Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents the most common HF phenotype of patients aged > 65 years, with an incidence and a prevalence that are constantly growing. The HFpEF cardinal symptom is exercise intolerance (EI), defined as the impaired ability to perform physical activity and to reach the predicted age-related level of exercise duration in the absence of symptoms—such as fatigue or dyspnea—and is associated with a poor quality of life, a higher number of hospitalizations, and poor outcomes. The evidence of the protective effect between exercise and adverse cardiovascular outcomes is numerous and long-established. Regular exercise is known to reduce cardiovascular events and overall mortality both in apparently healthy individuals and in patients with established cardiovascular disease, representing a cornerstone in the prevention and treatment of many cardio-metabolic conditions. Several studies have investigated the role of exercise in HFpEF patients. The present review aims to dwell upon the effects of exercise on HFpEF. For this purpose, the relevant data from a literature search (PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) were reviewed. The analysis of these studies underlines the fact that exercise training programs improve the cardiorespiratory performance of HFpEF patients in terms of the increase in peak oxygen uptake, the 6 min walk test distance, and the ventilatory threshold; on the other hand, diastolic or systolic functions are generally unchanged or only partially modified by exercise, suggesting that multiple mechanisms contribute to the improvement of exercise tolerance in HFpEF patients. In conclusion, considering that exercise training programs are able to improve the cardiorespiratory performance of HFpEF patients, the prescription of exercise training programs should be encouraged in stable HFpEF patients, and further research is needed to better elucidate the pathophysiological mechanisms underpinning the beneficial effects described.

Acute heart failure (AHF) is the most frequent cause of unplanned hospital admission in patients of >65 years of age and it is associated with significantly increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Different AHF classification criteria have been proposed, mainly reflecting the clinical heterogeneity of the syndrome. Regardless of the underlying mechanism, peripheral and/or pulmonary congestion is present in the vast majority of cases. Furthermore, a marked reduction in cardiac output with peripheral hypoperfusion may occur in most severe cases. Diagnosis is made on the basis of signs and symptoms, laboratory, and non-invasive tests. After exclusion of reversible causes, AHF therapeutic interventions mainly consist of intravenous (IV) diuretics and/or vasodilators, tailored according to the initial hemodynamic status with the addition of inotropes/vasopressors and mechanical circulatory support if needed. The aim of this review is to discuss current concepts on the diagnosis and management of AHF in order to guide daily clinical practice and to underline the unmet needs. Preventive strategies are also discussed.

Cardiovascular (CV) diseases (CVD) are a major cause of long-term morbidity and mortality affecting life expectancy amongst cancer survivors. In recent years, because of the possibility of early diagnosis and the increased efficacy of neo-adjuvant and adjuvant systemic treatments (targeting specific molecular pathways), the high percentage of survival from breast cancer led CVD to become the first cause of death among survivors. Therefore, it is mandatory to adopt cardioprotective strategies to minimize CV side effects and CVD in general in breast cancer patients. Cancer therapeutics-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a common group of side effects of chemotherapeutics widely employed in breast cancer (e.g., anthracycline and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 inhibitors). The aim of the present manuscript is to propose a pragmatic multidisciplinary stepwise approach for prevention, early detection, and treatment of cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer.

Background: The normal limits of left ventricular (LV) hemodynamic forces (HDFs) are not exactly known. The aim of this study was to explore the full spectrum of HDF parameters in healthy subjects and determine their physiologic correlates. Methods: 269 healthy subjects were enrolled (mean age: 43 ± 14 years; 123 (45.7%) men). All participants underwent an echo-Doppler examination. Tri-plane tissue tracking from apical views was used to measure 2D global endocardial longitudinal strain (GLS), circumferential strain (GCS), and LV HDFs. HDFs were normalized with LV volume and divided by specific weight. Results: LV systolic longitudinal HDFs (%) were higher in men (20.8 ± 6.5 vs. 18.9 ± 5.6, p = 0.009; 22.0 ± 6.7 vs. 19.8 ± 5.6, p = 0.004, respectively). There was a significant correlation between GCS (increased) (r = −0.240, p < 0.001) and LV longitudinal HDFs (reduced) (r = −0.155, p = 0.01) with age. In a multivariable analysis age, BSA, pulse pressure, heart rate and GCS were the only independent variables associated with LV HDFs (β coefficient = −0.232, p < 0.001; 0.149, p = 0.003; 0.186, p < 0.001; 0.396, p < 0.001; −0.328, p < 0.001; respectively). Conclusion: We report on the physiologic range of LV HDFs. Knowledge of reference values of HDFs may prompt their implementation into clinical routine and allow a more comprehensive assessment of the LV function.

Major adverse cardiac events, defined as death or myocardial infarction, are common causes of perioperative mortality and major morbidity in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Reduction of perioperative cardiovascular risk in relation to non-cardiac surgery requires a stepwise patient evaluation that integrates clinical risk factors, functional status and the estimated stress of the planned surgical procedure. Major guidelines on preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment recommend to establish, firstly, the risk of surgery per se (low, moderate, high) and the related timing (elective vs. urgent/emergent), evaluate the presence of unstable cardiac conditions or a recent coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting), assess the functional capacity of the patient (usually expressed in metabolic equivalents), determine the value of non-invasive and/or invasive cardiovascular testing and then combine these data in estimating perioperative risk for major cardiac adverse events using validated scores (Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) or National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)). This stepwise approach has the potential to guide clinicians in determining which patients could benefit from cardiovascular therapy and/or coronary artery revascularization before non-cardiac surgery towards decreasing the incidence of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Finally, it should be highlighted that there is a need to implement specific strategies in the 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic to minimize the risk of transmission of COVID-19 infection during the preoperative risk assessment process.

Early detection and treatment of cancer have led to a noticeable reduction in both mortality and morbidity. However, chemotherapy and radiotherapy could exert cardiovascular (CV) side effects, impacting survival and quality of life, independent of the oncologic prognosis. In this regard, a high clinical index of suspicion is required by the multidisciplinary care team in order to trigger specific laboratory tests (namely natriuretic peptides and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin) and appropriate imaging techniques (transthoracic echocardiography along with cardiac magnetic resonance, cardiac computed tomography, and nuclear testing (if clinically indicated)), leading to timely diagnosis. In the near future, we do expect a more tailored approach to patient care within the respective community along with the widespread implementation of digital health tools.