Safety, tolerability and efficacy of up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies for acute heart failure in elderly patients: A sub-analysis of the STRONG-HF randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: STRONG-HF examined a high-intensity care (HIC) strategy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and close follow-up after acute heart failure (AHF) admission. We assess the role of age on efficacy and safety of HIC. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalized AHF patients, not treated with optimal GDMT were randomized to HIC or usual care. The primary endpoint of 180-day death or HF readmission occurred equally in older (>65 years, n = 493, 74 ± 5 years) and younger patients (53 ± 11 years, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.43, p = 0.89). Older patients received slightly lower GDMT to day 21, but same doses at day 90 and 180. The effect of HIC on the primary endpoint was numerically higher in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82) than older patients (aHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46-1.15, adjusted interaction p = 0.30), partially related to COVID-19 deaths. After exclusion of COVID-19 deaths, the effect of HIC was similar in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82) and older patients (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32-1.02, adjusted interaction p = 0.56), with no treatment-by-age interaction (interaction p = 0.57). HIC induced larger improvements in quality of life to day 90 in younger (EQ-VAS adjusted-mean difference 5.51, 95% CI 3.20-7.82) than in older patients (1.77, 95% CI -0.75 to 4.29, interaction p = 0.032). HIC was associated with similar rates of adverse events in older and younger patients. CONCLUSION: High-intensity care after AHF was safe and resulted in a significant reduction of all-cause death or HF readmission at 180 days across the study age spectrum. Older patients have smaller benefits in terms of quality of life.

Cardiovascular Complications of Viral Respiratory Infections and COVID-19.

Viral respiratory infections (VRI) are the most prevalent type of infectious diseases and constitute one of the most common causes of contact with medical care. Regarding the pathophysiology of the cardiovascular system, VRI can not only exacerbate already existing chronic cardiovascular disease (such as coronary artery disease or heart failure) but also trigger new adverse events or complications (e.g., venous thromboembolism), the latter particularly in subjects with multimorbidity or disease-related immobilization. In the current paper, we provide a narrative review of diverse cardiovascular complications of VRI as well as summarize available data on the pathology of the circulatory system in the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

COVID-19 Related Myocarditis in Adults: A Systematic Review of Case Reports.

Despite the progress of its management, COVID-19 maintains an ominous condition which constitutes a threat, especially for the susceptible population. The cardiac injury occurs in approximately 30% of COVID-19 infections and is associated with a worse prognosis. The clinical presentation of cardiac involvement can be COVID-19-related myocarditis. Our review aims to summarise current evidence about that complication. The research was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022338397). We performed a systematic analysis using five different databases, including i.a. MEDLINE. Further, the backward snowballing technique was applied to identify additional papers. Inclusion criteria were: full-text articles in English presenting cases of COVID-19-related myocarditis diagnosed by the ESC criteria and patients over 18 years old. The myocarditis had to occur after the COVID-19 infection, not vaccination. Initially, 1588 papers were screened from the database search, and 1037 papers were revealed in the backward snowballing process. Eventually, 59 articles were included. Data about patients' sex, age, ethnicity, COVID-19 confirmation technique and vaccination status, reported symptoms, physical condition, laboratory and radiological findings, applied treatment and patient outcome were investigated and summarised. COVID-19-related myocarditis is associated with the risk of sudden worsening of patients' clinical status, thus, knowledge about its clinical presentation is essential for healthcare workers.

COVID-19 vaccination in patients with heart failure: a position paper of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology.

Patients with heart failure (HF) who contract SARS-CoV-2 infection are at a higher risk of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Regardless of therapeutic attempts in COVID-19, vaccination remains the most promising global approach at present for controlling this disease. There are several concerns and misconceptions regarding the clinical indications, optimal mode of delivery, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with HF. This document provides guidance to all healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination scheme in patients with HF. COVID-19 vaccination is indicated in all patients with HF, including those who are immunocompromised (e.g. after heart transplantation receiving immunosuppressive therapy) and with frailty syndrome. It is preferable to vaccinate against COVID-19 patients with HF in an optimal clinical state, which would include clinical stability, adequate hydration and nutrition, optimized treatment of HF and other comorbidities (including iron deficiency), but corrective measures should not be allowed to delay vaccination. Patients with HF who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 need to continue precautionary measures, including the use of facemasks, hand hygiene and social distancing. Knowledge on strategies preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (including the COVID-19 vaccination) should be included in the comprehensive educational programmes delivered to patients with HF.

Heart failure in COVID-19: the multicentre, multinational PCHF-COVICAV registry.

AIMS: We assessed the outcome of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with heart failure (HF) compared with patients with other cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia). We further wanted to determine the incidence of HF events and its consequences in these patient populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: International retrospective Postgraduate Course in Heart Failure registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and CArdioVascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia) was performed in 28 centres from 15 countries (PCHF-COVICAV). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Of 1974 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1282 had cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (median age: 72 [interquartile range: 62-81] years, 58% male), with HF being present in 256 [20%] patients. Overall in-hospital mortality was 25% (n = 323/1282 deaths). In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with a history of HF (36%, n = 92) compared with non-HF patients (23%, n = 231, odds ratio [OR] 1.93 [95% confidence interval: 1.44-2.59], P < 0.001). After adjusting, HF remained associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 1.45 [95% confidence interval: 1.01-2.06], P = 0.041). Importantly, 186 of 1282 [15%] patients had an acute HF event during hospitalization (76 [40%] with de novo HF), which was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (89 [48%] vs. 220 [23%]) than in patients without HF event (OR 3.10 [2.24-4.29], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with HF are at increased risk for in-hospital death. In-hospital worsening of HF or acute HF de novo are common and associated with a further increase in in-hospital mortality.

Transvenous Phrenic Nerve Stimulation for Treatment of Central Sleep Apnea: Five-Year Safety and Efficacy Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The remede System Pivotal Trial was a prospective, multi-center, randomized trial demonstrating transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (TPNS) therapy is safe and effectively treats central sleep apnea (CSA) and improves sleep architecture and daytime sleepiness. Subsequently, the remede System was approved by FDA in 2017. As a condition of approval, the Post Approval Study (PAS) collected clinical evidence regarding long-term safety and effectiveness in adults with moderate to severe CSA through five years post implant. METHODS: Patients remaining in the Pivotal Trial at the time of FDA approval were invited to enroll in the PAS and consented to undergo sleep studies (scored by a central laboratory), complete the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) questionnaire to assess daytime sleepiness, and safety assessment. All subjects (treatment and former control group) receiving active therapy were pooled; data from both trials were combined for analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-three of the original 151 Pivotal Trial patients consented to participate in the PAS and 52 completed the 5-year visit. Following TPNS therapy, the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), central-apnea index (CAI), arousal index, oxygen desaturation index, and sleep architecture showed sustained improvements. Comparing 5 years to baseline, AHI and CAI decreased significantly (AHI baseline median 46 events/hour vs 17 at 5 years; CAI baseline median 23 events/hour vs 1 at 5 years), though residual hypopneas were present. In parallel, the arousal index, oxygen desaturation index and sleep architecture improved. The ESS improved by a statistically significant median reduction of 3 points at 5 years. Serious adverse events related to implant procedure, device or delivered therapy were reported by 14% of patients which include 16 (9%) patients who underwent a pulse generator reposition or lead revision (primarily in the first year). None of the events caused long-term harm. No unanticipated adverse device effects or related deaths occurred through 5 years. CONCLUSION: Long-term TPNS safely improves CSA, sleep architecture and daytime sleepiness through 5 years post implant. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01816776.

Ferric carboxymaltose for iron deficiency at discharge after acute heart failure: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose has been shown to improve symptoms and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure and iron deficiency. We aimed to evaluate the effect of ferric carboxymaltose, compared with placebo, on outcomes in patients who were stabilised after an episode of acute heart failure. METHODS: AFFIRM-AHF was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial done at 121 sites in Europe, South America, and Singapore. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were hospitalised for acute heart failure with concomitant iron deficiency (defined as ferritin <100 µg/L, or 100-299 µg/L with transferrin saturation <20%), and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%. Before hospital discharge, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo for up to 24 weeks, dosed according to the extent of iron deficiency. To maintain masking of patients and study personnel, treatments were administered in black syringes by personnel not involved in any study assessments. The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalisations for heart failure and cardiovascular death up to 52 weeks after randomisation, analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had at least one post-randomisation data point. Secondary outcomes were the composite of total cardiovascular hospitalisations and cardiovascular death; cardiovascular death; total heart failure hospitalisations; time to first heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular death; and days lost due to heart failure hospitalisations or cardiovascular death, all evaluated up to 52 weeks after randomisation. Safety was assessed in all patients for whom study treatment was started. A pre-COVID-19 sensitivity analysis on the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02937454, and has now been completed. FINDINGS: Between March 21, 2017, and July 30, 2019, 1525 patients were screened, of whom 1132 patients were randomly assigned to study groups. Study treatment was started in 1110 patients, and 1108 (558 in the carboxymaltose group and 550 in the placebo group) had at least one post-randomisation value. 293 primary events (57·2 per 100 patient-years) occurred in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 372 (72·5 per 100 patient-years) occurred in the placebo group (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·62-1·01, p=0·059). 370 total cardiovascular hospitalisations and cardiovascular deaths occurred in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 451 occurred in the placebo group (RR 0·80, 95% CI 0·64-1·00, p=0·050). There was no difference in cardiovascular death between the two groups (77 [14%] of 558 in the ferric carboxymaltose group vs 78 [14%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·96, 95% CI 0·70-1·32, p=0·81). 217 total heart failure hospitalisations occurred in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 294 occurred in the placebo group (RR 0·74; 95% CI 0·58-0·94, p=0·013). The composite of first heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular death occurred in 181 (32%) patients in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 209 (38%) in the placebo group (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·98, p=0·030). Fewer days were lost due to heart failure hospitalisations and cardiovascular death for patients assigned to ferric carboxymaltose compared with placebo (369 days per 100 patient-years vs 548 days per 100 patient-years; RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·47-0·97, p=0·035). Serious adverse events occurred in 250 (45%) of 559 patients in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 282 (51%) of 551 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with iron deficiency, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%, and who were stabilised after an episode of acute heart failure, treatment with ferric carboxymaltose was safe and reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalisations, with no apparent effect on the risk of cardiovascular death. FUNDING: Vifor Pharma.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak on Acute Admissions at the Emergency and Cardiology Departments Across Europe.

