Search

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by a notable heterogeneity in both phenotypic and pathophysiological features, with a growing incidence due to the increase in median age and comorbidities such as obesity, arterial hypertension, and cardiometabolic disease. In recent decades, the development of new pharmacological and non-pharmacological options has significantly impacted outcomes, improving clinical status and reducing mortality. Moreover, a more personalized and accurate therapeutic management has been demonstrated to enhance the quality of life, diminish hospitalizations, and improve overall survival. Therefore, assessing the peculiarities of patients with HFpEF is crucial in order to obtain a better understanding of this disorder. Importantly, comorbidities have been shown to influence symptoms and prognosis, and, consequently, they should be carefully addressed. In this sense, it is mandatory to join forces with a multidisciplinary team in order to achieve high-quality care. However, HFpEF remains largely under-recognized and under-treated in clinical practice, and the diagnostic and therapeutic management of these patients remains challenging. The aim of this paper is to articulate a pragmatic approach for patients with HFpEF focusing on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of HFpEF.

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is considered a potentially severe complication of oral anticoagulants (OACs) and antiplatelet therapy (APT). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who survived ICH present both an increased ischemic and bleeding risk. Due to its lethality, initiating or reinitiating OACs in ICH survivors with AF is challenging. Since ICH recurrence may be life-threatening, patients who experience an ICH are often not treated with OACs, and thus remain at a higher risk of thromboembolic events. It is worthy of mention that subjects with a recent ICH and AF have been scarcely enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ischemic stroke risk management in AF. Nevertheless, in observational studies, stroke incidence and mortality of patients with AF who survived ICH had been shown to be significantly reduced among those treated with OACs. However, the risk of hemorrhagic events, including recurrent ICH, was not necessarily increased, especially in patients with post-traumatic ICH. The optimal timing of anticoagulation initiation or restarting after an ICH in AF patients is also largely debated. Finally, the left atrial appendage occlusion option should be evaluated in AF patients with a very high risk of recurrent ICH. Overall, an interdisciplinary unit consisting of cardiologists, neurologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, patients, and their families should be involved in management decisions. According to available evidence, this review outlines the most appropriate anticoagulation strategies after an ICH that should be adopted to treat this neglected subset of patients.

Anderson–Fabry disease (AFD) is a lysosome storage disorder resulting from an X-linked inheritance of a mutation in the galactosidase A (GLA) gene encoding for the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A (α-GAL A). This mutation results in a deficiency or absence of α-GAL A activity, with a progressive intracellular deposition of glycosphingolipids leading to organ dysfunction and failure. Cardiac damage starts early in life, often occurring sub-clinically before overt cardiac symptoms. Left ventricular hypertrophy represents a common cardiac manifestation, albeit conduction system impairment, arrhythmias, and valvular abnormalities may also characterize AFD. Even in consideration of pleiotropic manifestation, diagnosis is often challenging. Thus, knowledge of cardiac and extracardiac diagnostic “red flags” is needed to guide a timely diagnosis. Indeed, considering its systemic involvement, a multidisciplinary approach may be helpful in discerning AFD-related cardiac disease. Beyond clinical pearls, a practical approach to assist clinicians in diagnosing AFD includes optimal management of biochemical tests, genetic tests, and cardiac biopsy. We extensively reviewed the current literature on AFD cardiomyopathy, focusing on cardiac “red flags” that may represent key diagnostic tools to establish a timely diagnosis. Furthermore, clinical findings to identify patients at higher risk of sudden death are also highlighted.

Chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), which encompasses a broad spectrum of clinical presentations of coronary artery disease (CAD), is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Recent guidelines for the management of CCS emphasize the dynamic nature of the CAD process, replacing the term “stable” with “chronic”, as this disease is never truly “stable”. Despite significant advances in the treatment of CAD, patients with CCS remain at an elevated risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE) due to the so-called residual cardiovascular risk. Several pathogenetic pathways (thrombotic, inflammatory, metabolic, and procedural) may distinctly contribute to the residual risk in individual patients and represent a potential target for newer preventive treatments. Identifying the level and type of residual cardiovascular risk is essential for selecting the most appropriate diagnostic tests and follow-up procedures. In addition, new management strategies and healthcare models could further support available treatments and lead to important prognostic benefits. This review aims to provide an overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in the management of patients with CCS and to promote more effective multidisciplinary care.

It has been consistently demonstrated that circulating lipids and particularly low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) play a significant role in the development of coronary artery disease (CAD). Several trials have been focused on the reduction of LDL-C values in order to interfere with atherothrombotic progression. Importantly, for patients who experience acute coronary syndrome (ACS), there is a 20% likelihood of cardiovascular (CV) event recurrence within the two years following the index event. Moreover, the mortality within five years remains considerable, ranging between 19 and 22%. According to the latest guidelines, one of the main goals to achieve in ACS is an early improvement of the lipid profile. The evidence-based lipid pharmacological strategy after ACS has recently been enhanced. Although novel lipid-lowering drugs have different targets, the result is always the overexpression of LDL receptors (LDL-R), increased uptake of LDL-C, and lower LDL-C plasmatic levels. Statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors have been shown to be safe and effective in the post-ACS setting, providing a consistent decrease in ischemic event recurrence. However, these drugs remain largely underprescribed, and the consistent discrepancy between real-world data and guideline recommendations in terms of achieved LDL-C levels represents a leading issue in secondary prevention. Although the cost-effectiveness of these new therapeutic advancements has been clearly demonstrated, many concerns about the cost of some newer agents continue to limit their use, affecting the outcome of patients who experienced ACS. In spite of the fact that according to the current recommendations, a stepwise lipid-lowering approach should be adopted, several more recent data suggest a "strike early and strike strong" strategy, based on the immediate use of statins and, eventually, a dual lipid-lowering therapy, reducing as much as possible the changes in lipid-lowering drugs after ACS. This review aims to discuss the possible lipid-lowering strategies in post-ACS and to identify those patients who might benefit most from more powerful treatments and up-to-date management.

The combination of oral anticoagulants (OAC) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the mainstay for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or undergoing PCI. However, this treatment leads to a significant increase in risk of bleeding. In most cases, according to the most recent guidelines, triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) consisting of OAC and DAPT, typically aspirin and clopidogrel, should be limited to one week after ACS and/or PCI (default strategy). On the other hand, in patients with a high ischemic risk (i.e., stent thrombosis) and without increased risk of bleeding, TAT should be continued for up to one month. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in triple or dual antithrombotic therapy (OAC and P2Y12 inhibitor) should be favored over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) because of their favorable risk/benefit profile. The choice of the duration of TAT (one week or one month) depends on a case-by-case evaluation of a whole series of hemorrhagic or ischemic risk factors for each patient. Likewise, the specific DOAC treatment should be selected according to the clinical characteristics of each patient. We propose a series of paradigmatic clinical cases to illustrate the decision-making work-up in clinical practice.