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.
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.
Project description:AimsExercise right heart catheterization (RHC) is considered the gold-standard test to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, exercise RHC is an insufficiently standardized technique, and current haemodynamic thresholds to define HFpEF are not universally accepted. We sought to describe the exercise haemodynamics profile of HFpEF cohorts reported in literature, as compared with control subjects.Methods and resultsWe performed a systematic literature review until December 2020. Studies reporting pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) at rest and peak exercise were extracted. Summary estimates of all haemodynamic variables were evaluated, stratified according to body position (supine/upright exercise). The PAWP/cardiac output (CO) slope during exercise was extrapolated. Twenty-seven studies were identified, providing data for 2180 HFpEF patients and 682 controls. At peak exercise, patients with HFpEF achieved higher PAWP (30 [29-31] vs. 16 [15-17] mmHg, P < 0.001) and mean right atrial pressure (P < 0.001) than controls. These differences persisted after adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, and body position. However, peak PAWP values were highly heterogeneous among the cohorts (I2 = 93%), with a relative overlap with controls. PAWP/CO slope was steeper in HFpEF than in controls (3.75 [3.20-4.28] vs. 0.95 [0.30-1.59] mmHg/L/min, P value < 0.0001), even after adjustment for covariates (P = 0.007).ConclusionsDespite methodological heterogeneity, as well as heterogeneity of pooled haemodynamic estimates, the exercise haemodynamic profile of HFpEF patients is consistent across studies and characterized by a steep PAWP rise during exercise. More standardization of exercise haemodynamics may be advisable for a wider application in clinical practice.
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: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.
Project description:BackgroundObservational series suggest a mortality benefit from metformin in the heart failure (HF) population. However, the benefit of metformin in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has yet to be explored. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify whether variation in EF impacts mortality outcomes in HF patients treated with metformin.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to October 2019. Observational studies and randomised trials reporting mortality in HF patients and the proportion of patients with an EF > 50% at baseline were included. Other baseline variables were used to assess for heterogeneity in treatment outcomes between groups. Regression models were used to determine the interaction between metformin and subgroups on mortality.ResultsFour studies reported the proportion of patients with a preserved EF and were analysed. Metformin reduced mortality in both preserved or reduced EF after adjustment with HF therapies such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and beta-blockers (β = - 0.2 [95% CI - 0.3 to - 0.1], p = 0.02). Significantly greater protective effects were seen with EF > 50% (p = 0.003). Metformin treatment with insulin, ACEi and beta-blocker therapy were also shown to have a reduction in mortality (insulin p = 0.002; ACEi p < 0.001; beta-blocker p = 0.017), whereas female gender was associated with worse outcomes (p < 0.001).ConclusionsMetformin treatment is associated with a reduction in mortality in patients with HFpEF.
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.
Project description:AIMS:This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of nutritional status in post-discharge Asians with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:We examined the prognostic implications of body mass index (BMI) and nutritional markers among consecutive patients hospitalized for HFpEF. Nutritional metrics were estimated by serum albumin (SA), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score, and geriatric nutritional risk index. Among 1120 patients (mean age: 77.2 ± 12.6 years, 39.4% men), mean SA levels, PNI, CONUT scores, and geriatric nutritional risk index were 3.3 ± 0.6 g/dL, 40.2 ± 8.7, 5.5 ± 2.1, and 95.9 ± 14.5, respectively. Lean body size, higher white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein levels, anaemia, and lack of angiotensin blocker use were independently associated with malnutrition (defined by SA < 3.5 g/dL). Higher SA levels [hazard ratio (HR): 0.67 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.53-0.85)], higher PNI [HR: 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99)], and higher geriatric nutritional risk index [HR: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99)] (all P < 0.05) were all associated with longer survival, with higher CONUT score [HR: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.02-1.13)] exhibited higher mortality in Cox regression models and with higher SA levels/PNI but not BMI further contributing to the reduced rate of re-hospitalization (both P < 0.05). Categorizing BMI (25 kg/m2 as cut-off) and nutritional status showed significantly higher mortality rates among patients with lower BMI/malnutrition than among those with BMI/better nutrition (SA level, PNI, and CONUT score, all P < 0.01). Restricted cubic spline regression revealed a marked survival benefit of better nutrition with increasing BMI (adjusted Pinteraction for both SA level and PNI: <0.001; adjusted Pinteraction for CONUT score: 0.046). CONCLUSIONS:Malnutrition was frequently and strongly associated with systemic inflammation in Asian patients hospitalized for acute HFpEF. Our findings also indicate that nutrition may play a pivotal role in metabolic protection in this population.
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.
Project description:Heart failure (HF) is a major epidemic with rising morbidity and mortality rates that encumber global healthcare systems. While some studies have demonstrated the value of CRP in predicting (i) the development of HFpEF and (ii) long-term clinical outcomes in HFpEF patients, others have shown no such correlation. As a result, we conducted the following systematic review and meta-analysis to assess both the diagnostic and prognostic role of CRP in HFpEF. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies that assess the relationship between CRP and HFpEF using the following search terms: (((C-reactive protein) AND ((preserved ejection fraction) OR (diastolic heart failure))). The search period was from the start of database to August 6, 2019, with no language restrictions. A total of 312 and 233 studies were obtained from PubMed and Embase respectively, from which 19 studies were included. Our meta-analysis demonstrated the value of a high CRP in predicting the development of not only new onset HFpEF (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.00-1.16; P = 0.04; I2 = 22%), but also an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality when used as a categorical (HR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.61-3.96; P < 0.0001; I2 = 19%) or a continuous variable (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.04-1.47; P = 0.01; I2 = 28%), as well as all-cause mortality when used as a categorical (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.53-2.06; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) or a continuous variable: (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.06; P = 0.003; I2 = 61%) in HFpEF patients. CRP can be used as a biomarker to predict the development of HFpEF and long-term clinical outcomes in HFpEF patients, in turn justifying its use as a simple, accessible parameter to guide clinical management in this patient population. However, more prospective studies are still required to not only explore the utility and dynamicity of CRP in HFpEF but also to determine whether risk stratification algorithms incorporating CRP actually provide a material benefit in improving patient prognosis.