Search

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a subgroup with a challenging pharmacological management. Indeed, if on the one hand, antithrombotic therapy should reduce the risk related to recurrent ischaemic events and/or stent thrombosis; on the other hand, care must be taken to avoid major bleeding events. In recent years, several trials, which overall included more than 12 000 patients, have been conducted demonstrating the safety of different therapeutic combinations of oral antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents. In the present ANMCO position paper, we propose a decision-making algorithm on antithrombotic strategies based on scientific evidence and expert consensus to be adopted in the periprocedural phase, at the time of hospital discharge, and in the long-term follow-up of patients with AF undergoing PCI with/without ACS.

Congenital heart disease (CHD) and cardiomyopathies represent the two most important causes of paediatric heart failure (HF) in developed countries. We made a review of the literature on pathophysiology and clinical presentation of paediatric HF in children with CHD. Two main pathophysiologic models can be identified: the 'over-circulation failure', characterised by signs and symptoms of congestion or hypoperfusion, due respectively to volume or pressure overload, and the 'pump failure'. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehension of the HF pathophysiology in paediatric patients with CHD is of paramount importance for the optimal management and for addressing the best therapeutic choices.

Aspirin and P2Y12 receptor antagonists are widely used across the spectrum of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Gastrointestinal complications, including ulcer and bleeding, are relatively common during antiplatelet treatment and, therefore, concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is often prescribed. However, potential increased risk of cardiovascular events has been suggested for PPIs, and, in recent years, it has been discussed whether these drugs may reduce the cardiovascular protection by aspirin and, even more so, clopidogrel. Indeed, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies suggested an interaction through hepatic CYP2C19 between PPIs and clopidogrel, which could translate into clinical inefficacy, leading to higher rates of cardiovascular events. The FDA and the EMA sent a warning in 2010 discouraging the concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole or esomeprazole. In addition, whether the use of PPIs may affect the clinical efficacy of the new P2Y12 receptor antagonists, ticagrelor and prasugrel, remains less known. According to current guidelines, PPIs in combination with antiplatelet treatment are recommended in patients with risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding, including advanced age, concurrent use of anticoagulants, steroids or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Like vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), DOACs can determine gastrointestinal bleeding. Results from both randomized clinical trials and observational studies suggest that high-dose dabigatran (150 mg bid), rivaroxaban and high-dose edoxaban (60 mg daily) are associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding as compared with apixaban and warfarin. In patients taking oral anticoagulant with GI risk factor, PPI could be recommended, even if usefulness of PPIs in these patients deserves further data. Helicobacter pylori should always be searched, and treated, in patients with history of peptic ulcer disease (with or without complication). Given the large number of patients treated with antithrombotic drugs and PPIs, even a minor reduction of platelet inhibition or anticoagulant effect potentially carries a considerable clinical impact. The present joint statement by ANMCO and AIGO summarizes the current knowledge regarding the widespread use of platelet inhibitors, anticoagulants, and PPIs in combination. Moreover, it outlines evidence supporting or opposing drug interactions between these drugs and discusses consequent clinical implications.

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a common cardiac abnormality with a prevalence of 25% in the general population. PFO has been associated with the paradoxical embolism causing cryptogenic stroke and systemic embolization. Results from clinical trials, meta-analyses, and position papers support percutaneous PFO device closure (PPFOC), especially if interatrial septal aneurysms coexist and in the presence of large shunts in young patients. Remarkably, accurately evaluating patients to refer to the closure strategy is extremely important. However, the selection of patients for PFO closure is still not so clear. The aim of this review is to update and clarify which patients should be considered for closure treatment.

Aims: Using data from the nationwide prospective START registry that enrolled a large cohort of patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS), we aimed to investigate whether the presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and pre-DM independently affected the risk of cardiovascular events at 1-year follow-up. Methods: We assessed the impact of DM and pre-DM on all-cause mortality and a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for cardiovascular causes at 1-year follow-up. Results: Among the 3,778 patients with available fasting plasma glucose data at study entry, 37% were classified as DM, 25% as pre-DM, and 38% as no DM. At 1 year, patients with DM had higher rates of all-cause death (p = 0.004) and death/cardiovascular hospitalization (p = 0.003) than those with pre-DM or without DM. Conversely, no significant differences in the adverse event rate were found between patients with pre-DM and those without DM. At unadjusted Cox analysis, DM resulted as a predictor of both death for any cause (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.41; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.34–4.34; p = 0.003) and all-cause death/hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.02–1.62; p = 0.03). However, DM did not result as an independent predictor of either endpoint at multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The risk of 1-year major events among patients with CCS and pre-DM is comparable to that of patients with CCS and normoglycemic status and is lower than that of patients with DM.

AIMS We sought to assess the proportion of patients eligible for the ISCHEMIA trial and to compare the characteristics and outcomes of these patients with those without ISCHEMIA inclusion or with ISCHEMIA exclusion criteria in a contemporary, nationwide cohort of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS Among the 5,070 consecutive patients enrolled in the START registry, 4,295 (84.7%) did not fulfil the inclusion criteria (ISCHEMIA-Not Included or ISCHEMIA-Unclassifiable), 582 (11.5%) had exclusion criteria (ISCHEMIA-Excluded), and the remaining 193 (3.8%) were classified as ISCHEMIA-Like. At one year, the incidence of the primary outcome, a composite of death from cardiovascular (CV) causes, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalisation for unstable angina and heart failure, was 0.5% in the ISCHEMIA-Like versus 3.3% in other patients (p=0.03). The composite secondary outcome of CV mortality and MI occurred in 0.5% of the ISCHEMIA-Like patients and in 1.4% of the remaining patients (p=0.1). CONCLUSIONS In a contemporary real-world cohort of stable CAD patients, only 4% resulted in being eligible for the ISCHEMIA trial. These patients presented an extremely low annual risk of adverse events, especially when compared with other groups of stable CAD patients.

We would like to thank the authors of this letter for their comments [...]

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, first developed as glucose-lowering agents for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, have been demonstrated to improve prognosis in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) regardless of the presence of diabetes. Since these drugs have only recently been included among the four pillars of HFrEF treatment, cardiologists are still unfamiliar with their use in this setting. This article provides an up-to-date practical guide for the initiation and monitoring of patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors.

This document addresses the evaluation of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of aortic valve disease. The goal of this AUC document is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of aortic valve disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities. Clinical scenarios are developed in a simple way to illustrate patient presentations encountered in everyday practice.

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a subgroup with a challenging pharmacological management. Indeed, if on the one hand antithrombotic therapy should reduce the risk related to recurrent ischemic events and/or stent thrombosis, on the other hand care should be taken to avoid major bleeding events. In recent years, several trials, which overall included more than 12 000 patients, have been conducted demonstrating the safety of different therapeutic combinations of oral antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents. In the present ANMCO position paper we propose a decision-making algorithm on antithrombotic strategies based on scientific evidence and expert consensus to be adopted in the periprocedural phase, at the time of hospital discharge and in the long-term follow-up of patients with AF undergoing PCI with/without ACS.

Myocardial dysfunction and heart failure (HF), frequently described as cardiotoxicity, are the most concerning cardiovascular complications of cancer therapies, causing an increase in morbidity and mortality, even due to early discontinuation of antineoplastic drugs. Research efforts have been done to prevent and treat this phenomenon, in particular through early administration of drugs inducing renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade. Sacubitril/valsartan, a combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker and a neprilysin inhibitor pro-drug, has recently represented a game changer in the scenario of treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, patients with HF induced by cancer therapy were a priori excluded from the approval study. Therefore, safety and efficacy of this drug in this special population require further investigation. Available evidence, even though only derived from case reports or observational studies, seems to confirm the promising role of this new pharmacological strategy, paving the way for the use of sacubitril/valsartan in cardio-oncology. Prevention and treatment of HF in these highly vulnerable patients is a special need to allow full oncologic treatment and improve overall survival, highlighting the need for ad hoc prospective studies.

Cancer patients have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and, notably, a significant prevalence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). It has been shown that an elevated presence of cardiovascular risk factors in this setting leads to an interaction between these two conditions, influencing their therapeutic strategies and contributing to higher mortality. Nonetheless, cancer patients have generally not been evaluated in ACS trials, so that the treatment in these cases is still not fully known. We reviewed the current literature and discussed the best management for these very high-risk patients. The treatment strategy must be tailored based on the cancer type and stage, balancing thrombotic and bleeding risks. When the prognosis is longer than six months, especially if a clinical instability coexists, patients with ACS and cancer should be referred for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as soon as possible. Moreover, an invasive strategy should be preferred in STEMI patients as well as in NSTEMI patients who are considered as high risk. On the contrary, in clinically stable NSTEMI patients, a conservative non-invasive strategy could be adopted, especially in cases of a poor life expectancy and/or of high risk of bleeding. Drug-Eluting-Stents (DES) should be the first choice if an invasive strategy is adopted. Conservative therapy could instead be considered in cancer patients with more stable CAD at an increased risk of major bleeding complications. However, the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel is recommended, but it should be as short as possible, whereas triple antithrombotic therapy is non-advised because it significantly increases the risk of bleeding. ACS management among cancer patients should be based on an accurate evaluation of the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. Future studies focused on choosing optimal strategies in tumor patients with ACS should be performed to treat this subset of patients better.

This study aims to establish the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in breast cancer (BC) patients, focusing on staging and anti-cancer treatment. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the incidence of AF in BC patients and compare this incidence to other cancers. Furthermore, we evaluated the occurrence of AF as an adverse effect of biological therapies vs. non-biological therapies vs. biological therapies + non-biological therapies in BC. Finally, we compared the incidence of AF in early BC and metastatic BC. Thirty studies were included. Twenty-two studies focused on BC, encompassing 166,271 patients. In the BC group, 2.7% of patients developed AF, while in the “all cancer” group, 5.8% of patients developed AF. In addition, there was no difference between different types of therapies (p = 0.61) and between early and metastatic BC (p = 0.57). The type of anti-cancer therapy and the staging of BC does not influence AF’s occurrence in this neoplastic disease.

AIMS Clinical management of patients more than 1 year after acute myocardial infarction (MI) is challenging. Patient risk stratification may help to establish therapeutic priorities. We aimed to describe the comprehensive risk profile and management of patients with prior MI. METHODS We analyzed data from the EYESHOT Post-MI study, which evaluated the management of patients 1-3 years after MI. The risk profile of participants was defined according to the qualifying high-risk features of the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial (history of diabetes, history of recurrent MI, angiographic evidence of multivessel coronary disease, chronic kidney disease with estimated glomerular filtration rate

Antithrombotic drugs, which include antiplatelets and anticoagulants, are effective in prevention and treatment of many cardiovascular disorders such as acute coronary syndromes, stroke, and venous thromboembolism and are among the drugs most commonly prescribed worldwide. The advent of direct oral anticoagulants, which are safer alternatives to vitamin K antagonists and do not require laboratory monitoring, has revolutionized the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. The combination of oral anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy is required in many conditions of great clinical impact such as the coexistence of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease, with indication to percutaneous coronary intervention. However, strategies that combine anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies lead to a significant increase in bleeding rates and it is crucial to find the right combination in the single patient in order to optimize the ischemic and bleeding risk. The aim of this review is to explore the evidence and controversies regarding the optimal combination of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy through the consideration of past dogmas and new perspectives from recent clinical trials and to propose a tailored therapeutic approach, according to specific clinical scenarios and individual patient characteristics. In particular, we separately explored the clinical settings of stable and acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous revascularization in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Background and aims: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a powerful risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) events. High levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) since birth are linked to the early onset of atherosclerotic disease. A genetic mutation determining FH is present in about one subject out of 250; FH should be more represented among subjects with a documented diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). The POSTER Study evaluated the prevalence of FH in Italian patients with a recent CAD event. Methods: Eighty-two cardiology centres enrolled patients with a documented CAD event; CV risk profile, drug therapy and biochemical parameters were collected. Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria were used to define patients with a potential FH diagnosis (score ≥6); these patients underwent molecular testing for genetic diagnosis of FH. Results: Overall, 5415 patients were enrolled and the main index events were myocardial infarction with ST-elevation, non ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS), or a recent coronary revascularization (34.8%, 37.2%, and 28% respectively). Mean age was 66 ± 11 years, men were 78%; about 40% were already treated with statins, proportion that increased after the acute event (96.5%). Based on the DLCN score, the prevalence of potential FH was 5.1%, 0.9% of them had a diagnosis of definite FH (score >8). These patients were younger than patients with a score 190 mg/dL. FH was genetically confirmed in 42 subjects (15.9%); genetic diagnosis was defined as not conclusive for FH in 63 patients (23.9%). Finally, in 159 subjects (60.2%) no pathogenic mutations in the tested genes were identified, defining them as negative for monogenic familial hypercholesterolemia. Conclusions: Results underscore a relatively high prevalence of potential FH in patients with a recent CAD event. Therefore, an early identification of these subjects may help improve the management of their high CV risk and, by cascade screening, identify possible FH relatives.

Background: There is an incomplete understanding of the prevalence and predictors of attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal after myocardial infarction (MI). Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of achievement of LDL-C goal of 70 mg/dL, to identify the baseline features associated with suboptimal lipid control, and to assess the use of LDL-C-lowering drug therapies (LLT) beyond the first year after MI. Methods: The EYESHOT Post-MI was a prospective, cross-sectional, Italian registry, which enrolled patients presenting to cardiologist 1 to 3 years after MI. In this retrospective post-hoc analysis, patients were categorized in 2 groups according to the achievement or not of the LDL-C goal of 70 mg/dL. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the baseline features associate with LDL-C≥70 mg/dL. Results: The study population included 903 patients (mean age 65.5 ± 11.5 years). Among them, LDL-C was ≥70 mg/dL in 474 (52.5%). Male sex ( P = 0.031), hypertension ( P = 0.024), prior percutaneous coronary intervention ( P = 0.016) and high education level ( P = 0.008) were higher in the LDL-C Conclusions: In patients presenting to cardiologists 1 to 3 years from the last MI event, LDL-C is not under control in a large proportion of patients, particularly in those with a low education level or without hypertension. LLT is underused in this very-high-risk setting.

Infections by SARS CoV2 - COVID-19 became in a short time a worldwide health emergency. The present SARS-CoV-2 pandemic induced in a short time, an unprecedented impact on public health and on the pre-existing care pathways. In order to appropriately address this epidemiological emergency, urgent solutions were needed, such as remodelling or stopping hospitalization and deferrable clinical activities to avoid spreading the SARS-CoV-2 infection. After the first emergency lockdown phase, care pathways must guarantee healthcare to patients and preserve the safety of the healthcare personnel and of all the other subjects that refer to the cardiological surgeries. Rigorous prescriptive appropriateness of the requested exams with consequent reduction of unnecessary examinations is an essential requirement to preserve prioritized diagnostic and care pathways to patients in need, minimizing the risks connected to the SARS-CoV-2 contagion in hospitals. Telemedicine services represent a valid answer to cardiovascular disease patients’ need for care and assistance, including those in quarantine and voluntary isolation. These services successfully contribute to fight the spread of the virus guaranteeing at the same time therapy and support through remote services that must therefore be considered a resource to be implemented and enhanced. This document has to be used by the healthcare personnel working in hospitals and in district offices, if applicable, and aims at managing patients, in complete safety and considered not suspect/not probable (‘not at risk’) of SARS-CoV-2 infection, eligible for diagnostic activity and subsequent therapy in outpatient surgeries. In particular, this document provides indications for patient evaluation to prevent COVID-19 exposure, gives general indications on managing appointments and waiting rooms, on how to strictly adhere to environmental safety measures, on the proper use of Individual Protective Equipment (IPE). It also provides specific indications for outpatient service procedures, like electrocardiogram, cardiologic examination, cardiologic checkup, Dynamic Holter Electrocardiogram, Transthoracic Echocardiography, Echo Stress, Transoesophageal Echocardiography, Bike Ergometer stress test, Ergospirometry, Outpatient Checkup of implantable electronic cardiac devices.

The aim of this document is the management and organization of patients in need of urgent access to electrophysiology (EP) and pacing procedures during the COVID-19 emergency. Specifically, non-deferrable procedures or irreplaceable with a drug therapy prior to the resolution of the COVID-19 virus emergency [pacemaker (PM) implant/replacement/urgent defibrillator (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, ICD) or arrhythmic storm or other indication of non-deferrable ablation]. The pacing and electrophysiological procedures urgent as they may be, less and less frequently represent situations of emergency, therefore for almost all cases, it is possible to perform a swab test to determine the positivity to COVID-19 of the patient. In cases where this is not possible, due to situations of emergency, the recommendations and procedures we have indicated are advisable, if not mandatory, in order to avoid the spreading of the virus to healthcare personnel and other patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a global health emergency. In Italy, the number of people infected by SARS-COVID-2 is rapidly increasing and what emerges from the current data is that the majority do not present any symptoms or only minor flu-like symptoms. In about 20% of the patients, the disease progresses towards more complex forms (interstitial pneumonia to acute respiratory distress and multiple organ failure) with the need of hospitalization in CICU and advanced ventilator assistance. The transmission of the virus occurs very easily from the symptomatic patient s droplets from coughing and sneezing and from direct contact with persons or surfaces.In a patient presenting with ST elevation (STEMI) myocardial infarction or STEMI-like, if positive to COVID-19, the reperfusion therapeutic strategy depends on the local organization and on the possibility to access without delay a PCI COVID Center, on the basis, obviously, of the risk/benefit assessment of the individual case. However, we advise to try pursuing, in the first instance, the mechanical revascularization strategy, according to the available local possibilities.

Infections by SARS CoV2 - COVID-19 have become in a short time a worldwide health emergency. Due to cardiovascular implications of COVID-19 and to very frequent previous cardiovascular disorders of COVID-19 patients, it is presently crucial that Cardiologists are fully aware of COVID-19 related epidemiological, pathophysiological and therapeutic problems, in order to manage at best the present emergency by appropriate protocols developed on the basis of the competences acquired and shared on the field. The aim of this document is to propose algorithms for the management of cardiovascular diseases during COVID-19 emergency with the objective of providing patients with optimal care, minimizing contagion risk and appropriately managing personal protective equipment.

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are responsible for the majority of deaths in the Western world. These two entities share common risk factors and their intersection will be more and more frequent in future due to general population aging and long-term cancer control. Clinical presentation, management and outcome of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in cancer patients could differ from noncancer ones. Cancer patients were frequently excluded from clinical trials and so the paucity of data further complicates the scenario. The management of ACS in cancer patients represents a unique setting in which the risk/benefit ratio of invasive treatment should be carefully evaluated. This review focused on the available evidence of all aspects of ACS in cancer patients providing a guide to a multidisciplinary approach.

Structured abstract Background The management of atrial fibrillation (AF) has changed with the introduction of direct anticoagulants (DOACs) and new techniques such as catheter ablation. An update collection of data from “real world” AF patients followed by cardiologists is useful to obtain information on both management, outcomes and guideline adherence in clinical practice. Methods Follow-up information on survival, embolic and bleeding events and hospital readmission, persistence of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy was collected in 84 centers participating to the BLITZ-AF study. Results Patients were followed for a median of 366 days (IQR: 356–378) and vital status was available for 2159 patients. Mortality was 9.2%. Heart failure was the most common cardiovascular cause of death (70%) followed by arrhythmias (6.7%), acute coronary syndrome (5.0%) and ischemic stroke (2.5%). During follow-up 18.1% of the patients were readmitted, mainly (81.3%) for cardiovascular causes. Patients on OAC were 83.4%, 9.1% were on antiplatelets and 7.5% did not receive antithrombotic therapy. The use of DOACs increased from 42.1% to 46.4% during the follow-up, OAC discontinuation occurred in 9.1%. AF recurrences occurred in 23.4% of the patients discharged in sinus rhythm. Rate control strategy was adopted in 55.9% and beta-blockers were the most used drugs (81.9%). Amiodarone (22%) and flecainide (9.7%) were the most frequent used antiahrrythmic drugs. Conclusions The follow-up of the BLITZ-AF study provide an up to date picture of the clinical course of patients with AF, who appear frequently affected by heart failure and severe comorbidities which might have led to the high mortality rate.

BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation is common in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) although its impact on ACS remains controversial. AIM To describe in-hospital management of patients with atrial fibrillation and ACS evaluating the impact of atrial fibrillation on in-hospital and mid-term outcome. METHODS We analysed the data of two prospective multicentre nationwide registries (IN-ACS Outcome and MANTRA) to assess clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with ACS and atrial fibrillation. Study outcomes included death from any cause and a composite end-point of death/re-infarction/stroke/major bleeding within index admission and 6 months' follow-up. RESULTS Out of 12 288 ACS patients, 1236 (10.1%) had atrial fibrillation at admission or developed it during hospitalization. Atrial fibrillation patients were older, more often female, and had higher burden of comorbidities. In-hospital mortality was higher among atrial fibrillation patients (8.7 vs. 2.4%, P

The favorable effects of physical activity on the cardiovascular system have been well described in scientific literature. Physical activity reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in both healthy subjects and in patients with cardiovascular disease. However, different intensity levels of physical activity have a different impact on the cardiovascular system. Some data support the hypothesis of a "physical activity paradox": repetitive exposure to vigorous physical activity may induce biological effects that counteract the benefits of moderate intensity levels of physical activity. In this review, we report the main effects of acute and chronic physical activity on the cardiovascular system and we summarize the biochemical mechanisms that may explain these effects.

To assess adherence to guideline recommendations among a large network of Italian cardiology sites in the management of acute and chronic heart failure (HF) and to evaluate if an ad-hoc educational intervention can improve their performance on several pharmacological and non-pharmacological indicators.BLITZ-HF was a cross-sectional study based on a web-based recording system with pop-up reminders on guideline recommendations used during two 3-month enrolment periods carried out 3 months apart (Phase 1 and 3), interspersed by face-to-face macro-regional benchmark analyses and educational meetings (Phase 2). Overall, 7218 patients with acute and chronic HF were enrolled at 106 cardiology sites. During the enrolment phases, 3920 and 3298 patients were included, respectively, 84% with chronic HF and 16% with acute HF in Phase 1, and 74% with chronic HF and 26% with acute HF in Phase 3. At baseline, adherence to guideline recommendations was already overall high for most indicators. Among acute HF patients, an improvement was obtained in three out of eight indicators, with a significant rise in echocardiographic evaluation. Among chronic HF patients with HF and preserved or mid-range ejection fraction, performance increased in two out of three indicators: creatinine and echocardiographic evaluations. An overall performance improvement was observed in six out of nine indicators in ambulatory HF with reduced ejection fraction patients with a significant increase in angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor prescription rates.Within a context of an already elevated level of adherence to HF guideline recommendations, a structured multifaceted educational intervention could be useful to improve performance on specific indicators. Extending this approach to other non-cardiology healthcare professionals, who usually manage patients with HF, should be considered.

Recent evidence shows that a range of persistent or new symptoms can manifest after 4-12 weeks in a subset of patients who have recovered from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and this condition has been coined long COVID by COVID-19 survivors among social support groups. Long COVID can affect the whole spectrum of people with COVID-19, from those with very mild acute disease to the most severe forms. Like the acute form, long COVID has multisystemic aspects. Patients can manifest with a very heterogeneous multitude of symptoms, including fatigue, post-exertional malaise, dyspnea, cognitive impairment, sleep disturbances, anxiety and depression, muscle pain, brain fog, anosmia/dysgeusia, headache, and limitation of functional capacity, which impact their quality of life. Because of the extreme clinical heterogeneity, and also due to the lack of a shared, specific definition, it is very difficult to know the real prevalence and incidence of this condition. Risk factors for developing long COVID would be female sex, initial severity, and comorbidities. Globally, with the re-emergence of new waves, the population of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 continues to expand rapidly, necessitating a more thorough understanding of potential sequelae of COVID-19. This review summarizes up to date definitions and epidemiological aspects of long COVID.

