Misconceptions and Facts About ‘Diastolic’ Heart Failure

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction has become a fashionable diagnosis. An increasing number of elderly patients with dyspnea carry this diagnosis. Evaluation and management of these patients typically labeled as having “diastolic” heart failure are challenging, and misconceptions are common. No drug class has been shown to consistently provide outcome benefit. Therapeutic strategies based on the predominant pathophysiologic mechanism and stage of the disease currently remain the best option in tackling the perplexing syndrome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.     

Why and How to Measure Aortic Valve Calcification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis

The first-line evaluation of aortic stenosis severity is Doppler echocardiography. However, in up to 40% of patients, resting echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis severity is discordant, leading to clinical uncertainty. Interest has therefore grown in aortic valve calcium scoring by multidetector computed tomography (CT-AVC) as an alternative load independent assessment of aortic stenosis severity. This paper will briefly review the pathophysiology of aortic stenosis and the crucial role that calcification plays in driving progressive obstruction of the valve. Subsequently, it will describe published reports that have investigated CT-AVC, validating this parameter against histology, and establishing its diagnostic accuracy versus echocardiography as well as its powerful independent prognostic capability. Finally, this review seeks to provide a practical guide about how best to acquire and interpret CT-AVC with a close focus on potential pitfalls and how these might be best avoided as this technique becomes more widely adopted in to clinical practice.     

Myocardial ‘no-reflow’ — Diagnosis,pathophysiology and treatment

In acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), improvement in reperfusion strategies has contributed to improvement in mortality. Nonetheless up to 40–50% of patients who achieve satisfactory epicardial patency do not necessarily achieve patency at the coronary microvascular level, a condition referred to as the ‘no-reflow’ phenomenon. The ‘no-reflow’ phenomenon is associated with a worse prognosis at follow up. The pathogenic mechanisms underlying the ‘no-reflow’ phenomenon is complex and dynamic. This includes a variable combination of mechanisms including distal atherothrombotic embolisation, ischaemic injury, reperfusion injury and heightened susceptibility of coronary microcirculation to injury. Accurate detection of ‘no-reflow’ is crucial because it is independently associated with adverse ventricular remodelling and patient prognosis. The diagnosis of ‘no-reflow’ can be made using angiography, electrocardiography, nuclear scintigraphy, myocardial contrast echocardiography or cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Despite our improved understanding on the pathogenesis and diagnosis of ‘no-reflow’, the treatment of ‘no-reflow’ remains the ‘Achilles heel’ in the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Several therapeutic strategies have been tested for the prevention and treatment of ‘no-reflow’, however none have been associated with improvement in clinical outcomes. Therefore there exists a need for ‘in-lab’ tools that will be able to aid early identification of patients at increased risk of ‘no-reflow’. This may enable patients at heightened risk of ‘no-reflow’ to be treated with the most appropriate individualised treatment early. We review the pathogenic mechanisms and diagnostic techniques of the ‘no-reflow’ phenomenon as well as the prevention and treatment strategies of the candidate mechanisms.     

Association Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Risk of Ischemic and Nonischemic Heart Failure

BackgroundIt is unknown whether the increased risk of heart failure (HF) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is independent of ischemic heart disease (IHD).ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the relative risk of HF overall and by subtype (ischemic and nonischemic HF) in patients with RA and to assess the impact of RA disease factors.MethodsTwo contemporary cohorts of RA subjects were identified from Swedish patient and rheumatology registries and matched 1:10 to general population comparator subjects. A first-ever HF diagnosis (classified as ischemic HF or nonischemic HF based on the presence of IHD) was assessed through registry linkages. Relative risks for a history of HF before RA onset were calculated through odds ratios. Relative risks of incident HF in RA were calculated as hazard ratios (HRs).ResultsBy the time of RA onset, a history of HF was not more common in RA. In the new-onset RA cohort, the overall HRs for subsequent HF (any type), ischemic HF, and nonischemic HF were between 1.22 and 1.27. The risk of nonischemic HF increased rapidly after RA onset, in contrast to the risk of ischemic HF. High disease activity was associated with all HF types but was most pronounced for nonischemic HF. In the cohort of patients with RA of any duration, the HRs were between 1.71 and 1.88 for the different HF subtypes.ConclusionsPatients with RA are at increased risk of HF that cannot be explained by their increased risk of IHD. The increased risk of nonischemic HF occurred early and was associated with RA severity.     

Systolic Blood Pressure and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BackgroundNational guidelines recommend that systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and hypertension be maintained below 130 mm Hg.ObjectivesThis study sought to determine associations of SBP <130 mm Hg with outcomes in patients with HFrEF.MethodsOf the 25,345 patients in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF registry, 10,535 had an ejection fraction (EF) ≤40%. Of these, 5,615 had stable SBP (≤20 mm Hg admission to discharge variation), and 3,805 (68%) had a discharge SBP <130 mm Hg. Propensity scores for SBP <130 mm Hg, estimated for each of the 5,615 patients, were used to assemble a matched cohort of 1,189 pairs of patients with SBP <130 versus ≥130 mm Hg, balanced on 58 baseline characteristics (mean age 76 years; mean EF 28%, 45% women, 13% African American). This process was repeated in 3,946 patients, after excluding 1,669 patients (30% of 5,615) with a discharge SBP <110 mm Hg and assembled a second matched balanced cohort of 1,099 pairs of patients with SBP 110 to 129 mm Hg versus ≥130 mm Hg.ResultsThirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 7% and 4% of matched patients with SBP <130 mm Hg versus ≥130 mm Hg, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24 to 2.48; p = 0.001). HRs (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and HF readmission at 1 year, associated with SBP <130 mm Hg, were 1.32 (1.15 to 1.53; p < 0.001), 1.11 (1.01 to 1.23; p = 0.030), and 1.24 (1.09 to 1.42; p = 0.001), respectively. HRs (95% CIs) for 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality associated with SBP 110 to 129 mm Hg (vs. ≥130 mm Hg) were 1.50 (1.03 to 2.19; p = 0.035), and 1.19 (1.02 to 1.39; p = 0.029), respectively.ConclusionsAmong hospitalized older patients with HFrEF, SBP <130 mm Hg is associated with poor outcomes. This association persisted when the analyses were repeated after excluding patients with SBP <110 mm Hg. There is an urgent need for randomized controlled trials to evaluate optimal SBP reduction goals in patients with HFrEF.     

Moderate Aortic Stenosis in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

BackgroundThe study investigators previously reported that moderate aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HFrEF). However, the respective contribution of moderate AS versus HFrEF to the outcomes of these patients is unknown.ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the impact of moderate AS on outcomes in patients with HFrEF.MethodsThe study included 262 patients with moderate AS (aortic valve area >1.0 and <1.5 cm²; and peak aortic jet velocity >2 and <4 m/s, at rest or after dobutamine stress echocardiography) and HFrEF (LVEF <50%). These patients were matched 1:1 for sex, age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, New York Heart Association functional class III to IV, presence of diabetes, LVEF, and body mass index with patients with HFrEF but no AS (i.e., peak aortic jet velocity <2 m/s). The endpoints were all-cause mortality and the composite of death and HF hospitalization.ResultsA total of 262 patients with HFrEF and moderate AS were matched with 262 patients with HFrEF and no AS. Mean follow-up was 2.9 ± 2.2 years. In the moderate AS group, mean aortic valve area was 1.2 ± 0.2 cm², and mean gradient was 14.5 ± 4.7 mm Hg. Moderate AS was associated with an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.08 to 4.31; p < 0.0001) and of the composite of HF hospitalization and mortality (HR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1. 72 to 3.21; p < 0.0001). In the moderate AS group, aortic valve replacement (AVR) performed in 44 patients at a median follow-up time of 10.9 ± 16 months during follow-up was associated with improved survival (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.98; p = 0.04). Notably, surgical AVR was not significantly associated with improved survival (p = 0.92), whereas transcatheter AVR was (HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.18 to 1.00; p = 0.05).ConclusionsIn this series of patients with HFrEF, moderate AS was associated with a marked incremental risk of mortality. AVR, and especially transcatheter AVR during follow-up, was associated with improved survival in patients with HFrEF and moderate AS. These findings provide support to the realization of a randomized trial to assess the effect of early transcatheter AVR in patients with HFrEF and moderate AS.     

Combined Tricuspid and Mitral Versus Isolated Mitral Valve Repair for Severe MR and TR: An Analysis From the TriValve and TRAMI Registries

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the characteristics, procedural courses, and outcomes of patients presenting with concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) in the TriValve (Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapies) and TRAMI (Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions) registries.BackgroundTranscatheter mitral edge-to-edge valve repair (TMVR) has been shown to be successful in patients with severe MR. Lately, edge-to-edge repair has also emerged as a possible treatment for severe TR in patients at high risk for cardiac surgery. In patients with both severe MR and TR, the yield of concomitant transcatheter mitral and tricuspid valve repair (TMTVR) for patients at high surgical risk is unknown.MethodsThe characteristics, procedural data, and 1-year outcomes of all patients in the international multicenter TriValve registry and the German multicenter TRAMI registry, who presented with both severe MR and TR, were retrospectively compared. Patients in TRAMI (n = 106) underwent isolated TMVR, while those in TriValve (n = 122) additionally underwent concurrent TMTVR in compassionate and/or off-label use.ResultsAll 228 patients (mean age 77 ± 8 years, 44.3% women) presented with significant dyspnea at baseline (New York Heart Association functional class III or IV in 93.9%), without any differences in the rates of pulmonary hypertension and chronic pulmonary disease. The proportion of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30% was higher in the TMVR group (34.9% vs. 18.0%; p < 0.001), while patients in the TMTVR group had lower glomerular filtration rates. At discharge, MR was comparably reduced in both groups. At 1 year, overall all-cause mortality was 34.0% in the TMVR group and 16.4% in the TMTVR group (p = 0.035, Cox regression). On multivariate analysis, TMTVR was associated with a 2-fold lower mortality rate (hazard ratio: 0.52; p = 0.02). The rate of patients in New York Heart Association functional class ≤II at 1 year did not differ (69.4% vs. 67.0%; p = 0.54).ConclusionsConcurrent TMTVR was associated with a higher 1-year survival rate compared with isolated TMVR in patients with both MR and TR. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these results.     

HbA<Subscript>1c</Subscript> Variability and Cardiovascular Events

Due to its high and increasing prevalence, type 2 diabetes mellitus is becoming more and more of a global public health burden. Effective measures are required to prevent diabetes-related morbidity and the resulting premature death. The effect of long-term glycemic fluctuations in patients with diabetes mellitus, referred to as HbA1c variability, has been the subject of intensive discussion. Whereas the mean HbA1c value is already established as a risk factor for vascular complications, an accumulation of findings makes a compelling case that HbA_1c variability adds further predictive value. Recent studies raise the possibility that a reduced HbA_1c variability may inhibit hyperglycemia-related diseases without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Taken as a whole, the present evidence demonstrates a clear association between HbA_1c variability and cardiovascular events in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Nevertheless, there exists to date no standardized definition or method of measuring HbA_1c variability. To advance further research, it would be helpful to reach consensus on a precise definition of HbA_1c variability.