Pathophysiology of Advanced Heart Failure: What Knowledge Is Needed for Clinical Management?

The early safety profile of simultaneous vaccination against influenza and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) in patients with high-risk heart failure

The safety of simultaneous vaccination for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and influenza in vulnerable high-risk heart failure (HF) patients remains unclear. In an open-label, prospective study, 105 patients received concurrent influenza (Vaxigrip Tetra, season 2023/2024, Sanofi) and RSV (Arexvy, GSK) vaccinations from September 15th to November 17th, 2023. Adverse events were collected on the fourth-day post-vaccination. Overall, the vaccination was well tolerated, with the most common reaction being injection site pain (63 %). General symptoms occurred in 33 % of patients, predominantly fatigue (23 %), myalgia (12 %), and headache (9 %). Grade 3 reactions were observed in 6 % of patients, and a few experienced temperature elevation or flu-like symptoms, managing them with antipyretics. Notably, there were no exacerbations of HF, hospitalizations, or deaths within a week post-vaccination. This study indicates the safety of simultaneous influenza and RSV vaccination in high-risk HF patients, with a low incidence of mild adverse events.

A Holistic View of Advanced Heart Failure

Advanced heart failure (HF) may occur at any level of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). The latter, which is widely utilized for the evaluation of LV systolic performance and treatment guidance of HF patients, is heavily influenced by LV size and geometry. As the accurate evaluation of ventricular systolic function and size is crucial in patients with advanced HF, the LVEF should be supplemented or even replaced by more specific indices of LV function such as the systolic strain and cardiac power output and size such as the LV diastolic diameters and volumes. Conventional treatment (cause eradication, medications, devices) is often poorly tolerated and fails and advanced treatment (mechanical circulatory support [MCS], heart transplantation [HTx]) is required. The effectiveness of MCS is heavily dependent on heart size, whereas HTx which is effective in the vast majority of the cases is limited by the small donor pool. Expanding the MCS indications to include patients with small ventricles as well as the HTx donor pool are major challenges in the management of advanced HF.

Serum Osmolarity and Vasopressin Concentration in Acute Heart Failure-Influence on Clinical Course and Outcome

Neurohormone activation plays an important role in Acute Heart Failure (AHF) pathophysiology. Serum osmolarity can affect this activation causing vasopressin excretion. The role of serum osmolarity and vasopressin concentration and its interaction remain still unexplored in AHF. The objective of our study was to evaluate the relationship of serum osmolarity with clinical parameters, vasopressin concentration, in-hospital course, and outcomes in AHF patients. The study group consisted of 338 AHF patients (male (76.3%), mean age of 68 ± 13 years) with serum osmolarity calculated by the equation: 1.86 × sodium [mmol/L] + (glucose [mg/dL]/18) + (urea [mg/dL]/2.8) + 9 and divided into osmolarity quartiles marked as: low: <287 mOsm/L, intermediate low: 287−294 mOsm/L, intermediate high: 295−304 mOsm/L, and high: >304 mOsm/L. There was an increasing age gradient in the groups and patients differed in the occurrence of comorbidities and baseline clinical and laboratory parameters. Importantly, analysis revealed that vasopressin presented a linear correlation with osmolarity (r = −0.221, p = 0.003) and its concentration decreased with quartiles (61.6 [44.0−81.0] vs. 57.8 [50.0−77.3] vs. 52.7 [43.1−69.2] vs. 45.0 [30.7−60.7] pg/mL, respectively, p = 0.034). This association across quartiles was observed among de novo AHF (63.6 [55.3−94.5] vs. 58.0 [50.7−78.6] vs. 52.0 [46.0−58.0] vs. 38.0 [27.0−57.0] pg/mL, respectively, p = 0.022) and was not statistically significant in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) (59.5 [37.4−80.0] vs. 52.0 [38.0−74.5] vs. 57.0 [38.0−79.0] vs. 50.0 [33.0−84.0] pg/mL, respectively, p = 0.849). The worsening of renal function episodes were more frequent in quartiles with higher osmolarity (4 vs. 2 vs. 13 vs. 11%, respectively, p = 0.018) and patients that belonged to the quartiles with low and high osmolarity were characterized more often by incidence of worsening heart failure (20 vs. 9 vs. 10 vs. 22%, respectively, p = 0.032). There was also a U-shape distribution in relation to one-year mortality (31 vs. 19 vs. 23 vs. 37%, respectively, p = 0.022). In conclusion, there was an association of serum osmolarity with clinical status and both in-hospital and out-of-hospital outcomes. Moreover, the linear dependence between vasopressin concentration and serum osmolarity in the AHF population was identified and was driven mainly by patients with de novo AHF which suggests different pathophysiological paths in ADHF and AHF de novo.

Usefulness of C2HEST Score in Predicting Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 in Heart Failure and Non-Heart-Failure Cohorts

Background: Patients with heart failure represent a vulnerable population for COVID-19 and are prone to having worse prognoses and higher fatality rates. Still, the clinical course of the infection is dynamic, and complication occurrence in particular in patients with heart failure is fairly unpredictable. Considering that individual components of the C2HEST (C2: Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD)/Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); H: Hypertension; E: Elderly (Age ≥ 75); S: Systolic HF; T: Thyroid disease) are parallel to COVID-19 mortality risk factors, we evaluate the predictive value of C2HEST score in patients with heart failure (HF) Material and Methods: The retrospective medical data analysis of 2184 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the University Hospital in Wroclaw between February 2020 and June 2021 was the basis of the study. The measured outcomes included: in-hospital mortality, 3-month and 6-month all-cause-mortality, non-fatal end of hospitalization, and adverse in-hospital clinical events. Results: The heart failure cohort consists of 255 patients, while 1929 patients were assigned to the non-HF cohort. The in-hospital, 3-month, and 6-month mortality rates were highest in the HF cohort high-risk C2HEST stratum, reaching 38.61%, 53.96%, and 65.36%, respectively. In the non-HF cohort, in-hospital, 3-month, and 6-month mortalities were also highest in the high-risk C2HEST stratum and came to 26.39%, 52.78%, and 65.0%, respectively. An additional point in the C2HEST score increased the total death intensity in 10% of HF subjects (HR 1.100, 95% CI 0.968−1.250 p = 0.143) while in the non-HF cohort, the same value increased by 62.3% (HR 1.623, 95% CI 1.518−1.734 p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The C2HEST score risk in the HF cohort failed to show discriminatory performance in terms of mortality and other clinical adverse outcomes during hospitalization. C2HEST score in the non-HF cohort showed significantly better performance in terms of predicting in-hospital and 6-month mortality and other non-fatal clinical outcomes such as cardiovascular events (myocardial injury, acute heart failure, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock), pneumonia, sepsis, and acute renal injury.

The Role of Systemic Microvascular Dysfunction in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a condition with increasing incidence, leading to a health care problem of epidemic proportions for which no curative treatments exist. Consequently, an urge exists to better understand the pathophysiology of HFpEF. Accumulating evidence suggests a key pathophysiological role for coronary microvascular dysfunction (MVD), with an underlying mechanism of low-grade pro-inflammatory state caused by systemic comorbidities. The systemic entity of comorbidities and inflammation in HFpEF imply that patients develop HFpEF due to systemic mechanisms causing coronary MVD, or systemic MVD. The absence or presence of peripheral MVD in HFpEF would reflect HFpEF being predominantly a cardiac or a systemic disease. Here, we will review the current state of the art of cardiac and systemic microvascular dysfunction in HFpEF (Graphical Abstract), resulting in future perspectives on new diagnostic modalities and therapeutic strategies.

Differences in the Biomarker Profile of De Novo Acute Heart Failure versus Decompensation of Chronic Heart Failure

The perception of acute heart failure (AHF) as a single entity is increasingly outdated, as distinct patient profiles can be discerned. Key heart failure (HF) studies have previously highlighted the difference in both the course and prognosis of de novo AHF and acute decompensated chronic HF (ADHF). Accordingly, distinct AHF profiles with differing underlying pathophysiologies of disease progression can be shown. We compared a range of selected biomarkers in order to better describe the profile of de novo AHF and ADHF, including the inter alia—serum lactate, bilirubin, matrix metallopeptidase 9 (MMP-9), follistatin, intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), lipocalin and galectin-3. The study comprised 248 AHF patients (de novo = 104), who were followed up for one year. The biomarker data of the de novo AHF and ADHF profiles was then compared in order to link biomarkers to their prognosis. Our study demonstrated that, although there are similarities between each patient profile, key biomarker differences do exist—predominantly in terms of NTproBNP, serum lactate, bilirubin, ICAM-1, follistatin, ferritin and sTfR (soluble transferrin receptor). ADHF tended to have compromised organ function and higher risks of both one-year mortality and composite endpoint (one-year mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure) hazard ratios (HR) (95% CI): 3.4 (1.8–6.3) and 2.8 (1.6–4.6), respectively, both p < 0.0001. Among the biomarkers of interest: sTfR HR (95% CI): 1.4 (1.04–1.8), NGAL_(log) (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin) HR (95% CI): 2.0 (1.3–3.1) and GDF-15_(log) (growth/differentiation factor-15) HR (95% CI): 4.0 (1.2–13.0) significantly impacted the one-year survival, all p < 0.05.