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) pandemic was associated with changes in the pattern of acute cardiovascular admissions across European centers. METHODS: We set-up a multicenter, multinational, pan-European observational registry in 15 centers from 12 countries. All consecutive acute admissions to emergency departments and cardiology departments throughout a 1-month period during the COVID-19 outbreak were compared with an equivalent 1-month period in 2019. The acute admissions to cardiology departments were classified into 5 major categories: acute coronary syndrome, acute heart failure, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, and other. RESULTS: Data from 54,331 patients were collected and analyzed. Nine centers provided data on acute admissions to emergency departments comprising 50,384 patients: 20,226 in 2020 compared with 30,158 in 2019 (incidence rate ratio [IRR] with 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.66 [0.58-0.76]). The risk of death at the emergency departments was higher in 2020 compared to 2019 (odds ratio [OR] with 95% CI: 4.1 [3.0-5.8], P < 0.0001). All 15 centers provided data on acute cardiology departments admissions: 3007 patients in 2020 and 4452 in 2019; IRR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.64-0.71). In 2020, there were fewer admissions with IRR (95% CI): acute coronary syndrome: 0.68 (0.63-0.73); acute heart failure: 0.65 (0.58-0.74); arrhythmia: 0.66 (0.60-0.72); and other: 0.68(0.62-0.76). We found a relatively higher percentage of pulmonary embolism admissions in 2020: odds ratio (95% CI): 1.5 (1.1-2.1), P = 0.02. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, there were fewer admissions with unstable angina: 0.79 (0.66-0.94); non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: 0.56 (0.50-0.64); and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 0.78 (0.68-0.89). CONCLUSION: In the European centers during the COVID-19 outbreak, there were fewer acute cardiovascular admissions. Also, fewer patients were admitted to the emergency departments with 4 times higher death risk at the emergency departments.

Circulating plasma concentrations of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in men and women with heart failure and effects of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors.

AIMS: The current pandemic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 infects a wide age group but predominantly elderly individuals, especially men and those with cardiovascular disease. Recent reports suggest an association with use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a functional receptor for coronaviruses. Higher ACE2 concentrations might lead to increased vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 in patients on RAAS inhibitors. METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured ACE2 concentrations in 1485 men and 537 women with heart failure (index cohort). Results were validated in 1123 men and 575 women (validation cohort).The median age was 69 years for men and 75 years for women. The strongest predictor of elevated concentrations of ACE2 in both cohorts was male sex (estimate = 0.26, P < 0.001; and 0.19, P < 0.001, respectively). In the index cohort, use of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) was not an independent predictor of plasma ACE2. In the validation cohort, ACE inhibitor (estimate = -0.17, P = 0.002) and ARB use (estimate = -0.15, P = 0.03) were independent predictors of lower plasma ACE2, while use of an MRA (estimate = 0.11, P = 0.04) was an independent predictor of higher plasma ACE2 concentrations. CONCLUSION: In two independent cohorts of patients with heart failure, plasma concentrations of ACE2 were higher in men than in women, but use of neither an ACE inhibitor nor an ARB was associated with higher plasma ACE2 concentrations. These data might explain the higher incidence and fatality rate of COVID-19 in men, but do not support previous reports suggesting that ACE inhibitors or ARBs increase the vulnerability for COVID-19 through increased plasma ACE2 concentrations.

Conducting clinical trials in heart failure during (and after) the COVID-19 pandemic: an Expert Consensus Position Paper from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.

Management of heart failure patients with COVID-19: a joint position paper of the Chinese Heart Failure Association & National Heart Failure Committee and the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is causing considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide. Multiple reports have suggested that patients with heart failure (HF) are at a higher risk of severe disease and mortality with COVID-19. Moreover, evaluating and treating HF patients with comorbid COVID-19 represents a formidable clinical challenge as symptoms of both conditions may overlap and they may potentiate each other. Limited data exist regarding comprehensive management of HF patients with concomitant COVID-19. Since these issues pose serious new challenges for clinicians worldwide, HF specialists must develop a structured approach to the care of patients with COVID-19 and be included early in the care of these patients. Therefore, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and the Chinese Heart Failure Association & National Heart Failure Committee conducted web-based meetings to discuss these unique clinical challenges and reach a consensus opinion to help providers worldwide deliver better patient care. The main objective of this position paper is to outline the management of HF patients with concomitant COVID-19 based on the available data and personal experiences of physicians from Asia, Europe and the United States.