The role of antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes is a moving target with considerable novelty in the last few years. The pathophysiological basis of the treatment depends on platelet biology and physiology, and the interplay between these aspects and clinical practice must guide the physician in determining the best therapeutic options for patients with acute coronary syndromes. In the present narrative review, we discuss the latest novelties in the antiplatelet therapy of patients with acute coronary syndromes. We start with a description of platelet biology and the role of the main platelet signal pathways involved in platelet aggregation during an acute coronary syndrome. Then, we present the latest evidence on the evaluation of platelet function, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of each platelet’s function test. We continue our review by describing the role of aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, critically appraising the available evidence from clinical trials, and providing current international guidelines and recommendations. Finally, we describe alternative therapeutic regimens to standard dual antiplatelet therapy, in particular for patients at high bleeding risk. The aim of our review is to give a comprehensive representation of current data on antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes that could be useful both for clinicians and basic science researchers to be up-to-date on this complex topic.

Background and Objectives: Percutaneous left-atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion is an important therapeutic option for preventing cardioembolic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) at high risk of thromboembolic events and with contraindications for oral anticoagulation (OAC). It is usually performed with transesophageal echocardiography (TOE) guidance under general anesthesia (GA). In this retrospective study, we present a multicenter experience of LAA occlusion performed with conscious sedation (CS) without an anesthesiologist on site. Materials and Methods: All the patients on the waiting list for LAA occlusion procedure at Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, and San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital, Orbassano, from October 2018 to October 2022 were analyzed. All the procedures were performed with a Watchman/FLX LAA closure device under TOE and fluoroscopic guidance without an anesthesiologist on site. CS was performed with a combination of midazolam and fentanyl as needed. Results: One-hundred fifteen patients were included (age 76.4 ± 7.6 years, median CHA2DS2Vasc 4.4 ± 1.4). CS was performed using midazolam (mean dose 5.9 ± 2.1 mg), adding fentanyl for thirty-nine (33.9%) patients in case of poor tolerance for the procedure despite midazolam. The acute procedural success rate was 99.1%. We observed seven acute severe complications. No patients needed anesthesiological assistance during the procedure, and no cases of respiratory failure necessitating ventilation were reported. In a follow-up after 10 ± 9 months, one case of stroke (0.9%) and one case (0.9%) of transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred. Conclusions: LAA occlusion performed under CS and without the presence of an anesthesiologist on site appears to be safe and effective. It can be an attractive alternative to general anesthesia (GA), as fewer resources are required.

Despite the wealth of evidence in favour of SGLT2 inhibitor use in patients with chronic heart failure, their role in the very early stages of heart failure is still unclear. While the latest update of the European Society of Cardiology guidelines on heart failure advocates the use SGLT2 inhibitors in the acute phases of heart failure based on the results of the latest trials, it does not clarify the appropriate timing to start this therapy, leaving the clinician to decide whether SGLT2 inhibitors should be started directly during hospitalization or at discharge. Conversely, the recently published focused update of the American College of Cardiology expert consensus decision pathway on the clinical assessment, management, and trajectory of patients hospitalized with heart failure clearly supports the safety and early clinical benefit use of SGLT2 inhibitors based on evidence coming from the EMPULSE and SOLOIST-WHF trials. The expert consensus decision pathway states that SGLT2 inhibitors can be initiated regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction at any time during hospitalization and places a greater emphasis on implementing the other pillars of therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after stabilization. Moreover, the results of the very recent DAPA ACT HF–TIMI 68 trial on dapagliflozin in patients with acute heart failure, although limited by a follow-up of only 2 months, did not show a reduction in mortality or heart failure hospitalizations. Based on the currently available published data, we will review what is already known about the use of these drugs in the early phases of acute heart failure and analyze their pathophysiological rationale from a practical perspective.

Heart failure is a progressive disease, representing a growing cause of morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality. An increasingly common type of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an immunoglobulin light chain and transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis, in the pathophysiology of which oxidative damage appears to exert a strong impact. Reactive oxygen and nitrogen species have physiological signaling functions, but their overaccumulation, as in cardiac amyloidosis, leads to cardiomyocyte damage and apoptosis, and to cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis. Moreover, such pathological processes worsen the redox damage with the perpetuation of an inflammatory state, in a vicious cycle. Here, the role of oxidative damage in the transthyretin and immunoglobulin light chain cardiac amyloidosis, the underlying pathogenic mechanisms, the therapeutic implications, and possible future strategies are reviewed.

Cardiomyopathies have evolved from being considered rare and idiopathic to being increasingly linked to genetic factors. This shift was enabled by advancements in understanding genetic variants and the widespread use of next generation sequencing (NGS). Current guidelines emphasize the importance of evidence-based gene panels that can offer “clinically actionable results”, which provide diagnostic and prognostic insights. They also advise against indiscriminate family screening after finding variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and recommend collaboration among multidisciplinary teams for an accurate variant pathogenicity assessment. This article presents an innovative “cardiogenetic clinic” approach involving cardiologists and medical geneticists to provide genetic testing and family screening. This study attempts to improve the diagnostic process for suspected genetic cardiomyopathies; this includes direct patient recruitment during cardiology appointments, NGS analysis, and combined consultations with cardiologists and geneticists to assess the results and screen the families. The study cohort of 170 patients underwent genetic testing, which identified 78 gene variants. Positive results (C4 or C5 variants) occurred in 20 (19.8%) cases, with rates varying by cardiomyopathy phenotype, while 57 (73.1%) of the variants found were classified as C3-VUS, causing a significant management issue. This model shortened the time to results, increased patient adherence, and improved patients’ diagnoses. Family screening was pondered depending on the relevance of the detected variants, showing this method’s potential to impact patient management.