Novel plasma and imaging biomarkers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kanagala P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5497340 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Novel plasma and imaging biomarkers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Kanagala Prathap P Squire Iain B IB Ng Leong L LL McCann Gerry P GP
International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature 20150730
Existing diagnostic guidelines for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (<i>HFPEF</i>) primarily comprise natriuretic peptides and echocardiographic assessment, highlighting the role of diastolic dysfunction. However, recent discoveries of novel plasma markers implicated in pathophysiology of heart failure and technological advances in imaging provide additional biomarkers which are potentially applicable to <i>HFPEF</i>. The evidence base for plasma extra-cellular matrix (ECM) peptide ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents a heterogeneous collection of conditions that are unified by the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction ?50%, evidence of impaired diastolic function and elevated natriuretic peptide levels, all within the context of typical heart failure signs and symptoms. However, while HFpEF is steadily becoming the predominant form of heart failure, disease-modifying treatment options for this population remain sparse. This review provides an overview of the diagnosis, management and prevention of HFpEF for general physicians.
| S-EPMC6334030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains incompletely defined. We aimed to characterize HFpEF compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and asymptomatic hypertensive or non-hypertensive controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Prospective, observational study of 234 subjects (HFpEF n = 140; HFrEF n = 46, controls n = 48, age 73±8, males 49%) who underwent echocardiography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), plasma biomarker analysis (panel of 22) and 6-minute walk testing (6MWT). The primary end-point was the composite of all-cause mortality and/or HF hospitalization. RESULTS:Compared to controls both HF groups had lower exercise capacity, lower left ventricular (LV) EF, higher LV filling pressures (E/E', B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP], left atrial [LA] volumes), more right ventricular (RV) systolic dysfunction, more focal and diffuse fibrosis and higher levels of all plasma markers. LV remodeling (mass/volume) was different between HFpEF (concentric, 0.68±0.16) and HFrEF (eccentric, 0.47±0.15); p<0.0001. Compared to controls, HFpEF was characterized by (mild) reductions in LVEF, more myocardial fibrosis, LA remodeling/dysfunction and RV dysfunction. HFrEF patients had lower LVEF, increased LV volumes, greater burden of focal and diffuse fibrosis, more RV remodeling, lower LAEF and higher LA volumes compared to HFpEF. Inflammatory/fibrotic/renal dysfunction plasma markers were similarly elevated in both HF groups but markers of cardiomyocyte stretch/damage (BNP, pro-BNP, N-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide and troponin-I) were higher in HFrEF compared to HFpEF; p<0.0001. Focal fibrosis was associated with galectin3, GDF-15, MMP-3, MMP-7, MMP-8, BNP, pro-BNP and NTproANP; p<0.05. Diffuse fibrosis was associated with GDF-15, Tenascin-C, MMP-2, MMP-3, MMP-7, BNP, proBNP and NTproANP; p<0.05. Composite event rates (median 1446 days follow-up) did not differ between HFpEF and HFrEF (Log-Rank p = 0.784). CONCLUSIONS:HFpEF is a distinct pathophysiological entity compared to age- and sex-matched HFrEF and controls. HFpEF and HFrEF are associated with similar adverse outcomes. Inflammation is common in both HF phenotypes but cardiomyocyte stretch/stress is greater in HFrEF.
| S-EPMC7190371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasing in prevalence as the general population ages. Poorly managed heart failure symptoms of decompensated HFpEF is one of the most common reasons for prolonged hospital admission. The high rate of morbidity and mortality associated with HFpEF is compounded by a poor understanding of the underpinning pathophysiology. Randomized controlled trials have so far been unable to identify an evidence base for reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with HFpEF, although there is some evidence to support quality of life (QOL) improvement. In this review, we described the recent advances on the pathophysiological understanding of HFpEF, the current and emerging treatment strategies, and what this may mean for individual patients. Potential treatments for HFpEF were divided into their relative management strategies and the current evidence assessed for effect on HFpEF mortality, hospital admission frequency, and QOL improvement. Overall, the understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology is improving and has been made a priority in identifying potential therapeutic targets. There is growing evidence that patients with ejection fractions (EF) of less than 60% may obtain a mortality benefit from ACE-inhibitors, angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers, and Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists. However, this covers only a small proportion of the HFpEF spectrum. Therefore, currently there are no universal treatment strategies recommended for HFpEF, and management should focus on an individualised approach and this should take into account the comorbidities of each patient.
| S-EPMC7186731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a clinical syndrome that has been associated with changes in the extracellular matrix. The purpose of this study was to determine whether profibrotic biomarkers accurately reflect the presence and severity of disease and underlying pathophysiology and modify response to therapy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Four biomarkers, soluble form of ST2 (an interleukin-1 receptor family member), galectin-3, matrix metalloproteinase-2, and collagen III N-terminal propeptide were measured in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB on Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAMOUNT) trial at baseline, 12 and 36 weeks after randomization to valsartan or LCZ696. We examined the relationship between baseline biomarkers, demographic and echocardiographic characteristics, change in primary (change in N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide) and secondary (change in left atrial volume) end points. The median (interquartile range) value for soluble form of ST2 (33 [24.6-48.1] ng/mL) and galectin 3 (17.8 [14.1-22.8] ng/mL) were higher, and for matrix metalloproteinase-2 (188 [155.5-230.6] ng/mL) lower, than in previously published referent controls; collagen III N-terminal propeptide (5.6 [4.3-6.9] ng/mL) was similar to referent control values. All 4 biomarkers correlated with severity of disease as indicated by N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, E/E', and left atrial volume. Baseline biomarkers did not modify the response to LCZ696 for lowering N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide; however, left atrial volume reduction varied by baseline level of soluble form of ST2 and galectin 3; patients with values less than the observed median (<33 ng/mL soluble form of ST2 and <17.8 ng/mL galectin 3) had reduction in left atrial volume, those above median did not. Although LCZ696 reduced N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, levels of the other 4 biomarkers were not affected over time.In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, biomarkers that reflect collagen homeostasis correlated with the presence and severity of disease and underlying pathophysiology, and may modify the structural response to treatment.URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00887588.
| S-EPMC5485256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) occurs with preserved (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF] ?50%) or reduced (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] <50%) ejection fraction. Natriuretic peptide (NP) levels are lower in HFpEF than HFrEF. We hypothesized that lower NP levels in HFpEF may be associated with other differences in biomarkers, specifically, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation, oxidative stress, and a biomarker that reflects collagen synthesis.MethodsIn this prespecified ancillary analysis of patients with ADHF enrolled in the Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation study, clinical features and N-terminal pro-B-type NP, cystatin C, plasma renin activity, aldosterone, oxidative stress (uric acid), and procollagen type III N-terminal peptide were compared in HFpEF and HFrEF at enrollment and 60-day follow-up.ResultsCompared with HFrEF (n = 219), HFpEF (n = 81) patients were older, heavier, more commonly female, less treated with RAAS antagonists, but with similar New York Heart Association class, jugular venous pressure, and edema severity. N-terminal pro-B-type NP was lower, and systolic blood pressure and cystatin C were higher in HFpEF. Despite higher systolic blood pressure and less RAAS antagonist use in HFpEF, plasma renin activity and aldosterone levels were similar in HFpEF and HFrEF as were uric acid and procollagen type III N-terminal peptide levels. Changes in biomarker levels from enrollment to 60 days were similar between HFrEF (n = 149) and HFpEF (n = 50).ConclusionLower NP levels in decompensated HFpEF occur in association with similar ADHF severity, more impaired vascular and renal function but similar elevation of biomarkers that reflect RAAS activation, oxidative stress, and collagen synthesis as in HFrEF.
| S-EPMC3875288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome in need of improved phenotypic classification. We sought to evaluate whether unbiased clustering analysis using dense phenotypic data (phenomapping) could identify phenotypically distinct HFpEF categories.We prospectively studied 397 patients with HFpEF and performed detailed clinical, laboratory, ECG, and echocardiographic phenotyping of the study participants. We used several statistical learning algorithms, including unbiased hierarchical cluster analysis of phenotypic data (67 continuous variables) and penalized model-based clustering, to define and characterize mutually exclusive groups making up a novel classification of HFpEF. All phenomapping analyses were performed by investigators blinded to clinical outcomes, and Cox regression was used to demonstrate the clinical validity of phenomapping. The mean age was 65±12 years; 62% were female; 39% were black; and comorbidities were common. Although all patients met published criteria for the diagnosis of HFpEF, phenomapping analysis classified study participants into 3 distinct groups that differed markedly in clinical characteristics, cardiac structure/function, invasive hemodynamics, and outcomes (eg, phenogroup 3 had an increased risk of HF hospitalization [hazard ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-9.1] even after adjustment for traditional risk factors [P<0.001]). The HFpEF phenogroup classification, including its ability to stratify risk, was successfully replicated in a prospective validation cohort (n=107).Phenomapping results in a novel classification of HFpEF. Statistical learning algorithms applied to dense phenotypic data may allow improved classification of heterogeneous clinical syndromes, with the ultimate goal of defining therapeutically homogeneous patient subclasses.
| S-EPMC4302027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to determine whether left atrial ejection fraction (LAEF) quantified with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) was different between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and controls, and its relation to prognosis. As part of our single-centre, prospective, observational study, 188 subjects (HFpEF n?=?140, controls n?=?48) underwent phenotyping with contrast-enhanced CMR, transthoracic echocardiography, blood sampling and six-minute walk testing. LAEF was calculated using the biplane method. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was present in 43 (31%) of HFpEF subjects. Overall, LAEF (%) was lower in HFpEF patients inclusive of AF (32?±?16) or those in sinus rhythm alone (41?±?12) compared to controls (51?±?11), p?<?0.0001. LAEF correlated inversely with maximal and minimal left atrial volumes indexed (r?=??-?0.602, r?=??-?0.762), and plasma N-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (r?=??-?0.367); p?<?0.0001. During median follow-up (1429 days), there were 67 composite events of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure (22 deaths, 45 HF hospitalizations) in HFpEF. Lower LAEF (below median) was associated with an increased risk of composite endpoints (Log-Rank: all p?=?0.028; sinus p?=?0.036). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, LAEF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.767, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.591-0.996; p?=?0.047) and indexed extracellular volume (HR 1.422, CI 1.015-1.992; p?=?0.041) were the only parameters that remained significant when added to a base prognostic model comprising age, prior HF hospitalization, diastolic blood pressure, lung disease, NYHA, six-minute-walk-test-distance, haemoglobin, creatinine and B-type natriuretic peptide. CMR-derived LAEF is lower in HFpEF compared to healthy controls and is a strong prognostic biomarker.
| S-EPMC6942575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study sought to determine the frequency and magnitude of impaired systolic deformation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND:Although diastolic dysfunction is widely considered a key pathophysiologic mediator of HFpEF, the prevalence of concomitant systolic dysfunction has not been clearly defined. METHODS:We assessed myocardial systolic and diastolic function in 219 HFpEF patients from a contemporary HFpEF clinical trial. Myocardial deformation was assessed using a vendor-independent 2-dimensional speckle-tracking software. The frequency and severity of impaired deformation was assessed in HFpEF, and compared to 50 normal controls free of cardiovascular disease and to 44 age- and sex-matched hypertensive patients with diastolic dysfunction (hypertensive heart disease) but no HF. Among HFpEF patients, clinical, echocardiographic, and biomarker correlates of left ventricular strain were determined. RESULTS:The HFpEF patients had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and evidence of diastolic dysfunction. Compared to both normal controls and hypertensive heart disease patients, the HFpEF patients demonstrated significantly lower longitudinal strain (LS) (-20.0 ± 2.1 and -17.07 ± 2.04 vs. -14.6 ± 3.3, respectively, p < 0.0001 for both) and circumferential strain (CS) (-27.1 ± 3.1 and -30.1 ± 3.5 vs. -22.9 ± 5.9, respectively; p < 0.0001 for both). In HFpEF, both LS and CS were related to LVEF (LS, R = -0.46; p < 0.0001; CS, R = -0.51; p < 0.0001) but not to standard echocardiographic measures of diastolic function (E' or E/E'). Lower LS was modestly associated with higher NT-proBNP, even after adjustment for 10 baseline covariates including LVEF, measures of diastolic function, and LV filling pressure (multivariable adjusted p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Strain imaging detects impaired systolic function despite preserved global LVEF in HFpEF that may contribute to the pathophysiology of the HFpEF syndrome. (LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Preserved Left-ventricular Ejection Fraction; NCT00887588).
