No abstract

No abstract

Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries Endorsed by: the European Stroke Organization (ESO) The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS)

The global prevalence of diabetes is predicted to increase dramatically in the coming decades as the population grows and ages, in parallel with the rising burden of overweight and obesity, in both developed and developing countries. Cardiovascular disease represents the principal cause of death and morbidity among people with diabetes, especially in those with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Adults with diabetes have 2–4 times increased cardiovascular risk compared with adults without diabetes, and the risk rises with worsening glycaemic control. Diabetes has been associated with 75% increase in mortality rate in adults, and cardiovascular disease accounts for a large part of the excess mortality. Diabetes-related macrovascular and microvascular complications, including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, chronic renal disease, diabetic retinopathy and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy are responsible for the impaired quality of life, disability and premature death associated with diabetes. Given the substantial clinical impact of diabetes as a cardiovascular risk factor, there has been a growing focus on diabetes-related complications. While some population-based studies suggest that the epidemiology of such complications is changing and that rates of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among individuals with diabetes are decreasing in high-income countries, the economic and social burden of diabetes is expected to rise due to changing demographics and lifestyle especially in middle- and low-income countries. In this review we outline data from population-based studies on recent and long-term trends in diabetes-related complications.

There is strong evidence that sex chromosomes and sex hormones influence blood pressure (BP) regulation, distribution of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and co-morbidities differentially in females and males with essential arterial hypertension. The risk for CV disease increases at a lower BP level in females than in males, suggesting that sex-specific thresholds for diagnosis of hypertension may be reasonable. However, due to paucity of data, in particularly from specifically designed clinical trials, it is not yet known whether hypertension should be differently managed in females and males, including treatment goals and choice and dosages of antihypertensive drugs. Accordingly, this consensus document was conceived to provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge on sex differences in essential hypertension including BP development over the life course, development of hypertension, pathophysiologic mechanisms regulating BP, interaction of BP with CV risk factors and co-morbidities, hypertension-mediated organ damage in the heart and the arteries, impact on incident CV disease, and differences in the effect of antihypertensive treatment. The consensus document also highlights areas where focused research is needed to advance sex-specific prevention and management of hypertension.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for developing cardiovascular disease, and many patients with diabetes have prevalent cardiovascular complications. Recent cardiovascular outcome clinical trials suggest that certain new glucose-lowering drugs are accompanied by additional cardioprotective properties. Indeed, selected glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists have a proved cardiovascular benefit in terms of a reduced incidence of ischaemic events, while sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors have also shown significant protection, with a striking effect on heart failure and renal endpoints. These findings have been integrated in recent guidelines which now recommend prescribing (when initial metformin monotherapy fails) a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist or a sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor with clinical trial-confirmed benefit in patients with diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and a sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor in such patients with heart failure or chronic kidney disease at initial stages. Furthermore, the new 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines in collaboration with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist or a sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with pre-existing cardiovascular disease or at high cardiovascular risk. Future research will disentangle the mechanisms underpinning these beneficial effects and will also establish to what extent these results are generalisable to the whole diabetes population. In the meantime, available evidence should prompt a wide diffusion of these two classes of drugs among patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Here, we briefly summarise recent findings emerging from cardiovascular outcome clinical trials, discuss their impact on treatment algorithms and propose new possible approaches to improve our knowledge further regarding the cardiovascular effect of glucose-lowering medications.

Cardiovascular (CV) engagement in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a huge determinant of prognosis during the acute phase of the disease. However, little is known about the potential chronic implications of the late phase of COVID‐19 and about the appropriate approach to these patients. Heart failure, type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, myocarditis, pulmonary fibrosis, and thrombosis have been shown to be related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, and a ‘long COVID‐19’ illness has been recognized with fatigue, chest pain, and dyspnoea among the most frequent symptoms reported after discharge from hospital. This paper focuses on some open questions that cardiologists are going to face during the next months in a general cardiology outpatient clinic, in particular how to evaluate a ‘post‐COVID’ patient during follow‐up of CV complications of the acute phase and how to manage new CV symptoms that could be the consequence, at least in part, of heart/vessels and/or lung involvement of the previous virus infection. Present symptoms and signs, history of previous CV disease (both preceding COVID‐19 and occurring during viral infection), and specific laboratory and imaging measurements during the acute phase may be of interest in focusing on how to approach the clinical evaluation of a post‐COVID patient and how to integrate in our standard of care the new information on COVID‐19, possibly in a multidisciplinary view. Dealing with the increased COVID‐associated CV risk burden and becoming acquainted with potential new e‐cardiology approaches aimed at integrating the cardiology practice are relevant new challenges brought by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and its sequelae.

Several international guidelines, including those in France, recommend the screening of abdominal aorta aneurysm (AAA) by ultrasound in high-risk populations. However, this preventive screening strategy is poorly implemented. Many patients who undergo transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) are at risk of AAA as defined by the guidelines, and the cardiac ultrasound machines and probes fit perfectly for AAA screening. In this literature review, we collected data from more than 20,000 patients who underwent screening for AAA during TTE, from 10 single-centre series. While the studies differed regarding patient selection and AAA definition, the feasibility of AAA screening during TTE was excellent (mostly >90%), with the need for an average of 2-7 minutes to be added to the cardiac imaging time. The prevalence of AAA >30 mm ranged from 0.8% to 6.5%, and up to 19% in men aged >70 years. The risk factors for the presence of AAA among attendees of echocardiography laboratories were similar to those reported in the general population: age, male gender, smoking, hypertension, family history of AAA and prevalent atherosclerotic diseases. Some echocardiography-specific factors, such as left ventricular hypertrophy or dilation and poor left ventricular ejection fraction were also reported. To better assess the benefit of and indications for AAA screening during TTE in clinical practice, we propose a multicentre, nationwide, screening study in echocardiography laboratories in our country.