Patients with Ebstein anomaly (EA) require complex management. A group of experts was commissioned by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery to provide a framework on this topic, focusing on preoperative assessment, indications for intervention, and medical management before and after surgical intervention in older children and adults. This is a companion document to a recently issued document regarding management of EA in neonates and infants. This document addresses children older than 1 year of age and adults.

The EA Writing Group of the Congenital Clinical Practice Standards Committee is a multinational and multidisciplinary group of surgeons and cardiologists with expertise in EA. A citation search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted using key words related to EA. The search was restricted to the English language and the year 2000 or later and yielded 455 results. Expert consensus statements with class of recommendation and level of evidence were developed using a modified Delphi method, requiring 80% of members' votes with at least 75% agreement on each statement.

In patients with EA, the presence of congestive heart failure, cyanosis, significant left ventricular dysfunction, severe cardiomegaly, and persistent arrhythmia increases the risk for morbidity and mortality. Asymptomatic patients with EA should undergo exercise stress testing with measurement of oxygen consumption to unmask occult exercise intolerance. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is recommended for comprehensive imaging of EA for reliable volume assessment of both ventricles, evaluation of tricuspid regurgitation fraction, and right ventricle stroke volume. Surgery is recommended for symptoms that include fatigue, decreased objective exercise tolerance, decreased arterial oxygen saturation (cyanosis), and exertional dyspnea. Surgery can be beneficial in asymptomatic patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation, moderate right ventricular enlargement, and valve anatomy favorable for repair. Bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt is reasonable when there is severe right ventricular dilation, severe right ventricular systolic dysfunction, right atrial pressure: left atrial pressure ratio >1.5, or failure to separate from cardiopulmonary bypass after repair. Concomitant maze procedure at the time of surgery is reasonable when there is paroxysmal or continuous atrial fibrillation. In EA patients with evidence of systolic left ventricular dysfunction, concomitant acquired disease should be excluded, and goal-directed medical therapies is recommended.

Management of EA requires a tailored and multidisciplinary approach. The introduction of the cone procedure has revolutionized surgical management, providing excellent outcomes and durability across a wide range of anatomical variations. The timing of intervention, especially in asymptomatic patients, remains a topic of ongoing research and debate. Comprehensive preoperative evaluations, including exercise testing and arrhythmia assessment, are critical for optimizing surgical outcomes. In complex cases, adjunct procedures like bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt or the maze procedure offer additional therapeutic benefits.

Anti-diabetic drugs have been noted to have a cardioprotective effect in patients with diabetes and heart failure (HF). The purpose of this study was to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of various anti-diabetic drugs on the prognosis of HF patients with and without diabetes.

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before November 2024 that investigated the use of anti-diabetic medications in patients with HF. Primary outcomes included re-admission due to HF, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NTpro-BNP) levels, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to compare the effectiveness of different anti-diabetic drugs.

A total of 33 RCTs involving 29,888 patients were included. Sotagliflozin was the most effective in reducing the risk of re-admission due to HF and all-cause death, with a cumulative probability of 0.84 and 0.83, respectively. Liraglutide reduced the risk of cardiovascular death in HF patients with a cumulative probability of 0.97 and had the best efficacy in reducing NTpro-BNP levels with a cumulative probability of 0.69. Empagliflozin was best in improving LVEF in HF patients, with a cumulative probability of 0.69.

This Bayesian network meta-analysis demonstrates that sotagliflozin may be the best option for HF patients with and without diabetes. However, due to the small number of articles in this study, our results must be treated cautiously. Subsequently, there is an urgent need for more high-quality studies to validate our findings.

Reverse ventricular remodelling, defined as a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area (LVESVI) or an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms remain unclear.

We evaluated paired core-lab assessed echocardiograms and measurements of 92 biomarkers at baseline and 8 months thereafter in 419 participants with HFrEF. Reverse ventricular remodelling was defined as a >5% LVEF increase or >15% LVESVI relative decrease between baseline and 8 months. We evaluated the association between baseline biomarkers and their changes with reverse ventricular remodelling in the prospectively randomized controlled VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial. Of 419 patients (median age 66 [interquartile range 57-74] years, 27.4% women), 206 (49.2%) had reverse ventricular remodelling (either a 5% LVEF increase or a 15% LVESVI decrease). There were no differences in baseline biomarker concentrations between patients with versus those without reverse ventricular remodelling on follow-up. However, in patients with reverse ventricular remodelling there were significant decreases in biomarkers relating to inflammation and cardiac metabolism; particularly the tumour necrosis factor superfamily member 13B (ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.88), growth differentiation factor-15 (ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.88).

