Improvements in early interventions after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), notably, the increased use of timely reperfusion therapy, have increased survival dramatically in recent decades. Despite this, maladaptive ventricular remodelling and subsequent heart failure (HF) following AMI remain a significant clinical challenge, particularly because several pre-clinical strategies to attenuate remodelling have failed to translate into clinical practice. Monocytes and macrophages, pleiotropic cells of the innate immune system, are integral in both the initial inflammatory response to injury and subsequent wound healing in many tissues, including the heart. However, maladaptive immune cell behaviour contributes to ventricular remodelling in mouse models, prompting experimental efforts to modulate the immune response to prevent the development of HF. Seminal work in macrophage biology defined macrophages as monocyte-derived cells that are comprised of two populations, pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages and reparative M2 macrophages, and initial investigations into cardiac macrophage populations following AMI suggested they aligned well to this model. However, more recent data, in the heart and other tissues, demonstrate remarkable heterogeneity and plasticity in macrophage development, phenotype, and function. These recent insights into macrophage biology may explain the failure of non-specific immunosuppressive strategies and offer novel opportunities for therapeutic targeting to prevent HF following AMI. Here, we summarize the traditional monocyte-macrophage paradigm, experimental evidence for the significance of these cells in HF after AMI, and the potential relevance of emerging evidence that refutes canonical models of monocyte and macrophage biology.

Background: Acute myocarditis (AM) is thought to be a rare cardiovascular complication of COVID-19, although minimal data are available beyond case reports. We aim to report the prevalence, baseline characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes for patients with COVID-19–associated AM on the basis of a retrospective cohort from 23 hospitals in the United States and Europe. Methods: A total of 112 patients with suspected AM from 56 963 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were evaluated between February 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021. Inclusion criteria were hospitalization for COVID-19 and a diagnosis of AM on the basis of endomyocardial biopsy or increased troponin level plus typical signs of AM on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. We identified 97 patients with possible AM, and among them, 54 patients with definite/probable AM supported by endomyocardial biopsy in 17 (31.5%) patients or magnetic resonance imaging in 50 (92.6%). We analyzed patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes among all COVID-19–associated AM. Results: AM prevalence among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was 2.4 per 1000 hospitalizations considering definite/probable and 4.1 per 1000 considering also possible AM. The median age of definite/probable cases was 38 years, and 38.9% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively). Thirty-one cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. Twenty-one (38.9%) had a fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support. The composite of in-hospital mortality or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 20.4%. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%, 15.1% in patients with associated pneumonia versus 0% in patients without pneumonia ( P =0.044). During hospitalization, left ventricular ejection fraction, assessed by echocardiography, improved from a median of 40% on admission to 55% at discharge (n=47; P <0.0001) similarly in patients with or without pneumonia. Corticosteroids were frequently administered (55.5%). Conclusions: AM occurrence is estimated between 2.4 and 4.1 out of 1000 patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The majority of AM occurs in the absence of pneumonia and is often complicated by hemodynamic instability. AM is a rare complication in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with an outcome that differs on the basis of the presence of concomitant pneumonia.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) increase mortality risk from coronavirus infection (COVID-19). There are also concerns that the pandemic has affected supply and demand of acute cardiovascular care. We estimated excess mortality in specific CVDs, both ‘direct’, through infection, and ‘indirect’, through changes in healthcare. We used (i) national mortality data for England and Wales to investigate trends in non-COVID-19 and CVD excess deaths; (ii) routine data from hospitals in England (n = 2), Italy (n = 1), and China (n = 5) to assess indirect pandemic effects on referral, diagnosis, and treatment services for CVD; and (iii) population-based electronic health records from 3 862 012 individuals in England to investigate pre- and post-COVID-19 mortality for people with incident and prevalent CVD. We incorporated pre-COVID-19 risk (by age, sex, and comorbidities), estimated population COVID-19 prevalence, and estimated relative risk (RR) of mortality in those with CVD and COVID-19 compared with CVD and non-infected (RR: 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0). Mortality data suggest indirect effects on CVD will be delayed rather than contemporaneous (peak RR 1.14). CVD service activity decreased by 60–100% compared with pre-pandemic levels in eight hospitals across China, Italy, and England. In China, activity remained below pre-COVID-19 levels for 2–3 months even after easing lockdown and is still reduced in Italy and England. For total CVD (incident and prevalent), at 10% COVID-19 prevalence, we estimated direct impact of 31 205 and 62 410 excess deaths in England (RR 1.5 and 2.0, respectively), and indirect effect of 49 932 to 99 865 deaths. Supply and demand for CVD services have dramatically reduced across countries with potential for substantial, but avoidable, excess mortality during and after the pandemic.

Alleviating myocardial injury associated with ST elevation myocardial infarction is central to improving the global burden of coronary heart disease. The chemokine stromal cell-derived factor 1α (SDF-1α) has dual potential benefit in this regard. Firstly, SDF-1α is up-regulated in experimental and clinical studies of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and regulates stem cell migration to sites of injury. SDF-1α delivery to the myocardium after AMI is associated with improved stem cell homing, angiogenesis, and left ventricular function in animal models, and improvements in heart failure and quality of life in humans. Secondly, SDF-1α may have a role in remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC), the phenomenon whereby non-lethal ischaemia-reperfusion applied to an organ or tissue remote from the heart protects the myocardium from lethal ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI). SDF-1α is increased in the serum of rats subjected to RIC and protects against myocardial IRI in ex vivo studies. Despite these potential pleiotropic effects, a limitation of SDF-1α is its short plasma half-life due to cleavage by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4). However, DPP-4 inhibitors increase the half-life of SDF-1α by preventing its degradation and are also protective against lethal IRI. In summary, SDF-1 potentially delivers a 'two-pronged' defence of the myocardium: acutely protecting it from IRI while simultaneously stimulating repair by recruiting stem cells to the site of injury. In this article we examine the evidence for acute and chronic cardioprotective roles of SDF-1α and discuss potential therapeutic manipulations of this mechanism with DPP-4 inhibitors to protect against lethal tissue injury in the clinical setting.

Background: Beta-blockers are widely used for many cardiovascular conditions; however, their efficacy in contemporary clinical practice remains uncertain. Methods: We performed a prospectively designed, umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the evidence of beta-blockers in the contemporary management of coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), patients undergoing surgery or hypertension (registration: PROSPERO CRD42016038375). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception until December 2018. Outcomes were analysed as beta-blockers versus control for all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), incident HF or stroke. Two independent investigators abstracted the data, assessed the quality of the evidence and rated the certainty of evidence. Results: We identified 98 meta-analyses, including 284 unique RCTs and 1,617,523 patient-years of follow-up. In CAD, 12 meta-analyses (93 RCTs, 103,481 patients) showed that beta-blockers reduced mortality in analyses before routine reperfusion, but there was a lack of benefit in contemporary studies where ≥ 50% of patients received thrombolytics or intervention. Beta-blockers reduced incident MI at the expense of increased HF. In HF with reduced ejection fraction, 34 meta-analyses (66 RCTs, 35,383 patients) demonstrated a reduction in mortality and HF hospitalisation with beta-blockers in sinus rhythm, but not in atrial fibrillation. In patients undergoing surgery, 23 meta-analyses (89 RCTs, 19,211 patients) showed no effect of beta-blockers on mortality for cardiac surgery, but increased mortality in non-cardiac surgery. In non-cardiac surgery, beta-blockers reduced MI after surgery but increased the risk of stroke. In hypertension, 27 meta-analyses (36 RCTs, 260,549 patients) identified no benefit versus placebo, but beta-blockers were inferior to other agents for preventing mortality and stroke. Conclusions: Beta-blockers substantially reduce mortality in HF patients in sinus rhythm, but for other conditions, clinicians need to weigh up both benefit and potential risk.

Due to its poor capacity for regeneration, the heart is particularly sensitive to the loss of contractile cardiomyocytes. The onslaught of damage caused by ischaemia and reperfusion, occurring during an acute myocardial infarction and the subsequent reperfusion therapy, can wipe out upwards of a billion cardiomyocytes. A similar program of cell death can cause the irreversible loss of neurons in ischaemic stroke. Similar pathways of lethal cell injury can contribute to other pathologies such as left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure caused by cancer therapy. Consequently, strategies designed to protect the heart from lethal cell injury have the potential to be applicable across all three pathologies. The investigators meeting at the 10th Hatter Cardiovascular Institute workshop examined the parallels between ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), ischaemic stroke, and other pathologies that cause the loss of cardiomyocytes including cancer therapeutic cardiotoxicity. They examined the prospects for protection by remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) in each scenario, and evaluated impasses and novel opportunities for cellular protection, with the future landscape for RIC in the clinical setting to be determined by the outcome of the large ERIC-PPCI/CONDI2 study. It was agreed that the way forward must include measures to improve experimental methodologies, such that they better reflect the clinical scenario and to judiciously select combinations of therapies targeting specific pathways of cellular death and injury.