3D models are accurate replicas of the cardiovascular anatomy and improve the understanding of complex CHD. 3D models did not change the surgical decision in most of the cases (21 of 40 cases, 52.5% cases). However, in 19 of the 40 selected complex cases, 3D model helped redefining the surgical approach.

Objective

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.

No abstract

AimsIntraventricular conduction defects (IVCDs) can impair prognosis of heart failure (HF), but their specific impact is not well established. This study aimed to analyse the clinical profile and outcomes of HF patients with LBBB, right bundle branch block (RBBB), left anterior fascicular block (LAFB), and no IVCDs.Methods and resultsClinical variables and outcomes after a median follow-up of 21 months were analysed in 1762 patients with chronic HF and LBBB (n = 532), RBBB (n = 134), LAFB (n = 154), and no IVCDs (n = 942). LBBB was associated with more marked LV dilation, depressed LVEF, and mitral valve regurgitation. Patients with RBBB presented overt signs of congestive HF and depressed right ventricular motion. The LAFB group presented intermediate clinical characteristics, and patients with no IVCDs were more often women with less enlarged left ventricles and less depressed LVEF. Death occurred in 332 patients (interannual mortality = 10.8%): cardiovascular in 257, extravascular in 61, and of unknown origin in 14 patients. Cardiac death occurred in 230 (pump failure in 171 and sudden death in 59). An adjusted Cox model showed higher risk of cardiac death and pump failure death in the LBBB and RBBB than in the LAFB and the no IVCD groups.ConclusionLBBB and RBBB are associated with different clinical profiles and both are independent predictors of increased risk of cardiac death in patients with HF. A more favourable prognosis was observed in patients with LAFB and in those free of IVCDs. Further research in HF patients with RBBB is warranted.