Browsing by Author "Ruschitzka, Frank (7003359126)"

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

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.

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

[No abstract available]

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

Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is still an underdiagnosed cause of heart failure (HF) and early disease recognition and timely disease-modifying therapy (DMT) administration translate to better outcomes. We aimed to assess CA screening and management approaches for patients with HF preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) among physicians worldwide. An independent academic web-based survey was distributed worldwide between May 2023 and July 2023. Overall, 1,460 physicians (61% were men, median age was 42 [34 to 49] years) from 95 countries completed the survey. A total of 2/3 of respondents had experience diagnosing CA and reported having 10% of patients with CA in patients with HFpEF. Systematic screening for CA of all patients with HFpEF was performed by 10% of responders, whereas 24% did not consider the screening. Most responders (39%) used left ventricular hypertrophy as a screening criterion. Serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation of free light chain and urine protein electrophoresis or cardiac magnetic resonance were selected by half of the responders as a first-line diagnostic tool. The combination of serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation free light chain, urine protein electrophoresis, and bone scintigraphy was considered by 32% of the participants. CA DMT was available for 48% of the physicians. About 82% of responders would administrate HF to patients with HFpEF with CA, with the most preferable drugs being diuretics, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors. In conclusion, the results reveal the uncertainties among physicians worldwide regarding the need for CA screening of patients with HFpEF. CA remains a disease with very heterogeneous management, particularly, in the screening and diagnostic workup. The HF community should aim to educate on CA and improve access to DMT. © 2024 Elsevier Inc.

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 co-occurrence of cancer and heart failure (HF) represents a significant clinical drawback as each disease interferes with the treatment of the other. In addition to shared risk factors, a growing body of experimental and clinical evidence reveals numerous commonalities in the biology underlying both pathologies. Inflammation emerges as a common hallmark for both diseases as it contributes to the initiation and progression of both HF and cancer. Under stress, malignant and cardiac cells change their metabolic preferences to survive, which makes these metabolic derangements a great basis to develop intersection strategies and therapies to combat both diseases. Furthermore, genetic predisposition and clonal haematopoiesis are common drivers for both conditions and they hold great clinical relevance in the context of personalized medicine. Additionally, altered angiogenesis is a common hallmark for failing hearts and tumours and represents a promising substrate to target in both diseases. Cardiac cells and malignant cells interact with their surrounding environment called stroma. This interaction mediates the progression of the two pathologies and understanding the structure and function of each stromal component may pave the way for innovative therapeutic strategies and improved outcomes in patients. The interdisciplinary collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists is essential to establish unified guidelines. To this aim, pre-clinical models that mimic the human situation, where both pathologies coexist, are needed to understand all the aspects of the bidirectional relationship between cancer and HF. Finally, adequately powered clinical studies, including patients from all ages, and men and women, with proper adjudication of both cancer and cardiovascular endpoints, are essential to accurately study these two pathologies at the same time. © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: To evaluate the prevalence and associations of non-cardiac comorbidities (NCCs) with in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) across the ejection fraction (EF) spectrum. Methods and results: The 9326 AHF patients from European Society of Cardiology (ESC)-Heart Failure Association (HFA)-EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry had complete information for the following 12 NCCs: Anaemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, depression, hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, malignancy, Parkinson's disease, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), rheumatoid arthritis, sleep apnoea, and stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Patients were classified by number of NCCs (0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥4). Of the AHF patients, 20.5% had no NCC, 28.5% had 1 NCC, 23.1% had 2 NCC, 15.4% had 3 NCC, and 12.5% had ≥4 NCC. In-hospital and post-discharge mortality increased with number of NCCs from 3.0% and 18.5% for 1 NCC to 12.5% and 36% for ≥4 NCCs. Anaemia, COPD, PVD, sleep apnoea, rheumatoid arthritis, stroke/TIA, Parkinson, and depression were more prevalent in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for post-discharge death for each NCC was for anaemia 1.6 (1.4-1.8), diabetes 1.2 (1.1-1.4), kidney dysfunction 1.7 (1.5-1.9), COPD 1.4 (1.2-1.5), PVD 1.2 (1.1-1.4), stroke/TIA 1.3 (1.1-1.5), depression 1.2 (1.0-1.5), hepatic dysfunction 2.1 (1.8-2.5), malignancy 1.5 (1.2-1.8), sleep apnoea 1.2 (0.9-1.7), rheumatoid arthritis 1.5 (1.1-2.1), and Parkinson 1.4 (0.9-2.1). Anaemia, kidney dysfunction, COPD, and diabetes were associated with post-discharge mortality in all EF categories, PVD, stroke/TIA, and depression only in HF with reduced EF, and sleep apnoea and malignancy only in HFpEF. Conclusion: Multiple NCCs conferred poor in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Ejection fraction categories had different prevalence and risk profile associated with individual NCCs. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

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

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.

Background and aims: There is a gap in knowledge about implementing diagnostic tools and therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in clinical practice. This survey aimed to assess real-world practice in HFpEF diagnosis and treatment in the international medical community. Methods: An independent academic web-based 29-question survey was designed by a group of heart failure specialists and posted by email and through scientific societies and social networks to a broad community of physicians worldwide. Results: 1.460 physicians from 95 countries answered the survey, with a mean age of 42.2±10.4 years, 39.4 % females, and 85.1 % were cardiologists. The left ventricular ejection fraction cut-off value selected for HFpEF diagnosis was 50 % for 89 % of participants. The scores for the probability of diagnosis of HFpEF were used only by 47.2 %, and H2FPEF was the most used score (31 %). Natriuretic peptides were used by 87.4 % of participants for the diagnostic workup, while the diastolic stress test was only used by 26.2 %. 54.4 % of participants chose SGLT2 inhibitors as their first drug treatment, followed by diuretics (18.6 %) and ACE inhibitors (8.4 %). Conclusions: In an international academic survey on HFpEF management, the criteria for screening and diagnosis of HFpEF patients remain aligned with classic international guidelines with a low use of diagnostic scores. SGLT2i is the leading therapeutic drug class used for this heterogeneous patient population. These results raise the need to improve education and awareness on diagnosing and managing HFpEF patients. © 2024 Elsevier Inc.

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

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

Lung ultrasound is a useful tool for the assessment of patients with both acute and chronic heart failure, but the use of different image acquisition methods, inconsistent reporting of the technique employed and variable quantification of ‘B-lines,’ have all made it difficult to compare published reports. We therefore need to ensure that future studies utilizing lung ultrasound in the assessment of heart failure adopt a standardized approach to reporting the quantification of pulmonary congestion. Strategies to improve patient care by use of lung ultrasound in the assessment of heart failure have been difficult to develop. In the present document, key aspects of standardization are discussed, including equipment used, number of chest zones assessed, the method of quantifying B-lines, the presence and timing of additional investigations (e.g. natriuretic peptides and echocardiography) and the impact of therapy. This consensus report includes a checklist to provide standardization in the preparation, review and analysis of manuscripts. This will serve as a guide for investigators and clinicians and enhance the quality and transparency of lung ultrasound research. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology