European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Consensus Statement on the Use of Non-invasive Biomarkers for Cardiothoracic Transplant Rejection Surveillance.

While allograft rejection (AR) continues to threaten the success of cardiothoracic transplantation, lack of accurate and repeatable surveillance tools to diagnose AR is a major unmet need in the clinical management of cardiothoracic transplant recipients. Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) and transbronchial biopsy (TBBx) have been the cornerstone of rejection monitoring since the field's incipience, but both suffer from significant limitations, including poor concordance of biopsy interpretation among pathologists. In recent years, novel molecular tools for AR monitoring have emerged and their performance characteristics have been evaluated in multiple studies. An international working group convened by ESOT has reviewed the existing literature and provides a series of recommendations to guide the use of these biomarkers in clinical practice. While acknowledging some caveats, the group recognized that Gene-expression profiling and donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) may be used to rule out rejection in heart transplant recipients, but they are not recommended for cardiac allograft vasculopathy screening. Other traditional biomarkers (NT-proBNP, BNP or troponin) do not have sufficient evidence to support their use to diagnose AR. Regarding lung transplant, dd-cfDNA could be used to rule out clinical rejection and infection, but its use to monitor treatment response is not recommended.

Pronóstico del trasplante cardiaco en pacientes con miocardiopatía hipertrófica y restrictiva. Análisis de un registro nacional / Prognosis after heart transplant in patients with hypertrophic and restrictive cardiomyopathy. A nationwide registry analysis

Introducción y objetivos: Existe controversia acerca de los resultados del trasplante cardiaco en pacientes con miocardiopatía hipertrófica (MCH) o restrictiva (MCR). Métodos: Análisis retrospectivo de receptores adultos de un primer trasplante cardiaco entre 1984 y 2021 incluidos en un registro nacional. La mortalidad al primer y quinto año postrasplante en receptores con MCH y MCR se comparó con la de receptores con miocardiopatía dilatada (MCD). Resultados: Se incluyó a 3.703 pacientes (3.112 MCD; 331 MCH y 260 MCR) con seguimiento mediano de 5,0 años (3,1-5,0). En comparación con la MCD, el riesgo ajustado de mortalidad a 1 año fue: MCH: hazard ratio (HR)=1,38; intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC95%), 1,07-1,78; p=0,01, MCR: HR=1,48; IC95%, 1,14-1,93; p=0,003. El riesgo ajustado a 5 años fue: MCH: HR=1,17; IC95%, 0,93-1,47; p=0,18; MCR: HR=1,52; IC95%, 1,22-1,89; p<0,001. En los últimos 20 años, la MCR mejoró significativamente la supervivencia a 1 año (R2 ajustada=0,95) y a 5 años (R2=0,88); la MCH mejoró la supervivencia a 5 años (R2=0,59) y a 1 año permaneció estable (R2=0,16). Conclusiones: Se asoció la MCR y la MCH a peor pronóstico precoz postrasplante que la MCD. La diferencia desfavorable se mantuvo para la supervivencia a 5 años solo para la MCR. Se observa una tendencia temporal a mejor pronóstico precoz y tardío para la MCR, y solo para el tardío en la MCH. (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Posttransplant outcomes among recipients with a diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) remain controversial. Methods: Retrospective analysis of a nationwide registry of first-time recipients undergoing isolated heart transplant between 1984 and 2021. One-year and 5-year mortality in recipients with HCM and RCM were compared with those with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Results: We included 3703 patients (3112 DCM; 331 HCM; 260 RCM) with a median follow-up of 5.0 [3.1-5.0] years. Compared with DCM, the adjusted 1-year mortality risk was: HCM: HR, 1.38; 95%CI, 1.07-1.78; P=.01, RCM: HR, 1.48; 95%CI, 1.14-1.93; P=.003. The adjusted 5-year mortality risk was: HCM: HR, 1.17; 95%CI, 0.93-1.47; P=.18; RCM: HR, 1.52; 95%CI, 1.22-1.89; P<.001. Over the last 20 years, the RCM group showed significant improvement in 1-year survival (adjusted R2=0.95) and 5-year survival (R2=0.88); the HCM group showed enhanced the 5-year survival (R2=0.59), but the 1-year survival remained stable (R2=0.16). Conclusions: Both RCM and HCM were linked to a less favorable early posttransplant prognosis compared with DCM. However, at the 5-year mark, this unfavorable difference was evident only for RCM. Notably, a substantial temporal enhancement in both early and late mortality was observed for RCM, while for HCM, this improvement was mainly evident in late mortality. (AU)

