Verbrugge, Frederik H.

Abstract Background and Aims Exercise stress echocardiography is recommended as an alternative to invasive testing for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but an evidence-based operational framework guiding its application is lacking. Methods Patients with chronic unexplained dyspnoea underwent invasive haemodynamic exercise testing with simultaneous echocardiography to test the hypotheses that (i) the current diagnostic algorithms (H2FPEF, HFA-PEFF, and HFpEF-ABA scores) could be enhanced when combined with exercise echocardiography; and (ii) incorporating resting left atrial (LA) compliance (LA reservoir strain divided by E/e′) could further improve diagnostic triage, using separate cut points optimizing sensitivity and specificity. Findings were then validated in an international multicentre cohort. Results Of 482 patients, HFpEF was present in 386 and non-cardiac dyspnoea in 96. Sensitivity to detect HFpEF was only 55%–60% and accuracy 61%–67% using individual diagnostic scores with currently recommended exercise echocardiography. Addition of abnormal resting LA compliance to exercise echocardiography increased sensitivity to 84%–85% but increased the false-positive rate to 31%–43%. Applying separate cut points that optimize specificity and sensitivity (either exercise E/e′ ≥ 13.8 or resting LA compliance ≤1.6% to rule-in HFpEF; both exercise E/e′ < 7.2 and resting LA compliance >4.4% to rule-out HFpEF, remaining patients indeterminate who require invasive testing) improved sensitivity to 95%–99% among definitively classified patients and reduced the number of patients that require invasive exercise testing from ∼60% to ∼30%. Findings were replicated in a multicentre, international validation cohort of patients undergoing rest–exercise echocardiography and invasive exercise testing. Conclusions Currently used non-invasive approaches to HFpEF diagnosis have inadequate sensitivity, indicating that exercise echocardiography cannot supplant invasive testing. Addition of LA strain imaging with optimized rule-in or rule-out values improves diagnostic triage by expanding non-invasive rule-in/rule-out classifications while identifying patients who still require invasive testing in the evaluation of HFpEF.

Abstract Aims The diagnostic difficulty of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is related to the fact that many patients develop abnormal hemodynamics only during exercise. Exercise stress echocardiography is a first-line test to unmask such abnormalities, but exercise protocols and diagnostic criteria have not been established. It remains unclear how cardiologists diagnose HFpEF by exercise echocardiography in real-world practice. Methods and Results An international web-based survey was performed on 87 cardiologists, 59% of whom had ≥ 6 years of experience with exercise echocardiography. A retrospective cohort of 652 dyspneic patients who underwent exercise echocardiography was used to determine the impact of different diagnostic criteria on the proportion of HFpEF diagnosis. The most commonly used exercise echocardiography criterion for the HFpEF diagnosis was the HFA-PEFF algorithm (48%), followed by the ASE/EACVI criteria (24%) and some combinations of multiple parameters (22%). A retrospective study found that the proportion of HFpEF diagnosis varied substantially between the criteria used: 20.1% for the ASE/EACVI criteria and 44.3% for the HFA-PEFF algorithm. A survey demonstrated that 54% of the participating cardiologists would initiate sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors based on exercise echocardiography results. Conclusion In real-world practice, exercise echocardiography criteria for HFpEF diagnosis vary among cardiologists. While many cardiologists consider initiating pharmacological treatment on exercise echocardiography results, the frequency of HFpEF diagnosis varies substantially depending on the diagnostic criteria used. The lack of universal diagnostic criteria may limit the delivery of evidence-based treatment to patients with HFpEF.

