Citations

Abstract Inflammation is a key driver of coronary syndromes across the continuum from chronic coronary syndromes to acute coronary syndromes. It contributes to atherogenesis, plaque destabilization, and ischaemic events and influences myocardial injury, repair, and remodelling. Inflammatory activity is further amplified by metabolic and autoimmune comorbidities such as diabetes, obesity, and connective tissue diseases, with obesity representing a major driver of chronic low-grade inflammation through adipose tissue dysfunction and cytokine activation, while psychosocial stress and environmental exposures including air pollution serve as additional triggers. Genetic variations, including human leucocyte antigen genotypes, modulate individual susceptibility to vascular inflammation and myocardial injury. This expert consensus from the European Society of Cardiology’s Association for Acute CardioVascular Care summarizes the current understanding of inflammation across the full spectrum of coronary syndromes, including underlying mechanisms, relevant biomarkers, and imaging approaches that characterize vascular inflammation, and integrates insights from experimental and clinical studies. Importantly, this document provides explicit consensus-based guidance on when, how, and in whom inflammation should be assessed and treated in routine clinical practice. While the causal association between inflammation and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is well established, pharmacological modification of inflammation has produced conflicting evidence. Some agents, such as low-dose colchicine, have demonstrated modest reductions in cardiovascular events, although results across trials have been inconsistent. Other anti-inflammatory therapies have not shown clinical benefit, whereas selective cytokine inhibition with canakinumab has reduced cardiovascular risk at the cost of increased infection rates. The present manuscript also focuses on the evaluation of inflammatory activity in cardiovascular patients in routine clinical practice. It further discusses criteria for patient selection and clinical decision-making regarding the introduction of anti-inflammatory therapy in individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Abstract Isolated cardiac sarcoidosis (iCS), defined by granulomatous inflammation limited to the myocardium, represents the most diagnostically challenging and prognostically adverse form of sarcoidosis. As it is fundamentally a diagnosis of exclusion, iCS diagnosis relies on the absence of extracardiac sarcoid and the integration of multimodality imaging, endomyocardial biopsy, and molecular testing, each with inherent limitations. Cardiac magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography provide complementary assessment of inflammation, fibrosis, and ventricular function, enhancing diagnostic confidence. Electroanatomic mapping-guided biopsy may improve histologic yield, whereas genetic testing helps exclude phenocopies such as arrhythmogenic, hypertrophic, or dilated cardiomyopathies. Circulating biomarkers remain non-specific but may complement imaging-based algorithms. Future research should focus on harmonized imaging protocols, non-FDG radiotracers, and molecular tissue profiling to refine activity assessment and guide therapy. Multimodal, probability-based frameworks represent the most promising approach for earlier, more accurate diagnosis and risk stratification in iCS.

Abstract New technologies enabling access to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays at the point of care (POC) are available for routine use. POC technology can accelerate cardiac troponin testing within the hospital setting and support testing in other healthcare environments. Pre-analytical and analytical issues unique to POC testing are discussed. The opportunities and the evidence needed to support the routine use of hs-cTn POC assays in clinical care are outlined. Based on recent developments, the potential impact of hs-cTn at the POC in multiple clinical settings is described, and a roadmap of the steps required for successful implementation is provided.

Background The PINNACLE FLX (Protection Against Embolism for Non‐valvular AF [Atrial Fibrillation] Patients: Investigational Device Evaluation of the Watchman FLX LAA [Left Atrial Appendage] Closure Technology) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of a next‐generation left atrial appendage closure device (WATCHMAN FLX; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). At 1 year, the study met the primary end points of safety and anatomical efficacy/appendage closure. This final report of the PINNACLE FLX trial includes the prespecified secondary end point of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 2 years, also making it the first report of 2‐year outcomes with this next‐generation left atrial appendage closure device. Methods and Results Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score ≥2 (men) or ≥3 (women), with an appropriate rationale for left atrial appendage closure, were enrolled to receive the left atrial appendage closure device at 29 US centers. Adverse events were assessed by an independent clinical events committee, and imaging was assessed by independent core laboratories. Among 395 implanted patients (36% women; mean age, 74 years; CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc, 4.2±1.5), the secondary efficacy end point of 2‐year ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was met, with an absolute rate of 3.4% (annualized rate, 1.7%) and an upper 1‐sided 95% confidence bound of 5.3%, which was superior to the 8.7% performance goal. Two‐year rates of adverse events were as follows: 9.3% all‐cause mortality, 5.5% cardiovascular death, 3.4% all stroke, and 10.1% major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5). There were no additional systemic embolisms, device embolizations, pericardial effusions, or symptomatic device‐related thrombi after 1 year. Conclusions The secondary end point of 2‐year stroke or systemic embolism was met at 3.4%. In these final results of the PINNACLE FLX trial, the next‐generation WATCHMAN FLX device demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy outcomes.

Abstract The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased awareness that severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may have profound effects on the cardiovascular system. COVID-19 often affects patients with pre-existing cardiac disease, and may trigger acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and acute heart failure (AHF). However, as COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory infectious disease, there remain substantial uncertainty and controversy whether and how cardiovascular biomarkers should be used in patients with suspected COVID-19. To help clinicians understand the possible value as well as the most appropriate interpretation of cardiovascular biomarkers in COVID-19, it is important to highlight that recent findings regarding the prognostic role of cardiovascular biomarkers in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are similar to those obtained in studies for pneumonia and ARDS in general. Cardiovascular biomarkers reflecting pathophysiological processes involved in COVID-19/pneumonia and its complications have a role evaluating disease severity, cardiac involvement, and risk of death in COVID-19 as well as in pneumonias caused by other pathogens. First, cardiomyocyte injury, as quantified by cardiac troponin concentrations, and haemodynamic cardiac stress, as quantified by natriuretic peptide concentrations, may occur in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. The level of those biomarkers correlates with disease severity and mortality. Interpretation of cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide concentrations as quantitative variables may aid in risk stratification in COVID-19/pneumonia and also will ensure that these biomarkers maintain high diagnostic accuracy for AMI and AHF. Second, activated coagulation as quantified by D-dimers seems more prominent in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. Due to the central role of endothelitis and VTE in COVID-19, serial measurements of D-dimers may help physicians in the selection of patients for VTE imaging and the intensification of the level of anticoagulation from prophylactic to slightly higher or even therapeutic doses.

Abstract The formation of a thrombus in an epicardial artery may result in an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite major advances in acute treatment using network approaches to allocate patients to timely reperfusion and optimal antithrombotic treatment, patients remain at high risk for thrombotic complications. Ongoing activation of the coagulation system as well as thrombin-mediated platelet activation may both play a crucial role in this context. Whether measurement of circulating biomarkers of coagulation and fibrinolysis could be useful for risk stratification in secondary prevention is currently not fully understood. In addition, measurement of such biomarkers could be helpful to identify thrombus formation as the leading mechanism for AMI. The introduction of biomarkers of myocardial injury such as high-sensitivity cardiac troponins made rule-out of AMI even more precise. However, elevated markers of myocardial injury cannot provide proof of a type 1 AMI, let alone thrombus formation. The combined measurement of markers of myocardial injury with biomarkers reflecting ongoing thrombus formation might be helpful for the fast and correct diagnosis of an atherothrombotic type 1 AMI. This position paper gives an overview of the current knowledge and possible role of biomarkers of coagulation and fibrinolysis for the diagnosis of AMI, risk stratification, and individualized treatment strategies in patients with AMI.