Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). However, it is not clear whether FMR is just a consequence of left ventricular (LV) ...remodelling or a factor contributing to cardiomyopathy progression. There will be more clarity about this controversy when the effects of FMR correction on outcomes will be shown. FMR correction can be performed surgically or, more often, percutaneously with the MitraClip procedure. MitraClip is the most widely used device with more than 70 000 implants performed to date. Observational studies suggest that MitraClip treatment of FMR is safe and associated with improved symptoms, quality of life and functional status in HF patients. Two recently randomized controlled clinical trials have investigated the impact of MitraClip on the outcomes of HF patients: Percutaneous Repair with the MitraClip Device for Severe Functional/Secondary Mitral Regurgitation (MITRA‐FR) and Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT). Both trials randomized patients to MitraClip plus guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT alone. No reduction in the primary endpoint of all‐cause mortality or HF hospitalizations was shown in MITRA‐FR, whereas a significant reduction in HF hospitalizations (primary endpoint) as well as in mortality alone were shown in COAPT. The aim of this review is to summarize the pathophysiology, prevalence, prognostic role and management of FMR, focusing on the differences between MITRA‐FR and COAPT and trying to provide possible explanations for the diverging results. We speculate that the two trials should be interpreted as complementary rather than opposite. Patients with severe FMR (effective regurgitant orifice area > 30 mm2) despite maximum tolerated GDMT (including cardiac resynchronization therapy), and without too advanced cardiomyopathy seem to be the best candidates for MitraClip treatment. MITRA‐FR and COAPT provide us a long awaited ‘proof of concept’: FMR may be considered a leading actor in cardiomyopathy progression rather than a mere marker of severity.
Abstract
Aims
To compare demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, and outcomes of patients with and without concomitant cardiac disease, hospitalized for COVID-19 in Brescia, Lombardy, ...Italy.
Methods and results
The study population includes 99 consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to our hospital between 4 March and 25 March 2020. Fifty-three patients with a history of cardiac disease were compared with 46 without cardiac disease. Among cardiac patients, 40% had a history of heart failure, 36% had atrial fibrillation, and 30% had coronary artery disease. Mean age was 67 ± 12 years, and 80 (81%) patients were males. No differences were found between cardiac and non-cardiac patients except for higher values of serum creatinine, N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide, and high sensitivity troponin T in cardiac patients. During hospitalization, 26% patients died, 15% developed thrombo-embolic events, 19% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 6% had septic shock. Mortality was higher in patients with cardiac disease compared with the others (36% vs. 15%, log-rank P = 0.019; relative risk 2.35; 95% confidence interval 1.08–5.09). The rate of thrombo-embolic events and septic shock during the hospitalization was also higher in cardiac patients (23% vs. 6% and 11% vs. 0%, respectively).
Conclusions
Hospitalized patients with concomitant cardiac disease and COVID-19 have an extremely poor prognosis compared with subjects without a history of cardiac disease, with higher mortality, thrombo-embolic events, and septic shock rates.
Patients with cardiovascular disease and, namely, heart failure are more susceptible to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and have a more severe clinical course once infected. Heart failure and ...myocardial damage, shown by increased troponin plasma levels, occur in at least 10% of patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 with higher percentages, 25% to 35% or more, when patients critically ill or with concomitant cardiac disease are considered. Myocardial injury may be elicited by multiple mechanisms, including those occurring with all severe infections, such as fever, tachycardia, adrenergic stimulation, as well as those caused by an exaggerated inflammatory response, endotheliitis and, in some cases, myocarditis that have been shown in patients with COVID‐19. A key role may be that of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infects human cells binding to angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme responsible for the cleavage of angiotensin II into angiotensin 1–7, which has vasodilating and anti‐inflammatory effects. Virus‐mediated down‐regulation of ACE2 may increase angiotensin II stimulation and contribute to the deleterious hyper‐inflammatory reaction of COVID‐19. On the other hand, ACE2 may be up‐regulated in patients with cardiac disease and treated with ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. ACE2 up‐regulation may increase the susceptibility to COVID‐19 but may be also protective vs. angiotensin II‐mediated vasoconstriction and inflammatory activation. Recent data show the lack of untoward effects of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers for COVID‐19 infection and severity. Prospective trials are needed to ascertain whether these drugs may have protective effects.
Highlights in heart failure Tomasoni, Daniela; Adamo, Marianna; Lombardi, Carlo Mario ...
ESC Heart Failure,
December 2019, Letnik:
6, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Heart failure (HF) remains a major cause of mortality, morbidity, and poor quality of life. It is an area of active research. This article is aimed to give an update on recent advances in all aspects ...of this syndrome. Major changes occurred in drug treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Sacubitril/valsartan is indicated as a substitute to ACEi/ARBs after PARADIGM‐HF (hazard ratio HR, 0.80; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.73 to 0.87 for sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril for the primary endpoint and Wei, Lin and Weissfeld HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71–0.89 for recurrent events). Its initiation was then shown as safe and potentially useful in recent studies in patients hospitalized for acute HF. More recently, dapagliflozin and prevention of adverse‐outcomes in DAPA‐HF trial showed the beneficial effects of the sodium–glucose transporter type 2 inhibitor dapaglifozin vs. placebo, added to optimal standard therapy HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.85;0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.85 for the primary endpoint. Trials with other SGLT 2 inhibitors and in other patients, such as those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or with recent decompensation, are ongoing. Multiple studies showed the unfavourable prognostic significance of abnormalities in serum potassium levels. Potassium lowering agents may allow initiation and titration of mineralocorticoid antagonists in a larger proportion of patients. Meta‐analyses suggest better outcomes with ferric carboxymaltose in patients with iron deficiency. Drugs effective
in HFrEF may be useful also in HF with mid‐range ejection fraction. Better diagnosis and phenotype characterization seem warranted in HF with preserved ejection fraction. These and other burning aspects of HF research are summarized and reviewed in this article.
A close and intriguing relationship has been suggested between heart failure (HF) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). First, COVID-19 pandemic represented a global public health emergency in the ...last year and had a catastrophic impact on health systems worldwide. Several studies showed a reduction in HF hospitalizations, ranging from 30 to 66% in different countries and leading to a subsequent increase in HF mortality. Second, pre-existing HF is a risk factor for a more severe clinical course of COVID-19 and an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality. Third, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 may develop both an acute decompensation of chronic HF and
de-novo
HF as a consequence of myocardial injury and cardiovascular (CV) complications. Myocardial injury occurred in at least 10% of unselected COVID-19 cases and up to 41% in critically ill patients or in those with concomitant CV comorbidities. Few cases of COVID-19-related acute myocarditis, presenting with severe reduction in the left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and peculiar histopathological findings, were described. However, recent data suggested that COVID-19 may be associated with both systolic and diastolic LV dysfunction, with LV diastolic impairment, pulmonary hypertension, and right ventricular dysfunction representing the most frequent findings in echocardiographic studies. An overview of available data and the potential mechanisms behind myocardial injury, possibly leading to HF, will be presented in this review. Beyond the acute phase, HF as a possible long-term consequence of cardiac involvement in COVID-19 patients has been supposed and need to be investigated yet.
Abstract Objectives This study sought to investigate the ischemic and bleeding outcomes of patients fulfilling high bleeding risk (HBR) criteria who were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor ...Sprint stent (E-ZES) or bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation followed by an abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for stable or unstable coronary artery disease. Background DES instead of BMS use remains controversial in HBR patients, in whom long-term DAPT poses safety concerns. Methods The ZEUS (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates) is a multinational, randomized single-blinded trial that randomized among others, in a stratified manner, 828 patients fulfilling pre-defined clinical or biochemical HBR criteria—including advanced age, indication to oral anticoagulants or other pro-hemorrhagic medications, history of bleeding and known anemia—to receive E-ZES or BMS followed by a protocol-mandated 30-day DAPT regimen. The primary endpoint of the study was the 12-month major adverse cardiovascular event rate, consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results Compared with patients without, those with 1 or more HBR criteria had worse outcomes, owing to higher ischemic and bleeding risks. Among HBR patients, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 22.6% of the E-ZES and 29% of the BMS patients (hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 0.98; p = 0.033), driven by lower myocardial infarction (3.5% vs. 10.4%; p < 0.001) and target vessel revascularization (5.9% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.005) rates in the E-ZES arm. The composite of definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced in E-ZES recipients, whereas bleeding events did not differ between stent groups. Conclusions Among HBR patients with stable or unstable coronary artery disease, E-ZES implantation provides superior efficacy and safety as compared with conventional BMS. (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates ZEUS; NCT01385319 )
Background There is limited information on the long-term outcomes and prognostic clinical predictors after edge-to-edge transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system. Methods ...Consecutive patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) undergoing MitraClip therapy between October 2008 and November 2013 in 4 Italian centers were analyzed. The primary end point of interest was all-cause death. The secondary end point was the composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization for heart failure. Results A total of 304 patients were included, of which 79% had functional MR and 17% were in New York Heart Association functional class IV. Acute procedural success was obtained in 92% of cases, with no intraprocedural death. The cumulative incidences of all-cause death were 3.4%, 10.8%, and 18.6% at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. The corresponding incidences of the secondary end point were 4.4%, 22.0%, and 39.7%, respectively. In the Cox multivariate model, New York Heart Association functional class IV at baseline and ischemic MR etiology were found to significantly and independently predict both the primary and the secondary end point. A baseline, left ventricular end-systolic volume >110 mL was found to be an independent predictor of the secondary endpoint. Acute procedural success was independently associated with a lower risk of all-cause death and the combination of all-cause death or rehospitalization for heart failure at long-term follow-up. Conclusions In a cohort of patients undergoing MitraClip therapy, those presenting at baseline with ischemic functional etiology, severely dilated ventricles, or advanced heart failure and those undergoing unsuccessful procedures carried the worst prognosis.
Acute heart failure (AHF) is associated with a poor prognosis regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). STRONG-HF showed the efficacy and safety of a strategy of rapid uptitration of ...oral treatment for heart failure (HF) and close follow-up (high-intensity care), compared with usual care, in patients recently hospitalized for AHF and enrolled independently from their LVEF.
In this study, we sought to assess the impact of baseline LVEF on the effects of high-intensity care vs usual care in STRONG-HF.
The STRONG-HF trial enrolled patients hospitalized for AHF with any LVEF and not treated with full doses of renin-angiotensin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. High-intensity care with uptitration of oral medications was performed independently from LVEF. The primary endpoint was the composite of HF rehospitalization or all-cause death at day 180.
Among the 1,078 patients randomized, 731 (68%) had LVEF ≤40% and 347 (32%) had LVEF >40%. The treatment benefit of high-intensity care vs usual care on the primary endpoint was consistent across the whole LVEF spectrum (interaction P with LVEF as a continuous variable = 0.372). Mean difference in the EQ-5D visual analog scale change from baseline to day 90 between treatment arms was slightly greater at higher LVEF values, but with no interaction between LVEF as a continuous variable and the treatment strategy (interaction P = 0.358). Serious adverse events were also independent from LVEF.
Rapid uptitration of oral medications for HF and close follow-up reduce 180-day death and HF rehospitalization after AHF hospitalization independently from LVEF. (Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy of Rapid Optimization, Helped by NT-ProBNP Testing, of Heart Failure Therapies STRONG-HF; NCT03412201)
Display omitted
PDF
