Although the frequency of myocarditis in the general population is very difficult to accurately determine due to the large number of asymptomatic cases, the incidence of this disease is increasing significantly due to better defined criteria for diagnosis and the development of modern diagnostic methods. The multitude of different etiological factors, the diversity of the clinical picture, and the variability of the diagnostic findings make this disease often demanding both for the selection of the diagnostic modality and for the proper therapeutic approach. The previously known most common viral etiology of this disease is today overshadowed by new findings based on immune-mediated processes, associated with diseases that in their natural course can lead to myocardial involvement, as well as the iatrogenic cause of myocarditis, which is due to use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer patients. Suspecting that a patient with polymorphic and non-specific clinical signs and symptoms, such as changes in ECG and echocardiography readings, has myocarditis is the starting point in the diagnostic algorithm. Cardio magnetic resonance imaging is non-invasive and is the gold standard for diagnosis and clinical follow-up of these patients. Endomyocardial biopsy as an invasive method is the diagnostic choice in life-threatening cases with suspicion of fulminant myocarditis where the diagnosis has not yet established or there is no adequate response to the applied therapeutic regimen. The treatment of myocarditis is increasingly demanding and includes conservative methods of treating heart failure, immunomodulatory and immunospressive therapy, methods of mechanical circulatory support, and heart transplantation. The goal of developing new diagnostic and therapeutic methods is to reduce mortality from this complex disease, which is still high.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to numerous negative implications for all aspects of society. Although COVID-19 is a predominant lung disease, in 10–30% of cases, it is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The presence of myocardial injury in COVID-19 patients occurs with a frequency between 7–36%. There is growing evidence of the incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in COVID-19, both due to coronary artery thrombosis and insufficient oxygen supply to the myocardium in conditions of an increased need. The diagnosis and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a major challenge for physicians. Often the presence of mixed symptoms, due to the combined presence of COVID-19 and ACS, as well as possible other diseases, nonspecific changes in the electrocardiogram (ECG), and often elevated serum troponin (cTn), create dilemmas in diagnosing ACS in COVID-19. Given the often-high ischemic risk, as well as the risk of bleeding, in these patients and analyzing the benefit/risk ratio, the treatment of patients with AMI and COVID-19 is often associated with dilemmas and difficult decisions. Due to delays in the application of the therapeutic regimen, complications of AMI are more common, and the mortality rate is higher.

Background/Aim. Despite technological advances in diagnosis and treatment, in-hospital mortality with acute aortic dissection type B is still about 11. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk factors for early and long-term adverse outcomes in patients with acute aortic dissection type B treated medically or with conventional open surgery. Methods. The present study included 104 consecutive patients with acute aortic dissection type B treated in our Center from January 1^st, 1998 to January 1^st, 2007. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics as well as in-hospital complications were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate testing was performed to identify the predictors of in-hospital (30-day) and late (within 9 years) mortality. Results. 92 (88.5) patients were treated medically, while 12 (11.5) patients with complicated acute aortic dissection type B were treated by open surgical repair. In-hospital complications occurred in 35.7 patients, the most often being acute renal failure (28), hypotension/shock (24), mesenteric ischemia (12), and limb ischemia (8). The in-hospital mortality rate was 15.7 and the 9-year mortality rate was 51.9. Independent predictors of early mortality in patients with acute aortic dissection type B were uncontrolled hypertension (HR-20.69) and a dissecting aorta diameter >4.75cm (HR-6.30). Independent predictors of late mortality were relapsing pain (HR-7.93), uncontrolled hypertension (HR-7.25), and a pathologic difference in arterial blood pressure (>20mmHg) (HR-5.33). Conclusion. Knowledge of key risk factors may help with a better choice of treatment and mortality reduction in acute aortic dissection type B patients.

Although acute heart failure (AHF) is a common disease associated with significant symptoms, morbidity and mortality, the diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment of patients with hypertensive acute heart failure (H-AHF) still remain a challenge in modern medicine. Despite great progress in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, this disease is still accompanied by a high rate of both in-hospital (from 3.8% to 11%) and one-year (from 20% to 36%) mortality. Considering the high rate of rehospitalization (22% to 30% in the first three months), the treatment of this disease represents a major financial blow to the health system of each country. This disease is characterized by heterogeneity in precipitating factors, clinical presentation, therapeutic modalities and prognosis. Since heart decompensation usually occurs quickly (within a few hours) in patients with H-AHF, establishing a rapid diagnosis is of vital importance. In addition to establishing the diagnosis of heart failure itself, it is necessary to see the underlying cause that led to it, especially if it is de novo heart failure. Given that hypertension is a precipitating factor of AHF and in up to 11% of AHF patients, strict control of arterial blood pressure is necessary until target values are reached in order to prevent the occurrence of H-AHF, which is still accompanied by a high rate of both early and long-term mortality.

The incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) ranges from 2.3–23%. This difference in the incidence of AF is explained by the different ages of the patients in different studies and the different times of application of both reperfusion and drug therapies in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). About 6–8% of patients who underwent percutaneous intervention within AMI have an indication for oral anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonists or new oral anticoagulants (NOAC).The use of oral anticoagulant therapy should be consistent with individual risk of bleeding as well as ischemic risk. Both HAS-BLED and CHA2DS2VASc scores are most commonly used for risk assessment. Except in patients with mechanical valves and antiphospholipid syndrome, NOACs have an advantage over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). One of the advantages of NOACs is the use of fixed doses, where there is no need for successive INR controls, which increases the patient’s compliance in taking these drugs. The use of triple therapy in ACS is indicated in the case of patients with AF, mechanical valves as well as venous thromboembolism. The results of the studies showed that when choosing a P2Y12 receptor blocker, less potent P2Y12 blockers such as Clopidogrel should be chosen, due to the lower risk of bleeding. It has been proven that the presence of AF within AMI is associated with a higher degree of reinfarction, more frequent stroke, high incidence of heart failure, and there is a correlation with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. With the appearance of AF in ACS, its rapid conversion into sinus rhythm is necessary, and in the last resort, good control of heart rate in order to avoid the occurrence of adverse clinical events.

Although the frequency of myocarditis in the general population is very difficult to accurately determine due to the large number of asymptomatic cases, the incidence of this disease is increasing significantly due to better defined criteria for diagnosis and the development of modern diagnostic method. The multitude of different etiological factors, the diversity of the clinical picture and the variability of the diagnostic findings make this disease often demanding both for the selection of the diagnostic modality and for the proper therapeutic approach. The previously known most common viral etiology of this disease is today overshadowed by new findings based on immune-mediated processes, associated diseases that in their natural course can lead to myocardial involvement, but also the iatrogenic cause of myocarditis due to use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer patients. Suspecting that a patient with polymorphic and non-specific clinical signs and symptoms, changes in ECG and echocardiography has myocarditis is the starting point in the diagnostic algorithm. Cardio magnetic resonance imaging is non-invasive diagnostic gold standard for diagnosis and clinical follow-up of thses patients. Endomyocardial biopsy as an invasive method is the diagnostic choice in life-threatening patients with suspicion of fulminant myocarditis where the diagnosis has not yet established or there is no adequate response to the applied therapeutic regimen. The treatment of myocarditis is increasingly demanding and includes conservative methods of treating heart failure, immunomodulatory and immunospressive therapy, methods of mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation. The goal of developing new diagnostic and therapeutic methods is to reduce mortality from this complex disease, which is still high.