State of the art on angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) decreases renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and sympathetic nervous systems (SNS) activity promoting vasodilation, decreasing myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis. Beyond the SNS, RAAS and natriuretic peptide systems, ARNI results in increased circulatory and myocardial nitric oxide levels activating cGMP and protein kinase G, which reduces oxidative stress, myocyte hypertrophy, cell death and has anti-thrombotic effects. ARNIs have a class I indication by heart failure (HF) guidelines in HFrEF patients with NYHA class II to III symptoms. Beyond HFrEF, the use of ARNIs has also been expanded to other clinical settings including HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF, HFpEF), acute HF, advanced HF, hypertension, arrhythmias and chronic kidney disease. This paper reviews the clinical benefits of ARNIs in both HF and the aforementioned cardiovascular conditions. We also discuss the combined use of ARNI with SGLT2i and their potential synergistic benefits on cardiovascular outcomes.

Management of hypertension in heart transplant recipients: an ongoing conundrum.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension remains one of the most common clinical problems leading to significant posttransplant complications. This study reviews the pathophysiology of hypertension in the postcardiac transplant phase and provides an update on currently available antihypertensive therapies for heart transplant patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The true prevalence of hypertension in the heart transplant population remains unknown. Effective blood pressure (BP) control is key to prevent left ventricular remodeling, diastolic dysfunction and stroke. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are the most commonly and preferred agents in the early posttransplant phase and may have renal protective effects. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) can all be used as second line antihypertensive agents and may have a role in preventing other long-term complications such as calcineurin-inhibitor induced nephropathy. Although more data are needed, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) appeared to be well tolerated and could be considered especially in the presence of type diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Conversely, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition (ARNI) have not been studied in the heart transplant population therefore cannot be recommended at this time. SUMMARY: Hypertension is very common after heart transplant. Early steroid wean and traditional risk factor modification play an important part in the management of post-heart transplant hypertension. CCB, ACEI, ARB are the preferred antihypertensive agents to improve postcardiac transplant complications. Novel therapies such as SGLT2i appear well tolerated and may have benefits in both BP and glycemic control in heart transplant; however, larger trials are needed.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF). Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023. Exposure: Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS). Results: Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Outcomes of Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices Requiring Intermittent Hemodialysis: Single-Center Cohort, Systematic Review, and Individual-Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) who require intermittent hemodialysis (iHD) are considered to have a poor prognosis despite a paucity of supportive evidence, mostly from small single-center cohorts and extrapolations from studies of patients who received continuous renal replacement therapy but no iHD. We conducted a systematic review and individual-participant-data meta-analysis of the literature including our single-center cohort to examine the outcomes of patients initiated on iHD following LVAD implantation. Sixty-four patients from 5 cohorts met selection criteria (age 57.5 [46-64.5] years, 87% HeartMate II, mostly bridge to transplantation). Follow-up after iHD initiation was 87.5 (38.5-269.5) days, although it was considerably longer in our center than in other cohorts (601.5 [93-1559] days vs 65 [26-180] days, P = 0.0007). The estimated median survival was 308 (76-912.5) days and varied significantly among cohorts, ranging from 60 (57-65) to 838 (103-1872) days (P = 0.0096). Twelve (18.8%) patients achieved either heart transplantation (HT) or remission during follow-up. Patients who received HT had an 8-fold longer estimated median survival (1972 [799-1972] days vs 244 [64-838] days, P = 0.0112). Being from a more recent cohort was associated with better 1-year survival. Renal recovery occurred in eight patients (13.1%) at 30 days and its cumulative incidence increased to 73% (27/37 patients with available data) at 1 year. Most patients initiated on iHD after LVAD experienced renal recovery within the first year after implantation. Improved survival was observed for patients who received HT and in those from more recent cohorts. Some patients were able to survive on LVAD and iHD support for several years.

Management of hypertension in patients supported with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension remains one of the most common clinical problems leading to devastating postleft ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant complications. This study reviews the pathophysiology of hypertension in the setting of continuous flow LVAD support and provides an update on currently available antihypertensive therapies for LVAD patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The true prevalence of hypertension in the LVAD population remains unknown. Effective blood pressure (BP) control and standardization of BP measurement are key to prevent suboptimal left ventricular unloading, pump malfunction and worsening aortic regurgitation. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), beta blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) are the preferred antihypertensive agents because of their additional potential benefits, including optimization of haemodynamics, prevention of stroke, gastrointestinal bleed and in some patients myocardial recovery. Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition (ARNI) may be a well tolerated and effective therapy for BP control especially among CF-LVAD patients with resistant hypertension. Similarly, sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) should be considered in the absence of contraindications. SUMMARY: Hypertension is very common post-LVAD implant. Heart failure guideline directed medical therapies, including ACEI, ARB, beta blockers and MRA, are the preferred antihypertensive agents to improve post-LVAD outcomes.

Preimplant Hyponatremia Does Not Predict Adverse Outcomes in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Hyponatremia is a well-established marker of adverse outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF) but not well studied in patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). This is a retrospective study, single center study of HM3 [Abbott, USA] LVAD implants. We divided our population based on their sodium prior to LVAD implantation - hyponatremia if <135 mEq/L and normal sodium if 135-145 mEq/L. We compared postoperative and long-term outcomes. A total of 195 patients were included, preimplant hyponatremia was present in 40% with a sodium of 132.1 ± 2.1 vs 137.8 ± 1.9 mEq/L in the normal sodium group. No differences were observed in the postoperative or long-term outcomes. Preimplant hyponatremia was not associated with mortality or HF admissions, likely due to adequate left ventricular unloading and resolution of the mechanisms that lead to hyponatremia. These results suggest that optimization of mild hyponatremia may not be critical and should not delay LVAD placement.

New concepts in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and hypertension.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension (HTN) remains the most common and strongest contributing factor to the development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In this review, we aim to summarize the pathophysiological processes linking HTN to HFpEF and highlight novel concepts in medical and device-based management of HFpEF and HTN. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the global increase in the prevalence of HFpEF, there has been limited benefit in current medication and device-based therapy for this complex syndrome. The hallmark of HFpEF is an elevated left intra-atrial and ventricular pressure and exertional dyspnea. Traditional medications used for treating HTN in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction have unclear benefits in patients with HFpEF. Careful analysis of emerging medications such as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors showed benefit in reducing not only blood pressure but also hospitalizations in patients with HFpEF. Current data on device-based therapy aims to reduce left intra-atrial pressure, ventricular pressure and stimulate baroreceptors to lower blood pressure; however, needs further investigation. SUMMARY: The nexus of HTN and HFpEF remains strong and complex. Although traditional medications for treating HFrEF did not affect long-term outcomes, novel therapies with angiotensin receptor neprilysin-inhibitor and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor offer promising results. Many device-based interventions in the HFpEF population are being developed with the aim to reduce left intra-atrial and ventricular pressure; however, their role in HFpEF hypertensive patients needs to be further investigated.

COVID-19 Myocarditis: An Emerging Clinical Conundrum.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a significant cause of global mortality and morbidity since it was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. COVID19 like previous coronaviruses primarily affects the lungs causing pneumonia, interstitial pneumonitis, and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, there is increasing evidence linking COVID-19 to cardiovascular complications such as arrhythmias, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, fulminant myocarditis, and cardiac death. Given the novelty of this virus, there is paucity of data on some cardiovascular complications of COVID-19, specifically myocarditis. Myocarditis is an inflammatory disease of the heart muscle with a heterogenous clinical presentation and progression. It is mostly caused by viral infections and is the result of interaction of the virus and the host's immune system. There have been several case reports linking COVID-19 with myocarditis, however the true mechanism of cardiac injury remains under investigation. In this paper we review the clinical presentation, proposed pathophysiology, differential diagnoses and management of myocarditis in COVID-19 patients.

Biomarkers in heart failure: Relevance in the clinical practice.

Early detection and risk stratification of patients with heart failure (HF) are crucial to improve outcomes. Given the complexity of the pathophysiological processes of HF and the involvement of multi-organ systems in different stages of HF, clinical prognostication of HF can be challenging. In this regard, several biomarkers have been investigated for diagnosis, screening, and risk stratification of HF patients. These biomarkers can be classified as biomarkers of myocardial stretch such as B-type natriuretic peptide, biomarkers of neurohormonal activation, biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress and biomarkers of cardiac hypertrophy, fibrosis and remodeling. In this paper, we summarize current evidence supporting the use of selected biomarkers in HF. We review their diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic role in the management of HF. We also discuss potential factors limiting the use of these novel biomarkers in the clinical practice and highlight the challenges of adopting a multi-biomarker strategy.

