Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

These findings suggest that comprehensive risk assessments and the aim of reaching a low-risk profile are valid in PAH.

BACKGROUNDSerelaxin is a recombinant form of human relaxin-2, a vasodilator hormone that contributes to cardiovascular and renal adaptations during pregnancy. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with serelaxin may result in relief of symptoms and in better outcomes in patients with acute heart failure. METHODSIn this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial, we enrolled patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure and had dyspnea, vascular congestion on chest radiography, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and a systolic blood pressure of at least 125 mm Hg, and we randomly assigned them within 16 hours after presentation to receive either a 48-hour intravenous infusion of serelaxin (30 μg per kilogram of body weight per day) or placebo, in addition to standard care. The two primary end points were death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days and worsening heart failure at 5 days. RESULTSA total of 6545 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At day 180, death from cardiovascular causes had occurred in 285 of the 3274 patients (8.7%) in the serelaxin group and in 290 of the 3271 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.15; P = 0.77). At day 5, worsening heart failure had occurred in 227 patients (6.9%) in the serelaxin group and in 252 (7.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.07; P = 0.19). There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of death from any cause at 180 days, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or rehospitalization for heart failure or renal failure at 180 days, or the length of the index hospital stay. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONSIn this trial involving patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure, an infusion of serelaxin did not result in a lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days or worsening heart failure at 5 days than placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; RELAX-AHF-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01870778.

No abstract

The majority of the PAH and CTEPH patients were diagnosed at age >65 years, in functional class III-IV, and exhibiting several comorbidities. PAH survival in SPAHR was similar to other registers.

End of life is an unfortunate but inevitable phase of the heart failure patients' journey. It is often preceded by a stage in the progression of heart failure defined as advanced heart failure, and characterised by poor quality of life and frequent hospitalisations. In clinical practice, the efficacy of treatments for advanced heart failure is often assessed by parameters such as clinical status, haemodynamics, neurohormonal status, and echo/MRI indices. From the patients' perspective, however, quality-of-life-related parameters, such as functional capacity, exercise performance, psychological status, and frequency of re-hospitalisations, are more significant. The effects of therapies and interventions on these parameters are, however, underrepresented in clinical trials targeted to assess advanced heart failure treatment efficacy, and data are overall scarce. This is possibly due to a non-universal definition of the quality-of-life-related endpoints, and to the difficult standardisation of the data collection. These uncertainties also lead to difficulties in handling trade-off decisions between quality of life and survival by patients, families and healthcare providers. A panel of 34 experts in the field of cardiology and intensive cardiac care from 21 countries around the world convened for reviewing the existing data on quality-of-life in patients with advanced heart failure, discussing and reaching a consensus on the validity and significance of quality-of-life assessment methods. Gaps in routine care and research, which should be addressed, were identified. Finally, published data on the effects of current i.v. vasoactive therapies such as inotropes, inodilators, and vasodilators on quality-of-life in advanced heart failure patients were analysed.

AimsCardiac dyssynchrony is common in patients with heart failure, whether or not they have ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The effect of the underlying cause of cardiac dysfunction on the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is unknown. This issue was addressed using data from the CARE-HF trial.Methods and resultsPatients (n = 813) were grouped by heart failure aetiology (IHD n = 339 vs. non-IHD n = 473), and the primary composite (all-cause mortality or unplanned hospitalization for a major cardiovascular event) and principal secondary (all-cause mortality) endpoints analysed. Heart failure severity and the degree of dyssynchrony were compared between the groups by analysing baseline clinical and echocardiographic variables. Patients with IHD were more likely to be in NYHA class IV (7.5 vs. 4.0%; P = 0.03) and to have higher NT-proBNP levels (2182 vs. 1725 pg/L), indicating more advanced heart failure. The degree of dyssynchrony was more pronounced in patients without IHD (assessed using mean QRS duration, interventricular mechanical delay, and aorta-pulmonary pre-ejection time). Left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-systolic volume improved to a lesser extent in the IHD group (4.53 vs. 8.50% and −35.68 vs. –58.52 cm3). Despite these differences, CRT improved all-cause mortality, NYHA class, and hospitalization rates to a similar extent in patients with or without IHD.ConclusionThe benefits of CRT in patients with or without IHD were similar in relative terms in the CARE-HF study but as patients with IHD had a worse prognosis, the benefit in absolute terms may be greater.

The current data suggest that in selected patients and support out-of-hospital care, intermittent/repetitive levosimendan can be used in advanced heart failure to maintain patient stability. Further studies are needed to focus on morbidity and mortality outcomes, dosing intervals, and patient monitoring. Recommendations for the design of further clinical studies are made.