Reverse ventricular remodelling in patients with HFrEF is associated with a decrease of biomarkers related to inflammation and cardiac metabolism.

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) in the United States (U.S.) is estimated at over 6 million adults, with the incidence continuing to increase. A large proportion of the U.S. population is also at risk of HF due to the high prevalence of established HF risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. Many individuals have multiple risk factors, placing them at even higher risk. In addition, these risk factors disproportionately impact various racial and ethnic groups. Recognizing the rising health and economic burden of HF in the U.S., the 2022 American Heart Association / American College of Cardiology / Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Heart Failure Guideline placed a strong emphasis on prevention of HF. The purpose of this review is to highlight the role of both primary and secondary prevention in HF, as outlined by the recent guideline, and address the role of the preventive cardiology community in reducing the prevalence of HF in at-risk individuals.

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are two common comorbidities that share similar pathophysiological mechanisms. There is a growing interest in the potential of targeted therapies to improve outcomes in patients with coexisting HFrEF and NAFLD. This manuscript reviews current and potential therapies for patients with coexisting HFrEF and NAFLD. Pharmacological therapies, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoids receptor antagonist, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, have been shown to reduce fibrosis and fat deposits in the liver. However, there are currently no data showing the beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, hydralazine, isosorbide nitrates, digoxin, or beta blockers on NAFLD in patients with HFrEF. This study highlights the importance of considering HFrEF and NAFLD when developing treatment plans for patients with these comorbidities. Further research is needed in patients with coexisting HFrEF and NAFLD, with an emphasis on novel therapies and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for managing these complex comorbidities.

Vericiguat significantly reduced the primary composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or cardiovascular death in the VICTORIA trial. It is unknown if these outcome benefits are related to reverse left ventricular (LV) remodelling with vericiguat in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to compare the effects of vericiguat versus placebo on LV structure and function after 8 months of therapy in patients with HFrEF.

Standardized transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed at baseline and after 8 months of therapy in a subset of HFrEF patients in VICTORIA. The co-primary endpoints were changes in LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Quality assurance and central reading were performed by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to treatment assignment. A total of 419 patients (208 vericiguat, 211 placebo) with high-quality paired TTE at baseline and 8 months were included. Baseline clinical characteristics were well balanced between treatment groups and echocardiographic characteristics were representative of patients with HFrEF. LVESVI significantly declined (60.7 ± 26.8 to 56.8 ± 30.4 ml/m2 ; p < 0.01) and LVEF significantly increased (33.0 ± 9.4% to 36.1 ± 10.2%; p < 0.01) in the vericiguat group, but similarly in the placebo group (absolute changes for vericiguat vs. placebo: LVESVI -3.8 ± 15.4 vs. -7.1 ± 20.5 ml/m2 ; p = 0.07 and LVEF +3.2 ± 8.0% vs. +2.4 ± 7.6%; p = 0.31). The absolute rate per 100 patient-years of the primary composite endpoint at 8 months tended to be lower in the vericiguat group (19.8) than the placebo group (29.6) (p = 0.07).

In this pre-specified echocardiographic study, significant improvements in LV structure and function occurred over 8 months in both vericiguat and placebo in a high-risk HFrEF population with recent worsening HF. Further studies are warranted to define the mechanisms of vericiguat's benefit in HFrEF.

Natural herbs are gradually gaining recognition for their efficacy and safety in preventing diabetes and improving quality of life. Morus alba L. is a plant widely grown in Asia and is a traditional Chinese herb with a long history of use. Furthermore, several parts of Morus alba L. have been found to have significant health benefits. In particular, mulberry (Morus alba L.) leaves (ML) have been shown in human and animal studies to be promising hypoglycemic agents that can reduce or prevent glucolipid metabolism disorders caused by imbalances in the gut microbiota, inflammation, and oxidative stress and have demonstrated significant improvements in glucose metabolism-related markers, effectively lowering blood glucose, and reducing hyperglycemia-induced target organ damage.

This review briefly summarizes the methods for obtaining ML's bioactive components, elaborates on the clinical potential of the relevant components in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and focuses on the therapeutic mechanisms of gut microbiota, inflammation, oxidative stress, and metabolism, to provide more inspiration and directions for future research in the field of traditional natural plants for the management of T2DM and its complications.

Research on ML and its bioactive components was mainly performed using electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceNet, to ensure the review's quality. In addition, master's and doctoral theses and ancient documents were consulted.

In clinical studies, we found that ML could effectively reduce blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance in T2DM patients. Furthermore, many in vitro and in vivo experiments have found that ML is involved in various pathways that regulate glucolipid metabolism and resist diabetes while alleviating liver and kidney damage.

As a potential natural anti-diabetic phytomedicine, an in-depth study of ML can provide new ideas and valuable references for applying traditional Chinese medicine to treat T2DM. While continuously exploring its clinical efficacy and therapeutic mechanism, the extraction method should be optimized to improve the efficacy of the bioactive components. in addition, further research on the dose-response relationship of drugs to determine the effective dose range is required.

Diabetic patients have a two- to four-fold increase in the risk of heart failure (HF), and the co-existence of diabetes and HF is associated with poor prognosis. In randomized clinical trials (RCTs), compelling evidence has demonstrated the beneficial effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors on HF. The mechanism includes increased glucosuria, restored tubular glomerular feedback with attenuated renin-angiotensin II-aldosterone activation, improved energy utilization, decreased sympathetic tone, improved mitochondria calcium homeostasis, enhanced autophagy, and reduced cardiac inflammation, oxidative stress, and fibrosis. The RCTs demonstrated a neutral effect of the glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist on HF despite its weight-reducing effect, probably due to it possibly increasing the heart rate via increasing cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP). Observational studies supported the markedly beneficial effects of bariatric and metabolic surgery on HF despite no current supporting evidence from RCTs. Bromocriptine can be used to treat peripartum cardiomyopathy by reducing the harmful cleaved prolactin fragments during late pregnancy. Preclinical studies suggest the possible beneficial effect of imeglimin on HF through improving mitochondrial function, but further clinical evidence is needed. Although abundant preclinical and observational studies support the beneficial effects of metformin on HF, there is limited evidence from RCTs. Thiazolidinediones increase the risk of hospitalized HF through increasing renal tubular sodium reabsorption mediated via both the genomic and non-genomic action of PPARγ. RCTs suggest that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, including saxagliptin and possibly alogliptin, may increase the risk of hospitalized HF, probably owing to increased circulating vasoactive peptides, which impair endothelial function, activate sympathetic tones, and cause cardiac remodeling. Observational studies and RCTs have demonstrated the neutral effects of insulin, sulfonylureas, an alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, and lifestyle interventions on HF in diabetic patients.

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have a higher prevalence of heart failure (HF) than those without it. Approximately 40% of HF patients have DM, having poorer outcomes than those without DM. Myocardial ischemia caused by endothelial dysfunction, renal dysfunction, obesity, and impaired myocardial energetics is pathophysiology of DM-induced HF (DM-HF). Also, patients with HF show an increased risk for the onset of DM due to several mechanisms including insulin resistance. This review is focused on the epidemiology, pathogenic mechanism and treatment strategy of DM-HF.

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) represent two important public health problems, and despite improvements in the management of both diseases, they are responsible for high rates of hospitalizations and mortality. T2DM accelerates physiological cardiac aging through hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. Thus, HF and T2DM are chronic diseases widely represented in elderly people who often are affected by numerous comorbidities with important functional limitations making it difficult to apply the current guidelines. Several antidiabetic drugs should be used with caution in elderly individuals with T2DM. For instance, sulfonylureas should be avoided due to the risk of hypoglycemia associated with its use. Insulin should be used with caution because it is associated with higher risk of hypoglycemia, and may determine fluid retention which can lead to worsening of HF. Thiazolindinediones should be avoided due to the increased risk of fluid retention and HF. Biguanides may lead to a slightly increased risk of lactic acidosis in particular in elderly individuals with impaired renal function. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are safe having few side effects, minimal risk of hypoglycemia, and a neutral effect on cardiovascular (CV) outcome, even if it has been reported that saxagliptin treatment is associated with increased risk of hospitalizations for HF (hHF). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have shown a CV protection without a significant reduction in hHF. On the other hand, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have shown a significant improvement in CV outcome, with a strong reduction of hHF and a positive impact on renal damage progression. However, it is necessary to consider the possible some side effects related to their use in elderly individuals including hypotension, bone fractures, and ketoacidosis.It is important to remark that elderly patients, in particular the very elderly, are not sufficiently represented in the trials; thus, the management and treatment of elderly diabetic patients with HF should be mainly based on the integration of scientific evidence with clinical judgment and patients' condition, with respect to the dignity and quality of life.

