Hubers, Scott

Background: Patients with normal resting left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) without either coronary artery disease (CAD) or a hypertensive response can paradoxically develop reduced LVEF during exercise stress echocardiography (ESE). The clinical phenotype and outcomes of these patients is unknown. Hypothesis: Patients who paradoxically develop reduced LVEF during exercise may represent a sub-phenotype of heart failure with preserved LVEF (HFpEF). Aims: To describe the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of this unique patient population. Methods: Among all ESE performed between January 2003 and December 2022, patients without a hypertensive response to exercise and without CAD by angiogram within 90 days of ESE, who had a resting LVEF ≥50% with a ≥5% LVEF decrease during ESE were identified. All-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and atrial fibrillation (AF) outcomes were assessed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to analyze time-to-event outcomes. Results: Among 213,643 stress echocardiograms performed, 134 patients met eligibility criteria (Table 1). The mean age of the population was 66±10 years, 76% were women, and 16% had AF at baseline. Mean LVEF was 58±4% at rest and 43±4% at peak stress. Stress electrocardiogram met criteria for ischemia in 14%. The 10-year all-cause mortality risk was 12.9% (95% CI 5.5-20.3) with 10 (37%) of 27 deaths due to cancer (Figure 1, Panel A). The 10-year estimated risk of HF hospitalization was 17.6% (95% CI 9.0-26.2) (Figure 1, Panel B). Among 112 patients without AF at baseline, the 10-year risk of developing AF was 23.4% (95% CI 13.4-33.4). Conclusions: Patients with exercise-induced reduced LVEF in the absence of obstructive CAD have a high incidence of HF hospitalizations and AF. Given the preponderance of women, risk for AF, HF hospitalizations, and cancer-related deaths, the possibility that this condition is an early sub-phenotype of HFpEF should be investigated.

Background: Electrocardiography-based artificial intelligence (AI-ECG) validated models that detect cardiac disease are increasingly being applied in clinical practice. The utility of such tools to detect insidious cardiac disease in patients with normal baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who paradoxically develop reduced LVEF during exercise stress echocardiography (ESE), and do not have coronary artery disease (CAD) or hypertension, is unknown. Hypothesis: AI-ECG is useful to diagnose insidious cardiac disease and predict clinical outcomes in patients with exercise-induced cardiomyopathy. Aims: To assess the utility of AI ECG in patients with exercise-induced cardiomyopathy. Methods: Among all ESE performed between January 2003 and December 2022, patients without a hypertensive response to exercise and without CAD (confirmed by coronary angiography within 90 days after ESE), with resting LVEF ≥50% and a paradoxical ≥5% LVEF decrease during ESE were identified. A previously validated AI-ECG algorithm that predicts atrial fibrillation (AF), reduced LVEF, and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) was applied to the baseline ECG closest to the time of ESE. The predicted probability of AF, reduced LVEF, and CA if above the published thresholds, was determined. Results: There were 134 patients with exercise-induced cardiomyopathy who were identified. The mean age of this cohort was 66±10 years, 76% were women and 16% had AF at baseline. Mean LVEF was 58±4% at rest and 43±4% at peak stress. The median follow-up period was 6.8 years (IQR 3.0-12.2). Among patients without a baseline history of AF (n=112), AI-ECG identified 29% with a significant probability of AF, which was associated with a subsequent AF diagnosis at univariable analysis (HR 2.505, 95%CI 1.016-6.177, p=0.046). There were 10 patients with an AI-ECG prediction of reduced LVEF among whom 3 were subsequently hospitalized with HF. AI-ECG was positive for CA in 8 and 3 amongst these had subsequent HF hospitalizations (Table). Conclusions: Baseline AI-ECG may help predict subsequent AF and diagnose preclinical amyloid cardiomyopathy in patients who by resting echocardiography do not seem to have cardiac disease but with exercise develop reduced LVEF.

