Red blood cell distribution width (RDW), an integral parameter of the complete blood count (CBC), has been traditionally used for the classification of several types of anemia. However, over the last decade RDW has been associated with outcome in patients with several cardiovascular diseases including heart failure. The role of RDW in acute, chronic and advanced heart failure is the focus of the present work. Several pathophysiological mechanisms of RDW’s increase in heart failure have been proposed (i.e., inflammation, oxidative stress, adrenergic stimulation, undernutrition, ineffective erythropoiesis, reduced iron mobilization, etc.); however, the exact mechanism remains unknown. Although high RDW values at admission and discharge have been associated with adverse prognosis in hospitalized heart failure patients, the prognostic role of in-hospital RDW changes (ΔRDW) remains debatable. RDW has been incorporated in recent heart failure prognostic models. Utilizing RDW as a treatment target in heart failure may be a promising area of research.

Red blood cell distribution width (RDW) is an established prognostic marker in acute and chronic heart failure (HF). Recent studies have pointed out a link among RDW, diabetes mellitus (DM) and inflammation. We sought to investigate the prognostic value and longitudinal pattern of RDW in patients with concomitant HF and DM, which remains unknown. A total of 218 patients (71 diabetics) who presented with acute HF had RDW measured at admission, discharge and 4, 8 and 12 months post-discharge. The study endpoint was all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for HF during 1-year follow-up. The study endpoint was met in 33 patients (46.5%) with DM and in 54 patients (36.7%) without DM. RDW at admission was associated with higher event rate both in HF patients with and without DM (adjusted HR: 1.349, p = 0.002, 95% CI 1.120–1.624 and adjusted HR: 1.142, p = 0.033, 95% CI 1.011–1.291 respectively). In addition, a significant interaction was found between diabetes and RDW longitudinal changes (βinteraction = −0.002; SE = 0.001; p = 0.042). Despite the similar prognostic significance of RDW in diabetic and non-diabetic HF patients regarding the study endpoint, longitudinal changes were found to be significantly different between these two groups of HF patients. This might be due to the higher inflammatory burden that diabetic HF patients carry and may provide new insights to the pathophysiological mechanism of RDW increase in HF, which remains unknown.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for new-onset heart failure (HF) and vice versa. The pathogenesis of new-onset HF in DM is complex and has been largely attributed to the toxic cardiovascular effects of hyperglycemia and relevant metabolic abnormalities (diabetic cardiomyopathy) as well as the frequently coexisting morbidities such as hypertension (HTN), coronary artery disease (CAD), and diabetic nephropathy. In patients with type 1 DM (T1DM), HF develops in the setting of a dysregulated immune response, whereas in most patients with type 2 DM (T2DM), against a background of overweight/obesity. HF prevention in DM is feasible with rigorous treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and selective antidiabetic agents. Conversely, development of new-onset T2DM in HF (cardiogenic DM) is common and has been attributed to an increase in the resistance to insulin, especially in the skeletal muscle, liver, and adipose tissue as well as in diminished insulin secretory response to hyperglycemia by pancreatic β-cells. Cardiogenic DM further deteriorates cardiac dysfunction and adversely affects outcome in HF. Novel lifesaving medications employed in HF management such as sacubitril/valsartan and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) have a favorable metabolic profile and lower the incidence of cardiogenic diabetes. Whether mitigation of cardiogenic DM should be a treatment target in HF deserves further investigation.