COVID-19, a deadly pandemic that has affected millions of people worldwide, is also associated with cardiovascular complications, such as venous and arterial thromboembolic events. The viral spike protein, in fact, may promote the release of prothrombotic and inflammatory mediators. Vaccines, coding for the spike protein, are the primary measure for preventing COVID-19. However, some unexpected thrombotic events at unusual sites, most frequently the cerebral venous and splanchnic districts, with associated thrombocytopenia, have emerged in subjects who received adenovirus-based vaccines, especially in fertile women. This clinical entity has been rapidly recognized as a new syndrome, named vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, probably caused by cross-reacting antiplatelet factor 4 antibodies activating platelets. This prompted the regulatory agencies of various countries to restrict the use of adenovirus-based vaccines to specific age groups. The prevailing opinion of most experts, however, is that the risk of developing COVID-19 disease, including thrombosis, clearly outweighs this potential extremely low risk.This paper aims at providing a comprehensive review of epidemiological issues, clinical data and pathogenetic hypotheses of thrombosis linked to both COVID-19 and its vaccines, helping cardiologists to offer an up-to-date and evidence-based counseling to their often-alarmed patients with acute or chronic coronary syndromes.

The prescription appropriateness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs [dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban]) is carefully regulated, taking into account the criteria established in phase III trials and listed in the summary of the product characteristics of the four DOACs. In clinical practice, prescriptions are not always in compliance with established indications. In particular, the use of doses lower than those recommended in drug data sheets is relatively frequent. Literature data show that the inappropriate prescription of DOAC doses causes drug underexposure and an up to three-fold increase in the risk of stroke/transient ischemic attack, systemic thromboembolism, and hospitalizations. Possible causes of the deviation between the dose that should be prescribed and that actually employed may include erroneous prescriptions, an overstated bleeding risk perception, and the presence of frail patients, who were not included in pivotal trials. For these reasons, we summarize DOAC indications and contraindications and suggest the appropriate use of DOACs in common clinical scenarios, in accordance with what international guidelines and national and international health regulatory agencies recommend.

Background and Purpose: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an accepted therapeutic option for stroke prevention; however, the ideal technique and device have not yet been identified. In this study we evaluate the potential role of a heart team approach for patients contraindicated for oral anticoagulants and indicated for left atrial appendage closure, to minimize risk and optimize benefit in a patient-centered decision-making process. Methods: Forty patients were evaluated by the heart team for appendage occlusion. Variables considered were CHA2DS2VASc, HASBLED, documented blood transfusions, comorbidities, event forcing anticoagulant interruption, past medical history, anatomy of the left atrial appendage, and patient quality of life. Twenty patients had their appendage occluded percutaneously (65% male, mean age 72.3 ± 7.5, mean CHA2DS2VASc 4.2 ± 1.5, mean HASBLED 3.5 ± 1.1). The other twenty underwent thoracoscopic occlusion (65% male, mean age of 74.9 ± 8, mean CHA2DS2VASc 6.0 ± 1.5, HASBLED mean 5.4 ± 1.4). Percutaneous patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy for the first three months and aspirin thereafter, whereas the others received no anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy from the day of surgery. Follow up included TEE, CT scan, and periodical clinical evaluation. Results: Mean duration of procedures and hospital stay were comparable. All patients had complete exclusion of the appendage; at a mean follow up of 33.1 ± 14.1 months, no neurological or hemorrhagic events were reported. Conclusions: A heart team approach may improve the decision-making process for stroke and hemorrhage prevention, where LAAO is a therapeutic option. Percutaneous and thoracoscopic appendage occlusion seem to be comparably safe and effective. An epicardial LAAO could be advisable in patients for whom the risk of bleeding is estimated as being too high for post-procedural antiplatelet therapy.

Mandatory working from home is one of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for a large number of workers. Transition to working from home may significantly impact lifestyle, psychosocial status, and the overall health of workers. This review summarizes available data about the effects of lockdown measures, particularly working from home, on cardiovascular risk factors including sedentary lifestyle, unhealthy diet pattern, psychological distress, smoking, alcohol misuse, and cardiometabolic parameters. Finally, we suggest countermeasures that can attenuate the negative health impact of working from home. Indeed, timely and tailored interventions implemented by companies in cooperation with the health care system could allow workers to benefit more from some of the advantages associated with working from home.

Purpose This study aims to provide real-world data about starting-dose of NOACs and dose- adjustment in patients with AF. In fact, even if new oral anticoagulation agents (NOACs) have a predictable effect without need for regular monitoring, dose-adjustments should be performed according to the summary of product information and international guidelines. Methods We employed the Italian Medicines Agency monitoring registries comprising data on a nationwide cohort of patients with AF treated with NOACs from 2013 to 2018. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the determinants of dosage choice. Results During the reference period, treatment was commenced for 866539 patients. Forty-five percent of the first prescriptions were dispensed at a reduced-dose (dabigatran 60.3%, edoxaban 45.2%, apixaban 40.9%, rivaroxaban 37.4%). The prescription of reduced-dose was associated with older age, renal disease, bleeding risk and the concomitant use of drugs predisposing to bleeding, but not with CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED. A relative reduction of the proportion of patients treated with low-dosages was evident overtime for dabigatran and rivaroxaban; whereas prescription of low-dose apixaban and edoxaban increased progressively among elderly patients. Conclusions Evidence based on real-world data shows a high frequency of low-dose prescriptions of NOACs in AF patients. Except for older age, renal disease, bleeding risk and the concomitant use of drugs predisposing to bleeding, other factors that may determine the choice of reduced-dose could not be ascertained. There may be potential under-treatment of AF patients, but further evaluation is warranted.

Background Physicians adherence to heart failure (HF) guidelines is generally sub-optimal with consequent negative prognostic implications. Strategies to improve adherence to guideline recommendations are strongly needed. Aims To assess and improve adherence of Italian cardiology sites to guidelines recommendations on performance indicators in patients with acute (AHF) and chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods BLITZ-HF was a prospective study based on a web based recording system used during two enrollment periods (phase 1 and 3), interspersed by face-to-face macro-regional benchmark analysis and educational meetings (phase 2). Both management (creatinine and echocardiographic evaluations or discharge follow-up planning) and treatment (according to ejection fraction categories, focusing on guidelines directed medical treatments - GDMTs) performance indicators were considered for patients in both settings. Results Overall, 7218 patients with acute and chronic HF were enrolled at 106 sites. During the enrollment phases, 3920 and 3298 patients were included respectively, 84% with CHF and 16% with AHF in phase 1, 74% with CHF and 26% with AHF in phase 3. In Figure 1 we report adherence to management and treatment indicators in the two enrollment phases. Among AHF patients improvement was obtained in two of seven indicators. A significant rise in echocardiographic evaluation was observed, while discharge schedule of a cardiology ambulatory evaluation within four weeks was overall poor (less than 50%) and did not improve in the 3 phase. Overall GDMTs prescription rate in HFrEF was good and we observed a nominal increase in betablockers prescription rate in Phase 3. Among CHF patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF we observed a performance increase in two of three indicators: creatinine end echocardiographic evaluations, while oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation remained stably high. Performance measures in CHF HFrEF patients improved in six of nine indicators although significantly only in two. Prescription rate of GDMTs was good already in phase 1 and a significant increase in ACE-I/ARB or ARNI prescription was reported, with a nominal increase in the use of one of these three drugs in combination with MRAs and a BB. Conclusions A structured multifaceted educational intervention can improve adherence to HF guidelines on several indicators in a context of an already elevated level of adherence to guideline recommendations. Extension of this approach to other non-cardiology health professional settings, in which patients with HF are generally managed, should be considered. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): The study was funded by Heart Care Foundation with a partial unrestricted support from Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Servier, Vifor.

Background Outcomes of patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF) are generally poor, then it is important to recognize outcome predictors in order to better identify and manage patients at higher risk. Aims To identify independent predictors of 1-year all-cause death in AHF patients enrolled by Italian cardiology sites participating to the BLITZ-HF study. Methods BLITZ-HF was a prospective nationwide study based on a web based recording system used during two enrollment periods (08/03/2017 – 04/09/2017 and 24/12/2017 – 09/04/2018). Overall, 7218 patients with acute and chronic HF were enrolled by 106 sites, 58 were lost to follow-up. Patients were followed for a median of 370 days [IQR 339–395]. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify the independent predictors of all-cause death from hospital admission to 1-year follow-up. Demographic variables and baseline characteristics statistically significant at univariate analysis were included in the multivariable models. Different Cox proportional models were fitted: 1) adjusted for age and gender, 2) model 1 + clinical variables, 3) model 2 + laboratory and instrumental examinations, 4) model 3 + therapy. Results The present analysis refers to the 1470 patients admitted for AHF not lost to follow-up. Mean age was 73±12, with nearly 50% having more than 75 years of age. Female gender accounted for about one third of cases. More than half were de novo HF patients and 43% had an ischemic aetiology. Nearly 40% had a history of atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) and one fifth had a history of COPD and peripheral obstructive artery disease. Furthermore, mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) on admission was 131±28 and, heart rate (HR) was 91±25. The majority of HF patients had reduced EF (HFrEF) (58%), followed by HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) (24%) and HF with mid range EF (HFmrEF) (18%). One year all-cause mortality was 16.6%. Independent predictors of all-cause mortality are shown in the Table. In the final model adjusted for age, gender, clinical variables, laboratory and instrumental examinations and medical treatments, the following variables resulted as independent predictors of one-year all-cause mortality: age (HR 1.02), Confuse/obnubilate mental status (HR 2.07), creatinine >1.5 mg/dl (HR 1.54), BUN >43 mg/dl, (HR 2.74), aortic stenosis (HR 1.70), inotrope use (HR 1.43), IV furosemide >125 mg (HR 1.74), SBP (HR 0.99). Conclusions In our study several independent predictors of one-year all-cause mortality have been identified, confirming and reinforcing previous findings. Interestingly, our independent predictors derived from different domains (demographic, clinical, biohumoral, instrumental and treatment variables). These findings further underline the importance of a comprehensive assessment in the prognostic evaluation of AHF patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): The study was funded by Heart Care Foundation with a partial unrestricted support from Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Servier, Vifor.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease have confirmed the particular vulnerability of this population. Indeed, not only a higher risk of contracting the infection has been reported, but also an increased occurrence of a more severe course and unfavorable outcome. Beyond the direct consequences of COVID-19, the pandemic has an enormous impact on global health systems. Screening programs and non-urgent tests have been postponed; clinical trials have suffered a setback. Similarly, in the area of cardiology care, a significant decline in ST-elevation myocardial infarction accesses and an increase in cases of late presenting heart attacks with increased mortality and complication rates have been reported. Health care systems must therefore get ready to tackle the "rebound effect" that will likely show a relative increase in the short and medium term incidence of diseases such as heart failure, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias and cardio- and cerebrovascular complications. Scientific societies are taking action to provide general guidance and recommendations aimed at mitigating the unfavorable outcomes of this pandemic emergency. Cardio-oncology, as an emerging discipline, is more flexible in modulating care pathways and represents a beacon of innovation in the development of multi-specialty patient management. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, cardio-oncology has rapidly modified its clinical care pathways and implemented flexible monitoring protocols that include targeted use of cardiac imaging, increased use of biomarkers, and telemedicine systems. The goal of these strategic adjustments is to minimize the risk of infection for providers and patients while maintaining standards of care for the treatment of oncologic and cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this position paper is to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of cardio-oncologic patients with the-state-of-the-art knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 in order to optimize medical strategies during and after the pandemic.

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization and improve symptoms in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction compared with enalapril. After 7 years since the publication of the results of PARADIGM-HF, further insight has been gained with potential new indications. Two prospective randomized multicentre studies (PIONEER-HF and TRANSITION) in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) have shown an improved clinical outcome and biomarker profile as compared with enalapril, and good tolerability, safety, and feasibility of initiating in-hospital administration of S/V. Furthermore, some studies have highlighted the favourable effects of S/V in attenuating adverse myocardial remodelling, supporting an early benefit after treatment. Observational data from non-randomized studies in AHF report that in-hospital and pre-discharge prescription of evidence-based drugs associated with better survival still remain suboptimal. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has also negatively impacted on outpatient activities. Therefore, hospitalization, a real crossroad in the history of heart failure, must become a management and therapeutic opportunity for our patients. The objective of this ANMCO position paper is to encourage and facilitate early S/V administration in stabilized patients during hospitalization after an AHF episode, with the aim of improving care efficiency and clinical outcome.

