Association Between Hemoglobin Levels and Efficacy of Intravenous Ferric Carboxymaltose in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Iron Deficiency: An AFFIRM-AHF Subgroup Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency, with or without anemia, is an adverse prognostic factor in heart failure (HF). In AFFIRM-AHF (a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial comparing the effect of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose on hospitalizations and mortality in iron-deficient subjects admitted for acute heart failure), intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), although having no significant effect on the primary end point, reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (hHF) and improved quality of life versus placebo in iron-deficient patients stabilized after an acute HF (AHF) episode. These prespecified AFFIRM-AHF subanalyses explored the association between hemoglobin levels and FCM treatment effects. METHODS: AFFIRM-AHF was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of FCM in hospitalized AHF patients with iron deficiency. Patients were stratified by baseline hemoglobin level (<12 versus ≥12 g/dL). In each subgroup, the primary composite (total hHF and cardiovascular death) and secondary (total hHF; total cardiovascular hospitalizations and cardiovascular death; time to cardiovascular death, and time to first/days lost due to hHF or cardiovascular death) outcomes were assessed with FCM versus placebo at week 52. Sensitivity analyses using the World Health Organization anemia definition (hemoglobin level <12 g/dL [women] or <13 g/dL [men]) were performed, among others. RESULTS: Of 1108 AFFIRM-AHF patients, 1107 were included in these subanalyses: 464 (FCM group, 228; placebo group, 236) had a hemoglobin level <12 g/dL, and 643 (FCM, 329; placebo, 314) had a hemoglobin level ≥12 g/dL. Patients with a hemoglobin level <12 g/dL were older (mean, 73.7 versus 69.1 years), with more frequent previous HF (75.0% versus 68.7%), serum ferritin <100 µg/L (75.4% versus 68.1%), and transferrin saturation <20% (87.9% versus 81.4%). For the primary outcome, annualized event rates per 100 patient-years with FCM versus placebo were 71.1 and 73.6 (rate ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.66-1.41]), respectively, and 48.5 versus 72.9 (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.48-0.93]) in the hemoglobin levels <12 and ≥12 g/dL subgroups, respectively. No significant interactions between hemoglobin subgroup and treatment effect were observed for primary (Pinteraction=0.15) or secondary outcomes. Changes from baseline in hemoglobin, serum ferritin and transferrin saturation were significantly greater with FCM versus placebo in both subgroups between weeks 6 and 52. Findings were similar using the World Health Organization definition for anemia. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of intravenous FCM on outcomes in iron-deficient patients stabilized after an AHF episode, including improvements in iron parameters over time, did not differ between patients with hemoglobin levels <12 and ≥12 g/dL. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02937454.

Left ventricular ejection fraction digit bias and reclassification of heart failure with mildly reduced vs reduced ejection fraction based on the 2021 definition and classification of heart failure.

AIMS: Aims were to evaluate (1) reclassification of patients from heart failure with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) to reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction when an EF = 40% was considered as HFrEF, (2) role of EF digit bias, ie, EF reporting favouring 5% increments; (3) outcomes in relation to missing and biased EF reports, in a large multinational HF registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 25,154 patients in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HF Long-Term registry, 17% had missing EF and of those with available EF, 24% had HFpEF (EF≥50%), 21% HFmrEF (40%-49%) and 55% HFrEF (<40%) according to the 2016 ESC guidelines´ classification. EF was "exactly" 40% in 7%, leading to reclassifying 34% of the HFmrEF population defined as EF = 40% to 49% to HFrEF when applying the 2021 ESC Guidelines classification (14% had HFmrEF as EF = 41% to 49% and 62% had HFrEF as EF≤40%). EF was reported as a value ending with 0 or 5 in ∼37% of the population. Such potential digit bias was associated with more missing values for other characteristics and higher risk of all-cause death and HF hospitalization. Patients with missing EF had higher risk of all-cause and CV mortality, and HF hospitalization compared to those with recorded EF. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients had reported EF = 40%. This led to substantial reclassification of EF from old HFmrEF (40%-49%) to new HFrEF (≤40%). There was considerable digit bias in EF reporting and missing EF reporting, which appeared to occur not at random and may reflect less rigorous overall care and worse outcomes.