BACKGROUND: Cardiorenal dysfunction with impaired cyclic GMP (cGMP) response is common in patients presenting with acute heart failure (HF). Type V phosphodiesterase (PDEV) is known to be upregulated in HF and may explain the dysfunction of renal response. The aim of this study was to determine whether B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) alone or in combination with PDEV inhibition improves renal function and increases urinary sodium and cGMP excretion in acute HF. METHODS: This open-label study included 67 patients hospitalized with acute HF and renal dysfunction. Patients were randomized to standard care, low-dose intravenous BNP (0.005 µg/kg per minute), or combination BNP/PDEV inhibition with sildenafil (25 mg q12 hours) for 48 hours. The coprimary end points were the percent change in estimated glomerular filtration rate and blood urea nitrogen from baseline to 48 hours. RESULTS: Treatment with BNP and BNP/PDEV inhibitor significantly increased plasma cGMP at 24 hours (+25.6% [+9.8%, +84.7%] and +60.8% [+32.3%, +103.8%] for BNP and BNP/PDEV versus −13.5% [−29.1%, +14.2%] with standard care; P =0.001). However, there was no significant change in estimated glomerular filtration rate 0 (−10.8%, +12.7%) for standard care versus 0 (−15.3%, +11.8%) for the BNP group versus –8.8% (−14.3%, +8.3%) for the BNP/PDEV group ( P =0.60) or blood urea nitrogen −1.4% (−10.7%, +12.0%) for standard care versus –5.9% (−14.6%, +9.4%) for the BNP group versus +6.9% (−5.3%, +18.8%) for the BNP/PDEV group ( P =0.38) between groups. Hypotension was more common in the BNP/PDEV inhibitor group. CONCLUSIONS: BNP and combination BNP/PDEV inhibition increased plasma cGMP in patients with acute HF but did not improve renal function or urinary sodium/cGMP excretion. Our study does not support the use of intravenous low-dose BNP with or without PDEV inhibition to enhance renal function in patients admitted with acute HF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00972569.

Introduction: Prior studies have shown 30-35% of patients with an abnormal stress test had non-obstructive coronary artery disease. The characteristics and outcomes of this patient population have not been well studied. We tested the hypothesis that there is a distinct group of individuals who have an exercise-induced cardiomyopathy not related to the presence of obstructive coronary artery disease or pre-existing structural heart disease. Methods: Our cohort included adults 18 years and older who underwent stress echocardiography at the Mayo Clinic. Patients were included if their resting left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was greater than 50% and decreased by more than 5% to under 50% with exercise. We excluded patients who did not have coronary angiography in the 90 days following stress echocardiography and those with prior diagnosis of coronary artery disease or structural/valvular heart disease. Results: A total of 205627 stress echocardiograms were performed between 2003 and 2019, of which 127 patients were analyzed in our cohort. The median age was 68 years, and 76% were female. The median LVEF was 55% at rest and 45% with stress. Left bundle branch block was present in 9% of patients. Median peak systolic blood pressure was 174 mm Hg. Stress electrocardiogram was positive in 14% of patients. Median functional aerobic capacity [interquartile range] as a percentage of age/sex predicted capacity was 101% [73%, 117%]. Conclusion: We describe a cohort of patients with exercise-induced left ventricular systolic dysfunction not explained by obstructive coronary artery disease or structural heart disease. Forthcoming analyses of long term outcomes will be important to understand how these patients compare to patients without exercise-induced cardiac dysfunction.

Background: DPP4 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4) inhibitors comprise a class of oral diabetes medication that have the potential for off-target cardiovascular effects. We previously showed that DPP4 inhibition attenuates the hypotensive effect of acute ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibition and increases norepinephrine. Here, we investigated the effects of DPP4 during sustained ACE inhibition compared with during therapy with an ARB (angiotensin receptor blocker) or calcium channel blocker (neutral comparator) in a randomized, double-blinded crossover study. Methods: We enrolled 106 adults with type 2 diabetes and hypertension and 100 received intervention. Subjects were randomized to one of 3 blood pressure arms: ramipril, valsartan, or amlodipine for a total of 15 weeks and received 3 one-week crossover therapies in random order: placebo + placebo, sitagliptin + placebo, and sitagliptin + aprepitant separated by 4-week washout. Results: We found that DPP4 inhibition increased norepinephrine during ramipril but did not increase blood pressure. Aprepitant, a NK1 (substance P) receptor blocker, lowered standing heart rate during renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade with ramipril or valsartan. Conclusions: Increased catecholamines during concurrent ACE and DPP4 inhibition may contribute to cardiovascular complications in patients predisposed to heart failure.

