Browsing by Author "Mullens, Wilfried (55916359500)"

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.

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 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

This paper provides a practical clinical application of guideline recommendations relating to the inpatient monitoring of patients with acute heart failure, through the evaluation of various clinical, biomarker, imaging, invasive and non-invasive approaches. Comprehensive inpatient. monitoring is crucial to the optimal management of acute heart failure patients. The European Society of Cardiology heart failure guidelines provide recommendations for the inpatient monitoring of acute heart failure, but the level of evidence underpinning most recommendations is limited. Many tools are available for the in-hospital monitoring of patients with acute heart failure, and each plays a role at various points throughout the patient's treatment course, including the emergency department, intensive care or coronary care unit, and the general ward. Clinical judgment is the preeminent factor guiding application of inpatient monitoring tools, as the various techniques have different patient population targets. When applied appropriately, these techniques enable decision making. However, there is limited evidence demonstrating that implementation of these tools improves patient outcome. Research priorities are identified to address these gaps in evidence. Future research initiatives should aim to identify the optimal in-hospital monitoring strategies that decrease morbidity and prolong survival in patients with acute heart failure. © 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology

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

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

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

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD supported patients. Device-related, and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of LVAD implanting centres. The probability of an LVAD supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local ambulance team, emergency department medical team and internal or surgical wards in a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this paper is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician — ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, and internists — to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department, and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually back to the general practitioner. © 2021 European Society of Cardiology.

The improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology and scarcity of donor hearts have increased dramatically the population of the LVAD-supported patients and the probability of those patients to present to the emergency department with expected and non-expected device-related and patient–device interaction complications. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to suffer from other co-morbidities common in the older population. In this second part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the LVAD-supported patient presenting to the emergency department with bleeding, neurological event, pump thrombosis, chest pain, syncope, and other events are presented. The very challenging issue of declaring death in an LVAD-supported patient, as the circulation is artificially preserved by the device despite no other signs of life, is also discussed in detail. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

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

Aims: We assessed the outcome of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with heart failure (HF) compared with patients with other cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia). We further wanted to determine the incidence of HF events and its consequences in these patient populations. Methods and results: International retrospective Postgraduate Course in Heart Failure registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and CArdioVascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia) was performed in 28 centres from 15 countries (PCHF-COVICAV). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Of 1974 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1282 had cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (median age: 72 [interquartile range: 62–81] years, 58% male), with HF being present in 256 [20%] patients. Overall in-hospital mortality was 25% (n = 323/1282 deaths). In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with a history of HF (36%, n = 92) compared with non-HF patients (23%, n = 231, odds ratio [OR] 1.93 [95% confidence interval: 1.44–2.59], P < 0.001). After adjusting, HF remained associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 1.45 [95% confidence interval: 1.01–2.06], P = 0.041). Importantly, 186 of 1282 [15%] patients had an acute HF event during hospitalization (76 [40%] with de novo HF), which was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (89 [48%] vs. 220 [23%]) than in patients without HF event (OR 3.10 [2.24–4.29], P < 0.001). Conclusions: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with HF are at increased risk for in-hospital death. In-hospital worsening of HF or acute HF de novo are common and associated with a further increase in in-hospital mortality. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD-supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD-supported patients. The expected and non-expected device-related and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD-supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD-supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD-supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD-supported patients. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD- supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient-device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD-supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non-cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end-of-life approaches are described. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: To comprehensively assess hyponatraemia in acute heart failure (AHF) regarding prevalence, associations, hospital course, and post-discharge outcomes. Methods and results: Of 8298 patients in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF with any ejection fraction, 20% presented with hyponatraemia (serum sodium <135 mmol/L). Independent predictors included lower systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haemoglobin, along with diabetes, hepatic disease, use of thiazide diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, digoxin, higher doses of loop diuretics, and non-use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. In-hospital death occurred in 3.3%. The prevalence of hyponatraemia and in-hospital mortality with different combinations were: 9% hyponatraemia both at admission and discharge (hyponatraemia Yes/Yes, in-hospital mortality 6.9%), 11% Yes/No (in-hospital mortality 4.9%), 8% No/Yes (in-hospital mortality 4.7%), and 72% No/No (in-hospital mortality 2.4%). Correction of hyponatraemia was associated with improvement in eGFR. In-hospital development of hyponatraemia was associated with greater diuretic use and worsening eGFR but also more effective decongestion. Among hospital survivors, 12-month mortality was 19% and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were for hyponatraemia Yes/Yes 1.60 (1.35–1.89), Yes/No 1.35 (1.14–1.59), and No/Yes 1.18 (0.96–1.45). For death or heart failure hospitalization they were 1.38 (1.21–1.58), 1.17 (1.02–1.33), and 1.09 (0.93–1.27), respectively. Conclusion: Among patients with AHF, 20% had hyponatraemia at admission, which was associated with more advanced heart failure and normalized in half of patients during hospitalization. Admission hyponatraemia (possibly dilutional), especially if it did not resolve, was associated with worse in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Hyponatraemia developing during hospitalization (possibly depletional) was associated with lower risk. © 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

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