; consulting or speaking for Amarin, Amgen, and Novo-Nordisk; and serving as senior associate editor at Circulation. Dr Parikh reports serving as a consultant for Medtronic, Inc and receipt of an institutional research grant from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Januzzi reports participation as a trustee of the American College of Cardiology, board member of Imbria Pharmaceuticals, and director at Jana Care; has received research support from Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, BBMS, HeartFlow Inc, Innolife, and Roche Diagnostics, and consulting income from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beckman, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, Prevencio, Quidel/Ortho, Roche Diagnostics, and Vascular Dynamics; and participates in clinical end point committees or data safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Bayer, CVRx, Medtronic, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Takeda. Dr Goodman reports research grant support (eg, steering committee or data and safety monitoring committee) or speaker or consulting honoraria (eg, advisory boards) from Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, CYTE Ltd, Daiichi-Sankyo/American Regent, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, JAMP Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk A/C, Pendopharm/Pharmascience, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, and Valeo Pharma; and salary support or honoraria from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario/University of Toronto (Polo) Chair, Canadian Heart Failure Society, Canadian Heart Research Centre and MD Primer, Canadian VIGOUR Centre, Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Centre for Clinical Research, Duke Clinical Research Institute, New York University Clinical Coordinating Centre, PERFUSE Research Institute, and TIMI Study Group (Brigham Health). Dr van der Meer reports support from the European Research Council (ERC CoG 101045236, DISSECT-HF); the UMCG, which employs Dr van der Meer, received consultancy fees or grants from Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Vifor Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Pharma Nord, BridgeBio, Novo Nordisk, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Ionis. Dr Petrie reports research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, SQ Innovations, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Pharmacosmos; and consultancy or trial committee participation from Akero, Applied Therapeutics, Amgen, AnaCardio, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Novo Nordisk, AbbVie, Bayer, Horizon Therapeutics, Takeda, Cardiorentis, Pharmacosmos, Siemens, Eli Lilly, Vifor, New Amsterdam, Moderna, Teikoku, LIB Therapeutics, and 3R Lifesciences. Dr Parkhomenko reports research grants and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Vinereanu reports research grants and consultancy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Bayer Healthcare, Novartis, and Servier Pharmaceuticals LLC. Dr Zieroth reports research grant support, served on advisory boards for, or had speaker engagements with AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Salubrisbio, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; and serves on a clinical trial committee or as a national lead for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis and Pfizer; nonindustry participation includes Canadian Medical and Surgical KT Group, CCS, CHFS, Charite, EOCI, Liv, Medscape, Ology, PACE-CME, Radcliffe, Reach MD, and Translational Medicine Academy. Dr Jones reports research grants from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, PCORI, and the National Institutes of Health. Drs Seide, Mattheus, Zwiener, Sumin, Gasior, Jamal, and Brueckmann are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim.

Background: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown., Methods: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis., Results: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups., Conclusions: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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.)