Background Phosphodiesterase V (PDEV) is upregulated in heart failure, leading to increased degradation of cGMP and impaired natriuresis. PDEV inhibition improves the renal response to B‐type natriuretic peptide in animal models. We tested the hypothesis that long‐term PDEV inhibition would improve renal function and cardiorenal response after short‐term volume load in subjects with pre–heart failure. Methods and Results A total of 20 subjects with pre–heart failure (defined as an ejection fraction ≤45% without previous diagnosis of heart failure) and renal impairment were randomized in a 2:1 manner to tadalafil or placebo. Baseline echocardiography and renal clearance study were performed, followed by a short‐term saline load and repeated echocardiography and renal clearance study. Subjects then received either tadalafil at a goal dose of 20 mg daily or placebo, and the study day was repeated after 12 weeks. Long‐term tadalafil did not improve glomerular filtration rate (median increase of 2.0 mL/min in the tadalafil group versus 13.5 mL/min in the placebo group; P =0.54). There was no difference in urinary sodium or cGMP excretion with PDEV inhibition following short‐term saline loading. Conclusions Glomerular filtration rate and urinary sodium/cGMP excretion were not significantly different after 12 weeks of tadalafil compared with placebo. These results do not support the use of PDEV inhibition to improve renal response in patients with pre–heart failure. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01970176.

Introduction: Cardiorenal dysfunction with impaired cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) response to volume load is a hallmark of heart failure. Phosphodiesterase V (PDEV) is known to be upregulated and may explain the dysfunction of renal response. Hypothesis: We tested the hypothesis that PDEV inhibition in combination with low dose intravenous (IV) B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) would improve renal function and potentiate urinary sodium and cGMP excretion in patients with acute heart failure. Methods: Randomized open label study in 67 patients admitted to the hospital with acute heart failure. These patients were randomized to standard care, low dose IV BNP (0.005μg/kg/min), or combination low dose BNP/PDEV inhibition with sildenafil (25 mg q12 hrs) for 48 hours. Plasma and urine studies were obtained at baseline, 24 hours, and 48 hours after study drug initiation to assess renal function. The primary endpoint was the percent change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) from baseline to 48 hours. Changes from baseline were summarized with median and quartiles and groups were compared using two-sample t-test. [ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00972569] Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Median age was 78 years and median ejection fraction 39%. Treatment with BNP and BNP/PDEV inhibitor significantly increased plasma cGMP at 24 hr (% increase of 25.6 (8.9, 13.1) and 60.8 (32.3, 103.8) for BNP and BNP/PDEV vs % decrease of 13.5 (-29.1, 14.2) for placebo, p=0.001). BNP levels were significantly higher in both groups at 48 hr compared with placebo. However, there was no significant change in eGFR, BUN, or urinary sodium/cGMP excretion between groups. Hypotension was more common in the BNP/PDEV inhibitor group. Conclusions: Low dose IV BNP and combination BNP/PDEV inhibition increased plasma cGMP in patients with acute heart failure but did not improve renal function or urinary sodium/cGMP excretion. Our study does not support the use of low dose IV BNP with or without PDEV inhibition to enhance renal function in patients admitted with acute heart failure.

Objective B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) has favourable effects on left ventricular remodelling, including antifibrotic and antiapoptotic properties. We tested the hypothesis that infusion of BNP after an acute myocardial infarction would reduce left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes and improve left ventricular ejection fraction compared with placebo. Methods A total of 58 patients who underwent successful revascularisation for an acute ST elevation anterior myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 72-hour infusion of BNP at 0.006 µg/kg/min or placebo. Left ventricular end diastolic and systolic volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction were measured at baseline and at 30 days by multigated acquisition scan. Left ventricular infarction size was measured by cardiac MRI. Results BNP infusion led to significantly higher BNP levels and plasma cyclic guanosine monophosphate at 72 hours. No significant difference in change of left ventricular volumes or ejection fraction from baseline to 30 days was observed between groups. Although left ventricular infarction size measured by cardiac MRI was not significantly different between BNP infusion versus placebo (p=0.39), there was a trend towards reduced infarction size in patients with a baseline ejection fraction of <40% (p=0.14). Conclusions Infusion of BNP in patients with an anterior myocardial infarction did not affect parameters of left ventricular remodelling. Patients treated with BNP who had a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of <40% had a trend towards reduced left ventricular infarction size compared with placebo. These results do not support the use of intravenous BNP in patients after recent myocardial infarction. Trial registration number NCT00573144.

Abstract Context Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors may increase the risk of heart failure. Decreased degradation of vasoactive peptides like substance P [also degraded by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)] and Y1 agonists peptide YY (PYY 1-36) and neuropeptide Y (NPY 1-36) could contribute. Objective This study tested the hypothesis that there is an interactive effect of DPP4 inhibition and ACE inhibition (vs antihypertensive control subjects) on vasoactive peptides after a mixed meal. Participants and Design Fifty-three patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension were randomized to double-blind treatment with ramipril, valsartan, or amlodipine for 15 weeks in parallel groups. During the 5th, 10th, and 15th weeks, participants also received placebo + placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg/d + placebo, and sitagliptin + aprepitant 80 mg/d in random order. On the last day of each crossover treatment, participants underwent a mixed-meal study. Results Sitagliptin increased postprandial glucagon-like peptide-1 and decreased glucose in all antihypertensive groups. Sitagliptin increased NPY 1-36 and decreased Y2 agonists NPY 3-36 and PYY 3-36 in all groups. During ramipril or valsartan, but not amlodipine, sitagliptin increased postprandial norepinephrine; substance P receptor blockade with aprepitant prevented this effect. Despite increased norepinephrine, sitagliptin decreased postprandial blood pressure during ACE inhibition. Conclusion DPP4 inhibition increases postprandial concentrations of the Y1 agonist NPY 1-36. During treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, DPP4 inhibition increased postprandial norepinephrine through a substance P receptor–dependent mechanism. Increased NPY 1-36 and norepinephrine could increase risk of heart failure but did not result in higher postprandial blood pressure.

DPP (dipeptidyl peptidase)-4 inhibitors are antidiabetic drugs that may increase heart failure in high-risk patients. NPY (neuropeptide Y) is coreleased with norepinephrine, causes vasoconstriction via the Y1 receptor, and is degraded by DPP4 to NPY (3–36) in vitro. NPY (3–36) decreases release of norepinephrine via the Y2 receptor. We tested the hypothesis that DPP4 inhibition would potentiate the vasoconstrictor effect of NPY. Eighteen nonsmokers (12 healthy controls and 6 with type 2 diabetes mellitus) participated in 1 of 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover studies. First, subjects were randomized to order of treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg/d versus placebo for 7 days separated by 4-week washout. On the last day of treatment, NPY was infused by brachial artery and forearm blood flow was measured using plethysmography. Blood samples were collected after each dose. NPY infusions were repeated after 90-minute washout and intra-arterial enalaprilat. Second, 5 healthy subjects were randomized to crossover treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg/d plus valsartan 160 mg/d versus placebo plus valsartan. NPY infusions were performed on the seventh day of treatment. NPY caused dose-dependent vasoconstriction. During enalaprilat, sitagliptin significantly potentiated NPY-induced vasoconstriction in controls and diabetics ( P ≤0.02 for forearm blood flow in either group). Baseline norepinephrine release was increased during sitagliptin and enalaprilat, but not further by NPY. Sitagliptin increased the ratio of NPY to NPY (3–36). During valsartan, sitagliptin also significantly potentiated NPY-induced vasoconstriction ( P =0.009 for forearm blood flow). Potentiation of endogenous NPY could contribute to cardiovascular effects of DPP4 inhibitors in patients taking an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker.