Day 1 :
Keynote Forum
Hossein Tabriziani
Balboa Institute of Transplantation, USA
Keynote: Metabolic and cardiovascular benefits of pancreas transplantation
Biography:
Abstract:
Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent and morbid chronic diseases and not only affecting the health of millions of persons worldwide but also cause a huge global burden of disease. Unfortunately, the global prevalence of diabetes has increased substantially at the rate of more than 3% per year. These diseases significantly influence the patient’ survival, quality of life and development of organ system degeneration. Epidemiological studies have shown increased mortality in diabetic patients, with cardiovascular mortality being on the top with about 30-fold increase when compared to the normal population. One of the key features of cardiovascular disease in these patients is cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy. This condition may be present in up to 60% of patients after 15 years and is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular mortality and increased blood pressure. Also lacking good glycemic control will cause micro vascular complication by direct oxidative stress an injury, which decrease the viability of the vessel wall cells and is major factor in developing hypertension. A successful pancreas transplantation combined with a kidney graft has been found to prevent diabetic kidney lesions and improved long-term patient survival with significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality. Also, a successful single pancreas transplant, which is generally performed in patients with near-normal kidney function, has shown to improve left ventricular function and delay the development of retinopathy and neuropathy. Pancreas transplantation can improve cardiovascular risk profiles, improve cardiac function and decrease cardiovascular events. These results are not only decreasing the morbidity and mortality of the pancreas recipient but also drastically improving their quality of life. Without any doubt; restoration of the lost beta cell mass by pancreas transplantation is the treatment of choice for type-1 diabetic patients in most cases. Successful pancreas transplantation normalizes the metabolic alterations of diabetes and can slow the progression, stabilize and even favor the regression of secondary complications of the disease, including those at the cardiovascular level.
Keynote Forum
Maria Dorobantu
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Romania
Keynote: Limits of pharmacological treatment in heart failure
Biography:
Maria Dorobantu has worked as senior specialist in internal medicine and Senior specialist in cardiology during 1990-1996. She is Director of the Research Center of Excellency for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular emergencies and she is Director of Hypertension Center of Excellence, European Society of Hypertension. She is Initiator and Coordinator for National Studys SEPHAR (I-III). She is reviewer for multiple journals viz., American Heart Journal, Cor et Vasa, Journal of Hypertension, PLOS ONE
Abstract:
Heart failure (HF) is the most common and deadliest syndrome in contemporary Cardiology. A poor prognosis, frequent re-hospitalizations and decreased quality of life is sadly still characterizing the patient with heart failure. Despite major advances in pharmacological and interventional treatment, heart failure remains a major health problem in all European countries. With a prevalence between 4,4% - 7% and an incidence between 2,5‰ - 44‰, HF tends to progress with the aging. If today there are estimated 15M patients with HF in Europe, by 2030 this number is expected to double. Main objectives of pharmacological treatment in heart failure are represented by: prevention of myocardial damage through optimal management of diseases that cause HF (coronary artery disease, valvular diseases, hypertension), preventing and slowing the ventricular remodeling process, treatemnt of associated comorbidities (such as diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrilation, iron deficiency, etc), reduction of morbi-mortality, decreasing the number of re-admisions due to acute worsening of HF and improuvment of clinical status, functional capacity and quality of life of patients with HF. The pharmacological treatment in HF with reduce LV ejection fraction is targeting the neuro hormonal systems involved in development and progression of this condition: the over activation of sympathetic nervous system (SNS), of renin-angiotensin-aldosteron system (RAAS) and the natriureticpeptide system. While the over-activation of SNS is well documented in HF patients, beta-blockers (BB) represent one of the first-line HF treatment. The effects of BB are: reduction of heart rate and oxygen demand, beta-receptors modulation, reduction is RAAS activation, a protective effect by reducing catecholamine spillover toxicity, anti-ischemic and anti-arrhytmic effects, antioxidant and antiinflamatory effects, improuving miocardial protein sintesis and promoting peripherral vasodilation. The over-all effect of BB treatment leads to decreased morbi-mortality, decreased re-hospitalization and improvement of clinical symptoms in patients with HF. But not all BB have all these benefical effects, so we need to emphasise that these effects are not a class effects. Only 3 BB have evidence of decreasing mortality in HF patients: bisoprolol, succinate-metoprolol, carvedilol, while nebivolol did