Acute heart failure (AHF) is a complex clinical syndrome characterized by the rapid or gradual onset of symptoms and/or signs of heart failure (HF), leading to an unplanned hospital admission or an emergency department visit. AHF is the leading cause of hospitalization in patients over 65 years, thus significantly impacting public health care. However, its prognosis remains poor with high rates of mortality and rehospitalization. Many pre-existing cardiac conditions can lead to AHF, but it can also arise de novo due to acute events. Therefore, understanding AHF etiology could improve patient management and outcomes. Cardiomyopathies (CMPs) are a heterogeneous group of heart muscle diseases, including dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM), non-dilated cardiomyopathy (NDLVC), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), that frequently present with HF. Patients with CMPs are under-represented in AHF studies compared to other etiologies, and therefore therapeutic responses and prognoses remain unknown. In DCM, AHF represents the most frequent cause of death despite treatment improvements. Additionally, DCM is the first indication for heart transplant (HT) among young and middle-aged adults. In HCM, the progression to AHF is rare and more frequent in patients with concomitant severe left ventricle (LV) obstruction and hypertrophy or severe LV systolic dysfunction. HF is the natural evolution of patients with RCM and HF is associated with poor outcomes irrespective of RCM etiology. Furthermore, while the occurrence of AHF is rare among patients with ARVC, this condition in NDLVC patients is currently unknown. In this manuscript, we assessed the available evidence on AHF in patients with CMPs. Data on clinical presentation, therapeutic management, and clinical outcomes according to specific CMPs are limited. Future HF studies assessing the clinical presentation, treatment, and prognosis of specific CMPs are warranted.

The interventional treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) has undergone significant improvements thanks to technological innovations. Nowadays, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is the standard of care for the treatment of CAD. Nevertheless, the non-negligible incidence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and suboptimal results in various anatomical settings has led to the development of drug-coated balloons (DCBs). DCBs are catheter-based balloons whose surface is coated with an anti-proliferative drug (mainly Paclitaxel or Sirolimus) loaded onto the balloon surface with different technologies and dose concentrations. In the beginning, these devices were used for the treatment of ISR showing an excellent efficacy profile in the inhibition of intimal hyperplasia. Subsequently, several studies evaluated their use in other angiographical and clinical contexts such as de novo lesions, small vessel disease, diffuse coronary disease, bifurcation lesions, acute coronary syndromes, high-bleeding risk and diabetic patients. This comprehensive review aims to describe the main DCB platforms on the market, their fields of application with the main supporting studies and their future perspectives.

Background. Lower extremity peripheral artery disease (LEPAD) frequently coexists with coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with multisite vascular disease (MVD). While percutaneous revascularization is well-established for both LEPAD and CAD, limited evidence exists for patients eligible for both procedures. Specifically, the feasibility of concomitant LEPAD and CAD percutaneous revascularization remains unknown. Objectives. To compare the efficacy and safety of concomitant coronary and lower extremity elective percutaneous revascularization. Methods. Between 2012 and 2021, we included 135 patients in an observational, retrospective single-center registry. The population was stratified into two groups: 45 patients (concomitant group) underwent simultaneous coronary and peripheral percutaneous interventions, and 90 patients (deferred group) underwent two separate procedures within one year. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at one year, while the primary safety endpoint was in-hospital contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). Results. Study groups were well-balanced in baseline characteristics. In terms of coronary features, the concomitant revascularization group more often underwent single-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while the deferred group had multivessel PCI with diffuse coronary disease. No differences were detected in the number of LEPAD lesions between groups. For the primary efficacy endpoint, the incidence of MACE at one year was 37.8% in the concomitant group vs. 34.4% in the deferred group (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.64–2.10; p = 0.61). No significant differences were found in CIN occurrence between the concomitant and deferred groups (11.1% vs. 8.9%; OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.36–4.21; p = 0.68). Conclusions. Multisite vascular disease patients eligible for CAD and LEPAD percutaneous revascularization exhibited a high cardiovascular risk profile with diffuse multivessel coronary and lower extremity disease. Our study suggests the efficacy and safety of concomitant coronary and lower extremity percutaneous revascularization based on one-year MACE incidence and in-hospital CIN. However, dedicated studies are warranted to confirm the short- and long-term outcomes of the concomitant revascularization strategy.