Acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: unique patient characteristics and targets for therapy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bishu K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3870333 | biostudies-other | 2013 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: unique patient characteristics and targets for therapy.
Bishu Kalkidan K Redfield Margaret M MM
Current heart failure reports 20130901 3
Currently, there are 1.0 million annual hospital discharges for acute heart failure (AHF). The total cost of heart failure (HF) care in the United States is projected to increase to $53 billion in 2030, with the majority of costs (80 %) related to AHF hospitalizations. Approximately 50 % of AHF episodes occur in patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). There is a dearth of evidence-based guidelines for the management of AHF in HFpEF patients. Here, we briefly review the epidemiology, p ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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:Recent clinical trials in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have provided important insights into participant selection strategies. Historically, HFpEF trials have included patients with relatively preserved left ventricular ejection fraction ranging from 40% to 55% and a clinical history of heart failure. Contemporary HFpEF trials have also incorporated inclusion criteria such as hospitalization for HFpEF, altered functional capacity, cardiac structural and functional abnormalities, and abnormalities in neurohormonal status (e.g., elevated natriuretic peptide levels). Careful analyses of the effect of these patient selection criteria on outcomes in prior trials provide valuable lessons for future trial design. We review recent and ongoing HFpEF clinical trials from a patient selection perspective and appraise trial patient selection methodologies in relation to outcomes. This review reflects discussions between clinicians, scientists, trialists, regulators, and regulatory representatives at the 10th Global CardioVascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Paris, France, on December 6, 2013.
| S-EPMC4713836 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC7186731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is little evidence addressing the use and differential impact of respiratory support in acute heart failure (AHF) patients with preserved (HFPEF) vs reduced (HFREF) ejection fraction. Therefore, our objective was to determine the usage and clinical outcomes of critical care respiratory support in AHF across the two populations.HypothesisRespiratory support would be associated with adverse outcome in both HFPEF and HFREF.MethodsWe identified HFPEF, HFREF, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) using International Classification of Disease-Ninth Edition codes in the National Inpatient Sample between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014. We determined rates of IMV and NIV use. We identified predictors of need for IMV and NIV and the association between ventilation strategies and in-hospital mortality in HFPEF vs HFREF.Results1.3 million AHF-HFPEF and 1.7 million AHF-HFREF hospitalizations were included; 5.98% of AHF HFPEF hospitalizations included NIV and 0.57% included IMV. Among HFREF hospitalizations, fewer (4.1%) included NIV and more (0.93%) included IMV. In HFPEF hospitalization, NIV use was associated with 2.24-fold increased risk for death compared to no respiratory support in an adjusted model (HR 2.24 95% CI 2.05-2.44) and IMV use was associated with 2.85-fold increased risk for death (HR 2.85 95% CI 2.30-3.53). This increased risk of in-hospital mortality was similar among HFREF patients.ConclusionsUse of respiratory support is increasing among patients with both HFPEF and HFREF and associated with substantially increased mortality in both heart failure subtypes.
| S-EPMC7144479 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6942575 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5490948 | biostudies-other
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) might soon become the most prevalent type of acute heart failure. Still, despite more than 30 years of research on HFpEF, not only do we lack specific treatment, but also a generally accepted definition of HFpEF. Since 2016, several definitions and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing both diastolic dysfunction and overt HFpEF. However, all of them focus exclusively on chronic (and not acute) HFpEF. Recent studies showed that acute HFpEF may be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea. The aim of our article was to address two questions: (1) why there is a need for specific diagnostic criteria for acute HFpEF, and (2) what such definition of acute HFpEF should encompass.KEY MESSAGES:Several scores and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), however, so far, there is no definition of acute HFpEF.Acute HFpEF seems to be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea.Definition of acute HFpEF should comprise both (1) features of chronic HFpEF and (2) markers of increased left ventricular filling pressures and/or of pulmonary congestion.
| S-EPMC8405068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is the most common form of HF. Among elderly women, HFpEF comprises more than 80% of incident HF cases. Adverse outcomes-exercise intolerance, poor quality of life, frequent hospitalizations, and reduced survival-approach those of classic HF with reduced EF (HFrEF). However, despite its importance, our understanding of the pathophysiology of HFpEF is incomplete, and despite intensive efforts, optimal therapy remains uncertain, as most trials to date have been negative. This is in stark contrast to management of HFrEF, where dozens of positive trials have established a broad array of effective, guidelines-based therapies that definitively improve a range of clinically meaningful outcomes. In addition to providing an overview of current management status, we examine evolving data that may help explain this paradox, overcome past challenges, provide a roadmap for future success, and that underpin a wave of new trials that will test novel approaches based on these insights.
| S-EPMC7707853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for around 50% of all heart failure cases. It is a heterogeneous condition with poorly understood pathogenesis. Here, we aimed to identify unique pathogenic mechanisms in acute and chronic HFpEF and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). We performed unbiased, comprehensive proteomic analyses of plasma samples from gender- and BMI-matched patients with acute HFpEF (n = 8), chronic HFpEF (n = 9) and HCM (n = 14) using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Distinct molecular signatures were observed in different HFpEF forms. Clusters of biomarkers differentially abundant between HFpEF forms were predominantly associated with microvascular inflammation. New candidate protein markers were also identified, including leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein 1 (LRG1), serum amyloid A1 (SAA1) and inter-alpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy chain 3 (ITIH3). Our study is the first to apply systematic, quantitative proteomic screening of plasma samples from patients with different subtypes of HFpEF and identify candidate biomarkers for improved management of acute and chronic HFpEF and HCM.
| S-EPMC9599828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE OF REVIEW:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a relatively new disease entity used in medical terminology; however, both the number of patients and its clinical significance are growing. HFpEF used to be seen as a mild condition; however, the symptoms and quality of life of the patients are comparable to those with reduced ejection fraction. The disease is much more complex than previously thought. In this article, information surrounding the etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and possible therapeutic options of HFpEF are reviewed and summarized. RECENT FINDINGS:It has recently been proposed that heart failure (HF) is rather a heterogeneous syndrome with a spectrum of overlapping and distinct characteristics. HFpEF itself can be distilled into different phenotypes based on the underlying biology. The etiological factors of HFpEF are unclear; however, systemic low-grade inflammation and microvascular damage as a consequence of comorbidities associated with endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, myocardial remodeling, and fibrosis are considered to play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of a disease. The H2FPEF score and the HFpEF nomogram are recently validated highly sensitive tools employed for risk assessment of subclinical heart failure. Despite numerous studies, there is still no evidence-based pharmacotherapy for HFpEF and the mortality and morbidity associated with HFpEF remain high. A better understanding of the etiological factors, the impact of comorbidities, the phenotypes of the disease, and implementation of machine learning algorithms may play a key role in the development of future therapeutic strategies.
| S-EPMC7347676 | biostudies-literature