Redefining the molecular rejection states in 3230 heart transplant biopsies: Relationships to parenchymal injury and graft survival.

The first-generation Molecular Microscope (MMDx) system for heart transplant endomyocardial biopsies used expression of rejection-associated transcripts (RATs) to diagnose not only T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) but also acute injury. However, the ideal system should detect rejection without being influenced by injury, to permit analysis of the relationship between rejection and parenchymal injury. To achieve this, we developed a new rejection classification in an expanded cohort of 3230 biopsies: 1641 from INTERHEART (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02670408), plus 1589 service biopsies added to improve the power of the machine learning algorithms. The new system used 6 rejection classifiers instead of RATs and generated 7 rejection archetypes: No rejection, 48%; Minor, 24%; TCMR1, 2.3%; TCMR2, 2.7%; TCMR/mixed, 2.7%; early-stage ABMR, 3.9%; and fully developed ABMR, 16%. Using rejection classifiers eliminated cross-reactions with acute injury, permitting separate assessment of rejection and injury. TCMR was associated with severe-recent injury and late atrophy-fibrosis and rarely had normal parenchyma. ABMR was better tolerated, seldom producing severe injury, but in later biopsies was often associated with atrophy-fibrosis, indicating long-term risk. Graft survival and left ventricular ejection fraction were reduced not only in hearts with TCMR but also in hearts with severe-recent injury and atrophy-fibrosis, even without rejection.

Prognosis after heart transplant in patients with hypertrophic and restrictive cardiomyopathy. A nationwide registry analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Posttransplant outcomes among recipients with a diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) remain controversial. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a nationwide registry of first-time recipients undergoing isolated heart transplant between 1984 and 2021. One-year and 5-year mortality in recipients with HCM and RCM were compared with those with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). RESULTS: We included 3703 patients (3112 DCM; 331 HCM; 260 RCM) with a median follow-up of 5.0 [3.1-5.0] years. Compared with DCM, the adjusted 1-year mortality risk was: HCM: HR, 1.38; 95%CI, 1.07-1.78; P=.01, RCM: HR, 1.48; 95%CI, 1.14-1.93; P=.003. The adjusted 5-year mortality risk was: HCM: HR, 1.17; 95%CI, 0.93-1.47; P=.18; RCM: HR, 1.52; 95%CI, 1.22-1.89; P<.001. Over the last 20 years, the RCM group showed significant improvement in 1-year survival (adjusted R2=0.95) and 5-year survival (R2=0.88); the HCM group showed enhanced the 5-year survival (R2=0.59), but the 1-year survival remained stable (R2=0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Both RCM and HCM were linked to a less favorable early posttransplant prognosis compared with DCM. However, at the 5-year mark, this unfavorable difference was evident only for RCM. Notably, a substantial temporal enhancement in both early and late mortality was observed for RCM, while for HCM, this improvement was mainly evident in late mortality.

Molecular states associated with dysfunction and graft loss in heart transplants.

BACKGROUND: We explored the changes in gene expression correlating with dysfunction and graft failure in endomyocardial biopsies. METHODS: Genome-wide microarrays (19,462 genes) were used to define mRNA changes correlating with dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤ 55) and risk of graft loss within 3 years postbiopsy. LVEF data was available for 1,013 biopsies and survival data for 779 patients (74 losses). Molecular classifiers were built for predicting dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 55) and postbiopsy 3-year survival. RESULTS: Dysfunction is correlated with dedifferentiation-decreased expression of normal heart transcripts, for example, solute carriers, along with increased expression of inflammation genes. Many genes with reduced expression in dysfunction were matrix genes such as fibulin 1 and decorin. Gene ontology (GO) categories suggested matrix remodeling and inflammation, not rejection. Genes associated with the risk of failure postbiopsy overlapped dysfunction genes but also included genes affecting microcirculation, for example, arginase 2, which reduces NO production, and endothelin 1. GO terms also reflected increased glycolysis and response to hypoxia, but decreased VEGF and angiogenesis pathways. T cell-mediated rejection was associated with reduced survival and antibody-mediated rejection with relatively good survival, but the main determinants of survival were features of parenchymal injury. Both dysfunction and graft loss were correlated with increased biopsy expression of BNP (gene NPPB). Survival probability classifiers divided hearts into risk quintiles, with actuarial 3-year postbiopsy survival >95% for the highest versus 50% for the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: Dysfunction in transplanted hearts reflects dedifferentiation, decreased matrix genes, injury, and inflammation. The risk of short-term loss includes these changes but is also associated with microcirculation abnormalities, glycolysis, and response to hypoxia.

Prevalence, characteristics and prognostic impact of aortic valve disease in patients with heart failure and reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction: An analysis of the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIMS: To assess the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) with or without moderate to severe aortic valve disease (AVD) (aortic stenosis [AS], aortic regurgitation [AR], mixed AVD [MAVD]). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the prospective ESC HFA EORP HF Long-Term Registry including both chronic and acute HF were analysed. Of 15 216 patients with HF (62.5% with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF; 14.0% with mildly reduced ejection fraction, HFmrEF; 23.5% with preserved ejection fraction, HFpEF), 706 patients (4.6%) had AR, 648 (4.3%) AS and 234 (1.5%) MAVD. The prevalence of AS, AR and MAVD was 6%, 8%, and 3% in HFpEF, 6%, 3%, and 2% in HFmrEF and 4%, 3%, and 1% in HFrEF. The strongest associations were observed for age and HFpEF with AS, and for left ventricular end-diastolic diameter with AR. AS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.67), and MAVD (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.74) but not AR (adjusted HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96-1.33) were independently associated with the 12-month composite outcome of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. The associations between AS and the composite outcome were observed regardless of ejection fraction category. CONCLUSIONS: In the ESC HFA EORP HF Long-Term Registry, one in 10 patients with HF had AVD, with AS and MAVD being especially common in HFpEF and AR being similarly distributed across all ejection fraction categories. AS and MAVD, but not AR, were independently associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality and 12-month composite outcome, regardless of ejection fraction category.

Assessing the Relationship Between Molecular Rejection and Parenchymal Injury in Heart Transplant Biopsies.

BACKGROUND: The INTERHEART study (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02670408) used genome-wide microarrays to detect rejection in endomyocardial biopsies; however, many heart transplants with no rejection have late dysfunction and impaired survival. We used the microarray measurements to develop a molecular classification of parenchymal injury. METHODS: In 1320 endomyocardial biopsies from 645 patients previously studied for rejection-associated transcripts, we measured the expression of 10 injury-induced transcript sets: 5 induced by recent injury; 2 reflecting macrophage infiltration; 2 normal heart transcript sets; and immunoglobulin transcripts, which correlate with time. We used archetypal clustering to assign injury groups. RESULTS: Injury transcript sets correlated with impaired function. Archetypal clustering based on the expression of injury transcript sets assigned each biopsy to 1 of 5 injury groups: 87 Severe-injury, 221 Late-injury, and 3 with lesser degrees of injury, 376 No-injury, 526 Mild-injury, and 110 Moderate-injury. Severe-injury had extensive loss of normal transcripts (dedifferentiation) and increase in macrophage and injury-induced transcripts. Late-injury was characterized by high immunoglobulin transcript expression. In Severe- and Late-injury, function was depressed, and short-term graft failure was increased, even in hearts with no rejection. T cell-mediated rejection almost always had parenchymal injury, and 85% had Severe- or Late-injury. In contrast, early antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) had little injury, but late AMR often had the Late-injury state. CONCLUSIONS: Characterizing heart transplants for their injury state provides new understanding of dysfunction and outcomes and demonstrates the differential impact of T cell-mediated rejection versus AMR on the parenchyma. Slow deterioration from AMR emerges as a major contributor to late dysfunction.