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have a higher prevalence of heart failure (HF) than those without it. Approximately 40 % of HF patients have DM and they tend to have poorer outcomes than those without DM. This study evaluated the impact of insulin therapy on mortality among acute HF patients.

A total of 1740 patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure registry with DM were included in this study. The risk of all-cause mortality according to insulin therapy was assessed using the Cox proportional hazard models with inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance the clinical characteristics (pretreatment covariates) between the groups.

DM patients had been treated with either oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) alone (n = 620), insulin alone (n = 682), or insulin combined with OHAs (n = 438). The insulin alone group was associated with an increased mortality risk compared with the OHA alone group (HR = 1.41, 95 % CI 1.21-1.66]). Insulin therapy combined with OHAs also showed an increased mortality risk (HR = 1.29, 95 % CI 1.14-1.46) compared with the OHA alone group. Insulin therapy was consistently associated with increased mortality risk, regardless of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or HF etiology. A significant increase in mortality was observed in patients with good glycemic control (HbA1c < 7.0 %) receiving insulin, whereas there was no significant association in patients with poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7.0%).

Insulin therapy was found to be associated with increased mortality compared to OHAs. The insulin therapy was harmful especially in patients with low HbA1c levels which may suggest the necessity of specific management strategies and blood sugar targets when using insulin in patients with HF.

People with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are recognized as having a 2-4 times increased risk of heart failure (HF). Ambulatory diabetes care has long concentrated on the prevention of microvascular and arterial disease, and surveillance for manageable problems such as with the feet and retinae. Accordingly, management of heart failure has never been a specific focus, although the preventative management of cardiac and kidney disease through glucose-lowering, blood pressure (BP) control, and blood lipid control, have had a positive impact on its incidence. Indeed, the very complexity of routine diabetes care, and its enormous prevalence, has generally excluded the management of any of the advanced late complications, whether cardiac, arterial, retinal, renal, or neurodegenerative. Furthermore, advances in HF management itself, in diagnostics, medications, and technology, has carried it deeper into the remit of specialist cardiological care. More recently and in addition to medications already routinely used in diabetes care such as renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, some glucose-lowering therapies such as sodium glucose transporter inhibitors 2 (SGLT-2 inhibitors), have been found to have very positive effects on hospitalization for HF, indeed even in people who do not have T2DM. Here, from the perspective of the diabetologist, we review the clinical scenario of ambulatory diabetes care, in regard of how HF prevention and management should fit in to clinical practice.

To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk.

Network meta-analysis.

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020.

Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review.

764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 3 to 40 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes.

In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with some differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review.

PROSPERO CRD42019153180.

New antihyperglycemic medications have been proven to have cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, an evidence-based decision tree in specific clinical scenarios is lacking.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with trial sequential analysis (TSA). Randomized controlled trial inclusion criteria were patients with T2DM from 1 of these subgroups: elderly, obese, previous atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), previous coronary heart disease (CHD), previous heart failure (HF), or previous chronic kidney disease (CKD). Randomized controlled trials describing those subgroups with at least 48 weeks of follow-up were included. Outcomes: 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), CV death, hospitalization due to HF, and renal outcomes. We performed direct meta-analysis with the number of events in the intervention and control groups in each subset, and the relative risk of the events was calculated.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) were the only antihyperglycemic agents related to a reduction in CV events in different populations. For obese and elderly populations, GLP-1 RA were associated with benefits in 3-point MACE; for patients with ASCVD, both SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA had benefits in 3-point MACE, while for patients with CHD, only SGLT2i were beneficial.

SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA reduced CV events in selected populations: SGLT2i led to a reduction in events in patients with previous CHD, ASCVD, and HF. GLP-1 RA led to a reduction in CV events in patients with ASCVD, elderly patients, and patients with obesity. Trial sequential analysis shows that these findings are conclusive. This review opens a pathway towards evidence-based, personalized treatment of T2DM.

PROSPERO CRD42019132807.

The cardiac effects of exogenously administered insulin for the treatment of diabetes (DM) have recently attracted much attention. In particular, it has been questioned whether insulin is the appropriate treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure. While several old and some new studies suggested that insulin treatment has beneficial effects on the heart, recent observational studies indicate associations of insulin treatment with an increased risk of developing or worsening of pre-existing heart failure and higher mortality rates. However, there is actually little evidence that the associations of insulin administration with any adverse outcomes are causal. On the other hand, insulin clearly causes weight gain and may also cause serious episodes of hypoglycemia. Moreover, excess of insulin (hyperinsulinemia), as often seen with the use of injected insulin, seems to predispose to inflammation, hypertension, dyslipidemia, atherosclerosis, heart failure, and arrhythmias. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that most of the data concerning the effects of insulin on cardiac function derive from in vitro studies with isolated animal hearts. Therefore, the relevance of the findings of such studies for humans should be considered with caution. In the present review, we summarize the existing data about the potential positive and negative effects of insulin on the heart and attempt to answer the question whether any adverse effects of insulin or the consequences of hyperglycemia are more important and may provide a better explanation of the close association of DM with heart failure.

The effects of antihyperglycemic medications on cardiovascular events and mortality are heterogeneous and their effects on intermediate factors might explain these differences. This systematic review explores the relationship between metabolic factors, mechanism of action, and mortality effects of antihyperglycemic medications in type 2 diabetes. Randomized trials assessing the effects of antihyperglycemic medications on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetes were included. Myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure were secondary outcomes. The effects of medications on HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia (SH), body weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and mechanism of action were evaluated. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed grouping studies according to the above-cited factors. All-cause mortality was lower for medications that reduced HbA1c, SH, body weight, and SBP. Decreased cardiovascular mortality was associated with lower HbA1c, SH, SBP. Myocardial infarction and stroke were also associated with favorable metabolic profile. These findings were not confirmed in meta-regression models. Medications associated with lower SH, body weight and SBP had a lower risk of heart failure. In conclusion, medications with better metabolic profile were associated with reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. These findings are based on indirect comparisons and must be applied cautiously.

The global incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes have been escalating in recent decades. The total diabetic population is expected to increase from 415 million in 2015 to 642 million by 2040. Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). About two-thirds of patients with type 2 diabetes died of ASCVD. The association between hyperglycemia and elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk has been demonstrated in multiple cohort studies. However, clinical trials of intensive glucose reduction by conventional antidiabetic agents did not significantly reduce macrovascular outcomes.In December 2008, U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a mandate that every new antidiabetic agent requires rigorous assessments of its CV safety. Thereafter, more than 200,000 patients have been enrolled in a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These trials were initially designed to prove noninferiority. It turned out that some of these trials demonstrated superiority of some new antidiabetic agents versus placebo in reducing CV endpoints, including macrovascular events, renal events, and heart failure. These results are important in clinical practice and also provide an opportunity for academic society to formulate treatment guidelines or consensus to provide specific recommendations for glucose control in various CV diseases.In 2018, the Taiwan Society of Cardiology (TSOC) and the Diabetes Association of Republic of China (DAROC) published the first joint consensus on the "Pharmacological Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases." In 2020, TSOC appointed a new consensus group to revise the previous version. The updated 2020 consensus was comprised of 5 major parts: (1) treatment of diabetes in patients with multiple risk factors, (2) treatment of diabetes in patients with coronary heart disease, (3) treatment of diabetes in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease, (4) treatment of diabetes in patients with a history of stroke, and (5) treatment of diabetes in patients with heart failure. The members of the consensus group thoroughly reviewed all the evidence, mainly RCTs, and also included meta-analyses and real-world evidence. The treatment targets of HbA1c were finalized. The antidiabetic agents were ranked according to their clinical evidence. The consensus is not mandatory. The final decision may need to be individualized and based on clinicians' discretion.

Does Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) relate to a previous dramatic reduction of HbA1c in Type 2 Diabetes (T2D)?

In patients hospitalized for T2D, we collected HbA1c values from previous years, and we defined "Rapid declinors" by a more than -3% reduction between two consecutive HbA1c, and "sustained moderate declinors" by HbA1c declining less than -3%. We analyzed the relation between DR and previous HbA1c courses, adjusted for other risk factors.

Our 680 patients had a mean HbA1c at 8.7 ± 1.7% at admission and 8.7 ± 1.8 to 9.0 ± 2.2% during previous years (1500 HbA1C values collected), and 24% had a DR. A previous rapid decline of HbA1c occurred in 13.5% of subjects and related to DR (OR = 1.86, 95%CI:1.02-3.40), especially proliferative (OR = 2.64, 95%CI:1.02-6.80), after adjustment for age, gender, body mass index, arterial hypertension and diabetic kidney disease, blood lipids and statin treatment, duration of diabetes and mean previous HbA1c. A previous moderate reduction of HbA1c as occurred in 28.3% other subjects was not related to DR.

In subjects hospitalized for T2D, a previous rapid decline of HbA1c was related to proliferative DR, whereas a sustained moderate decline appeared to be safe.

We propose a unifying perspective of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The reasoning is as follows: cellular responses to fuel overload include dysregulated insulin signaling, impaired mitochondrial respiration, reactive oxygen species formation, and the accumulation of certain metabolites, collectively termed glucolipotoxicity. As a consequence, cardiac function is impaired, with intracellular calcium cycling and diastolic dysfunction as an early manifestation. In this setting, increasing glucose uptake by insulin or insulin sensitizing agents only worsens the disrupted fuel homeostasis of the heart. Conversely, restricting fuel supply by means of caloric restriction, surgical intervention, or certain pharmacologic agents will improve cardiac function by restoring metabolic homeostasis. The concept is borne out by clinical interventions, all of which unload the heart from metabolic stress.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure (HF) are comorbid conditions associated with significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite the availability of novel and effective therapeutic options and intensive glycaemic control strategies, mortality and hospitalisation rates continue to remain high and the incidence of HF persists. In this review, we described the impact of currently available glucose-lowering therapies in DM with a focus on HF clinical outcomes. Non-conventional modes of management and alternative pathophysiological mechanisms with the potential for therapeutic targeting are also discussed.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus has long been recognized as a major risk factor for adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events; however, recent data indicate that heart failure is now emerging as the most common and morbid cardiovascular complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus. When heart failure develops in patients with type 2 diabetes, prognosis is ominous, highlighting the need for glucose-lowering therapies that can prevent heart failure, improve outcomes, or both. Prior to 2008, there was a paucity of randomized controlled trials evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes with glucose-lowering therapies. This changed after guidance on the assessment of novel glucose-lowering agents was issued by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Since then, significant progress has been made as a result of large cardiovascular outcomes trials. Though randomized controlled trials on insulin, sulfonylureas, and metformin are still limited, cardiovascular outcomes trials on newer glucose-lowering agents have included hundreds of thousands of patients with multiple years of follow-up. The increased risk of thiazolidinediones on heart failure had been well theorized and is now established; however, the increase in heart failure hospitalization with certain dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors was unexpected. The reasons for discrepancies with regard to heart failure risk with different dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors remain unclear, and further mechanistic studies are ongoing. The role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists among patients with heart failure also remains unclear, and their effects may differ in patients with and without established heart failure, particularly those with decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are the only pharmacologic agents that specifically treat insulin resistance. The beneficial effects of TZDs on the cardiovascular risk factors associated with insulin resistance have been well documented. TZD use has been limited because of concern about safety issues and side effects.

Recent studies indicate that cardiovascular toxicity with rosiglitazone and increase in bladder cancer with pioglitazone are no longer significant issues. There are new data which show that pioglitazone treatment reduces myocardial infarctions and ischemic strokes. New data concerning TZD-mediated edema, congestive heart failure, and bone fractures improves the clinician's ability to select patients that will have minimal significant side effects. Thiazolidinediones are now generic and less costly than pharmaceutical company-promoted therapies. Better understanding of the side effects coupled with clear benefits on the components of the insulin resistance syndrome should promote TZD use in treating patients with type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for incident heart failure and increases the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with established disease. Secular trends in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and heart failure forecast a growing burden of disease and underscore the need for effective therapeutic strategies. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the shared pathophysiology between diabetes mellitus and heart failure, the synergistic effect of managing both conditions, and the potential for diabetes mellitus therapies to modulate the risk of heart failure outcomes. This scientific statement on diabetes mellitus and heart failure summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and impact of diabetes mellitus and its control on outcomes in heart failure; reviews the approach to pharmacological therapy and lifestyle modification in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure; highlights the value of multidisciplinary interventions to improve clinical outcomes in this population; and outlines priorities for future research.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for incident heart failure and increases the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with established disease. Secular trends in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and heart failure forecast a growing burden of disease and underscore the need for effective therapeutic strategies. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the shared pathophysiology between diabetes mellitus and heart failure, the synergistic effect of managing both conditions, and the potential for diabetes mellitus therapies to modulate the risk of heart failure outcomes. This scientific statement on diabetes mellitus and heart failure summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and impact of diabetes mellitus and its control on outcomes in heart failure; reviews the approach to pharmacological therapy and lifestyle modification in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure; highlights the value of multidisciplinary interventions to improve clinical outcomes in this population; and outlines priorities for future research.

In people with type 2 diabetes the frequency of heart failure (HF) is increased and mortality from HF is higher than with non-diabetic HF. The increased frequency of HF is attributable to the cardiotoxic tetrad of ischaemic heart disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, diabetic cardiomyopathy and an extracellular volume expansion resistant to atrial natriuretic peptides. Activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous systems results in cardiac remodelling, which worsens cardiac function. Reversal of remodelling can be achieved, and cardiac function improved in people with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and β-blockers. However, with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), only therapy for the underlying risk factors helps. Blockers of mineralocorticoid receptors may be beneficial in both HFrEF and HFpEF. Glucose-lowering drugs can have a negative effect (insulin, sulphonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones), a neutral effect (α-glucosidase inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) or a positive effect (sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and metformin).

The objective is to formulate clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of diabetes in older adults.

Diabetes, particularly type 2, is becoming more prevalent in the general population, especially in individuals over the age of 65 years. The underlying pathophysiology of the disease in these patients is exacerbated by the direct effects of aging on metabolic regulation. Similarly, aging effects interact with diabetes to accelerate the progression of many common diabetes complications. Each section in this guideline covers all aspects of the etiology and available evidence, primarily from controlled trials, on therapeutic options and outcomes in this population. The goal is to give guidance to practicing health care providers that will benefit patients with diabetes (both type 1 and type 2), paying particular attention to avoiding unnecessary and/or harmful adverse effects.

Heart failure (HF) is emerging as one of the most common cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and the one associated with the worst prognosis. T2D and insulin resistance are strong predictors of incident HF, especially HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Recent data suggest that even when all traditional risk factors for ASCVD are well controlled, patients with T2D continue to have a substantially greater risk of developing HF-indicating that traditional risk factor control is insufficient from a HF prevention standpoint, and highlighting the need for novel, more effective strategies for both prevention and treatment of heart failure in patients with T2D. Until recently, medications developed for glucose-lowering had, at best, neutral effect on heart failure outcomes in patients with T2D, while several classes of T2D medications had little data in regards to HF risk, and others actually increased the risk of HF hospitalization. Sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) have a novel and unique mechanism of action. By inhibiting sodium and glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule, SGLT-2i result in a number of downstream effects, including glucosuria, weight loss, osmotic diuresis and natriuresis, which should theoretically be beneficial in HF. Three CVOTs of various SGLT-2i (EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58) enrolled markedly different patient populations in terms of ASCVD risk, but have demonstrated robust and consistent benefits in reduction of hospitalization for HF. In a meta-analysis of the three outcomes trials, SGLT-2i significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF by 23% and hospitalization for HF by 31%. Although the declines in HF hospitalization with SGLT-2is are impressive, only a small proportion of patients with established HF were enrolled in these trials, and these benefits, therefore, represent primarily a HF prevention signal. Whether this prevention of HF benefit will translate to better outcomes for those patients with established HF (with or without diabetes), and whether it will extend across the spectrum of HF phenotypes (HFrEF and HFpEF) is yet to be determined, and is being actively investigated in several large ongoing trials.

Medications are increasingly being approved with limited, short-term evidence regarding safety. Regulatory safety concerns may emerge for these drugs but later may be reversed if additional evidence suggests no warning is indicated.

To describe trends over time in the initiation of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone-both in the thiazolidinedione (TZD) class-and medications from the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class before and after the FDA removed a black box warning and restricted access program for rosiglitazone regarding an increased risk of myocardial infarction.

This retrospective study evaluated initiation of TZDs and DPP-4 inhibitors using 2001-2015 administrative claims data from a U.S. commercially insured population. Patients were aged 18-64 years and were new users of either a TZD or DPP-4 inhibitor. Among all patients who were new users of either a TZD or a DPP-4 inhibitor during each quarter-year (Q), the percentage of patients who initiated rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, and DPP-4 inhibitors were calculated.