Inflammation is a major component of heart failure (HF), causing peripheral vasculopathy and cardiac remodeling. High levels of circulating inflammatory cytokines in HF patients have been well recognized. The hallmark of the inflammatory imbalance is the insufficient production of anti-inflammatory mediators, a condition that leads to dysregulated cytokine activity. The condition progresses because of the pathogenic consequences of the cytokine imbalance, including the impact of endothelial dysfunction and adrenergic responsiveness deterioration, and unfavorable inotropic effects on the myocardium. Hence, to develop possible anti-inflammatory treatment options that will enhance the outcomes of HF patients, it is essential to identify the potential pathophysiological mechanisms of inflammation in HF. Inflammatory mediators, such as cytokines, adhesion molecules, and acute-phase proteins, are elevated during this process, highlighting the complex association between inflammation and HF. Therefore, these inflammatory markers can be used in predicting prognosis of the syndrome. Various immune cells impact on myocardial remodeling and recovery. They lead to stimulation, release of alarmins and risk-related molecule patterns. Targeting key inflammatory mechanisms seems a quite promising therapy strategy in HF. Cytokine modulation is only one of several possible targets in the fight against inflammation, as the potential molecular targets for therapy in HF include immune activation, inflammation, oxidative stress, alterations in mitochondrial bioenergetics, and autophagy.

The function of the kidney is tightly linked to the function of the heart. Dysfunction/disease of the kidney may initiate, accentuate, or precipitate of the cardiac dysfunction/disease and vice versa, contributing to a negative spiral. Further, the reciprocal association between the heart and the kidney may occur on top of other entities, usually diabetes, hypertension, and atherosclerosis, simultaneously affecting the two organs. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can influence cardiac function through altered hemodynamics and salt and water retention, leading to venous congestion and therefore, not surprisingly, to heart failure (HF). Management of HF in CKD is challenging due to several factors, including complex interplays between these two conditions, the effect of kidney dysfunction on the metabolism of HF medications, the effect of HF medications on kidney function, and the high risk for anemia and hyperkalemia. As a result, in most HF trials, patients with severe renal impairment (i.e., eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m² or less) are excluded. The present review discusses the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and current medical management in patients with HF developing in the context of CKD.

Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response syndrome of suspected or confirmed infectious origin, which frequently culminates in multiorgan failure, including cardiac involvement. Septic cardiomyopathy (SCM) remains a poorly defined clinical entity, lacking a formal or consensus definition and representing a significant knowledge gap in critical care medicine. It is an often-underdiagnosed complication of sepsis. The only widely accepted aspect of its definition is that SCM is a transient myocardial dysfunction occurring in patients with sepsis, which cannot be attributed to ischemia or pre-existing cardiac disease. The pathogenesis of SCM appears to be multifactorial, involving inflammatory cytokines, overproduction of nitric oxide, mitochondrial dysfunction, calcium homeostasis dysregulation, autonomic imbalance, and myocardial edema. Diagnosis primarily relies on echocardiography, with advanced tools such as tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) providing greater sensitivity for detecting subclinical dysfunction and guiding therapeutic decisions. Traditional echocardiographic findings, such as left ventricular ejection fraction measured by 2D echocardiography, often reflect systemic vasoplegia rather than intrinsic myocardial dysfunction, complicating accurate diagnosis. Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction, identified as a critical component of SCM in many studies, has multifactorial pathophysiology. Factors including septic cardiomyopathy itself, mechanical ventilation, hypoxemia, and hypercapnia—particularly in cases complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)—increase RV afterload and exacerbate RV dysfunction. The prognostic value of cardiac biomarkers, such as troponins and natriuretic peptides, remains uncertain, as these markers primarily reflect illness severity rather than being specific to SCM. Treatment focuses on the early recognition of sepsis, hemodynamic optimization, and etiological interventions, as no targeted therapies currently exist. Emerging therapies, such as levosimendan and VA-ECMO, show potential in severe SCM cases, though further validation is needed. The lack of standardized diagnostic criteria, combined with the heterogeneity of sepsis presentations, poses significant challenges to the effective management of SCM. Future research should focus on developing cluster-based classification systems for septic shock patients by integrating biomarkers, echocardiographic findings, and clinical parameters. These advancements could clarify the underlying pathophysiology and enable tailored therapeutic strategies to improve outcomes for SCM patients.