Novel Medical Treatments and Devices for the Management of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Heart failure (HF) is a growing issue in developed countries; it is often the result of underlying processes such as ischemia, hypertension, infiltrative diseases or even genetic abnormalities. The great majority of the affected patients present a reduced ejection fraction (≤40%), thereby falling under the name of "heart failure with reduced ejection fraction" (HFrEF). This condition represents a major threat for patients: it significantly affects life quality and carries an enormous burden on the whole healthcare system due to its high management costs. In the last decade, new medical treatments and devices have been developed in order to reduce HF hospitalizations and improve prognosis while reducing the overall mortality rate. Pharmacological therapy has significantly changed our perspective of this disease thanks to its ability of restoring ventricular function and reducing symptom severity, even in some dramatic contexts with an extensively diseased myocardium. Notably, medical therapy can sometimes be ineffective, and a tailored integration with device technologies is of pivotal importance. Not by chance, in recent years, cardiac implantable devices witnessed a significant improvement, thereby providing an irreplaceable resource for the management of HF. Some devices have the ability of assessing (CardioMEMS) or treating (ultrafiltration) fluid retention, while others recognize and treat life-threatening arrhythmias, even for a limited time frame (wearable cardioverter defibrillator). The present review article gives a comprehensive overview of the most recent and important findings that need to be considered in patients affected by HFrEF. Both novel medical treatments and devices are presented and discussed.

Recurrent events after acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: predictors and features of plaque progression and stent failure.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are at high risk for recurrent coronary events (RCE). Non-culprit plaque progression and stent failure are the main causes of RCEs. We sought to identify the incidence and predictors of RCEs. METHODS: Eight hundred thirty patients with STEMI were enrolled and followed up for 5 years. All patients underwent blood test analysis at hospital admission, at 1-month and at 12-month follow-up times. Patients were divided into RCE group and control group. RCE group was further categorized into non-culprit plaque progression and stent failure subgroups. RESULTS: Among 830 patients with STEMI, 63 patients had a RCE (7.6%). At hospital admission, HDL was numerically lower in RCE group, while LDL at both 1-month and 12-month follow-up times were significantly higher in RCE group. Both HDL at hospital admission and LDL at 12-month follow-up were independently associated with RCEs (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-0.99 and OR 1.041, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, respectively). RCEs were due to non-culprit plaque progression in 47.6% of cases, while in 36.5% due to stent failure. The mean time frame between pPCI and RCE was significantly greater for non-culprit plaque progression subgroup as compared to stent failure subgroup (27 ±â€…18 months and 16 ±â€…14 months, P  = 0.032). CONCLUSION: RCEs still affect patients after pPCI. Low levels of HDL at admission and high levels of LDL at 12 months after pPCI significantly predicted RCEs. A RCE results in non-culprit plaque progression presents much later than an event due to stent failure.

Prognostic value of combined fractional flow reserve and pressure-bounded coronary flow reserve: outcomes in FFR and Pb-CFR assessment.

BACKGROUND: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) has an emerging role to predict outcome in patients with and without flow-limiting stenoses. However, the role of its surrogate pressure bounded-CFR (Pb-CFR) is controversial. We investigated the usefulness of combined use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and Pb-CFR to predict outcomes. METHODS: This is a sub-study of the PROPHET-FFR Trial, including patients with chronic coronary syndrome and functionally tested coronary lesions. Patients were divided into four groups based on positive or negative FFR (cut-off 0.80) and preserved (lower boundary ≥2) or reduced (upper boundary <2) Pb-CFR: Group1 FFR≤0.80/ Pb-CFR <2; Group 2 FFR≤0.80/Pb-CFR≥2; Group 3 FFR >0.80/Pb-CFR<2; Group 4 FFR>0.80/Pb-CFR≥2. Lesions with positive FFR were treated with PCI. Primary endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, unplanned cardiac hospitalization at 36-months. RESULTS: A total of 609 patients and 816 lesions were available for the analysis. At Kaplan-Meier analysis MACEs rate was significantly different between groups (36.7% Group 1, 27.4% Group 2, 19.2% Group 3, 22.6% Group 4, P=0.019) and more prevalent in groups with FFR≤0.80 irrespective of Pb-CFR. In case of discrepancy, no difference in MACEs were observed between groups stratified by Pb-CFR. FFR≤0.80 was associated with an increased MACEs rate (30.2% vs. 21.5%, P<0.01) while Pb-CFR<2 was not (24.5% vs. 24.2% Pb-CFR≥2 P=0.67). CONCLUSIONS: FFR confirms its ability to predict outcomes in patients with intermediate coronary stenoses. Pb-CFR does not add any relevant prognostic information.

Safety and effectiveness of post percutaneous coronary intervention physiological assessment: Retrospective data from the post-revascularization optimization and physiological evaluation of intermediate lesions using fractional flow reserve registry.

Background: While the importance of invasive physiological assessment (IPA) to choose coronary lesions to be treated is ascertained, its role after PCI is less established. We evaluated feasibility and efficacy of Physiology-guided PCI in the everyday practice in a retrospective registry performed in a single high-volume and "physiology-believer" center. Materials and methods: The PROPHET-FFR study (NCT05056662) patients undergoing an IPA in 2015-2020 were retrospectively enrolled in three groups: Control group comprising patients for whom PCI was deferred based on a IPA; Angiography-Guided PCI group comprising patients undergoing PCI based on an IPA but without a post-PCI IPA; Physiology-guided PCI group comprising patients undergoing PCI based on an IPA and an IPA after PCI, followed by a physiology-guided optimization, if indicated. Optimal result was defined by an FFR value ≥ 0.90. Results: A total of 1,322 patients with 1,591 lesions were available for the analysis. 893 patients (67.5%) in Control Group, 249 patients (18.8%) in Angiography-guided PCI Group and 180 patients (13.6%) in Physiology-guided PCI group. In 89 patients a suboptimal functional result was achieved that was optimized in 22 cases leading to a "Final FFR" value of 0.90 ± 0.04 in Angiography-Guided PCI group. Procedural time, costs, and rate of complications were similar. At follow up the rate of MACEs for the Physiology-guided PCI group was similar to the Control Group (7.2% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.765) and significantly lower than the Angiography-guided PCI Group (14.9%, p < 0.001), mainly driven by a reduction in TVRs. Conclusion: "Physiology-guided PCI" is a feasible strategy with a favorable impact on mid-term prognosis. Prospective studies using a standardized IPA are warrant to confirm these data.

Physiological assessment after percutaneous coronary intervention: the hard truth.

Physiologically guided revascularization, using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) has been demonstrated to be associated with better long-term outcomes compared to an angiographically-guided strategy, mainly avoiding inappropriate coronary stenting and its associated adverse events. On the contrary, the role of invasive physiological assessment after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is much less well established. However, a large body of evidence suggests that a relevant proportion of patients undergoing PCI with a satisfying angiographic result show instead a suboptimal functional product with a potentially negative prognostic impact. For this reason, many efforts have been focused to identify interventional strategies to physiologically optimize PCI. Measuring the functional result after as PCI, especially when performed after a physiological assessment, implies that the operator is ready to accept the hard truth of an unsatisfactory physiological result despite angiographically optimal and, consequently, to optimize the product with some additional effort. The aim of this review was to bridge this gap in knowledge by better defining the paradigm shift of invasive physiological assessment, from a simple tool for deciding whether an epicardial stenosis must be treated, to a thoroughly physiological approach to PCI with the suggestion of a practical flow chart.

2019 novel Coronavirus: current knowledge, cardiovascular implications and management.

From first cases reported on December 31, 2019, in Wuhan, Hubei-China, SARS-CoV2 has spread worldwide and finally the World Health Organization declared the pandemic status. We summarize what makes SARS-CoV2 different from previous highly pathogenic coronaviruses and why it is so contagious, with focus on its clinical presentation and diagnosis, which is mandatory to start the appropriate management and reduce the transmission. As far as infection pathophysiology is still not completely clarified, this review focuses also on the cardiovascular (CV) implication of COVID-19 and the capability of this virus to cause direct myocardial injury, myocarditis and other CV manifestations. Furthermore, we highlight the relationship between the virus, enzyme ACE2 and ACE inhibitors. Clinical management involves the intensive care approach with intubation and mechanical ventilation in the most serious cases and drug therapy with several apparently promising old and new molecules. Aim of this review is then to summarize what is actually known about the SARS-CoV2 and its cardiovascular implications.

Prognostic impact of FFR/contrast FFR discordance.

