Clinical features of heart failure with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction in octogenarians: Results of a multicentre, observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare real-world characteristics and management of individuals aged 80 and older with heart failure (HF) and mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) derived from a large cohort of survey and to compare them with those younger than 80 from the same survey. METHODS: This is an observational, multicentre and cross-sectional study conducted in Turkey (NCT03026114). Consecutive 1065 (mean age of 67.1 ± 10.6 years) patients admitted to the cardiology outpatient units with HFmrEF and HFpEF were included. RESULTS: Participants aged 80 and older (n = 123, 11.5%) were more likely to be female (66.7% vs 52.5%, P = 0.003), had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (49.6% vs 34%, P = 0.001), and anaemia (46.3% vs 33.4%, P = 0.005) than those who were younger than 80. N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels were higher in those aged 80 and older than in those younger than 80 (1037 vs 550 pg/ml, P < 0.001). The prescription rates of HF medications (including in ACE-Is/ARBs, ß-blockers, MRAs, digoxin, ivabradine and diuretics) were similar (P > 0.05) in both groups. Octogenarians did not significantly differ from younger patients in the prevalence of HFmrEF (24.4% vs 22.9%) and HFpEF (75.6% vs 77.1%). Coronary artery disease was associated with HFmrEF (P < 0.05), whereas atrial fibrillation was associated with HFpEF (P < 0.05) in octogenarians. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that nearly 12% of the individuals with HFmrEF and HFpEF in this real-world sample were aged 80 and older. Participants aged 80 and older are more likely to be female and have more comorbidities than those who were younger than 80. However, HF medication profiles were similar in both groups. This study also showed that associated factors with HFmrEF and HFpEF were differ in octogenarians.

The reasons of poor lipid target attainment for secondary prevention in real life practice: Results from EPHESUS.

OBJECTIVE: There are lack of studies considering the suboptimal management of dyslipidemia especially in cardiology outpatient clinics. This study was conducted to assess the patient adherence to cholesterol treatment recommendations and attainment of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. METHODS: EPHESUS (NCT02608645) is a national, observational and multicenter registry which has been designed as a cross-sectional study to allow inclusion of all consecutive patients with hypercholesterolemia in cardiology outpatient clinics. The present subgroup analyses of the EPHESUS trial included patients with known peripheral artery disease or atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease, and coronary heart disease namely secondary prevention. RESULTS: The present analysis of the EPHESUS study included 1482 patients (62.79 ± 10.4 years, 38.2% female) with secondary prevention from 40 sites in Turkey. Regarding recommended lipid targets for LDL-C, only 267 patients (18%) were below the target of 70 mg/dL. Females were significantly more off-target when compared with male patients (396, 85.5% vs 67, 14.5%; P = 0.017). Moreover, the achievement of LDL-C goal was significantly decreased with illiteracy (233, 19.2% vs 35, 13.1%; P = 0.02). Patients who think that the cholesterol treatment should be terminated when the cholesterol level of a patient has normalised were higher in the off-target group (34.0% vs 24.7%, P < 0.001). Besides, physician perceptions about LDL-C goal for secondary prevention were significantly related with LDL-C target attainment. CONCLUSIONS: EPHESUS is an important study with large population in terms of representing real-life practice of the adherence to dyslipidemia guidelines in secondary prevention patients in Turkey. Perceptions, knowledge, and compliance with the guidelines for secondary prevention have increased, but it is far below from the desired levels even in cardiology outpatient clinics. There is a need for patients' and physicians' education regarding the treatment of hyperlipidemia.

Gemifloxacin-Induced Allergic Myocardial Infarction: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Gemifloxacin given once daily for 5-7 days has been shown to be non-inferior to, or in some instances superior to, comparator agents for the treatment of common lower respiratory tract infections. Gemifloxacin is generally well tolerated and is as safe as many frequently empirically prescribed antimicrobials. CASE REPORT: We report a case of a 46-year-old woman given gemifloxacin for an upper respiratory tract infection who developed allergic myocardial infarction 15 min after taking an oral dose of 320 mg gemifloxacin. To our knowledge, this is the first case of allergic myocardial infarction associated with gemifloxacin. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Although anaphylactoid/anaphylactic reactions are rare adverse effects of fluoroquinolones, clinicians should be aware of this potentially fatal event. Electrocardiographic interpretation is a critical skill of the emergency physician. Awareness of Kounis syndrome and its specific electrocardiogram findings may help facilitate further testing that will aid in timely diagnosis and interventions. A diagnosis of Kounis syndrome should be considered in young, healthy patients with no atherosclerotic risk factors when they develop an acute coronary syndrome after administration of a potentially allergic agent.

Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF Scoring Systems in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Patients: Insights from the APOLLON Registry.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a complex and heterogeneous clinical syndrome, poses significant diagnostic challenges. The HFA-PEFF [Heart Failure Association of ESC diagnostic algorithm, P (Pretest Assessment), E  (Echocardiographic and Natriuretic Peptide score), F1 (Functional testing in Case of Uncertainty), F2 (Final Aetiology)] and H2FPEF [Heavy (BMI>30 kg/m2), Hypertensive (use of ≥2 antihypertensive medications), atrial Fibrillation (paroxysmal or persistent), Pulmonary hypertension (Doppler Echocardiographic estimated Pulmonary Artery Systolic Pressure >35 mm Hg), Elderly (age >60 years), Filling pressure (Doppler Echocardiographic E/e' >9)] scoring systems were developed to aid in diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This study aimed to assess the concordance and clinical accuracy of these scoring systems in the 'A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fractiON' cohort. METHODS: A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fractiON study was conducted as a multicenter, cross-sectional, and observational study; to evaluate a group of Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients who were seen by cardiologists in 13 participating centers across 12 cities in Türkiye. RESULTS: The study enrolled 819 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, with high probability heart failure with preserved ejection fraction rates of 40% and 26% for HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scorings, respectively. The concordance between the 2 scoring systems was found to be low (Kendall's taub correlation coefficient of 0.242, P < .001). The diagnostic performance of both scoring systems was evaluated, revealing differences in their approach and ability to accurately identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients. CONCLUSION: The low concordance between the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems underscores the ongoing challenge of accurately diagnosing and managing patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Clinicians should be aware of the strengths and limitations of each scoring system and use them in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings to arrive at an accurate diagnosis. Future research should focus on identifying additional diagnostic factors, developing more accurate and comprehensive diagnostic algorithms, and investigating alternative methods of diagnosis or stratification of patients based on different clinical characteristics.

