Metabolic syndrome is an increasing pathology in adults and in children, due to a parallel rise of obesity. Sedentary lifestyle, food habits, cultural influences and also a genetic predisposition can cause dyslipidemia, hypertension, abdominal obesity and insulin resistance which are the two main features of metabolic syndrome. Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a condition directly associated with obesity, insulin resistance (HOMA index) and metabolic syndrome, and it is very interesting for its relationship and overlap with the metabolic syndrome. The relationship between the two syndromes is mutual: PCOS women have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome and also women with metabolic syndrome commonly present the reproductive/endocrine trait of PCOS. Prevention and treatment of metabolic syndrome and PCOS are similar for various aspects. It is necessary to treat excess adiposity and insulin resistance, with the overall goals of preventing cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes and improving reproductive failure in young women with PCOS. First of all, lifestyle changes, then pharmacological therapy, bariatric surgery and laparoscopic ovarian surgery represent the pillars for PCOS treatment.

Background and Objectives: In patients with acute heart failure (AHF), there is no definite evidence on the relationship between high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnI) and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) comparing the reduced and preserved EF conditions. Materials and Methods: Between January and April 2022, we retrospectively analyzed the data from 386 patients admitted to the emergency departments (ED) of five hospitals in Rome, Italy, for AHF. The criteria for inclusion were a final diagnosis of AHF; a cardiac ultrasound and hs-cTnI evaluations in the ED; and age > 18 yrs. We excluded patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Based on echocardiography and hs-cTnI evaluations, the patients were grouped for (1) preserved (HFpEF) or (2) reduced LVEF (HFrEF) and a a) negative (within the normal range value) or b) positive (above the normal range value) of hs-cTnI, respectively. Results: There was a significant negative relationship between a positive test for hs-cTnI and LVEF. When compared to the group with a negative hs-cTnI test, the patients with a positive test, both from the HFpEF and HFrEF subgroups, were significantly more likely to have an adverse outcome, such as being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or dying in the ED. Moreover, a reduced ejection fraction was linked with a final disposition to a higher level of care. Conclusions: In patients admitted to the ED for AHF without ACS, there is a negative relationship between hs-cTnI and a reduced LVEF, although a significant percentage of patients with a preserved LVEF also resulted to have high levels of hs-cTnI. In the absence of ACS, hs-cTnI seems to be a reliable biomarker of myocardial injury in AHF in the ED and should be considered as a risk stratification parameter for these subjects regardless of the left ventricular function. Further larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these preliminary data.