Dataset Information

Biomarker Profiles in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Biomarkers may help us to unravel differences in the underlying pathophysiology between heart failure (HF) patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Therefore, we compared biomarker profiles to characterize pathophysiological differences between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

Methods and results

We retrospectively analyzed 33 biomarkers from different pathophysiological domains (inflammation, oxidative stress, remodeling, cardiac stretch, angiogenesis, arteriosclerosis, and renal function) in 460 HF patients (21% HFpEF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%) measured at discharge after hospitalization for acute HF. The association between these markers and the occurrence of all-cause mortality and/or HF-related rehospitalizations at 18 months was compared between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. Patients were 70.6±11.4 years old and 37.4% were female. Patients with HFpEF were older, more often female, and had a higher systolic blood pressure. Levels of high-sensitive C-reactive protein were significantly higher in HFpEF, while levels of pro-atrial-type natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide were higher in HFrEF. Linear regression followed by network analyses revealed prominent inflammation and angiogenesis-associated interactions in HFpEF and mainly cardiac stretch-associated interactions in HFrEF. The angiogenesis-specific marker, neuropilin and the remodeling-specific marker, osteopontin were predictive for all-cause mortality and/or HF-related rehospitalizations at 18 months in HFpEF, but not in HFrEF (P for interaction <0.05).

Conclusions

In HFpEF, inflammation and angiogenesis-mediated interactions are predominantly observed, while stretch-mediated interactions are found in HFrEF. The remodeling marker osteopontin and the angiogenesis marker neuropilin predicted outcome in HFpEF, but not in HFrEF.

SUBMITTER: Tromp J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5532986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.

Project description:AIMS:The study aimed at investigating the use of guideline-recommended diagnostic tools and medication in patients with heart failure (HF) in specialty care in Southwest Finland. We also compared the characteristics of the diagnosed and undiagnosed patients as well as laboratory tests, procedures, and treatments in everyday clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients diagnosed with HF, cardiomyopathy, or hypertension-induced heart disease (n = 20 878, primary cohort) or not diagnosed with HF but having a record of elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (>125 ng/L, n = 24 321, secondary cohort) were included in the study from the specialty care patient register of the Hospital District of Southwest Finland during the years 2005-2017. Among patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code for HF, only 50% had ejection fraction (EF) data to be found by data mining from the electronic health records. Of these patients, 39% (n = 4042) had EF ? 40% [HF with reduced EF (HFrEF)] and 61% (n = 6347) had EF > 40%. Elevated NT-proBNP together with EF > 40% narrowed down the number to 4590 patients, a population defined as HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) patients. HFpEF patients were further stratified into HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; EF 41-50%, n = 1468) and EF > 50% patients (n = 3122) to compare clinical characteristics. NT-proBNP was higher within the HFrEF patients vs. HFpEF {4580 [inter-quartile range (IQR): 2065-9765] vs. 2900 [2065-9765] ng/L, P < 0.001}. Baseline co-morbidities differed between HFpEF and HFrEF groups. Further, HFpEF patients had more procedures and lab tests taken prior to diagnosis than had HFrEF patients. HFmrEF patients were found to resemble more HFrEF than EF > 50% patients. In 70% (n = 17 156) of patients in the secondary cohort, the NT-proBNP concentrations were >300 ng/L, median was 1090 (IQR 551-2558) ng/L and EF 58.4 ± 12.1% (n with EF available = 6845). Reduced EF was present in 6.8% of patients lacking HF diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:Half of the patients with ICD-10 code for HF did not have EF data available after a visit at specialty care. In particular, the diagnosis of HFpEF seems challenging, reflected as an increase in procedures and laboratory test preceding diagnosis compared with those in HFrEF patients. Also, a large proportion of patients did not have HF diagnosis, yet they presented elevated NT-proBNP concentrations and clinical characteristics resembling those of HFpEF patients.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to assess short-term outcomes among emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF) by preserved (≥50%) vs. reduced (<50%) ejection fraction (EF).Methods and resultsWe conducted a retrospective, multicentre study of adult ED patients with AHF from 2017 to 2018 in an integrated healthcare system with 21 hospitals. Among patients with known EF, our primary outcome was 30 day all-cause mortality, comparing patients with heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF), adjusted for known risk factors. We ran separate multivariate regression models to compare 30 day mortality between HFpEF and HFrEF patients stratified by ED disposition (admit, observe, and discharge). Our secondary outcomes were adjusted 30 day all-cause return hospital admission and rates of non-fatal serious adverse events, including new intra-aorta balloon pump, endotracheal intubation, renal failure requiring dialysis, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. We conducted a sensitivity analysis among patients with EF ≤ 40% and compared our primary and secondary outcomes among patients with EF ≤ 40% with those with EF ≥ 50%. Among the 26 050 total ED encounters for AHF, 15 275 (58.6%) had known EF and 62.4% had HFpEF. The mean age was 76, 49.6% were women, and 60.5% were white. We found that 62.4% of patients were admitted, 18.3% were observed, and 19.3% were discharged from the ED. The 30 day all-cause mortality rate was lowest among discharged patients (3.9%), intermediate among observed patients (5.9%), and highest among admitted patients (13.9%). Overall, the adjusted 30 day mortality rate was significantly higher among HFpEF patients compared with HFrEF patients (10.2% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.0004). HFpEF patients had higher mortality regardless of ED disposition, although the difference was only significant among admitted patients. The adjusted 30 day return hospital admission rates were not significantly different between HFpEF and HFrEF patients (17.9% vs. 17.8%, P = 0.89). The adjusted 30 day non-fatal serious adverse event rates were significantly higher among HFrEF patients compared with HFpEF patients (13.7% vs. 11.1%, P < 0.0001), driven by myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization. We found that 3692 patients had EF ≤ 40%. Patients with EF ≥ 50% had significantly higher adjusted 30 day mortality rates compared with those with EF ≤ 40% (10.2% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.05).ConclusionIn a contemporary population, almost three quarters of ED patients with AHF and known EF have HFpEF. These patients have higher 30 day adjusted mortality compared with those with HFrEF. Further studies might evaluate the underlying factors associated with this difference and target interventions to improve outcomes.