BackgroundA thorough analysis of noncardiac determinants of mortality in heart failure (HF) is missing. Furthermore, evidence conflicts on the outcome of patients with HF and no or mild systolic dysfunction. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of noncardiac and cardiac causes of death in a cohort of chronic HF patients, covering the whole spectrum of systolic function.Methods and ResultsWe enrolled 2791 stable HF patients, classified into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction [EF] <40%), HR with midrange EF (HFmrEF; left ventricular EF 41–49%), or HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; left ventricular EF ≥50%), and followed up for all‐cause, cardiac, and noncardiac mortality (adjudicated as due to cancer, sepsis, respiratory disease, renal disease, or other causes). Over follow‐up of 39 months, adjusted mortality was lower in HFpEF and HFmrEF versus HFrEF (hazard ratio: 0.75 [95% CI, 0.67–0.84], P<0.001 for HFpEF; hazard ratio: 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63–0.96], P=0.017 for HFmrEF). HFrEF had the highest rates of cardiac death, whereas noncardiac mortality was similar across left ventricular EF categories. Noncardiac causes accounted for 62% of deaths in HFpEF, 54% in HFmrEF and 35% in HFrEF; cancer was twice as frequent as a cause of death in HFpEF and HFmrEF versus HFrEF. Yearly rates of noncardiac death exceeded those of cardiac death since the beginning of follow‐up in HFpEF and HFmrEF.ConclusionsNoncardiac death is a major determinant of outcome in stable HF, exceeding cardiac‐related mortality in HFpEF and HFmrHF. Comorbidities should be regarded as main therapeutic targets and objects of dedicated quality improvement initiatives, especially in patients with no or mild systolic dysfunction.

Aims The recent coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak forced the adoption of restraint measures, which modified the hospital admission patterns for several diseases. The aim of the study is to investigate the rate of hospital admissions for heart failure (HF) during the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy, compared with a corresponding period during the previous year and an earlier period during the same year. Methods and results We performed a retrospective analysis on HF admissions number at eight hospitals in Italy throughout the study period (21 February to 31 March 2020), compared with an inter-year period (21 February to 31 March 2019) and an intra-year period (1 January to 20 February 2020). The primary outcome was the overall rate of hospital admissions for HF. A total of 505 HF patients were included in this survey: 112 during the case period, 201 during intra-year period, and 192 during inter-year period. The mean admission rate during the case period was 2.80 admissions per day, significantly lower compared with intra-year period (3.94 admissions per day; incidence rate ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.89; P = 0.0037), or with inter-year (4.92 admissions per day; incidence rate ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.72; P < 0.001). Patients admitted during study period were less frequently admitted in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II compared with inter-year period (P = 0.019). At covariance analysis NYHA class was significantly lower in patients admitted during inter-year control period, compared with patients admitted during case period (P = 0.014). Conclusions Admissions for HF were significantly reduced during the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy.

No abstract

After initial strategies targeting inotropism and congestion, the neurohormonal interpretative model of heart failure (HF) pathophysiology has set the basis for current pharmacological management of HF, as most of guideline recommended drug classes, including beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, blunt the activation of detrimental neurohormonal axes, namely sympathetic and renin–angiotensin–aldosterone (RAAS) systems. More recently, sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, combining inhibition of RAAS and potentiation of the counter-regulatory natriuretic peptide system, has been consistently demonstrated to reduce mortality and HF-related hospitalization. A number of novel pharmacological approaches have been tested during the latest years, leading to mixed results. Among them, drugs acting directly at a second messenger level, such as the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator vericiguat, or other addressing myocardial energetics and mitochondrial function, such as elamipretide or omecamtiv-mecarbil, will likely change the therapeutic management of patients with HF. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, initially designed for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, have been recently demonstrated to improve outcome in HF, although mechanisms of their action on cardiovascular system are yet to be elucidated. Most of these emerging approaches have shifted the therapeutic target from neurohormonal systems to the heart, by improving cardiac contractility, metabolism, fibrosis, inflammation, and remodeling. In the present paper, we review from a pathophysiological perspective current and novel therapeutic strategies in chronic HF.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition of poor end-organ perfusion, caused by any cardiovascular disease resulting in a severe depression of cardiac output. Despite recent advances in replacement therapies, the outcome of CS is still poor, and its management depends more on empirical decisions rather than on evidence-based strategies. By its side, acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication of CS, resulting in the onset of a cardiorenal syndrome. The combination of CS with AKI depicts a worse clinical scenario and holds a worse prognosis. Many factors can lead to acute renal impairment in the setting of CS, either for natural disease progression or for iatrogenic causes. This review aims at collecting the current evidence-based acknowledgments in epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnosis, and management of CS with AKI. We also attempted to highlight the major gaps in evidence as well as to point out possible strategies to improve the outcome.

