Browsing by Author "Anker, Stefan D. (56223993400)"

Aims: To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20–24) versus 17 (14–20) versus 17 (15–20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10–13) versus 8.6 (6.6–11) versus 8.4 (6.9–10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8–3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1–4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5–5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45–51) versus 35 (31–40) versus 42 (39–46); HF hospitalization 29 (27–32) versus 19 (16–22) versus 17 (15–20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6–8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5–12) versus 15 (13–17). Conclusion: In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk. © 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

[No abstract available]

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464-1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711. © 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.

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.

The relationship between exercise capacity, as assessed by peak oxygen consumption, and outcome is well established in heart failure (HF), but the predictive value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been recently questioned, for two main reasons. First, the decisional power of CPET in the selection of heart transplantation candidates has diminished, since newer therapeutic options and the shortage of donor hearts have restricted this curative option to extremely advanced HF patients, frequently not able to perform a symptom-limited CPET. Secondly, the use of CPET has become more complex and sophisticated, with many promising new prognostic indexes proposed each year. Thus, a modern interpretation of CPET calls for selective expertise that is not routinely available in all HF centres. This position paper examines the history of CPET in risk stratification in HF. Throughout five phases of achievements, the journey from a single CPET parameter (i.e. peak oxygen consumption) to a multiparametric approach embracing the full clinical picture in HF-including functional, neurohumoral, and laboratory findings-is illustrated and discussed. An innovative multifactorial model is proposed, with CPET at its core, that helps optimize our understanding and management of HF patients. © 2014 European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: To identify differences in clinical epidemiology, in-hospital management and 1-year outcomes among patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) and enrolled in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term (ESC-HF-LT) Registry, stratified by clinical profile at admission. Methods and results: The ESC-HF-LT Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting hospitalization and 1-year follow-up data from 6629 AHF patients. Among AHF patients enrolled in the registry, 13.2% presented with pulmonary oedema (PO), 2.9% with cardiogenic shock (CS), 61.1% with decompensated heart failure (DHF), 4.8% with hypertensive heart failure (HT-HF), 3.5% with right heart failure (RHF) and 14.4% with AHF and associated acute coronary syndromes (ACS-HF). The 1-year mortality rate was 28.1% in PO, 54.0% in CS, 27.2% in DHF, 12.8% in HT-HF, 34.0% in RHF and 20.6% in ACS-HF patients. When patients were classified by systolic blood pressure (SBP) at initial presentation, 1-year mortality was 34.8% in patients with SBP <85 mmHg, 29.0% in those with SBP 85–110 mmHg, 21.2% in patients with SBP 110–140 mmHg and 17.4% in those with SBP >140 mmHg. These differences tended to diminish in the months post-discharge, and 1-year mortality for the patients who survived at least 6 months post-discharge did not vary significantly by either clinical profile or SBP classification. Conclusion: Rates of adverse outcomes in AHF remain high, and substantial differences have been found when patients were stratified by clinical profile or SBP. However, patients who survived at least 6 months post-discharge represent a more homogeneous group and their 1-year outcome is less influenced by clinical profile or SBP at admission. © 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has published a series of guidelines on heart failure (HF) over the last 25 years, most recently in 2016. Given the amount of new information that has become available since then, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC recognized the need to review and summarise recent developments in a consensus document. Here we report from the HFA workshop that was held in January 2019 in Frankfurt, Germany. This expert consensus report is neither a guideline update nor a position statement, but rather a summary and consensus view in the form of consensus recommendations. The report describes how these guidance statements are supported by evidence, it makes some practical comments, and it highlights new research areas and how progress might change the clinical management of HF. We have avoided re-interpretation of information already considered in the 2016 ESC/HFA guidelines. Specific new recommendations have been made based on the evidence from major trials published since 2016, including sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus, MitraClip for functional mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation ablation in HF, tafamidis in cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis, rivaroxaban in HF, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in non-ischaemic HF, and telemedicine for HF. In addition, new trial evidence from smaller trials and updated meta-analyses have given us the chance to provide refined recommendations in selected other areas. Further, new trial evidence is due in many of these areas and others over the next 2 years, in time for the planned 2021 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