Many heart transplant biopsies currently diagnosed as no rejection have mild molecular antibody-mediated rejection-related changes.

BACKGROUND: The Molecular Microscope (MMDx) system classifies heart transplant endomyocardial biopsies as No-rejection (NR), Early-injury, T cell-mediated (TCMR), antibody-mediated (ABMR), mixed, and possible rejection (possible TCMR, possible ABMR). Rejection-like gene expression patterns in NR biopsies have not been described. We extended the MMDx methodology, using a larger data set, to define a new "Minor" category characterized by low-level inflammation in non-rejecting biopsies. METHODS: Using MMDx criteria from a previous study, molecular rejection was assessed in 1,320 biopsies (645 patients) using microarray expression of rejection-associated transcripts (RATs). Of these biopsies, 819 were NR. A new archetypal analysis model in the 1,320 data set split the NRs into NR-Normal (N = 462) and NR-Minor (N = 359). RESULTS: Compared to NR-Normal, NR-Minor were more often histologic TCMR1R, with a higher prevalence of donor-specific antibody (DSA). DSA positivity increased in a gradient: NR-Normal 24%; NR-Minor 34%; possible ABMR 42%; ABMR 66%. The top 20 transcripts distinguishing NR-Minor from NR-Normal were all ABMR-related and/or IFNG-inducible, and also exhibited a gradient of increasing expression from NR-Normal through ABMR. In random forest analysis, TCMR and Early-injury were associated with reduced LVEF and increased graft loss, but NR-Minor and ABMR scores were not. Surprisingly, hearts with MMDx ABMR showed comparatively little graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Many heart transplants currently diagnosed as NR by histologic or molecular assessment have minor increases in ABMR-related and IFNG-inducible transcripts, associated with DSA positivity and mild histologic inflammation. These results suggest that low-level ABMR-related molecular stress may be operating in many more hearts than previously estimated. (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02670408).

Assessment of Omecamtiv Mecarbil for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Heart Failure: A Post Hoc Analysis of Data From the GALACTIC-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a progressive clinical syndrome, and many patients' condition worsen over time despite treatment. Patients with more severe disease are often intolerant of available medical therapies. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil for the treatment of patients with severe heart failure (HF) enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The GALACTIC-HF study was a global double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial that was conducted at multiple centers between January 2017 and August 2020. A total of 8232 patients with symptomatic HF (defined as New York Heart Association symptom class II-IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less were randomized to receive omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo and followed up for a median of 21.8 months (range, 15.4-28.6 months). The current post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients classified as having severe HF compared with patients without severe HF. Severe HF was defined as the presence of all of the following criteria: New York Heart Association symptom class III to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and hospitalization for HF within the previous 6 months. Interventions: Participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first HF event or cardiovascular (CV) death. Secondary end points included time to CV death and safety and tolerability. Results: Among 8232 patients enrolled in the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, 2258 patients (27.4%; mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.6] years; 1781 men [78.9%]) met the specified criteria for severe HF. Of those, 1106 patients were randomized to the omecamtiv mecarbil group and 1152 to the placebo group. Patients with severe HF who received omecamtiv mecarbil experienced a significant treatment benefit for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), whereas patients without severe HF had no significant treatment benefit (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .005 for interaction). For CV death, the results were similar (HR for patients with vs without severe HF: 0.88 [95% CI, 0.75-1.03] vs 1.10 [95% CI, 0.97-1.25]; P = .03 for interaction). Omecamtiv mecarbil therapy was well tolerated in patients with severe HF, with no significant changes in blood pressure, kidney function, or potassium level compared with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of data from the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, omecamtiv mecarbil therapy may have provided a clinically meaningful reduction in the composite end point of time to first HF event or CV death among patients with severe HF. These data support a potential role of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients for whom current treatment options are limited. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929329.

