Elderly patients are a special category of patients, due to the physiological changes induced by age, the great number of comorbidities and drug treatment and last, but not least, to the cognitive dysfunction frequently encountered in this population. Cardiovascular disease is the most important cause of morbidity and mortality in elderly individuals worldwide. The rate of cardiovascular events increases after 65 years in men and after 75 years in women. Myocardial infarction and stroke are the leading disorders caused by atherosclerosis, that lead to death or functional incapacity. Elderly people have a greater risk to develop atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The incidence and prevalence of atherosclerosis increase with age and the number of cardiovascular events is higher in elderly patients. The most efficient treatment against atherosclerosis is the treatment with statins, that has been shown to decrease the risk both of stroke and coronary artery disease in all age groups. The advantages of the treatment become evident after at least one year of treatment. Primary prevention is the most important way of preventing cardiovascular disease in elderly individuals, by promoting a healthy lifestyle and reducing the risk factors. Secondary prevention after a stroke or myocardial infarction includes mandatory a statin, to diminish the risk of a recurrent cardiovascular event. The possible side effects of statin therapy are diabetes mellitus, myopathy, and rhabdomyolysis, hepatotoxicity. The side effects of the treatment are more likely to occur in elderly patients, due to their multiple associated comorbidities and drugs that may interact with statins. In elderly people, the benefits and disadvantages of the treatment with statins should be put in balance, especially in those receiving high doses of statins.

Background: Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TC) is an emergency cardiovascular disease, with clinical and paraclinical manifestations similar to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but it is characterized by reversible systolic dysfunction of the left ventricle (LV) in the absence (most of the time) of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Management of patients with TC: TC seems to be more frequent in post-menopausal women and it is triggered by emotional or physical stress. The diagnosis of TC is based on the Mayo Clinic criteria. Initially, patients with TC should be treated as those with AMI and carefully monitored in intensive care unit. Urgent clinical and paraclinical distinction between TC and AMI is mandatory in all patients, because of the different therapeutical management between the two diseases. Chest pain and dyspnea are the most common symptoms in TC. Paraclinical diagnosis is based on cardiac biomarkers, electrocardiogram (ST-segment elevation/T wave inversion in precordial leads without reciprocal ST-segment depression in inferior leads and absence of Q waves), echocardiography (LV systolic dysfunction, regional wall motion abnormalities extended in more than one coronary territory), cardiac magnetic resonance and in most of the cases the positive diagnosis is established by performing CA to exclude obstructive CAD. The prognosis of patients with TC is considered benign in most cases, with a complete LV function recovery, but severe complications may occur, such as cardiogenic shock, LV free wall rupture, life-threatening arrhythmia, and cardiac arrest. Postoperative TC may develop after any type of surgical intervention due to acute stress and it should be differentiated from postoperative AMI. The management of patients with TC is medical and it is based on supportive care and the treatment of heart failure, while patients with AMI require myocardial revascularization. Conclusions: TC leads to transient LV dysfunction that mimics AMI from which it should be differentiated for a good therapeutic approach. Patients with TC should be carefully monitored during hospitalization because they have a high recovery potential if optimally treated.

Background: Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly coexist and patients with both diseases have a worse prognosis than those with HF or AF alone. The objective of our study was to identify the factors associated with one-year mortality in patients with HF and AF, depending on the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods: We included 727 patients with HF and AF consecutively admitted in a clinical emergency hospital between January 2018 and December 2019. The inclusion criteria were age of more than 18 years, diagnosis of chronic HF and AF (paroxysmal, persistent, permanent), and signed informed consent. The exclusion criteria were the absence of echocardiographic data, a suboptimal ultrasound view, and other cardiac rhythms than AF. The patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1 (337 patients with AF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)), group 2 (112 patients with AF and HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF)), and group 3 (278 patients with AF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)). Results: The one-year mortality rates were 36.49% in group 1, 27.67% in group 2, and 27.69% in group 3. The factors that increased one-year mortality were chronic kidney disease (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.45–3.83), coronary artery disease (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.06–2.62), and diabetes (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.05–2.67) in patients with HFrEF; and hypertension in patients with HFpEF (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.36–4.39). Conclusions: One-year mortality in patients with HF and AF is influenced by different factors, depending on the LVEF.

Background: Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are prevalent cardiovascular diseases, and their association is common. Diastolic dysfunction may be present in patients with AF and all types of HF, leading to elevated intracardiac pressures. The objective of this study was to analyze diastolic dysfunction in patients with HF and AF depending on left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF). Material and methods: This prospective study included 324 patients with chronic HF and AF (paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent) hospitalized between January 2018 and March 2021. The inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years, diagnosis of chronic HF and AF, and available echocardiographic data. The exclusion criteria were a suboptimal echocardiographic view, other cardiac rhythms than AF, congenital heart disease, or coronavirus 2 infection. Patients were divided into three subgroups according to LVEF: subgroup 1 included 203 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and AF (62.65%), subgroup 2 included 42 patients with HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and AF (12.96%), and subgroup 3 included 79 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and AF (24.38%). We performed 2D transthoracic echocardiography in all patients. Statistical analysis was performed using R software. Results: The E/e′ ratio (p = 0.0352, OR 1.9) and left atrial volume index (56.4 mL/m² vs. 53.6 mL/m²) were higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFpEF. Conclusions: Patients with HFrEF and AF had more severe diastolic dysfunction and higher left ventricular filling pressures than those with HFpEF and AF.