Abstract Aims The diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging based on resting assessments. Exercise echocardiography is often used to unmask abnormalities that develop during exercise, but the diagnostic criteria have not been standardized. This study aimed to elucidate how cardiologists utilize exercise echocardiography to diagnose HFpEF in real-world practice. Methods and results An international web-based survey involving 87 cardiologists was performed. We also performed a retrospective cross-sectional study to investigate the impact of different exercise echocardiographic diagnostic criteria in 652 dyspnoeic patients who underwent exercise echocardiography. The HFA-PEFF algorithm was the most commonly used exercise echocardiography criterion for HFpEF diagnoses (48%), followed by the ASE/EACVI criteria (24%) and other combinations of multiple parameters (22%). Among 652 patients, the proportion of HFpEF diagnosis varied substantially according to the criteria used ranging from 20.1% (ASE/EACVI criteria) to 44.3% (HFA-PEFF algorithm). Many cases (49.4–70.5%) remained indeterminate after exercise echocardiography, but only 41% of surveyed cardiologists would utilize exercise right heart catheterization to resolve an indeterminate result. Despite these diagnostic uncertainties, 54% of surveyed cardiologists would utilize exercise echocardiography results to initiate sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Conclusion In real-world practice, exercise echocardiographic criteria utilized across cardiologists vary, which meaningfully impacts the frequency of HFpEF diagnoses, with indeterminate results being common. Despite these diagnostic uncertainties, many cardiologists initiate pharmacotherapy based on exercise echocardiography. The lack of consensus on universal diagnostic criteria for exercise echocardiography and approaches to indeterminate results may limit the delivery of evidence-based treatment for HFpEF.

Introduction: Reduced peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 ) is common and associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). According to the Fick principle, VO 2 is equal to the product of cardiac output (CO) and arterial-venous O 2 difference (AVO 2 diff). Patients with HFpEF display abnormalities each component, but no study has yet evaluated their prognostic impacts. Methods: Patients with HFpEF (n=501) and controls without HF (n=207) underwent invasive hemodynamic exercise testing with expired gas analysis and clinical follow up for the composite event of HF hospitalization or death. Results: Compared to controls, patients with HFpEF displayed slightly lower CO at rest with higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). On exercise, subjects with HFpEF displayed blunted increases in CO and greater increase in PCWP (Figure A). As compared with controls, the slope of the increase in CO relative to VO 2 was lower in HFpEF (6.4 ± 3.3 vs 5.4 ± 3.2 L/L; P =0.0004), while augmentation in AVO 2 diff relative to VO 2 was greater in HFpEF (7.7 ± 5.4 vs 10.0 ± 5.6 min/dL; P <0.0001). Over a median 2.8 (1.1-4.6) years of follow up, 101 patients experienced the composite event. Patients with CO reserve below the median and increases in AVO 2 diff below median displayed higher risk of the composite endpoint (Figure B-C). After adjustments for age, sex, BMI, atrial fibrillation, LV mass, and EF, CO reserve remained strongly associated with the primary outcome (HR [95%CI] = 0.51 [0.38-0.68]; P <0.0001, per 1 SD increase) and the change of AVO 2 diff remained significant, but was less predictive (HR [95%CI] = 0.74 [0.60-0.92]; P =0.007, per 1 SD increase) in patients with HFpEF. Conclusions: Impaired ability to augment CO and peripheral O 2 delivery are associated with increasing risk of adverse events in HFpEF. Further study is required to identify therapeutic interventions targeting these hemodynamic perturbations to improve outcomes in HFpEF.

Background Guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at high thromboembolic risk recommend oral anticoagulants (OACs) for preventing stroke and systemic embolism (SE). The reasons for guideline non-adherence are still unclear. Aim The aim is to identify clinical, demographic and non-patient characteristics associated with withholding OAC in patients with AF at high stroke risk. Methods Patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF, newly diagnosed with AF between March 2010 and August 2016, and with CHA2DS2-VASc Score≥2 (excluding sex), were grouped by OAC treatment at enrolment. Factors associated with OAC non-use were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. Results Of 40 416 eligible patients, 12 126 (30.0%) did not receive OACs at baseline. Globally, OAC prescription increased over time, from 60.4% in 2010–2011 to 74.7% in 2015–2016. Country of enrolment was the major predictor for OAC withholding (χ2−df=2576). Clinical predictors of OAC non-use included type of AF (χ2−df=404), history of bleeding (χ2−df=263) and vascular disease (χ2−df=99). OACs were used most frequently around the age of 75 years and decreasingly with younger as well as older age beyond 75 years (χ2−df=148). Non-cardiologists (χ2−df=201) and emergency room physicians (χ2−df=14) were less likely to prescribe OACs. OAC prescription correlated positively with country health expenditure. Conclusions Approximately one out of three AF patients did not receive OAC, while eligible according to the guidelines. Country of enrolment was the major determinant of anticoagulation strategy, while higher country health expenditure was associated with lower likelihood of withholding anticoagulation.

