AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Review Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2693-4779/114
Endocrinology Division, Department of Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, David-Geffen UCLA Medical School, Sylmar, CA, USA
*Corresponding Author: Nasser Mikhail, Endocrinology Division, Department of Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, David-Geffen UCLA Medical School, Sylmar, CA, USA
Citation: Nasser Mikhail (2023) Sglt-2 Inhibitors: A Useful Addition for Treatment of Heart Failure with Mildly Preserved and Preserved Ejection Fraction. Clinical Research and Clinical Trials. 7(1) ; DOI :10.31579/2693-4779/114
Copyright: : © 2023 Nasser Mikhail, This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 18 October 2022 | Accepted: 21 November 2022 | Published: 20 January 2023
Keywords: SGLT2 inhibitors; heart failure; mortality; ejection fraction; safety
Background: The use of sodium-glucose cotransporters type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors is associated with reduction in cardiorenal outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Objective: To clarify the therapeutic role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure and mildly preserved ejection fraction (HFmpEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
Methods: Pubmed search until October 13, 2022. Search terms included: heart failure, SGLT2 inhibitors, hospitalization, mortality, safety. Randomized clinical trials and guidelines of major societies were reviewed.
Results: 2 well-designed trials, the EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER trials, have shown that use of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with decrease cardiac events in patients with HFmpEF and HFpEF. In the EMPEROR-Preserved, empagliflozin 10 mg/d decreased a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) compared with placebo, hazard ratio (HR) 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.90, P<0.001). In the DELIVER Trial, dapagliflozin 10 mg/d decreased the primary outcome of CV death or worsening HF, HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.92, P<0.001). The effects of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin on the primary outcome were evident and statistically significant versus placebo after 13-18 days post randomization. In both EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER trials, no significant effects on CV death were demonstrated. By pooling data from the 2 trials, the effects of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin on CV death was close but did not reach statistical significance, HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.77-1.00, P=0.052). Meanwhile, after pooling 2 dapagliflozin trials to include patients with HFrEF (DAPA-HF trial) and HFmpEF + HFpEF (DELIVER trial), dapagliflozin significantly decreased CV death, HR 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.98, P=0.02) and all-cause mortality, HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.99, P=0.03). The CV effects of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin were consistent regardless of age, gender, presence or absence of diabetes or atrial fibrillation. Yet, the effect of empagliflozin on decreasing HHF was attenuated in patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥60% and disappeared at LVEF ≥65%. On the other hand, dapagliflozin effects on cardiac outcomes remained consistent regardless of baseline LVEF. Both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin were generally well tolerated, with rates of drug discontinuation due to adverse effects similar to those with placebo.
Conclusions: SGLT2 inhibitors should be the standard of care in patients with HFmpEF and HF pEF similar to their established indication in patients with HFrEF. Until direct comparison between empagliflozin and dapagliflozin becomes available, dapagliflozin should be the SGLT2 inhibitor of choice, particularly in patients with HFmpEF and HFpEF.
Accumulating evidence have shown that use of SGLT-2 inhibitors was associated with decrease in HHF and CV death in patients with HFrEF (defined as LVEF ≤40%) with and without diabetes [1,2]. Accordingly, current guidelines recommend SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF to reduce HHF and CV mortality irrespective of presence of type 2 diabetes (class IA recommendation, i.e., strong recommendation, high-quality evidence) [3]. In patients with HFmpEF (LVEF 41-49%) and HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%), treatment options of are limited [3]. The first study that suggested a role of SGLT2 inhibitors in treatment of HFpEF was the SOLOIST-WHF trial that evaluated sotagliflozin versus placebo in patients with diabetes and recent HF (n=1,222) [4]. In the latter study, sotagliflozin decreased HHF, urgent visits for HF, or CV death by an impressive 52% (HR 0.48, 95% 0.27-0.86) in the subgroup of patients with LVEF ≥50%. This subgroup constituted 21% of the study population) [4]. Unfortunately, the SOLIST-WHF was terminated prematurely after a median follow-up of 9 months due loss of funding [4].
More recently, 2 landmark trials, the EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER, were published [5,6]. Both trials were specifically designed to examine the effects of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin, respectively on CV clinical outcomes in patients with HFmpEF and HFpEF [5,6]. The main purpose of this review is to provide a critical appraisal on the therapeutic role of the 2 SGLT2 inhibitors empagliflozin and dapagliflozin in patients with HFmpEF and HFpEF based on the findings of the EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER trials.
Overview of the EMPEROR-Preserved and the DELIVER trials
The EMPEROR-Preserved and the DELIVER trials are 2 large multinational randomized trials that examined the effects of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin, respectively on CV events in patients with symptomatic HFpEF [5,6]. Overview and main results of the 2 studies are summarized in table 1. Participants had New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV and an LVEF of >40%, with evidence of structural heart disease (left ventricular hypertrophy or left atrial enlargement) associated with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels of > 300 pg/ml and > 900 pg/ml in patients with atrial fibrillation. In general, inclusion and exclusion criteria of the 2 trials are similar with 2 differences. First, the DELIVER included patients with improved LVEF, i.e., those who had had a previous LVEF of < 40> 40% at the time of enrollment [6]. Second, the cutoff of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) required for enrollment was different. Thus, patients were excluded from EMPEROR-preserved and DELIVER trials if their eGFR was < 20>
Main results of EMPEROR-Preserved and the DELIVER trials
In the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, over a median of 26.2 months, a primary outcome event occurred in 13.8% and 17.1% of patients randomized to empagliflozin and placebo, respectively; HR 0.79 (95% 0.69-0.90; P< 0>
Effect on empagliflozin and dapagliflozin on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality
In EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER trials, the decreased risk of the second component of primary outcome, CV death, did not reach statistical significance (table 1) [5,6]. Similarly, neither empagliflozin nor dapagliflozin significantly decreased all-cause mortality (table 1) [5,6]. After pooling the results of both trials (n=12,251), the effect of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin on all-cause mortality remained non-significant, HR 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06), and reduction in CV death was close to statistically significant, HR 0.88 (95% 0.77-1.00; P =0.052) [9]. Meanwhile, in a meta-analysis of the 2 trials of dapagliflozin including patients (n=11,007) with HFrEF (DAPA-HF trial) and HFmpEF + HFrEF (DELIVER trial), dapagliflozin significantly decreased CV mortality (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.98, P=0.02) as well as all-cause mortality (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.99), P=0.03) [10]. Taken together, the above observations suggest that dapagliflozin, but not empagliflozin, may decrease CV death and all-cause mortality in patients with HF across the whole spectrum of EF i.e HFrEF, HFmpEF and HFpEF.
Subgroup analysis
The CV effects of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin on cardiac outcomes did not vary in subgroups classified by age, gender, body mass index, presence or absence of diabetes or atrial fibrillation, degree of frailty, or background use of CV medications [5,6,11-16]. However, a remarkable difference between empagliflozin and dapagliflozin emerged in terms of baseline LVEF. Thus, in case of dapagliflozin, its effects on CV outcomes did not differ across different values of LVEF ranging from ≤30% up to ≥ 60% [17]. However, in case of empagliflozin, the risk reduction in CV death and HHF was attenuated with LVEF ≥60% and is totally lost with LVEF≥65% [5, 18].
Patients with improved LVEF
Improved LVEF refers to those patients with a previous LVEF < 40> LVEF > 40% [3]. Patients with improved EF deserves particular attention due to the following causes. First, despite their growing prevalence, they are usually excluded from trials of HFpEF [19]. Second, even when LVEF return to normal range, these subjects may have worse clinical outcomes than patients with no history of HF [19]. Third, preliminary data suggest that withdrawal of pharmacological HF drugs was associated with relapse in 36% of patients within 6 months of withdrawal [20]. Accordingly, current guidelines recommend that patients with improved EF should continue HF treatment [3]. Patients with improved LVEF were excluded from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial but were allowed to participate in DELIVER trial forming 18.3% of the study population [6,21]. Importantly, results from the DELIVER trial showed that the CV benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent in the subgroup of patients with improved EF [6].
Effects on symptoms of heart failure
Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin improved health-related quality of life symptoms of HF as evaluated by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitation. The amelioration in the KCCQ score was modest (mean improvement < 5>
Effects of empagliflozin on renal function
Effect of empagliflozin on renal function was among the prespecified secondary outcomes of the EMPEROR-Preserved trial but was not reported in the DELIVER trial [5,6]. The EMPEROR-preserved showed that the rate of decline in the eGFR was slower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (-1.25 versus -2.62 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year; P<0>300 mg/g, by 19% (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70-0.94; P=0.005) [23]. The latter effect was consistent in patients with baseline LVEF ≤40% and >40%, with eGFR ≤ 60 and > 60 ml/min/1.72 m2, and those with and without diabetes [23].
Safety of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin
Both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin were well tolerated. Proportions of patients with serious adverse effects and those who discontinued treatment due to adverse effects were similar to those randomized to placebo (table 1) [5,6]. In EMPEREOR-Preserved, some adverse effects were reported more commonly with empagliflozin compared with placebo including hypotension (10.4% vs 8.6%), urinary tract infections (UTI) (9.9% vs 8.1%), and genital infections (2.2% vs 0.7%) [5]. These adverse effects were not mentioned in DELIVER trial, except for “serious” UTI, which occurred equally in 1% of dapagliflozin and placebo groups [6]. It was reassuring that frequency of acute renal injury and hypoglycemia was not increased with empagliflozin or dapagliflozin [5,6].
Differences between empagliflozin and dapagliflozin
In terms of treatment of HF, dapagliflozin seems to be superior
to empagliflozin in 3 aspects. First, as mentioned above, when data from DELIVER trial and DAPA-HF trial were pooled to encompass the whole range of LVEF, dapagliflozin was associated with significant 14% reduction in CV death and 10% in all-cause death [10]. On the contrary, no mortality benefit was shown with empagliflozin [5]. Second, the cardiac benefits of dapagliflozin extends to patients with LVEF >60%, whereas in case of empagliflozin, this benefit was attenuated with LVEF >60%, and is totally lost with LVEF > 65% [5,18]. Third, in terms of safety, hypotension, UTI, and genital infections were reported more frequently with empagliflozin compared with placebo, whereas these adverse effects were not mentioned with dapagliflozin. The reasons for this discrepancy between empagliflozin and dapagliflozin are unclear but might be related to differences in patients’ characteristics and presence of some dissimilarities in drug properties. Therefore, until head-to-head trials for direct comparison of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin become available, dapagliflozin should be the agent of choice in patients with HF in general, and those with HFpEF in particular.
Although the EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER trials are well-designed, they suffer from several limitations [5,6]. First, owing to the multiple exclusion criteria, included patients are relatively healthier than patients in real-life. For instance, patients with eGFR <20>
Empagliflozin-Preserved and DELIVER trials provide strong evidence that the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFmpEF and HFpEF may be associated with significant reduction in HHF [5,6]. These 2 categories of HF are of utmost need for new medications that convincingly reduce CV morbidity and mortality. Most recent guidelines published before the release of DELIVER Trial recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as class 2aB recommendation, i.e moderate-strength recommendation, moderate quality evidence, in patients with HFmpEF and HFpEF [3]. After release of results of the DELIVER Trial, it is likely that this recommendation will be upgraded to class 1A, similar to that in HFrEF. While neither empagliflozin nor dapagliflozin individually demonstrated decreased CV death and all-cause mortality in patients with HFmpEF and HFpEF over a median follow-up of up to 2.3 years, longer follow-up (e.g. 5 years) is needed to clarify the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on these 2 outcomes. Nevertheless, pooling data of the 2 dapagliflozin trials, DAPA-HF and DELIVER, suggest that dapagliflozin may be associated with significant 14% reduction in CV death and 10% in all-cause death [10]. In addition, contrary to empagliflozin, dapagliflozin cardiac benefits persist at LVEF > 60%. Moreover, safety profile might be more favorable with dapagliflozin (table 1) [5,6]. Therefore, until head-to-head trials become available, dapagliflozin may be the SGLT2 inhibitor of choice for use in patients with HF. Advantages and limitations of SGLT2 inhibitors for treatment of HFmpEF and HFpEF are summarized in table 2.
Table 1: Trials of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
NT-proBNP: N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide, LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction, CV: cardiovascular, HHF, hospitalization for heart failure, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate, KCCQ: Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, SGLT2: sodium-glucose cotransporter 2, HR: hazard ratio
CV: cardiovascular, HHF: hospitalization for heart failure, UACR; urine albumin-creatinine ratio, LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction, CKD: chronic kidney disease, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
