Laboratory and Metabolomic Fingerprint in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: From Clinical Classification to Biomarker Signature.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a poorly characterized syndrome with many unknown aspects related to different patient profiles, various associated risk factors and a wide range of aetiologies. It comprises several pathophysiological pathways, such as endothelial dysfunction, myocardial fibrosis, extracellular matrix deposition and intense inflammatory system activation. Until now, HFpEF has only been described with regard to clinical features and its most commonly associated risk factors, disregarding all biological mechanisms responsible for cardiovascular deteriorations. Recently, innovations in laboratory and metabolomic findings have shown that HFpEF appears to be strictly related to specific cells and molecular mechanisms' dysregulation. Indeed, some biomarkers are efficient in early identification of these processes, adding new insights into diagnosis and risk stratification. Moreover, recent advances in intermediate metabolites provide relevant information on intrinsic cellular and energetic substrate alterations. Therefore, a systematic combination of clinical imaging and laboratory findings may lead to a 'precision medicine' approach providing prognostic and therapeutic advantages. The current review reports traditional and emerging biomarkers in HFpEF and it purposes a new diagnostic approach based on integrative information achieved from risk factor burden, hemodynamic dysfunction and biomarkers' signature partnership.

Risk Factors and Cellular Differences in Heart Failure: The Key Role of Sex Hormones.

Patients with heart failure are conventionally stratified into phenotypic groups based on their ejection fraction. The aim of this stratification is to improve disease management with a more targeted therapeutic approach. A further subdivision based on patient gender is justified. It is recognized that women are underrepresented in randomized controlled clinical trials, resulting in limited clinical and molecular differentiation between males and females. However, many observational studies show that the onset, development, and clinical course of the disease may substantially differ between the two sexes. According to the emerging concept of precision medicine, investigators should further explore the mechanisms responsible for the onset of heart failure due to sex differences. Indeed, the synergistic or opposing effects of sex hormones on the cardiovascular system and underlying heart failure mechanisms have not yet been clarified. Sex hormones, risk factors impact, and cardiovascular adaptations may be relevant for a better understanding of the intrinsic pathophysiological mechanisms in the two sexes. Despite the differences, treatment for HF is similar across the whole population, regardless of sex and gender. In our review, we describe the main differences in terms of cardiovascular dysfunction, risk factors, and cellular signaling modifications related to the hormonal pattern.

Heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical, diagnostic, management, and organizational dilemmas.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection pandemic has affected the care of patients with heart failure (HF). Several consensus documents describe the appropriate diagnostic algorithm and treatment approach for patients with HF and associated COVID-19 infection. However, few questions about the mechanisms by which COVID can exacerbate HF in patients with high-risk (Stage B) or symptomatic HF (Stage C) remain unanswered. Therefore, the type of HF occurring during infection is poorly investigated. The diagnostic differentiation and management should be focused on the identification of the HF phenotype, underlying causes, and subsequent tailored therapy. In this framework, the relationship existing between COVID and onset of acute decompensated HF, isolated right HF, and cardiogenic shock is questioned, and the specific management is mainly based on local hospital organization rather than a standardized model. Similarly, some specific populations such as advanced HF, heart transplant, patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or valve disease remain under investigated. In this systematic review, we examine recent advances regarding the relationships between HF and COVID-19 pandemic with respect to epidemiology, pathogenetic mechanisms, and differential diagnosis. Also, according to the recent HF guidelines definition, we highlight different clinical profile identification, pointing out the main concerns in understudied HF populations.

Thromboembolic Complications in Covid-19: From Clinical Scenario to Laboratory Evidence.

SARS-Cov-2 infection, a pandemic disease since March 2020, is associated with a high percentage of cardiovascular complications mainly of a thromboembolic (TE) nature. Although clinical patterns have been described for the assessment of patients with increased risk, many TE complications occur in patients with apparently moderate risk. Notably, a recent statement from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) atherosclerosis and vascular biology working group pointed out the key role of vascular endothelium for the recruitment of inflammatory and thrombotic pathways responsible for both disseminated intravascular coagulation and cardiovascular complications. Therefore, a better understanding of the pathophysiological process linking infection to increased TE risk is needed in order to understand the pathways of this dangerous liaison and possibly interrupt it with appropriate treatment. In this review, we describe the histological lesions and the related blood coagulation mechanisms involved in COVID-19, we define the laboratory parameters and clinical risk factors associated with TE events, and propose a prophylactic anticoagulation treatment in relation to the risk category. Finally, we highlight the concept that a solid risk assessment based on prospective multi-center data would be the challenge for a more precise risk stratification and more appropriate treatment.

Effects of Metolazone Administration on Congestion, Diuretic Response and Renal Function in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Advanced heart failure (HF) is a condition often requiring elevated doses of loop diuretics. Therefore, these patients often experience poor diuretic response. Both conditions have a detrimental impact on prognosis and hospitalization. AIMS: This retrospective, multicenter study evaluates the effect of the addition of oral metolazone on diuretic response (DR), clinical congestion, NTproBNP values, and renal function over hospitalization phase. Follow-up analysis for a 6-month follow-up period was performed. METHODS: We enrolled 132 patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in advanced NYHA class with reduced ejection fraction (EF < 40%) taking a mean furosemide amount of 250 ± 120 mg/day. Sixty-five patients received traditional loop diuretic treatment plus metolazone (Group M). The mean dose ranged from 7.5 to 15 mg for one week. Sixty-seven patients continued the furosemide (Group F). Congestion score was evaluated according to the ESC recommendations. DR was assessed by the formula diuresis/40 mg of furosemide. RESULTS: Patients in Group M and patients in Group F showed a similar prevalence of baseline clinical congestion (3.1 ± 0.7 in Group F vs. 3 ± 0.8 in Group M) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (51% in Group M vs. 57% in Group F; p = 0.38). Patients in Group M experienced a better congestion score at discharge compared to patients in Group F (C score: 1 ± 1 in Group M vs. 3 ± 1 in Group F p > 0.05). Clinical congestion resolution was also associated with weight reduction (-6 ± 2 in Group M vs. -3 ± 1 kg in Group F, p < 0.05). Better DR response was observed in Group M compared to F (940 ± 149 mL/40 mgFUROSEMIDE/die vs. 541 ± 314 mL/40 mgFUROSEMIDE/die; p < 0.01), whereas median ΔNTproBNP remained similar between the two groups (-4819 ± 8718 in Group M vs. -3954 ± 5560 pg/mL in Group F NS). These data were associated with better daily diuresis during hospitalization in Group M (2820 ± 900 vs. 2050 ± 1120 mL p < 0.05). No differences were found in terms of WRF development and electrolyte unbalance at discharge, although Group M had a significant saline solution administration during hospitalization. Follow-up analysis did not differ between the group but a reduced trend for recurrent hospitalization was observed in the M group (26% vs. 38%). CONCLUSIONS: Metolazone administration could be helpful in patients taking an elevated loop diuretics dose. Use of thiazide therapy is associated with better decongestion and DR. Current findings could suggest positive insights due to the reduced amount of loop diuretics in patients with advanced HF.