Browsing by Author "Bauersachs, Johann (7004626054)"

[No abstract available]

Acute coronary syndrome is a precipitant of acute heart failure in a substantial proportion of cases, and the presence of both conditions is associated with a higher risk of short-term mortality compared to acute coronary syndrome alone. The diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome in the setting of acute heart failure can be challenging. Patients may present with atypical or absent chest pain, electrocardiograms can be confounded by pre-existing abnormalities, and cardiac biomarkers are frequently elevated in patients with chronic or acute heart failure, independently of acute coronary syndrome. It is important to distinguish transient or limited myocardial injury from primary myocardial infarction due to vascular events in patients presenting with acute heart failure. This paper outlines various clinical scenarios to help differentiate between these conditions and aims to provide clinicians with tools to aid in the recognition of acute coronary syndrome as a cause of acute heart failure. Interpretation of electrocardiogram and biomarker findings, and imaging techniques that may be helpful in the diagnostic work-up are described. Guidelines recommend an immediate invasive strategy for patients with acute heart failure and acute coronary syndrome, regardless of electrocardiographic or biomarker findings. Pharmacological management of patients with acute coronary syndrome and acute heart failure should follow guidelines for each of these syndromes, with priority given to time-sensitive therapies for both. Studies conducted specifically in patients with the combination of acute coronary syndrome and acute heart failure are needed to better define the management of these patients. © 2020 European Society of Cardiology

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

This article updates the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2007 classification of advanced heart failure and describes new diagnostic and treatment options for these patients. Recognizing the patient with advanced heart failure is critical to facilitate timely referral to advanced heart failure centres. Unplanned visits for heart failure decompensation, malignant arrhythmias, co-morbidities, and the 2016 ESC guidelines criteria for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are included in this updated definition. Standard treatment is, by definition, insufficient in these patients. Inotropic therapy may be used as a bridge strategy, but it is only a palliative measure when used on its own, because of the lack of outcomes data. Major progress has occurred with short-term mechanical circulatory support devices for immediate management of cardiogenic shock and long-term mechanical circulatory support for either a bridge to transplantation or as destination therapy. Heart transplantation remains the treatment of choice for patients without contraindications. Some patients will not be candidates for advanced heart failure therapies. For these patients, who are often elderly with multiple co-morbidities, management of advanced heart failure to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life should be emphasized. Robust evidence from prospective studies is lacking for most therapies for advanced heart failure. There is an urgent need to develop evidence-based treatment algorithms to prolong life when possible and in accordance with patient preferences, increase life quality, and reduce the burden of hospitalization in this vulnerable patient population. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology

[No abstract available]

This position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Cardio-Oncology Study Group in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society presents practical, easy-to-use and evidence-based risk stratification tools for oncologists, haemato-oncologists and cardiologists to use in their clinical practice to risk stratify oncology patients prior to receiving cancer therapies known to cause heart failure or other serious cardiovascular toxicities. Baseline risk stratification proformas are presented for oncology patients prior to receiving the following cancer therapies: anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, second and third generation multi-targeted kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia targeting BCR-ABL, multiple myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), RAF and MEK inhibitors or androgen deprivation therapies. Applying these risk stratification proformas will allow clinicians to stratify cancer patients into low, medium, high and very high risk of cardiovascular complications prior to starting treatment, with the aim of improving personalised approaches to minimise the risk of cardiovascular toxicity from cancer therapies. © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Background and Aims Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) remains a serious threat to maternal health around the world. While bromocriptine, in addition to standard treatment for heart failure, presents a promising pathophysiology-based disease-specific treatment option in PPCM, the evidence regarding its efficacy remains limited. This study aimed to determine whether bromocriptine treatment is associated with improved maternal outcomes in PPCM. Methods Peripartum cardiomyopathy patients from the EORP PPCM registry with available follow-up were included. The main exposure of this exploratory non-randomized analysis was bromocriptine treatment, and the main outcome was a composite endpoint of maternal outcome [death or hospital readmission within the first 6 months after diagnosis, or persistent severe left ventricular dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%) at 6-month follow-up]. Inverse probability weighting was used to minimize the effects of confounding by indication. Multiple imputation was used to account for the missing data. Results Among the 552 patients with PPCM, 85 were treated with bromocriptine (15%). The primary endpoint was available in 491 patients (89%) and occurred in 18 out of 82 patients treated with bromocriptine in addition to standard of care (22%) and in 136 out of 409 patients treated with standard of care (33%) (P = .044). In complete case analysis, bromocriptine treatment was associated with reduced adverse maternal outcome [odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.83, P = .021]. This association remained after applying multiple imputation and methods to correct for confounding by indication (inverse probability weighted model on imputed data: OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.70, P < 0.001). Thromboembolic events were observed in 6.0% of the patients in the bromocriptine group vs. 5.6% in the standard of care group (P = .900). Conclusions Among women with PPCM, bromocriptine treatment in addition to standard of care was associated with better maternal outcomes after 6 months. © The European Society of Cardiology 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

New biomarkers are being evaluated for their ability to advance the management of patients with heart failure. Despite a large pool of interesting candidate biomarkers, besides natriuretic peptides virtually none have succeeded in being applied into the clinical setting. In this review, we examine the most promising emerging candidates for clinical assessment and management of patients with heart failure. We discuss high-sensitivity cardiac troponins (Tn), procalcitonin, novel kidney markers, soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2), galectin-3, growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), cluster of differentiation 146 (CD146), neprilysin, adrenomedullin (ADM), and also discuss proteomics and genetic-based risk scores. We focused on guidance and assistance with daily clinical care decision-making. For each biomarker, analytical considerations are discussed, as well as performance regarding diagnosis and prognosis. Furthermore, we discuss potential implementation in clinical algorithms and in ongoing clinical trials. © 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of 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

We sought to describe the clinical presentation, management, and 6-month outcomes in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) globally. Methods and results: In 2011, >100 national and affiliated member cardiac societies of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) were contacted to contribute to a global registry on PPCM, under the auspices of the ESC EURObservational Research Programme. These societies were tasked with identifying centres who could participate in this registry. In low-income countries, e.g. Mozambique or Burkina Faso, where there are no national societies due to a shortage of cardiologists, we identified potential participants through abstracts and publications and encouraged participation into the study. Seven hundred and thirty-nine women were enrolled in 49 countries in Europe (33%), Africa (29%), Asia-Pacific (15%), and the Middle East (22%). Mean age was 31 ± 6 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 31 ± 10%, and 10% had a previous pregnancy complicated by PPCM. Symptom-onset occurred most often within 1 month of delivery (44%). At diagnosis, 67% of patients had severe (NYHA III/IV) symptoms and 67% had a LVEF ≤35%. Fifteen percent received bromocriptine with significant regional variation (Europe 15%, Africa 26%, Asia-Pacific 8%, the Middle East 4%, P < 0.001). Follow-up was available for 598 (81%) women. Six-month mortality was 6% overall, lowest in Europe (4%), and highest in the Middle East (10%). Most deaths were due to heart failure (42%) or sudden (30%). Re-admission for any reason occurred in 10% (with just over half of these for heart failure) and thromboembolic events in 7%. Myocardial recovery (LVEF > 50%) occurred only in 46%, most commonly in Asia-Pacific (62%), and least commonly in the Middle East (25%). Neonatal death occurred in 5% with marked regional variation (Europe 2%, the Middle East 9%). Conclusion: Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a global disease, but clinical presentation and outcomes vary by region. Just under half of women experience myocardial recovery. Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a disease with substantial maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

