Browsing by Author "Seferovic, Petar (55873742100)"

Aims: The Heart Failure Frailty Score (HFFS) is a novel, multidimensional tool to assess frailty in patients with heart failure (HF). It has been developed to overcome limitations of existing frailty assessment tools while being practical for clinical use. The HFFS reflects the concept of frailty as a multidimensional, dynamic and potentially reversible state, which increases vulnerability to stressors and risk of poor outcomes in patients with HF. Methods and results: The HFFS was developed through a Delphi consensus process involving 54 international experts. This approach involved iterative rounds of questionnaires and interviews, where a panel of experts provided their opinions on specific questions prepared by the Steering Committee. The experts were invited to vote and share their views anonymously, using a 5-point Likert scale over iterative rounds. An 80% threshold was set for agreement or disagreement for each statement. Twenty-two variables from four domains (clinical, functional, psycho-cognitive and social) have been selected for inclusion in the HFFS after the third round of the Delphi process. A shorter version (S-HFFS), including 10 variables, has also been developed for daily clinical use. Conclusions: The HFFS is a new multidimensional tool for the identification of frailty in patients with HF. It should also enables healthcare providers to identify potential ‘red flags’ for frailty in order to develop personalized care plans. The next step will be to validate the new score in patients with HF. © 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The advent of immunological therapies has revolutionized the treatment of solid and haematological cancers over the last decade. Licensed therapies which activate the immune system to target cancer cells can be broadly divided into two classes. The first class are antibodies that inhibit immune checkpoint signalling, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The second class are cell-based immune therapies including chimeric antigen receptor T lymphocyte (CAR-T) cell therapies, natural killer (NK) cell therapies, and tumour infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapies. The clinical efficacy of all these treatments generally outweighs the risks, but there is a high rate of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often unpredictable in timing with clinical sequalae ranging from mild (e.g. rash) to severe or even fatal (e.g. myocarditis, cytokine release syndrome) and reversible to permanent (e.g. endocrinopathies).The mechanisms underpinning irAE pathology vary across different irAE complications and syndromes, reflecting the broad clinical phenotypes observed and the variability of different individual immune responses, and are poorly understood overall. Immune-related cardiovascular toxicities have emerged, and our understanding has evolved from focussing initially on rare but fatal ICI-related myocarditis with cardiogenic shock to more common complications including less severe ICI-related myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, including conduction system disease and heart block, non-inflammatory heart failure, takotsubo syndrome and coronary artery disease. In this scientific statement on the cardiovascular toxicities of immune therapies for cancer, we summarize the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of ICI, CAR-T, NK, and TIL therapies. We also highlight gaps in the literature and where future research should focus. © 2024 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.

Aims: Since its emergence in early 2020, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has reached pandemic levels, and there have been repeated outbreaks across the globe. The aim of this two part series is to provide practical knowledge and guidance to aid clinicians in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular (CV) disease in association with COVID-19. Methods and results: A narrative literature review of the available evidence has been performed, and the resulting information has been organized into two parts. The first, which was reported previously, focused on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of CV conditions that may be manifest in patients with COVID-19. This second part addresses the topics of: care pathways and triage systems and management and treatment pathways, both of the most commonly encountered CV conditions and of COVID-19; and information that may be considered useful to help patients with CV disease (CVD) to avoid exposure to COVID-19. Conclusion: This comprehensive review is not a formal guideline but rather a document that provides a summary of current knowledge and guidance to practicing clinicians managing patients with CVD and COVID-19. The recommendations are mainly the result of observations and personal experience from healthcare providers. Therefore, the information provided here may be subject to change with increasing knowledge, evidence from prospective studies, and changes in the pandemic. Likewise, the guidance provided in the document should not interfere with recommendations provided by local and national healthcare authorities. © 2021 The European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

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.

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.

Physicians' adherence to guideline-recommended heart failure (HF) treatment remains suboptimal, especially regarding the target doses. In particular, there is evidence that non-cardiologists are less compliant with HF guideline recommendations. This is likely to have a detrimental impact on patients' survival, readmissions and quality of life. Thus, the present document aims to address the reasons underlying low implementation and under-dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy in HF and to update a guidance for the initiation and rapid titration of HF drugs. In particular, aim of this document is to provide practical indications for drug implementation, to be applied not only by cardiologists but also by GPs and internal medicine doctors. © 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Introduction: Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi; including mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs]) benefits are greatest in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD); however, the risk of hyperkalemia (HK) is high. Methods: The DIAMOND trial (NCT03888066) assessed the ability of patiromer to control serum potassium (sK+) in patients with HFrEF with/without CKD. Prior to randomization (double-blind withdrawal, 1:1), patients on patiromer had to achieve ≥50% recommended doses of RAASi and 50 mg/day of MRA with normokalemia during a run-in period. The present analysis assessed the effect of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in subgroups of ≥/<60, ≥/<45 (prespecified), and ≥/<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (added post hoc). Results: In total, 81.3, 78.9, and 81.1% of patients with eGFR <60, <45, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at screening achieved RAASi/MRA targets. A greater efficacy of patiromer versus placebo to control sK+ in patients with more advanced CKD was reported (p-interaction ≥ 0.027 for all eGFR subgroups). Greater effects on secondary endpoints were observed with patiromer versus placebo in patients with eGFR <60 and <45 mL/min/1.73 m2. Adverse effects were similar between patiromer and placebo across subgroups. Conclusion: Patiromer enabled use of RAASi, controlled sK+, and minimized HK risk in patients with HFrEF, with greater effect sizes for most endpoints noted in patient subgroups with lower eGFR. Patiromer was well tolerated by patients in all eGFR subgroups. © 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

Aims: Recent guidelines recommend four core drug classes (renin–angiotensin system inhibitor/angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor [RASi/ARNi], beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist [MRA], and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor [SGLT2i]) for the pharmacological management of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We assessed physicians' perceived (i) comfort with implementing the recent HFrEF guideline recommendations; (ii) status of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) implementation; (iii) use of different GDMT sequencing strategies; and (iv) barriers and strategies for achieving implementation. Methods and results: A 26-question survey was disseminated via bulletin, e-mail and social channels directed to physicians with an interest in HF. Of 432 respondents representing 91 countries, 36% were female, 52% were aged <50 years, and 90% mainly practiced in cardiology (30% HF). Overall comfort with implementing quadruple therapy was high (87%). Only 12% estimated that >90% of patients with HFrEF without contraindications received quadruple therapy. The time required to initiate quadruple therapy was estimated at 1–2 weeks by 34% of respondents, 1 month by 36%, 3 months by 24%, and ≥6 months by 6%. The average respondent favoured traditional drug sequencing strategies (RASi/ARNi with/followed by beta-blocker, and then MRA with/followed by SGLT2i) over simultaneous initiation or SGLT2i-first sequences. The most frequently perceived clinical barriers to implementation were hypotension (70%), creatinine increase (47%), hyperkalaemia (45%) and patient adherence (42%). Conclusions: Although comfort with implementing all four core drug classes in patients with HFrEF was high among physicians, a majority estimated implementation of GDMT in HFrEF to be low. We identified several important perceived clinical and non-clinical barriers that can be targeted to improve implementation. © 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Diagnosing heart failure is often difficult due to the non-specific nature of symptoms, which can be caused by a range of medical conditions. Natriuretic peptides (NPs) have been recognized as important biomarkers for diagnosing heart failure. This document from the Heart Failure Association examines the practical uses of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in various clinical scenarios. The concentrations of NT-proBNP vary according to the patient profile and the clinical scenario, therefore values should be interpreted with caution to ensure appropriate diagnosis. Validated cut-points are provided to rule in or rule out acute heart failure in the emergency department and to diagnose de novo heart failure in the outpatient setting. We also coin the concept of ‘heart stress’ when NT-proBNP levels are elevated in an asymptomatic patient with risk factors for heart failure (i.e. diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease), underlying the development of cardiac dysfunction and further increased risk. We propose a simple acronym for healthcare professionals and patients, FIND-HF, which serves as a prompt to consider heart failure: Fatigue, Increased water accumulation, Natriuretic peptide testing, and Dyspnoea. Use of this acronym would enable the early diagnosis of heart failure. Overall, understanding and utilizing NT-proBNP levels will lead to earlier and more accurate diagnoses of heart failure ultimately improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs. © 2023 European Society of Cardiology.

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is a heart muscle disease characterized by prominent “non-ischemic” myocardial scarring predisposing to ventricular electrical instability. Diagnostic criteria for the original phenotype, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), were first proposed in 1994 and revised in 2010 by an international Task Force (TF). A 2019 International Expert report appraised these previous criteria, finding good accuracy for diagnosis of ARVC but a lack of sensitivity for identification of the expanding phenotypic disease spectrum, which includes left-sided variants, i.e., biventricular (ABVC) and arrhythmogenic left ventricular cardiomyopathy (ALVC). The ARVC phenotype together with these left-sided variants are now more appropriately named ACM. The lack of diagnostic criteria for the left ventricular (LV) phenotype has resulted in clinical under-recognition of ACM patients over the 4 decades since the disease discovery. In 2020, the “Padua criteria” were proposed for both right- and left-sided ACM phenotypes. The presently proposed criteria represent a refinement of the 2020 Padua criteria and have been developed by an expert European TF to improve the diagnosis of ACM with upgraded and internationally recognized criteria. The growing recognition of the diagnostic role of CMR has led to the incorporation of myocardial tissue characterization findings for detection of myocardial scar using the late‑gadolinium enhancement (LGE) technique to more fully characterize right, biventricular and left disease variants, whether genetic or acquired (phenocopies), and to exclude other “non-scarring” myocardial disease. The “ring-like’ pattern of myocardial LGE/scar is now a recognized diagnostic hallmark of ALVC. Additional diagnostic criteria regarding LV depolarization and repolarization ECG abnormalities and ventricular arrhythmias of LV origin are also provided. These proposed upgrading of diagnostic criteria represents a working framework to improve management of ACM patients. © 2023 The Author(s)

[No abstract available]

Right heart failure (RHF) following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a common and potentially serious condition with a wide spectrum of clinical presentations with an unfavourable effect on patient outcomes. Clinical scores that predict the occurrence of right ventricular (RV) failure have included multiple clinical, biochemical, imaging and haemodynamic parameters. However, unless the right ventricle is overtly dysfunctional with end-organ involvement, prediction of RHF post-LVAD implantation is, in most cases, difficult and inaccurate. For these reasons optimization of RV function in every patient is a reasonable practice aiming at preparing the right ventricle for a new and challenging haemodynamic environment after LVAD implantation. To this end, the institution of diuretics, inotropes and even temporary mechanical circulatory support may improve RV function, thereby preparing it for a better adaptation post-LVAD implantation. Furthermore, meticulous management of patients during the perioperative and immediate postoperative period should facilitate identification of RV failure refractory to medication. When RHF occurs late during chronic LVAD support, this is associated with worse long-term outcomes. Careful monitoring of RV function and characterization of the origination deficit should therefore continue throughout the patient's entire follow-up. Despite the useful information provided by the echocardiogram with respect to RV function, right heart catheterization frequently offers additional support for the assessment and optimization of RV function in LVAD-supported patients. In any patient candidate for LVAD therapy, evaluation and treatment of RV function and failure should be assessed in a multidimensional and multidisciplinary manner. © 2024 European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: Real-world data show that guidelines are insufficiently implemented, and particularly guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) are underused in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in clinical practice. The Council for Cardiology Practice and the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed a survey aiming to (i) evaluate the perspectives of the cardiology community on the 2021 ESC heart failure (HF) guidelines, (ii) pinpoint disparities in disease management, and (iii) propose strategies to enhance adherence to HF guidelines. Methods and results: A 22-question survey regarding the diagnosis and treatment of HFrEF was delivered between March and June 2022. Of 457 physicians, 54% were general cardiologists, 19.4% were HF specialists, 18.9% other cardiac specialists, and 7.7% non-cardiac specialists. For diagnosis, 52.1% employed echocardiography and natriuretic peptides (NPs), 33.2% primarily used echocardiography, and 14.7% predominantly relied on NPs. The first drug class initiated in HFrEF was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ACEi/ARNi) (91.2%), beta-blockers (BB) (73.8%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) (53.4%), and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (48.1%). The combination ACEi/ARNi + MRA+ BB was preferred by 39.3% of physicians, ACEi/ARNi + SGLT2 inhibitors + BB by 33.3%, and ACEi/ARNi + BB by 22.2%. The time required to initiate and optimize GDMT was estimated to be <1 month by 8.3%, 1–3 months by 52%, 3–6 months by 31.8%, and >6 months by 7.9%. Compared to general cardiologists, HF specialists/academic cardiologists reported lower estimated time-to-initiation, and more commonly preferred a parallel initiation of GDMT rather than a sequential approach. Conclusion: Participants generally followed diagnostic and treatment guidelines, but variations in HFrEF management across care settings or HF specialties were noted. The survey may raise awareness and promote standardized HF care. © 2024 European Society of Cardiology.