Highlights of the 2016 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on Heart Failure

Comparison of infection risks and clinical outcomes in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 lung infection under renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Angiotensin‐converting enzyme‐2 (ACE2) is the receptor for SARS‐CoV‐2. Animal studies suggest that renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers might increase the expression of ACE2 and potentially increase the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

Methods and Results

The effect of ACE inhibitor (ACEI) treatment on the pneumonia incidence in non‐COVID‐19 patients (25 studies, 330 780 patients) was associated with a 26% reduction of pneumonia risk (odds ratio [OR]: 0.74, P < .001). Pneumonia‐related death cases in ACEI‐treated non‐COVID‐19 patients were reduced by 27% (OR: 0.73, P = .004). However, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) treatment (10 studies, 275 621 non‐COVID‐19 patients) did not alter pneumonia risk in patients. Pneumonia‐related death cases in ARB‐treated non‐COVID‐19 patients was analysed only in 1 study and was significantly reduced (OR, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.72). Results from 11 studies (8.4 million patients) showed that the risk of getting infected with the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus was reduced by 13% (OR: 0.87, P = .014) in patients treated with ACEI, whereas analysis from 10 studies (8.4 million patients) treated with ARBs showed no effect (OR, 0.92, P = .354). Results from 34 studies in 67 644 COVID‐19 patients showed that RAAS blockade reduces all‐cause mortality by 24% (OR = 0.76, P = .04).

Conclusion

ACEIs reduce the risk of getting infected with the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. Blocking the RAAS may decrease all‐cause mortality in COVID‐19 patients. ACEIs also reduce the risk of non‐COVID pneumonia. All‐cause mortality due to non‐COVID pneumonia is reduced by ACEI and potentially by ARBs.

Pivotal role of membrane substrate transporters on the metabolic alterations in the pressure-overloaded heart

Cardiac pressure overload (PO), such as caused by aortic stenosis and systemic hypertension, commonly results in cardiac hypertrophy and may lead to the development of heart failure. PO-induced heart failure is among the leading causes of death worldwide, but its pathological origin remains poorly understood. Metabolic alterations are proposed to be an important contributor to PO-induced cardiac hypertrophy and failure. While the healthy adult heart mainly uses long-chain fatty acids (FAs) and glucose as substrates for energy metabolism and to a lesser extent alternative substrates, i.e. lactate, ketone bodies, and amino acids (AAs), the pressure-overloaded heart is characterized by a shift in energy metabolism towards a greater reliance on glycolysis and alternative substrates. A key-governing kinetic step of both FA and glucose fluxes is at the level of their substrate-specific membrane transporters. The relative presence of these transporters in the sarcolemma determines the cardiac substrate preference. Whether the cardiac utilization of alternative substrates is also governed by membrane transporters is not yet known. In this review, we discuss current insight into the role of membrane substrate transporters in the metabolic alterations occurring in the pressure-overloaded heart. Given the increasing evidence of a role for alternative substrates in these metabolic alterations, there is an urgent need to disclose the key-governing kinetic steps in their utilization as well. Taken together, membrane substrate transporters emerge as novel targets for metabolic interventions to prevent or treat PO-induced heart failure.

Outcome and presentation of heart failure in breast cancer patients: findings from a Swedish register-based study

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) patients diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) may have a higher risk of death, and different HF presentation and treatment than patients without BC.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 14 998 women with incident HF (iHF) or prevalent HF (pHF) enrolled in the Swedish HF Registry within and after 1 month since HF diagnosis, respectively, between 2008 and 2013. Patients were linked with the National Patient-, Cancer-, and Cause-of-Death Registry. Two hundred and ninety-four iHF and 338 pHF patients with BC were age-matched to 1470 iHF and 1690 pHF patients without BC. Comorbidity and treatment characteristics were compared using the χ2 tests for categories. Cox proportional hazard models assessed the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among HF patients with and without BC. In the pHF group, BC patients had less often myocardial infarction (21.6% vs. 28.6%, P < 0.01) and received less often aspirin (47.6% vs. 55.1%, P = 0.01), coronary revascularization (11.8% vs. 16.2%, P < 0.01), or device therapy (0.9% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.03). After median follow-up of 2 years, risk of all-cause mortality (iHF: HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.83-1.29 and pHF: HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.79-1.12), cardiovascular mortality (iHF: HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.71-1.24 and pHF: HR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.71-1.10), and HF mortality (iHF: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.34-1.90 and pHF: HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.43-1.29) were similar for patients with and without BC in the iHF and pHF groups.

CONCLUSION

Risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in HF patients did not differ by BC status. Differences in pre-existing myocardial infarction and HF treatment among pHF patients with and without BC may suggest differences in pathogenesis of HF.