AimTo investigate the use of biomarkers providing independent information regarding physiology in acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) for assessment of risk. Methods and resultsThis was a prospective study of 107 patients hospitalized with ADHF (mean age 72 + 13 years, 44% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 47 + 15%). Blood samples were collected on presentation to measure soluble (s)ST2, highsensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), and amino-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. Clinical follow-up was obtained for all patients over a median period of 739 days, and all-cause mortality was registered. Concentrations of sST2 [per 10 ng/mL, hazard ratio (HR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.13; P , 0.001], hsTnT (per 0.1 ng/mL, HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09-1.24; P , 0.001), and NT-proBNP (per 100 pg/mL, HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.003-1.01; P , 0.001) were each predictive of a higher risk of death. In bootstrapped models, each biomarker retained independent predictive value for mortality. Patients with all three biomarkers below their optimal cut-off at presentation were free of death (0%) during follow-up, whereas 53% of those with elevations of all three biomarkers had died. For each elevated marker (from 0 to 3) adjusted analysis suggested a tripling of the risk of death (for each elevated marker, HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.63-4.28, P , 0.001). Integrated discrimination analyses indicated that the use of these three markers in a multimarker approach uniquely improved prediction of death. ConclusionsBiomarkers reflecting remodelling (sST2), myonecrosis (hsTnT), and myocardial stretch (NT-proBNP) provide complementary prognostic information in patients with ADHF. When used together, these novel markers provide superior risk stratification.--

No abstract

Objectives: To determine whether serial measures of the interleukin receptor family member soluble ST2 (sST2) provide additional prognostic information to baseline measures for long-term risk stratification of acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 72 ADHF patients. Blood samples were collected to measure sST2 concentrations at presentation and on day 4 of hospitalization. All patients were clinically followed, and vital status was registered. Results: Between presentation and day 4, sST2 concentrations decreased from 62 ng/ml (interquartile range 38–105) to 44 ng/ml (interquartile range 26–72; p < 0.001). Both sST2 concentrations at presentation [hazard ratio (HR) 1.011, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.005–1.016; p < 0.001] and on day 4 (HR 1.015, 95% CI 1.005–1.024; p = 0.003) were independent predictors of mortality. Patients with sST2 ≤76 ng/ml at presentation and ≤46 ng/ml on day 4 had the lowest mortality rates (3%), whereas those with both sST2 values above these cutoff points had the highest mortality (50%). C index and reclassification analyses demonstrated that the use of serial sST2 measures resulted in an improvement in the accuracy of mortality prediction. Conclusions: Among ADHF patients, sST2 concentrations tend to decrease following initiation of treatment and are prognostic both at presentation and during hospitalization. Serial sampling of sST2 adds prognostic information and may provide a basis for enhanced clinical decision making.

MRAs play a pivotal role in the Gal-3 and IL-33/ST2 modulation in post-MI cardiac remodeling.

Among patients hospitalized with ADHF, BTP and cystatin C predict risk of death and/or HF hospitalization and are superior to standard measures of renal function for this indication.

No abstract

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.

No abstract