Aims: Decongestion strategies for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) characterized by volume overload differ widely. The aim of this independent international academic web-based survey was to capture the therapeutic strategies that physicians use to treat ADHF and to assess differences in therapeutic approaches between cardiologists versus non-cardiologists., Methods and Results: Physicians were invited to complete a web-based questionnaire, capturing anonymized data on physicians' characteristics and treatment preferences based on a hypothetical clinical scenario of a patient hospitalized with ADHF. A total of 641 physicians from 60 countries participated. A wide variation in the management of the patient was observed. There was conservative use of diuretics, i.e. only 7% started intravenous furosemide at a dose ≥2 times the baseline oral dose, and infrequent use of ultrasound in assessing congestion (20.4%). Spot urinary sodium was infrequently or never measured by ≥85% of physicians. A third considered a patient with ongoing oedema as being stabilized. There were significant differences between cardiologists and non-cardiologists in the management of ADHF, the targets for daily body weight loss and urine output, diuretic escalation strategies (66.3% vs. 40.7% would escalate diuresis by adding a thiazide) and assessment of response to treatment (27.0% vs. 52.9% considered patients with minimal congestion as stabilized)., Conclusions: There is substantial variability amongst physicians and between cardiologists and non-cardiologists in the management of patients with ADHF, with regard to clinical parameters used to tailor treatment, treatment goals, diuretic dosing and escalation strategies., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Acute heart failure is a major cause of urgent hospitalizations. These are followed by marked increases in death and rehospitalization rates, which then decline exponentially though they remain higher than in patients without a recent hospitalization. Therefore, optimal management of patients with acute heart failure before discharge and in the early post-discharge phase is critical. First, it may prevent rehospitalizations through the early detection and effective treatment of residual or recurrent congestion, the main manifestation of decompensation. Second, initiation at pre-discharge and titration to target doses in the early post-discharge period, of guideline-directed medical therapy may improve both short- and long-term outcomes. Third, in chronic heart failure, medical treatment is often left unchanged, so the acute heart failure hospitalization presents an opportunity for implementation of therapy. The aim of this scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology is to summarize recent findings that have implications for clinical management both in the pre-discharge and the early post-discharge phase after a hospitalization for acute heart failure., (© 2023 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: Vericiguat significantly reduced the primary composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or cardiovascular death in the VICTORIA trial. It is unknown if these outcome benefits are related to reverse left ventricular (LV) remodelling with vericiguat in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to compare the effects of vericiguat versus placebo on LV structure and function after 8 months of therapy in patients with HFrEF., Methods and Results: Standardized transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed at baseline and after 8 months of therapy in a subset of HFrEF patients in VICTORIA. The co-primary endpoints were changes in LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Quality assurance and central reading were performed by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to treatment assignment. A total of 419 patients (208 vericiguat, 211 placebo) with high-quality paired TTE at baseline and 8 months were included. Baseline clinical characteristics were well balanced between treatment groups and echocardiographic characteristics were representative of patients with HFrEF. LVESVI significantly declined (60.7 ± 26.8 to 56.8 ± 30.4 ml/m 2 ; p < 0.01) and LVEF significantly increased (33.0 ± 9.4% to 36.1 ± 10.2%; p < 0.01) in the vericiguat group, but similarly in the placebo group (absolute changes for vericiguat vs. placebo: LVESVI -3.8 ± 15.4 vs. -7.1 ± 20.5 ml/m 2 ; p = 0.07 and LVEF +3.2 ± 8.0% vs. +2.4 ± 7.6%; p = 0.31). The absolute rate per 100 patient-years of the primary composite endpoint at 8 months tended to be lower in the vericiguat group (19.8) than the placebo group (29.6) (p = 0.07)., Conclusions: In this pre-specified echocardiographic study, significant improvements in LV structure and function occurred over 8 months in both vericiguat and placebo in a high-risk HFrEF population with recent worsening HF. Further studies are warranted to define the mechanisms of vericiguat's benefit in HFrEF., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection pandemic has affected the care of patients with heart failure (HF). Several consensus documents describe the appropriate diagnostic algorithm and treatment approach for patients with HF and associated COVID-19 infection. However, few questions about the mechanisms by which COVID can exacerbate HF in patients with high-risk (Stage B) or symptomatic HF (Stage C) remain unanswered. Therefore, the type of HF occurring during infection is poorly investigated. The diagnostic differentiation and management should be focused on the identification of the HF phenotype, underlying causes, and subsequent