Left atrial ejection fraction and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kanagala P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6942575 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Left atrial ejection fraction and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Kanagala Prathap P Arnold Jayanth R JR Cheng Adrian S H ASH Singh Anvesha A Khan Jamal N JN Gulsin Gaurav S GS Yang Jing J Zhao Lei L Gupta Pankaj P Squire Iain B IB Ng Leong L LL McCann Gerry P GP
The international journal of cardiovascular imaging 20190810 1
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. LA ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Left atrial (LA) enlargement is present in the majority of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients and is a marker of risk. However, the importance of LA function in HFpEF is less well understood.The PARAMOUNT trial enrolled HFpEF patients (LVEF ?45%, NT-proBNP >400?pg/mL). We assessed LA reservoir, conduit, and pump function using two-dimensional volume indices and speckle tracking echocardiography in 135 HFpEF patients in sinus rhythm at the time of echocardiography and 40 healthy controls of similar age and gender. Systolic LA strain was related to clinical characteristics and measures of cardiac structure and function. Compared with controls, HFpEF patients had worse LA reservoir, conduit, and pump function. The differences in systolic LA strain (controls 39.2?±?6.6% vs. HFpEF 24.6?±?7.3%) between groups remained significant after adjustments and even in the subsets of HFpEF patients with normal LA size or without a history of AF. Among HFpEF patients, lower systolic LA strain was associated with higher prevalence of prior HF hospitalization and history of AF, as well as worse LV systolic function, and higher LV mass and LA volume. However, NT-proBNP and E/E' were similar across the quartiles of LA function.In this HFpEF cohort, we observed impairment in all phases of LA function, and systolic LA strain was decreased independent of LA size or history of AF. LA dysfunction may be a marker of severity and play a pathophysiological role in HFpEF.NCT00887588.
| S-EPMC5535768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLeft atrial (LA) size is an established marker of risk for adverse outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the independent prognostic importance of LA function in HFpEF is not known.Methods and resultsWe assessed LA function measured by speckle-tracking echocardiography in 357 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the Treatment Of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial who were in sinus rhythm at the time of echocardiography. Lower peak LA strain, indicating LA dysfunction, was associated with older age, higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, worse LV and right ventricular systolic function, and worse LV diastolic function. At a mean follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range, 18-43months), 91 patients (25.5%) experienced the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and aborted sudden death. Lower peak LA strain was associated with a higher risk of the composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.96 per unit of reduction in strain; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.99; P=0.009) and of HF hospitalization alone (hazard ratio, 0.95 per unit of reduction in strain; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.98; P=0.003). The association of LA strain with incident HF hospitalization remained significant after adjustment for clinical confounders, but not after further adjustment for LV global longitudinal strain and the E/E' ratio, parameters of LV systolic and diastolic function, respectively.ConclusionsLA dysfunction in HFpEF is associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization independent of potential clinical confounders, but not independent of LV strain and filling pressure. Impairment in LV systolic and diastolic function largely explains the association between impaired LA function and higher risk of HF hospitalization in HFpEF.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302.
| S-EPMC4826720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Maximal left atrial (LA) volume is reported by most echocardiography laboratories and is associated with clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). Recent studies suggest that minimal LA volume may better reflect left ventricular filling pressure and may be more prognostic than maximal LA volume. This study assessed the prognostic value of indexed minimal LA volume (LAVImin) in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. Methods and Results We assessed the relationship of LAVImin with a primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac death, or HF hospitalization in 347 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction enrolled from the Americas region in TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial). We compared LAVImin with indexed maximal LA volume with respect to their prognostic values. In addition, we assessed if LA functional parameters provide additional prognostic information over LAVImin. During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 107 patients (31%) experienced a primary composite end point. LAVImin was associated with increased risk of a primary composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61) and HF hospitalization alone (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.71) after adjusting for clinical confounders and ejection fraction. In contrast, indexed maximal LA volume was not related to the primary composite outcome, but related to HF alone (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.54). In comparison with indexed maximal LA volume, LAVImin was significantly more prognostic for primary composite outcome (P for comparison=0.032). Both LA emptying fraction and LA strain were prognostic of primary outcome independent of LAVImin (all P<0.05). Conclusions In patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, LAVImin was more predictive of cardiovascular outcome than indexed maximal LA volume, suggesting this measure may be more physiologically relevant and might better identify patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. LA functional parameters provide prognostic information independent of LAVImin. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00094302.
