Exercise training (ET) is strongly recommended in patients with chronic stable heart failure (HF). Moderate-intensity aerobic continuous ET is the best established training modality in HF patients. In the last decade, however, high-intensity interval exercise training (HIIT) has aroused considerable interest in cardiac rehabilitation community. In HF patients, HIIT exerts larger improvements in exercise  capacity compared to moderate-continuous ET. Since better functional capacity translates into symptoms relief and improvement in quality of life in patients with HF, this training modality is collecting growing interest and consensus, not revealing major safety issues. HIIT should not replace other training modalities in HF but should rather complement them. Inspiratory muscle training, another promising training modality in patients with HF, exerts beneficial effect on inspiratory muscle strength and inspiratory endurance, on exercise capacity and quality of life. In conclusion, taking into consideration the complecity of HF syndrome, combining and tailoring different ET modalities according to each patient's baseline clinical characteristics (i.e. exercise capacity, comorbidity, frailty status, personal needs, preferences and goals) seem the most wily approach for exercise prescription.

Aims Ventilation vs. carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) is among the strongest cardiopulmonary exercise testing prognostic parameters in heart failure (HF). It is usually reported as an absolute value. The current definition of normal VE/VCO2 slope values is inadequate, since it was built from small groups of subjects with a particularly limited number of women and elderly. We aimed to define VE/VCO2 slope prediction formulas in a sizable population and to test whether the prognostic power of VE/VCO2 slope in HF was different if expressed as a percentage of the predicted value or as an absolute value. Methods and results We calculated the linear regressions between age and VE/VCO2 slope in 1136 healthy subjects (68% male, age 44.9 ± 14.5, range 13–83 years). We then applied age‐adjusted and sex‐adjusted formulas to predict VE/VCO2 slope to HF patients included in the metabolic exercise test data combined with cardiac and kidney indexes score database, which counts 6112 patients (82% male, age 61.4 ± 12.8, left ventricular ejection fraction 33.2 ± 10.5%, peakVO2 14.8 ± 4.9, mL/min/kg, VE/VCO2 slope 32.7 ± 7.7) from 24 HF centres. Finally, we evaluated whether the use of absolute values vs. percentages of predicted VE/VCO2 affected HF prognosis prediction (composite of cardiovascular mortality + urgent transplant or left ventricular assist device). We did so in the entire cardiac and kidney indexes score population and separately in HF patients with severe (peakVO2 < 14 mL/min/kg, n = 2919, 61.1 events/1000 pts/year) or moderate (peakVO2 ≥ 14 mL/min/kg, n = 3183, 19.9 events/1000 pts/year) HF. In the healthy population, we obtained the following equations: female, VE/VCO2 = 0.052 × Age + 23.808 (r = 0.192); male, VE/VCO2 = 0.095 × Age + 20.227 (r = 0.371) (P = 0.007). We applied these formulas to calculate the percentages of predicted VE/VCO2 values. The 2‐year survival prognostic power of VE/VCO2 slope was strong, and it was similar if expressed as absolute value or as a percentage of predicted value (AUCs 0.686 and 0.690, respectively). In contrast, in severe HF patients, AUCs significantly differed between absolute values (0.637) and percentages of predicted values (0.650, P = 0.0026). Moreover, VE/VCO2 slope expressed as a percentage of predicted value allowed to reclassify 6.6% of peakVO2 < 14 mL/min/kg patients (net reclassification improvement = 0.066, P = 0.0015). Conclusions The percentage of predicted VE/VCO2 slope value strengthens the prognostic power of VE/VCO2 in severe HF patients, and it should be preferred over the absolute value for HF prognostication. Furthermore, the widespread use of VE/VCO2 slope expressed as percentage of predicted value can improve our ability to identify HF patients at high risk, which is a goal of utmost clinical relevance.

Heart Failure (HF) is a major healthcare issue, given its high prevalence and incidence, the rate of comorbidities, the related high health-care costs and its poor outcome. In the last years mounting evidence revealed several differences between men and women affected by this clinical condition. Apart from the well-known difference in phenotype (HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) occurs more commonly in men, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more frequent in women) other relevant sex-related issues dwell upon epidemiology, presentation, risk stratification and management. These differences shed new lights on the possibility to consider HF as a prototype of the impact of gender/sex issue in cardiovascular medicine. A call for action and future strategies might help in the achievement of a cleaver patient-care.

Hormonal abnormalities are quite common in chronic heart failure (CHF). The most studied hormonal axis in CHF is the impairment of Growth Hormone (GH)/Insulin Growth Factor-1(IGF-1), which in turn is defined either by a blunted response to GH stimulation test or low serum IGF-1 values.  Several independent groups reported that the presence of an abnormal GH/IGF-1 status in CHF is associated with a more severe disease, impaired functional capacity and reduced Survival rates. After the first encouraging results, double -blind controlled trials showed a neutral effect of the GH administration in patients. However, further studies reported positive results, when a GH-therapy is implemented only in those patients presenting a GH deficiency (replacement therapy).

No abstract