not decreed mortality in elderly patinets, but only CV death and re-hospitalization rate. A major step in the pahrmacological treatment of patients with HF was represented by RAAS blockage with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) which brought a reduction in mortality by 20-25%, decreased the number of rehospitalizations by 30-35%, prevent LV remodeling, decrease LV pre and afterload, stabilizes atherosclerotic plaques reducing the risk of ACS, have renoprotetiv effects (preventing renal failure and proteinuria) and decreases the risk of DM on-set. The RAAS blockade by of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have limited evidence compared to ACEIs, being recommended to be used only as an alternative to ACEIs- intolerant patients. That is why current guidelines recommend BB+ ACEIs (or ARBs to ACEIs intolerant patients) as the core-stone of phamacological treatment in HF patients. However, in HF patients receiving BB+ ACEIs/ ARBs, re-hospitalization rate at 3 months is 30% and 5-year death-rate is 50%. In HF patients aldosterone levels are increased by 20 times, since there is an independent ATII production from the endothelial cells and smooth-muscle cells of blood vessels and heart. That is why is use of mineralocorticoidreceptor blockers antagonists (MRAs) have antifibrotic effect and cardiac and vascular level, decrease miocites hypertrophy and apoptosis, decrease inflammation and calcifications and also decrease Na and water retention, K and Mg excretion. In RALES and EMPHASIS trails, the use of MRAs spiroloactone has proved reduction of morbi-mortality in patients with severe HF. If HF patients remain symptomatic after up-titration to maximum tolerate evidence-base dose of BB+ ACEIs/ ARBs, the current guideline recommend to add an MRA that up be up-titrated also to to maximum tolerate evidence-base dose. If the patients is still symptomatic and able to tolerate ACEIS (or ARBs) than the guideline recomend to replace ACEIs (or ARBs) with angiotensin-receptor neprilisin inhibitor (ARNI). The natriuretic-peptide system includes 3 structurally simmilar peptides which exerts protective cardio-renale effects (atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), B-type natriuretic peptide and C-type natriuretic peptide), which practically antagonizes the effects of RAAS over-activation. The inactivation of the natriuretic peptides is accomplished by hydrolysis under the action of neprilinsin, a reactive endopeptidase which is responsible for inactivation of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. Thus, the use of a neprilisin- inhibitor in patients with heart failure is obvious: increasing circulating levels of mature natriuretic peptides capable of exerting hemodynamic, natriuretic and diuretic effects. This combination - ARNI: dual inhibitor of angiotensin type 1 receptor and neprilisine (LCZ696: valsartan+sacubritril, 400 mg / day) was recently tested in comparison with ACEIs (enalapril 20 mg/day) in PARADGM-HF trail. After a median follow-up period of 27 months, the study was prematurely stopped due to the overwhelming superiority of LCZ696 treatment to enalapril, reducing the primary endpoint (risk of cardiovascular death with a risk of respiratory failure) by 20% and a total mortality of 16%. Other pharmacological options for patients with HF with reduced EF which remains symptomatic despite treatment with evidence-base dose of BB, ACEIs (or ARBs) and MRAs are represented by: • Ivabradine – recommended if patients are in sinus rhythm with a HR>70bpm • Hidralasine and isosorbid dinitrat – recommended as alternative to ACEIs/ ARBs if neither is tolerated, or if the patient remains symptomatic despite treatment BB, ACEIs (or ARBs) and MRAs • Digoxin – recommended if patients associated atrial fibrillation of flutter with increased ventricular response, or if the patient is in synus rhythm bur intolerant to BB, or remains symptomatic despite treatment BB, ACEIs (or ARBs) and MRAs • Nutritional supply by Q10-coenzyme, B1 vitamin, carnitine and taurine. The diuretic treatment in patients with HF is only recommended for congestive symptoms relieve and maintain euvolemia. While the pharmacological arsenal of HF with reduced LVEF is nowadays vast, in patients with HF with preserved or mid-range LVEF no treatment has proved reduction in mortality or morbidity. IN this patients diuretic treatment is recommended for symptom relieve, treatment of associated co-morbidities (HT, CAD, AF, etc). In conclusion, the pharmacological treatment available today has improved the morbi-mortality and functional capacity of HF patients, but due to its inherent limits, a significant proportion of patients remain symptomatic with frequent re-hospitalizations, an limited functional capacity and still a high mortality rate
- Clinical Cardiology| Cardiac Surgery | Rehabilitation of Cardiovascular Diseases and Healthcare | Interventional Cardiology | Cardiac Diseases | Hypertension & Heart Disease | Case Presentations | Hypertension Risk Factors
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Session Introduction
Simin Jafari
Islamic Azad University, Iran
Title: Effect of moderate physical activity on reduce of blood pressure in hypertensive patients
Biography:
Simin Jafari has completed her PhD in Sports Psychology from Imam Reza International University, Iran. She is currently working as a Sports Psychologist of Iran's Youth Rowing Team, Iran and also Instructor at Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Iran.