| S-EPMC8475710 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7529338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTwo key echocardiographic parameters that are currently used to diagnose heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are left atrial volume index (LAVi) and left ventricular mass index (LVMi). We investigated whether patients' characteristics, biomarkers, and co-morbidities are associated with these parameters and whether the relationships differ between patients with HFpEF or HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).MethodsWe consecutively enrolled 831 outpatients with typical signs and symptoms of HF and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and categorized patients based upon left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): LVEF < 40% (HFrEF), LVEF between 40% and 50% (HF with mid-range ejection fraction), and LVEF ≥ 50% (HFpEF). The study includes consecutively enrolled HF patients from an HF outpatient clinic at a tertiary medical centre in the Netherlands. All patients underwent baseline characterization, laboratory measurements, and echocardiography.ResultsFour hundred sixty-nine patients had HFrEF, 189 HF with mid-range ejection fraction, and 173 HFpEF. The patients with HFrEF were rather male [HFrEF: 323 (69%); HFpEF: 80 (46%); P < 0.001], and the age was comparable (HFrEF 67 ± 13; HFpEF 70 ± 14; P = 0.069). In HFpEF, more patients had hypertension [190 (40.5%); 114 (65.9%); P < 0.001], higher body mass indices (27 ± 8; 30 ± 7; P < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation [194 (41.4); 86 (49.7); P = 0.029]. The correlation analyses showed that in HFrEF patients, LAVi was significantly associated with age (β 0.293; P < 0.001), male gender (β 0.104; P = 0.042), body mass index (β -0160; P = 0.002), diastolic blood pressure (β -0.136; P < 0.001), New York Heart Association (β 0.174; P = 0.001), atrial fibrillation (β 0.381; P < 0.001), galectin 3 (β 0.230; P < 0.001), NT-proBNP (β 0.183; P < 0.001), estimated glomerular filtration rate (β -0.205; P < 0.001), LVEF (β -0.173; P = 0.001), and LVMi (β 0.337; P < 0.001). In HFpEF patients, only age (β 0.326; P < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (β 0.386; P < 0.001), NT-proBNP (β 0.176; P = 0.036), and LVMi (β 0.213; P = 0.013) were associated with LAVi.ConclusionsAlthough LVMi and LAVi are hallmark parameters to diagnose HFpEF, they only correlate with a few characteristics of HF and mainly with atrial fibrillation. In contrast, in HFrEF patients, LAVi relates strongly to several other HF parameters. These findings underscore the complexity in visualizing the pathophysiology of HFpEF and question the relation between cardiac structural remodeling and the impact of co-morbidities.
| S-EPMC8318400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aim to clarify the differences in the association between re-admission for heart failure (HF) and left atrial (LA) overload indices by sex in heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).MethodsWe analyzed 898 HFpEF patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF. Blood tests and transthoracic echocardiography were performed before discharge. The primary endpoint was re-admission for HF during the first year.ResultsThe ratio of diastolic elastance to arterial elastance (p = 0.014), a relative index of LA pressure overload, in men and LA volume index (LAVI, p = 0.020) in women were significant for re-admission for HF during the first year in the multivariable Fine-Gray analysis. Stroke volume (SV)/LA volume (LAV), another index for LAV overload, was not a significant prognostic factor of re-admission for HF during this time.ConclusionLA overload was an important prognostic factor for HF re-readmission during the first year after enrolment in patients with HFpEF, but the indices relating to LA overload differed by sex.
| S-EPMC9571336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsHeart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) shares similar diagnostic criteria to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Whether left atrial (LA) function differs between HFmrEF and HFpEF is unknown. We, therefore, used 2D-speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) to assess LA phasic function in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF.Methods and resultsConsecutive outpatients diagnosed with HF according to current European recommendations were prospectively enrolled. There were 110 HFpEF and 61 HFmrEF patients with sinus rhythm, and 37 controls matched by age. LA phasic function was analysed using 2D-STE. Peak-atrial longitudinal strain (PALS), peak-atrial contraction strain (PACS), and PALS-PACS were measured reflecting LA reservoir, pump, and conduit function, respectively. Among HF groups, most of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function measures, and LA volume were similar. Both HF groups had abnormal LA phasic function compared with controls. HFmrEF patients had worse LA phasic function than HFpEF patients even among patients with LA enlargement. Among patients with normal LA size, LA reservoir, and pump function remained worse in HFmrEF. Differences in LA phasic function between HF groups remained significant after adjustment for confounders. Global PALS and PACS were inversely correlated with brain natriuretic peptide, LA volume, E/A, E/e', pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and diastolic dysfunction grade in both HF groups.ConclusionLA phasic function was worse in HFmrEF patients compared with those with HFpEF regardless of LA size, and independent of potential confounders. These differences could be attributed to intrinsic LA myocardial dysfunction perhaps in relation to altered LV function.
