Convergent experimental and clinical evidence have established the pathophysiological importance of pro-inflammatory pathways in coronary artery disease. Notably, the interest in treating inflammation in patients suffering acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is now expanding from its chronic aspects to the acute setting. Few large outcome trials have proven the benefits of anti-inflammatory therapies on cardiovascular outcomes by targeting the residual inflammatory risk (RIR), i.e. the smouldering ember of low-grade inflammation persisting in the late phase after AMI. However, these studies have also taught us about potential risks of anti-inflammatory therapy after AMI, particularly related to impaired host defence. Recently, numerous smaller-scale trials have addressed the concept of targeting a deleterious flare of excessive inflammation in the early phase after AMI. Targeting different pathways and implementing various treatment regimens, those trials have met with varied degrees of success. Promising results have come from those studies intervening early on the interleukin-1 and -6 pathways. Taking lessons from such past research may inform an optimized approach to target post-AMI inflammation, tailored to spare ‘The Good’ (repair and defence) while treating ‘The Bad’ (smouldering RIR) and capturing ‘The Ugly’ (flaming early burst of excess inflammation in the acute phase). Key constituents of such a strategy may read as follows: select patients with large pro-inflammatory burden (i.e. large AMI); initiate treatment early (e.g. ≤12 h post-AMI); implement a precisely targeted anti-inflammatory agent; follow through with a tapering treatment regimen. This approach warrants testing in rigorous clinical trials.

Secondary (or functional) mitral regurgitation (SMR) occurs frequently in chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, resulting from LV remodelling that prevents coaptation of the valve leaflets. Secondary mitral regurgitation contributes to progression of the symptoms and signs of HF and confers worse prognosis. The management of HF patients with SMR is complex and requires timely referral to a multidisciplinary Heart Team. Optimization of pharmacological and device therapy according to guideline recommendations is crucial. Further management requires careful clinical and imaging assessment, addressing the anatomical and functional features of the mitral valve and left ventricle, overall HF status, and relevant comorbidities. Evidence concerning surgical correction of SMR is sparse and it is doubtful whether this approach improves prognosis. Transcatheter repair has emerged as a promising alternative, but the conflicting results of current randomized trials require careful interpretation. This collaborative position statement, developed by four key associations of the European Society of Cardiology—the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)—presents an updated practical approach to the evaluation and management of patients with HF and SMR based upon a Heart Team approach.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both non-selective and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, but associate with increased blood pressure (BP) and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. PRECISION-ABPM, a substudy of PRECISION was conducted at 60 sites, to determine BP effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib vs. the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen. In this double-blind, randomized, multicentre non-inferiority CV-safety trial, 444 patients (mean age 62 ± 10 years, 54% female) with osteoarthritis (92%) or rheumatoid arthritis (8%) and evidence of or at increased risk for coronary artery disease received celecoxib (100–200 mg bid), ibuprofen (600–800 mg tid), or naproxen (375–500 mg bid) with matching placebos in a 1: 1: 1 allocation, to assess the effect on 24-h ambulatory BP after 4 months. The change in mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) in celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen-treated patients was -0.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI), −2.25, 1.74], 3.7 (95% CI, 1.72, 5.58) and 1.6 mmHg (95% CI, −0.40, 3.57), respectively. These changes resulted in a difference of − 3.9 mmHg (P = 0.0009) between celecoxib and ibuprofen, of − 1.8 mmHg (P = 0.12) between celecoxib and naproxen, and of − 2.1 mmHg (P = 0.08) between naproxen and ibuprofen. The percentage of patients with normal baseline BP who developed hypertension (mean 24-h SBP ≥ 130 and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) was 23.2% for ibuprofen, 19.0% for naproxen, and 10.3% for celecoxib (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.004 and odds ratio 0.49, P = 0.03 vs. ibuprofen and naproxen, respectively). In PRECISION-ABPM, allocation to the non-selective NSAID ibuprofen, compared with the COX-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib was associated with a significant increase of SBP, and a higher incidence of new-onset hypertension. gov number NCT00346216

Patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency experience poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We evaluated the impact of intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) vs. placebo on HRQoL for the AFFIRM-AHF population. The baseline 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12), which was completed for 1058 (535 and 523) patients in the FCM and placebo groups, respectively, was administered prior to randomization and at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 52. The baseline KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) mean ± standard error was 38.7 ± 0.9 (FCM group) and 37.1 ± 0.8 (placebo group); corresponding values for the clinical summary score (CSS) were 40.9 ± 0.9 and 40.1 ± 0.9. At Week 2, changes in OSS and CSS were similar for FCM and placebo. From Week 4 to Week 24, patients assigned to FCM had significantly greater improvements in OSS and CSS scores vs. placebo [adjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval, CI) at Week 4: 2.9 (0.5–5.3, P = 0.018) for OSS and 2.8 (0.3–5.3, P = 0.029) for CSS; adjusted mean difference (95% CI) at Week 24: 3.0 (0.3–5.6, P = 0.028) for OSS and 2.9 (0.2–5.6, P = 0.035) for CSS]. At Week 52, the treatment effect had attenuated but remained in favour of FCM. In iron-deficient patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% who had stabilized after an episode of acute HF, treatment with IV FCM, compared with placebo, results in clinically meaningful beneficial effects on HRQoL as early as 4 weeks after treatment initiation, lasting up to Week 24.