Search

BackgroundA sex-based evaluation of prognosis in heart failure (HF) is lacking.Methods and resultsWe analyzed the Metabolic Exercise test data combined with Cardiac and Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score registry, which includes HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. A cross-validation procedure was performed to estimate weights separately for men and women of all MECKI score parameters: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), hemoglobin, kidney function assessed by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, blood sodium level, ventilation vs. carbon dioxide production slope, and peak oxygen consumption (peakVO2). The primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause mortality, urgent heart transplant, and implant of a left ventricle assist device. The difference in predictive ability between the native and sex recalibrated MECKI (S-MECKI) was calculated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve at 2 years and a calibration plot. We retrospectively analyzed 7,900 HFrEF patients included in the MECKI score registry (mean age 61 ± 13 years, 6,456 men/1,444 women, mean LVEF 33% ± 10%, mean peakVO2 56.2% ± 17.6% of predicted) with a median follow-up of 4.05 years (range 1.72–7.47). Our results revealed an unadjusted risk of events that was doubled in men compared to women (9.7 vs. 4.1) and a significant difference in weight between the sexes of most of the parameters included in the MECKI score. S-MECKI showed improved risk classification and accuracy (area under the ROC curve: 0.7893 vs. 0.7799, p = 0.02) due to prognostication improvement in the high-risk settings in both sexes (MECKI score >10 in men and >5 in women).ConclusionsS-MECKI, i.e., the recalibrated MECKI according to sex-specific differences, constitutes a further step in the prognostic assessment of patients with severe HFrEF.

Abstract Aims The current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines provide clear indications for the treatment of acute and chronic heart failure (HF). Nevertheless, there is a constant need for real‐world evidence regarding the effectiveness, adherence, and persistence of drug therapy. We investigated the use of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction in real‐world clinical practice in Italy. Methods and results An observational, retrospective, non‐interventional cohort study based on electronic medical records from nine specialized hospital HF centres in Italy was carried out on patients with prescription of sacubitril/valsartan. Overall, 948 patients had a prescription of sacubitril/valsartan, with 924 characterized over 6 months and followed up for 12 months. Pharmacoutilization data at 1 year of follow‐up were available for 225 patients {mean age 69.7 years [standard deviation (SD) = 10.8], 81.8% male}. Of those, 398 (45.2%) reached the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan of 97/103 mg in a mean time of 6.9 (SD = 6.2) weeks. Blood pressure and hypotension in 61 patients (65%) and worsening of chronic kidney disease in 10 patients (10.6%) were the main reasons for not reaching the target dose. Approximatively 50% of patients had a change in sacubitril/valsartan dose during follow‐up, and 158 (70.2%) were persistent with the treatment during the last 3 months of follow‐up. A sensitivity analysis (persistence during the last 4 months of follow‐up) showed persistence for 162 patients (72.0%). Adherence data, available for 387 patients, showed full adherence for 205 (53%). Discontinuation (102/717 patients, 14.2%) was mainly due to hypotension and occurred after a mean time of 34.3 (SD = 28.7) weeks. During follow‐up, out of 606 patients with available data, 434 patients (71.6%) had an HF add‐on drug or drugs concomitant with sacubitril/valsartan. HF‐related hospitalization during follow‐up was numerically higher in non‐persistent (16/67 patients, 23.9%) vs. patients persistent to sacubitril/valsartan (30/158, 19%) (P = 0.405). Conclusions Real‐world data on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice in Italy show a rapid titration to the target dose, high therapeutic adherence enabling a good level of therapeutic management in line with ESC guidelines for patients with reduced ejection fraction.

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) significantly affects the morbidity, mortality, and quality of life of patients. New therapeutic strategies aim to improve the functional capacity and quality of life of patients while controlling HF-related risks. Real-world data on both the functional and cardiopulmonary exercise capacities of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction upon sacubitril/valsartan use are lacking.MethodsA multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, called REAL.IT, was performed based on the data collected from the electronic medical records of nine specialized HF centers in Italy. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing was performed at baseline and after 12 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, monitoring carbon dioxide production (VCO2) and oxygen consumption (VO2).ResultsThe functional capacities of 170 patients were evaluated. The most common comorbidities were hypertension and diabetes (i.e., 53.5 and 32.4%, respectively). At follow-up, both the VO2 peak (from 15.1 ± 3.7 ml/kg/min at baseline to 17.6 ± 4.7 ml/kg/min at follow-up, p

