Diabetes mellitus-related cardiomyopathy (DMCMP) was originally described as a dilated phenotype with eccentric left ventricular (LV) remodelling and systolic LV dysfunction. Recently however, ...clinical studies on DMCMP mainly describe a restrictive phenotype with concentric LV remodelling and diastolic LV dysfunction. Both phenotypes are not successive stages of DMCMP but evolve independently to respectively heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFPEF) or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF). Phenotype-specific pathophysiological mechanisms were recently proposed for LV remodelling and dysfunction in HFPEF and HFREF consisting of coronary microvascular endothelial dysfunction in HFPEF and cardiomyocyte cell death in HFREF. A similar preferential involvement of endothelial or cardiomyocyte cell compartments explains DMCMP development into distinct restrictive/HFPEF or dilated/HFREF phenotypes. Diabetes mellitus (DM)-related metabolic derangements such as hyperglycaemia, lipotoxicity, and hyperinsulinaemia favour development of DMCMP with restrictive/HFPEF phenotype, which is more prevalent in obese type 2 DM patients. In contrast, autoimmunity predisposes to a dilated/HFREF phenotype, which manifests itself more in autoimmune-prone type 1 DM patients. Finally, coronary microvascular rarefaction and advanced glycation end-products deposition are relevant to both phenotypes. Diagnosis of DMCMP requires impaired glucose metabolism and exclusion of coronary, valvular, hypertensive, or congenital heart disease and of viral, toxic, familial, or infiltrative cardiomyopathy. In addition, diagnosis of DMCMP with restrictive/HFPEF phenotype requires normal systolic LV function and diastolic LV dysfunction, whereas diagnosis of DMCMP with dilated/HFREF phenotype requires systolic LV dysfunction. Treatment of DMCMP with restrictive/HFPEF phenotype is limited to diuretics and lifestyle modification, whereas DMCMP with dilated/HFREF phenotype is treated in accordance to HF guidelines.
Abstract
Transthyretin (TTR) is a tetrameric protein synthesized mostly by the liver. As a result of gene mutations or as an ageing-related phenomenon, TTR molecules may misfold and deposit in the ...heart and in other organs as amyloid fibrils. Cardiac involvement in TTR-related amyloidosis (ATTR) manifests typically as left ventricular pseudohypertrophy and/or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. ATTR is an underdiagnosed disorder as well as a crucial determinant of morbidity and mortality, thus justifying the current quest for a safe and effective treatment. Therapies targeting cardiac damage and its direct consequences may yield limited benefit, mostly related to dyspnoea relief through diuretics. For many years, liver or combined heart and liver transplantation have been the only available treatments for patients with mutations causing ATTR, including those with cardiac involvement. The therapeutic options now include several pharmacological agents that inhibit hepatic synthesis of TTR, stabilize the tetramer, or disrupt fibrils. Following the positive results of a phase 3 trial on tafamidis, and preliminary findings on patisiran and inotersen in patients with ATTR-related neuropathy and cardiac involvement, we provide an update on this rapidly evolving field, together with practical recommendations on the management of cardiac involvement.
Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an invasive procedure, globally most often used for the monitoring of heart transplant (HTx) rejection. In addition, EMB can have an important complementary role to the ...clinical assessment in establishing the diagnosis of diverse cardiac disorders, including myocarditis, cardiomyopathies, drug‐related cardiotoxicity, amyloidosis, other infiltrative and storage disorders, and cardiac tumours. Improvements in EMB equipment and the development of new techniques for the analysis of EMB samples have significantly improved diagnostic precision of EMB. The present document is the result of the Trilateral Cooperation Project between the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society. It represents an expert consensus aiming to provide a comprehensive, up‐to‐date perspective on EMB, with a focus on the following main issues: (i) an overview of the practical approach to EMB, (ii) an update on indications for EMB, (iii) a revised plan for HTx rejection surveillance, (iv) the impact of multimodality imaging on EMB, and (v) the current clinical practice in the worldwide use of EMB.
The contemporary perspective of endomyocardial biopsy.
Type 2 diabetes is one of the most relevant risk factors for heart failure, the prevalence of which is increasing worldwide. The aim of the review is to highlight the current perspectives of the ...pathophysiology of heart failure as it pertains to type 2 diabetes. This review summarizes the proposed mechanistic bases, explaining the myocardial damage induced by diabetes-related stressors and other risk factors, i.e., cardiomyopathy in type 2 diabetes. We highlight the complex pathology of individuals with type 2 diabetes, including the relationship with chronic kidney disease, metabolic alterations, and heart failure. We also discuss the current criteria used for heart failure diagnosis and the gold standard screening tools for individuals with type 2 diabetes. Currently approved pharmacological therapies with primary use in type 2 diabetes and heart failure, and the treatment-guiding role of NT-proBNP are also presented. Finally, the influence of the presence of type 2 diabetes as well as heart failure on COVID-19 severity is briefly discussed.
