on behalf of the GISSI-HF InvestigatorsBackground-Increased urinary excretion of albumin is an early sign of kidney damage and a risk factor for progressive cardiovascular and renal diseases and heart failure. There is, however, only limited information on the prevalence and prognostic role of urinary albumin excretion in patients with established chronic heart failure. Methods and Results-A total of 2131 patients enrolled in 76 sites participating in the GISSI-Heart Failure trial provided a first morning spot sample of urine at any of the clinical visits scheduled in the trial to calculate the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio. The relation between log-transformed urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio and all-cause mortality (428 deaths, time from urine collection to event or censoring) was evaluated with Cox multivariable models adjusted for all significant risk factors at the time of urine collection, in the study population, and in patients without diabetes or hypertension. Almost 75% of the patients had normal urinary albumin excretion, but 19.9% had microalbuminuria (30 to 299 mg/g creatinine) and 5.4% had overt albuminuria (Ն300 mg/g). There was a progressive, significant increase in the adjusted rate of mortality in the study population (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.18 per 1-U increase of log(urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio), Pϭ0.0002) and in the subgroup of patients without diabetes or hypertension. Randomized treatments (n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids or rosuvastatin) had no major impact on albumin excretion. Conclusions-Independently of diabetes, hypertension, or renal function, elevated albumin excretion is a powerful prognostic marker in patients with chronic heart failure. (Circ Heart Fail. 2010;3:65-72.)

BackgroundThe independent prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) and prediabetes mellitus (pre‐DM) on survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure has been investigated in observational registries and randomized, clinical trials, but the results have been often inconclusive or conflicting. We examined the independent prognostic impact of DM and pre‐DM on survival outcomes in the GISSI‐HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nella Insufficienza Cardiaca‐Heart Failure) trial.Methods and ResultsWe assessed the risk of all‐cause death and the composite of all‐cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization over a median follow‐up period of 3.9 years among the 6935 chronic heart failure participants of the GISSI‐HF trial, who were stratified by presence of DM (n=2852), pre‐DM (n=2013), and non‐DM (n=2070) at baseline. Compared with non‐DM patients, those with DM had remarkably higher incidence rates of all‐cause death (34.5% versus 24.6%) and the composite end point (63.6% versus 54.7%). Conversely, both event rates were similar between non‐DM patients and those with pre‐DM. Cox regression analysis showed that DM, but not pre‐DM, was associated with an increased risk of all‐cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28–1.60) and of the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13–1.32), independently of established risk factors. In the DM subgroup, higher hemoglobin A1c was also independently associated with increased risk of both study outcomes (all‐cause death: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02–1.43; and composite end point: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29, respectively).ConclusionsPresence of DM was independently associated with poor long‐term survival outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00336336.

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.

Effective treatment of peripheral vascular disorders is important not only for resolution of local symptoms but also for preventing the development of systemic conditions such as deep vein thrombosis. Topical heparins are widely used in Europe for the prevention and treatment of local symptoms associated with peripheral vascular disorders. This comprehensive review of the literature evaluated the efficacy and safety of topically applied heparins for the treatment of vascular disorders. A total of 1055 patients participated in a total of 20 studies that compared topical heparin formulations with placebo, no treatment, subcutaneous heparin or with each other in the treatment of superficial thrombophlebitis or venous insufficiency. Heparin gel 1000 IU/g (Lioton) 1000 gel, Menaven) 1000 gel) was more effective than placebo in reducing the signs and symptoms of superficial thrombophlebitis. Liposomal heparin gel 2400 IU/g (LipoHep Forte) was as effective as subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin at relieving local symptoms of superficial venous thrombosis. In head-to-head studies comparing different topical heparin formulations, all preparations appeared effective but heparin gel 1000 IU/g was superior to a heparinoid mucopolysaccharide cream (Hirudoid) in patients with vascular disorders in terms of resolving spontaneous pain, induced pain, oedema and heaviness in the limb. Another study demonstrated the superiority of heparin gel 1000 IU/g compared with a gel formulation containing heparin 100 IU/g, aescinate and essential phospholipids (Essaven), for symptom resolution. All treatments were generally well tolerated, with a relatively low incidence of local skin events. In summary, topical heparin preparations may be useful for relieving the signs and symptoms of vascular disorders while improving microcirculation. There is some evidence to suggest that heparin gel 1000 IU/g may be more effective than other topical preparations in treating these conditions, possibly because of the relatively high heparin levels in this formulation. This remains to be tested in well controlled, adequately powered clinical trials.

No abstract