tailored therapy. In this framework, the relationship existing between COVID and onset of acute decompensated HF, isolated right HF, and cardiogenic shock is questioned, and the specific management is mainly based on local hospital organization rather than a standardized model. Similarly, some specific populations such as advanced HF, heart transplant, patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or valve disease remain under investigated. In this systematic review, we examine recent advances regarding the relationships between HF and COVID-19 pandemic with respect to epidemiology, pathogenetic mechanisms, and differential diagnosis. Also, according to the recent HF guidelines definition, we highlight different clinical profile identification, pointing out the main concerns in understudied HF populations., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Congestion is a cardinal sign of heart failure (HF). In the past, it was seen as a homogeneous epiphenomenon that identified patients with advanced HF. However, current evidence shows that congestion in HF varies in quantity and distribution. This updated view advocates for a congestive-driven classification of HF according to onset (acute vs. chronic), regional distribution (systemic vs. pulmonary), compartment of distribution (intravascular vs. extravascular), and clinical vs. subclinical. Thus, this review will focus on the utility of circulating biomarkers for assessing and managing the different fluid overload phenotypes. This discussion focused on the clinical utility of the natriuretic peptides, carbohydrate antigen 125 (also called mucin 16), bio-adrenomedullin and mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin, ST2 (also known as interleukin-1 receptor-like 1), cluster of differentiation 146, troponin, C-terminal pro-endothelin-1, and parameters of haemoconcentration. The utility of circulation biomarkers on top of clinical evaluation, haemodynamics, and imaging needs to be better determined by dedicated studies. Some multiparametric frameworks in which these tools contribute to management are proposed., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Heart failure (HF) is a long-term clinical syndrome, with increasing prevalence and considerable healthcare costs that are further expected to increase dramatically. Despite significant advances in therapy and prevention, mortality and morbidity remain high and quality of life poor. Epidemiological data, that is, prevalence, incidence, mortality, and morbidity, show geographical variations across the European countries, depending on differences in aetiology, clinical characteristics, and treatment. However, data on the prevalence of the disease are scarce, as are those on quality of life. For these reasons, the ESC-HFA has developed a position paper to comprehensively assess our understanding of the burden of HF in Europe, in order to guide future policies for this syndrome. This manuscript will discuss the available epidemiological data on HF prevalence, outcomes, and human costs-in terms of quality of life-in European countries., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, reductions in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations have been widely reported, and there is an urgent need to understand how HF care has been reorganized in countries with different infection levels, vaccination rates and healthcare services. The OPTIMIZE Heart Failure Care program has a global network of investigators in 42 countries, with first-hand experience of the impact of the pandemic on HF management in different care settings. The national coordinators were surveyed to assess: 1) the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for continuity of HF care, from both a hospital and patient perspective; 2) the organizational changes enacted to ensure continued HF care; and 3) lessons learned for the future of HF care. Contributions were obtained from 37 national coordinators in 29 countries. We summarize their input, highlighting the issues raised and using the example of three very different settings (Italy, Brazil, and Taiwan) to illustrate the similarities and differences across the OPTIMIZE program., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Sudden death is a devastating complication of heart failure (HF). Current guidelines recommend an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for prevention of sudden death in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) specifically those with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% after at least 3 months of optimized HF treatment. The benefit of ICD in patients with symptomatic HFrEF caused by coronary artery disease has been well documented; however, the evidence for a benefit of prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with HFrEF of non-ischaemic aetiology is less strong. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) block the deleterious actions of angiotensin II, norepinephrine, and aldosterone, respectively. Neprilysin inhibition potentiates the actions of endogenous natriuretic peptides that mitigate adverse ventricular remodelling. BB, MRA, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) have a favourable effect on reduction of sudden cardiac death in HFrEF. Recent data suggest a beneficial effect of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in reducing serious ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in patients with HFrEF. So, in the current era of new drugs for HFrEF and with the optimal use of disease-modifying therapies (BB, MRA, ARNI and SGLT2i), we might need to reconsider the need and timing for use of ICD as primary prevention of sudden death, especially in HF of non-ischaemic aetiology., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Knowledge on risk predictors of incident heart failure (HF) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is crucial given the frequent coexistence of the two conditions and the fact that T2D doubles the risk of incident HF. In addition, HF is increasingly being recognized as an important endpoint in trials in T2D. On the other hand, the diagnostic and prognostic performance of established cardiovascular biomarkers may be modified by the presence of T2D. The present position paper, derived by an expert panel workshop organized by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, summarizes the current knowledge and gaps in evidence regarding the use of a series of different biomarkers, reflecting various pathogenic pathways, for the prediction of incident HF and cardiovascular events in patients with T2D and in those with established HF and T2D., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Cardiac remodelling refers to changes in left ventricular structure and function over time, with a progressive deterioration that may lead to heart failure (HF) development (adverse remodelling) or vice versa a recovery (reverse remodelling) in response to HF treatment. Adverse remodelling predicts a worse outcome, whilst reverse remodelling predicts a better prognosis. The geometry, systolic and diastolic function and electric activity of the left ventricle are affected, as well as the left atrium and on the long term even right heart chambers. At a cellular and molecular level, remodelling involves all components of cardiac tissue: cardiomyocytes, fibroblasts, endothelial cells and leucocytes. The molecular, cellular and histological signatures of remodelling may differ according to the cause and severity of cardiac damage, and clearly to the global trend toward worsening or recovery. These processes cannot be routinely evaluated through endomyocardial biopsies, but may be reflected by circulating levels of several biomarkers. Different classes of biomarkers (e.g. proteins, non-coding RNAs, metabolites and/or epigenetic modifications) and several biomarkers of each class might inform on some aspects on HF development, progression and long-term outcomes, but most have failed to enter clinical practice. This may be due to the biological complexity of remodelling, so that no single biomarker could provide great insight on remodelling when assessed alone. Another possible reason is a still incomplete understanding of the role of biomarkers in the pathophysiology of cardiac remodelling. Such role will be investigated in the first part of this review paper on biomarkers of cardiac remodelling., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

In patients with heart failure, the beneficial effects of drug and device therapies counteract to some extent ongoing cardiac damage. According to the net balance between these two factors, cardiac geometry and function may improve (reverse remodelling, RR) and even completely normalize (remission), or vice versa progressively deteriorate (adverse remodelling, AR). RR or remission predict a better prognosis, while AR has been associated with worsening clinical status and outcomes. The remodelling process ultimately involves all cardiac chambers, but has been traditionally evaluated in terms of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. This is the second part of a review paper by the Study Group on Biomarkers of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology dedicated to ventricular remodelling. This document examines the proposed criteria to diagnose RR and AR, their prevalence and prognostic value, and the variables predicting remodelling in patients managed according to current guidelines. Much attention will be devoted to RR in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction because most studies on cardiac remodelling focused on this setting., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

In advanced heart failure (AHF) clinical evaluation fails to detect subclinical HF deterioration in outpatient settings. The aim of the study was to determine whether the strategy of intensive outpatient echocardiographic monitoring, followed by treatment modification, reduces mortality and re-hospitalizations at 12 months. Methods: 214 patients with ejection fraction < 30% and >1 hospitalization during the last year underwent clinical evaluation and echocardiography at discharge and were divided into intensive (IMG; N = 143) or standard monitoring group (SMG; N = 71). In IMG, volemic status and left ventricular filling pressure were assessed 14, 30, 90, 180 and 365 days after discharge. HF treatment, particularly diuretic therapy, was temporarily intensified when HF deterioration signs and E/e’ > 15 were detected. In SMG, standard outpatient monitoring without obligatory echocardiography at outpatient visits was performed. Results: We observed lower hospitalization (absolute risk reduction [ARR]-0.343, CI-95%: 0.287−0.434, p < 0.05; number needed to treat [NNT]-2.91) and mortality (ARR-0.159, CI 95%: 0.127−0.224, p < 0.05; NNT-6.29) in IMG at 12 months. One-year survival was 88.8% in IMG and 71.8% in SMG (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In AHF, outpatient monitoring of volemic status and intracardiac filling pressures to individualize treatment may potentially reduce hospitalizations and mortality at 12 months follow-up. Echocardiography-guided outpatient therapy is feasible and clinically beneficial, providing evidence for the larger application of this approach.

Introduction: Modus Vivendi was conducted in routine clinical practice to evaluate the effect of adding trimetazidine 80 mg once daily (TMZ 80 OD) to treat patients with persistent symptoms despite treatment with background antianginal therapies including maximally tolerated bisoprolol., Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational, open-label, uncontrolled study recruited adult outpatients with a confirmed diagnosis of stable angina to whom physicians had decided to prescribe TMZ 80 OD. All patients were symptomatic despite treatment, including maximally tolerated doses of bisoprolol. Data on number of angina attacks, use of short-acting nitrates, and quality of life (QoL) were collected at baseline (V1) and at 1-month (V2) and 3-month (V2) follow-up visits. Two sub-analyses assessed efficacy in patients who remained on a stable bisoprolol dose throughout the study, and in patients in whom background antianginal therapy was known., Results: A total of 1939 patients were recruited (57.2% women). The mean age was 65.6 ± 8.8 years; 73.8% had class II and 26.2% class III angina. At V1, the mean number of angina attacks per week was 6.2 ± 6.5 despite antianginal therapy including maximally tolerated bisoprolol dosage. Following the addition of TMZ 80 OD, this decreased to 3.4 ± 4.2 attacks per week at V2, and 1.6 ± 2.6 at V3 (P < 0.05 at V2 and V3), with concomitant reductions in short-acting nitrate use (P < 0.05). Significant improvements in QoL were observed throughout the study. Subgroup analyses showed that the addition of TMZ 80 OD to guideline-recommended antianginal therapy was associated with significant reductions in the mean number of weekly angina attacks and consumption of short-acting nitrates and improvements in QoL whether patients were treated with maximally tolerated bisoprolol and TMZ 80 OD alone, or maximally tolerated bisoprolol and TMZ 80 OD on top of other antianginal therapies. Treatment was well tolerated., Conclusion: The study findings support the addition of TMZ 80 OD to bisoprolol with or without other antianginal therapies for patients with persistent angina., Trial Registration: This study was retrospectively registered under the number ISRCTN29992579., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The heart failure epidemic is growing and its prevention, in order to reduce associated hospital readmission rates and its clinical and economic burden, is a key issue in modern cardiovascular medicine. The present consensus document aims to provide practical evidence-based information to support the implementation of effective preventive measures. After reviewing the most common risk factors, an overview of the population attributable risks in different continents is presented, to identify potentially effective opportunities for prevention and to inform preventive strategies. Finally, potential interventions that have been proposed and have been shown to be effective in preventing HF are listed., (The article has been co-published with permission in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and European Journal of Heart Failure. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2022. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal’s style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.)

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large phenotypic variability in CS, as a result of the diverse aetiologies, pathogenetic mechanisms, haemodynamics, and stages of severity. Although early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of acute myocardial infarction, the administration of timely and effective antithrombotic therapy is critical to improving outcomes in these patients. In addition, other clinical settings or non-acute myocardial infarction aetiologies, associated with high thrombotic risk, may require specific regimens of short-term or long-term antithrombotic therapy. In CS, altered tissue perfusion, inflammation, and multi-organ dysfunction induce unpredictable alterations to antithrombotic drugs' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Other interventions used in the management of CS, such as mechanical circulatory support, renal replacement therapies, or targeted temperature management, influence both thrombotic and bleeding risks and may require specific antithrombotic strategies. In order to optimize safety and efficacy of these therapies in CS, antithrombotic management should be more adapted to CS clinical scenario or specific device, with individualized antithrombotic regimens in terms of type of treatment, dose, and duration. In addition, patients with CS require a close and appropriate monitoring of antithrombotic therapies to safely balance the increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has the potential to reduce the risks of mortality and hospitalisation in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, real-world data indicate that many patients with HFrEF do not receive optimised GDMT, which involves several different medications, many of which require up-titration to target doses. There are many challenges to implementing GDMT, the most important being patient-related factors (comorbidities, advanced age, frailty, cognitive impairment, poor adherence, low socioeconomic status), treatment-related factors (intolerance, side-effects) and healthcare-related factors that influence availability and accessibility of HF care. Accordingly, international disparities in resources for HF management and limited public reimbursement of GDMT, coupled with clinical inertia for treatment intensification combine to hinder efforts to provide GDMT. In this review paper, authors aim to provide solutions based on available evidence, practical experience, and expert consensus on how to utilise evolving strategies, novel medications, and patient profiling to allow the more comprehensive uptake of GDMT. Authors discuss professional education, motivation, and training, as well as patient empowerment for self-care as important tools to overcome clinical inertia and boost GDMT implementation. We provide evidence on how multidisciplinary care and institutional accreditation can be successfully used to increase prescription rates and adherence to GDMT. We consider the role of modern technologies in advancing professional and patient education and facilitating patient-provider communication. Finally, authors emphasise the role of novel drugs (especially sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors), and a tailored approach to drug management as evolving strategies for the more successful implementation of GDMT., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background Although safety and tolerability of vericiguat were established in the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, some subgroups may be more susceptible to symptomatic hypotension, such as older patients, those with lower baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP), or those concurrently taking angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors. We described the SBP trajectories over time and compared the occurrence of symptomatic hypotension or syncope by treatment arm in potentially vulnerable subgroups in VICTORIA. We also evaluated the relation between the efficacy of vericiguat and baseline SBP. Methods and Results Among patients receiving at least 1 dose of the study drug (n=5034), potentially vulnerable subgroups were those >75 years old (n=1395), those with baseline SBP 100-110 mm Hg (n=1344), and those taking angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (n=730). SBP trajectory was plotted as mean change from baseline over time. The treatment effect on time to symptomatic hypotension or syncope was evaluated overall and by subgroup, and the primary efficacy composite outcome (heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death) across baseline SBP was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. SBP trajectories showed a small initial decline in SBP with vericiguat in those >75 years old (versus younger patients), as well as those receiving angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (versus none), with SBP returning to baseline thereafter. Patients with SBP <110 mm Hg at baseline showed a trend to increasing SBP over time, which was similar in both treatment arms. Safety event rates were generally low and similar between treatment arms within each subgroup. In Cox proportional hazards analysis, there were similar numbers of safety events with vericiguat versus placebo (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.99-1.39; P =0.059). No difference existed between treatment arms in landmark analysis beginning after the titration phase (ie, post 4 weeks) (adjusted HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.93-1.38; P =0.20). The benefit of vericiguat compared with placebo on the primary composite efficacy outcome was similar across the spectrum of baseline SBP ( P for interaction=0.32). Conclusions These data demonstrate the safety of vericiguat in a broad population of patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, even among those predisposed to hypotension. Vericiguat's efficacy persisted regardless of baseline SBP. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02861534.