A 3-Biomarker 2-Point-Based Risk Stratification Strategy in Acute Heart Failure.

Introduction and Objectives: Most multi-biomarker strategies in acute heart failure (HF) have only measured biomarkers in a single-point time. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic yielding of NT-proBNP, hsTnT, Cys-C, hs-CRP, GDF15, and GAL-3 in HF patients both at admission and discharge. Methods: We included 830 patients enrolled consecutively in a prospective multicenter registry. Primary outcome was 12-month mortality. The gain in the C-index, calibration, net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) was calculated after adding each individual biomarker value or their combination on top of the best clinical model developed in this study (C-index 0.752, 0.715-0.789) and also on top of 4 currently used scores (MAGGIC, GWTG-HF, Redin-SCORE, BCN-bioHF). Results: After 12-month, death occurred in 154 (18.5%) cases. On top of the best clinical model, the addition of NT-proBNP, hs-CRP, and GDF-15 above the respective cutoff point at admission and discharge and their delta during compensation improved the C-index to 0.782 (0.747-0.817), IDI by 5% (p < 0.001), and NRI by 57% (p < 0.001) for 12-month mortality. A 4-risk grading categories for 12-month mortality (11.7, 19.2, 26.7, and 39.4%, respectively; p < 0.001) were obtained using combination of these biomarkers. Conclusion: A model including NT-proBNP, hs-CRP, and GDF-15 measured at admission and discharge afforded a mortality risk prediction greater than our clinical model and also better than the most currently used scores. In addition, this 3-biomarker panel defined 4-risk categories for 12-month mortality.

HFA of the ESC position paper on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 3: at the hospital and discharge.

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD- supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient-device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD-supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non-cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end-of-life approaches are described.

Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology position paper on the management of left ventricular assist device-supported patients for the non-left ventricular assist device specialist healthcare provider: Part 2: at the emergency department.

The improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology and scarcity of donor hearts have increased dramatically the population of the LVAD-supported patients and the probability of those patients to present to the emergency department with expected and non-expected device-related and patient-device interaction complications. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the 'destination therapy' indication, increases the risk for those patients to suffer from other co-morbidities common in the older population. In this second part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the LVAD-supported patient presenting to the emergency department with bleeding, neurological event, pump thrombosis, chest pain, syncope, and other events are presented. The very challenging issue of declaring death in an LVAD-supported patient, as the circulation is artificially preserved by the device despite no other signs of life, is also discussed in detail.

HFA of the ESC Position paper on the management of LVAD supported patients for the non LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 1: Introduction and at the non-hospital settings in the community.

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD-supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD-supported patients. The expected and non-expected device-related and patient-device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the 'destination therapy' indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD-supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD-supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD-supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD-supported patients.

Guidance on the management of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider: executive summary.

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD supported patients. Device-related, and patient-device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of LVAD implanting centres. The probability of an LVAD supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local ambulance team, emergency department medical team and internal or surgical wards in a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this paper is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician - ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, and internists - to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department, and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually back to the general practitioner.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 Years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use.

Levosimendan was first approved for clinical use in 2000, when authorization was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the hemodynamic stabilization of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure (HF). In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitization and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced HF, right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care, and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the United States. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and noncardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute HF arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Levosimendan Efficacy and Safety: 20 years of SIMDAX in Clinical Use.

