Browsing by Author "Rosano, Giuseppe (7007131876)"

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

[No abstract available]

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.

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.

In 2015, the first large-scale placebo-controlled trial designed to assess cardiovascular safety of glucose-lowering with sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition in type 2 diabetes mellitus raised hypotheses that the class could favourably modify not only risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but also hospitalization for heart failure, and the development or worsening of nephropathy. By the start of 2021, results from 10 large SGLT2 inhibitor placebo-controlled clinical outcome trials randomizing ∼71 000 individuals have confirmed that SGLT2 inhibitors can provide clinical benefits for each of these types of outcome in a range of different populations. The cardiovascular and renal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors appear to be larger than their comparatively modest effect on glycaemic control or glycosuria alone would predict, with three trials recently reporting that clinical benefits extend to individuals without diabetes mellitus who are at risk due to established heart failure, or albuminuric chronic kidney disease. This European Society of Cardiology position paper summarizes reported results from these 10 large clinical outcome trials considering separately each of the different types of cardiorenal benefit, summarizes key molecular and pathophysiological mechanisms, and provides a synopsis of metabolic effects and safety. We also describe ongoing placebo-controlled trials among individuals with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and among individuals with chronic kidney disease. © 2021 European Society of Cardiology.

Patients presenting with symptoms of angina and/or signs of ischemia may have no visible coronary stenosis on coronary angiography. Myocardial ischemia as a multifactorial process implies that antianginal management should not solely focus on large coronary vessels, but also on the microvessels and cardiac cells. Trimetazidine is an effective and well-tolerated anti-ischemic agent that provides symptom relief and functional improvement, and that offers cytoprotection during ischemia. It has antiischemic and antianginal effects directly on cardiac cells. The drug is suitable for use as a monotherapy and also as an adjunctive therapy when symptoms are inadequately controlled by nitrates, β-blockers, or calcium antagonists. Trimetazidine does not affect hemodynamic variables; it may improve left ventricular function in patients with chronic coronary artery disease or ischemic cardiomyopathy and in ischemia during percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. According to the 2013 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of stable coronary artery disease, trimetazidine is indicated as a second-line treatment for angina/ischemia relief. In the 2016 ESC guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of heart failure, trimetazidine is considered for the treatment of stable angina pectoris with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

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

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.

The authors regret the Funding section. The latter should read as follows: “This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente) 20/1819”. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. © 2023 Elsevier B.V.

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

Aims: To develop a suite of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the quality of care for adults with heart failure (HF). Methods and results: We followed the ESC methodology for QI development, which involved (i) the identification of the key domains of care for the management of HF by constructing a conceptual framework of HF care, (ii) the development of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature, (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi method, and (iv) the evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. The Working Group comprised experts in HF management including Task Force members of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Clinical Practice Guidelines for HF, members of the Heart Failure Association (HFA), Quality Indicator Committee and a patient representative. In total, 12 main and 4 secondary QIs were selected across five domains of care for the management of HF: (1) structural framework, (2) patient assessment, (3) initial treatment, (4) therapy optimization, and (5) assessment of patient health-related quality of life. Conclusion: We present the ESC HFA QIs for HF, describe their development process and provide the scientific rationale for their selection. The indicators may be used to quantify and improve adherence to guideline-recommended clinical practice and thus improve patient outcomes. © 2022 European Society of Cardiology

Over the past three decades, pharmacological treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has witnessed a significant progress with the introduction of multiple disease-modifying therapies with a proven benefit on morbidity, mortality and quality of life. Recently, several novel medications (sacubitril/valsartan, sodium-glucose contransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors, vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil) have shown to provide further improvement in outcomes in patients already receiving standard therapy for HFrEF. Available evidence suggests that sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin) are beneficial and well-tolerated in the majority inpatients and could be the mainstay treatment of HFrEF. Another group of medications (vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil) has shown promising results in reducing the risk of the composite of HF hospitalisation or cardiovascular mortality in patients with the more severe or advanced HF requiring recent hospitalisation. Therefore, these medications may be considered for the treatment of select group of patients with HFrEF with persisting or worsening symptoms despite optimal treatment. In addition, advances in pharmacological management of comorbidities frequently seen in HFrEF patients (diabetes, iron deficiency/anaemia, hyperkalaemia) provide further opportunities to improve outcomes. Given the increasing complexity of evidence-based therapies for HFrEF, there is a growing need to provide a practical perspective to their use. The purpose of this review is to summarise scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of new and emerging medical therapies in HFrEF, with a focus on the clinical perspective of their use. © 2021. Korean Society of Heart Failure.

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.

Recommendations represent the core messages of guidelines, and are particularly important when the body of scientific evidence is rapidly growing, as in the case of heart failure (HF). The main messages from two latest major HF guidelines, endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA), are partially overlapping, starting from the four pillars of treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction. Some notable differences exist, in part related to the timing of recent publications (most notably, the Universal Definition of HF paper and the EMPEROR-Preserved trial), and in part reflecting differing views of the natural history of HF (with a clear differentiation between stages A and B HF in the ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines). Different approaches are proposed to specific issues such as risk stratification and implantable cardioverter defibrillator use for primary prevention in HFrEF patients with non-ischaemic aetiology. The ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines put a greater emphasis on some issues that are particularly relevant to the US setting, such as the cost-effectiveness of therapies and the impact of health disparities on HF care. A comparison between guideline recommendations may give readers a deeper understanding of the ESC and ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines, and help them apply sensible approaches to their own practice, wherever that may be in the world. A comparison may possibly also help further harmonization of recommendations between future guidelines, by identifying why some areas have led to conflicting recommendation, even when ostensibly reviewing the same published evidence. © 2022 European Society of Cardiology.

[No abstract available]

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

The 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.