Serial NT-proBNP measurement and targeting to an individual NT-proBNP value did result in advanced detection of HF-related events and importantly influenced HF-therapy, but failed to provide significant clinical improvement in terms of mortality and morbidity. (Effect of NT-proBNP Guided Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure [PRIMA]; NCT00149422).

Aims: Fat-free mass (FFM) is increasingly recognized as a systemic marker of disease severity in chronic organ failure and is an important target for physiologic and pharmacologic interventions to improve functional status. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate two clinical methods to assess FFM in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) using deuterium dilution (DEU) as reference and bromide dilution to assess the ratio between intracellular (ICW) and extracellular water (ECW) as potential confounder. Methods: Body composition was measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and DEU in 22 stable patients from our heart failure outpatient clinic and 24 healthy age matched controls. Results: FFM values measured by DXA and DEU in patients (r = 0.92, SEE: 3.1 kg) and controls (r = 0.99, SEE: 1.3 kg) were strongly related. In both patients and controls, the inter method difference increased with higher values of FFM (DXA overestimating DEU). The ICW / ECW ratio was within the normal range and comparable between the groups. In patients, a highly significant correlation coefficient was found (r = 0.93, SEE 2.1 p = 0.01) between total body water (DEU) and height squared/resistance (Ht 2 / R). On multiple regression next to Ht 2 / R, body weight was an independent predictor of FFM DEU (r = 0.95, SEE 2.5 kg, p < 0.001; TBWdeu = 0.528 Ht 2 / R + (0.182 weight) + 8.277). Conclusion: DXA and DEU are appropriate and interchangeable laboratory methods for assessment of FFM in clinically stable heart failure patients, however, overestimation of FFM DXA should be considered. BIA is a suitable clinical alternative for diagnostic purposes.

Background: increasing evidence supports the existence of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction as an important cause of congestive heart failure, present in up to 40% of heart failure patients. Aim: to review the pathophysiology of LV diastolic dysfunction and diastolic heart failure and the currently available methods to diagnose these disorders. Results: for diagnosing LV diastolic dysfunction, invasive hemodynamic measurements are the gold standard. Additional exercise testing with assessment of LV volumes and pressures may be of help in detecting exercise-induced elevation of filling pressures because of diastolic dysfunction. However, echocardiography is obtained more easily, and will remain the most often used method for diagnosing diastolic heart failure in the coming years. MRI may provide noninvasive determination of LV three-dimensional motion during diastole, but data on correlation of MRI data with clinical findings are scant, and possibilities for widespread application are limited at this moment. Conclusions: in the forthcoming years, optimal diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for patients with primary diastolic heart failure have to be developed. Therefore, future heart failure trials should incorporate patients with diastolic heart failure, describing precise details of LV systolic and diastolic function in their study populations.

Background Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor prognosis, high morbidity and mortality. The prognosis can be optimised by guideline adherence, which also can be used as a benchmark of quality of care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in use of HF medication between Dutch HF clinics. Methods The current analysis was part of a crosssectional registry of 10,910 chronic HF patients at 34 Dutch outpatient clinics in the period of 2013 until 2016 (CHECK-HF), and focused on the differences in prescription rates between the participating clinics in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Results A total of 8,360 HFrEF patients were included with a mean age of 72.3 ± 11.8 years (ranging between 69.1 ± 11.9 and 76.6 ± 10.0 between the clinics), 63.9% were men (ranging between 54.3 and 78.1%), The Authors G.C.M. Linssen and J.F. Veenis contributed equally to the manuscript.