A Holistic View of Advanced Heart Failure

Targeting Sodium in Heart Failure

A dominant event determining the course of heart failure (HF) includes the disruption of the delicate sodium (Na+) and water balance leading to (Na+) and water retention and edema formation. Although incomplete decongestion adversely affects outcomes, it is unknown whether interventions directly targeting (Na+), such as strict dietary (Na+) restriction, intravenous hypertonic saline, and diuretics, reverse this effect. As a result, it is imperative to implement (Na+)-targeting interventions in selected HF patients with established congestion on top of quadruple therapy with angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, β-adrenergic receptor blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, which dramatically improves outcomes. The limited effectiveness of (Na+)-targeting treatments may be partly due to the fact that the current metrics of HF severity have a limited capacity of foreseeing and averting episodes of congestion and guiding (Na+)-targeting treatments, which often leads to dysnatremias, adversely affecting outcomes. Recent evidence suggests that spot urinary sodium measurements may be used as a guide to monitor (Na+)-targeting interventions both in chronic and acute HF. Further, the classical (2)-compartment model of (Na+) storage has been displaced by the (3)-compartment model emphasizing the non-osmotic accumulation of (Na+), chiefly in the skin. 23(Na+) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enables the accurate and reliable quantification of tissue (Na+). Another promising approach enabling tissue (Na+) monitoring is based on wearable devices employing ion-selective electrodes for electrolyte detection, including (Na+) and (Cl-). Undoubtably, further studies using 23(Na+)-MRI technology and wearable sensors are required to learn more about the clinical significance of tissue (Na+) storage and (Na+)-related mechanisms of morbidity and mortality in HF.

Aortic pulse wave analysis and functional capacity of heart transplantation candidates: a pilot study

We compared cardiovascular parameters obtained with the Mobil-O-Graph and functional capacity assessed by the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) before and after Heart Transplantation (HT) and also compared the cardiovascular parameters and the functional capacity of candidates for HT with a control group. Peripheral and central vascular pressures increased after surgery. Similar results were observed in cardiac output and pulse wave velocity. The significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) postoperatively was not followed by an increase in the functional capacity. 24 candidates for HT and 24 controls were also compared. Functional capacity was significantly lower in the HT candidates compared to controls. Stroke volume, systolic, diastolic, and pulse pressure measured peripherally and centrally were lower in the HT candidates when compared to controls. Despite the significant increase in peripheral and central blood pressures after surgery, the patients were normotensive. The 143.85% increase in LVEF in the postoperative period was not able to positively affect functional capacity. Furthermore, the lower values of LVEF, systolic volume, central and peripheral arterial pressures in the candidates for HT are consistent with the characteristics signs of advanced heart failure, negatively impacting functional capacity, as observed by the lower DASI score.

Back to the basics: The need for an etiological classification of chronic heart failure

The left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), despite its severe limitations, has had an epicentral role in heart failure (HF) classification, management, and risk stratification for decades. The major argument favoring the LVEF based HF classification has been that it defines groups of patients in which treatment is effective. However, this reasoning has recently collapsed, since medical treatment with neurohormonal inhibitors, has proved beneficial in most HF patients regardless of the LVEF. In addition, there has been compelling evidence, that the LVEF provides poor guidance for device treatment of chronic HF (implantation of cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy) since sudden cardiac death may occur and cardiac dyssynchronization may be disastrous in all HF patients. The same holds true for LV assist device implantation, in which the LVEF has been used as a surrogate for LV size. In this review article we update the evidence questioning the use of LVEF-based HF classification and argue that guidance of chronic HF treatment should transition to more contemporary concepts. Specifically, we propose an etiologic chronic HF classification predominantly based on epidemiological data, which will be foundational for further higher resolution phenotyping in the emerging era of precision medicine.

The Neurohormonal Overactivity Syndrome in Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is categorized arbitrarily based on the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in HF with reduced (HFrEF; LVEF < 40%), mildly reduced (HFmrEF; LVEF 40−49%), or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; LVEF ≥ 50%). In this opinion paper, based on (patho)physiological considerations, we contend that the neurohormonal overactivity syndrome (NOHS), which is present in all symptomatic HF patients irrespective of their LVEF, not only contributes to the development of signs and symptoms but it is also a major determinant of patients’ outcomes. In this regard, NHOS is the only currently available treatment target in HF and should be combatted in most patients with the combined use of diuretics and neurohormonal inhibitors (β-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors). Unfortunately, despite the advances in therapeutics, HF mortality remains high. Probably machine learning approaches could better assess the multiple and higher-dimension interactions leading to the HF syndrome and define clusters of HF treatment efficacy.