Search

Aim: There is an association between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and insulin resistance, but less is known about the diabetic continuum, and in particular about pre-diabetes, in HFpEF. We examined characteristics and outcomes of participants with diabetes or pre-diabetes in PARAGON-HF.Methods and results: Patients aged ≥50 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, structural heart disease and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were eligible. Patients were classified according to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c): (i) normal HbA1c, Conclusion: Pre-diabetes is common in patients with HFpEF and is associated with worse clinical status and greater risk of HFH. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Acute coronary syndrome is a precipitant of acute heart failure in a substantial proportion of cases, and the presence of both conditions is associated with a higher risk of short-term mortality compared to acute coronary syndrome alone. The diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome in the setting of acute heart failure can be challenging. Patients may present with atypical or absent chest pain, electrocardiograms can be confounded by pre-existing abnormalities, and cardiac biomarkers are frequently elevated in patients with chronic or acute heart failure, independently of acute coronary syndrome. It is important to distinguish transient or limited myocardial injury from primary myocardial infarction due to vascular events in patients presenting with acute heart failure. This paper outlines various clinical scenarios to help differentiate between these conditions and aims to provide clinicians with tools to aid in the recognition of acute coronary syndrome as a cause of acute heart failure. Interpretation of electrocardiogram and biomarker findings, and imaging techniques that may be helpful in the diagnostic work-up are described. Guidelines recommend an immediate invasive strategy for patients with acute heart failure and acute coronary syndrome, regardless of electrocardiographic or biomarker findings. Pharmacological management of patients with acute coronary syndrome and acute heart failure should follow guidelines for each of these syndromes, with priority given to time-sensitive therapies for both. Studies conducted specifically in patients with the combination of acute coronary syndrome and acute heart failure are needed to better define the management of these patients. The authors acknowledge the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology for organizing the meeting during which this topic was discussed. The authors acknowledge T.J. for her expert review of the manuscript, and W.G. S., PharmD (Campbell University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences), supported by the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology for contributions to content development, writing, and editing the manuscript. J.M., C.M. and F.P. performed their expert review of the paper on behalf of Acute Cardiovascular Care Association of the European Society of Cardiology. J.B. and T.T. were supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Clinical Research Group 311 (KFO 311) '(Pre-)terminal heart and lung failure: unloading and repair' (DFG; TP1 and TP11). Harjola, VP (corresponding author), Helsinki Univ Hosp, Dept Emergency Med & Serv, Div Emergency Med, PL 340, Helsinki 00029, Finland. veli-pekka.harjola@hus.fi

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Historical concerns about cardiovascular (CV) risks associated with certain glucose-lowering medications gave rise to the introduction of cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Initially implemented to help monitor the CV safety of glucose-lowering drugs in patients with T2D, who either had established CVD or were at high risk of CVD, data that emerged from some of these trials started to show benefits. Alongside the anticipated CV safety of many of these agents, evidence for certain sodium–glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have revealed potential cardioprotective effects in patients with T2D who are at high risk of CVD events. Reductions in 3-point major adverse CV events (3P-MACE) and CV death have been noted in some of these CVOTs, with additional benefits including reduced risks of hospitalisation for heart failure, progression of renal disease, and all-cause mortality. These new data are leading to a paradigm shift in the current management of T2D, with international guidelines now prioritising SGLT2 inhibitors and/or GLP-1 RAs in certain patient populations. However, clinicians are faced with a large volume of CVOT data when seeking to use this evidence base to bring opportunities to improve CV, heart failure and renal outcomes, and even reduce mortality, in their patients with T2D. The aim of this review is to provide an in-depth summary of CVOT data—crystallising the key findings, from safety to efficacy—and to offer a practical perspective for physicians. Finally, we discuss the next steps for the post-CVOT era, with ongoing studies that may further transform clinical practice and improve outcomes for people with T2D, heart failure or renal disease.

Transthyretin (TTR) is a tetrameric protein synthesized mostly by the liver. As a result of gene mutations or as an ageing-related phenomenon, TTR molecules may misfold and deposit in the heart and in other organs as amyloid fibrils. Cardiac involvement in TTR-related amyloidosis (ATTR) manifests typically as left ventricular pseudohypertrophy and/or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. ATTR is an underdiagnosed disorder as well as a crucial determinant of morbidity and mortality, thus justifying the current quest for a safe and effective treatment. Therapies targeting cardiac damage and its direct consequences may yield limited benefit, mostly related to dyspnoea relief through diuretics. For many years, liver or combined heart and liver transplantation have been the only available treatments for patients with mutations causing ATTR, including those with cardiac involvement. The therapeutic options now include several pharmacological agents that inhibit hepatic synthesis of TTR, stabilize the tetramer, or disrupt fibrils. Following the positive results of a phase 3 trial on tafamidis, and preliminary findings on patisiran and inotersen in patients with ATTR-related neuropathy and cardiac involvement, we provide an update on this rapidly evolving field, together with practical recommendations on the management of cardiac involvement.

