BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P =0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P =0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Two methods are currently available for left atrial (LA) strain measurement by speckle tracking echocardiography, with two different reference timings for starting the analysis: QRS (QRS-LASr) and P wave (P-LASr). The aim of MASCOT HIT study was to define which of the two was more reproducible, more feasible, and less time consuming. In 26 expert centers, LA strain was analyzed by two different echocardiographers (young vs senior) in a blinded fashion. The study population included: healthy subjects, patients with arterial hypertension or aortic stenosis (LA pressure overload, group 2) and patients with mitral regurgitation or heart failure (LA volume–pressure overload, group 3). Difference between the inter-correlation coefficient (ICC) by the two echocardiographers using the two techniques, feasibility and analysis time of both methods were analyzed. A total of 938 subjects were included: 309 controls, 333 patients in group 2, and 296 patients in group 3. The ICC was comparable between QRS-LASr (0.93) and P-LASr (0.90). The young echocardiographers calculated QRS-LASr in 90% of cases, the expert ones in 95%. The feasibility of P-LASr was 85% by young echocardiographers and 88% by senior ones. QRS-LASr young median time was 110 s (interquartile range, IR, 78-149) vs senior 110 s (IR 78-155); for P-LASr, 120 s (IR 80-165) and 120 s (IR 90-161), respectively. LA strain was feasible in the majority of patients with similar reproducibility for both methods. QRS complex guaranteed a slightly higher feasibility and a lower time wasting compared to the use of P wave as the reference.

Initially, the renal resistive index (RRI) was investigated with the aim of improving diagnosis in kidney diseases, but this goal was not met. Recently, many papers have highlighted the prognostic significance of the RRI in chronic kidney disease: specifically, in estimating the revascularization success of renal artery stenoses or the evolution of the graft and the recipients in renal transplantation. Moreover, the RRI has become significant in the prediction of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Studies in renal pathology have revealed correlations of this index with parameters of systemic circulation. The theoretical and experimental premises of this connection were then reconsidered, and studies analyzing the link between RRI and arterial stiffness, central and peripheral pressure, and left ventricular flow were conducted with this purpose. Many data currently indicate that RRI is influenced more by pulse pressure and vascular compliance than by renal vascular resistance—assuming that RRI reflects the complex interplay between systemic circulation and renal microcirculation and should be considered a marker of systemic cardiovascular risk beyond its prognostic relevance for kidney disease. In this review, we overview the clinical research that reveals the implications of RRI in renal and cardiovascular disease.