Endothelial dysfunction is one of the earliest indicators of cardiovascular (CV) dysfunction, and its evaluation would be of considerable importance to stratify CV risk of many diseases and to assess the efficacy of atheroprotective treatments. Flow-mediated dilation is the most widely used method to study endothelial function. However, it is operator-dependent and can be influenced by physiological variations. Circulating biomarkers are a promising alternative. Due to the complexity of endothelial function, many of the biomarkers studied do not provide consistent information about the endothelium when measured alone. New circulating markers are being explored and some of them are thought to be suitable for the clinical setting. In this review, we focus on novel biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction, particularly endothelial microparticles, endocan, and endoglin, and discuss whether they fulfill the criteria to be applied in clinical practice.

Prediabetes affects at least 1 in 3 adults in the U.S. and 1 in 5 in Europe. Although guidelines advocate aggressive management of lipid parameters in diabetes, most guidelines do not address treatment of dyslipidemia in prediabetes despite the increased atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Several criteria are used to diagnose prediabetes: impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and HbA1c of 5.7-6.4%. Individuals with prediabetes have a greater risk of diabetes, a higher prevalence of dyslipidemia with a more atherogenic lipid profile and an increased risk of ASCVD. In addition to calculating ASCVD risk using traditional methods, an OGTT may further stratify risk. Those with 1-hour plasma glucose ≥8.6 mmol/L (155 mg/dL) and/or 2-hour ≥7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) (IGT) have a greater risk of ASCVD. Diet and lifestyle modification are fundamental in prediabetes. Statins, ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors are recommended in people requiring pharmacotherapy. Although high-intensity statins may increase risk of diabetes, this is acceptable because of the greater reduction of ASCVD. The LDL-C goal in prediabetes should be individualized. In those with IGT and/or elevated 1-hour plasma glucose, the same intensive approach to dyslipidemia as recommended for diabetes should be considered, particularly if other ASCVD risk factors are present.

Aim: To perform a post hoc analysis of the FIGHT trial, evaluating the effect of liraglutide (vs. placebo) on the totality of events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Materials and Methods: FIGHT was a double‐blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) that studied liraglutide versus placebo in 300 recently hospitalized patients with HFrEF followed for 180 days. The main outcome of the present analysis was total events of hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) or all‐cause death. Secondary outcomes included total arrhythmic events and prespecified total events of interest (arrhythmias, sudden cardiac death, acute coronary syndrome, worsening HF, cerebrovascular event, venous thromboembolism, lightheadedness, presyncope/syncope or worsening renal function). Treatment effect was evaluated with negative binomial regression. Results: Compared to placebo, there was a trend towards increased risk with liraglutide of total HF hospitalizations or all‐cause deaths (96 vs. 143 events, incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98‐2.04; P = 0.064) and total arrhythmias (21 vs. 39, IRR 1.76, 95% CI 0.92‐3.37; P = 0.088). Total prespecified events of interest were increased with liraglutide compared to placebo (196 vs. 295, IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06‐1.92; P = 0.018). The risk of HF hospitalizations or all‐cause deaths with liraglutide was higher among patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III to IV (IRR 1.86, 95% CI 1.21‐2.85) than in those in NYHA Class I to II (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31‐1.23; interaction P = 0.008), and among patients with diabetes (interaction P = 0.051). The risk of arrhythmic events was higher among those without an implanted cardiac device (interaction P = 0.047). Conclusions: In patients with HFrEF, liraglutide might increase the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects, an effect possibly driven by excess risk of arrhythmias and worsening HF events. As this was a post hoc analysis, these results should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis‐generating. Further RCTs must be conducted before drawing definitive conclusions.

Thyroid hormones have a central role in cardiovascular homeostasis. In myocardium, these hormones stimulate both diastolic myocardial relaxation and systolic myocardial contraction, have a pro-angiogenic effect and an important role in extracellular matrix maintenance. Thyroid hormones modulate cardiac mitochondrial function. Dysfunction of thyroid axis impairs myocardial bioenergetic status. Both overt and subclinical hypothyroidism are associated with a higher incidence of coronary events and an increased risk of heart failure progression. Endothelial function is also impaired in hypothyroid state, with decreased nitric oxide-mediated vascular relaxation. In heart disease, particularly in ischemic heart disease, abnormalities in thyroid hormone levels are common and are an important factor to be considered. In fact, low thyroid hormone levels should be interpreted as a cardiovascular risk factor. Regarding ischemic heart disease, during the late post-myocardial infarction period, thyroid hormones modulate left ventricular structure, function and geometry. Dysfunction of thyroid axis might even be more prevalent in the referred condition since there is an upregulation of type 3 deiodinase in myocardium, producing a state of local cardiac hypothyroidism. In this focused review, we summarize the central pathophysiological and clinical links between altered thyroid function and ischemic heart disease. Finally, we highlight the potential benefits of thyroid hormone supplementation as a therapeutic target in ischemic heart disease.