A nationwide, population-based study on specialized care for acute heart failure throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the delivery of care for patients with heart failure (HF), leading to fewer HF hospitalizations and increased mortality. However, nationwide data on quality of care and long-term outcomes across the pandemic are scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA) linked to national records for hospitalization and deaths. We compared pre-COVID (2018-2019), COVID (2020), and late/post-COVID (2021-2022) periods. Data for 227 250 patients admitted to hospital with HF were analysed and grouped according to the admission year and the presence of HF with (HFrEF) or without reduced ejection fraction (non-HFrEF). The median age at admission was 81 years (interquartile range 72-88), 55% were men (n = 125 975), 87% were of white ethnicity (n = 102 805), and 51% had HFrEF (n = 116 990). In-hospital management and specialized cardiology care were maintained throughout the pandemic with an increasing percentage of patients discharged on disease-modifying medications over time (p < 0.001). Long-term outcomes improved over time (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.95, p < 0.001), mainly driven by a reduction in cardiovascular death. Receiving specialized cardiology care was associated with better long-term outcomes both for those who had HFrEF (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.82, p < 0.001) and for those who had non-HFrEF (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85-0.90, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the disruption of healthcare systems, the clinical characteristics of patients admitted with HF were similar and the overall standard of care was maintained throughout the pandemic. Long-term survival of patients hospitalized with HF continued to improve after COVID-19, especially for HFrEF.

2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Co-ordinator) (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Jozef Bartunek (Belgium), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Sergio Buccheri (Sweden), Elisabetta Cerbai (Italy), Erwan Donal (France), Frank Edelmann (Germany), Gloria Färber (Germany), Bettina Heidecker (Germany), Borja Ibanez (Spain), Stefan James (Sweden), Lars Køber (Denmark), Konstantinos C. Koskinas (Switzerland), Josep Masip (Spain), John William McEvoy (Ireland), Robert Mentz (United States of America), Borislava Mihaylova (United Kingdom), Jacob Eifer Møller (Denmark), Wilfried Mullens (Belgium), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Jens Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Agnes A. Pasquet (Belgium), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Bianca Rocca (Italy), Xavier Rossello (Spain), Leyla Elif Sade (United States of America/Türkiye), Hannah Schaubroeck (Belgium), Elena Tessitore (Switzerland), Mariya Tokmakova (Bulgaria), Peter van der Meer (Netherlands), Isabelle C. Van Gelder (Netherlands), Mattias Van Heetvelde (Belgium), Christiaan Vrints (Belgium), Matthias Wilhelm (Switzerland), Adam Witkowski (Poland), and Katja Zeppenfeld (Netherlands) All experts involved in the development of this Focused Update have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and simultaneously published in a supplementary document to the Focused Update. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines See the European Heart Journal online for supplementary documents that include evidence tables.

Artificial intelligence methods for improved detection of undiagnosed heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIM: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains under-diagnosed in clinical practice despite accounting for nearly half of all heart failure (HF) cases. Accurate and timely diagnosis of HFpEF is crucial for proper patient management and treatment. In this study, we explored the potential of natural language processing (NLP) to improve the detection and diagnosis of HFpEF according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) diagnostic criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a retrospective cohort study, we used an NLP pipeline applied to the electronic health record (EHR) to identify patients with a clinical diagnosis of HF between 2010 and 2022. We collected demographic, clinical, echocardiographic and outcome data from the EHR. Patients were categorized according to the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Those with LVEF ≥50% were further categorized based on whether they had a clinician-assigned diagnosis of HFpEF and if not, whether they met the ESC diagnostic criteria. Results were validated in a second, independent centre. We identified 8606 patients with HF. Of 3727 consecutive patients with HF and LVEF ≥50% on echocardiogram, only 8.3% had a clinician-assigned diagnosis of HFpEF, while 75.4% met ESC criteria but did not have a formal diagnosis of HFpEF. Patients with confirmed HFpEF were hospitalized more frequently; however the ESC criteria group had a higher 5-year mortality, despite being less comorbid and experiencing fewer acute cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that patients with undiagnosed HFpEF are an at-risk group with high mortality. It is possible to use NLP methods to identify likely HFpEF patients from EHR data who would likely then benefit from expert clinical review and complement the use of diagnostic algorithms.

Treatment of Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart failure (HF) is commonly associated with iron deficiency (ID), defined as insufficient levels of iron to meet physiological demands. ID's association with anaemia is well understood but it is increasingly recognised as an important comorbidity in HF, even in the absence of anaemia. This review summarises contemporary evidence for the measurement and treatment of ID, in both HFrEF and HFpEF, and specific HF aetiologies, and highlights important gaps in the evidence-base. RECENT FINDINGS: ID is common among patients with HF and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Correcting ID in patients with HF can impact upon functional status, exercise tolerance, symptoms, and overall quality of life, irrespective of anaemia status. ID is a modifiable comorbidity in HF. Therefore, recognising and treating ID has emerging therapeutic potential and is important for all clinicians who care for patients with HF to understand the rationale and approach to treatment.

Acute heart failure and valvular heart disease: A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology.

Acute heart failure (AHF) represents a broad spectrum of disease states, resulting from the interaction between an acute precipitant and a patient's underlying cardiac substrate and comorbidities. Valvular heart disease (VHD) is frequently associated with AHF. AHF may result from several precipitants that add an acute haemodynamic stress superimposed on a chronic valvular lesion or may occur as a consequence of a new significant valvular lesion. Regardless of the mechanism, clinical presentation may vary from acute decompensated heart failure to cardiogenic shock. Assessing the severity of VHD as well as the correlation between VHD severity and symptoms may be difficult in patients with AHF because of the rapid variation in loading conditions, concomitant destabilization of the associated comorbidities and the presence of combined valvular lesions. Evidence-based interventions targeting VHD in settings of AHF have yet to be identified, as patients with severe VHD are often excluded from randomized trials in AHF, so results from these trials do not generalize to those with VHD. Furthermore, there are not rigorously conducted randomized controlled trials in the setting of VHD and AHF, most of the data coming from observational studies. Thus, distinct to chronic settings, current guidelines are very elusive when patients with severe VHD present with AHF, and a clear-cut strategy could not be yet defined. Given the paucity of evidence in this subset of AHF patients, the aim of this scientific statement is to describe the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and overall treatment approach for patients with VHD who present with AHF.

