Browsing by Author "Voors, Adriaan A. (7006380706)"

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020.

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.

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for heart failure symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of. breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), LV filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF. © 2020 European Society of Cardiology