Preoperative cardiac risks in noncardiac surgery: The role of coronary angiography

The preoperative evaluation of patients candidates to noncardiac surgery requires a knowledge of factors related both to type of surgery and to features of the single patient, potentially responsible for perioperative cardiovascular complications, fatal and nonfatal. The assessment of symptoms and/or noninvasive testing indicating the presence of coronary artery disease may suggest the need for medical therapy optimization and, eventually, coronary arteriography before the scheduled timing of noncardiac surgery. There is no evidence favoring a prophylactic myocardial revascularization (percutaneous or surgical) and more studies are needed to define the role of coronary artery disease diagnosis and treatment before high-risk non cardiac surgery

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: pro and cons of the new classification of Heart Failure by European Society of Cardiology guidelines

Currently, the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the cornerstone of the classification of patients with heart failure (HF). The mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF) category was identified in an attempt to uncover specific characteristics of these patients. So far, the analysis of trials, registries, and observational studies have demonstrated that patients with mid-range LVEF belong to a patient cohort with generally intermediate clinical profile as compared with other groups but with a remarkable variety of intrinsic phenotypes. This is due to the limitations of LVEF as the sole criterion to categorize patients with HF and characterize their prognosis, above all when it is >40%. To better define the HFmrEF phenotype, it is reasonable to consider other parameters, such as LVEF changes over time, HF aetiology, co-morbidities, and other imaging parameters. A multiparametric evaluation may contextualize a patient with HFmrEF in a more defined phenotype with a specific prognosis

Acute heart failure: More questions than answers

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a life-threatening condition with a dramatic burden in terms of symptoms, morbidity and mortality. It is a specific syndrome requiring urgent, life-saving treatment. Multiple specific pathophysiologic mechanisms may be involved, including congestion, inflammation, and neurohormonal activation. This process eventually leads to symptoms, end-organ damage, and adverse outcomes. Clinical presentation varies, but it almost universally includes worsening of congestion associated with different degrees of hypoperfusion. Due to substantial early symptoms burden and high morbidity and mortality, patients with AHF require intensive monitoring and intravenous treatment. However, beyond variable improvement in congestion, none of the available intravenous therapies for AHF was shown to improve longer term outcomes. Although oral treatment with guideline-directed therapies for stable patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) before discharge may fully prevent subsequent episodes, proof that this strategy may benefit patients is lacking. First, most patients with AHF have preserved EF (HFpEF) where no therapies have been shown to be effective. Second, all therapies developed for patients with HFrEF were tested for efficacy on outcomes in patients who were stable without recent AHF. Hence, the implementation of these chronic therapies during an AHF episode is untested. Third, the problem to better treat AHF patients in their early phase remains crucial with treatment strategies largely untested, yet. Further studies targeting AHF specific mechanisms, such as inflammation and end-organ damage, and finding effective intravenous drugs remain therefore warranted

Publication Rates of Heart Failure Clinical Trials Remain Low

Background: Under-reporting of clinical trial results inhibits dissemination of knowledge, limits understanding of therapeutic interventions, and may ultimately harm patients. Objectives: This study examined the rates and predictors of heart failure clinical trial publication and how they have changed over time. Methods: This study assessed cross-sectional analysis of all heart failure clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with at least 2 years follow-up after trial completion. The content area was chosen for the robust clinical trial activity in the field. The primary outcome was manuscript publication with multivariable proportional hazards adjustment to identify associations with publication. Results: Of the 1,429 included studies, 806 (56%) were published as manuscripts, 623 were unpublished, and 97 (7%) reported results without manuscript publication. Of the total, 1,243 were completed after 2007, when the mean 1-year publication rate for interventional trials rose from 12.7% to 19.6% (p = 0.049), which was possibly associated with changes in government regulation. However, there was no further sustained improvement over time, and there was no multivariable association between later completion dates and reporting or publication of results. Funding from the National Institutes of Health and use of clinical (death, hospitalization, myocardial infarction, changes in functional classification) rather than nonclinical primary endpoints were associated with earlier publication. Whether the results were consistent with the primary study hypothesis was not associated with likelihood of publication. Conclusions: The rates of heart failure clinical trial publication or reporting of results remain unacceptably low. Additional efforts by all stakeholders, including investigators, sponsors, regulators, societies, editors, and journals are needed to improve data dissemination