The prognostic impact of specialist cardiology input in patients admitted for heart failure and normal ejection fraction.

AIMS: Specialist cardiology care is associated with a prognostic benefit in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) admitted with decompensated HF. However, up to one third of patients admitted with HF and normal ejection fraction (HFnEF) do not receive specialist cardiology input. Whether this has prognostic implications is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data on patients hospitalized with HFnEF from two tertiary centres were analysed. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality during follow-up. The secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A total of 1413 patients were included in the study. Of these, 23% (n = 322) did not receive in-hospital specialist cardiology input. Patients seen by a cardiologist were less likely to have hypertension (73% vs. 79%, P = 0.03) and respiratory co-morbidities (25% vs. 31%, P = 0.02) compared with those who did not receive specialist input. Similarly, clinical presentation was more severe for those who received specialist input (New York Heart Association III/IV 83% vs. 75% respectively, P = 0.003; moderate-to-severe peripheral oedema 65% vs. 54%, P < 0.001). Medical management was similar, except for a higher use of diuretics (90% vs. 86%, P = 0.04) and a longer length of stay for patients who received specialist input (9 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Long-term outcomes were comparable between patients who received specialist input and those who did not. However, specialist input was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 0.19, confidence interval 0.09-0.43, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital cardiology specialist input has no long-term prognostic advantage in patients with HFnEF but is independently associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Exploring the prevalence, impact and experience of cardiac cachexia in patients with advanced heart failure and their caregivers: A sequential phased study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac Cachexia is a wasting syndrome that has a significant impact on patient mortality and quality of life world-wide, although it is poorly understood in clinical practice. AIM: Identify the prevalence of cardiac cachexia in patients with advanced New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and explore its impact on patients and caregivers. DESIGN: An exploratory cross-sectional study. The sequential approach had two phases, with phase 1 including 200 patients with NYHA III-IV heart failure assessed for characteristics of cardiac cachexia. Phase 2 focussed on semi-structured interviews with eight cachectic patients and five caregivers to ascertain the impact of the syndrome. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Two healthcare trusts within the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Cardiac Cachexia was identified in 30 out of 200 participants, giving a prevalence rate of 15%. People with cachexia had a significantly reduced average weight and anthropometric measures (p < 0.05). Furthermore, individuals with cachexia experienced significantly more fatigue, had greater issues with diet and appetite, reduced physical wellbeing and overall reduced quality of life. C-reactive protein was significantly increased, whilst albumin and red blood cell count were significantly decreased in the cachectic group (p < 0.05). From qualitative data, four key themes were identified: (1) 'Changed relationship with food and eating', (2) 'Not me in the mirror', (3) 'Lack of understanding regarding cachexia' and (4) 'Uncertainty regarding the future'. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac cachexia has a debilitating effect on patients and caregivers. Future work should focus on establishing a specific definition and clinical pathway to enhance patient and caregiver support.

Cardiovascular Damage in COVID-19: What We Know Two Years Later.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly influenced cardiological clinical and basic research in the past two years. In the present review, we summarize the current knowledge on myocardial involvement in COVID-19, providing an overview on the incidence, the pathogenetic mechanisms, and the clinical implications of cardiac injury in this setting. RECENT FINDINGS: The possibility of heart involvement in patients with COVID-19 has received great attention since the beginning of the pandemic. After more than two years, several steps have been taken in understanding the mechanisms and the incidence of cardiac injury during COVID-19 infection. Similarly, studies globally have clarified the implications of co-existing heart disease and COVID-19. Severe COVID-19 infection may be complicated by myocardial injury. To date, a direct damage from the virus has not been demonstrated. The presence of myocardial injury should be systematically assessed for a prognostication purpose and for possible therapeutic implications.

Cardiovascular outcomes associated with treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients with ischaemic heart failure.

AIM: The optimal strategy for diabetes control in patients with heart failure (HF) following myocardial infarction (MI) remains unknown. Metformin, a guideline-recommended therapy for patients with chronic HF and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), is associated with reduced mortality and HF hospitalizations. However, worse outcomes have been reported when used at the time of MI. We compared outcomes of patients with T2DM and HF of ischaemic aetiology according to antidiabetic treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study used linked data from primary care, hospital admissions, and death registries for 4.7 million inhabitants in England, as part of the CALIBER resource. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary endpoint and all-cause mortality. To evaluate the effect of temporal changes in diabetes treatment, antidiabetic medication was included as time-dependent covariates in survival analyses. The study included 1172 patients with T2DM and prior MI and incident HF between 3 January 1998 and 26 February 2010. Five hundred and ninety-six patients had the primary outcome over median follow-up of 2.53 (IQR: 0.98-4.92) years. Adjusted analyses showed a reduced hazard of the composite endpoint for exposure to all antidiabetic medication with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.59], 0.66 (95% CI: 0.55-0.80), and 0.53 (95% CI: 0.43-0.65), respectively. A similar effect was seen for all-cause mortality [HRs of 0.43 (95% CI: 0.35-0.52), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.46-0.70), and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.27-0.43), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: When considering changes in antidiabetic treatment over time, all drug classes were associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization.