During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 worldwide pandemic, patients with heart failure are a high-risk group with potential higher mortality if infected. Although lockdown represents a solution to prevent viral spreading, it endangers regular follow-up visits and precludes direct medical assessment in order to detect heart failure progression and optimize treatment. Furthermore, lifestyle changes during quarantine may trigger heart failure decompensations. During the pandemic, a paradoxical reduction of heart failure hospitalization rates was observed, supposedly caused by patient reluctance to visit emergency departments and hospitals. This may result in an increased patient mortality and/or in more complicated heart failure admissions in the future. In this scenario, different telemedicine strategies can be implemented to ensure continuity of care to patients with heart failure. Patients at home can be monitored through dedicated apps, telephone calls, or devices. Virtual visits and forward triage screen the patients with signs or symptoms of decompensated heart failure. In-hospital care may benefit from remote communication platforms. After discharge, patients may undergo remote follow-up or telerehabilitation to prevent early readmissions. This review provides a comprehensive appraisal of the many possible applications of telemedicine for patients with heart failure during Coronavirus disease 2019 and elucidates practical limitations and challenges regarding specific telemedicine modalities.

Background Inflammation plays a pivotal role in coronary artery disease (CAD). The anti‐inflammatory drug colchicine seems to reduce ischemic events in patients with CAD. So far there is equipoise about its safety and impact on mortality. Methods and Results To evaluate the utility of colchicine in patients with acute and chronic CAD, we performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and conference abstracts were searched from January 1975 to October 2020. Randomized trials assessing colchicine compared with placebo/standard therapy in patients with CAD were included. Data were combined using random‐effects models. The reliability of the available data was tested using trial sequential analyses . Of 3108 citations, 13 randomized trials (n=13 125) were included. Colchicine versus placebo/standard therapy in patients with CAD reduced risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46–0.90; P =0.01; I 2 41%) and stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31–0.81; P =0.005; I 2 0%). But treatment with colchicine compared with placebo/standard therapy had no influence on all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65–1.41; P =0.83; I 2 24%; and OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.55–1.22; P =0.45; I 2 0%, respectively). Colchicine increased the risk for gastrointestinal side effects ( P <0.001). According to trial sequential analyses, there is only sufficient evidence for a myocardial infarction risk reduction with colchicine. Conclusions Among patients with CAD, colchicine reduces the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, but has a higher rate of gastrointestinal upset with no influence on all‐cause mortality.

Acute heart failure (AHF) is a frequent medical condition that needs immediate evaluation and appropriate treatment. Patients with signs and symptoms of volume overload mostly require intravenous loop diuretics in the first hours of hospitalization. Some patients may develop diuretic resistance, resulting in insufficient and delayed decongestion, with increased mortality and morbidity. Urinary sodium measurement at baseline and/or during treatment has been proposed as a useful parameter to tailor diuretic therapy in these patients. This systematic review discusses the current sum of evidence regarding urinary sodium assessment to evaluate diuretic efficacy in AHF. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Clinical Trials Register for published studies that tested urinary sodium assessment in patients with AHF.