Abstract:
Maria Dorobantu
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Romania
Title: Limits of pharmacological treatment in heart failure
Biography:
Maria Dorobantu has worked as senior specialist in internal medicine and Senior specialist in cardiology during 1990-1996. She is Director of the Research Center of Excellency for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular emergencies and she is Director of Hypertension Center of Excellence, European Society of Hypertension. She is Initiator and Coordinator for National Studys SEPHAR (I-III). She is reviewer for multiple journals viz., American Heart Journal, Cor et Vasa, Journal of Hypertension, PLOS ONE.
Abstract:
Heart failure (HF) is the most common and deadliest syndrome in contemporary Cardiology. A poor prognosis, frequent re-hospitalizations and decreased quality of life is sadly still characterizing the patient with heart failure. Despite major advances in pharmacological and interventional treatment, heart failure remains a major health problem in all European countries. With a prevalence between 4,4% - 7% and an incidence between 2,5‰ - 44‰, HF tends to progress with the aging. If today there are estimated 15M patients with HF in Europe, by 2030 this number is expected to double. Main objectives of pharmacological treatment in heart failure are represented by: prevention of myocardial damage through optimal management of diseases that cause HF (coronary artery disease, valvular diseases, hypertension), preventing and slowing the ventricular remodeling process, treatemnt of associated comorbidities (such as diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrilation, iron deficiency, etc), reduction of morbi-mortality, decreasing the number of re-admisions due to acute worsening of HF and improuvment of clinical status, functional capacity and quality of life of patients with HF. The pharmacological treatment in HF with reduce LV ejection fraction is targeting the neuro hormonal systems involved in development and progression of this condition: the over activation of sympathetic nervous system (SNS), of renin-angiotensin-aldosteron system (RAAS) and the natriureticpeptide system. While the over-activation of SNS is well documented in HF patients, beta-blockers (BB) represent one of the first-line HF treatment. The effects of BB are: reduction of heart rate and oxygen demand, beta-receptors modulation, reduction is RAAS activation, a protective effect by reducing catecholamine spillover toxicity, anti-ischemic and anti-arrhytmic effects, antioxidant and antiinflamatory effects, improuving miocardial protein sintesis and promoting peripherral vasodilation. The over-all effect of BB treatment leads to decreased morbi-mortality, decreased re-hospitalization and improvement of clinical symptoms in patients with HF. But not all BB have all these benefical effects, so we need to emphasise that these effects are not a class effects. Only 3 BB have evidence of decreasing mortality in HF patients: bisoprolol, succinate-metoprolol, carvedilol, while nebivolol did not decreed mortality in elderly patinets, but only CV death and re-hospitalization rate. A major step in the pahrmacological treatment of patients with HF was represented by RAAS blockage with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) which brought a reduction in mortality by 20-25%, decreased the number of rehospitalizations by 30-35%, prevent LV remodeling, decrease LV pre and afterload, stabilizes atherosclerotic plaques reducing the risk of ACS, have renoprotetiv effects (preventing renal failure and proteinuria) and decreases the risk of DM on-set. The RAAS blockade by of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have limited evidence compared to ACEIs, being recommended to be used only as an alternative to ACEIs- intolerant patients. That is why current guidelines recommend BB+ ACEIs (or ARBs to ACEIs intolerant patients) as the core-stone of phamacological treatment in HF patients. However, in HF patients receiving BB+ ACEIs/ ARBs, re-hospitalization rate at 3 months is 30% and 5-year death-rate is 50%. In HF patients aldosterone levels are increased by 20 times, since there is an independent ATII production from the endothelial cells and smooth-muscle cells of blood vessels and heart. That is why is use of mineralocorticoidreceptor blockers antagonists (MRAs) have antifibrotic effect and cardiac and vascular level, decrease miocites hypertrophy and apoptosis, decrease inflammation and calcifications and also decrease Na and water retention, K and Mg excretion. In RALES and EMPHASIS trails, the use of MRAs spiroloactone has proved reduction of morbi-mortality in patients with severe HF. If HF patients remain symptomatic after up-titration to maximum tolerate evidence-base dose of BB+ ACEIs/ ARBs, the current guideline recommend to add an MRA that up be up-titrated also to to maximum tolerate evidence-base dose. If the patients is still symptomatic and able to tolerate ACEIS (or ARBs) than the guideline recomend to replace ACEIs (or ARBs) with angiotensin-receptor neprilisin inhibitor (ARNI). The natriuretic-peptide system includes 3 structurally simmilar peptides which exerts protective cardio-renale effects (atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), B-type natriuretic peptide and C-type natriuretic peptide), which practically antagonizes the effects of RAAS over-activation. The inactivation of the natriuretic peptides is accomplished by hydrolysis under the action of neprilinsin, a reactive endopeptidase which is responsible for inactivation of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. Thus, the use of a neprilisin- inhibitor in patients with heart failure is obvious: increasing circulating levels of mature natriuretic peptides capable of exerting hemodynamic, natriuretic and diuretic effects. This combination - ARNI: dual inhibitor of angiotensin type 1 receptor and neprilisine (LCZ696: valsartan+sacubritril, 400 mg / day) was recently tested in comparison with ACEIs (enalapril 20 mg/day) in PARADGM-HF trail. After a median follow-up period of 27 months, the study was prematurely stopped due to the overwhelming superiority of LCZ696 treatment to enalapril, reducing the primary endpoint (risk of cardiovascular death with a risk of respiratory failure) by 20% and a total mortality of 16%. Other pharmacological options for patients with HF with reduced EF which remains symptomatic despite treatment with evidence-base dose of BB, ACEIs (or ARBs) and MRAs are represented by: • Ivabradine – recommended if patients are in sinus rhythm with a HR>70bpm • Hidralasine and isosorbid dinitrat – recommended as alternative to ACEIs/ ARBs if neither is tolerated, or if the patient remains symptomatic despite treatment BB, ACEIs (or ARBs) and MRAs • Digoxin – recommended if patients associated atrial fibrillation of flutter with increased ventricular response, or if the patient is in synus rhythm bur intolerant to BB, or remains symptomatic despite treatment BB, ACEIs (or ARBs) and MRAs • Nutritional supply by Q10-coenzyme, B1 vitamin, carnitine and taurine. The diuretic treatment in patients with HF is only recommended for congestive symptoms relieve and maintain euvolemia. While the pharmacological arsenal of HF with reduced LVEF is nowadays vast, in patients with HF with preserved or mid-range LVEF no treatment has proved reduction in mortality or morbidity. IN this patients diuretic treatment is recommended for symptom relieve, treatment of associated co-morbidities (HT, CAD, AF, etc). In conclusion, the pharmacological treatment available today has improved the morbi-mortality and functional capacity of HF patients, but due to its inherent limits, a significant proportion of patients remain symptomatic with frequent re-hospitalizations, an limited functional capacity and still a high mortality rate
Oana Gheorghe Fronea
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Romania
Title: New era in HF treatment-Medical management
Biography:
Abstract:
We present a case of a 35-year-old female who presented to the emergency room with severe dyspnea with orthopnea and angina she denied any personal or family history of cardiovascular disease, but reported two recent episodes of pneumonia for which she received empirical antibiotic treatment with Cefuroxime and Clarithromycin. Physical examination revealed an overweight patient, mild bibasilar crackles and systolic cardiac murmur over the mitral area. Her blood pressure was 190/100 mmHg and heart rate 120 BPM. Initial laboratory data showed elevated CK-MB and NT-proBNP, elevated liver enzymes and normal renal function. There were no particular findings on the surface ECG. The echocardiography revealed a dilated Left Ventricle (LV), severe systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction 20%) due to global hypokinesia, intraventricular dyssynchrony despite a narrow QRS complex on the surface ECG and moderate secondary mitral regurgitation. In this context, the optimal treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was initiated (at first perindopril then combination Sacubitril-Valsartan, Spironolactone, Furosemide, Metoprolol). On follow-up echocardiographic examinations, the ejection fraction gradually increased up to 45% at eight months examination. To clarify the cause of chamber dilation, a CMR was pursued which confirmed both left and Right Ventricle (RV) dilation (LV 171 ml/m2, RV 136 ml/m2) and severe systolic dysfunction. In addition, no edema or areas of focal myocardial fibrosis were noticed. The apical region of the LV was hypertrabeculated with a non-compacted/compacted myocardium radio of 2.2 in long axis views suggestive of non-compaction. No thrombus was seen. Also, we excluded an ischemic etiology considering the absence of coronary lesions, the diffuse hypokinesia on echocardiography and the lack of ischemic changes on CMR. In addition, acute myocarditis was unlikely due to the non-suggestive CMR aspect. Finally, the 24-hour ECG monitoring showed very rare ventricular extrasystoles accounting for only 0.5% of total ventricular beats and no tachyarrhythmia, making a diagnosis of tachycardiomyopathies improbable. In conclusion, myocardial non-compaction may be the expression of a genetic cardiomyopathy or may be the phenotypic appearance of other causes of left ventricle dysfunction. The reversibility of the disease in our patient does not support the diagnosis of genetic non-compaction cardiomyopathy. The patient was nonetheless programmed for genetic testing given the psychological burden that this diagnosis implies. So far, we were not able to determine a trigger for the reversible ventricular dysfunction in this patient. A question remains whether the optimal medical treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction could nowadays completely reverse even a genetic form of non-compaction
Corneliu Iorgulescu
Inter Cardio Clinique, Romania
Title: Interventional management in a heart failure patient
Biography:
Career Performance Professional Training: - Graduate of UMF Carol Davila Bucharest 2003 - Cardiology Specialist 2010 -Examen European Competence of Implantable Cardiac Devices 2008 -Examen European Electrophysiology Competence 2012 - Europhysiology Training Course 2011-2012 in Hungary, Szeged - Romanian Society of Cardiology extraction of implantable cardiac devices in Italy, Pisa - 2016 Performed procedures: - Cardiac simulators - Resynchronization therapy - Cardiac defibrillators - Standard radiofrequency abrasions - 3D assisted radiofrequency assemblies - Implanted cardiac extractions
Abstract:
We present the case of 72 years male; diabetic, hypertensive with ischemic cardiomyopathy, moderate-severe mitral regurgitation and left bundle branch block. At the initial hospitalization the patient had a 25% LVEF and was NYHA 4 with optimal medical therapy- ACE inhibitor, Beta-blocker, Spironolactone and Furosemide. He had trivascular coronary heart disease with complete interventional revascularization. A CRT-D was implanted with an increase of LVEF at 35% to 40% at six months and NYHA class II symptoms. After two years he developed atrial fibrillation and NYHA class III symptoms. Amiodarone was attempted unsuccessfully so after six months a pulmonary veins isolation procedure was performed. The patient remained in sinus rhythm and NYHA II for one year than atrial fibrillation reoccurred. At that moment he was NYHA III with optimal medical therapy, LVEF was 35% with severe mitral regurgitation. The patient was proposed for mitral clip implant and he was switched to Sacubitril/Valsartan therapy. He improved to NYHA II class and remained stable for two years. No mitral clip was implanted.
F. R. den Hartog
Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Netherlands
Title: Atrial fibrillation and heart failure: Focus on NOACs
Biography:
FR den Hartog is trained as a cardiologist in the Onze Lieve Vrouw Gasthuis (OLVG) in Amsterdam. He then worked as a cardiologist in Rotterdam. In 1989 he started at the Gelderse Vallei Hospital. From Rotterdam, he introduced cardio-vascular research in the Gelderse Vallei Hospital. Currently, this has grown into a large department of cardiovascular research, which participates in many international studies. For this, this department works together with many cardiology clinics in the Netherlands. Special interest exists in lipid (cholesterol) disorders, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. He is also medical manager of the cardiology department