ABSTRACT
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Significant advances have recently occurred in the ...treatment of T2DM, with evidence of several new glucose‐lowering medications showing either neutral or beneficial cardiovascular effects. However, some of these agents have safety characteristics with strong practical implications in HF i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitors, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1 RA), and sodium–glucose co‐transporter type 2 (SGLT‐2) inhibitors.
Regarding safety of DPP‐4 inhibitors, saxagliptin is not recommended in HF because of a greater risk of HF hospitalisation. There is no compelling evidence of excess HF risk with the other DPP‐4 inhibitors. GLP‐1 RAs have an overall neutral effect on HF outcomes. However, a signal of harm suggested in two small trials of liraglutide in patients with reduced ejection fraction indicates that their role remains to be defined in established HF. SGLT‐2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) have shown a consistent reduction in the risk of HF hospitalisation regardless of baseline cardiovascular risk or history of HF. Accordingly, SGLT‐2 inhibitors could be recommended to prevent HF hospitalisation in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or with multiple risk factors. The recently completed trial with dapagliflozin has shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with or without T2DM. Several ongoing trials will assess whether the results observed with dapagliflozin could be extended to other SGLT‐2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence of T2DM. This position paper aims to summarise relevant clinical trial evidence concerning the role and safety of new glucose‐lowering therapies in patients with HF.
Aims
The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed the HFA Atlas to provide a contemporary description of heart failure (HF) epidemiology, resources, ...reimbursement of guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) and activities of the National Heart Failure Societies (NHFS) in ESC member countries.
Methods and results
The HFA Atlas survey was conducted in 2018–2019 in 42 ESC countries. The quality and completeness of source data varied across countries. The median incidence of HF was 3.20 interquartile range (IQR) 2.66–4.17 cases per 1000 person‐years, ranging from ≤2 in Italy and Denmark to >6 in Germany. The median HF prevalence was 17.20 (IQR 14.30–21) cases per 1000 people, ranging from ≤12 in Greece and Spain to >30 in Lithuania and Germany. The median number of HF hospitalizations was 2671 (IQR 1771–4317) per million people annually, ranging from <1000 in Latvia and North Macedonia to >6000 in Romania, Germany and Norway. The median length of hospital stay for an admission with HF was 8.50 (IQR 7.38–10) days. Diagnostic and management resources for HF varied, with high‐income ESC member countries having substantially more resources compared with middle‐income countries. The median number of hospitals with dedicated HF centres was 1.16 (IQR 0.51–2.97) per million people, ranging from <0.10 in Russian Federation and Ukraine to >7 in Norway and Italy. Nearly all countries reported full or partial reimbursement of standard GDMT, except ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan. Almost all countries reported having NHFS or working groups and nearly half had HF patient organizations.
Conclusions
The first report from the HFA Atlas has shown considerable heterogeneity in HF disease burden, the resources available for its management and data quality across ESC member countries. The findings emphasize the need for a systematic approach to the capture of HF statistics so that inequalities and improvements in care may be quantified and addressed.
Traditionally, the main indication for cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in heart failure (HF) was for the selection of candidates to heart transplantation: CPET was mainly performed in ...middle‐aged male patients with HF and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Today, CPET is used in broader patients' populations, including women, elderly, patients with co‐morbidities, those with preserved ejection fraction, or left ventricular assistance device recipients, i.e. individuals with different responses to incremental exercise and markedly different prognosis. Moreover, the diagnostic and prognostic utility of symptom‐limited CPET parameters derived from submaximal tests is more and more considered, since many patients are unable to achieve maximal aerobic power. Repeated tests are also being used for risk stratification and evaluation of intervention, so that these data are now available. Finally, patients, physicians and healthcare decision makers are increasingly considering how treatments might impact morbidity and quality of life rather than focusing more exclusively on hard endpoints (such as mortality) as was often the case in the past. Innovative prognostic flowcharts, with CPET at their core, that help optimize risk stratification and the selection of management options in HF patients, have been developed.
The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), either with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is frequent (30–40% of patients) and associated with a ...higher risk of HF hospitalization, all‐cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The most important causes of HF in T2DM are coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension and a direct detrimental effect of T2DM on the myocardium. T2DM is often unrecognized in HF patients, and vice versa, which emphasizes the importance of an active search for both disorders in the clinical practice. There are no specific limitations to HF treatment in T2DM. Subanalyses of trials addressing HF treatment in the general population have shown that all HF therapies are similarly effective regardless of T2DM. Concerning T2DM treatment in HF patients, most guidelines currently recommend metformin as the first‐line choice. Sulphonylureas and insulin have been the traditional second‐ and third‐line therapies although their safety in HF is equivocal. Neither glucagon‐like preptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists, nor dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP4) inhibitors reduce the risk for HF hospitalization. Indeed, a DPP4 inhibitor, saxagliptin, has been associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization. Thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are contraindicated in patients with (or at risk of) HF. In recent trials, sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have both shown a significant reduction in HF hospitalization in patients with established CV disease or at risk of CV disease. Several ongoing trials should provide an insight into the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF in the absence of T2DM.
PDF
