Clare Taylor

The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

Guidelines summarize and evaluate all available evidence on a particular issue at the time of the writing process, with the aim of assisting health professionals in selecting the best management strategies for an individual patient with a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines and recommendations should help health professionals to make decisions in their daily practice. However, the final decisions concerning an individual patient must be made by the responsible health professional(s) in consultation with the patient and caregiver as appropriate. A great number of Guidelines have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and by the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), as well as by other societies and organisations. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for the development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines can be found on the ESC website (http://www.escardio.org/Guidelines-&-Education/Clinical-Practice-Guidelines/Guidelines-development/Writing-ESC-Guidelines). ESC Guidelines represent the official position of the ESC on a given topic and are regularly updated. Members of this Task Force were selected by the ESC, including representation from the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and EACTS as well as by the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) to represent professionals involved with the medical care of patients with this pathology. Selected experts in the field undertook a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management (including diagnosis, treatment, prevention and rehabilitation) of a given condition according to ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) policy and approved by the EACTS and ESO. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger populations were included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation of particular management options were weighed and graded according to predefined scales, as outlined in Tables 1 and 2.

AIMS: The EURO-ENDO registry aimed to study the management and outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis (IE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective cohort of 3116 adult patients (2470 from Europe, 646 from non-ESC countries), admitted to 156 hospitals in 40 countries between January 2016 and March 2018 with a diagnosis of IE based on ESC 2015 diagnostic criteria. Clinical, biological, microbiological, and imaging [echocardiography, computed tomography (CT) scan, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT)] data were collected. Infective endocarditis was native (NVE) in 1764 (56.6%) patients, prosthetic (PVIE) in 939 (30.1%), and device-related (CDRIE) in 308 (9.9%). Infective endocarditis was community-acquired in 2046 (65.66%) patients. Microorganisms involved were staphylococci in 1085 (44.1%) patients, oral streptococci in 304 (12.3%), enterococci in 390 (15.8%), and Streptococcus gallolyticus in 162 (6.6%). 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography was performed in 518 (16.6%) patients and presented with cardiac uptake (major criterion) in 222 (42.9%) patients, with a better sensitivity in PVIE (66.8%) than in NVE (28.0%) and CDRIE (16.3%). Embolic events occurred in 20.6% of patients, and were significantly associated with tricuspid or pulmonary IE, presence of a vegetation and Staphylococcus aureus IE. According to ESC guidelines, cardiac surgery was indicated in 2160 (69.3%) patients, but finally performed in only 1596 (73.9%) of them. In-hospital death occurred in 532 (17.1%) patients and was more frequent in PVIE. Independent predictors of mortality were Charlson index, creatinine > 2 mg/dL, congestive heart failure, vegetation length > 10 mm, cerebral complications, abscess, and failure to undertake surgery when indicated. CONCLUSION: Infective endocarditis is still a life-threatening disease with frequent lethal outcome despite profound changes in its clinical, microbiological, imaging, and therapeutic profiles.

AIM: To provide reliable survival estimates for people with chronic heart failure and explain variation in survival by key factors including age at diagnosis, left ventricular ejection fraction, decade of diagnosis, and study setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched in relevant databases from inception to August 2018 for non-interventional studies reporting survival rates for patients with chronic or stable heart failure in any ambulatory setting. Across the 60 included studies, there was survival data for 1.5 million people with heart failure. In our random effects meta-analyses the pooled survival rates at 1 month, 1, 2, 5 and 10 years were 95.7% (95% confidence interval 94.3-96.9), 86.5% (85.4-87.6), 72.6% (67.0-76.6), 56.7% (54.0-59.4) and 34.9% (24.0-46.8), respectively. The 5-year survival rates improved between 1970-1979 and 2000-2009 across healthcare settings, from 29.1% (25.5-32.7) to 59.7% (54.7-64.6). Increasing age at diagnosis was significantly associated with a reduced survival time. Mortality was lowest in studies conducted in secondary care, where there were higher reported prescribing rates of key heart failure medications. There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies in terms of heart failure diagnostic criteria, participant co-morbidities, and treatment rates. CONCLUSION: These results can inform health policy and individual patient advanced care planning. Mortality associated with chronic heart failure remains high despite steady improvements in survival. There remains significant scope to improve prognosis through greater implementation of evidence-based treatments. Further research exploring the barriers and facilitators to treatment is recommended.