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.

IntroductionGeneral public views about heart failure (HF) alone and in comparison with other chronic conditions are largely unknown; thus we conducted this survey to evaluate general public awareness about HF and HF disease burden relative to common chronic disease.Material and methodsThis was a cross-sectional survey during European Heart Failure Awareness Day 2011. People visiting the stands and other activities in 12 Slovenian cities were invited to complete a 14-item questionnaire.ResultsThe analysis included 850 subjects (age 56 ±15 years, 44% men, 55% completed secondary education or higher). Overall, 83% reported to have heard about HF, 58% knew someone with HF, and 35% believed that HF is a normal consequence of ageing. When compared to other chronic diseases, HF was perceived as less important than cancer, myocardial infarction, stroke and diabetes with only 6%, 12%, 7%, and 5% of subjects ranking HF as number 1 in terms of prevalence, cost, quality of life, and survival. A typical patient with HF symptoms was recognized by 30%, which was comparable to the description of myocardial ischemia (33%) and stroke (39%). Primary care physicians (53%) or specialists (52%) would be primary sources of information about HF. If experiencing HF, 83% would prefer their care to be focused on quality of life rather than on survival (14%).ConclusionsMany participants reported to have heard about heart failure but the knowledge was poor and with several misbeliefs. Heart failure was perceived as less important than several other chronic diseases, where cancer appears as a main concern among the general public.

Extreme hyperkalaemia is a life-threatening electrolyte disorder. It is relatively common in patients with severe renal insuffi ciency. This report describes a case of extreme hyperkalaemia caused by drugs in an 82-year-old female patient without severe renal insuffi ciency, who was successfully treated without haemodialysis. The patient had been treated for arterial hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus for 30 years. Over the last years she had been receiving enalapril and metformin. Three weeks before the admission to the hospital, she was receiving a non-steroidal anti-infl ammatory drug (NSAID) because of the back pain. She was admitted to hospital due to a collapse and weakness in the limbs. Laboratory tests showed extreme hyperkalaemia, high blood sugar, metabolic acidosis, elevated serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and a slightly elevated serum sodium. On ECG, we noticed typical signs of hyperkalaemia. The patient was treated with a slow intravenous bolus of calcium gluconate and intravenous infusion of sodium chloride with insulin, glucose with insulin and sodium bicarbonte. After the treatment, all laboratory fi ndings normalised together and the patient felt better. This case shows that physicians should be very careful when prescribing NSAIDs to elderly patients treated with drugs that affect renal function.

AimsTo comprehensively assess hyponatraemia in acute heart failure (AHF) regarding prevalence, associations, hospital course, and post‐discharge outcomes.Methods and resultsOf 8298 patients in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long‐Term Registry hospitalized for AHF with any ejection fraction, 20% presented with hyponatraemia (serum sodium <135 mmol/L). Independent predictors included lower systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haemoglobin, along with diabetes, hepatic disease, use of thiazide diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, digoxin, higher doses of loop diuretics, and non‐use of angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta‐blockers. In‐hospital death occurred in 3.3%. The prevalence of hyponatraemia and in‐hospital mortality with different combinations were: 9% hyponatraemia both at admission and discharge (hyponatraemia Yes/Yes, in‐hospital mortality 6.9%), 11% Yes/No (in‐hospital mortality 4.9%), 8% No/Yes (in‐hospital mortality 4.7%), and 72% No/No (in‐hospital mortality 2.4%). Correction of hyponatraemia was associated with improvement in eGFR. In‐hospital development of hyponatraemia was associated with greater diuretic use and worsening eGFR but also more effective decongestion. Among hospital survivors, 12‐month mortality was 19% and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were for hyponatraemia Yes/Yes 1.60 (1.35–1.89), Yes/No 1.35 (1.14–1.59), and No/Yes 1.18 (0.96–1.45). For death or heart failure hospitalization they were 1.38 (1.21–1.58), 1.17 (1.02–1.33), and 1.09 (0.93–1.27), respectively.ConclusionAmong patients with AHF, 20% had hyponatraemia at admission, which was associated with more advanced heart failure and normalized in half of patients during hospitalization. Admission hyponatraemia (possibly dilutional), especially if it did not resolve, was associated with worse in‐hospital and post‐discharge outcomes. Hyponatraemia developing during hospitalization (possibly depletional) was associated with lower risk.