From mid-range to mildly reduced ejection fraction heart failure: A call to treat

Non-coding RNA therapeutics in the treatment of heart failure

Non-coding RNA (ncRNA) therapeutics can target either ncRNAs or conventional messenger RNA, offering both superior pharmacokinetics and selectivity to conventional therapies and addressing new, previously unexplored pathways. Although no ncRNA has yet been approved for the treatment of heart failure, in this review we present five most promising pathways and agents that either are in human clinical trials or offer great promise in the near future.

Novel Strategies in Diagnosing Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a prevalent global condition affecting approximately 50% of the HF population. With the aging of the worldwide population, its incidence and prevalence are expected to rise even further. Unfortunately, until recently, no effective medications were available to reduce the high mortality and hospitalization rates associated with HFpEF, making it a significant unmet need in cardiovascular medicine. Although HFpEF is commonly defined as HF with normal ejection fraction and elevated left ventricular filling pressure, performing invasive hemodynamic assessments on every individual suspected of having HFpEF is neither feasible nor practical. Consequently, several clinical criteria and diagnostic tools have been proposed to aid in diagnosing HFpEF. Overall, these criteria and tools are designed to assist healthcare professionals in identifying and evaluating patients who may have HFpEF based on a combination of signs, symptoms, biomarkers, and non-invasive imaging findings. By employing these non-invasive diagnostic approaches, clinicians can make informed decisions regarding the best pharmacological and rehabilitation strategies for individuals with suspected HFpEF. This literature review aims to provide an overview of all currently available methods for diagnosing and monitoring this disabling condition.

Implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator after ST-elevation myocardial infarction: when and how frequently is it implanted and what is the rate of appropriate interventions? Insight from Trieste registry

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Therefore, we evaluated when and how frequently an ICD is implanted after pPCI, the rate of appropriate ICD interventions, and predictors of ICD implantation.

METHODS

We analyzed STEMI patients treated with pPCI at the University Hospital of Trieste, Italy, between January 2010 and December 2019. We cross-matched patients' data with those present in the Trieste ICD registry.

RESULTS

Among 1805 consecutive patients treated with pPCI, 3.6% underwent ICD implantation during a median follow-up of 6.7 [interquartile range (IQR) 4.3-9.2] years. At 12 months, the mean number of ICD implantations was 2.3/100 patients [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.7-3.1] and remained stable over time (at 24 months: 2.5/100 patients, 95% CI 2.0-3.5 and at 36 months: 2.6/100 patients, 95% CI 2.3-3.8); 83.1% of ICDs were implanted for primary prevention, and more than half (55%) were implanted in patients with ejection fraction more than 35% at the moment of STEMI discharge. The rate of appropriate ICD interventions was 16.9% at a median follow-up of 5.7 years (IQR 3.3-8.3 years) after ICD implantation. At 12 months, the mean number of appropriate ICD interventions was 5/100 patients and 7/100 patients after 24 months. In patients with ejection fraction more than 35% at STEMI discharge (median ejection fraction 43%; IQR 40-48), independent predictors of ICD implantation were male sex, anterior STEMI and troponin peak more than 100 000 ng/dl.

CONCLUSION

The rate of ICD implantations after pPCI is low; however, the rate of appropriate ICD interventions is high. A relevant subgroup of patients received ICD implantations at follow-up despite a nonsevere ejection fraction at discharge after STEMI. Among these patients, those with high troponin release deserve strict follow-up and full optimal medical treatment.

The initial timing and dosage pattern of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

In real-world clinical practice, the initiation and up-titration of sacubitril/valsartan remain challenging due to symptomatic hypotension in patients with acute myocardial infarction(AMI). The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of different initial timing and dosage of sacubitril/valsartan in AMI patients.

METHODS

This prospective and observational cohort study enrolled AMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI), and were categorized according to the initial timing and average daily doses of sacubitril/valsartan prescription. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent AMI, coronary revascularization, heart failure(HF) hospitalization and ischaemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included the new-onset HF, and the composite endpoints in AMI patients complicated with HF at baseline.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 915 AMI patients. After a median follow-up of 38 months, early use or high dosage of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an improvement in primary endpoint as well as the incidence of new-onset HF. Early use of sacubitril/valsartan also ameliorated the primary endpoint in AMI patients with left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) ≤50% as well as LVEF>50%. Besides, early use of sacubitril/valsartan improved the clinical outcomes in AMI patients complicated with HF at baseline. The low dose was well tolerated and may be associated with similar outcomes compared with high dose under some circumstances(LVEF>50% or HF at baseline).

CONCLUSIONS

Early use or high dosage of sacubitril/valsartan medication is associated with an improvement in clinical outcome. The low dose of sacubitril/valsartan is well tolerated and may be an acceptable alternative strategy.

Angiopoietins, vascular endothelial growth factors and secretory phospholipase A2 in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a growing public health burden, with high prevalence and mortality rates. A proportion of patients with HF have a normal ventricular ejection fraction (EF), referred to as HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), as opposed to patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). HFpEF currently accounts for about 50% of all HF patients, and its prevalence is rising. Angiopoietins (ANGPTs), vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) and secretory phospholipases A₂ (sPLA₂s) are proinflammatory mediators and key regulators of endothelial cells.

METHODS

The aim of this study was to analyze the plasma concentrations of angiogenic (ANGPT1, ANGPT2, VEGF-A) and lymphangiogenic (VEGF-C, VEGF-D) factors and the plasma activity of sPLA₂ in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF compared to healthy controls.

RESULTS

The concentration of ANGPT1 was reduced in HFrEF compared to HFpEF patients and healthy controls. ANGPT2 levels were increased in both HFrEF and HFpEF subjects compared to controls. The ANGPT2/ANGPT1 ratio was increased in HFrEF patients compared to controls. The concentrations of both VEGF-A and VEGF-C did not differ among the three groups examined. VEGF-D was increased in both HFrEF and HFpEF patients compared to controls. Plasma activity of sPLA₂ was increased in HFrEF but not in HFpEF patients compared to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that three different classes of proinflammatory regulators of vascular permeability and smoldering inflammation are selectively altered in HFrEF or HFpEF patients. Studies involving larger cohorts of these patients will be necessary to demonstrate the clinical implications of our findings.