One in 10 persons in the world aged 40 years and older will develop the syndrome of HFpEF (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction), the most common form of chronic cardiovascular disease for which no effective therapies are currently available. Metabolic disturbance and inflammatory burden contribute importantly to HFpEF pathogenesis. The interplay within these two biological processes is complex; indeed, it is now becoming clear that the notion of metabolic inflammation—metainflammation—must be considered central to HFpEF pathophysiology. Inflammation and metabolism interact over the course of syndrome progression, and likely impact HFpEF treatment and prevention. Here, we discuss evidence in support of a causal, mechanistic role of metainflammation in shaping HFpEF, proposing a framework in which metabolic comorbidities profoundly impact cardiac metabolism and inflammatory pathways in the syndrome.

Aims: To assess the association between combination, dose and use of current guideline‐recommended target doses (TD) of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi), angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi) and β‐blockers, and outcomes in a large and unselected contemporary cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. Methods and results: Overall, 17 809 outpatients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) from May 2000 to December 2018, with ejection fraction <40% and duration of HF ≥90 days were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of time to cardiovascular death and first HF hospitalization. Compared with no use of RASi or ARNi, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.76–0.91) with <50% of TD, 0.78 (0.71–0.86) with 50%–99%, and 0.73 (0.67–0.80) with ≥100% of TD. Compared with no use of β‐blockers, the adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.86 (0.76–0.91), 0.81 (0.74–0.89) and 0.74 (0.68–0.82) with <50%, 50%–99% and ≥100% of TD, respectively. Patients receiving both an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNi and a β‐blocker at 50%–99% of TD had a lower adjusted risk of the primary outcome compared with patients only receiving one drug, i.e. ACEi/ARB/ARNi or β‐blocker, even if this was at ≥100% of TD. Conclusion: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients using higher doses of RASi or ARNi and β‐blockers had lower risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Use of two drug classes at 50%–99% of TD dose was associated with lower risk than one drug class at 100% of TD.

Background: Guidelines recommend using multiple drugs in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, but there is a paucity of real‐world data on the simultaneous initiation of the 4 pharmacological pillars at discharge after a decompensation event. Methods and Results: A retrospective data mart, including patients diagnosed with HF, was implemented. Consecutively admitted patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were selected through an automated approach and categorized according to the number/type of treatments prescribed at discharge. The prevalence of contraindications and cautions for HF with reduced ejection fraction treatments was systematically assessed. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess predictors of the number of treatments (≥2 versus <2 drugs) prescribed and the risk of rehospitalization. A population of 305 patients with a first episode of HF hospitalization and a diagnosis of HF with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction, <40%) was selected. At discharge, 49.2% received 2 current recommended drugs, β‐blockers were prescribed in 93.4%, while a renin‐angiotensin system inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor was prescribed in 68.2%. A mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was prescribed in 32.5%, although none of the patients showed contraindications to mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist prescription. A sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor could be prescribed in 71.1% of patients. On the basis of current recommendations, 46.2% could receive the 4 foundational drugs at discharge. Renal dysfunction was associated with <2 foundational drugs prescribed. After adjusting for age and renal function, use of ≥2 drugs was associated with lower risk of rehospitalization during the 30 days after discharge. Conclusions: A quadruple therapy could be directly implementable at discharge, potentially providing prognostic advantages. Renal dysfunction was the main prevalent condition limiting this approach.

Introduction: Depression is a common and severe comorbidity among individuals with heart failure (HF). Up to a third of all HF patients are depressed, and an even higher proportion have symptoms of depression. Aim: In this review, we evaluate the relationship between HF and depression, explain the pathophysiology and epidemiology of both diseases and their relationship, and highlight novel diagnostic and therapeutic options for HF patients with depression. Materials and Methods: This narrative review involved keyword searches of PubMed and Web of Science. Review search terms included [“Depression” OR “Depres*” OR “major depr*”] AND [“Heart Failure” OR “HF” OR “HFrEF” OR “HFmrEF” OR “HFpEF” OR “HFimpEF”] in all fields. Studies included in the review met the following criteria: (A) published in a peer-reviewed journal; (B) described the impact of depression on HF and vice versa; and (C) were opinion papers, guidelines, case studies, descriptive studies, randomized control trials, prospective studies, retrospective studies, narrative reviews, and systematic reviews. Results: Depression is an emergent HF risk factor and strongly relates with worse clinical outcomes. HF and depression share multiple pathways, including platelet dis-reactivity, neuroendocrine malfunction, inappropriate inflammation, tachi-arrhythmias, and frailty in the social and community setting. Existing HF guidelines urge evaluation of depression in all HF patients, and numerous screening tools are available. Depression is ultimately diagnosed based on DSM-5 criteria. There are both non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical treatments for depression. Regarding depressed symptoms, non-pharmaceutical treatments, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and physical exercise, have shown therapeutic results, under medical supervision and with an effort level adapted to the patient’s physical resources, together with optimal HF treatment. In randomized clinical studies, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the backbone of antidepressant treatment, did not demonstrate advantage over the placebo in patients with HF. New antidepressant medications are currently being studied and could provide a chance to enhance management, treatment, and control of depression in patients with HF. Conclusions: Despite the substantial link between depression and HF, their combination is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Considering the hopeful yet unclear findings of antidepressant trials, further research is required to identify people who may benefit from antidepressant medication. The goal of future research should be a complete approach to the care of these patients, who are anticipated to become a significant medical burden in the future.

The incidence and clinical presentation of ischemic heart disease (IHD), as well as thrombotic and bleeding risks, appear to differ between genders. Compared with men, women feature an increased thrombotic risk, probably related to an increased platelet reactivity, higher level of coagulation factors, and sex-associated unique cardiovascular risk factors, such as pregnancy-related (i.e., pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes), gynecological disorders (i.e., polycystic ovary syndrome, early menopause) and autoimmune or systemic inflammatory diseases. At the same time, women are also at increased risk of bleeding, due to inappropriate dosing of antithrombotic agents, smaller blood vessels, lower body weight and comorbidities, such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Pharmacological strategies focused on the personalization of antithrombotic treatment may, therefore, be particularly appealing in women in light of their higher bleeding and ischemic risks. Paradoxically, although women represent a large proportion of cardiovascular patients in our practice, adequate high-quality clinical trial data on women remain scarce and inadequate to guide decision-making processes. As a result, IHD in women tends to be understudied, underdiagnosed and undertreated, a phenomenon known as a “Yentl syndrome.” It is, therefore, compelling for the scientific community to embark on dedicated clinical trials to address underrepresentation of women and to acquire evidence-based knowledge in the personalization of antithrombotic therapy in women.