Background: The current cardiovascular disease (CVD) primary prevention guidelines prioritize risk stratification by using clinical risk scores. However, subclinical atherosclerosis may rest long term undetected. This study aimed to evaluate multiple subclinical atherosclerosis parameters in relation to several CV risk scores in asymptomatic individuals. Methods: A cross-sectional, single-center study included 120 asymptomatic CVD subjects. Four CVD risk scores were computed: SCORE, Framingham, QRISK, and PROCAM. Subclinical atherosclerosis has been determined by carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), pulse wave velocity (PWV), aortic and brachial augmentation indexes (AIXAo, respectively AIXbr), aortic systolic blood pressure (SBPao), and ankle-brachial index (ABI). Results: The mean age was 52.01 ± 10.73 years. For cIMT—SCORE was more sensitive; for PWV—Framingham score was more sensitive; for AIXbr—QRISK and PROCAM were more sensitive while for AIXao—QRISK presented better results. As for SBPao—SCORE presented more sensitive results. However, ABI did not correlate with any CVD risk score. Conclusions: All four CV risk scores are associated with markers of subclinical atherosclerosis in asymptomatic population, except for ABI, with specific particularities for each CVD risk score. Moreover, we propose specific cut-off values of CV risk scores that may indicate the need for subclinical atherosclerosis assessment.

Background: Acute heart failure (HF) represents an increasingly common and challenging presentation in the emergency room, also inducing a great socio-economic burden. Extensive research was conducted toward finding an ideal biomarker of acute HF, both in terms of sensitivity and specificity, but today practicians’ interest has shifted towards a more realistic multimarker approach. Natriuretic peptides (NPs) currently represent the gold standard for diagnosing HF in routine clinical practice, but novel molecules, such as sST2, emerge as potentially useful biomarkers, providing additional diagnostic and prognostic value. Methods: We conducted a prospective, single-center study that included 120 patients with acute HF and 53 controls with chronic HF. Of these, 13 patients (eight with acute HF, five from the control group) associated the coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19). The diagnosis of HF was confirmed by a complete clinical, biological and echocardiographic approach. Results: The serum levels of all studied biomarkers (sST2, NT-proBNP, cardiac troponin) were significantly higher in the group with acute HF. By area under the curve (AUC) analysis, we noticed that NT-proBNP (AUC: 0.976) still had the best diagnostic performance, closely followed by sST2 (AUC: 0.889). However, sST2 was a significantly better predictor of fatal events, showing positive correlations for both in-hospital and at 1-month mortality rates. Moreover, sST2 was also associated with other markers of poor prognosis, such as the use of inotropes or high lactate levels, but not with left ventricle ejection fraction, age, body mass index or mean arterial pressure. sST2 levels were higher in patients with a positive history of COVID-19 as compared with non-COVID-19 patients, but the differences were statistically significant only within the control group. Bivariate regression showed a positive and linear relationship between NT-proBNP and sST2 (r(120) = 0.20, p < 0.002). Conclusions: we consider that sST2 has certain qualities worth integrating in a future multimarker test kit alongside traditional biomarkers, as it provides similar diagnostic value as NT-proBNP, but is emerging as a more valuable prognostic factor, with a better predictive value of fatal events in patients with acute HF.

Background: The subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR), also known as the Buckberg index, is a parameter of arterial stiffness with indirect prognostic value in assessing long-term cardiovascular risk. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study on 70 patients with uncomplicated hypertension admitted to a county medical reference hospital. We analyzed demographics, laboratory data, arterial stiffness parameters and cardiovascular risk scores (SCORE and Framingham risk scores) and aimed to identify paraclinical parameters associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Results: Of the arterial stiffness parameters, SEVR correlates statistically significantly with age, central and peripheral systolic blood pressure, as well as with heart rate. SEVR seems to have prognostic value among hypertensive patients by increasing the risk of major cardiovascular events assessed by SCORE and Framingham risk scores. SEVR correlates statistically significantly with serum fibrinogen (p = 0.02) and hemoglobin (p = 0.046). Between pulse wave velocity and lipid parameters (p = 0.021 for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and p = 0.030 for triglycerides) a statistically significant relationship was found for the study group. The augmentation index of the aorta also correlated with serum LDL-cholesterol (p = 0.032) and the hemoglobin levels (p = 0.040) of hypertensive patients. Conclusions: Age, abdominal circumference and Framingham score are independent predictors for SEVR in our study group, further highlighting the need for early therapeutic measures to control risk factors in this category of patients.