Background: Although central apneas (CA) and obstructive apneas (OA) are highly prevalent in heart failure (HF), a comparison of apnea prevalence, predictors and clinical correlates in the whole HF spectrum, including HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF) has never been carried out so far.Materials and methods: 700 HF patients were prospectively enrolled and then divided according to left ventricular EF (408 HFrEF, 117 HFmrEF, 175 HFpEF). All patients underwent a thorough evaluation including: 2D echocardiography; 24-h Holter-ECG monitoring; cardiopulmonary exercise testing; neuro-hormonal assessment and 24-h cardiorespiratory monitoring.Results: In the whole population, prevalence of normal breathing (NB), CA and OA at daytime was 40, 51, and 9%, respectively, while at nighttime 15, 55, and 30%, respectively. When stratified according to left ventricular EF, CA prevalence decreased (daytime: 57 vs. 43 vs. 42%, p = 0.001; nighttime: 66 vs. 48 vs. 34%, p < 0.0001) from HFrEF to HFmrEF and HFpEF, while OA prevalence increased (daytime: 5 vs. 8 vs. 18%, p < 0.0001; nighttime 20 vs. 29 vs. 53%, p < 0.0001).In HFrEF, male gender and body mass index (BMI) were independent predictors of both CA and OA at nighttime, while age, New York Heart Association functional class and diastolic dysfunction of daytime CA. In HFmrEF and HFpEF male gender and systolic pulmonary artery pressure were independent predictors of CA at daytime, while hypertension predicted nighttime OA in HFpEF patients; no predictor of nighttime CA was identified. When compared to patients with NB, those with CA had higher neuro-hormonal activation in all HF subgroups. Moreover, in the HFrEF subgroup, patients with CA were older, more comorbid and with greater hemodynamic impairment while, in the HFmrEF and HFpEF subgroups, they had higher left atrial volumes and more severe diastolic dysfunction, respectively. When compared to patients with NB, those with OA were older and more comorbid independently from background EF.Conclusions: Across the whole spectrum of HF, CA prevalence increases and OA decreases as left ventricular systolic dysfunction progresses. Different predictors and specific clinical characteristics might help to identify patients at risk of developing CA or OA in different HF phenotypes.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is highly prevalent and is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality. However, an evidence-based treatment is still absent. The heterogeneous definitions, differences in aetiology/pathophysiology, and diagnostic challenges of HFpEF made it difficult to define its epidemiological landmarks so far. Several large registries and observational studies have recently disclosed an increasing incidence/prevalence, as well as its prognostic significance. An accurate definition of HFpEF epidemiological boundaries and phenotypes is mandatory to develop novel effective and rational therapeutic approaches.

Primary mitral regurgitation (MR) is the second most common valvular disease, characterized by a high burden in terms of quality of life, morbidity, and mortality. Surgical treatment is considered the best therapeutic strategy for patients with severe MR, especially if they are symptomatic. However, pre-operative echocardiographic evaluation is an essential step not only for surgical candidate selection but also to avoid post-operative complications. Therefore, a strong collaboration between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons is fundamental in this setting. A meticulous pre-operative echocardiographic exam, both with transthoracic or transesophageal echocardiography, followed by a precise report containing anatomical information and parameters should always be performed to optimize surgical planning. Moreover, intraoperative transesophageal evaluation is often required by cardiac surgeons as it may offer additive important information with different hemodynamic conditions. Three-dimensional echocardiography has recently gained higher consideration and availability for the evaluation of MR, providing more insights into mitral valve geometry and MR mechanism. This review paper aims to realize a practical overview on the main use of basic and advanced echocardiography in MR surgical planning and to provide a precise checklist with reference parameters to follow when performing pre-operative echocardiographic exam, in order to aid cardiologists to provide a complete echocardiographic evaluation for MR operation planning from clinical and surgical point-of-view.