Dataset Information

Application of Diagnostic Algorithms for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction to the Community.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study sought to describe characteristics and risk of adverse outcomes associated with the H₂FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores among participants in the community with unexplained dyspnea.

Background

Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging. The H₂FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores have recently been developed to estimate the likelihood that HFpEF is present among patients with unexplained dyspnea.

Methods

The study included 4,892 ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) study participants 67 to 90 years of age at visit 5 (2011 to 2013) without other common cardiopulmonary causes of dyspnea. Participants were categorized as asymptomatic (76.6%), having known HFpEF (10.3%), and having tertiles of each score among those with ≥moderate, self-reported dyspnea (13.1%). The primary outcome was heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death.

Results

Mean age was 75 ± 5 years, 58% were women, and 22% were black. After a mean follow-up of 5.3 ± 1.2 years, rates of HF hospitalization or death per 1,000 person-years for asymptomatic and known HFpEF were 20.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.9 to 22.7) and 71.6 (95% CI: 61.6 to 83.3), respectively. Among 641 participants with unexplained dyspnea, rates were 27.7 (95% CI: 18.2 to 42.1), 44.9 (95% CI: 34.9 to 57.7), and 47.3 (95% CI: 36.5 to 61.3) (tertiles of H₂FPEF score) and 31.8 (95% CI: 20.3 to 49.9), 32.4 (95% CI: 23.4 to 44.9), and 54.3 (95% CI: 43.8 to 67.3) (tertiles of HFA-PEFF score). Participants with unexplained dyspnea and scores above the diagnostic threshold suggested for each algorithm, H₂FPEF score ≥6 and HFA-PEFF score ≥5, had equivalent risk of HF hospitalization or death compared with known HFpEF. Among those with unexplained dyspnea, 28% had "discordant" findings (only high risk by 1 algorithm), while 4% were high risk by both.

Conclusions

Participants with unexplained dyspnea and higher H₂FPEF or HFA-PEFF scores face substantial risks of HF hospitalization or death. A significant fraction of patients are classified discordantly by using both algorithms.

SUBMITTER: Selvaraj S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8030634 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsWe sought to compare the generalizability and prognostic implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) scores (HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score) in Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) and Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) trial participants and matched controls from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community (ARIC) study.Methods and resultsBased on the respective scores, the study participants from the TOPCAT (N = 356), RELAX (N = 216), and ARIC (N = 379) studies were categorized as having a low, intermediate, or high likelihood of HFpEF. Age, sex, and race matched controls free of cardiovascular disease who had unexplained dyspnoea were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance. The prognostic value of scores was assessed using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses. The median HFA-PEFF scores in the TOPCAT, RELAX, and ARIC studies were 5.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 5.0-6.0], 4.0 (IQR: 2.0-4.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-4.0), respectively. The median H2 FPEF scores in the three studies were 5.5 (IQR: 4.0-7.0), 6.0 (IQR: 4.0-7.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-5.0), respectively. A low HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score can rule out HFpEF with high sensitivity (99.5% and 99.6%, respectively) and negative predictive value (95.7% and 98.3%, respectively). A high HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score can rule-in HFpEF with good specificity (82.8% and 95.6%, respectively) and positive predictive value (79.9% and 90.4%, respectively). Among TOPCAT participants, the hazard for adverse cardiovascular events per point increase in HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.63) and 1.01 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-1.15), respectively. A higher H2 FPEF score was associated with lower peak oxygen intake in RELAX trial participants (adjusted P = 0.01).ConclusionsThe HFA-PEFF and the H2 FPEF scores are reliable diagnostic tools for HFpEF. The prognostic utility of HFpEF scores requires further validation in larger rigorously phenotyped populations.

