OBJECTIVE: Achieving optimized guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is recommended prior to transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR). We aimed to propose and validate an easy-to-use score for assessing the quality of GDMT in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) undergoing M-TEER.
RESULTS: Among the 1641 EuroSMR patients enrolled in the EuroSMR Registry who underwent M-TEER, a total of 1072 patients [median age 74, interquartile range (IQR) 67-79 years, 29% female] had complete data on GDMT and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% and were included in the current study. We proposed a GDMT score that considers the dosage levels of three medication classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists), with a maximum score of 12 points indicating optimal GDMT. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The median GDMT score was 4 points (IQR 3-6). All three domains of the scoring system were associated with all-cause mortality (P < 0.05 for all). The overall GDMT score was associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.86-0.95 for each 1-point increase in the GDMT score). This association remained significant after adjusting for renal function and co-morbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the utility of a simple GDMT scoring system for assessing the adequacy of GDMT in HFrEF patients with relevant SMR undergoing M-TEER. The GDMT score has potential applications in guiding the design of future clinical trials and aiding clinical decision-making processes.

暂无摘要。

The article summarize the most important changes regarding the management of valvular heart disease, which have been made in the ESC Guidelines 2021. Based on the randomized clinical study data, which were recently published, the most frequent changes were done in terms of the choice of mode of intervention in the aortic and mitral valves as well as in the management of the antithrombotic therapy.

Little is known regarding the risk of cerebrovascular events (CVE) in patients with heart failure and severe secondary mitral regurgitation treated with transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER).
The study sought to examine the incidence, predictors, timing, and prognostic impact of CVE (stroke or transient ischemic attack) in the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the Mitraclip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial.
A total of 614 patients with heart failure and severe secondary mitral regurgitation were randomized to TEER plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs GDMT alone.
At 4-year follow-up, 50 CVEs occurred in 48 (7.8%) of the 614 total patients enrolled in the COAPT trial; Kaplan-Meier event rates were 12.3% in the TEER group and 10.2 in the GDMT alone group (P = 0.91). Within 30 days of randomization, CVE occurred in 2 (0.7%) patients randomized to TEER and 0% randomized to GDMT (P = 0.15). Baseline renal dysfunction and diabetes were independently associated with increased risk of CVE, while baseline anticoagulation was associated with a reduction of CVE. A significant interaction was present between treatment group and anticoagulation such that TEER compared with GDMT alone was associated with a reduced risk of CVE among patients with anticoagulation (adjusted HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.73) compared with an increased risk of CVE in patients without anticoagulation (adjusted HR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.08-4.81; Pinteraction = 0.001). CVE was an independent predictor of death within 30 days after the event (HR: 14.37; 95% CI: 7.61, 27.14; P < 0.0001).
In the COAPT trial, the 4-year rate of CVE was similar after TEER or GDMT alone. CVE was strongly associated with mortality. Whether anticoagulation is effective at reducing CVE risk after TEER warrants further study. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] and COAPT CAS [COAPT); NCT01626079).

Transcatheter edge to edge repair (TEER) improves prognosis in patients with functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) receiving guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT). Many patients with FMR do not receive GDMT and the utility of TEER in this population remains unclear.
We retrospectively studied patients undergoing TEER. Clinical, echocardiographic and procedural variables were recorded. GDMT was defined as use of RAAS inhibitors and MRAs unless GFR was under 30 as well as beta blockers. The primary endpoint of the study was one year mortality.
168 patients (mean age 71.3 ± 9.3; 66% males) with FMR who underwent TEER were included of whom 116 (69%) received GDMT at the time of TEER and 52 (31%) did not. There were no significant demographic or clinical differences between the groups. There were no significant differences in procedural success and complications between groups. One year mortality was identical in the two groups (15% vs. 15%; RR 1.06, CI 0.43-2.63, P = 0.90).
Our findings suggest that procedural success and one year mortality following TEER was not significantly different in HFREF patients with FMR with or without GDMT. Larger, prospective studies are necessary to define the benefit of TEER in this population.

In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial, a central committee of heart failure (HF) specialists optimized guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) and documented medication and goal dose intolerances before patient enrollment.
The authors sought to assess the rates, reasons, and predictors of GDMT intolerance in the COAPT trial.
Baseline use, dose, and intolerances of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were analyzed in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, in whom maximally tolerated doses of these agents as assessed by an independent HF specialist were required before enrollment.
A total of 464 patients had LVEF ≤40% and complete medication information. At baseline, 38.8%, 39.4%, and 19.8% of patients tolerated 3, 2, and 1 GDMT classes, respectively (any dose); only 1.9% could not tolerate any GDMT. Beta-blockers were the most frequently tolerated GDMT (93.1%), followed by ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (68.5%), and then MRAs (55.0%). Intolerances differed by GDMT class, but hypotension and kidney dysfunction were most common. Goal doses were uncommonly achieved for beta-blockers (32.3%) and ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (10.2%) due to intolerances limiting titration. Only 2.2% of patients tolerated goal doses of all 3 GDMT classes.
In a contemporary trial population with HF, severe mitral regurgitation, and systematic HF specialist-directed GDMT optimization, most patients had medical intolerances prohibiting 1 or more GDMT classes and achieving goal doses. The specific intolerances noted and methods used for GDMT optimization provide important lessons for the implementation of GDMT optimization in future clinical trials. (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] [COAPT]; NCT01626079).

A 58-year-old male with prior history of mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in 2009 for severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation in a bicuspid aortic valve, and since 2013 a new-onset severe asymptomatic primary mitral regurgitation (MR) due to prolapse of the anterior mitral valve leaflet (AMVL) presented himself with acute heart failure. Based on current guidelines recommendations, this patient was not eligible for transcutaneous mitral valve edge-to-edge repair (TEER), as well he was found as too high risk for conventional mitral valve repair. However, as a last resort TEER was undertaken with an unconventional strategy, which resulted in resolution of the MR and improvement of clinical, biochemical findings.

There have been several advances in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease (VHD) over the last decade. These have been reflected in the latest European and North American guidelines, although both contain significant similarities and differences. In this review, we highlight the important overlaps and variations between the updated guidelines and their previous versions to help guide the general cardiologist.
There has been extensive revision on the use of percutaneous treatments, the indications for intervention in asymptomatic VHD, and perioperative bridging therapies. The updated guidelines provide new recommendations in many aspects of VHD; however, there remain significant gaps in the role of biomarkers in VHD and the long-term outcomes of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and transcatheter therapies.

The \"2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure\" replaces the \"2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure\" and the \"2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.\" The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.
Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients\' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

The \"2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure\" replaces the \"2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure\" and the \"2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.\" The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.
Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients\' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.