Dataset Information

Noncardiac comorbidities in heart failure with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT: Heart failure patients are classified by ejection fraction (EF) into distinct groups: heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Although patients with heart failure commonly have multiple comorbidities that complicate management and may adversely affect outcomes, their role in the HFpEF and HFrEF groups is not well-characterized. This review summarizes the role of noncardiac comorbidities in patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF, emphasizing prevalence, underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and outcomes. Pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, anemia, and obesity tend to be more prevalent in HFpEF patients, but renal disease and sleep-disordered breathing burdens are similar. These comorbidities similarly increase morbidity and mortality risk in HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Common pathophysiologic mechanisms include systemic and endomyocardial inflammation with fibrosis. We also discuss implications for clinical care and future HF clinical trial design. The basis for this review was discussions between scientists, clinical trialists, and regulatory representatives at the 10th Global CardioVascular Clinical Trialists Forum.

SUBMITTER: Mentz RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4254505 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Noncardiac comorbidities in heart failure with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction.

Mentz Robert J RJ Kelly Jacob P JP von Lueder Thomas G TG Voors Adriaan A AA Lam Carolyn S P CS Cowie Martin R MR Kjeldsen Keld K Jankowska Ewa A EA Atar Dan D Butler Javed J Fiuzat Mona M Zannad Faiez F Pitt Bertram B O'Connor Christopher M CM

Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20141124 21

Heart failure patients are classified by ejection fraction (EF) into distinct groups: heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Although patients with heart failure commonly have multiple comorbidities that complicate management and may adversely affect outcomes, their role in the HFpEF and HFrEF groups is not well-characterized. This review summarizes the role of noncardiac comorbidities in patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF, e ...[more]

PMID: 25456761

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMicrovascular dysfunction plays an important role in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, no mechanistic link between systemic microvasculature and congestion, a central feature of the syndrome, has yet been investigated.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate capillary-interstitium fluid exchange in HFpEF, including lymphatic drainage and the potential osmotic forces exerted by any hypertonic tissue Na+ excess.MethodsPatients with HFpEF and healthy control subjects of similar age and sex distributions (n = 16 per group) underwent: 1) a skin biopsy for vascular immunohistochemistry, gene expression, and chemical (water, Na+, and K+) analyses; and 2) venous occlusion plethysmography to assess peripheral microvascular filtration coefficient (measuring capillary fluid extravasation) and isovolumetric pressure (above which lymphatic drainage cannot compensate for fluid extravasation).ResultsSkin biopsies in patients with HFpEF showed rarefaction of small blood and lymphatic vessels (p = 0.003 and p = 0.012, respectively); residual skin lymphatics showed a larger diameter (p = 0.007) and lower expression of lymphatic differentiation and function markers (LYVE-1 [lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1]: p < 0.05; PROX-1 [prospero homeobox protein 1]: p < 0.001) compared with control subjects. In patients with HFpEF, microvascular filtration coefficient was lower (calf: 3.30 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.33 to 3.88] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 4.66 [IQR: 3.70 to 6.15] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p < 0.01; forearm: 5.16 [IQR: 3.86 to 5.43] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 5.66 [IQR: 4.69 to 8.38] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p > 0.05), in keeping with blood vascular rarefaction and the lack of any observed hypertonic skin Na+ excess, but the lymphatic drainage was impaired (isovolumetric pressure in patients with HFpEF vs. control subjects: calf 16 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 22 ± 4 mm Hg; p < 0.005; forearm 17 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 25 ± 5 mm Hg; p < 0.001).ConclusionsPeripheral lymphatic vessels in patients with HFpEF exhibit structural and molecular alterations and cannot effectively compensate for fluid extravasation and interstitial accumulation by commensurate drainage. Reduced lymphatic reserve may represent a novel therapeutic target.

Project description:Higher left ventricular (LV) mass, wall thickness, and internal dimension are associated with increased heart failure (HF) risk. Whether different LV hypertrophy patterns vary with respect to rates and types of HF incidence is unclear. In this study, 4,768 Framingham Heart Study participants (mean age 50 years, 56% women) were classified into 4 mutually exclusive LV hypertrophy pattern groups (normal, concentric remodeling, concentric hypertrophy, and eccentric hypertrophy) using American Society of Echocardiography-recommended thresholds of echocardiographic LV mass indexed to body surface area and relative wall thickness, and these groups were related to HF incidence. Whether risk for HF types (HF with reduced ejection fraction [<45%] vs preserved ejection fraction [?45%]) varied by hypertrophy pattern was then evaluated. On follow-up (mean 21 years), 458 participants (9.6%, 250 women) developed new-onset HF. The age- and gender-adjusted 20-year HF incidence increased from 6.96% in the normal left ventricle group to 8.67%, 13.38%, and 15.27% in the concentric remodeling, concentric hypertrophy, and eccentric hypertrophy groups, respectively. After adjustment for co-morbidities and incident myocardial infarction, LV hypertrophy patterns were associated with higher HF incidence relative to the normal left ventricle group (p = 0.0002); eccentric hypertrophy carried the greatest risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 2.54), followed by concentric hypertrophy (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.87). Participants with eccentric hypertrophy had a higher propensity for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.37), whereas those with concentric hypertrophy were more prone to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.51). In conclusion, in this large community-based sample, HF risk varied by LV hypertrophy pattern, with eccentric and concentric hypertrophy predisposing to HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction, respectively.

Dataset Information

Noncardiac comorbidities in heart failure with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction.

Publications

Noncardiac comorbidities in heart failure with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure