Michael Fu

In this position statement of the ESC Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases an expert consensus group reviews the current knowledge on clinical presentation, diagnosis and treatment of myocarditis, and proposes new diagnostic criteria for clinically suspected myocarditis and its distinct biopsy-proven pathogenetic forms. The aims are to bridge the gap between clinical and tissue-based diagnosis, to improve management and provide a common reference point for future registries and multicentre randomised controlled trials of aetiology-driven treatment in inflammatory heart muscle disease.

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the 'HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm'. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for HF symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e'), left ventricular (LV) filling pressure estimated using E/e', left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2-4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to develop, validate, and illustrate an updated prediction model (SCORE2) to estimate 10-year fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in individuals without previous CVD or diabetes aged 40-69 years in Europe. METHODS AND RESULTS: We derived risk prediction models using individual-participant data from 45 cohorts in 13 countries (677 684 individuals, 30 121 CVD events). We used sex-specific and competing risk-adjusted models, including age, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, and total- and HDL-cholesterol. We defined four risk regions in Europe according to country-specific CVD mortality, recalibrating models to each region using expected incidences and risk factor distributions. Region-specific incidence was estimated using CVD mortality and incidence data on 10 776 466 individuals. For external validation, we analysed data from 25 additional cohorts in 15 European countries (1 133 181 individuals, 43 492 CVD events). After applying the derived risk prediction models to external validation cohorts, C-indices ranged from 0.67 (0.65-0.68) to 0.81 (0.76-0.86). Predicted CVD risk varied several-fold across European regions. For example, the estimated 10-year CVD risk for a 50-year-old smoker, with a systolic blood pressure of 140 mmHg, total cholesterol of 5.5 mmol/L, and HDL-cholesterol of 1.3 mmol/L, ranged from 5.9% for men in low-risk countries to 14.0% for men in very high-risk countries, and from 4.2% for women in low-risk countries to 13.7% for women in very high-risk countries. CONCLUSION: SCORE2-a new algorithm derived, calibrated, and validated to predict 10-year risk of first-onset CVD in European populations-enhances the identification of individuals at higher risk of developing CVD across Europe.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is increasing in prevalence and is associated with a high symptom burden and functional impairment, especially in persons with obesity. No therapies have been approved to target obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: We randomly assigned 529 patients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or higher to receive once-weekly semaglutide (2.4 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. The dual primary end points were the change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations) and the change in body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included the change in the 6-minute walk distance; a hierarchical composite end point that included death, heart failure events, and differences in the change in the KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance; and the change in the C-reactive protein (CRP) level. RESULTS: The mean change in the KCCQ-CSS was 16.6 points with semaglutide and 8.7 points with placebo (estimated difference, 7.8 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8 to 10.9; P<0.001), and the mean percentage change in body weight was -13.3% with semaglutide and -2.6% with placebo (estimated difference, -10.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.9 to -9.4; P<0.001). The mean change in the 6-minute walk distance was 21.5 m with semaglutide and 1.2 m with placebo (estimated difference, 20.3 m; 95% CI, 8.6 to 32.1; P<0.001). In the analysis of the hierarchical composite end point, semaglutide produced more wins than placebo (win ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.15; P<0.001). The mean percentage change in the CRP level was -43.5% with semaglutide and -7.3% with placebo (estimated treatment ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001). Serious adverse events were reported in 35 participants (13.3%) in the semaglutide group and 71 (26.7%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity, treatment with semaglutide (2.4 mg) led to larger reductions in symptoms and physical limitations, greater improvements in exercise function, and greater weight loss than placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP-HFpEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04788511.).

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure, but whether empagliflozin also improves clinical outcomes when initiated in patients who are hospitalized for acute heart failure is unknown. In this double-blind trial (EMPULSE; NCT04157751 ), 530 patients with a primary diagnosis of acute de novo or decompensated chronic heart failure regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg once daily or placebo. Patients were randomized in-hospital when clinically stable (median time from hospital admission to randomization, 3 days) and were treated for up to 90 days. The primary outcome of the trial was clinical benefit, defined as a hierarchical composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events and time to first heart failure event, or a 5 point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days, as assessed using a win ratio. More patients treated with empagliflozin had clinical benefit compared with placebo (stratified win ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68; P = 0.0054), meeting the primary endpoint. Clinical benefit was observed for both acute de novo and decompensated chronic heart failure and was observed regardless of ejection fraction or the presence or absence of diabetes. Empagliflozin was well tolerated; serious adverse events were reported in 32.3% and 43.6% of the empagliflozin- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. These findings indicate that initiation of empagliflozin in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure is well tolerated and results in significant clinical benefit in the 90 days after starting treatment.