Competency-based cardiac imaging for patient-centred care. A statement of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the contribution of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), and the support of the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing & Allied Professions (ACNAP), the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC), the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC), the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

Imaging plays an integral role in all aspects of managing heart disease and cardiac imaging is a core competency of cardiologists. The adequate delivery of cardiac imaging services requires expertise in both imaging methodology-with specific adaptations to imaging of the heart-as well as intricate knowledge of heart disease. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging have developed and implemented a successful education and certification programme for all cardiac imaging modalities. This programme equips cardiologists to provide high quality competency-based cardiac imaging services ensuring they are adequately trained and competent in the entire process of cardiac imaging, from the clinical indication via selecting the best imaging test to answer the clinical question, to image acquisition, analysis, interpretation, storage, repository, and results dissemination. This statement emphasizes the need for competency-based cardiac imaging delivery which is key to optimal, effective and efficient, patient care.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences in 6-Minute Walk Test in Patients With HFrEF and Iron Deficiency.

BACKGROUND: The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is widely used to measure exercise capacity; however, the magnitude of change that is clinically meaningful for individuals is not well established in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). OBJECTIVE: To calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for change in exercise capacity in the 6MWT in iron-deficient populations with HFrEF. METHODS: In this pooled secondary analysis of the FAIR-HF and CONFIRM-HF trials, mean changes in the 6MWT from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 were calculated and calibrated against the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) tool (clinical anchor) to derive MCIDs in improvement and deterioration. RESULTS: Of 760 patients included in the 2 trials, 6MWT and PGA data were available for 680 (89%) and 656 (86%) patients at weeks 12 and 24, respectively. The mean 6MWT distance at baseline was 281 ± 103 meters. There was a modest correlation between changes in 6MWT and PGA from baseline to week 12 (r = 0.31; P < 0.0001) and week 24 (r = 0.43; P < 0.0001). Respective estimates (95% confidence intervals) of MCID in 6MWT at weeks 12 and 24 were 14 meters (5;23) and 15 meters (3;27) for a "little improvement" (vs no change), 20 meters (10;30) and 24 meters (12;36) for moderate improvement vs a "little improvement,", -11 meters (-32;9.2) and -31 meters (-53;-8) for a "little deterioration" (vs no change), and -84 meters (-144;-24) and -69 meters (-118;-20) for "moderate deterioration" vs a "little deterioration". CONCLUSIONS: The MCID for improvement in exercise capacity in the 6MWT was 14 meters-15 meters in patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency. These MCIDs can aid clinical interpretation of study data.

Natriuretic Peptides: Role in the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America and Japanese Heart Failure Society.

Natriuretic peptides, brain (B-type) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are globally and most often used for the diagnosis of heart failure (HF). In addition, they can have an important complementary role in the risk stratification of its prognosis. Since the development of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), the use of natriuretic peptides as therapeutic agents has grown in importance. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project among the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus that aims to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on natriuretic peptides in the diagnosis and management of HF, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) history and basic research: discovery, production and cardiovascular protection; (2) diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers: acute HF, chronic HF, inclusion/endpoint in clinical trials, and natriuretic peptides-guided therapy; (3) therapeutic use: nesiritide (BNP), carperitide (ANP) and ARNIs; and (4) gaps in knowledge and future directions.

Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose for iron repletion following acute heart failure in patients with and without diabetes: a subgroup analysis of the randomized AFFIRM-AHF trial.

