Dataset Information

Genetic architecture of heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT: Pharmacologic clinical trials for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction have been largely unsuccessful as compared to those for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Whether differences in the genetic underpinnings of these major heart failure subtypes may provide insights into the disparate outcomes of clinical trials remains unknown. We utilize a large, uniformly phenotyped, single cohort of heart failure sub-classified into heart failure with reduced and with preserved ejection fractions based on current clinical definitions, to conduct detailed genetic analyses of the two heart failure sub-types. We find different genetic architectures and distinct genetic association profiles between heart failure with reduced and with preserved ejection fraction suggesting differences in underlying pathobiology. The modest genetic discovery for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (one locus) compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (13 loci) despite comparable sample sizes indicates that clinically defined heart failure with preserved ejection fraction likely represents the amalgamation of several, distinct pathobiological entities. Development of consensus sub-phenotyping of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is paramount to better dissect the underlying genetic signals and contributors to this highly prevalent condition.

SUBMITTER: Joseph J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9751124 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Genetic architecture of heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

Joseph Jacob J Liu Chang C Hui Qin Q Aragam Krishna K Wang Zeyuan Z Charest Brian B Huffman Jennifer E JE Keaton Jacob M JM Edwards Todd L TL Demissie Serkalem S Djousse Luc L Casas Juan P JP Gaziano J Michael JM Cho Kelly K Wilson Peter W F PWF Phillips Lawrence S LS O'Donnell Christopher J CJ Sun Yan V YV

Nature communications 20221214 1

Pharmacologic clinical trials for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction have been largely unsuccessful as compared to those for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Whether differences in the genetic underpinnings of these major heart failure subtypes may provide insights into the disparate outcomes of clinical trials remains unknown. We utilize a large, uniformly phenotyped, single cohort of heart failure sub-classified into heart failure with reduced and with preserved ejecti ...[more]

PMID: 36517512

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:Higher left ventricular (LV) mass, wall thickness, and internal dimension are associated with increased heart failure (HF) risk. Whether different LV hypertrophy patterns vary with respect to rates and types of HF incidence is unclear. In this study, 4,768 Framingham Heart Study participants (mean age 50 years, 56% women) were classified into 4 mutually exclusive LV hypertrophy pattern groups (normal, concentric remodeling, concentric hypertrophy, and eccentric hypertrophy) using American Society of Echocardiography-recommended thresholds of echocardiographic LV mass indexed to body surface area and relative wall thickness, and these groups were related to HF incidence. Whether risk for HF types (HF with reduced ejection fraction [<45%] vs preserved ejection fraction [?45%]) varied by hypertrophy pattern was then evaluated. On follow-up (mean 21 years), 458 participants (9.6%, 250 women) developed new-onset HF. The age- and gender-adjusted 20-year HF incidence increased from 6.96% in the normal left ventricle group to 8.67%, 13.38%, and 15.27% in the concentric remodeling, concentric hypertrophy, and eccentric hypertrophy groups, respectively. After adjustment for co-morbidities and incident myocardial infarction, LV hypertrophy patterns were associated with higher HF incidence relative to the normal left ventricle group (p = 0.0002); eccentric hypertrophy carried the greatest risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 2.54), followed by concentric hypertrophy (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.87). Participants with eccentric hypertrophy had a higher propensity for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.37), whereas those with concentric hypertrophy were more prone to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.51). In conclusion, in this large community-based sample, HF risk varied by LV hypertrophy pattern, with eccentric and concentric hypertrophy predisposing to HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction, respectively.

Dataset Information

Genetic architecture of heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

Publications

Genetic architecture of heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets