Browsing by Author "Lekakis, John (7006346875)"

Ventricular–arterial coupling (VAC) plays a major role in the physiology of cardiac and aortic mechanics, as well as in the pathophysiology of cardiac disease. VAC assessment possesses independent diagnostic and prognostic value and may be used to refine riskstratification and monitor therapeutic interventions. Traditionally, VAC is assessed by the non-invasive measurement of the ratio of arterial (Ea) to ventricular end-systolic elastance (Ees). With disease progression, both Ea and Ees may become abnormal and the Ea/Ees ratio may approximate its normal values. Therefore, the measurement of each component of this ratio or of novel more sensitive markers of myocardial (e.g. global longitudinal strain) and arterial function (e.g. pulse wave velocity) may better characterize VAC. In valvular heart disease, systemic arterial compliance and valvulo–arterial impedance have an established diagnostic and prognostic value and may monitor the effects of valve replacement on vascular and cardiac function. Treatment guided to improve VAC through improvement of both or each one of its components may delay incidence of heart failure and possibly improve prognosis in heart failure. In this consensus document, we describe the pathophysiology, the methods of assessment as well as the clinical implications of VAC in cardiac diseases and heart failure. Finally, we focus on interventions that may improve VAC and thus modify prognosis. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), either with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is frequent (30–40% of patients) and associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization, all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The most important causes of HF in T2DM are coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension and a direct detrimental effect of T2DM on the myocardium. T2DM is often unrecognized in HF patients, and vice versa, which emphasizes the importance of an active search for both disorders in the clinical practice. There are no specific limitations to HF treatment in T2DM. Subanalyses of trials addressing HF treatment in the general population have shown that all HF therapies are similarly effective regardless of T2DM. Concerning T2DM treatment in HF patients, most guidelines currently recommend metformin as the first-line choice. Sulphonylureas and insulin have been the traditional second- and third-line therapies although their safety in HF is equivocal. Neither glucagon-like preptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, nor dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors reduce the risk for HF hospitalization. Indeed, a DPP4 inhibitor, saxagliptin, has been associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization. Thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are contraindicated in patients with (or at risk of) HF. In recent trials, sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have both shown a significant reduction in HF hospitalization in patients with established CV disease or at risk of CV disease. Several ongoing trials should provide an insight into the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF in the absence of T2DM. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology