Diagnostic and therapeutic practice for HFpEF across continents and regions: An international survey.

AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the worldwide variations in the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), using an HF survey distributed internationally to physicians, including both cardiologists and non-cardiologists. METHODS AND RESULTS: A group of HF specialists designed an independent, academic web-based survey focusing on HFpEF care and diagnosis, which was distributed via scientific societies and various social networks between 1 May 2023 and 1 July 2023. The survey included 1459 physicians (1242 cardiologists and 217 non-cardiologists) from 91 countries, with a mean age of 42 (34-49) years and 61% male. Most physicians (89.2%) defined HFpEF as left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. Significant regional variations were observed in HFpEF management (P < 0.001 for all comparisons unless stated otherwise). Cardiologists managed 63.1% of HFpEF patients overall, with significant variability across regions (P < 0.001). The estimated HFpEF prevalence was highest in Eastern Asia and Western Europe and lowest in Africa and South America. Diagnostic practices varied: natriuretic peptide use ranged from 70%-74% in Africa to 95%-97% in Southern/Western Europe. Echocardiographic parameters showed regional differences, with diastolic stress testing used most in South-Eastern Asia (47% vs. 13-36% elsewhere). HFpEF scoring systems were most common in South-Eastern Asia (78%) and least in Africa (30.1%). Coronary artery disease screening approaches differed, with Eastern Asian physicians more likely to always perform routine angiograms (52%) compared with Northern Europeans (12%). Treatment preferences also varied regionally. Sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) was the preferred first-line treatment (45%-70% across regions), followed by diuretics. In an ideal setting, 52% would primarily use SGLT2i, 33% loop diuretics, and 22% beta-blockers. Drug availability differed significantly: SGLT2i was most available (88% overall), while ARNI was least available (61%). South America and Middle Eastern/Northern Africa reported lower availability of guideline-directed therapies. Multidisciplinary HF programmes were most common in Asia (70%) and least in Africa (24%). The perceived benefit of atrial flow regulator devices also showed significant regional differences. CONCLUSIONS: There are considerable global variations in the diagnosis and management of HFpEF. Most physicians favour SGLT2i despite regional disparities in health care resources and guideline adherence. Harmonized practices and improved access to comprehensive care can enhance outcomes of HFpEF patients worldwide.

Effects of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists on Cardiac Function, Exercise Capacity and Quality of Life.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) are emerging glucose-lowering agents primarily used in managing diabetes and obesity. Recently, GLP-1 RAs have garnered attention for their cardiovascular benefits beyond glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, exhibiting patterns previously seen in cardiovascular outcomes trials on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, which now receive a high level of recommendation for the treatment of heart failure (HF). GLP-1 RAs have been increasingly investigated in HF cohorts, but mainly in small-scale studies reporting inconclusive findings regarding clinical outcomes and different safety profiles in HF patients with reduced and preserved ejection fractions. This review discusses the effects of GLP-1 RAs on surrogate HF outcomes, such as cardiac structure and function, exercise capacity and quality of life, in HF patients across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction, to provide insights into the potential of these agents to be investigated in large clinical trials to evaluate clinical outcomes.

Diagnostic and therapeutic practice for Heart Failure with preserved ejection fraction around the world: An international survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a gap in knowledge about implementing diagnostic tools and therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in clinical practice. This survey aimed to assess real-world practice in HFpEF diagnosis and treatment in the international medical community. METHODS: An independent academic web-based 29-question survey was designed by a group of heart failure specialists and posted by email and through scientific societies and social networks to a broad community of physicians worldwide. RESULTS: 1.460 physicians from 95 countries answered the survey, with a mean age of 42.2±10.4 years, 39.4 % females, and 85.1 % were cardiologists. The left ventricular ejection fraction cut-off value selected for HFpEF diagnosis was 50 % for 89 % of participants. The scores for the probability of diagnosis of HFpEF were used only by 47.2 %, and H2FPEF was the most used score (31 %). Natriuretic peptides were used by 87.4 % of participants for the diagnostic workup, while the diastolic stress test was only used by 26.2 %. 54.4 % of participants chose SGLT2 inhibitors as their first drug treatment, followed by diuretics (18.6 %) and ACE inhibitors (8.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: In an international academic survey on HFpEF management, the criteria for screening and diagnosis of HFpEF patients remain aligned with classic international guidelines with a low use of diagnostic scores. SGLT2i is the leading therapeutic drug class used for this heterogeneous patient population. These results raise the need to improve education and awareness on diagnosing and managing HFpEF patients.

Differences in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction management between care providers: an international survey.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by growing incidence and poor outcomes. A large majority of HFpEF patients are cared by non-cardiologists. The availability of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) as recommended therapy raises the importance of prompt and accurate identification and treatment of HFpEF across diverse healthcare settings. We evaluated HFpEF management across specialties through a survey targeting cardiologists, HF specialists, and non-cardiologists. METHODS AND RESULTS: An independent web-based survey was distributed globally between May and July 2023. We performed a post-hoc analysis, comparing cardiologists, HF specialists, and non-cardiologists. A total of 1460 physicians (61% male, median age 41[34-49]) from 95 countries completed the survey; 20% were HF specialists, 65% cardiologists, and 15% non-cardiologists. Compared with HF specialists, non-cardiologists and cardiologists were less likely to use natriuretic peptides (p = 0.003) and HFpEF scores (p = 0.004) for diagnosis, and were also less likely to have access to or consider specific echocardiographic parameters (p < 0.001) for identifying HFpEF. Diastolic stress tests were used in less than 30% of the cases, regardless of the specialty (p = 1.12). Multidrug treatment strategies were similar across different specialties. While SGLT2i and diuretics were the preferred drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors were the least frequently prescribed in all three groups. However, when constrained to choose one drug, the proportion of physicians favoring SGLT2i varied significantly among specialties (66% HF specialists, 52% cardiologists, 51% non-cardiologists). Additionally, 10% of non-cardiologists and 8% of cardiologists considered beta blocker the drug of choice for HFpEF. CONCLUSION: Significant differences among specialty groups were observed in HFpEF management, particularly in the diagnostic work-up. Our results highlight a substantial risk of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of HFpEF patients, especially among non-HF specialists.

Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Frailty: From Young to Superaged Coexisting HFpEF and Frailty.

Being commonly diagnosed in elderly women and associated with comorbidities as well as ageing-related cardio-vascular changes, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has been recently considered as a distinct cardiogeriatric syndrome. Frailty is another frequent geriatric syndrome. HFpEF and frailty share common underlying mechanisms, often co-exist, and represent each other's risk factors. A threshold of 65 years old is usually used to screen patients for both frailty and HFpEF in research and clinical settings. However, both HFpEF and frailty are very heterogenous conditions that may develop at younger ages. In this review we aim to provide a broader overview on the coexistence of HFpEF and frailty throughout the lifetime. We hypothesize that HFpEF and frailty patients' profiles (young, elderly, superaged) represent a continuum of the common ageing process modified by cumulative exposure to risk factors resulting to a presentation of HFpEF and frailty at different ages. We believe, that suggested approach might stimulate assessment of frailty in HFpEF assessment and vice versa regardless of age and early implementation of targeted interventions. Future studies of pathophysiology, clinical features, and outcomes of frailty in HFpEF by age are needed.

Cardiac Involvement Due to COVID-19: Insights from Imaging and Histopathology.

Lingering cardiac symptoms are increasingly recognised complications of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, now referred to as post-acute cardiovascular sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC). In the acute phase, cardiac injury is driven by cytokine release and stems from ischaemic and thrombotic complications, resulting in myocardial necrosis. Patients with pre-existing cardiac conditions are particularly vulnerable. Myocarditis due to a direct viral infection is rare. Chronic symptoms relate to either worsening of pre-existing heart disease (PASC - cardiovascular disease) or delayed chronic inflammatory condition due to heterogenous immune dysregulation (PASC - cardiovascular syndrome), the latter affecting a broad segment of previously well people. Both PASC presentations are associated with increased cardiovascular risk, long-term disability and reduced quality of life. The recognition and management of PASC in clinical settings remains a considerable challenge. Sensitive diagnostic methods are needed to detect subtler inflammatory changes that underlie the persistent symptoms in PASC - cardiovascular syndrome, alongside considerable clinical experience in inflammatory cardiac conditions.

Colchicine in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: rationale and design of a prospective, randomised, open-label, crossover clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic low-grade inflammation is a fundamental pathophysiological mechanism of heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). The efficacy of anti-inflammatory therapy in HFpEF is largely understudied. The aim of the study is to assess the anti-inflammatory effect of colchicine in HFpEF by looking at inflammatory biomarkers: high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP) and soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled, open-label, blinded-endpoint crossover clinical trial of stable but symptomatic patients with HFpEF. Patients will be randomised to either colchicine treatment 0.5 mg two times per day or usual care for 12 weeks followed by a 2-week washout period and crossover to 12 weeks of treatment with the alternate therapy. The primary objective is to investigate if administration of colchicine compared with usual care reduces inflammation in patients with HFpEF measured by primary endpoint sST2 and co-primary endpoint hsCRP at baseline and 12-week follow-up. Secondary objective is to determine if treatment with colchicine influences N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, left ventricular diastolic function and remodelling, right ventricular systolic function and left atrial volumetric characteristics. We are aiming to enrol a total of 40 participants. This trial will answer the question if colchicine treatment reduces systemic low-grade inflammation and influences left ventricular diastolic function and remodelling with patients with HFpEF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Sechenov University (reference: 03-22). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05637398.

Safety and Efficacy of Different Anticoagulant Doses for Patients with COVID-19 in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients have a high incidence of thromboembolic events, which significantly influence the risk of mortality. Anticoagulant therapy is generally recommended to these patients but the optimal dosing regimens require further investigations. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of prophylactic, intermediate and therapeutic dose anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. A systematic search for original prospective observational studies and clinical trials was performed in online databases from 2020 to 2022. A total of 13 studies (3239 patients) were included. The type of anticoagulant dosing showed no significant influence on short-term mortality (p = 0.84), deep vein thrombosis (p = 0.66), arterial thrombosis (p = 0.44), major bleeding (p = 0.35) and minor bleeding incidence (p = 0.46). An anticoagulation regimen significantly influenced pulmonary embolism occurrence (16% for prophylactic dose vs. 4% for therapeutic dose, p = 0.02), but the number of studies in the analysis was relatively low. In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted in the ICU have no benefit from therapeutic doses of anticoagulants and that all three thromboprophylaxis regimes have a comparable effect on short term mortality and venous thromboembolism incidence but for pulmonary embolism, for which the results were inconclusive.

Sequencing and titrating approach of therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction following the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines: an international cardiology survey.

AIMS: In symptomatic patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), recent international guidelines recommend initiating four major therapeutic classes rather than sequential initiation. It remains unclear how this change in guidelines is perceived by practicing cardiologists versus heart failure (HF) specialists. METHODS AND RESULTS: An independent academic web-based survey was designed by a group of HF specialists and posted by email and through various social networks to a broad community of cardiologists worldwide 1 year after the publication of the latest European HF guidelines. Overall, 615 cardiologists (38 [32-47] years old, 63% male) completed the survey, of which 58% were working in a university hospital and 26% were HF specialists. The threshold to define HFrEF was ≤40% for 61% of the physicians. Preferred drug prescription for the sequential approach was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors first (74%), beta-blockers second (55%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists third (52%), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (53%) fourth. Eighty-four percent of participants felt that starting all four classes was feasible within the initial hospitalization, and 58% felt that titration is less important than introducing a new class. Age, status in training, and specialization in HF field were the principal characteristics that significantly impacted the answers. CONCLUSION: In a broad international cardiology community, the 'historical approach' to HFrEF therapies remains the preferred sequencing approach. However, accelerated introduction and uptitration are also major treatment goals. Strategy trials in treatment guidance are needed to further change practices.

Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild initial COVID-19 illness.