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with changes in cardiac metabolism that affect energy supply in the heart. However, there is limited research on energy metabolism-related genes (EMRGs) in HFpEF.MethodsThe HFpEF mouse dataset (GSE180065, containing heart tissues from 10 HFpEF and five control samples) was sourced from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Gene expression profiles in HFpEF and control groups were compared to identify differentially expressed EMRGs (DE-EMRGs), and the diagnostic biomarkers with diagnostic value were screened using machine learning algorithms. Meanwhile, we constructed a biomarker-based nomogram model for its predictive power, and functionality of diagnostic biomarkers were conducted using single-gene gene set enrichment analysis, drug prediction, and regulatory network analysis. Additionally, consensus clustering analysis based on the expression of diagnostic biomarkers was utilized to identify differential HFpEF-related genes (HFpEF-RGs). Immune microenvironment analysis in HFpEF and subtypes were performed for analyzing correlations between immune cells and diagnostic biomarkers as well as HFpEF-RGs. Finally, qRT-PCR analysis on the HFpEF mouse model was used to validate the expression levels of diagnostic biomarkers.ResultsWe selected 5 biomarkers (Chrna2, Gnb3, Gng7, Ddit4l, and Prss55) that showed excellent diagnostic performance. The nomogram model we constructed demonstrated high predictive power. Single-gene gene set enrichment analysis revealed enrichment in aerobic respiration and energy derivation. Further, various miRNAs and TFs were predicted by Gng7, such as Gng7-mmu-miR-6921-5p, ETS1-Gng7. A lot of potential therapeutic targets were predicted as well. Consensus clustering identified two distinct subtypes of HFpEF. Functional enrichment analysis highlighted the involvement of DEGs-cluster in protein amino acid modification and so on. Additionally, we identified five HFpEF-RGs (Kcnt1, Acot1, Kcnc4, Scn3a, and Gpam). Immune analysis revealed correlations between Macrophage M2, T cell CD4+ Th1 and diagnostic biomarkers, as well as an association between Macrophage and HFpEF-RGs. We further validated the expression trends of the selected biomarkers through experimental validation.ConclusionOur study identified 5 diagnostic biomarkers and provided insights into the prediction and treatment of HFpEF through drug predictions and network analysis. These findings contribute to a better understanding of HFpEF and may guide future research and therapy development.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The role of coronary microvascular disease and its impact on functional and energetic reserve in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear. We hypothesized that in response to submaximal pharmacologic stress (dobutamine), patients with HFpEF have impairment in left ventricular (LV) myocardial mechanical (external work [EW]), energetic (myocardial O2 consumption [MVO2]), and myocardial blood flow (MBF) reserve. We further assessed whether coupling of MBF to EW is impaired in HFpEF and associated with compensatory increases or pathological decreases in myocardial O2 extraction. Lastly, we assessed whether coupling of MVO2 to EW (mechanical efficiency) was impaired in HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS:In prospectively enrolled patients with HFpEF (n=19) and age/sex-matched healthy controls (n=19), we performed 11C-acetate positron emission tomography assessing MVO2 and MBF at rest and during dobutamine infusion. EW was calculated as stroke volume (echo)×end-systolic pressure×heart rate. At rest, compared with controls, patients with HFpEF had higher LV EW, MVO2, and MBF. With dobutamine, LV EW, MVO2, and MBF increased in both HFpEF and controls; however, the magnitude of increases was significantly smaller in HFpEF. In both groups, MBF increased in relation to EW, but in HFpEF, the slope of the relationship was significantly smaller than in controls. Myocardial O2 extraction was increased in HFpEF. Mechanical efficiency was similar in HFpEF and controls. In a post hoc analysis, HFpEF patients with LV hypertrophy (n=10) had significant reductions in LV mechanical efficiency relative to controls. CONCLUSIONS:In HFpEF during submaximal dobutamine stress, there is myocardial mechanical-, energetic- and flow-reserve dysfunction with impaired coupling of blood flow to demand and slight increases in myocardial O2 extraction. These findings provide evidence that coronary microvascular dysfunction is present in HFpEF, limits O2 supply relative to demand, and is associated with reserve dysfunction.

Project description:Approximately half of heart failure patients have a normal ejection fraction, a condition designated as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This heart failure subtype disproportionately affects women and the elderly and is commonly associated with other cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and diabetes. HFpEF is increasing at a steady rate and is predicted to become the leading cause of heart failure within a decade. HFpEF is characterized by impaired diastolic function, thought to be due to concentric remodeling of the heart along with increased stiffness of both the extracellular matrix and myofilaments. In addition, oxidative stress and inflammation are thought to have a role in HFpEF progression, along with endothelial dysfunction and impaired nitric oxide-cyclic guanosine monophosphate-protein kinase G signaling. Surprisingly a number of clinical studies have failed to demonstrate any benefit of drugs effective in heart failure with systolic dysfunction in HFpEF patients. Thus, HFpEF is one of the largest unmet needs in cardiovascular medicine, and there is a substantial need for new therapeutic approaches and strategies that target mechanisms specific for HFpEF. This conclusion is underscored by the recently reported disappointing results of the RELAX trial, which assessed the use of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil for treating HFpEF. In animal models, endothelial nitric oxide synthase activators and If current inhibitors have shown benefit in improving diastolic function, and there is a rationale for assessing matrix metalloproteinase 9 inhibitors and nitroxyl donors. LCZ696, a combination drug of angiotensin II receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor, and the aldosterone receptor antagonist spironolactone are currently in clinical trial for treating HFpEF. Here we present an overview of the etiology and diagnosis of HFpEF that segues into a discussion of new therapeutic approaches emerging from basic research and drugs currently in clinical trial that primarily target diastolic dysfunction or imbalanced ventricular-arterial coupling.