Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HfrEF). Etiology may influence the outcome of patients undergoing CRT. Objective: to evaluate whether etiology (ischemic vs non-ischemic) influences the response to CRT and overall outcome. Methods: Our study included HFrEF patients undergoing CRT between January 2017-November 2019. We assessed right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV) function using transthoracic echocardiography at baseline and one year after CRT. The response to CRT was defined by a decrease of more than 15% of left ventricle systolic volume. Patients were divided in two groups: ischemic and non-ischemic based on personal history. Adverse events (HF related hospitalizations and deaths) were tracked for 33± 12.8 months. Results: 52 patients undergoing CRT were included (64±13.5 years, 55.7% male, 70% non-ischemic etiology) The two groups were similar considering LV systolic baseline parameters and volumes. Ischemic etiology was associated with non-LBBB morphology on ECG (p=0.03), a more severe LV diastolic dysfunction using E/e ratio (p<0.05), and a more severe RV dysfunction using TAPSE (p=0.008) and RV fractional area change (FAC) (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in CRT response between ischemic and non-ischemic etiology. 14 (26.9%) patients had events (10 hospitalizations and 4 deaths) with a higher prevalence in the ischemic group (58.33% vs 25%, p=0.01). Univariate Cox regression analysis reported a higher risk of cardiovascular events for ischemic etiology (HR 2.4, 95% CI [0.8-8.1], p <0.05). In our cohort there was no significant difference in use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in addition to CRT between ischemic and non-ischemic group (64.2% respectively 63.3%, p =0.3). Conclusion: Our study shows that ischemic and non-ischemic HF patients had similar response to CRT. However, ischemic etiology was associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events and a worse RV systolic dysfunction at baseline.

Backround: Optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with AF who undergo coronary stenting for an ACS has been a subject of constant change, with the addition of numerous trials in recent years. Objectives: The aim of our study was to assess current antithrombotic treatment in patients with AF and ACS treated with PCI. Material and methods: We performed a observational retrospective study on patients with nonvalvular AF, ACS and PCI between January 2017 and May 2019. We assessed both ischemic risk (IR) and haemorrhagic risk (HR) according to the 2018 ESC guidelines strategies. Results: 184 patients with nonvalvular AF and ACS treated with PCI were eligible for inclusion. In the whole cohort the HR was significantly higher than the IR (3.66+/-1.15 respectively 2.84+/- 1.15, p < 0.001). NSTEMI carries both the highest IR and HR (p<0.05). The majority of patients (88.04%) received triple antithrombotic therapy mostly for one month (39%). Main drug combination used was Aspirin, lopidogrel, antivitamin K (48.48%). Conclusions: In our registry of AF patients with ACS treated with PCI, triple antithrombotic therapy is still the strategy of choice with an initial duration of one month. In our cohort, HR is higher than IR, NSTEMI carrying the highest risks out of all the ACS.