High troponin levels in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019: a maker or a marker of prognosis?

Aims Controversial data have been published regarding the prognostic role of cardiac troponins in patients who need hospitalization because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of the study was to assess the role of high-sensitivity troponin plasma levels and of respiratory function at admission on all-cause deaths in unselected patients hospitalized because of COVID-19. Methods We pooled individual patient data from observational studies that assessed all-cause mortality of unselected patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The individual data of 722 patients were included. The ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO(2)) and high-sensitivity troponins was reported at admission in all patients. This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020213209). Results After a median follow-up of 14 days, 180 deaths were observed. At multivariable regression analysis, age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.083, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.061-1.105, P < 0.0001], male sex (HR 2.049, 95% CI 1.319-3.184, P = 0.0014), moderate-severe renal dysfunction (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/m(2)) (HR 2.108, 95% CI 1.237-3.594, P = 0.0061) and lower PaO2/FiO(2) (HR 0.901, 95% CI 0.829-0.978, P = 0.0133) were the independent predictors of death. A linear increase in the HR was associated with decreasing values of PaO2/FiO(2) below the normality threshold. On the contrary, the HR curve for troponin plasma levels was near-flat with large CI for values above the normality thresholds. Conclusion In unselected patients hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality is mainly driven by male gender, older age and respiratory failure. Elevated plasma levels of high-sensitivity troponins are not an independent predictor of worse survival when respiratory function is accounted for

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure With Hypoperfusion: From Pathophysiology to Clinical Practice

Trials on intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in cardiogenic shock related to acute myocardial infarction have shown disappointing results. The role of IABP in cardiogenic shock treatment remains unclear, and new (potentially more potent) mechanical circulatory supports with arguably larger device profile are emerging. A reappraisal of the physiological premises of intra-aortic counterpulsation may underpin the rationale to maintain IABP as a valuable therapeutic option for patients with acute decompensated heart failure and tissue hypoperfusion. Several pathophysiological features differ between myocardial infarction- and acute decompensated heart failure-related hypoperfusion, encompassing cardiogenic shock severity, filling status, systemic vascular resistances rise, and adaptation to chronic (if preexisting) left ventricular dysfunction. IABP combines a more substantial effect on left ventricular afterload with a modest increase in cardiac output and would therefore be most suitable in clinical scenarios characterized by a disproportionate increase in afterload without profound hemodynamic compromise. The acute decompensated heart failure syndrome is characterized by exquisite afterload-sensitivity of cardiac output and may be an ideal setting for counterpulsation. Several hemodynamic variables have been shown to predict response to IABP within this scenario, potentially guiding appropriate patient selection. Finally, acute decompensated heart failure with hypoperfusion may frequently represent an end stage in the heart failure history: IABP may provide sufficient hemodynamic support and prompt end-organ function recovery in view of more definitive heart replacement therapies while preserving ambulation when used with a transaxillary approach

Clinical burden and predictors of non-cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in advanced heart failure

Background: The changing demographic of heart failure (HF) increases the exposure to non-cardiovascular (non-CV) events. We investigated the distribution of non-CV mortality/morbidity and the characteristics associated with higher risk of non-CV events in patients with advanced HF. Methods: Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to the number of 2018 HFA-ESC criteria for advanced HF. Endpoints were non-CV mortality and non-CV hospitalization. Competing risk analyses were performed assessing the association between HFA-ESC criteria and study outcomes and the additional predictors of non-CV endpoints. Results: 1149 patients were included (median age 77 years -IQR 69-83). At 6, 12, 18 and 22 months, cumulative incidence of CV vs non-CV mortality was 13% vs 5%, 17% vs 8%, 20% vs 12%, 23% vs 12%, and of CV vs non-CV hospitalization was 26% vs 11%, 38% vs 17%, 45% vs 20%, 50% vs 21%. HFA-ESC criteria were associated with increasing adjusted risk of CV death, whereas no association was observed for CV hospitalization, non-CV death and non-CV hospitalization. Predictors of non-CV death were age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, preserved ejection fraction, >1 HF hospitalization and hemoglobin. Conclusions: Patients with advanced HF are exposed to high, even though not predominant, burden of non-CV outcomes. HFA-ESC criteria aid to stratify the risk of CV death, but are not associated with lower competing risk of non-CV outcomes. Alternative factors can be useful to define the patients with advanced HF at risk of non-CV events in order to better select patients for treatments specifically reducing CV risk

Role of ejection fraction in patients at risk for advanced heart failure: insights from the HELP-HF registry

Aims: Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HFrEF), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF), and preserved EF (HFpEF) may all progress to advanced HF, but the impact of EF in the advanced setting is not well established. Our aim was to assess the prognostic impact of EF in patients with at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF.Methods and results: Patients with HF and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' criterion from four centres were included in this analysis. Outcomes were assessed in patients with HFrEF (EF = 50%) and with EF analysed as a continuous variable. The prognostic impact of medical therapy for HF in patients with EF 50% was also evaluated. All-cause death was the primary endpoint, and cardiovascular death was a secondary endpoint. Among 1149 patients enrolled [mean age 75.1 +/- 11.5 years, 67.3% males, 67.6% hospitalized, median follow-up 260 days (inter-quartile range 105-390 days)], HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF were observed in 699 (60.8%), 122 (10.6%), and 328 (28.6%) patients, and 1 year mortality was 28.3%, 26.2%, and 20.1, respectively (log-rank P = 0.036). As compared with HFrEF patients, HFpEF patients had a lower risk of all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj ) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.94, P = 0.022], whereas no difference was noted for HFmrEF patients. After multivariable adjustment, a lower risk of all-cause death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99, P = 0.017) and cardiovascular death (HRadj for 5% increase 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-1.00, P = 0.049) was observed at higher EF values. Beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or sacubitril/valsartan were associated with lower mortality in both EF = 50% groups.Conclusions: Among patients with HF and at least one 'I NEED HELP' marker for advanced HF, left ventricular EF is still of prognostic value

Prognostic impact of the updated 2018 HFA-ESC definition of advanced heart failure: results from the HELP-HF registry

Aims The Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) proposed a definition of advanced heart failure (HF) that has not been validated, yet. We assessed its prognostic impact in a consecutive series of patients with high-risk HF. Methods and results The HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with HF and at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker, evaluated at four Italian centres between 1(st) January 2020 and 30(th) November 2021. Patients meeting the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition were compared to patients not meeting this definition. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or first HF hospitalization. Out of 4753 patients with HF screened, 1149 (24.3%) patients with at least one high-risk 'I NEED HELP' marker were included (mean age 75.1 +/- 11.5 years, 67.3% male, median left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% [interquartile range 25%-50%]). Among them, 193 (16.8%) patients met the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition. As compared to others, these patients were younger, had lower LVEF, higher natriuretic peptides and a worse clinical profile. The 1-year rate of the primary endpoint was 69.3% in patients with advanced HF according to the HFA-ESC definition versus 41.8% in the others (hazard ratio [HR] 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.74, p < 0.001). The prognostic impact of the HFA-ESC advanced HF definition was confirmed after multivariable adjustment for relevant covariates (adjusted HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.57-2.50, p < 0.001). Conclusions The HFA-ESC advanced HF definition had a strong prognostic impact in a contemporary, real-world, multicentre high-risk cohort of patients with HF

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with tricuspid regurgitation and advanced heart failure

Aims: To evaluate the role of tricuspid regurgitation in advanced heart failure. Methods: The multicenter observational HELP-HF registry enrolled consecutive patients with heart failure and at least one 'I NEED HELP' criterion evaluated at four Italian centers between January 2020 and November 2021. Patients with no data on tricuspid regurgitation and/or receiving tricuspid valve intervention during follow-up were excluded. The population was stratified by no/mild tricuspid regurgitation vs. moderate tricuspid regurgitation vs. severe tricuspid regurgitation. Variables independently associated with tricuspid regurgitation, as well as the association between tricuspid regurgitation and clinical outcomes were investigated. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: Among the 1085 patients included in this study, 508 (46.8%) had no/mild tricuspid regurgitation, 373 (34.4%) had moderate tricuspid regurgitation and 204 (18.8%) had severe tricuspid regurgitation. History of atrial fibrillation, any prior valve surgery, high dose of furosemide, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, moderate/severe mitral regurgitation and pulmonary hypertension were found to be independently associated with an increased likelihood of severe tricuspid regurgitation. Estimated rates of 1-year all-cause death were of 21.4, 24.5 and 37.1% in no/mild tricuspid regurgitation, moderate tricuspid regurgitation and severe tricuspid regurgitation, respectively (log-rank P < 0.001). As compared with nonsevere tricuspid regurgitation, severe tricuspid regurgitation was independently associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.88, P = 0.042), whereas moderate tricuspid regurgitation did not. Conclusion: In a contemporary, real-world cohort of patients with advanced heart failure, several clinical and echocardiographic characteristics are associated with an increased likelihood of severe tricuspid regurgitation. Patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation have an increased risk of mortality

Prognostic role of mitral regurgitation in patients with advanced heart failure

Aim: The impact of mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) is poorly known. We aimed to evaluate the impact of MR on clinical outcomes of a real-world, contemporary, multicentre population with advanced HF. Methods: The HELP-HF registry enrolled patients with HF and at least one "I NEED HELP" criterion, at four Italian centres between January 2020 and November 2021. The population was stratified by none/mild MR vs. moderate MR vs. severe MR. Outcomes of interest were all-cause, cardiovascular (CV) death, the composite of all-cause death or first HF hospitalization, first HF hospitalization and recurrent HF hospitalizations. Results: Among 1079 patients, 429 (39.8%) had none/mild MR, 443 (41.1%) had moderate MR and 207 (19.2%) had severe MR. Patients with severe MR were most likely to be inpatients, present with cardiogenic shock, need intravenous loop diuretics and inotropes/vasopressors, have lower ejection fraction and higher natriuretic peptides. Estimated rates of all-cause death, CV death, and the composite of all-cause death or first HF hospitalization at 1 year increased with increasing MR severity. Compared with no/mild MR, severe MR was independently associated with an increased risk of CV death (adjusted HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.04-2.51, p = 0.033) and recurrent HF hospitalizations (adjusted HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08-2.06, p = 0.015), but not with and increased risk of all-cause death, first HF hospitalization and composite outcome. Conclusions: In unselected patients with advanced HF, severe MR was common and independently associated with an increased risk of CV death and of recurrent HF hospitalizations

Ischemic Etiology in Advanced Heart Failure: Insight from the HELP-HF Registry

: In patients with advanced heart failure (HF), defined according to the presence of at least one I-NEED-HELP criterium, the updated 2018 Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) criteria for advanced HF identify a subgroup of patients with HF with worse prognosis, but whether ischemic etiology has a relevant prognostic impact in this very high-risk cohort is unknown. Patients from the HELP-HF registry were stratified according to ischemic etiology and presence of advanced HF based on 2018 HFA-ESC criteria. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization at 1 year. Secondary end points were all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and cardiovascular death at 1 year. Ischemic etiology was a leading cause of HF, in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (46.1% and 42.4%, respectively, p = 0.337). The risk of the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 to 1.58) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.76) was increased in ischemic as compared with nonischemic patients. The risk of the primary end point was consistently higher in ischemic patients in both patients with advanced and nonadvanced HF (advanced HF, HR 1.50 95% CI 1.04 to 2.16; nonadvanced HF, HR 1.25 95% CI 1.01 to 1.56, pinteraction = 0.333), driven by an increased risk of mortality, mainly because of cardiovascular causes. In conclusion, ischemic etiology is the most common cause of HF in patients with at least one I-NEED-HELP marker and with or without advanced HF as defined by the 2018 HFA-ESC definition. In both patients with advanced and not-advanced HF, ischemic etiology carried an increased risk of worse prognosis