Browsing by Author "Savarese, Gianluigi (36189499900)"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Heart Failure (HF) is a multi-faceted and life-threatening syndrome characterized by significant morbidity and mortality, poor functional capacity and quality of life, and high costs. HF affects more than 64 million people worldwide. Therefore, attempts to decrease its social and economic burden have become a major global public health priority. While the incidence of HF has stabilized and seems to be declining in industrialized countries, the prevalence is increasing due to the ageing of the population, improved treatment of and survival with ischaemic heart disease, and the availability of effective evidence-based therapies prolonging life in patients with HF. There are geographical variations in HF epidemiology. There is substantial lack of data from developing countries, where HF exhibits different features compared with that observed in the Western world. In this review, we provide a contemporary overview on the global burden of HF, providing updated estimates on prevalence, incidence, outcomes, and costs worldwide. © 2022 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Obesity and heart failure (HF) represent two growing pandemics. In the general population, obesity affects one in eight adults and is linked with an increased risk for HF. Obesity is even more common in patients with HF, where it complicates the diagnosis of HF and is linked with worse symptoms and impaired exercise capacity. Over the past few years, new evidence on the mechanisms linking obesity with HF has been reported, particularly in relation to HF with preserved ejection fraction. Novel therapies inducing weight loss appear to have favourable effects on health status and cardiovascular risk. Against the backdrop of this rapidly evolving evidence landscape, HF clinicians are increasingly required to tailor their preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches to HF in the presence of obesity. This scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology provides an up-to-date summary on obesity in HF, covering key areas such as epidemiology, translational aspects, diagnostic challenges, therapeutic approaches, and trial design. © 2025 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: We analysed baseline characteristics and guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) use and decisions in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Heart Failure (HF) III Registry. Methods and results: Between 1 November 2018 and 31 December 2020, 10 162 patients with acute HF (AHF, 39%, age 70 [62–79], 36% women) or outpatient visit for HF (61%, age 66 [58–75], 33% women), with HF with reduced (HFrEF, 57%), mildly reduced (HFmrEF, 17%) or preserved (HFpEF, 26%) ejection fraction were enrolled from 220 centres in 41 European or ESC-affiliated countries. With AHF, 97% were hospitalized, 2.2% received intravenous treatment in the emergency department, and 0.9% received intravenous treatment in an outpatient clinic. AHF was seen by most by a general cardiologist (51%) and outpatient HF most by a HF specialist (48%). A majority had been hospitalized for HF before, but 26% of AHF and 6.1% of outpatient HF had de novo HF. Baseline use, initiation and discontinuation of GDMT varied according to AHF versus outpatient HF, de novo versus pre-existing HF, and by ejection fraction. After the AHF event or outpatient HF visit, use of any renin–angiotensin system inhibitor, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and loop diuretics was 89%, 29%, 92%, 78%, and 85% in HFrEF; 89%, 9.7%, 90%, 64%, and 81% in HFmrEF; and 77%, 3.1%, 80%, 48%, and 80% in HFpEF. Conclusion: Use and initiation of GDMT was high in cardiology centres in Europe, compared to previous reports from cohorts and registries including more primary care and general medicine and regions more local or outside of Europe and ESC-affiliated countries. © 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The multiplicity of coexisting comorbidities affecting patients with heart failure (HF), together with the availability of multiple treatments improving prognosis in HF with reduced ejection fraction, has led to an increase in the number of prescribed medications to each patient. Polypharmacy is defined as the regular use of multiple medications, and over the last years has become an emerging aspect of HF care, particularly in older and frailer patients who are more frequently on multiple treatments, and are therefore more likely exposed to tolerability issues, drug–drug interactions and practical difficulties in management. Polypharmacy negatively affects adherence to treatment, and is associated with a higher risk of adverse drug reactions, impaired quality of life, more hospitalizations and worse prognosis. It is important to adopt and implement strategies for the management of polypharmacy from other medical disciplines, including medication reconciliation, therapeutic revision and treatment prioritization. It is also essential to develop new HF-specific strategies, with the primary goal of avoiding the use of redundant treatments, minimizing adverse drug reactions and interactions, and finally improving adherence. This clinical consensus statement document from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology proposes a rationale, pragmatic and multidisciplinary approach to drug prescription in the current era of multimorbidity and ‘multi-medication’ in HF. © 2025 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.