Interatrial shunt devices for heart failure with normal ejection fraction: a technology update.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cuthbert JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5476655 | biostudies-other | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Interatrial shunt devices for heart failure with normal ejection fraction: a technology update.
Cuthbert Joseph J JJ Pellicori Pierpaolo P Clark Andrew L AL
Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) 20170602
Heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HeFNEF) accounts for ~50% of heart failure admissions. Its pathophysiology and diagnostic criteria are yet to be defined clearly which may hinder the search for effective treatments. The clinical hallmark of HeFNEF is exertional breathlessness, often due to an abnormal increase in left atrial pressure during exercise. Creation of an interatrial communication to offload the left atrium is a possible therapeutic approach. There are two percutaneously de ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is responsible for half of all heart failure and confers substantial morbidity and mortality, and yet to date, there have been no effective pharmacologic interventions. Although the pathophysiology is complex, the primary aetiology of exercise intolerance is due to an elevated left atrial pressure, particularly with exercise. In this context, device-based therapy has become a focus. Several companies have developed techniques to percutaneously create an iatrogenic left to right shunt at the atrial level, thereby reducing left atrial pressure and reducing transmitted pressures to the pulmonary circulation and reducing pulmonary congestion. In this review, we explore the pathophysiology, evidence base, benefits, and considerations of these devices and their place in the therapeutic landscape of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
| S-EPMC9941219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for approximately half of the current burden of HF, and the prevalence is continuing to rise. In contrast to HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) there are no clinically effective evidence based therapies for HFpEF. The principal pathophysiologic disorder is an elevation of left atrial pressure, most notable during physical activity, which results from impaired left ventricular diastolic reserve, and increased left atrial stiffness. This review outlines the clinical development of a potential device based therapy for HFpEF, the interatrial shunt device (IASD).
| S-EPMC6759808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While guidelines for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are consensual and have led to improved survival, treatment options for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain limited and aim primarily for symptom relief and improvement of quality of life. Due to the shortage of therapeutic options, several drugs have been investigated in multiple clinical trials. The majority of these trials have reported disappointing results and have suggested that HFpEF might not be as simply described by ejection fraction as previously though. In fact, HFpEF is a complex clinical syndrome with various comorbidities and overlapping distinct phenotypes that could benefit from personalized therapeutic approaches. This review summarizes the results from the most recent phase III clinical trials for HFpEF and the most promising drugs arising from phase II trials as well as the various challenges that are currently holding back the development of new pharmacotherapeutic options for these patients.
| S-EPMC8801287 | 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:AimsHeart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF) is an important clinical entity that remains incompletely understood. The novel biomarker growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is elevated in systolic heart failure (HFrEF) and is predictive of an adverse outcome. We investigated the clinical relevance of GDF-15 plasma levels in HFnEF.Methods and resultsA subgroup of patients from the ongoing DIAST-CHF observational trial, with a history of chronic heart failure (CHF) or positive Framingham criteria at presentation, was selected. Patients were classified as having either HFrEF (n=86) or HFnEF (n=142) and compared with healthy elderly controls (n=188) from the same cohort. Growth differentiation factor 15 levels in HFnEF were significantly higher than in controls and similar to those in HFrEF. In multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated with GDF-15 levels were age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), presence of HFrEF and HFnEF. Growth differentiation factor 15 correlated with multiple echocardiographic markers of diastolic function and was associated with 6 min walk test performance and SF-36 physical score on multivariate analysis in all patients. When using a classification for HFnEF that did not employ N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) as a diagnostic criterion, the diagnostic properties of GDF-15 for detecting HFnEF tended to be superior to those of NT-proBNP, and a combination significantly improved diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionGrowth differentiation factor 15 is elevated in HFnEF to a similar degree as in HFrEF. It is independently associated with impairment in exercise capacity and in physical components of quality of life. Diagnostic precision of GDF-15 is at least as good as that of NT-proBNP and combining both markers improves diagnostic accuracy.
| S-EPMC2990410 | biostudies-literature
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: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:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of dynamic changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in an all-comer heart failure (HF) population with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%). We sought to identify independent factors related to improvement in EF and to identify risk factors for increased risk of CV events in the subgroups of improved EF (iEF) and non-improved EF (niEF), respecively.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective sub-analysis from the REDEAL HF trial, which included consecutive patients with chronic HF who were hospitalized from July 2009 to December 2017. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography data (interval ≥12 months) of 573 consecutive patients with HFrEF were analysed. iEF was defined as absolute improvement in EF ≥ 10% and follow-up EF over 40%. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, CV hospitalization, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. EF improved in 37.2% of patients with HFrEF during follow-up (median period of 17 months). iEF was independently associated with shorter HF duration (>4 vs. ≤4 years, odd ratio [OR] = 0.477, 95% CI 0.305-0.745), no coronary artery disease (CAD vs. no CAD, OR = 0.583, 95% CI 0.396-0.858), and no ICD implantation (ICD vs. no ICD, OR = 0.341, 95% CI 0.228-0.511). Compared with niEF, iEF was significantly and independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (22.1% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.019; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.674, 95% CI 0.469-0.968), lower CV mortality (8.9% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.015; HR = 0.539, 95% CI 0.317-0.916), and lower CV events risk (27.2% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; HR 0.519, 95% CI 0.381-0.708), after adjustment for age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors. Hypertension (HR = 2.452, P = 0.032) and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >1153 pg/mL, HR = 4.372, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for CV events in the iEF subgroup. ICD implantation (HR = 1.533, P = 0.011), elevated NT-proBNP (HR = 1.626, P = 0.018), increased left atrial volume index (HR = 1.461, P = 0.021), reduced lateral mitral annular plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.478, P = 0.025), and reduced tricuspid plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.491, P = 0.039) were identified as risk factors for CV events in the niEF subgroup.ConclusionsImprovement in EF is independently related to the longer survival and lower CV related mortality and hospitalization rate of HFrEF. Elevated baseline NT-proBNP is identified as the strongest prognostic factor associated with increased CV events risk in HFrEF patients both with and without improved EF, regardless of age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors.
| S-EPMC10053299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes. Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064-2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335-2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096-1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247-2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020-1.718, P = 0.035). Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.
| S-EPMC8364975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.
| S-EPMC9065872 | biostudies-literature