The co-occurrence of cancer and heart failure (HF) represents a significant clinical drawback as each disease interferes with the treatment of the other. In addition to shared risk factors, a growing body of experimental and clinical evidence reveals numerous commonalities in the biology underlying both pathologies. Inflammation emerges as a common hallmark for both diseases as it contributes to the initiation and progression of both HF and cancer. Under stress, malignant and cardiac cells change their metabolic preferences to survive, which makes these metabolic derangements a great basis to develop intersection strategies and therapies to combat both diseases. Furthermore, genetic predisposition and clonal haematopoiesis are common drivers for both conditions and they hold great clinical relevance in the context of personalized medicine. Additionally, altered angiogenesis is a common hallmark for failing hearts and tumours and represents a promising substrate to target in both diseases. Cardiac cells and malignant cells interact with their surrounding environment called stroma. This interaction mediates the progression of the two pathologies and understanding the structure and function of each stromal component may pave the way for innovative therapeutic strategies and improved outcomes in patients. The interdisciplinary collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists is essential to establish unified guidelines. To this aim, pre-clinical models that mimic the human situation, where both pathologies coexist, are needed to understand all the aspects of the bidirectional relationship between cancer and HF. Finally, adequately powered clinical studies, including patients from all ages, and men and women, with proper adjudication of both cancer and cardiovascular endpoints, are essential to accurately study these two pathologies at the same time. © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: Changes in heart failure (HF) patients' body composition may be associated with reduced exercise capacity. The aim of the present study was to determine the overlap in wasting syndromes in HF (cachexia and sarcopenia) and to compare their functional impact. Methods and results: We prospectively enrolled 207 ambulatory male patients with clinically stable chronic HF. All patients underwent a standardized protocol examining functional capacity, body composition, and quality of life (QoL). Cachexia was present in 39 (18.8%) of 207 patients, 14 of whom also fulfilled the characteristics of sarcopenia (sarcopenia + cachexia group, 6.7%), whereas 25 did not (cachectic HF group, 12.1%). Sarcopenia without cachexia was present in 30 patients (sarcopenic HF group, 14.4%). A total of 44 patients (21.3%) presented with sarcopenia; however, 138 patients showed no signs of wasting (no wasting group, 66%). Patients with sarcopenia had lower strength and exercise capacity than both the no wasting and the cachectic HF group. Handgrip strength, quadriceps strength, peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 ), distance in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and QoL results were lowest in the sarcopenia + cachexia group vs. the no wasting group (P < 0.05 for all). Likewise, the sarcopenic HF group showed lower handgrip strength, quadriceps strength, 6MWT, peak VO 2 , and QoL results vs. the no wasting group (P < 0.05 for all). Conclusion: Losing muscle with or without weight loss appears to have a more pronounced role than weight loss alone with regard to functional capacity and QoL among male patients with chronic HF. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01872299. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020.

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

Aims: The objectives of the present study were to describe epidemiology and outcomes in ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to identify predictors for mortality at 1 year in each group. Methods and results: The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting epidemiological information and 1-year follow-up data in 9134 HF patients. Patients were classified according to baseline LVEF into HF with reduced EF [EF <40% (HFrEF)], mid-range EF [EF 40–50% (HFmrEF)] and preserved EF [EF >50% (HFpEF)]. In comparison with HFpEF subjects, patients with HFrEF were younger (64 years vs. 69 years), more commonly male (78% vs. 52%), more likely to have an ischaemic aetiology (49% vs. 24%) and left bundle branch block (24% vs. 9%), but less likely to have hypertension (56% vs. 67%) or atrial fibrillation (18% vs. 32%). The HFmrEF group resembled the HFrEF group in some features, including age, gender and ischaemic aetiology, but had less left ventricular and atrial dilation. Mortality at 1 year differed significantly between HFrEF and HFpEF (8.8% vs. 6.3%); HFmrEF patients experienced intermediate rates (7.6%). Age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV status and chronic kidney disease predicted mortality in all LVEF groups. Low systolic blood pressure and high heart rate were predictors for mortality in HFrEF and HFmrEF. A lower body mass index was independently associated with mortality in HFrEF and HFpEF patients. Atrial fibrillation predicted mortality in HFpEF patients. Conclusions: Heart failure patients stratified according to different categories of LVEF represent diverse phenotypes of demography, clinical presentation, aetiology and outcomes at 1 year. Differences in predictors for mortality might improve risk stratification and management goals. © 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome with extremely high mortality, 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 spectrum of CS presentations resulting from the interaction between an acute cardiac insult and a patient's underlying cardiac and overall medical condition. Phenotyping patients with CS may have clinical impact on management because classification would support initiation of appropriate therapies. CS management should consider appropriate organization of the health care services, and therapies must be given to the appropriately selected patients, in a timely manner, whilst avoiding iatrogenic harm. Although several consensus-driven algorithms have been proposed, CS management remains challenging and substantial investments in research and development have not yielded proof of efficacy and safety for most of the therapies tested, and outcome in this condition remains poor. Future studies should consider the identification of the new pathophysiological targets, and high-quality translational research should facilitate incorporation of more targeted interventions in clinical research protocols, aimed to improve individual patient outcomes. Designing outcome clinical trials in CS remains particularly challenging in this critical and very costly scenario in cardiology, but information from these trials is imperiously needed to better inform the guidelines and clinical practice. The goal of this review is to summarize the current knowledge concerning the definition, epidemiology, underlying causes, pathophysiology and management of CS based on important lessons from clinical trials and registries, with a focus on improving in-hospital management. © 2020 European Society of Cardiology

Aims: The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry (ESC-HF-LT-R) was set up with the aim of describing the clinical epidemiology and the 1-year outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) with the added intention of comparing differences between participating countries. Methods and results: The ESC-HF-LT-R is a prospective, observational registry contributed to by 211 cardiology centres in 21 European and/or Mediterranean countries, all being member countries of the ESC. Between May 2011 and April 2013 it collected data on 12 440 patients, 40.5% of them hospitalized with acute HF (AHF) and 59.5% outpatients with chronic HF (CHF). The all-cause 1-year mortality rate was 23.6% for AHF and 6.4% for CHF. The combined endpoint of mortality or HF hospitalization within 1 year had a rate of 36% for AHF and 14.5% for CHF. All-cause mortality rates in the different regions ranged from 21.6% to 36.5% in patients with AHF, and from 6.9% to 15.6% in those with CHF. These differences in mortality between regions are thought reflect differences in the characteristics and/or management of these patients. Conclusion: The ESC-HF-LT-R shows that 1-year all-cause mortality of patients with AHF is still high while the mortality of CHF is lower. This registry provides the opportunity to evaluate the management and outcomes of patients with HF and identify areas for improvement. © 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2016 European Society of Cardiology

Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinical syndrome with multiple interactions between the failing myocardium and cerebral (dys-)functions. Bi-directional feedback interactions between the heart and the brain are inherent in the pathophysiology of HF: (i) the impaired cardiac function affects cerebral structure and functional capacity, and (ii) neuronal signals impact on the cardiovascular continuum. These interactions contribute to the symptomatic presentation of HF patients and affect many co-morbidities of HF. Moreover, neuro-cardiac feedback signals significantly promote aggravation and further progression of HF and are causal in the poor prognosis of HF. The diversity and complexity of heart and brain interactions make it difficult to develop a comprehensive overview. In this paper a systematic approach is proposed to develop a comprehensive atlas of related conditions, signals and disease mechanisms of the interactions between the heart and the brain in HF. The proposed taxonomy is based on pathophysiological principles. Impaired perfusion of the brain may represent one major category, with acute (cardio-embolic) or chronic (haemodynamic failure) low perfusion being sub-categories with mostly different consequences (i.e. ischaemic stroke or cognitive impairment, respectively). Further categories include impairment of higher cortical function (mood, cognition), of brain stem function (sympathetic over-activation, neuro-cardiac reflexes). Treatment-related interactions could be categorized as medical, interventional and device-related interactions. Also interactions due to specific diseases are categorized. A methodical approach to categorize the interdependency of heart and brain may help to integrate individual research areas into an overall picture. © 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology

Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an invasive procedure, globally most often used for the monitoring of heart transplant (HTx) rejection. In addition, EMB can have an important complementary role to the clinical assessment in establishing the diagnosis of diverse cardiac disorders, including myocarditis, cardiomyopathies, drug-related cardiotoxicity, amyloidosis, other infiltrative and storage disorders, and cardiac tumours. Improvements in EMB equipment and the development of new techniques for the analysis of EMB samples have significantly improved diagnostic precision of EMB. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project between the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus aiming to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on EMB, with a focus on the following main issues: (i) an overview of the practical approach to EMB, (ii) an update on indications for EMB, (iii) a revised plan for HTx rejection surveillance, (iv) the impact of multimodality imaging on EMB, and (v) the current clinical practice in the worldwide use of EMB. © 2021 Elsevier Inc. and Journal of Cardiac Failure. [Published by Elsevier Inc.] All rights reserved.

The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has recently issued a position paper on the role of sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in heart failure (HF). The present document provides an update of the position paper, based of new clinical trial evidence. Accordingly, the following recommendations are given:. • Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin empagliflozin, or ertugliflozin are recommended for the prevention of HF hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease or at high cardiovascular risk. • Dapagliflozin or empagliflozin are recommended to reduce the combined risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death in symptomatic patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction already receiving guideline-directed medical therapy regardless of the presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus. © 2020 European Society of Cardiology

Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an invasive procedure, globally most often used for the monitoring of heart transplant rejection. In addition, EMB can have an important complementary role to the clinical assessment in establishing the diagnosis of diverse cardiac disorders, including myocarditis, cardiomyopathies, drug-related cardiotoxicity, amyloidosis, other infiltrative and storage disorders, and cardiac tumors. Improvements in EMB equipment and the development of new techniques for the analysis of EMB samples has significantly improved the diagnostic precision of EMB. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project between the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus aiming to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on EMB, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) an overview of the practical approach to EMB, (2) an update on indications for EMB, (3) a revised plan for heart transplant rejection surveillance, (4) the impact of multimodality imaging on EMB, and (5) the current clinical practice in the worldwide use of EMB. © 2021

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for heart failure symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of. breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), LV filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF. © 2020 European Society of Cardiology