No abstract

Exercise training improves O2 kinetics in chronic heart failure patients. Both continuous and interval training improve phase I O2-kinetics, but continuous training results in superior improvement of the phase II O2-kinetics, an indirect index of muscle oxidative capacity.

Loop diuretics are recommended for relieving symptoms and signs of congestion in patients with chronic heart failure and are administered to more than 80% of them. However, several of their effects have not systematically been studied. Numerous cohort and four interventional studies have addressed the effect of diuretics on renal function; apart from one prospective study, which showed that diuretics withdrawal is accompanied by increase in some markers of early-detected renal injury, all others converge to the conclusion that diuretics receipt, especially in high doses is associated with increased rates of renal dysfunction. Although a long standing perception has attributed a beneficial effect to diuretics in the setting of chronic heart failure, many cohort studies support that their use, especially in high doses is associated with adverse outcome. Several studies have used propensity scores in order to match diuretic and non-diuretic receiving patients; their results reinforce the notion that diuretics use and high diuretics dose are true risk factors and not disease severity markers, as some have suggested. One small, randomized study has demonstrated that diuretics decrease is feasible and safe and accompanied by a better prognosis. In conclusion, until elegantly designed, randomized trials, powered for clinical endpoints answer the unsettled issues in the field, the use of diuretics in chronic heart failure will remain subject to physicians' preferences and biases and not evidence based.

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.