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multifactorial condition with a variety of pathophysiological causes and morphological manifestations. The inclusion criteria and patient classification have become overly simplistic due to the customary differentiation regarding the ejection fraction (EF) cutoff. EF is considered a measure of systolic function; nevertheless, it only represents a portion of the true contractile state and has been shown to have certain limits due to methodological and hemodynamic irregularities. Methods: As a result, broader randomized clinical trials have yet to incorporate the most recent criteria for HFpEF diagnosis, leading to a lack of data consistency and confusion in interpreting the results. The primary variations between the bigger clinical trials published in this context concerning patient selection and echocardiographic characteristics were analyzed. For all these reasons, we aim to clarify the main features and clinical impact of HFpEF in a study combining imaging, bio-humoral analysis, and clinical history to identify the specific subgroups that respond better to tailored treatment. Results: Disparate clinical characteristics and a lack of uniform diagnostic standards may cause suboptimal therapeutic feedback. To optimize treatment, we suggest shifting the paradigm from the straightforward EF measurement to a more comprehensive model that considers additional information, such as structural traits, related disorders, and biological and environmental data. Therefore, by evaluating certain echocardiographic and clinical factors, a stepwise diagnostic procedure may be useful in identifying patients at high risk, subjects with early HFpEF, and those with evident HFpEF. Conclusions: The present assessment underscores the significance of the precision medicine approach in guaranteeing optimal patient outcomes by providing the best care according to each distinct profile.

Oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) for managing atrial fibrillation (AF) encompasses vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, such as warfarin), which was the mainstay of anticoagulation therapy before 2010, and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs, namely dabigatran etexilate, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban), approved for the prevention of AF stroke over the last thirteen years. Due to the lower risk of major bleeding associated with DOACs, anticoagulant switching is a common practice in AF patients. Nevertheless, there are issues related to OAT switching that still need to be fully understood, especially for patients in whom AF and heart failure (HF) coexist. Herein, the effective impact of the therapeutic switching from warfarin to DOACs in HF patients with AF, in terms of cardiac remodeling, clinical status, endothelial function and inflammatory biomarkers, was assessed by a machine learning (ML) analysis of a clinical database, which ultimately shed light on the real positive and pleiotropic effects mediated by DOACs in addition to their anticoagulant activity.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare subtype of group 1 pulmonary hypertension (PH) diseases, characterized by high pulmonary artery pressure leading to right ventricular dysfunction and potential life-threatening consequences. PAH involves complex mechanisms: vasoconstriction, vascular remodeling, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, oxidative stress, fibrosis, RV remodeling, cellular hypoxia, metabolic imbalance, and thrombosis. These mechanisms are mediated by several pathways, involving molecules like nitric oxide and prostacyclin. PAH diagnosis requires clinical evaluation and right heart catheterization, confirming a value of mPAP ≥ 20 mmHg at rest and often elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). Even if an early and accurate diagnosis is crucial, PAH still lacks effective biomarkers to assist in its diagnosis and prognosis. Biomarkers could contribute to arousing clinical suspicion and serve for prognosis prediction, risk stratification, and dynamic monitoring in patients with PAH. The aim of the present review is to report the main novelties on new possible biomarkers for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of PAH.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension is a complex pathology whose etiology is still not completely well clarified. The pathogenesis of pulmonary arterial hypertension involves different molecular mechanisms, with endothelial dysfunction playing a central role in disease progression. Both individual genetic predispositions and environmental factors seem to contribute to its onset. To further understand the complex relationship between endothelial and pulmonary hypertension and try to contribute to the development of future therapies, we report a comprehensive and updated review on endothelial function in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Heart failure (HF) represents a significant global health challenge, characterized by high morbidity and mortality rates, and imposes considerable burdens on healthcare systems and patient quality of life. Traditional management strategies, primarily relying on clinical assessments and standard biomarkers like natriuretic peptides, face limitations due to the heterogeneity of HF. This review aims to delve into the evolving landscape of non-natriuretic biomarkers and the transformative potential of omics technologies, underscoring their roles in advancing HF treatment towards precision medicine. By offering novel insights into the biological underpinnings of HF, including inflammation, myocardial stress, fibrosis, and metabolic disturbances, these advancements facilitate more accurate patient phenotyping and individualized treatment strategies. The integration of non-natriuretic biomarkers and omics technologies heralds a pivotal shift in HF management, enabling a move towards tailored therapeutic interventions. This approach promises to enhance clinical outcomes by improving diagnostic accuracy, risk stratification, and monitoring therapeutic responses. However, challenges such as the variability in biomarker levels, cost-effectiveness, and the standardization of biomarker testing across different healthcare settings pose hurdles to their widespread adoption. Despite these challenges, the promise of precision medicine in HF, driven by these innovative biomarkers and technologies, offers a new horizon for improving patient care and outcomes. This review advocates for the further integration of these advancements into clinical practice, highlighting the need for ongoing research to fully realize their potential in transforming the landscape of heart failure management.

Serum biomarkers represent a reproducible, sensitive, minimally invasive and inexpensive method to explore possible adverse cardiovascular effects of antineoplastic treatments. They are useful tools in risk stratification, the early detection of cardiotoxicity and the follow-up and prognostic assessment of cancer patients. In this literature review, we aim at describing the current state of knowledge on the meaning and the usefulness of cardiovascular biomarkers in patients with cancer; analyzing the intricate relationship between cancer and cardiovascular disease (especially HF) and how this affects cardiovascular and tumor biomarkers; exploring the role of cardiovascular biomarkers in the risk stratification and in the identification of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity; and providing a summary of the novel potential biomarkers in this clinical setting.