Patients with heart failure (HF) who contract SARS-CoV-2 infection are at a higher risk of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Regardless of therapeutic attempts in COVID-19, vaccination remains the most promising global approach at present for controlling this disease. There are several concerns and misconceptions regarding the clinical indications, optimal mode of delivery, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with HF. This document provides guidance to all healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination scheme in patients with HF. COVID-19 vaccination is indicated in all patients with HF, including those who are immunocompromised (e.g. after heart transplantation receiving immunosuppressive therapy) and with frailty syndrome. It is preferable to vaccinate against COVID-19 patients with HF in an optimal clinical state, which would include clinical stability, adequate hydration and nutrition, optimized treatment of HF and other comorbidities (including iron deficiency), but corrective measures should not be allowed to delay vaccination. Patients with HF who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 need to continue precautionary measures, including the use of facemasks, hand hygiene and social distancing. Knowledge on strategies preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (including the COVID-19 vaccination) should be included in the comprehensive educational programmes delivered to patients with HF., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Despite guideline recommendations and available evidence, implementation of treatment in heart failure (HF) is poor. The majority of patients are not prescribed drugs at target doses that have been proven to positively impact morbidity and mortality. Among others, tolerability issues related to low blood pressure, heart rate, impaired renal function or hyperkalaemia are responsible. Chronic kidney disease plays an important role as it affects up to 50% of patients with HF. Also, dynamic changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate may occur during the course of HF, resulting in inappropriate dose reduction or even discontinuation of decongestive or neurohormonal modulating therapy in clinical practice. As patients with HF are rarely naïve to pharmacologic therapies, the challenge is to adequately prioritize or select the most appropriate up-titration schedule according to patient profile. In this consensus document, we identified nine patient profiles that may be relevant for treatment implementation in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction. These profiles take into account heart rate (<60 bpm or >70 bpm), the presence of atrial fibrillation, symptomatic low blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (<30 or >30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) or hyperkalaemia. The pre-discharge patient, frequently still congestive, is also addressed. A personalized approach, adjusting guideline-directed medical therapy to patient profile, may allow to achieve a better and more comprehensive therapy for each individual patient than the more traditional, forced titration of each drug class before initiating treatment with the next., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed the HFA Atlas to provide a contemporary description of heart failure (HF) epidemiology, resources, reimbursement of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and activities of the National Heart Failure Societies (NHFS) in ESC member countries., Methods and Results: The HFA Atlas survey was conducted in 2018-2019 in 42 ESC countries. The quality and completeness of source data varied across countries. The median incidence of HF was 3.20 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.66-4.17] cases per 1000 person-years, ranging from ≤2 in Italy and Denmark to >6 in Germany. The median HF prevalence was 17.20 (IQR 14.30-21) cases per 1000 people, ranging from ≤12 in Greece and Spain to >30 in Lithuania and Germany. The median number of HF hospitalizations was 2671 (IQR 1771-4317) per million people annually, ranging from <1000 in Latvia and North Macedonia to >6000 in Romania, Germany and Norway. The median length of hospital stay for an admission with HF was 8.50 (IQR 7.38-10) days. Diagnostic and management resources for HF varied, with high-income ESC member countries having substantially more resources compared with middle-income countries. The median number of hospitals with dedicated HF centres was 1.16 (IQR 0.51-2.97) per million people, ranging from <0.10 in Russian Federation and Ukraine to >7 in Norway and Italy. Nearly all countries reported full or partial reimbursement of standard GDMT, except ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan. Almost all countries reported having NHFS or working groups and nearly half had HF patient organizations., Conclusions: The first report from the HFA Atlas has shown considerable heterogeneity in HF disease burden, the resources available for its management and data quality across ESC member countries. The findings emphasize the need for a systematic approach to the capture of HF statistics so that inequalities and improvements in care may be quantified and addressed., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

Self-care is essential in the long-term management of chronic heart failure. Heart failure guidelines stress the importance of patient education on treatment adherence, lifestyle changes, symptom monitoring and adequate response to possible deterioration. Self-care is related to medical and person-centred outcomes in patients with heart failure such as better quality of life as well as lower mortality and readmission rates. Although guidelines give general direction for self-care advice, health care professionals working with patients with heart failure need more specific recommendations. The aim of the management recommendations in this paper is to provide practical advice for health professionals delivering care to patients with heart failure. Recommendations for nutrition, physical activity, medication adherence, psychological status, sleep, leisure and travel, smoking, immunization and preventing infections, symptom monitoring, and symptom management are consistent with information from guidelines, expert consensus documents, recent evidence and expert opinion., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)