| S-EPMC6383056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAttempts to characterize cardiac structure in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have yielded inconsistent findings. We aimed to determine whether patients with HFpEF and T2D have a distinct pattern of cardiac remodelling compared with those without diabetes and whether remodelling was related to circulating markers of inflammation and fibrosis and clinical outcomes.MethodsWe recruited 140 patients with HFpEF (75 with T2D and 65 without). Participants underwent comprehensive cardiovascular phenotyping, including echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and plasma biomarker profiling.ResultsPatients with T2D were younger (age 70 ± 9 versus 75 ± 9y, p = 0.002), with evidence of more left ventricular (LV) concentric remodelling (LV mass/volume ratio 0.72 ± 0.15 versus 0.62 ± 0.16, p = 0.024) and smaller indexed left atrial (LA) volumes (maximal LA volume index 48 ± 20 versus 59 ± 29 ml/m2, p = 0.004) than those without diabetes. Plasma biomarkers of inflammation and extracellular matrix remodelling were elevated in those with T2D. Overall, there were 45 hospitalizations for HF and 22 deaths over a median follow-up period of 47 months [interquartile range (IQR) 38-54]. There was no difference in the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for HF and mortality between groups. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, age, prior HF hospitalization, history of pulmonary disease and LV mass/volume were independent predictors of the primary endpoint.ConclusionsPatients with HFpEF and T2D have increased concentric LV remodelling, smaller LA volumes and evidence of increased systemic inflammation compared with those without diabetes. This suggests the underlying pathophysiology for the development of HFpEF is different in patients with and without T2D.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT03050593.
| S-EPMC6613057 | biostudies-literature
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:AimsExercise intolerance is the leading manifestation of heart failure with preserved or mid-range ejection fraction (HFpEF or HFmrEF), and left atrial (LA) function might contribute to modulating left ventricular filling and pulmonary venous pressures. We aim to assess the association between LA function and maximal exercise capacity in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.Methods and resultsSixty-five patients, prospectively enrolled in the German HFpEF Registry, were analysed. Inclusion criteria were New York Heart Association functional class ? II, left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%, structural heart disease or diastolic dysfunction, and elevated levels of N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). LA function was evaluated through speckle-tracking echocardiography by central reading in the Charité Academic Echocardiography core lab. All patients underwent maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test and were classified according to a peak VO2 cut-off of prognostic value (14 mL/kg/min). NT-pro-BNP was measured. Twenty-nine patients (45%) reached a peak VO2 < 14 mL/kg/min (mean value 12.4 ± 1.5) and 36 patients (55%) peak VO2 ? 14 mL/kg/min (mean value 19.4 ± 3.9). There was no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction (60 ± 9 vs. 59 ± 8%), left ventricular mass (109 ± 23 vs. 112 ± 32 g/m2 ), LA volume index (45 ± 17 vs. 47 ± 22 mL/m2 ), or E/e´ (13.1 ± 4.7 vs. 13.0 ± 6.0) between these groups. In contrast, all LA strain measures were impaired in patients with lower peak VO2 (reservoir strain 14 ± 5 vs. 21 ± 9%, P = 0.002; conduit strain 9 ± 2 vs. 13 ± 4%, P = 0.001; contractile strain 7 ± 4 vs. 11 ± 6%, P = 0.02; reported lower limits of normality for LA reservoir, conduit and contractile strains: 26.1%, 12.0%, and 7.7%). In linear regression analysis, lower values of LA reservoir strain were associated with impaired peak VO2 after adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, heart rhythm (sinus/AFib), and log-NTproBNP [? 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-0.30, P = 0.02], with an odds ratio 1.22 (95% CI 1.05-1.42, P = 0.01) for peak VO2 < 14 mL/kg/min for LA reservoir strain decrease after adjustment for these five covariates. Adding left ventricular ejection fraction, it did not influence the results. On the other hand, the addition of LA strain to the adjustment parameters alone described above provided a significant increase of the predictive value for lower peak VO2 values (R2 0.50 vs. 0.45, P = 0.02). With receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, we identified LA reservoir strain < 22% to have 93% sensitivity and 49% specificity in predicting peak VO2 < 14 mL/kg/min. Using this cut-off, LA reservoir strain < 22% was associated with peak VO2 < 14 mL/kg/min in logistic regression analysis after comprehensive adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, heart rhythm, and log-NTproBNP [odds ratio 95% CI 10.4 (1.4-74), P = 0.02].ConclusionsIn this HFpEF and HFmrEF cohort, a reduction in LA reservoir strain was a sensible marker of decreased peak exercise capacity. Therefore, LA reservoir strain might be of clinical value in predicting exercise capacity in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.
| S-EPMC7835603 | biostudies-literature