Explore the vast range of titles available.

Heart failure is a global problem with an estimated prevalence of 38 million patients worldwide, a number that is increasing with the ageing of the population. It is the most common diagnosis in patients aged 65 years or older admitted to hospital and in high-income nations. Despite some progress, the prognosis of heart failure is worse than that of most cancers. Because of the seriousness of the condition, a declaration of war on five fronts has been proposed for heart failure. Efforts are underway to treat heart failure by enhancing myofilament sensitivity to Ca2+; transfer of the gene for SERCA2a, the protein that pumps calcium into the sarcoplasmic reticulum of the cardiomyocyte, seems promising in a phase 2 trial. Several other abnormal calcium-handling proteins in the failing heart are candidates for gene therapy; many short, non-coding RNAs—ie, microRNAs (miRNAs)—block gene expression and protein translation. These molecules are crucial to calcium cycling and ventricular hypertrophy. The actions of miRNAs can be blocked by a new class of drugs, antagomirs, some of which have been shown to improve cardiac function in animal models of heart failure; cell therapy, with autologous bone marrow derived mononuclear cells, or autogenous mesenchymal cells, which can be administered as cryopreserved off the shelf products, seem to be promising in both preclinical and early clinical heart failure trials; and long-term ventricular assistance devices are now used increasingly as a destination therapy in patients with advanced heart failure. In selected patients, left ventricular assistance can lead to myocardial recovery and explantation of the device. The approaches to the treatment of heart failure described, when used alone or in combination, could become important weapons in the war against heart failure.

In this review of heart disease, Nabel and Braunwald focus on two themes — coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction — and explain how our understanding has evolved over the past two centuries. The authors consider therapies that have led to improved survival. The remarkable facts, that the paroxysm, or indeed the disease itself, is excited more especially upon walking up hill, and after a meal; that thus excited, it is accompanied with a sensation, which threatens instant death if the motion is persisted in; and, that on stopping, the distress immediately abates, or altogether subsides; have . . . formed a constituent part of the character of Angina Pectoris. 1 “Remarks on Angina Pectoris” by John Warren, M.D., appeared in 1812 as the first article in the first issue of The New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery . 1 Warren's description of angina pectoris . . .

It has been known for more than a century that coronary-artery thrombosis is the most common precipitant of acute myocardial infarction and that atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries are often responsible for angina pectoris. When anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents became available, clinical investigators rushed to study their efficacy and safety in patients with coronary artery disease. Attention was focused on two large populations — patients with acute coronary syndromes and those with stable ischemic disease, many of whom had previously had an acute event. Hundreds of trials, registries, and systematic analyses on the benefits and risks of individual and . . .

Gliflozins — sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors — lower blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes without causing hypoglycemia. The agents also improve cardiac function in patients who have heart failure with or without type 2 diabetes and improve renal function, with few adverse effects.

When coronary arteriography was developed in the early 1960s, the very high risk associated with obstructive left main coronary artery disease became evident; this risk was related to the large volume of myocardium supplied by this vessel. Among patients receiving the medical therapy available at the time, the 5-year mortality approached 60%, and the survivors usually had severe symptoms, including angina, heart failure, or both. 1 Several years later, after coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) became available, two multicenter, randomized trials that compared medical treatment with surgical treatment showed that surgical treatment was strikingly superior. 2 , 3 Since then, there has been general . . .

Patients with acute decompensated heart failure were randomly assigned to receive sacubitril–valsartan or enalapril. At 8 weeks, the sacubitril–valsartan group had a greater reduction in the N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide concentration than the enalapril group.

The preferred contemporary approach to the management of stable ischemic heart disease, also referred to as chronic coronary syndrome, 1 is not well defined. Two strategies are commonly used. 2 The conservative strategy uses guideline-based medical therapy, including antianginal drugs as well as disease-modifying agents, such as hypolipidemic, antithrombotic, and renin–angiotensin blocking therapies. The invasive strategy adds coronary angiography, followed by either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary-artery bypass grafting, to guideline-based medical therapy. Important advances have occurred in both strategies, leading to equipoise as to which approach is preferable for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. 3,4 The International Study of Comparative Health . . .