Randomized clinical trials initially used heart failure (HF) patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to select study populations with high risk to enhance statistical power. However, this use of LVEF in clinical trials has led to oversimplification of the scientific view of a complex syndrome. Descriptive terms such as ‘HFrEF’ (HF with reduced LVEF), ‘HFpEF’ (HF with preserved LVEF), and more recently ‘HFmrEF’ (HF with mid-range LVEF), assigned on arbitrary LVEF cut-off points, have gradually arisen as separate diseases, implying distinct pathophysiologies. In this article, based on pathophysiological reasoning, we challenge the paradigm of classifying HF according to LVEF. Instead, we propose that HF is a heterogeneous syndrome in which disease progression is associated with a dynamic evolution of functional and structural changes leading to unique disease trajectories creating a spectrum of phenotypes with overlapping and distinct characteristics. Moreover, we argue that by recognizing the spectral nature of the disease a novel stratification will arise from new technologies and scientific insights that will shape the design of future trials based on deeper understanding beyond the LVEF construct alone.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of40%.

Repeated physiological monitoring of comorbidities in heart failure (HF) is pivotal. This document introduces the main challenges related to physiological monitoring in the complex multimorbid HF patient, arising during an ESC consensus meeting on this topic.

The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology has published a previous position paper and various guidelines over the past decade recognizing the value of palliative care for those affected by this burdensome condition. Integrating palliative care into evidence-based heart failure management remains challenging for many professionals, as it includes the identification of palliative care needs, symptom control, adjustment of drug and device therapy, advance care planning, family and informal caregiver support, and trying to ensure a good death. This new position paper aims to provide day-to-day practical clinical guidance on these topics, supporting the coordinated provision of palliation strategies as goals of care fluctuate along the heart failure disease trajectory. The specific components of palliative care for symptom alleviation, spiritual and psychosocial support, and the appropriate modification of guideline-directed treatment protocols, including drug deprescription and device deactivation, are described for the chronic, crisis and terminal phases of heart failure. Funding Agencies|Patient Forum of the European Society of Cardiology

[Abstract] Aim. To investigate the characteristics long-term prognostic implications (up to ∼2.2 years) of atrial fibrillation (AF) compared to sinus rhythm (SR), between acute and chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF

This article updates the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2007 classification of advanced heart failure and describes new diagnostic and treatment options for these patients. Recognizing the patient with advanced heart failure is critical to facilitate timely referral to advanced heart failure centres. Unplanned visits for heart failure decompensation, malignant arrhythmias, co-morbidities, and the 2016 ESC guidelines criteria for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are included in this updated definition. Standard treatment is, by definition, insufficient in these patients. Inotropic therapy may be used as a bridge strategy, but it is only a palliative measure when used on its own, because of the lack of outcomes data. Major progress has occurred with short-term mechanical circulatory support devices for immediate management of cardiogenic shock and long-term mechanical circulatory support for either a bridge to transplantation or as destination therapy. Heart transplantation remains the treatment of choice for patients without contraindications. Some patients will not be candidates for advanced heart failure therapies. For these patients, who are often elderly with multiple co-morbidities, management of advanced heart failure to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life should be emphasized. Robust evidence from prospective studies is lacking for most therapies for advanced heart failure. There is an urgent need to develop evidence-based treatment algorithms to prolong life when possible and in accordance with patient preferences, increase life quality, and reduce the burden of hospitalization in this vulnerable patient population.

In addition to thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation (AF) may also predispose to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) attributable to coronary artery disease (CAD), including myocardial infarction (MI). The 2MACE score (2 points - Metabolic syndrome and Age≥75years, 1 point - MI/revascularization, Congestive heart failure/ejection-fraction40%, and thrombo-Embolism) was recently proposed to help identify AF patients at risk of MACE. We assessed the predictive validity of the 2MACE score for MACE occurrence in AF patients free of CAD at baseline.Non-valvular AF patients (n=794) without CAD (mean-age, 62.5±12.1years, metabolic syndrome, 34.0%; heart failure/ejection-fraction40%, 25.7%; thromboembolism, 9.7%) were prospectively followed for 5years, or until MACE (composite of non-fatal/fatal MI, revascularization and cardiovascular death). At inclusion, CAD was excluded by medical history, exercise-stress testing and/or coronary angiography. Also, the 2MACE score was determined.At follow-up, 112 patients experienced MACE (2.8%/year). The 2MACE score demonstrated adequate discrimination (C-statistic, 0.699; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.648-0.750; P0.001) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P=0.79) for MACE. The score was significantly associated with MACE, with the adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) of 1.56 (95%CI, 1.35-1.73; P0.001). As for individual outcomes, the score predicted MI (n=46; aHR, 1.49; 95%CI 1.23-1.80), revascularization (n=32; aHR, 1.41; 95%CI, 1.11-1.80) and cardiovascular death (n=34; aHR, 1.43; 95%CI, 1.14-1.81), all P0.001.The 2MACE score successfully predicts future MACE, including incident MI, coronary revascularization and cardiovascular death in AF patients free of CAD at baseline. It may have a role in risk-stratification and primary prevention of MACE in AF patients.

Interventional procedures for pericardial diseases include pericardiocentesis, drainage of pericardial effusion, intrapericardial therapy, and percutaneous balloon pericardiotomy or percutaneous pericardiostomy. Echocardiographic and fluoroscopic guidance have greatly increased safety and feasibility. Several devices for pericardiocentesis have been tested (PerDucer, PeriAttacher, visual puncture systems, Grasper, Scissors, and Reverse slitter), mainly to facilitate access to the pericardium in the absence of effusion for epicardial ablations or left atrial appendage ligation. In selected patients with pericardial effusions that cannot be managed medically or with prolonged drainage, various medications can be applied intrapericardially to prevent further recurrences or induce sclerosis of the pericardial space.

There is an unmet need for effective treatment strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Until recently, attention in patients with HFpEF was almost exclusively focused on the left side. However, it is now increasingly recognized that right heart dysfunction is common and contributes importantly to poor prognosis in HFpEF. More insights into the development of right heart dysfunction in HFpEF may aid to our knowledge about this complex disease and may eventually lead to better treatments to improve outcomes in these patients. In this position paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Committee on Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction reviews the prevalence, diagnosis, and pathophysiology of right heart dysfunction and failure in patients with HFpEF. Finally, potential treatment strategies, important knowledge gaps and future directions regarding the right side in HFpEF are discussed.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess long-term safety of intravenous cardiovascular agents-vasodilators, inotropes and/or vasopressors-in acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term (ESC-HF-LT) registry was a prospective, observational registry conducted in 21 countries. Patients with unscheduled hospitalizations for AHF (n = 6926) were included: 1304 (18.8%) patients received a combination of intravenous (i.v.) vasodilators and diuretics, 833 (12%) patients received i.v. inotropes and/or vasopressors. Primary endpoint was long-term all-cause mortality. Main secondary endpoints were in-hospital and post-discharge mortality. Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) showed no association between the use of i.v. vasodilator and diuretic and long-term mortality [HR 0.784, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.596-1.032] nor in-hospital mortality (HR 1.049, 95% CI 0.592-1.857) in the matched cohort (n = 976 paired patients). By contrast, adjusted HR demonstrated a detrimental association between the use of i.v. inotrope and/or vasopressor and long-term all-cause mortality (HR 1.434, 95% CI 1.128-1.823), as well as in-hospital mortality (HR 1.873, 95% CI 1.151-3.048) in the matched cohort (n = 606 paired patients). No association was found between the use of i.v. inotropes and/or vasopressors and long-term mortality in patients discharged alive (HR 1.078, 95% CI 0.769-1.512). A detrimental association with inotropes and/or vasopressors was seen in all geographic regions and, among catecholamines, dopamine was associated with the highest risk of death (HR 1.628, 95% CI 1.031-2.572 vs. no inotropes). CONCLUSIONS: Vasodilators did not demonstrate any association with long-term clinical outcomes, while inotropes and/or vasopressors were associated with increased risk of all-cause death, mostly related to excess of in-hospital mortality in AHF.

Despite improvements in medical therapy and device-based treatment, heart failure (HF) continues to impose enormous burdens on patients and health care systems worldwide. Alterations in autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity contribute to cardiac disease progression, and the recent development of invasive techniques and electrical stimulation devices has opened new avenues for specific targeting of the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches of the ANS. The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology recently organized an expert workshop which brought together clinicians, trialists and basic scientists to discuss the ANS as a therapeutic target in HF. The questions addressed were: (i) What are the abnormalities of ANS in HF patients? (ii) What methods are available to measure autonomic dysfunction? (iii) What therapeutic interventions are available to target the ANS in patients with HF, and what are their specific strengths and weaknesses? (iv) What have we learned from previous ANS trials? (v) How should we proceed in the future?

Aims In 2007, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) launched the information website heartfailurematters.org (HFM site) with the aim of creating a practical tool through which to provide advice and guidelines for living with heart failure to patients, their carers, health care professionals and the general public worldwide. The website is managed by the ESC at the European Heart House and is currently available in nine languages. The aim of this study is to describe the background, objectives, use, lessons learned and future directions of the HFM site. Methods and results Data on the number of visitor sessions on the site as measured by Google Analytics were used to explore use of the HFM site from 2010 to 2015. Worldwide, the annual number of sessions increased from 416 345 in 2010 to 1 636 368 in 2015. Most users (72–75%) found the site by using a search engine. Desktops and, more recently, smartphones were used to visit the website, accounting for 50% and 38%, respectively, of visits to the site in 2015. Conclusions Although its use has increased, the HFM site has not yet reached its full potential: fewer than 2 million users have visited the website, whereas the number of people living with heart failure worldwide is estimated to be 23 million. Uptake and use could be further improved by a continuous process of qualitative assessment of users' preferences, and the provision of professional helpdesk facilities, comprehensive information technology, and promotional support.

Aims The objectives of the present study were to describe epidemiology and outcomes in ambulatory heart failure (HF) patients stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to identify predictors for mortality at 1 year in each group. Methods and results The European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study collecting epidemiological information and 1-year follow-up data in 9134 HF patients. Patients were classified according to baseline LVEF into HF with reduced EF [EF 50% (HFpEF)]. In comparison with HFpEF subjects, patients with HFrEF were younger (64 years vs. 69 years), more commonly male (78% vs. 52%), more likely to have an ischaemic aetiology (49% vs. 24%) and left bundle branch block (24% vs. 9%), but less likely to have hypertension (56% vs. 67%) or atrial fibrillation (18% vs. 32%). The HFmrEF group resembled the HFrEF group in some features, including age, gender and ischaemic aetiology, but had less left ventricular and atrial dilation. Mortality at 1 year differed significantly between HFrEF and HFpEF (8.8% vs. 6.3%); HFmrEF patients experienced intermediate rates (7.6%). Age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV status and chronic kidney disease predicted mortality in all LVEF groups. Low systolic blood pressure and high heart rate were predictors for mortality in HFrEF and HFmrEF. A lower body mass index was independently associated with mortality in HFrEF and HFpEF patients. Atrial fibrillation predicted mortality in HFpEF patients. Conclusions Heart failure patients stratified according to different categories of LVEF represent diverse phenotypes of demography, clinical presentation, aetiology and outcomes at 1 year. Differences in predictors for mortality might improve risk stratification and management goals.

Heart failure (HF) and frailty are two distinct yet commonly associated conditions. The interplay between the two conditions is complex, due to overlaps in underlying mechanisms, symptoms and prognosis. The assessment of frailty in patients with HF is crucial, as it is associated with both unfavourable outcomes and reduced access and tolerance to treatments. However, to date a consensus definition of frailty in patients with HF remains lacking and the need for a validated assessment score, for identifying those HF patients with frailty, is high and timely. This position paper proposes a new definition of frailty for use by healthcare professionals in the setting of HF and creates a foundation for the design of a tailored and validated score for this common condition.

Pharmacotherapy in chronic heart failure (HF) is challenging, due to the diverse neuroendocrine, inflammatory, metabolic and immunological mechanisms involved in its pathogenesis, the presence of co-morbidities and use of multiple therapies. Further, physiological parameters influencing drug pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics (PDs) may be altered in patients with HF. There is growing evidence that the disease-induced physiological changes may influence the PKs and PDs of all drugs used in patients with HF. Therapeutic approaches should consider all factors that might influence the response to treatment and dosage should be tailored to individual patients. Hence, further studies are required to understand the PK and PD differences between chronic HF patients and healthy subjects. Because PK is difficult to be assessed in the individual patient with HF, PD effects should be used to tailor therapy in patients with HF.

Acute right ventricular (RV) failure is a complex clinical syndrome that results from many causes. Research efforts have disproportionately focused on the failing left ventricle, but recently the need has been recognized to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of RV anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology, and of management approaches. Right ventricular mechanics and function are altered in the setting of either pressure overload or volume overload. Failure may also result from a primary reduction of myocardial contractility owing to ischaemia, cardiomyopathy, or arrhythmia. Dysfunction leads to impaired RV filling and increased right atrial pressures. As dysfunction progresses to overt RV failure, the RV chamber becomes more spherical and tricuspid regurgitation is aggravated, a cascade leading to increasing venous congestion. Ventricular interdependence results in impaired left ventricular filling, a decrease in left ventricular stroke volume, and ultimately low cardiac output and cardiogenic shock. Identification and treatment of the underlying cause of RV failure, such as acute pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute decompensation of chronic pulmonary hypertension, RV infarction, or arrhythmia, is the primary management strategy. Judicious fluid management, use of inotropes and vasopressors, assist devices, and a strategy focusing on RV protection for mechanical ventilation if required all play a role in the clinical care of these patients. Future research should aim to address the remaining areas of uncertainty which result from the complexity of RV haemodynamics and lack of conclusive evidence regarding RV-specific treatment approaches.

Differential diagnosis may be complex in patients with chronic pericarditis and according to both 2015 ESC guidelines and American Society of Echocardiography clinical recommendations require systematic application of multimodality imaging including targeted pericardial biopsies. In patients poorly responding to medical treatment or with specific etiology highly prone to constriction, pericardiectomy should be also considered as the ultimate treatment option.

Cardiac tamponade is a pericardial syndrome characterized by compression of the heart by the exudate accumulating within the pericardial space and impairing diastolic filling and cardiac output. Pericardial diseases of any aetiology but also haemorrhage during interventional procedures may cause tamponade. If pericardial effusion accumulates slowly, 2000 mL or more could be tolerated (unless precipitated by dehydration, loop diuretics, vasodilators, anticoagulants, or thrombolytics), but acute accumulation of more than 250 mL is fatal.

Aims Evidence suggests an excess risk of non-thromboembolic major adverse cardiac events (MACE) associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly in individuals free of overt coronary artery disease (CAD). Metabolic syndrome (MetS) increases cardiovascular risk in the general population, but less is known how it influences outcomes in AF patients. We aimed to assess whether MetS affects the risk of MACE in AF patients without overt CAD. Methods and results This prospective, observational study enrolled 843 AF patients (mean-age, 62.5 ± 12.1 years, 38.6% female) without overt CAD. Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program. The 5-year composite MACE included myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and cardiac death. Metabolic syndrome was present in 302 (35.8%) patients. At 5-year follow-up, 118 (14.0%) patients experienced MACE (2.80%/year). Metabolic syndrome conferred a multivariable adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.98 for MACE [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23-3.16; P = 0.004], and for individual outcomes: MI (aHR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.69-5.11; P

The left atrium (LA) plays an important role in cardiovascular homeostasis through the modulation of cardiac filling and output, as well as the regulation of circulatory volume and tone. LA remodelling is characterised by dynamic alterations in atrial structure, function and electrophysiology. Most frequently, it occurs in association with ageing, hypertension, ischaemia, metabolic and pulmonary disorders (central illustration, figure 1). LA dilatation, the hallmark of atrial remodelling, has been increasingly recognised as a prognostic biomarker of thromboembolic and cardiovascular events, in particular in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, cardiovascular risk attributable to atrial dilatation also appears to be increased in individuals without AF and is incompletely explained by the associated comorbidities and risk factors. The clarification of this issue was attempted by putting forward the concept of atrial cardiomyopathy , as a primary form of atrial abnormality, in which atrial fibrosis, hypercoagulability, contractile and endothelial dysfunction may lead to incident AF, heart failure (HF) and thromboembolism, independent of other causes (central illustration, figure 1).1 However, evidence from human studies supporting this concept is inconclusive. Also, a comparison of cardiovascular risk associated with LA dilatation in patients with and without AF has not been systematically conducted. Figure 1 Central illustration: Risk factors and clinical consequences of left atrial dilatation The study by Froehlich et al ,2 published in Heart , provides a new insight into this important subject. This study presents a systematic review and a meta-analysis of 91 observational studies exploring the association between several indices of LA dilatation and outcomes in patients with AF (23 studies with a total of 14 936 participants) and those without AF (68 studies with a total of 50 720 patients). The studies included in the meta-analysis integrated data on a wide array of background cardiovascular pathology, including hypertension, ischaemic …