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to describe the epidemiology and outcome of patients hospitalised during the COVID-19 pandemic in intensive cardiac care units (ICCs).DesignNon-interventional, retrospective and prospective, nationwide study.Setting109 private or public ICCs in Italy.Participants6054 consecutive patients admitted to Italian ICCs during COVID-19 pandemic.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTo obtain accurate and up-to-date information on epidemiology and outcome of patients admitted to ICCs during the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact that the COVID-19 infection may have determined on the organisational pathways and in-hospital management of the various clinical conditions being admitted to ICCs.ResultsAcute coronary syndromes were the most frequent ICC discharge diagnoses followed by heart failure and hypokinetic arrhythmias. The prevalence of COVID-19 positivity was approximately 3%. Most patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis at discharge (52%) arrived to ICC from other wards, in particular 22% from non-cardiology ICCs. The overall mortality was 4.2% during ICC and 5.8% during hospital stay. The cause of in-hospital death was cardiac in 74.4% of the cases, non-cardiovascular in 13.5%, vascular in 5.8% and related to COVID-19 in 6.3% of the patients.ConclusionsThis study provides a unique nationwide picture of current ICC care during COVID-19 pandemic.Trial registration numberNCT04744415.

ObjectivesTo assess in the Italian general adult population the trends of blood pressure (BP) and prevalence of raised BP (RBP), hypertension and its control in order to evaluate population health and care, and the achievement of an RBP 25% relative reduction as recommended by the WHO at population level.DesignResults comparison of health examination surveys, cross-sectional observational studies based on health examination of randomly selected age and sex stratified samples including residents aged 35–74 years. Data of the 2018/2019 survey were compared with the previous ones collected in 1998/2002 and 2008/2012.SettingHealth examination surveys conducted in Italy within the CUORE Project following standardised methodologies.Participants2985 men and 2955 women examined in 1998/2002, 2218 men and 2204 women examined in 2008/2012 and 1031 men and 1066 women examined in 2018/2019.Primary and secondary outcome measuresAge-standardised mean of BP, prevalence of RBP (systolic BP and/or diastolic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg), hypertension (presenting or being treated for RBP) and its awareness and control, according to sex, age class and educational level.ResultsIn 2018/2019, a significant reduction was observed in systolic BP and diastolic BP in men (1998/2002: 136/86 mm Hg; 2008/2012: 132/84 mm Hg; and 2018/2019: 132/78 mm Hg) and women (132/82 mm Hg, 126/78 mm Hg and 122/73 mm Hg), and in the prevalence of RBP (50%, 40% and 30% in men and 39%, 25% and 16% in women) and of hypertension (54%, 49% and 44% in men and 45%, 35% and 32% in women). Trends were consistent by age and education attainment. In 2018/2019, hypertensive men and women with controlled BP were only 27% and 41%, but a significant favourable trend was observed.ConclusionsData from 2018/2019 underlined that RBP is still commonly observed in the Italian population aged 35–74 years, however, the WHO RBP target at that time may be considered met.

Background and aim. Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) may be associated, and anticoagulation, either with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), is necessary to prevent thromboembolic events by reducing the risk of bleeding. The log incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval were used as index statistics. Higgin’s I2 test was adopted to assess statistical inconsistencies by considering interstudy variations, defined by values ranging from 0 to 100%. I2 values of less than 40% are associated with very low heterogeneity among the studies; values between 40% and 75% indicate moderate heterogeneity, and those greater than 75% suggest severe heterogeneity. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of VKAs and DOACs in oncologic patients with AF. Methods. A meta-analysis was conducted comparing VKAs to DOACs in terms of thromboembolic events and bleeding. A meta-regression was conducted to investigate the differences in efficacy and safety between four different DOACs. Moreover, a sub-analysis on active-cancer-only patients was conducted. Results. A total of eight papers were included. The log incidence rate ratio (IRR) for thromboembolic events between the two groups was −0.69 (p < 0.005). The meta-regression did not reveal significant differences between the types of DOACs (p > 0.9). The Log IRR was −0.38 (p = 0.008) for ischemic stroke, −0.43 (p = 0.02) for myocardial infarction, −0.39 (p = 0.45) for arterial embolism, and −1.04 (p = 0.003) for venous thromboembolism. The log IRR for bleeding events was −0.43 (p < 0.005), and the meta-regression revealed no statistical difference (p = 0.7). The log IRR of hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding between the VKA and DOAC groups was −0.51 (p < 0.0001), −0.45 (p = 0.03), and 0.0045 (p = 0.97), respectively. Similar results were found in active-cancer patients for all the endpoints except for clinically-relevant non-major bleedings. Conclusions. DOACs showed better efficacy and safety outcomes than VKAs. No difference was found between types of DOACs.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease have confirmed the particular vulnerability of these populations. Indeed, not only a higher risk of contracting the infection has been reported but also an increased occurrence of a more severe course and unfavourable outcome. Beyond the direct consequences of COVID-19 infection, the pandemic has an enormous impact on global health systems. Screening programmes and non-urgent tests have been postponed; clinical trials have suffered a setback. Similarly, in the area of cardiology care, a significant decline in STEMI accesses and an increase in cases of late presenting heart attacks with increased mortality and complication rates have been reported. Health care systems must therefore get ready to tackle the ‘rebound effect’ that will likely show a relative increase in the short- and medium-term incidence of diseases such as heart failure, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, and cardio- and cerebrovascular complications. Scientific societies are taking action to provide general guidance and recommendations aimed at mitigating the unfavourable outcomes of this pandemic emergency. Cardio-oncology, as an emerging discipline, is more flexible in modulating care pathways and represents a beacon of innovation in the development of multi-specialty patient management. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, cardio-oncology has rapidly modified its clinical care pathways and implemented flexible monitoring protocols that include targeted use of cardiac imaging, increased use of biomarkers, and telemedicine systems. The goal of these strategic adjustments is to minimize the risk of infection for providers and patients while maintaining standards of care for the treatment of oncologic and cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this document is to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the management of cardio-oncologic patients with the-state-of-the-art knowledge about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in order to optimize medical strategies during and after the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented event that has brought deep changes in hospital facilities with reshaping of the health system organization, revealing inadequacies of current hospital and local health systems. When the COVID-19 emergency will end, further evaluation of the national health system, new organization of acute wards, and a further evolution of the entire health system will be needed to improve care during the chronic phase of disease. Therefore, new standards for healthcare personnel, more efficient organization of hospital facilities for patients with acute illnesses, improvement of technological approaches, and better integration between hospital and territorial services should be pursued. With experience derived from the COVID-19 pandemic, new models, paradigms, interventional approaches, values and priorities should be suggested and implemented.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes suggest different temporal strategies for the angiographic study depending on the risk profile. The scientific evidence underlying the guideline recommendations and the critical issues currently existing in Italy that often do not allow either an extended strategy of revascularization within 24 h or the application of the principle of the same day transfer from a spoke to a hub center are analyzed. The position paper focuses, in particular, on the subgroup of patients with a defined diagnosis of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction by proposing a timing of coronary angiography/revascularization that takes into account the available scientific evidence and the organizational possibilities of a considerable part of national cardiology services.

