Browsing by Author "Filippatos, Gerasimos (7003787662)"

[No abstract available]

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.

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

Aims: Classification of acute heart failure (AHF) patients into four clinical profiles defined by evidence of congestion and perfusion is advocated by the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)guidelines. Based on the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry, we compared differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes among congestion/perfusion profiles using this classification. Methods and results: We included 7865 AHF patients classified at admission as: ‘dry-warm’ (9.9%), ‘wet-warm’ (69.9%), ‘wet-cold’ (19.8%) and ‘dry-cold’ (0.4%). These groups differed significantly in terms of baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 2.0% in ‘dry-warm’, 3.8% in ‘wet-warm’, 9.1% in ‘dry-cold’ and 12.1% in ‘wet-cold’ patients. Based on clinical classification at admission, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.78 (1.43–2.21) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 1.33 (1.19–1.48). For profiles resulting from discharge classification, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.46 (1.31–1.63) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 2.20 (1.89–2.56). Among patients discharged alive, 30.9% had residual congestion, and these patients had higher 1-year mortality compared to patients discharged without congestion (28.0 vs. 18.5%). Tricuspid regurgitation, diabetes, anaemia and high New York Heart Association class were independently associated with higher risk of congestion at discharge, while beta-blockers at admission, de novo heart failure, or any cardiovascular procedure during hospitalization were associated with lower risk of residual congestion. Conclusion: Classification based on congestion/perfusion status provides clinically relevant information at hospital admission and discharge. A better understanding of the clinical course of the two entities could play an important role towards the implementation of targeted strategies that may improve outcomes. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 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

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.

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.

Cancer and heart failure (HF) are common medical conditions with a steadily rising prevalence in industrialized countries, particularly in the elderly, and they both potentially carry a poor prognosis. A new diagnosis of malignancy in subjects with pre-existing HF is not infrequent, and challenges HF specialists as well as oncologists with complex questions relating to both HF and cancer management. An increased incidence of cancer in patients with established HF has also been suggested. This review paper summarizes the epidemiology and the prognostic implications of cancer occurrence in HF, the impact of pre-existing HF on cancer treatment decisions and the impact of cancer on HF therapeutic options, while providing some practical suggestions regarding patient care and highlighting gaps in knowledge. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 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 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.

Acute right ventricular (RV) failure is a complex clinical syndrome that results from many causes. Research efforts have disproportionately focused on the failing left ventricle, but recently the need has been recognized to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of RV anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology, and of management approaches. Right ventricular mechanics and function are altered in the setting of either pressure overload or volume overload. Failure may also result from a primary reduction of myocardial contractility owing to ischaemia, cardiomyopathy, or arrhythmia. Dysfunction leads to impaired RV filling and increased right atrial pressures. As dysfunction progresses to overt RV failure, the RV chamber becomes more spherical and tricuspid regurgitation is aggravated, a cascade leading to increasing venous congestion. Ventricular interdependence results in impaired left ventricular filling, a decrease in left ventricular stroke volume, and ultimately low cardiac output and cardiogenic shock. Identification and treatment of the underlying cause of RV failure, such as acute pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute decompensation of chronic pulmonary hypertension, RV infarction, or arrhythmia, is the primary management strategy. Judicious fluid management, use of inotropes and vasopressors, assist devices, and a strategy focusing on RV protection for mechanical ventilation if required all play a role in the clinical care of these patients. Future research should aim to address the remaining areas of uncertainty which result from the complexity of RV haemodynamics and lack of conclusive evidence regarding RV-specific treatment approaches. © 2016 European Society of Cardiology.

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

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

Background To contribute to the protocol development of exercise training in LVAD supported patients by reviewing the exercise programs for those patients in the ESC affiliated countries. Methods A subset of data from 77 (26 countries) LVAD implanting centers that participated in the Extra-HF survey (170 centers) was analyzed. Results Of the 77 LVAD implanting centers, 45 (58%) reported to have a functioning exercise training program (ETP) for LVAD patients. In 21 (47%) of the 45 ETP programs in LVAD implanting centers, patients begin their ETP during their in-hospital post-operative recovery period. Most centers (71%) have an early post-discharge program for their patients, and 24% of the centers offer a long-term maintenance program. The professionals involved in the ETPs are mainly physiotherapists (73%), psychologists, cardiac rehab nurses (22%), or cardiologists specialized in rehabilitation (22%). Not all programs include the treating cardiologist or surgeons. Most of the ETPs (84%) include aerobic endurance training, mostly cycling (73%), or walking (62%) at low intensity intervals. Some programs apply resistance training (47%), respiratory muscle training (55%), or balance training (44%). Reasons for the absence of ETPs are referral of patients to another center (14 centers) and lack of resources (11 centers). Conclusion There is a great variance in ETPs in LVAD implanting centers. Not all the implanting centers have an ETP, and those that do have adopted a local protocol. Clear guidance on ETP supplied by LVAD implanting centers to LVAD supported patients and more evidence for optimal modalities are needed. © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Exercise training (ET) and secondary prevention measures in cardiovascular disease aim to stimulate early physical activity and to facilitate recovery and improve health behaviours. ET has also been proposed for heart failure patients with a ventricular assist device (VAD), to help recovery in the patient's functional capacity. However, the existing evidence in support of ET in these patients remains limited. After a review of current knowledge on the causes of the persistence of limitation in exercise capacity in VAD recipients, and concerning the benefit of ET in VAD patients, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology has developed the present document to provide practical advice on implementing ET. This includes appropriate screening to avoid complications and then starting with early mobilisation, ET prescription is individualised to meet the patient's needs. Finally, gaps in our knowledge are discussed. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology