Citations

Abstract Background Concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of use and safety of beta-blockers (BBs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, randomized trial evidence is still lacking. Purpose To perform an observational analysis of the association between BB use and clinical outcomes in a large dataset of patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Methods We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The associations between baseline BB use and outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 16,951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13,400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12,812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 95.1% at 1 year and 93.1% at 2 years (in patients who survived more than 1 and 2 years, respectively). Overall, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.91-1.05]) but among patients with HFmrEF, BB users had a lower HR (0.84 [95% CI 0.71-0.98]), whereas in HFpEF the HR was similar BB users and non-users (0.99 [95% CI 0.92-1.08]). However, after comprehensive adjustment for known prognostic variables, including NT-proBNP, BB use was associated with a better outcome in the overall cohort (HR 0.81 [0.74-0.88]), and this association was maintained across the range of LVEF (Figure 1). In subgroup analyses, the risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, with or without a history of hypertension, or with or without a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (Figure 2). Conclusions Although this is an observational analysis of non-randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables. Figure Legends Figure 1. Association between beta-blocker use and outcomes across the range of LVEF. Risk in beta-blocker users versus non-users is shown as an adjusted continuous hazard ratio Figure 2. Association between beta-blocker use and non-use in the overall population and clinically relevant patient subgroups, shown as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR). The outcome analyzed was the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome)Figure 1Figure 2

ABSTRACT Aims In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Among the 16 951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12 812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1–Q3: 2.5–5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74–0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02). Conclusions In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.

ABSTRACT The advent of immunological therapies has revolutionized the treatment of solid and haematological cancers over the last decade. Licensed therapies which activate the immune system to target cancer cells can be broadly divided into two classes. The first class are antibodies that inhibit immune checkpoint signalling, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The second class are cell-based immune therapies including chimeric antigen receptor T lymphocyte (CAR-T) cell therapies, natural killer (NK) cell therapies, and tumour infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapies. The clinical efficacy of all these treatments generally outweighs the risks, but there is a high rate of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often unpredictable in timing with clinical sequalae ranging from mild (e.g. rash) to severe or even fatal (e.g. myocarditis, cytokine release syndrome) and reversible to permanent (e.g. endocrinopathies).The mechanisms underpinning irAE pathology vary across different irAE complications and syndromes, reflecting the broad clinical phenotypes observed and the variability of different individual immune responses, and are poorly understood overall. Immune-related cardiovascular toxicities have emerged, and our understanding has evolved from focussing initially on rare but fatal ICI-related myocarditis with cardiogenic shock to more common complications including less severe ICI-related myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, including conduction system disease and heart block, non-inflammatory heart failure, takotsubo syndrome and coronary artery disease. In this scientific statement on the cardiovascular toxicities of immune therapies for cancer, we summarize the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of ICI, CAR-T, NK, and TIL therapies. We also highlight gaps in the literature and where future research should focus.

Abstract Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) universally complain of exercise intolerance and dyspnoea as key clinical correlates. Cardiac as well as extracardiac components play a role for the limited exercise capacity, including an impaired cardiac and peripheral vascular reserve, a limitation in mechanical ventilation and/or gas exchange with reduced pulmonary vascular reserve, skeletal muscle dysfunction and iron deficiency/anaemia. Although most of these components can be differentiated and quantified through gas exchange analysis by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), the information provided by objective measures of exercise performance has not been systematically considered in the recent algorithms/scores for HFpEF diagnosis, by neither European nor US groups. The current clinical consensus statement by the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims at outlining the role of exercise testing and its pathophysiological, clinical and prognostic insights, addressing the implications of a thorough functional evaluation from the diagnostic algorithm to the pathophysiology and treatment perspectives of HFpEF. Along with these goals, we provide a specific analysis of the evidence that CPET is the standard for assessing, quantifying, and differentiating the origin of dyspnoea and exercise impairment and even more so when combined with echocardiography and/or invasive haemodynamic evaluation. This will lead to improved quality of diagnosis when applying the proposed scores and may also help to implement the progressive characterization of the specific HFpEF phenotypes, a critical step toward the delivery of phenotype-specific treatments.

Abstract This position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Cardio-Oncology Study Group in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society presents practical, easy-to-use and evidence-based risk stratification tools for oncologists, haemato-oncologists and cardiologists to use in their clinical practice to risk stratify oncology patients prior to receiving cancer therapies known to cause heart failure or other serious cardiovascular toxicities. Baseline risk stratification proformas are presented for oncology patients prior to receiving the following cancer therapies: anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, second and third generation multi-targeted kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia targeting BCR-ABL, multiple myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), RAF and MEK inhibitors or androgen deprivation therapies. Applying these risk stratification proformas will allow clinicians to stratify cancer patients into low, medium, high and very high risk of cardiovascular complications prior to starting treatment, with the aim of improving personalised approaches to minimise the risk of cardiovascular toxicity from cancer therapies.

OPLAH is cardioprotective for myocardial infarction, and its substrate 5-oxoproline is a putative circulating marker for heart failure.

Abstract There is an unmet need for effective treatment strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Until recently, attention in patients with HFpEF was almost exclusively focused on the left side. However, it is now increasingly recognized that right heart dysfunction is common and contributes importantly to poor prognosis in HFpEF. More insights into the development of right heart dysfunction in HFpEF may aid to our knowledge about this complex disease and may eventually lead to better treatments to improve outcomes in these patients. In this position paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Committee on Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction reviews the prevalence, diagnosis, and pathophysiology of right heart dysfunction and failure in patients with HFpEF. Finally, potential treatment strategies, important knowledge gaps and future directions regarding the right side in HFpEF are discussed.

Abstract Aims Biomarkers can be used for diagnosis, risk stratification, or management of patients with heart failure (HF). Knowledge about the biological variation is needed for proper interpretation of serial measurements. Therefore, we aimed to determine and compare the biological variation of a large panel of biomarkers in healthy subjects and in patients with chronic HF. Methods and results The biological variability of established biomarkers [NT-proBNP and high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT)], novel biomarkers [galectin-3, suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (ST2), and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15)], and renal/neurohormonal biomarkers (aldosterone, phosphate, parathyroid hormone, plasma renin concentration, and creatinine) was determined in 28 healthy subjects and 83 HF patients, over a period of 4 months and 6 weeks, respectively. The analytical (CVa), intraindividual (CVi), and interindividual (CVg) variations were calculated, as well as the reference change value (RCV), which reflects the percentage of change that may indicate a ‘relevant’ change. All crude biomarker levels were significantly increased or decreased in HF patients compared with controls (all P < 0.01). Variation indices were comparable in healthy individuals and HF patients. CVi was not influenced by the individual levels of the biomarker itself. NT-proBNP and GDF-15 had relatively high CVi (21.8% and 16.6%) and RCV (61.7% and 64.3%), whereas ST2 (CVi, 15.0; RCV, 42.9%), hsTnT (CVi, 11.1; RCV, 31.4%), and galectin-3 (CVi, 8.1; RCV, 25.0%) had lower indices of variation. Conclusion Biological variation indices are comparable between healthy subjects and HF patients for a broad spectrum of biomarkers. NT-proBNP and GDF-15 have substantial variation, with lower variation for ST2, hsTnT, and galectin-3. These data are instrumental in proper interpretation of biomarker levels in HF patients.