| S-EPMC7195816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure is defined as a clinical syndrome and is known to present with a number of different pathophysiological patterns. There is a remarkable degree of variation in measures of left ventricular systolic emptying and this has been used to categorise heart failure into two separate types: low ejection fraction (EF) heart failure or HF-REF and high EF heart failure or HF-PEF. Here we review the pathophysiology, epidemiology and management of HF-PEF and argue that sharp separation of heart failure into two forms is misguided and illogical, and the present scarcity of clinical trial evidence for effective treatment for HF-PEF is a problem of our own making; we should never have excluded patients from major trials on the basis of EF in the first place. Whilst as many heart failure patients have preserved EFs as reduced we have dramatically under-represented HF-PEF patients in trials. Only four trials have been performed in HF-PEF specifically, and another two trials that recruited both HF-PEF and HF-REF can be considered. When we consider the similarity in outcomes and neurohormonal activation between HF-REF and HF-REF, the vast corpus of trial data that we have to attest to the efficacy of various treatment (angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], beta-blockers and aldosterone antagonists) in HF-REF, and the much more limited number of trials of similar agents showing near statistically significant benefits in HF-PEF the time has come rethink our management of HF-PEF, and in particular our selection of patients for trials.
| S-EPMC5490948 | biostudies-other
Project description:Importance:Nearly half of all patients with heart failure have preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) as opposed to reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), yet associations of biomarkers with future heart failure subtype are incompletely understood. Objective:To evaluate the associations of 12 cardiovascular biomarkers with incident HFpEF vs HFrEF among adults from the general population. Design, Setting, and Participants:This study included 4 longitudinal community-based cohorts: the Cardiovascular Health Study (1989-1990; 1992-1993 for supplemental African-American cohort), the Framingham Heart Study (1995-1998), the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (2000-2002), and the Prevention of Renal and Vascular End-stage Disease study (1997-1998). Each cohort had prospective ascertainment of incident HFpEF and HFrEF. Data analysis was performed from June 25, 2015, to November 9, 2017. Exposures:The following biomarkers were examined: N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide or brain natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity troponin T or I, C-reactive protein (CRP), urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR), renin to aldosterone ratio, D-dimer, fibrinogen, soluble suppressor of tumorigenicity, galectin-3, cystatin C, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, and interleukin 6. Main Outcomes and Measures:Development of incident HFpEF and incident HFrEF. Results:Among the 22 756 participants in these 4 cohorts (12 087 women and 10 669 men; mean [SD] age, 60 [13] years) in the study, during a median follow-up of 12 years, 633 participants developed incident HFpEF, and 841 developed HFrEF. In models adjusted for clinical risk factors of heart failure, 2 biomarkers were significantly associated with incident HFpEF: UACR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.20-1.48; P < .001) and natriuretic peptides (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.40; P < .001), with suggestive associations for high-sensitivity troponin (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .008), plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.45; P = .02), and fibrinogen (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .01). By contrast, 6 biomarkers were associated with incident HFrEF: natriuretic peptides (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.41-1.68; P < .001), UACR (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32; P < .001), high-sensitivity troponin (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.29-1.46; P < .001), cystatin C (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.27; P < .001), D-dimer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35; P < .001), and CRP (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.28; P < .001). When directly compared, natriuretic peptides, high-sensitivity troponin, and CRP were more strongly associated with HFrEF compared with HFpEF. Conclusions and Relevance:Biomarkers of renal dysfunction, endothelial dysfunction, and inflammation were associated with incident HFrEF. By contrast, only natriuretic peptides and UACR were associated with HFpEF. These findings highlight the need for future studies focused on identifying novel biomarkers of the risk of HFpEF.
| S-EPMC5862778 | biostudies-literature