Levosimendan was first approved for clinic use in 2000, when authorisation was granted by Swedish regulatory authorities for the haemodynamic stabilisation of patients with acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. In the ensuing 20 years, this distinctive inodilator, which enhances cardiac contractility through calcium sensitisation and promotes vasodilatation through the opening of adenosine triphosphate-dependent potassium channels on vascular smooth muscle cells, has been approved in more than 60 jurisdictions, including most of the countries of the European Union and Latin America. Areas of clinical application have expanded considerably and now include cardiogenic shock, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, advanced heart failure, right ventricular failure and pulmonary hypertension, cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency medicine. Levosimendan is currently in active clinical evaluation in the US. Levosimendan in IV formulation is being used as a research tool in the exploration of a wide range of cardiac and non-cardiac disease states. A levosimendan oral form is at present under evaluation in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. To mark the 20 years since the advent of levosimendan in clinical use, 51 experts from 23 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and Ukraine) contributed to this essay, which evaluates one of the relatively few drugs to have been successfully introduced into the acute heart failure arena in recent times and charts a possible development trajectory for the next 20 years.

Prevalence and Correlates of Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence to Immunosuppressive Drugs After Heart Transplantation: The International Multicenter Cross-sectional Bright Study.

BACKGROUND: Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRMNA) refers to not taking medications as prescribed because of difficulties paying for them. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were (1) to assess the prevalence of CRMNA to immunosuppressants in heart transplant recipients internationally and (2) to determine multilevel correlates (patient, center, and healthcare system levels) of CRMNA. METHODS: Using data from the cross-sectional international BRIGHT study, applying multistaged sampling, CRMNA was assessed via 3 self-report items in 1365 patients from 36 heart transplant centers in 11 countries. Cost-related medication nonadherence was defined as any positive answer on any of the 3 items. Healthcare system-level (ie, insurance coverage, out-of-pocket expenditures) and patient-level (ie, intention, perceived financial burden, cost as a barrier, a health belief regarding medication benefits, cost-related self-efficacy, and demographic factors) CRMNA correlates were assessed. Correlates were examined using mixed logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Across all study countries, CRMNA had an average prevalence of 2.6% (range, 0% [Switzerland/Brazil] to 9.8% [Australia]) and was positively related to being single (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-4.47), perceived financial burden (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-2.99), and cost as a barrier (odds ratio, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-4.07). Four protective factors were identified: white ethnicity (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.74), intention to adhere (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.63), self-efficacy (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.67), and belief about medication benefit (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.87). Regarding variability, 81.3% was explained at the patient level; 13.8%, at the center level; and 4.8%, at the country level. CONCLUSION: In heart transplant recipients, the CRMNA prevalence varies across countries but is lower than in other chronically ill populations. Identified patient-level correlates are novel (ie, intention to adhere, cost-related barriers, and cost-related self-efficacy) and indicate patient-perceived medication cost burden.

Consenso de expertos sobre la insuficiencia cardiaca con fracción de eyección reducida: más allá de las guías / Expert consensus statement on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: beyond the guidelines

No disponible

International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM): Standardized Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement Set for Heart Failure Patients.

Whereas multiple national, international, and trial registries for heart failure have been created, international standards for clinical assessment and outcome measurement do not currently exist. The working group's objective was to facilitate international comparison in heart failure care, using standardized parameters and meaningful patient-centered outcomes for research and quality of care assessments. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement recruited an international working group of clinical heart failure experts, researchers, and patient representatives to define a standard set of outcomes and risk-adjustment variables. This was designed to document, compare, and ultimately improve patient care outcomes in the heart failure population, with a focus on global feasibility and relevance. The working group employed a Delphi process, patient focus groups, online patient surveys, and multiple systematic publications searches. The process occurred over 10 months, employing 7 international teleconferences. A 17-item set has been established, addressing selected functional, psychosocial, burden of care, and survival outcome domains. These measures were designed to include all patients with heart failure, whether entered at first presentation or subsequent decompensation, excluding cardiogenic shock. Sources include clinician report, administrative data, and validated patient-reported outcome measurement tools: the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; the Patient Health Questionnaire-2; and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Recommended data included those to support risk adjustment and benchmarking across providers and regions. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement developed a dataset designed to capture, compare, and improve care for heart failure, with feasibility and relevance for patients and clinicians worldwide.