There were 630,977 patients eligible for the study. During 2007, rosiglitazone initiators decreased from 39.1% to 8.0% in 2007 Q4 when the black box warning was implemented. During 2010, rosiglitazone initiators decreased from 7.6% to 1.0%, as safety evidence accumulated and the restricted access program requirement was announced. Rosiglitazone initiation remained below 1.0%, even after regulatory restrictions were removed in November 2013. Pioglitazone initiation decreased from 46.4% in 2010 Q1 to 14.8% in 2011 Q4 and remained relatively constant between 14.5% and 17.8% after regulatory restrictions for rosiglitazone were removed. After DPP-4 inhibitors first became available in 2006 Q3, initiation of this medication class increased rapidly, stayed relatively constant between 42.8% and 45.5% in 2009, and then quickly rose and remained above 80% from 2012 through 2015.

This case study provides some evidence that adding and later reversing drug safety warnings-particularly those with restricted access requirements-may affect the uptake of the targeted product into the population when multiple clinically relevant treatment alternatives are available (such as type 2 diabetes). Once a treatment falls out of favor, removal of safety warnings and/or restricted access programs may not lead to increased use.

This project was not directly supported by any funding. Hickson was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute through a National Research Service Award (NRSA) training grant (4T32HL007055-41) as a postdoctoral research fellow with the Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology Program at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH). Cole was supported by a NRSA Predoctoral Traineeship from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored by The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, UNC-CH (grant no. T32-HS000032) and a predoctoral fellowship from the American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education. Unrelated to this project, Cole was a part-time employee of Truven Health Analytics/IBM Watson Health. Dusetzina has nothing to disclose.

To summarize current clinical data investigating the link between diabetes and heart failure pathophysiology, the association of glucose control with heart failure, and the impact of current antihyperglycemic drugs on heart failure.

Although heart failure is one of the most prevalent outcomes occurring in real life and cardiovascular outcome trials, insufficient attention was given to this condition in diabetes research over the last decades. With both beneficial and detrimental findings for heart failure hospitalization in the health authority-mandated outcome trials for new antihyperglycemic agents, research on heart failure and its interplay with diabetes mellitus gained momentum. Diabetes mellitus and heart failure are both prevalent and intertwined conditions. While currently available heart failure therapies have a similar degree of effectiveness in patients with and without diabetes, the choice of glucose-lowering agents can substantially affect heart failure-related outcome.

There is increasing recognition of the relationship between diabetes and heart failure (HF). Comorbid diabetes is associated with worse outcomes in patients with HF, and death from HF forms a large burden of mortality among patients with diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, there is evidence of harm relating to the risk of HF outcomes from several antihyperglycemic therapies. The absence of well-powered randomized controlled studies has resulted in significant treatment variations in the glycemic management in patients with coexisting diabetes and HF. However, there is emerging evidence from recent clinical trials suggesting that sodium-glucose-co-transporter-2 inhibitors may be used as a therapy to improve HF outcomes. In order to understand the current state of knowledge, we reviewed the evolving evidence of antihyperglycemic therapies and present strategies to optimize these therapies in patients with diabetes and HF. This analysis is based on discussions among scientists, clinical trialists, industry sponsors, and regulatory representatives who attended the 12th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Forum, Washington, DC, December 1 to 3, 2016.

Heart failure (HF) is a common cardiac syndrome, whose pathophysiology involves complex mechanisms, some of which remain unknown. Diabetes mellitus (DM) constitutes not only a glucose metabolic disorder accompanied by insulin resistance but also a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and HF. During the last years though emerging data set up, a bidirectional interrelationship between these two entities. In the case of DM impaired calcium homeostasis, free fatty acid metabolism, redox state, and advance glycation end products may accelerate cardiac dysfunction. On the other hand, when HF exists, hypoperfusion of the liver and pancreas, b-blocker and diuretic treatment, and autonomic nervous system dysfunction may cause impairment of glucose metabolism. These molecular pathways may be used as therapeutic targets for novel antidiabetic agents. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) not only improve insulin resistance and glucose and lipid metabolism but also manifest a diversity of actions directly or indirectly associated with systolic or diastolic performance of left ventricle and symptoms of HF. Interestingly, they may beneficially affect remodeling of the left ventricle, fibrosis, and diastolic performance but they may cause impaired water handing, sodium retention, and decompensation of HF which should be taken into consideration in the management of patients with DM. In this review article, we present the pathophysiological data linking HF with DM and we focus on the molecular mechanisms of PPARs agonists in left ventricle systolic and diastolic performance providing useful insights in the molecular mechanism of this class of metabolically active regiments.