Heart Failure (HF) is a prevalent condition which places a substantial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Medical management implemented with exercise training (ET) plays a role in prognostic and functional capacity improvement. The aim of this review is to determine the effect of exercise training (ET) on HFpEF and HFrEF patients as well as exercise modality recommendations in frail and sarcopenic subpopulations. Pharmacological therapy structures the cornerstone of management in HF reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and aids improved survival rates. Mortality reduction with pharmacological treatments in HF preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are yet to be established. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and ET can play an important role in both HFrEF and HFpEF. Preliminary findings suggest that CR significantly improves functional capacity, exercise duration, and quality of life. ET has shown beneficial effects on peak oxygen consumption (pVO₂) and 6 min walk test distance in HFrEF and HFpEF patients, as well as a reduction in hospitalisation and mortality rates; however, the limited scope of larger trials reporting on this underscores the need for further research. ET also has been shown to have beneficial effects on depression and anxiety levels. High-intensity training (HIT) and moderate continuous training (MCT) have both shown benefits, while resistance exercise training and ventilatory assistance may also be beneficial. ET adherence rates are higher when enrolled to a supervised programme, but prescription rates remain low worldwide. Larger robust trials are required to determine ET’s effects on HF, as well as the most efficacious and personalised exercise prescriptions in HF subtypes.

Successful pancreas or islet transplantation is currently the only cure for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Since the first pancreas transplant in 1966, there have been various refinements of surgical technique along with improved immunosuppressive regimens, resulting in significantly improved outcomes, with contemporary research into graft monitoring and newer biomarkers, potentially lengthening graft survival rates further. Patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus who are eligible for pancreas or islet transplantation represent a select group, the tip of the iceberg for a significant global diabetes disease burden. In the last 50 years, there have been quantum advances in alternative technologies in diabetes therapy, both experimental and translational. Further development and improved access are required to treat the larger proportion of people suffering from diabetes. Emerging stem cell therapy is still experimental whereas alternatives including automated insulin delivery systems and islet cell transplantation are already used in some countries. Whilst automated insulin delivery systems have increased in efficacy, they still do not achieve the near physiological control of blood sugar, which can be achieved by successful pancreas or islet transplantation. This state-of-the-art review provides a summary of pancreas and islet transplantation to its current place in diabetes therapy, along with alternative and future therapies, including the obstacles associated with the dissemination of these new therapies. With the advent of these modern cellular and technological advances, this review addresses the question: are we entering an era where whole organ pancreas transplantation could be replaced entirely by modern technological advances in diabetes therapy?

Recent randomised trials have shown that clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate to low risk. Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) outcomes in these patient groups remain uncertain. A systematic search of the literature was conducted that included nine trials and 11,295 patients. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a heart-failure-specific measure and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) (a generic health status tool) changes were the primary outcomes. New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification was the secondary outcome. Improvement in KCCQ scores was greater with TAVI (mean difference (MD)=13.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.67–15.46, p<0.001) at 1 month, as was the improvement in EQ-5D (MD=0.07, 95% CI 0.05–0.08, p<0.001). There was no difference in KCCQ (MD=1.05, 95% CI −0.11 to 2.21, p=0.08) or EQ-5D (MD=–0.01, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.01), p=0.37) at 12 months. NYHA functional class 3/4 was lower in patients undergoing TAVI at 1 month (MD=0.51, 95% CI 0.34–0.78, p=0.002), but there was no difference at 12 months (MD=1.10; 95% CI 0.87–1.38, p=0.43). Overall, TAVI offers early benefit in HRQoL outcomes compared with SAVR, but they are equivalent at 12 months.

Patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency are at increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes. We searched databases for randomised controlled trials that compared IV iron to placebo, in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A total of 7,813 participants, all having HFrEF with 3,998 receiving IV iron therapy, and 3,815 control recipients were included. There was a significant improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire favouring IV iron with MD 7.39, 95% CI [3.55, 11.22], p = 0.0002. Subgroup analysis, based on acute and chronic HF, has displayed a sustained statistical significance. Additionally, a significant increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction % was observed, with MD 3.76, 95% CI [2.32, 5.21], p < 0.00001. A significant improvement in 6-min walk test was noted, with MD 34.87, 95% CI [20.02, 49.72], p < 0.00001. Furthermore, IV iron showed significant improvement in NYHA class, peak VO₂, serum ferritin, and haemoglobin levels. Finally, despite the lack of difference in terms of all-cause hospitalisation and HF-related death, IV iron was associated with a significant reduction in HF-related, any cardiovascular reason hospitalisations, and all-cause death; which supports the need for implementation of IV iron as a standard of care in patients with HF and iron deficiency.

Acute MI (AMI) is a leading cause of mortality globally. Swift diagnosis is imperative, with timely reperfusion crucial to minimise adverse outcomes. Revascularisation strategies include culprit-vessel-only therapy, staged complete revascularisation or immediate complete revascularisation. Evidence from randomised trials strongly favours complete revascularisation in ST-elevation MI (STEMI). Data regarding immediate complete revascularisation compared to a staged approach are limited, with uncertainties regarding the advantages of physiology-guided treatment compared to angiographic assessment alone. Non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients with multivessel disease are often complex and current guidelines offer limited recommendations for this patient group, emphasising the need for individualised treatment. Observational studies have sought to find the optimal approach, yet conflicting data prevails. Dedicated trials for this issue in NSTEMI patients are currently unavailable. To enhance the decision-making processes for patients with AMI, future trials should consider the inclusion of functional health status and health-related quality of life outcomes. The existing gaps in knowledge underscore the intricacies of managing AMI and the ongoing necessity for comprehensive research to refine treatment strategies.