BackgroundThe independent prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and prediabetes mellitus (pre‐DM) on survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure has been investigated in observational registries and randomized, clinical trials, but the results have been often inconclusive or conflicting. We examined the independent prognostic impact of DM and pre‐DM on survival outcomes in the GISSI‐HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nella Insufficienza Cardiaca‐Heart Failure) trial.Methods and ResultsWe assessed the risk of all‐cause death and the composite of all‐cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization over a median follow‐up period of 3.9 years among the 6935 chronic heart failure participants of the GISSI‐HF trial, who were stratified by presence of DM (n=2852), pre‐DM (n=2013), and non‐DM (n=2070) at baseline. Compared with non‐DM patients, those with DM had remarkably higher incidence rates of all‐cause death (34.5% versus 24.6%) and the composite end point (63.6% versus 54.7%). Conversely, both event rates were similar between non‐DM patients and those with pre‐DM. Cox regression analysis showed that DM, but not pre‐DM, was associated with an increased risk of all‐cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28–1.60) and of the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13–1.32), independently of established risk factors. In the DM subgroup, higher hemoglobin A1c was also independently associated with increased risk of both study outcomes (all‐cause death: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02–1.43; and composite end point: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29, respectively).ConclusionsPresence of DM was independently associated with poor long‐term survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00336336.

Background Early detection of myocardial involvement can be relevant in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to timely target symptomatic treatment and decrease the occurrence of the cardiac sequelae of the infection. The aim of the present study was to assess the clinical value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in characterizing myocardial damage in active COVID-19 patients, through the correlation between qualitative and quantitative imaging biomarkers with clinical and laboratory evidence of myocardial injury. Methods In this retrospective observational cohort study, we enrolled 27 patients with diagnosis of active COVID-19 and suspected cardiac involvement, referred to our institution for CMR between March 2020 and January 2021. Clinical and laboratory characteristics, including high sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT), and CMR imaging data were obtained. Relationships between CMR parameters, clinical and laboratory findings were explored. Comparisons were made with age-, sex- and risk factor–matched control group of 27 individuals, including healthy controls and patients without other signs or history of myocardial disease, who underwent CMR examination between January 2020 and January 2021. Results The median (IQR) time interval between COVID-19 diagnosis and CMR examination was 20 (13.5–31.5) days. Hs-cTnT values were collected within 24 h prior to CMR and resulted abnormally increased in 18 patients (66.6%). A total of 20 cases (74%) presented tissue signal abnormalities, including increased myocardial native T1 (n = 11), myocardial T2 (n = 14) and extracellular volume fraction (ECV) (n = 10), late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (n = 12) or pericardial enhancement (n = 2). A CMR diagnosis of myocarditis was established in 9 (33.3%), pericarditis in 2 (7.4%) and myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries in 3 (11.11%) patients. T2 mapping values showed a moderate positive linear correlation with Hs-cTnT (r = 0.58; p = 0.002). A high degree positive linear correlation between ECV and Hs-cTnT was also found (r 0.77; p < 0.001). Conclusions CMR allows in vivo recognition and characterization of myocardial damage in a cohort of selected COVID-19 individuals by means of a multiparametric scanning protocol including conventional imaging and T1–T2 mapping sequences. Abnormal T2 mapping was the most commonly abnormality observed in our cohort and positively correlated with hs-cTnT values, reflecting the predominant edematous changes characterizing the active phase of disease.

The purpose of our study was to compare diagnostic performance of old and new Lake Louise Criteria (oLLC and nLLC) among different clinical presentations: infarct-like (IL), cardiomyopathic (CM) and arrhythmic (AR). 102 patients with clinical suspicion of acute myocarditis underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) on a 1.5 T scanner. Protocol included cine-SSFP, T2-weighted STIR, T2 mapping, early and late gadolinium enhancement and T1 mapping acquired before and after gadolinium administration. The degree of agreement has been calculated with Cohen’s K test. 42 patients also underwent endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). IL onset was present in 54/102 patients, CM in 28/102 and AR in 20/102. nLLC were positive in 58.3% of the patients, while oLLC in 37.9%, k = 0.57 (IC: 0.428–0.713). The degree of agreement between nLLC and oLLC was 0.49 (IC: 0.111–0.876) for AR onset (nLLC positive in 35% vs oLLC in 15%), 0.25 (IC: 0.035–0.459) for CM pattern (nLLC positive in 60.7% vs oLLC 17.9%) and 0.73 (IC: 0.543–0.912) for IL presentation (nLLC positive in 66.7% vs oLLC in 57.4%). Diagnostic accuracy was 75% for both nLLC and oLLC among IL onset, and 41.6% for oLLC vs 66.7% for nLLC, as regards CM clinical presentation. nLLC have improved diagnostic performance of CMR for the diagnosis of acute myocarditis, in particular for atypical clinical presentation.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview on the role of CT scan and MRI according to selected guidelines by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA). ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines were systematically reviewed for recommendations to CT and MRI use in specific cardiovascular (CV) clinical categories. All recommendations were collected in a dataset, including the class of recommendation, the level of evidence (LOE), the specific imaging technique, the clinical purpose of the recommendation and the recommending Society. Among the 43 included guidelines (ESC: n = 18, ACC/AHA: n = 25), 26 (60.4%) contained recommendations for CT scan or MRI (146 recommendations: 62 for CT and 84 for MRI). Class of recommendation IIa (32.9%) was the most represented, followed by I (28.1%), IIb (24%) and III (11.9%). MRI recommendations more frequently being of higher class (I: 36.9%, IIa: 29.8%, IIb: 21.4%, III: 11.9%) as compared to CT (I: 16.1%, IIa: 37.1%, IIb: 27.4%, III: 19.4%). Most of recommendation (55.5%) were based on expert opinion (LOE C). The use of cardiac CT and cardiac MR in the risk assessment, diagnosis, therapeutic and procedural planning is in continuous development, driven by an increasing need to evolve toward an imaging-guided precision medicine, combined with cost-effectiveness and healthcare sustainability. These developments must be accompanied by an increased availability of high-performance scanners in healthcare facilities and should emphasize the need of increasing the number of radiologists fully trained in cardiac imaging.

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 patients are dominated by respiratory symptoms, but cardiac complications are commonly observed and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Underlying pathological mechanisms of cardiac injury are still not entirely elucidated, likely depending on a combination of direct viral damage with an uncontrolled immune activation. Cardiac involvement in these patients ranges from a subtle myocardial injury to cardiogenic shock. Advanced cardiac imaging plays a key role in discriminating the broad spectrum of differential diagnoses. Present article aims to review the value of advanced multimodality imaging in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2-related cardiovascular involvement and its essential role in risk stratification and tailored treatment strategies. Based on our experience, we also sought to suggest possible diagnostic algorithms for the rationale utilization of advanced imaging tools, such as cardiac CT and CMR, avoiding unnecessary examinations and diagnostic delays.

We proposed a combined cardiothoracic-MRI (CaTh-MRI) protocol for the comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular structures, lung parenchyma, and pulmonary arterial tree, in COVID-19 patients with progressive worsening of clinical conditions and/or suspicion of acute-onset myocardial inflammation. A 25-minutes fast protocol was also conceived for unstable or uncooperative patients by restricting the number of sequences to those necessary to rule out myocardial and to assess pulmonary involvement. In patients requiring CMR characterization of myocardial damage, the addition of lung and thoracic vessel evaluation is of clinical benefit at a minimal time expense.

flow MRI has emerged as a powerful non-invasive technique in cardiovascular imaging, enabling to analyse in vivo complex flow dynamics models by quantifying flow parameters and derived features. Deep knowledge of aortic flow dynamics is fundamental to better understand how abnormal flow patterns may promote or worsen vascular diseases. In the perspective of an increasingly personalized and preventive medicine, growing interest is focused on identifying those quantitative functional features which are early predictive markers of pathological evolution. The thoracic aorta and its spectrum of diseases, as the first area of application and development of 4D flow MRI and supported by an extensive experimental validation, represents the ideal model to introduce this technique into daily clinical practice. The purpose of this review is to describe the impact of 4D flow MRI in the assessment of the thoracic aorta and its most common affecting diseases, providing an overview of the actual clinical applications and describing the potential role of derived advanced hemodynamic measures in tailoring follow-up and treatment.

Purpose One of the major challenges in the management of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is the stratification of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic subjects. Our purpose is to investigate the performance of clinical scoring systems, Montreal-FH-score (MFHS), SAFEHEART risk (SAFEHEART-RE) and FH risk score (FHRS) equations and Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) diagnostic score, in predicting extent and severity of CAD at coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in asymptomatic FH. Material and methods One-hundred and thirty-nine asymptomatic FH subjects were prospectively enrolled to perform CCTA. MFHS, FHRS, SAFEHEART-RE and DLCN were assessed for each patient. Atherosclerotic burden scores at CCTA (Agatston score [AS], segment stenosis score [SSS]) and CAD-RADS score were calculated and compared to clinical indices. Results Non-obstructive CAD was found in 109 patients, while 30 patients had a CAD-RADS ≥ 3. Classifying the two groups according to AS, values varied significantly for MFHS (p < 0.001), FHRS (p < 0.001) and SAFEHEART-RE (p = 0.047), while according to SSS only MFHS and FHRS showed significant differences (p < 0.001). MFHS, FHRS and SAFEHEART-RE, but not DLCN, showed significant differences between the two CAD-RADS groups (p < .001). MFHS proved to have the best discriminatory power (AUC = 0.819; 0.703–0.937, p < 0.001) at ROC analysis, followed by FHRS (AUC = 0.795; 0.715–0.875, p < .0001) and SAFEHEART-RE (AUC = .725; .61–.843, p < .001). Conclusions Greater values of MFHS, FHRS and SAFEHEART-RE are associated to higher risk of obstructive CAD and might help to select asymptomatic patients that should be referred to CCTA for secondary prevention.