How Did the Updated 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society Risk Categorization for Patients with Diabetes Affect the Risk Perception and Lipid Goals? A Simulated Analysis of Real-life Data from EPHESUS Study.

BACKGROUND: The recent 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society practice guidelines introduced a new risk categorization for patients with diabetes. We aimed to compare the implications of the 2016 and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines with regard to the lipid-lowering treatment use, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment rates, and the estimated proportion of patients who would be at goal in an ideal setting. METHODS: Patients with diabetes were classified into 4 risk categories according to 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society dyslipidemia guidelines from the database of EPHESUS (cross-sectional, observational, countrywide registry of cardiology outpatient clinics) study. The use of lipid-lowering treatment and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment rates were then compared according to previous and new guidelines. RESULTS: This analysis included a total of 873 diabetic adults. Half of the study population (53.8%) were on lipid-lowering treatment and almost one-fifth (19.1%) were on high-intensity statins. While low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal was achieved in 19.5% and 7.5% of patients, 87.4% and 69.6% would be on target if their lipid-lowering treatment was intensified according to 2016 and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society lipid guidelines, respectively. The new target <55 mg/dL could only be achieved in 2.2% and 8.1% of very high-risk primary prevention and secondary prevention patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The control of dyslipidemia was extremely poor among patients with diabetes. The use of lipid-lowering treatment was not at the desired level, and high-intensity lipid-lowering treatment use was even lower. Our simulation model showed that the high-dose statin plus ezetimibe therapy would improve goal attainment; however, it would not be possible to get goals with this treatment in more than one-third of the patients.

Misperceptions and management of LDL-cholesterol in secondary prevention of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia in cardiology practice: Real-life evidence from the EPHESUS registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a common inherited disease, leading to premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) due to elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Achieving LDL-C goals is extremely important for preventing the complications of this fatal disease. We evaluated the management of FH patients with ASCVD in cardiology practice. METHODS: We analyzed patients with ASCVD from the nationwide EPHESUS registry, which was conducted in 40 cardiology outpatient clinics, and compared those with and without FH. RESULTS: Of the 1482 consecutively enrolled patients with ASCVD, 618 (41.7%) had FH, among which 455 were categorized as 'Possible FH' and 163 as 'Probable or Definite FH'. Proposed LDL-C goals were not attained in more than 90% of the patients with FH. The proportion of those on statin therapy was 77% for possible and 91% for probable or definite FH, whereas 34.2 % and 59.4% were in use of high-intensity statins, respectively. None of the patients were on PCSK-9 inhibitors, and only 2 used ezetimibe. Adverse media coverage was the most common cause of statin discontinuation (32.5% in 'possible FH' and 45.7% in 'probable/definite FH'). The negative impact of media in the decision to stop lipid lowering therapy (LLT) was increasing with education level. CONCLUSIONS: In real life most of the FH patients with ASCVD are undertreated in cardiology practice regarding statin dosing and combined LLT. Drug discontinuation rates are notably high and are mostly media-related, and side effects very rarely cause cessation of LLT. Urgent measures are needed to increase the awareness of FH among healthcare providers and patients and to develop improved treatment strategies aimed at preventing the complications of FH.

An Evaluation of Aspirin Treatment Preferences ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION of Physicians in Hypertensive Patients in Terms of Current Guidelines: A Subgroup Analysis of the ASSOS Trial in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: The Appropriateness of Aspirin Use in Medical Outpatients: A Multicenter, Observational Study trial has been the largest study ever conducted among patients in Turkey regarding aspirin treatment. In the subgroup analysis of the hypertensive group of the Appropriateness of Aspirin Use in Medical Outpatients: A Multicenter, Observational Study trial, we aimed to evaluate the physicians' adherence to current guidelines regarding their aspirin treatment preferences. METHODS: The Appropriateness of Aspirin Use in Medical Outpatients: A Multicenter, Observational Study trial is a cross-sectional and multicenter study conducted among 5007 consecutive patients aged ≥18 years. The study population consisted of outpatients on aspirin treatment (80-300 mg). The patient data were obtained from 30 different cardiology clinics of 14 cities from all over Turkey. In this subgroup analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups: the hypertensive group (n=3467, 69.3%) and the group without hypertension (n=1540, 30.7%) according to the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/ European Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension. RESULTS: Aspirin use for primary prevention was higher in patients with hypertension compared to patients without hypertension [328 (21.3%); 1046 (30.2%); P < .001]. Treatment with a dose of 150 mg aspirin (n=172, 5%) was mostly preferred by internists for hypertensive patients (n =226, 6.5%); however, a daily dose of 80-100 mg aspirin therapy (n=1457, 94.6%) was mostly prescribed by cardiologists (n=1347, 87.5%) for patients without hypertension. CONCLUSION: Aspirin was found to be used commonly among patients with hypertension for primary prevention despite the current European Society of Cardiology Arterial Hypertension Guideline not recommending aspirin for primary prevention in patients with hypertension.