The Italian scientific societies of cardiology (SIC and ANMCO), cardiothoracic surgery, endodontics, and periodontology realized that a specific protocol addressing preoperative dental/peri-dental screening in patients undergoing elective cardiothoracic surgery was lacking in the literature. As a consequence, they projected and then realized in 2019 a consensus document to establish the modalities for such a diagnostic and therapeutic screening, whose related options and timing depend on the patient's physical conditions as well as the time available before surgery. A high level of agreement was reached by the experts involved in the release of the consensus document and each clinical issue was addressed adequately. Three tables were released, with the aim of sharing a standardized protocol for the perioperative dental/peri-dental screening of patients who are waiting for elective cardiothoracic procedures. The authors of the consensus document, which has been widely diffused by all the involved scientific societies, hope that it can be largely accepted and applied, during the multidisciplinary phase preceding cardiovascular surgery the most.

Aims: Cardio-oncology has achieved a pivotal role in science, but real world data on its clinical impact are still limited.Methods: A questionnaire was sent out to all cardio-oncology services across Italy (n = 120). The questionnaire was made up of 28 questions divided into four blocks: (A) general information on hospitals and service, (B) the inner organization of cardio-oncology and its relationships with out-of-hospital cardiologists and general practitioners, (C) educational needs and referral guidelines, and (D) activities/specific workload.Results: Ninety-six out of 120 (80%) completed the questionnaire; 9.4% were cancer centers while 90.6% were general hospitals. A cardio-oncology team was present in 56% of the cancer centers and in 20% only of general hospitals, and a cardio-oncology pathway was active in 55% of cancer centers and in just 14% of the general hospitals. Relationships with out-of-hospital cardiologists and general practitioners were lacking. The guidelines of reference were ESC and ANMCO/AIOM. Patients receiving anthracycline chemotherapy underwent scheduled monitoring by means of echocardiography in 58% of cases. Routine use of cardiac damage biomarkers was overall low, ranging from 22 to 33% while the use of global longitudinal strain reached 44%.Conclusions: Italian cardio-oncology showed a growing influence on clinical practice but still has room for improvement. Cardio-oncology teams are still scarce, and the application of dedicated paths is poor. The need for specific training has been highlighted.

Introduction Three Italian scientific associations of different specialties (AMD, Associazione Medici Diabetologi—for diabetologists; ANMCO,Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri—for cardiologists; SIMG, Società Italiana di Medicina Generale—for General Practitioners) designed this study to assess whether an integrated care organization comprising three different specialists can improve adherence and can achieve the guidelines targets in a population of individuals with type 2 diabetes, without established cardiovascular disease but at high risk (≥ 20% at 10 years according to the CUORE.ISS risk cards) compared with the current standards of care provided by the Italian National Health Service. Methods Thirty primary care centers (general practitioners, GPs), 30 cardiology centers and 30 diabetes centers have been selected by the scientific associations, disseminated in the national territory, on the basis of proven previous cooperation in other studies. Each primary care center will enroll 100 type 2 diabetic subjects, > 45 years old, with no established cardiovascular disease, but with a high risk due to the presence of at least one other risk factor besides diabetes over the cutoff [hypertension > 135/80 mmHg, LDL cholesterol > 70 mg/dl, tobacco smoke, first-degree familiarity for CHD (coronary heart disease), central obesity according the WHO criteria]. Fifteen of 30 selected primary care centers, chosen randomly, will continue the treatment of the 100 identified patients according to their “usual care,” driven by Good Clinical Practice and by current guidelines (control group or “UC”—usual care), collecting all available clinical and instrumental data and transferring them to the electronic CRF. The remaining 15, after informed consent, will submit their 100 patients each in a specific integrated pathway, which entails the mandatory operational integration and exchange of information with the diabetes specialists and cardiologists pertaining to the same previously identified area. The integrated care path for the patients in the proband group (IC, integrated care) is based on application of the recommendations of the Italian Guidelines aimed at achieving the proposed targets for the main risk factors [LDL

Aims Per standard of care, dual-chamber pacemakers are programmed in DDDR mode with fixed atrioventricular (AV) delay or with long AV delay to minimize ventricular pacing. We aimed to evaluate whether the PR interval may be a specific criterion of choice between standard DDDR, to preserve AV synchrony in long PR patients, and managed ventricular pacing (MVP), to avoid ventricular desynchronization imposed by right ventricle apical pacing, in short PR patients. Methods and results In the MINERVA trial, 1166 patients were randomized to Control DDDR, MVP, or atrial anti-tachycardia pacing plus MVP (DDDRP + MVP). We evaluated the interaction of PR interval with pacing mode by comparing the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) longer than 7 consecutive days as a function of PR interval. Out of 906 patients with available data, the median PR interval was 180 ms. The PR interval was found to significantly (P = 0.012) interact with pacing mode for AF incidence: the risk of AF > 7 days was lower [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.34-0.99; P = 0.047] in patients with short PR (shorter than median PR) if programmed in MVP mode compared with DDDR mode and it was lower (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.99; P = 0.049) in patients with long PR (equal to or longer than median PR) if programmed in DDDR mode compared with MVP. Conclusion Our data show that PR interval may be used as a selection criterion to identify the optimal physiological pacing mode. Persistent AF incidence was lower in short PR patients treated by right ventricular pacing minimization and in long PR patients treated by standard dual-chamber pacing.