ABSTRACT Aim Left atrial (LA) myopathy is increasingly recognized as an important phenotypic trait in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Right atrial (RA) remodelling and dysfunction also develop in HFpEF, but little data are available regarding the clinical characteristics and pathophysiology among patients with isolated LA, RA, or biatrial myopathy. Methods and results Patients with HFpEF underwent invasive haemodynamic exercise testing, comprehensive imaging including speckle tracking strain echocardiography, and clinical follow-up at Mayo Clinic between 2006 and 2018. LA myopathy was defined as LA volume index &gt;34 ml/m2 and/or LA reservoir strain ≤24% and RA myopathy by RA volume index &gt;39 ml/m2 in men and &gt;33 ml/m2 in women and/or RA reservoir strain ≤19.8%. Of 476 consecutively evaluated patients with HFpEF defined by invasive exercise testing with evaluable atrial structure/function, 125 (26%) had no atrial myopathy, 147 (31%) had isolated LA myopathy, 184 (39%) had biatrial myopathy, and 20 (4%) had isolated RA myopathy. Patients with HFpEF and biatrial myopathy had more atrial fibrillation, poorer left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, more severe pulmonary vascular disease, tricuspid regurgitation, ventricular interdependence and right ventricular dysfunction, and poorer cardiac output reserve with exercise. There were 94 patients with events over a median follow-up of 2.9 (interquartile range 1.4–4.6) years. Individuals with biatrial myopathy had an 84% higher risk of HF hospitalization or death as compared to those with isolated LA myopathy (hazard ratio 1.84; 95% confidence interval 1.16–2.92, p = 0.01). Conclusions Biatrial myopathy identifies patients with more advanced HFpEF characterized by more severe pulmonary vascular disease, right HF, poorer cardiac reserve, and a greater risk for adverse outcomes. Further study is required to define optimal strategies to treat and prevent biatrial myopathy in HFpEF.

Abstract Aims To study the impact of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs. aortic stenosis (AS) lesion severity on left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, left atrial (LA) dysfunction, haemodynamics, and exercise capacity. Methods and results Patients (n = 206) with at least moderate AS (aortic valve area ≤0.85 cm/m2) and discordant symptoms underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with simultaneous echocardiography. The population was stratified according to the probability of underlying HFpEF by the heavy, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, elder, filling pressure (H2FPEF) score [0–5 (AS/HFpEF−) vs. 6–9 points (AS/HFpEF+)] and AS severity (Moderate vs. Severe). Mean age was 73 ± 10 years with 40% women. Twenty-eight patients had Severe AS/HFpEF+ (14%), 111 Severe AS/HFpEF− (54%), 13 Moderate AS/HFpEF+ (6%), and 54 Moderate AS/HFpEF− (26%). AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF− patients, irrespective of AS severity, had a lower LV global longitudinal strain, impaired diastolic function, reduced LV compliance, and more pronounced LA dysfunction. The pulmonary arterial pressure–cardiac output slope was significantly higher in AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF− (5.4 ± 3.1 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2 mmHg/L/min, respectively; P = 0.003), mainly driven by impaired cardiac output and chronotropic reserve, with signs of right ventricular pulmonary arterial uncoupling. AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF− was associated with a lower peak aerobic capacity (11.5 ± 3.7 vs. 15.9 ± 5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; P &lt; 0.0001) but did not differ between Moderate and Severe AS (14.7 ± 5.5 vs. 15.2 ± 5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; P = 0.6). Conclusion A high H2FPEF score is associated with a reduced exercise capacity and adverse haemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe AS. Both exercise performance and haemodynamics correspond better with intrinsic cardiac dysfunction than AS severity.

