This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Objective: Despite recommendations from heart failure guidelines on the use of pharmacologic and device therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), important inconsistencies in guideline adherence persist in practice. The aim of this study was to assess adherence to guideline-directed medical and device therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%). Methods: The Adherence to guideline-directed medical and device Therapy in outpAtients with HFrEF (ATA) study is a prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted in 24 centers from January 2019 to June 2019. Results: The study included 1462 outpatients (male: 70.1%, mean age: 67±11 years, mean LVEF: 30%±6%) with chronic HFrEF. Renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and ivabradin were used in 78.2%, 90.2%, 55.4%, and 12.1% of patients, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving target doses of medical treatments was 24.6% for RAS inhibitors, 9.9% for beta-blockers, and 10.5% for MRAs. Among patients who met the criteria for implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), only 16.9% of patients received an ICD (167 of 983) and 34% (95 of 279) of patients underwent CRT (95 of 279). Conclusion: The ATA study shows that most HFrEF outpatients receive RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers but not MRAs or ivabradin when the medical reasons for nonuse, such as drug intolerance or contraindications, are taken into account. In addition, most eligible patients with HFrEF do not receive target doses of pharmacological treatments or guideline-recommended device therapy.

Objective: There are lack of studies considering the suboptimal management of dyslipidemia especially in cardiology outpatient clinics. This study was conducted to assess the patient adherence to cholesterol treatment recommendations and attainment of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals.Methods: EPHESUS (NCT02608645) is a national, observational and multicenter registry which has been designed as a cross-sectional study to allow inclusion of all consecutive patients with hypercholesterolemia in cardiology outpatient clinics.The present subgroup analyses of the EPHESUS trial included patients with known peripheral artery disease or atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease, and coronary heart disease namely secondary prevention. Results:The present analysis of the EPHESUS study included 1482 patients (62.79 ± 10.4 years, 38.2% female) with secondary prevention from 40 sites in Turkey.Regarding recommended lipid targets for LDL-C, only 267 patients (18%) were below the target of 70 mg/dL. Females were significantly more off-target when compared with male patients (396, 85.5% vs 67, 14.5%; P = 0.017). Moreover, the achievement of LDL-C goal was significantly decreased with illiteracy (233, 19.2% vs 35, 13.1%; P = 0.02). Patients who think that the cholesterol treatment should be terminated when the cholesterol level of a patient has normalised were higher in the off-target group (34.0% vs 24.7%, P < 0.001). Besides, physician perceptions about LDL-C goal for secondary prevention were significantly related with LDL-C target attainment. Conclusions:EPHESUS is an important study with large population in terms of representing real-life practice of the adherence to dyslipidemia guidelines in secondary prevention patients in Turkey. Perceptions, knowledge, and compliance with the guidelines for secondary prevention have increased, but it is far below from the

No abstract

Background Data specifically addressed to whether atrial fibrillation (AF) would contribute to increasing the risk for severe forms of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) or worse prognosis remain unclear. Hence, we sought to assess the association of permanent AF with in-hospital outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Methods This was a single-centered, retrospective, observational study including consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome for the study was defined as all cause in-hospital mortality. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF were compared to patients without AF. Results Three hundred and fifty hospitalized COVID-19 patients (median age of 55 years, 55.4% men) were enrolled. Of them 40 (11.4%) had AF. Patients with AF were older; were more likely to have co-morbidities, abnormal chest radiography findings and deteriorated laboratory parameters such as D-dimer, troponin, albumin, urea. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with AF compared to patients without AF (32.5% vs. 13.5%, log-rank p = 0.002, RR 2.40). The number of patients who needed intensive care unit (55% vs. 31%, p = 0.002) and invasive mechanical ventilation (35% vs 15.2%, p = 0.002) were also higher in the AF group. In addition, length of in-hospital stay was longer in patients with AF (median 8 vs. 7 days, p = 0.008). After adjustment for age and co-morbidities, multivariable analyses revealed that AF (HR: 2.426, 95% CI: 1.089–5.405, p = 0.032) was independently associated with in-hospital death. Conclusions AF was seen with together markers of severe COVID-19, and the presence of AF was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.