BACKGROUND: Contrast fractional flow reserve (cFFR) is a relatively new tool for the assessment of intermediate coronary artery stenosis and represents a reliable surrogate of FFR with the advantage of potentially simplifying functional evaluation. We aimed to compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing functional evaluation with both FFR and cFFR based on the results of the two indexes. METHOD AND RESULT: We retrospectively analyzed outcomes in 488 patients who underwent functional evaluation with FFR and cFFR. Patients were divided into four groups using the cutoff values of 0.80 for FFR and 0.85 for cFFR: -/- (n = 298), +/+ (n = 134), -/+(n = 31) and +/- (n = 25). All patients were treated according to FFR value. MACE rate was assessed in each group, including death, myocardial infarction and urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR). Mean follow-up time was 22 ± 15 months. Incidence of MACE at follow-up was 8.3% in FFR-/cFFR-, 14.0% in FFR+/cFFR+, 16.0% in FFR-/cFFR+ and 8.0% in FFR+/cFFR- without a significant difference amongst the 4 groups (p = 0.2). Nevertheless, a significant difference in the rate of TVR comparing FFR-/cFFR- (n = 17) and FFR-/cFFR+ (n = 5) was found at 24 months (5.7% vs 16.0%; p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: cFFR is accurate in predicting FFR and consequently reliable in guiding coronary revascularization. In the rare case of discordance, while FFR+/cFFR- patients show a prognosis similar to FFR-/cFFR- patients, FFR-/cFFR+ patients show a prognosis similar to FFR+/cFFR+ patients.

2019 novel-coronavirus: Cardiovascular insights about risk factors, myocardial injury, therapy and clinical implications.

From December 31st, 2019, a novel highly pathogenic coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread worldwide, reaching at present the dimension of a pandemic. In addition to damaging the lungs, SARS-CoV-2 may also damage the heart and this is corroborated by the evidence that cardiovascular comorbidities are associated with a higher mortality and poor clinical outcomes in patient infected by the virus. During the infection myocardial injury, myocarditis and arrhythmias have also been reported, but the pathophysiological mechanisms of these complications are yet to be understood. Great attention is also being posed on the potential beneficial/harmful role of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, as far as the virus binds to ACE2 to infect cells, but evidences lack. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 can also affect the aspect of acute coronary syndromes, not only because these two distinct pathological entities share pathogenic aspects (such as the systemic inflammatory state and cytokine release), but also and above all for the consequences that the need to contain the infection has on the management of cardiological urgencies. The aim of this review was therefore to summarize the relationship between the virus and the cardiovascular system.

Usefulness of Addition of Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Echocardiographic Imaging to Predict Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy.

Defining short-term prognosis in nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) is challenging in clinical practice. Although left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) is a key prognostic marker in NICM there are few parameters able to predict it. We investigated whether a complete structural and functional cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) evaluation was incremental to the classic clinical-echocardiographic approach in predicting LVRR in a large cohort of NICM patients receiving evidence-based treatment. Patients with a recent diagnosis of NICM (<3 months) who underwent complete clinical, echocardiographic and cMRI assessment were consecutively enrolled from 2008 to 2016. LVRR was defined as an increase in ≥10 points or normalization of left ventricular ejection fraction, associated with a ≥10% reduction or normalization of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter at midterm (median time 20 months) echocardiographic follow-up. Among 80 NICM patients included in the study, LVRR was observed in 43 (54%). At multivariate analysis, the clinical-echocardiographic evaluation failed to identify independent predictors of LVRR. However, absence of late gadolinium enhancement (odds ratio [OR] 9.07; confidence interval [CI] 2.7 to 13.1; p value 0.0003), left ventricular mass (OR 1.018; CI 1.001 to 1.036; p value 0.045) and peak circumferential strain (OR 1.213; CI 1.011 to 1.470; p value 0.049) assessed by cMRI were independently associated with LVRR. A model for LVRR prediction based on cMRI and clinical-echocardiographic parameters performed significantly better than the clinical-echocardiographic model alone (area under curve 0.84 vs 0.72; p value 0.023). In conclusion, an integrated imaging approach with the addition of a structural and functional cMRI study to the standard-of-care evaluation improves the prediction of LVRR in a large cohort of patients with recently diagnosed NICM receiving evidence-based treatment.