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.

Temporary devices may be used to bridge critically ill candidates directly to heart transplantation in a setting of short waiting list times, as is the case of Spain. In our series, bridging with T-LVAD was associated with more favourable outcomes than bridging with T-BiVAD or VA-ECMO.

Background— Postoperative outcomes of patients with advanced heart failure undergoing ventricular assist device implantation are strongly influenced by their preoperative Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles. We sought to investigate whether a similar association exists in patients undergoing emergency heart transplantation. Methods and Results— By means of the Spanish National Heart Transplant Registry database, we identified 704 adult patients treated with emergency heart transplantation in 15 Spanish centers between 2000 and 2009. Post-transplant outcomes were analyzed pertaining to patient preoperative INTERMACS profiles, which were retrospectively assigned by 2 blinded cardiologists. Before transplantation, INTERMACS profile 1 (critical cardiogenic shock) was present in 207 patients, INTERMACS profile 2 (progressive decline) in 291, INTERMACS profile 3 (inotropic dependence) in 176, and INTERMACS profile 4 (resting symptoms) was present in 30 patients. In-hospital postoperative mortality rates were, respectively, 43%, 26.8%, and 18% in patients with profiles 1, 2, and 3 to 4 ( P <0.001). INTERMACS 1 patients also presented the highest incidence of primary graft failure (1: 31.3%, 2: 22.3%, 3–4: 21.8%; P =0.03) and postoperative need for dialysis (1: 33.2%, 2: 18.9%, 3–4: 21.5%; P <0.001). Adjusted odds-ratios for in-hospital postoperative mortality were 4.38 (95% confidence interval, 2.51–7.66) for profile 1 versus 3 to 4, 2.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.56–3.97) for profile 1 versus 2, and 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.02–3.03) for profile 2 versus 3 to 4. Long-term survival after hospital discharge was not influenced by preoperative INTERMACS profiles. Conclusions— Preoperative INTERMACS profiles determine outcomes after emergency heart transplantation. Results call for a change in policies related to the management of heart transplant candidates presenting with INTERMACS profiles 1 and 2.

No abstract

Late graft failure is frequent after heart transplantation, as it is associated with poor outcomes. Rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy are the most frequent underlying causes.

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.

Quinolone-related Achilles tendinopathy is frequent among heart transplant patients, especially in the presence of renal dysfunction or lengthy post-transplantation survival. If no alternative anti-bacterial therapy is available for high-risk patients, close clinical surveillance should be warranted.

No abstract