Background and Objectives: Atherosclerosis is a multifactorial process in which inflammatory markers have both therapeutic and prognostic roles. Recent studies bring into question the importance of assessing new inflammatory markers in relation to the severity of peripheral artery disease (PAD), such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and lymphocyte-to-C-reactive protein ratio (LCR). Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective and descriptive study including 652 patients with PAD, who were divided into two groups according to the severity of the ankle–brachial index value: mild and moderate obstruction (257 patients) and severe obstruction (395 patients). We evaluated demographics, anthropometric data and clinical and paraclinical parameters in relation to the novel inflammatory biomarkers mentioned above. Results: Weight (p = 0.048), smoking (p = 0.033), the number of cardiovascular risk factors (p = 0.041), NLR (p = 0.037), LCR (p = 0.041) and PLR (p = 0.019), the presence of gangrene (p = 0.001) and the number of lesions detected via peripheral angiography (p < 0.001) were statistically significant parameters in our study. For the group of patients with severe obstruction, all three inflammatory biomarkers were statistically significantly correlated with a serum low-density lipoprotein–cholesterol level, the number of cardiovascular risk factors, rest pain, gangrene and a risk of amputation. In addition, directly proportional relationships were found between NLR, PLR and the number of stenotic lesions (p = 0.018, p = 0.016). Also, NLR (area under the curve = 0.682, p = 0.010) and PLR (AUC = 0.692, p = 0.006) were predictors associated with a high risk of amputation in patients with an ABI < 0.5. Conclusions: in our study, we demonstrated the importance of assessing inflammatory markers in relation to the presence of cardiovascular risk factors through the therapeutic and prognostic value demonstrated in PAD.

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinical syndrome that represents a great burden on public health systems due to its increased prevalence, disability and mortality rates. There are multiple triggers that can induce or aggravate a preexisting HF, socioeconomic status (SES) emerging as one of the most common modifiable risk factors. Our study aimed to analyze the influence of certain SES indicators on the outcome, clinical aspects and laboratory parameters of patients with HF in North-Eastern Romania, as well as their relationship with other traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Methods: We conducted a prospective, single-center study comprising 120 consecutively enrolled patients admitted for acute HF. The evaluation of individual SES was based upon a standard questionnaire and evidence from official documents. Results: the patients’ age ranged between 18 and 94 years; Out of 120 patients, 49 (40.8%) were women and 71 (59.2%) were men, residing in rural 59 (49.2%) or urban 61 (50.8%) areas. 14.2% were university graduates, while 15.8% had only attended primary school. The majority of the patients are or were employed in the service sector (54.5%), followed by industry (29.2%) and agriculture (20%). The mean monthly income was 306.1 ± 177.4 euro, while the mean hospitalization cost was 2471.8 ± 2073.8 euro per patient. The individual income level was positively correlated with urban area of residence, adequate household sanitation facilities and healthcare access, and negatively associated with advanced age and previous hospitalizations due to HF. However, the individual financial situation was also positively correlated with the increased prevalence of certain cardiovascular risk factors, such as arterial hypertension, anemia or obesity, but not with total cholesterol or male gender. Concerning the direct impact of a poor economic status upon prognosis in the setting of acute HF, our results showed no statistically significant differences concerning the in-hospital or at 1-month follow-up mortality rates. Rather than inducing a direct impact on the short-term outcome, these findings concerning SES indicators are meant to enhance the implementation of policies aimed to provide adequate healthcare for people from all social layers, with a primary focus on modifiable cardiovascular risk factors.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) all around the globe. In almost 40 years of technological advances and multiple clinical trials, there has been a continuous increase in the implantation rate. The purpose of this review is to highlight the grey areas related to actual ICD recommendations, focusing specifically on the primary prevention of SCD. We will discuss the still-existing controversies strongly reflected in the differences between the international guidelines regarding ICD indication class in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, and also address the question of early implantation after myocardial infarction in the absence of clear protocols for patients at high risk of life-threatening arrhythmias. Correlating the insufficient data in the literature for 40-day waiting times with the increased risk of SCD in the first month after myocardial infarction, we review the pros and cons of early ICD implantation.