Modifications of lean mass are a frequent critical determinant in the pathophysiology and progression of heart failure (HF). Sarcopenia may be considered one of the most important causes of low physical performance and reduced cardiorespiratory fitness in older patients with HF. Sarcopenia is frequently misdiagnosed as cachexia. However, muscle wasting in HF has different pathogenetic features in sarcopenic and cachectic conditions. HF may induce sarcopenia through common pathogenetic pathways such as hormonal changes, malnutrition, and physical inactivity; mechanisms that influence each other. In the opposite way, sarcopenia may favor HF development by different mechanisms, including pathological ergoreflex. Paradoxically, sarcopenia is not associated with a sarcopenic cardiac muscle, but the cardiac muscle shows a hypertrophy which seems to be “not-functional.” First-line agents for the treatment of HF, physical activity and nutritional interventions, may offer a therapeutic advantage in sarcopenic patients irrespective of HF. Thus, sarcopenia is highly prevalent in patients with HF, contributing to its poor prognosis, and both conditions could benefit from common treatment strategies based on pharmacological, physical activity, and nutritional approaches.

Aims The assessment of frailty in older adults with heart failure (HF) is still debated. Here, we compare the predictive role and the diagnostic accuracy of physical vs. multidimensional frailty assessment on mortality, disability, and hospitalization in older adults with and without HF. Methods and results A total of 1077 elderly (≥65 years) outpatients were evaluated with the physical (phy-Fi) and multidimensional (m-Fi) frailty scores and according to the presence or the absence of HF. Mortality, disability, and hospitalizations were assessed at baseline and after a 24 month follow-up. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that, compared with phy-Fi score, m-Fi score was more predictive of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05 vs. 0.66], disability (HR = 1.02 vs. 0.89), and hospitalization (HR = 1.03 vs. 0.96) in the absence and even more in the presence of HF (HR = 1.11 vs. 0.63, 1.06 vs. 0.98, and 1.14 vs. 1.03, respectively). The area under the curve indicated a better diagnostic accuracy with m-Fi score than with phy-Fi score for mortality, disability, and hospitalizations, both in absence (0.782 vs. 0.649, 0.763 vs. 0.695, and 0.732 vs. 0.666, respectively) and in presence of HF (0.824 vs. 0.625, 0.886 vs. 0.793, and 0.812 vs. 0.688, respectively). Conclusions The m-Fi score is able to predict mortality, disability, and hospitalizations better than the phy-Fi score, not only in absence but also in presence of HF. Our data also demonstrate that the m-Fi score has better diagnostic accuracy than the phy-Fi score. Thus, the use of the m-FI score should be considered for the assessment of frailty in older HF adults. Disability, n (%) 150 (78.9) 17 (72.0) 19 (42.2) 51 (79.0) 54 (80.6) 82 (80.0) 77 (88.5) * Hospitalizations, n (%) 104 (54.7) 7 (30.0) 12 (26.7) 31 (49.0) 24 (35.8) 66 (63.6) 68 (78.2) *P < 0.05 vs. phy-Fi.

Objectives An increasing number of COVID–19 patients were treated with continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP). To evaluate the clinical effects of personalized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) compared to standard fixed PEEP in COVID-19 patients requiring CPAP. Methods This is a single center, prospective, randomized clinical study. Sixty-three COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and bilateral pneumonia were randomized in two Groups: Group A received CPAP with fixed PEEP of 10 cm H2O, Group B performed the “PEEP trial”, that consists in the evaluation of best PEEP defined as the PEEP value that precedes the echographic appearance of “lung pulse” determining a PaO2/FiO2 increase. Primary outcome was composite in-hospital mortality + intubation, secondary outcome was the percentage increase of PaO2/FiO2. As safety indicator, the incidence of pneumothorax was collected. Results Thirty-two patients were enrolled in Group A and 31 in Group B. The two groups were comparable for clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters. The primary outcome occurred in 36 (57.1 %) patients: 23 (71.8 %) in Group A and 13 (41.9 %) in Group B (p<0.01). Mortality was higher in Group A (53.1 vs. 19.3 %, p<0.01), while intubation rate was comparable between groups. Group B showed a higher PaO2/FiO2 increase than Group A (34.9 vs. 13.1 %, p<0.01). Five cases of pneumothorax were reported in Group A, none in Group B. Conclusions Lung ultrasound-guided PEEP trial is associated with lower mortality in COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP. Identifying the best PEEP is useful to increase oxygenation and reduce the incidence of complications.