Cerebral protection during percutaneous intervention for left ventricular assist device outflow graft obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) outflow graft obstruction is an uncommon complication but carries significant morbidity and mortality. Here we provide a case series of patients with LVAD intrinsic outflow graft obstruction who are deemed to be a high surgical risk for pump exchange and, therefore, underwent percutaneous intervention with the concomitant use of neuroprotective device-Sentinel cerebral protection system (CPS) (Boston Scientific) to prevent embolic stroke. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent LVAD placement in our institution and developed LVAD outflow graft obstruction. The diagnosis of LVAD outflow graft obstruction was confirmed by utilizing various cardiac imaging modalities such as echocardiography and/or computed tomography angiography. All patients were treated with percutaneous intervention and a catheter-based CPS. RESULTS: From a total of 501 LVAD implants in our institute, 6 (1.2%) patients with LVAD outflow graft obstruction who underwent percutaneous treatment were included; 4 patients with HeartMate-III LVAD, 1 patient with HeartMate-II LVAD, and 1 patient with HeartWare (HVAD). The median age of patients was 56.5 years at the time of LVAD implantation. The median time from the LVAD implantation to the episode of LVAD outflow obstruction was 1343 days. Utilization of Sentinel CPS resulted in the capture and removal of thrombus/debris in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous intervention of LVAD outflow graft obstruction is less invasive than surgical pump exchange and an acceptable alternative in properly selected patients. In our experience, utilization of a catheter-based CPS can help in reducing the incidence of periprocedural embolic events.

Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Data on the efficacy and safety of the combination of warfarin and dual-antiplatelet therapy compared with warfarin and mono-antiplatelet therapy (MAPT) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) remains scarce. Single-center study of 130 consecutive patients with durable LVAD. Baseline demographics, antithrombotic and antiplatelet regimen, and outcomes were compared between patients receiving warfarin plus dual-antiplatelet therapy (Group 1) and warfarin plus MAPT (Group 2). Antiplatelet therapy was assessed at hospital discharge post-LVAD implant and included aspirin, clopidogrel and dipyridamole. Outcomes at 1-year were assessed in each group. All patients were on aspirin and warfarin. No significant differences with regards to age, gender or ethnicity were noted at baseline between the two groups. Group 1 was more likely to have higher lactate dehydrogenase LDH levels at discharge and a history of stroke. No significant differences in international normalized ratio INR, hemoglobin or hematocrit were noted at discharge. During the study period, 48 patients had gastrointestinal bleeding events: 28 of 68 (41.2%) in Group 1 vs 20 of 62 (32.2%) in Group 2 (P = 0.293). At 1year, no statistically significant differences were noted in gastrointestinal bleeding (Group 1=27.90% vs Group 2 = 25.80, P = 0.784), ischemic stroke (Group 1 = 8.8% vs group 2 = 6.5%, P = 0.612), hemorrhagic stroke (Group 1 = 4.4% vs group 2 = 3.2%, P = 0.725) or mortality (Group 1 = 5.9% vs Group 2 = 1.6%, P = 0.206). Rates of pump thrombosis however were lower in Group 1 (Group 1 = 0% vs Group 2 = 6.5%, P = 0.033). Our study showed a high prevalence of triple-therapy antithrombotic use in LVAD patients with no significant differences in bleeding, stroke or survival. However, the risk for pump thrombosis was lower at 1-year when compared to patient receiving MAPT.

Feasibility and Safety of Coronary Angiography via Radial Approach in Cardiac Transplant Recipients: A Single Center Experience.

Coronary angiography remains the gold standard post-transplant screening test for cardiac allograft vasculopathy. This procedure has traditionally been performed via femoral approach. Data on safety and efficacy of radial approach in cardiac transplant patients remains scarce. Single center retrospective study including all cardiac transplant patients who underwent coronary angiography via transradial approach (TRA) or transfemoral approach (TFA). Safety and efficacy outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Primary end points included major bleeding, vascular complications, crossover to femoral approach, contrast use and radiation exposure. A total of 201 patients were included. 96 patients (47.8%) underwent angiography via TRA. At baseline, no significant differences with regards to age, gender, or traditional risk factors such as HTN, DM, hyperlipidemia were noted between the 2 groups. Most patients underwent intravascular ultrasound (n = 179, 89%) with no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (TRA: 90.6% vs TFA: 87.6%, P = 0.5). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in radiation exposure, amount of contrast use and fluoroscopy time between the 2 groups. Although there were trends toward increased bleeding among TFA group, these were not statistically significant and were mostly driven by access site hematomas. Use of TRA increased over time and Conversion from TRA to TFA was low (n = 4, 4.2%). Coronary angiography via the radial approach in cardiac transplant recipients is feasible, safe and is associated with low a risk of bleeding with no significant increase in radiation exposure when compared to the traditional femoral approach.