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Aortic valve stenosis (AS) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) present with similar cardiac alterations, but their overlap is poorly understood.(1–3). Purpose To study left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, left atrial (LA) dysfunction, hemodynamics, and exercise capacity according to HFpEF status versus AS severity. Methods Patients (n=206) with at least moderate AS (aortic valve area ≤0.85 cm2/m2) and discordant symptoms underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with simultaneous echocardiography. The population was stratified according to the probability of underlying HFpEF by the H2FPEF score [0–5 (AS/HFpEF-) vs. 6–9 points (AS/HFpEF+)] and AS severity (Moderate vs. Severe). Results Mean age was 73±10 years with 40% women. Stratification yielded 41 AS/HFpEF+ (20%) versus 165 AS/HFpEF- (80%) and 139 Severe (67%) versus 67 Moderate (33%) AS patients. AS/HFpEF+ patients had a lower LV global longitudinal strain, impaired diastolic function, reduced LV compliance, and more pronounced LA dysfunction compared to AS/HFpEF- patients. The mean pulmonary arterial pressure-cardiac output (mPAP/CO) slope was significantly higher in AS/HFpEF+ versus AS/HFpEF- (5.4±3.1 vs. 3.9±2.2 mmHg/L/min, respectively; p = 0.003), mainly driven by impaired cardiac output (CO) reserve and chronotropic incompetence, with signs of right ventricular-pulmonary arterial (RV-PA) uncoupling. AS/HFpEF+ versus AS/HFpEF- was associated with a lower peak aerobic capacity (11.5±3.7 vs. 15.9±5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; p&lt;0.0001), but did not differ between Moderate and Severe AS (14.7±5.5 vs. 15.2±5.9mL/min/kg, respectively; p = 0.6). Conclusions A high H2FPEF score is associated with a reduced exercise capacity and adverse hemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe AS. Both exercise performance and hemodynamics correspond better with intrinsic cardiac dysfunction than AS severity itself.

Abstract Aims Little data are available regarding prognostic implications of invasive exercise testing in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The present study aimed to investigate whether rest and exercise central haemodynamic abnormalities are associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with dyspnea. Methods and results Patients with exertional dyspnoea and ejection fraction ≥50% (n = 764) underwent invasive exercise testing and follow-up for heart failure hospitalization or death. There were 117 patients with events over a median follow-up of 2.7 (interquartile range 0.5–4.6) years. Among patients with normal resting pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) (&lt;15 mmHg, n = 380 [50%]), increased exercise PAWP (≥25 mmHg) was present in 187 (24% of cohort) and was associated with 2.4-fold higher risk of events compared to those with normal exercise PAWP (&lt;25 mmHg, n = 193 [25%]) (hazard ratio [HR] 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–5.36; p = 0.03), while patients with elevated resting PAWP (≥15 mmHg, n = 384 [50%]) displayed even higher risk compared to HFpEF with normal resting PAWP (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.38–3.65; p = 0.001). Similar findings were observed for rest/exercise right atrial pressure, and rest/exercise pulmonary artery pressures. Higher peak oxygen consumption was associated with decreased risk of events, and this relationship was solely explained by exercise cardiac output. In a multivariable-adjusted Cox model, each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in exercise PAWP was associated with a 41% greater hazard of events (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.13–1.76; p = 0.002), while each 1 SD decrease in exercise cardiac output was associated with a 37% increased risk (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.47–0.83; p = 0.001). Conclusions Haemodynamic abnormalities currently used for diagnosis of HFpEF are associated with increased risk for adverse events. Treatments that reduce central pressures while improving cardiac output reserve may offer greatest benefit to improve outcomes in HFpEF.