Genetic variants have been associated with the risk of coronary heart disease. In this study, we tested whether or not a composite of these variants could ascertain the risk of both incident and recurrent coronary heart disease events and identify those individuals who derive greater clinical benefit from statin therapy. A community-based cohort study (the Malmo Diet and Cancer Study) and four randomised controlled trials of both primary prevention (JUPITER and ASCOT) and secondary prevention (CARE and PROVE IT-TIMI 22) with statin therapy, comprising a total of 48 421 individuals and 3477 events, were included in these analyses. We studied the association of a genetic risk score based on 27 genetic variants with incident or recurrent coronary heart disease, adjusting for traditional clinical risk factors. We then investigated the relative and absolute risk reductions in coronary heart disease events with statin therapy stratified by genetic risk. We combined data from the different studies using a meta-analysis. When individuals were divided into low (quintile 1), intermediate (quintiles 2–4), and high (quintile 5) genetic risk categories, a significant gradient in risk for incident or recurrent coronary heart disease was shown. Compared with the low genetic risk category, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for coronary heart disease for the intermediate genetic risk category was 1·34 (95% CI 1·22–1·47, p<0·0001) and that for the high genetic risk category was 1·72 (1·55–1·92, p<0·0001). In terms of the benefit of statin therapy in the four randomised trials, we noted a significant gradient (p=0·0277) of increasing relative risk reductions across the low (13%), intermediate (29%), and high (48%) genetic risk categories. Similarly, we noted greater absolute risk reductions in those individuals in higher genetic risk categories (p=0·0101), resulting in a roughly threefold decrease in the number needed to treat to prevent one coronary heart disease event in the primary prevention trials. Specifically, in the primary prevention trials, the number needed to treat to prevent one such event in 10 years was 66 in people at low genetic risk, 42 in those at intermediate genetic risk, and 25 in those at high genetic risk in JUPITER, and 57, 47, and 20, respectively, in ASCOT. A genetic risk score identified individuals at increased risk for both incident and recurrent coronary heart disease events. People with the highest burden of genetic risk derived the largest relative and absolute clinical benefit from statin therapy. National Institutes of Health.

Four new oral anticoagulants compare favourably with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation; however, the balance between efficacy and safety in subgroups needs better definition. We aimed to assess the relative benefit of new oral anticoagulants in key subgroups, and the effects on important secondary outcomes. We searched Medline from Jan 1, 2009, to Nov 19, 2013, limiting searches to phase 3, randomised trials of patients with atrial fibrillation who were randomised to receive new oral anticoagulants or warfarin, and trials in which both efficacy and safety outcomes were reported. We did a prespecified meta-analysis of all 71 683 participants included in the RE-LY, ROCKET AF, ARISTOTLE, and ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48 trials. The main outcomes were stroke and systemic embolic events, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleeding. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs for each outcome. We did subgroup analyses to assess whether differences in patient and trial characteristics affected outcomes. We used a random-effects model to compare pooled outcomes and tested for heterogeneity. 42 411 participants received a new oral anticoagulant and 29 272 participants received warfarin. New oral anticoagulants significantly reduced stroke or systemic embolic events by 19% compared with warfarin (RR 0·81, 95% CI 0·73–0·91; p<0·0001), mainly driven by a reduction in haemorrhagic stroke (0·49, 0·38–0·64; p<0·0001). New oral anticoagulants also significantly reduced all-cause mortality (0·90, 0·85–0·95; p=0·0003) and intracranial haemorrhage (0·48, 0·39–0·59; p<0·0001), but increased gastrointestinal bleeding (1·25, 1·01–1·55; p=0·04). We noted no heterogeneity for stroke or systemic embolic events in important subgroups, but there was a greater relative reduction in major bleeding with new oral anticoagulants when the centre-based time in therapeutic range was less than 66% than when it was 66% or more (0·69, 0·59–0·81 vs 0·93, 0·76–1·13; p for interaction 0·022). Low-dose new oral anticoagulant regimens showed similar overall reductions in stroke or systemic embolic events to warfarin (1·03, 0·84–1·27; p=0·74), and a more favourable bleeding profile (0·65, 0·43–1·00; p=0·05), but significantly more ischaemic strokes (1·28, 1·02–1·60; p=0·045). This meta-analysis is the first to include data for all four new oral anticoagulants studied in the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials for stroke prevention or systemic embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. New oral anticoagulants had a favourable risk–benefit profile, with significant reductions in stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality, and with similar major bleeding as for warfarin, but increased gastrointestinal bleeding. The relative efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants was consistent across a wide range of patients. Our findings offer clinicians a more comprehensive picture of the new oral anticoagulants as a therapeutic option to reduce the risk of stroke in this patient population. None.

Hypertrophic CardiomyopathyIn hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, thickened heart muscle often obstructs blood flow. Imaging aids in diagnosis, and treatments such as myosin inhibitors and defibrillators have improved the prognosis.