BACKGROUND: In AFFIRM-AHF, treatment of iron deficiency with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) reduced the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and improved quality of life (QoL) vs placebo in patients stabilized following an acute HF (AHF) episode, with no effect on cardiovascular (CV) death. Diabetes and iron deficiency frequently accompany AHF. This post hoc analysis explored the effects of diabetes on outcomes in AFFIRM-AHF patients. METHODS: Patients were stratified by diabetes yes/no at baseline. The effects of FCM vs placebo on primary (total HF hospitalizations and CV death) and secondary (total CV hospitalizations and CV death; CV death; total HF hospitalizations; time to first HF hospitalization or CV death; and days lost due to HF hospitalizations or CV death) endpoints at Week 52 and change vs baseline in disease-specific QoL (12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ-12]) at Week 24 were assessed by subgroup. For each endpoint, the interaction between diabetes status and treatment outcome was explored. RESULTS: Of 1108 AFFIRM-AHF patients, 475 (FCM: 231; placebo: 244) had diabetes and 633 (FCM: 327; placebo: 306) did not have diabetes. Patients with diabetes were more commonly male (61.5% vs 50.9%), with a higher frequency of ischemic HF etiology (57.9% vs 39.0%), prior HF history (77.7% vs 66.5%), and comorbidities (including previous myocardial infarction [49.3% vs 32.9%] and chronic kidney disease [51.4% vs 32.4%]) than those without diabetes. The annualized event rate/100 patient-years with FCM vs placebo for the primary endpoint was 66.9 vs 80.9 in patients with diabetes (rate ratio [RR]: 0.83, 95% CI 0.58-1.81) and 51.3 vs 66.9 in patients without diabetes (RR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.55-1.07), with no significant interaction between diabetes status and treatment effect (pinteraction = 0.76). Similar findings were observed for secondary outcomes. Change from baseline in KCCQ-12 overall summary score was numerically greater with FCM vs placebo at almost all time points in both subgroups, with no interaction between diabetes and treatment effect at Week 24. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and QoL benefits observed with intravenous FCM in patients with iron deficiency following stabilization from an AHF episode are independent of diabetes status. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02937454 (registered 10.18.2016).

Data standards for heart failure: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart).

Standardized data definitions are essential for assessing the quality of care and patient outcomes in observational studies and randomized controlled trials. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims to create contemporary pan-European data standards for cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure (HF). We followed the EuroHeart methodology for cardiovascular data standard development. A Working Group including experts in HF registries, representatives from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, and the EuroHeart was formed. Using Embase and Medline (2016-21), we conducted a systematic review of the literature on data standards, registries, and trials to identify variables pertinent to HF. A modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on the final set of variables. For each variable, the Working Group developed data definitions and agreed on whether it was mandatory (Level 1) or additional (Level 2). In total, 84 Level 1 and 79 Level 2 variables were selected for nine domains of HF care. These variables were reviewed by an international Reference Group with the Level 1 variables providing the dataset for registration of patients with HF on the EuroHeart IT platform. By means of a structured process and interaction with international stakeholders, harmonized data standards for HF have been developed. In the context of the EuroHeart, this will facilitate quality improvement, international observational research, registry-based randomized trials, and post-marketing surveillance of devices and pharmacotherapies across Europe.

Report from the CVOT Summit 2021: new cardiovascular, renal, and glycemic outcomes.

The 7th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (CVOT) Summit on Cardiovascular, Renal, and Glycemic Outcomes, was held virtually on November 18-19, 2021. Pursuing the tradition of the previous summits, this reference congress served as a platform for in-depth discussion and exchange on recently completed CVOTs. This year's focus was placed on the outcomes of EMPEROR-Preserved, FIGARO-DKD, AMPLITUDE-O, SURPASS 1-5, and STEP 1-5. Trial implications for diabetes and obesity management and the impact on new treatment algorithms were highlighted for endocrinologists, diabetologists, cardiologists, nephrologists, and general practitioners. Discussions evolved from outcome trials using SGLT2 inhibitors as therapy for heart failure, to CVOTs with nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Furthermore, trials for glycemic and overweight/obesity management, challenges in diabetes management in COVID-19, and novel guidelines and treatment strategies were discussed.Trial registration The 8th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial Summit will be held virtually on November 10-11, 2022 ( http://www.cvot.org ).

Aiming at harmony. Comparing and contrasting International HFrEF Guidelines.

Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have led to major changes in the treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and these advances are included in the recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) guidelines issued in 2021 and 2022, respectively. According to both guidelines, treatment of patients with HFrEF is based on the administration of four classes of drugs that reduce the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations in RCTs: angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Specific sequences of treatment are not recommended but emphasis is given to reaching treatment with all four drugs as early as possible. Further treatments are considered in selected patients including ivabradine, hydralazine nitrates, digoxin, and the new agent vericiguat. Specific treatments, mostly new, for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities are also given. The aim of this article is to compare the two recent guidelines issued by the ESC and ACC/AHA/HFSA and show the few differences and the many consistent recommendations, now more numerous given the evidence available for many new treatments.

Cardiovascular health after menopause transition, pregnancy disorders, and other gynaecologic conditions: a consensus document from European cardiologists, gynaecologists, and endocrinologists.

Women undergo important changes in sex hormones throughout their lifetime that can impact cardiovascular disease risk. Whereas the traditional cardiovascular risk factors dominate in older age, there are several female-specific risk factors and inflammatory risk variables that influence a woman's risk at younger and middle age. Hypertensive pregnancy disorders and gestational diabetes are associated with a higher risk in younger women. Menopause transition has an additional adverse effect to ageing that may demand specific attention to ensure optimal cardiovascular risk profile and quality of life. In this position paper, we provide an update of gynaecological and obstetric conditions that interact with cardiovascular risk in women. Practice points for clinical use are given according to the latest standards from various related disciplines (Figure 1).

Heart Failure Association, Heart Failure Society of America, and Japanese Heart Failure Society Position Statement on Endomyocardial Biopsy.

Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an invasive procedure, globally most often used for the monitoring of heart transplant rejection. In addition, EMB can have an important complementary role to the clinical assessment in establishing the diagnosis of diverse cardiac disorders, including myocarditis, cardiomyopathies, drug-related cardiotoxicity, amyloidosis, other infiltrative and storage disorders, and cardiac tumors. Improvements in EMB equipment and the development of new techniques for the analysis of EMB samples has significantly improved the diagnostic precision of EMB. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project between the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus aiming to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date perspective on EMB, with a focus on the following main issues: (1) an overview of the practical approach to EMB, (2) an update on indications for EMB, (3) a revised plan for heart transplant rejection surveillance, (4) the impact of multimodality imaging on EMB, and (5) the current clinical practice in the worldwide use of EMB.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure: A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure.

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%.

Conducting clinical trials in heart failure during (and after) the COVID-19 pandemic: an Expert Consensus Position Paper from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.

Correction to: Angiotensin II and angiotensin 1-7: which is their role in atrial fibrillation?

There was a mistake in Prof. Giuseppe Massimo Claudio Rosano's affiliation.

Angiotensin II and angiotensin 1-7: which is their role in atrial fibrillation?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality as well as a public health burden considering the high costs of AF-related hospitalizations. Pre-clinical and clinical evidence showed a potential role of the renin angiotensin system (RAS) in the etiopathogenesis of AF. Among RAS mediators, angiotensin II (AII) and angiotensin 1-7 (A1-7) have been mostly investigated in AF. Specifically, the stimulation of the pathway mediated by AII or the inhibition of the pathway mediated by A1-7 may participate in inducing and sustaining AF. In this review, we summarize the evidence showing that both RAS pathways may balance the onset of AF through different biological mechanisms involving inflammation, epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) accumulation, and electrical cardiac remodeling. EAT is a predictor for AF as it may induce its onset through direct (infiltration of epicardial adipocytes into the underlying atrial myocardium) and indirect (release of inflammatory adipokines, the stimulation of oxidative stress, macrophage phenotype switching, and AF triggers) mechanisms. Classic RAS blockers such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) may prevent AF by affecting the accumulation of the EAT, representing a useful therapeutic strategy for preventing AF especially in patients with heart failure and known left ventricular dysfunction. Further studies are necessary to prove this benefit in patients with other cardiovascular diseases. Finally, the possibility of using the A1-7 or ACE2 analogues, to enlarge current therapeutic options for AF, may represent an important field of research.

Anti-fibrotic effects of curcumin and some of its analogues in the heart.

Cardiac fibrosis stems from the changes in the expression of fibrotic genes in cardiac fibroblasts (CFs) in response to the tissue damage induced by various cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) leading to their transformation into active myofibroblasts, which produce high amounts of extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins leading, in turn, to excessive deposition of ECM in cardiac tissue. The excessive accumulation of ECM elements causes heart stiffness, tissue scarring, electrical conduction disruption and finally cardiac dysfunction and heart failure. Curcumin (Cur; also known as diferuloylmethane) is a polyphenol compound extracted from rhizomes of Curcuma longa with an influence on an extensive spectrum of biological phenomena including cell proliferation, differentiation, inflammation, pathogenesis, chemoprevention, apoptosis, angiogenesis and cardiac pathological changes. Cumulative evidence has suggested a beneficial role for Cur in improving disrupted cardiac function developed by cardiac fibrosis by establishing a balance between degradation and synthesis of ECM components. There are various molecular mechanisms contributing to the development of cardiac fibrosis. We presented a review of Cur effects on cardiac fibrosis and the discovered underlying mechanisms by them Cur interact to establish its cardio-protective effects.

Anti-anginal drugs-beliefs and evidence: systematic review covering 50 years of medical treatment.

Chronic stable angina is the most prevalent symptom of ischaemic heart disease and its management is a priority. Current guidelines recommend pharmacological therapy with drugs classified as being first line (beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, short acting nitrates) or second line (long-acting nitrates, ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, and trimetazidine). Second line drugs are indicated for patients who have contraindications to first line agents, do not tolerate them or remain symptomatic. Evidence that one drug is superior to another has been questioned. Between January and March 2018, we performed a systematic review of articles written in English over the past 50 years English-written articles in Medline and Embase following preferred reporting items and the Cochrane collaboration approach. We included double blind randomized studies comparing parallel groups on treatment of angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease, with a sample size of, at least, 100 patients (50 patients per group), with a minimum follow-up of 1 week and an outcome measured on exercise testing, duration of exercise being the preferred outcome. Thirteen studies fulfilled our criteria. Nine studies involved between 100 and 300 patients, (2818 in total) and a further four enrolled greater than 300 patients. Evidence of equivalence was demonstrated for the use of beta-blockers (atenolol), calcium antagonists (amlodipine, nifedipine), and channel inhibitor (ivabradine) in three of these studies. Taken all together, in none of the studies was there evidence that one drug was superior to another in the treatment of angina or to prolong total exercise duration. There is a paucity of data comparing the efficacy of anti-anginal agents. The little available evidence shows that no anti-anginal drug is superior to another and equivalence has been shown only for three classes of drugs. Guidelines draw conclusions not from evidence but from clinical beliefs.

The continuous heart failure spectrum: moving beyond an ejection fraction classification.

Randomized clinical trials initially used heart failure (HF) patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to select study populations with high risk to enhance statistical power. However, this use of LVEF in clinical trials has led to oversimplification of the scientific view of a complex syndrome. Descriptive terms such as 'HFrEF' (HF with reduced LVEF), 'HFpEF' (HF with preserved LVEF), and more recently 'HFmrEF' (HF with mid-range LVEF), assigned on arbitrary LVEF cut-off points, have gradually arisen as separate diseases, implying distinct pathophysiologies. In this article, based on pathophysiological reasoning, we challenge the paradigm of classifying HF according to LVEF. Instead, we propose that HF is a heterogeneous syndrome in which disease progression is associated with a dynamic evolution of functional and structural changes leading to unique disease trajectories creating a spectrum of phenotypes with overlapping and distinct characteristics. Moreover, we argue that by recognizing the spectral nature of the disease a novel stratification will arise from new technologies and scientific insights that will shape the design of future trials based on deeper understanding beyond the LVEF construct alone.

Physiological monitoring in the complex multi-morbid heart failure patient - Introduction.

Repeated physiological monitoring of comorbidities in heart failure (HF) is pivotal. This document introduces the main challenges related to physiological monitoring in the complex multimorbid HF patient, arising during an ESC consensus meeting on this topic.

Monitoring functional capacity in heart failure.

This document reflects the key points of a consensus meeting of the Heart Failure Association of European Society of Cardiology (ESC) held to provide an overview the role of physiological monitoring in the complex multimorbid heart failure (HF) patient. This article reviews assessments of the functional ability of patients with HF. The gold standard measurement of cardiovascular functional capacity is peak oxygen consumption obtained from a cardiopulmonary exercise test. The 6-min walk test provides an indirect measure of cardiovascular functional capacity. Muscular functional capacity is assessed using either a 1-repetition maximum test of the upper and lower body or other methods, such as handgrip measurement. The short physical performance battery may provide a helpful, indirect indication of muscular functional capacity.