Cardiac symptoms are increasingly recognized as late complications of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in previously well individuals with mild initial illness, but the underlying pathophysiology leading to long-term cardiac symptoms remains unclear. In this study, we conducted serial cardiac assessments in a selected population of individuals with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) with no previous cardiac disease or notable comorbidities by measuring blood biomarkers of heart injury or dysfunction and by performing magnetic resonance imaging. Baseline measurements from 346 individuals with COVID-19 (52% females) were obtained at a median of 109 days (interquartile range (IQR), 77-177 days) after infection, when 73% of participants reported cardiac symptoms, such as exertional dyspnea (62%), palpitations (28%), atypical chest pain (27%) and syncope (3%). Symptomatic individuals had higher heart rates and higher imaging values or contrast agent accumulation, denoting inflammatory cardiac involvement, compared to asymptomatic individuals. Structural heart disease or high levels of biomarkers of cardiac injury or dysfunction were rare in symptomatic individuals. At follow-up (329 days (IQR, 274-383 days) after infection), 57% of participants had persistent cardiac symptoms. Diffuse myocardial edema was more pronounced in participants who remained symptomatic at follow-up as compared to those who improved. Female gender and diffuse myocardial involvement on baseline imaging independently predicted the presence of cardiac symptoms at follow-up. Ongoing inflammatory cardiac involvement may, at least in part, explain the lingering cardiac symptoms in previously well individuals with mild initial COVID-19 illness.

Women leaders in Cardiology. Contemporary profile of the WHO European region.

Aims: Women's participation is steadily growing in medical schools, but they are still not sufficiently represented in cardiology, particularly in cardiology leadership positions. We present the contemporary distribution of women leaders in cardiology departments in the World Health Organization European region. Methods and results: Between August and December 2020, we applied purposive sampling to collect data and analyse gender distribution of heads of cardiology department in university/third level hospitals in 23 countries: Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, North Macedonia, Morocco, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the UK. Age, cardiology subspecialty, and number of scientific publications were recorded for a subgroup of cardiology leaders for whom data were available. A total of 849 cardiology departments were analysed. Women leaders were only 30% (254/849) and were younger than their men counterpart (♀ 52.2 ± 7.7 years old vs. ♂ 58.1 ± 7.6 years old, P = 0.00001). Most women leaders were non-interventional experts (♀ 82% vs. ♂ 46%, P < 0.00001) and had significantly fewer scientific publications than men {♀ 16 [interquartile range (IQR) 2-41] publications vs. ♂ 44 (IQR 9-175) publications, P < 0.00001}. Conclusion: Across the World Health Organization European region, there is a significant gender disparity in cardiology leadership positions. Fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace is a priority to achieve the full potential and leverage the full talents of both women and men.

Ventricular fibrillation mechanism and global fibrillatory organization are determined by gap junction coupling and fibrosis pattern.

AIMS: Conflicting data exist supporting differing mechanisms for sustaining ventricular fibrillation (VF), ranging from disorganized multiple-wavelet activation to organized rotational activities (RAs). Abnormal gap junction (GJ) coupling and fibrosis are important in initiation and maintenance of VF. We investigated whether differing ventricular fibrosis patterns and the degree of GJ coupling affected the underlying VF mechanism. METHODS AND RESULTS: Optical mapping of 65 Langendorff-perfused rat hearts was performed to study VF mechanisms in control hearts with acute GJ modulation, and separately in three differing chronic ventricular fibrosis models; compact fibrosis (CF), diffuse fibrosis (DiF), and patchy fibrosis (PF). VF dynamics were quantified with phase mapping and frequency dominance index (FDI) analysis, a power ratio of the highest amplitude dominant frequency in the cardiac frequency spectrum. Enhanced GJ coupling with rotigaptide (n = 10) progressively organized fibrillation in a concentration-dependent manner; increasing FDI (0 nM: 0.53 ± 0.04, 80 nM: 0.78 ± 0.03, P < 0.001), increasing RA-sustained VF time (0 nM: 44 ± 6%, 80 nM: 94 ± 2%, P < 0.001), and stabilized RAs (maximum rotations for an RA; 0 nM: 5.4 ± 0.5, 80 nM: 48.2 ± 12.3, P < 0.001). GJ uncoupling with carbenoxolone progressively disorganized VF; the FDI decreased (0 µM: 0.60 ± 0.05, 50 µM: 0.17 ± 0.03, P < 0.001) and RA-sustained VF time decreased (0 µM: 61 ± 9%, 50 µM: 3 ± 2%, P < 0.001). In CF, VF activity was disorganized and the RA-sustained VF time was the lowest (CF: 27 ± 7% vs. PF: 75 ± 5%, P < 0.001). Global fibrillatory organization measured by FDI was highest in PF (PF: 0.67 ± 0.05 vs. CF: 0.33 ± 0.03, P < 0.001). PF harboured the longest duration and most spatially stable RAs (patchy: 1411 ± 266 ms vs. compact: 354 ± 38 ms, P < 0.001). DiF (n = 11) exhibited an intermediately organized VF pattern, sustained by a combination of multiple-wavelets and short-lived RAs. CONCLUSION: The degree of GJ coupling and pattern of fibrosis influences the mechanism sustaining VF. There is a continuous spectrum of organization in VF, ranging between globally organized fibrillation sustained by stable RAs and disorganized, possibly multiple-wavelet driven fibrillation with no RAs.

COVID-19 myocarditis and prospective heart failure burden.

Introduction: COVID-19 is causing considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide. Serious respiratory complications aside, the heart is also frequently involved. The mechanisms and the extent of the myocardial injury, along with the short and long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in COVID-19 survivors remain unclear. Areas covered: myocardial injury has been found in a considerable proportion of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and is associated with a worse prognosis. The late onset of CV complications with myocarditis-like changes revealed by CMR has been reported in COVID-19 survivors. Previous observational studies on viral myocarditis provide evidence of a significant incomplete recovery with residual dysfunction and remodeling of left ventricle. Incomplete recovery is thought to be the result of persistent myocardial inflammation due to a post-viral autoimmune response. Considering the significant inflammatory nature of COVID-19, COVID-19 survivors may be at risk of developing persistent residual myocardial injury, the sequelae of which are unclear. Expert commentary: COVID-19 is an emerging threat for the heart. The extent of CV injury, along with the short and long-term sequelae, requires further investigation. The early detection of residual myocardial changes in COVID-19 survivors is of utmost importance in order to identify those patients at risk of CV complication development.

Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

IMPORTANCE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to cause considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide. Case reports of hospitalized patients suggest that COVID-19 prominently affects the cardiovascular system, but the overall impact remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the presence of myocardial injury in unselected patients recently recovered from COVID-19 illness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this prospective observational cohort study, 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 illness were identified from the University Hospital Frankfurt COVID-19 Registry between April and June 2020. EXPOSURE: Recent recovery from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, as determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction on swab test of the upper respiratory tract. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, cardiac blood markers, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging were obtained. Comparisons were made with age-matched and sex-matched control groups of healthy volunteers (n = 50) and risk factor-matched patients (n = 57). RESULTS: Of the 100 included patients, 53 (53%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 49 (14) years. The median (IQR) time interval between COVID-19 diagnosis and CMR was 71 (64-92) days. Of the 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19, 67 (67%) recovered at home, while 33 (33%) required hospitalization. At the time of CMR, high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) was detectable (greater than 3 pg/mL) in 71 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 (71%) and significantly elevated (greater than 13.9 pg/mL) in 5 patients (5%). Compared with healthy controls and risk factor-matched controls, patients recently recovered from COVID-19 had lower left ventricular ejection fraction, higher left ventricle volumes, and raised native T1 and T2. A total of 78 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 (78%) had abnormal CMR findings, including raised myocardial native T1 (n = 73), raised myocardial native T2 (n = 60), myocardial late gadolinium enhancement (n = 32), or pericardial enhancement (n = 22). There was a small but significant difference between patients who recovered at home vs in the hospital for native T1 mapping (median [IQR], 1119 [1092-1150] ms vs 1141 [1121-1175] ms; P = .008) and hsTnT (4.2 [3.0-5.9] pg/dL vs 6.3 [3.4-7.9] pg/dL; P = .002) but not for native T2 mapping. None of these measures were correlated with time from COVID-19 diagnosis (native T1: r = 0.07; P = .47; native T2: r = 0.14; P = .15; hsTnT: r = -0.07; P = .50). High-sensitivity troponin T was significantly correlated with native T1 mapping (r = 0.33; P < .001) and native T2 mapping (r = 0.18; P = .01). Endomyocardial biopsy in patients with severe findings revealed active lymphocytic inflammation. Native T1 and T2 were the measures with the best discriminatory ability to detect COVID-19-related myocardial pathology. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study of a cohort of German patients recently recovered from COVID-19 infection, CMR revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%), independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and time from the original diagnosis. These findings indicate the need for ongoing investigation of the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.