A Simplified Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach to Pulmonary Hypertension.

Pulmonary hypertension remains a common but complex disorder that physicians face in their daily practice. Pulmonary hypertension has been classified by the World Health Organization into five major categories according to etiology, pathophysiology, and hemodynamic properties. The clinical course and overall prognosis varies by etiology, therefore making the correct diagnosis is paramount to avoid delay in treatment and improve outcomes. This review aims to provide clinicians with a simplified diagnostic approach to pulmonary hypertension. We also provide a guide to risk stratification and when to refer patient to a pulmonary hypertension expert center.

Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure (GUIDE-HF): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II-IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. METHODS: The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II-IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·74-1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (pinteraction=0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70-1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61-0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications. INTERPRETATION: Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group. FUNDING: Abbott.

Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin Induction in Heart Transplant Recipients at High Risk for Rejection.

Background: Induction with lymphocyte-depleting antibodies may improve allograft outcomes in heart transplant recipients who are at high immunologic risk for rejection. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study that compared outcomes between adult patients receiving rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) induction vs no induction from 2011 through 2017. Key exclusion criteria were patients who did not receive tacrolimus and mycophenolate and patients who did not meet high immunologic risk criteria. Results: A total of 50 patients were included in the analysis. At 1 year, the composite primary outcome of ≥2R rejection as defined by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, any treated rejection, development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy, or graft loss was not different between groups (P=0.474). Serious infections were also similar between groups (P=0.963). In accordance with institutional guidelines, prednisone exposure was decreased in the rATG induction group at 1 month (24.04 mg ± 13.74 vs 35.18 mg ± 16.95; P=0.014). Conclusion: These results suggest that while rATG induction does not improve heart allograft outcomes, it may enable reducing early corticosteroid exposure in patients at high immunologic risk.

Suspected COVID-19-Induced Myopericarditis.

Background: The incidence of myocarditis in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unknown; however, increasing evidence links COVID-19 to cardiovascular complications such as arrhythmias, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, fulminant myocarditis, and cardiac death. We present a case of suspected COVID-19-induced myopericarditis and discuss the diagnostic implications, pathophysiology, and management. Case Report: A 72-year-old female was admitted to the hospital with acute on chronic respiratory failure in the setting of COVID-19. The next day, she developed pressure-like retrosternal chest pain. Laboratory findings revealed elevated cardiac enzymes and inflammatory markers consistent with myocardial injury. Electrocardiogram revealed diffuse ST segment elevations without reciprocal changes, concerning for myopericarditis. Transthoracic echocardiography showed new findings of severely reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function, with an estimated ejection fraction (EF) of 20%. Her hospital course was further complicated by cardiogenic shock that required treatment in the intensive care unit with vasopressors and inotropes. During the next few days, she had almost full recovery of her LV function, with EF improving to 50%. However, her clinical status deteriorated, likely the result of a bowel obstruction. She was transitioned to comfort care at the request of her family, and she died shortly after. Conclusion: This case highlights diagnostic and therapeutic challenges that physicians may encounter when managing acute cardiac injury in the setting of COVID-19. The multiple mechanisms of COVID-19-related myocardial injury may influence the approach to diagnosis and treatment.

Cardiac Amyloidosis: Presentations, Diagnostic Work-up and Collaborative Approach for Comprehensive Clinical Management.

Cardiac amyloidosis is a systemic disease characterized by continuous deposition of misfolded proteins called amyloid fibrils in the extracellular space which result in restrictive cardiomyopathy. The most common form of cardiac amyloidosis is light chain (AL) cardiac amyloidosis, a result of continuous deposition of misfolded monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains. Transthyretin-related cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR) results from a point mutation in the transthyretin gene in an autosomal dominant fashion and presents phenotypically similar to AL cardiac amyloidosis. Cardiac amyloidosis is being increasingly recognized due to the advancements in diagnostic cardiac imaging and pharmacotherapy. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion among patients with unexplained diastolic heart failure because earlier diagnosis will allow for the implementation of disease-altering therapy. With established targeted drug therapies and further breakthroughs in immunotherapy, the potential impact of diagnostic and therapeutic advancements on morbidity and mortality of patients with cardiac amyloidosis is promising.