Aims: This report presents the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the DIGIT-HF trial and compares them with participants from recent trials with improved outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: DIGIT-HF, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial enrolling patients with symptomatic HFrEF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class II and left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤30%, or NYHA class III–IV and LVEF ≤40%), compares the efficacy and safety of digitoxin versus placebo in addition to standard treatment. Most baseline characteristics of the intention-to-treat population (1212 patients, mean age 66 ± 11 years, 20% women, mean LVEF 29 ± 7%) were similar to those in recent HFrEF trials. The distribution of NYHA class II, III, and IV was 30%, 66% and 4%, respectively, and indicates that the patients were sicker than in comparator HFrEF trials. Less patients had atrial fibrillation (27%) than those in recent HFrEF trials, but prescription rates of background therapy with beta-blockers (96%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (95%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (76%), and diuretics (87%) were high and similar. Overall, 40% of patients were on angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors, 19% on sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and 9% on ivabradine. Rates of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD, 64%) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT, 25%) devices were much higher than in recent HFrEF trials. Conclusions: Patients included in DIGIT-HF display a more severe HF symptom burden and higher rates of ICD/CRT implants compared to participants in recent HFrEF trials, while pharmacotherapy was largely similar. Clinical Trial Registration: EudraCT (2013–005326-38). © 2025 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of 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

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Significant advances have recently occurred in the treatment of T2DM, with evidence of several new glucose-lowering medications showing either neutral or beneficial cardiovascular effects. However, some of these agents have safety characteristics with strong practical implications in HF [i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and sodium–glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors]. Regarding safety of DPP-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin is not recommended in HF because of a greater risk of HF hospitalisation. There is no compelling evidence of excess HF risk with the other DPP-4 inhibitors. GLP-1 RAs have an overall neutral effect on HF outcomes. However, a signal of harm suggested in two small trials of liraglutide in patients with reduced ejection fraction indicates that their role remains to be defined in established HF. SGLT-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) have shown a consistent reduction in the risk of HF hospitalisation regardless of baseline cardiovascular risk or history of HF. Accordingly, SGLT-2 inhibitors could be recommended to prevent HF hospitalisation in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or with multiple risk factors. The recently completed trial with dapagliflozin has shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with or without T2DM. Several ongoing trials will assess whether the results observed with dapagliflozin could be extended to other SGLT-2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence of T2DM. This position paper aims to summarise relevant clinical trial evidence concerning the role and safety of new glucose-lowering therapies in patients with HF. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

[No abstract available]

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

Cardiomyopathies are a heterogeneous group of heart muscle diseases and an important cause of heart failure (HF). Current knowledge on incidence, pathophysiology and natural history of HF in cardiomyopathies is limited, and distinct features of their therapeutic responses have not been systematically addressed. Therefore, this position paper focuses on epidemiology, pathophysiology, natural history and latest developments in treatment of HF in patients with dilated (DCM), hypertrophic (HCM) and restrictive (RCM) cardiomyopathies. In DCM, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has high incidence and prevalence and represents the most frequent cause of death, despite improvements in treatment. In addition, advanced HF in DCM is one of the leading indications for heart transplantation. In HCM, HF with preserved ejection (HFpEF) affects most patients with obstructive, and ∼10% of patients with non-obstructive HCM. A timely treatment is important, since development of advanced HF, although rare in HCM, portends a poor prognosis. In RCM, HFpEF is common, while HFrEF occurs later and more frequently in amyloidosis or iron overload/haemochromatosis. Irrespective of RCM aetiology, HF is a harbinger of a poor outcome. Recent advances in our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the development of HF in cardiomyopathies have significant implications for therapeutic decision-making. In addition, new aetiology-specific treatment options (e.g. enzyme replacement therapy, transthyretin stabilizers, immunoadsorption, immunotherapy, etc.) have shown a potential to improve outcomes. Still, causative therapies of many cardiomyopathies are lacking, highlighting the need for the development of effective strategies to prevent and treat HF in cardiomyopathies. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

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.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heart failure hospitalization rates and all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two-thirds of eligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post-implantation follow-up is often fragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This joint position statement from three European Society of Cardiology Associations, Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), focuses on optimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achieve more comprehensive CRT referral and post-procedural care by focusing on four actionable domains: (i) overcoming CRT under-utilization, (ii) better understanding of pre-implant characteristics, (iii) abandoning the term 'non-response' and replacing this by the concept of disease modification, and (iv) implementing a dedicated post-implant CRT care pathway. © 2021 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.