Redfield, Margaret M.

Background and Objective: Decline of cardiovascular (CV) function is commonly observed in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (AP), which is associated with high mortality and morbidity. While the pathological changes in the pancreas during severe AP have been extensively studied, the impact on the CV system has not been well characterized. Furthermore, obesity is a major risk factor for severe AP. Hereby we utilized an obesity-associated mouse AP model to assess potential alterations in vascular integrity and cardiac function, two major components of circulatory failure. Methods: Wild-type male C57BL6J mice were fed a normal or a high fat (to induce obesity) diet. Both groups received intraperitoneal injection of cerulein (100 mg/kg/h x12) to induce AP. H&E and TUNEL staining of pancreas were performed to assess histology and cell death. To measure vascular integrity, we measured the leakiness of a fluorescein-conjugated dextran (70 kDa) in tissue parenchyma and serum levels of soluble vascular endothelial (VE)-cadherin, which has recently shown to be shed from endothelial cells with disrupted adherens junctions. Cardiac systolic and diastolic function were assessed by echocardiography at baseline and post-AP induction. Results: Compared to lean mice, obese mice developed more severe pancreatic edema, cell death and inflammatory cell infiltration, along with significantly increased accumulation of fluorescent dextran in multiple organs including pancreas, heart, lung, and kidney, suggesting systemic disruption of vascular integrity. Increased serum levels of soluble VE-cadherin in obese mice (vs. lean) after AP induction further supported compromised endothelial cell barrier function. At baseline, obese mice exhibited similar cardiac function to lean mice. However, obese mice, but not lean mice, developed impaired systolic and diastolic function post-AP induction, as supported by decreased ejection fraction and e’ velocity respectively. Conclusion: In this obesity-associated severe AP mouse model, systemic vascular permeability is increased, and cardiac function is substantially compromised. Systemic vascular hyperpermeability and cardiac dysfunction may represent therapeutic targets to enhance the outcomes in severe AP.

Introduction: Psychological resilience is the ability to adapt to significant adversity. Higher resilience has been associated with better quality of life in HF, but its association with outcomes is not known. Herein, we characterize resilience and its association with outcomes in HF. Research Questions/Hypothesis: Greater resilience is associated with better health status and outcomes in high-risk HF. Methods: In a prospective study, adult residents of 11 counties in Southeastern Minnesota with HF who had been hospitalized with decompensated HF or ventricular arrhythmia (“high-risk HF”) in the preceding 1 year were mailed a survey that included questionnaires to assess resilience (Connor Davidson resilience scale, CD-RISC2), health status (KCCQ-12), and other psychosocial constructs in March 2022. Patients were divided into tertiles by resilience scores, and association with outcomes (survival and hospitalization) were examined using Cox proportional hazard regression and Andersen-Gill models, respectively. Results: Among 649 respondents (mean age 76 ± 11.5 years, 40% women, 64.3% HFpEF), patients with greater resilience were older ( p=0.015 ), had lower BMI ( p=0.003 ) and were more often retired or employed (vs disabled or unemployed, p<0.001 ). Greater resilience was moderately correlated with better health status (r=0.33), social support (r=0.27), and health literacy (r=-0.30); and lower treatment burden (r=-0.42), symptom burden (r=-0.41), and fewer depressive symptoms (r=-0.41) ( p<0.001 for all ). At 1-year follow up, patients with the lowest resilience (lowest tertile) were at a significantly increased risk for HF hospitalizations (adjusted HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.06-4.11) and CV mortality (adjusted HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.01-2.57) compared to those with highest resilience. There was no statistically significant association of resilience with risks of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalizations after adjustment ( Figures 1A-D ). Conclusion: Higher resilience is associated with better health status and psychosocial profile. Patients with low resilience are at increased risk for HF hospitalizations and CV mortality. Impact of resilience on long term outcomes and response to interventions must be tested in future studies.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), characterized by cardiac diastolic dysfunction, leads to premature mortality with limited effective treatments. A recent study in HFpEF patients suggested neuropilin 1 (NRP1), an endothelial cell (EC) originated prognostic marker, might contribute to the pathogenesis of HFpEF. However, the functional role of NRP1 in the pathogenesis of HFpEF remains unclear. Purpose: To determine the functional role of NRP1 in the pathogenesis of HFpEF. Hypothesis: NRP-1 contributes to the pathogenesis of HFpEF, potentially mediated through chronic inflammation. Methods: HFpEF was induced by hypertensive and metabolic stresses in control (n=14) and tamoxifen-induced, endothelial cell-specific NRP1 knockout (NRP1 iEC-KO ) mice (n=13). We assessed cardiac diastolic function via echocardiography and pressure-volume loop through invasive catheters. To determine the inflammation level, we tested leukocyte adhesion, inflammatory marker vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1), and intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) mRNA level in control and NRP1 shRNA knockdown (NRP1 KD) human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) with a stimulation of TNF-α. Student t-test (two tailed) was used and the criterion level of significance was set at p<0.05. Results: We found a significantly improved diastolic function in NRP1 iEC-KO mice, evidenced by a significantly reduced end diastolic pressure in NRP1 iEC-KO mice (8±2mmHg; n=7) compared to the controls (17±2mmHg; n=9; p=0.01) after HFpEF induction. E/A ratio was also significantly lower in NRP1 iEC-KO mice (2.0±0.2; n=10) compared to controls (2.7±0.3; n=12; p=0.04). Moreover, the isovolumic relaxation time was also significantly reduced in NRP1 iEC-KO mice (18±0.8ms; n=13) compared to controls (20±0.8ms; n=14; p=0.03). In addition, In HUVECs, NRP1 KD significantly reduced inflammatory marker VCAM-1 mRNA expression (95±16; n=5) compared to controls (293±36; n=5; p<0.01) upon TNF-α treatment. Similarly, NRP1 KD significantly reduced ICAM-1 mRNA expression (44±14; n=5) compared to controls (83±9; n=5; p=0.03) upon TNF-α treatment. Furthermore, leukocyte adhesion was significantly lower in the NRP1 KD group (57.0 ±8.6 cells/field) compared to the control group (90.8 ±9.1 cells/field; p=0.04). Conclusion: Endothelial NRP1 contributes to cardiac diastolic dysfunction and the pathogenesis of HFpEF, potentially mediated through the activation of chronic low-grade inflammation.

Background: Differentiating between causes of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy is important for disease-directed treatment. Cardiac MRI (CMR) and the use of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) have proven useful for enhancing diagnostic accuracy. Definitive assessment of cardiomyopathy etiology by explant pathology facilitates direct evaluation of CMR utility. Hypothesis: We hypothesized direct comparison between pre-transplant (Tx) CMR and explant pathology will improve the characterization of undifferentiated cardiomyopathy through examination of cases where pre- and post-Tx diagnoses were discordant. Aims: To evaluate discrepant cases to describe imaging patterns in relation to post-Tx diagnosis. Methods: Institutional Tx recipients between 2000 and June 2023 were queried for pre-Tx MRI (n=122). Discrepant cases were identified (n=8). Pre-Tx diagnostic modalities, including CMR, were reviewed, and CMR patterns were evaluated in association with ultimate explant diagnosis. Results: Of the eight patients with discrepant diagnoses, five carried clinical diagnosis of dilated cardiomyopathy, one hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, one peripartum cardiomyopathy, and one congenital heart disease having undergone tricuspid valve and ASD repair. Pathologic evaluation most frequently identified biventricular or left ventricular arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ARVC) (n=6), where CMR disclosed a diffuse pattern of subepicardial LGE and pre-Tx diagnosis of DCM was most common. Two of these pathologic descriptions represented a different disease on genetic evaluation: one patient had Danon disease, another had a LMNA pathogenic variant. The presumed peripartum cardiomyopathy was identified as Fabry’s disease on pathology (however, genetic testing consistent with Danon disease). Both Danon disease patients had primarily subendocardial LGE on CMR. One patient with a DCM phenotype had HCM pathologically. Results summarized in Table 1. Conclusions: Cardiac MRI can be a useful modality for the evaluation of underlying cardiomyopathy and should prompt appropriate genetic testing. Diffuse subepicardial LGE frequently accompanied the diagnosis of ARVC whereas a non-subepicardial pattern reflected alternative etiologies identified only through genetic testing.

Abstract Background Cognitive decline is common in patients with heart failure (HF), but its clinical correlates and prognostic impact are not well understood in this population. Purpose To examine the baseline variables associated with cognitive decline and the associations between cognitive decline and HF outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods We analyzed cognitive function, as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), in 2895 patients with HFpEF enrolled in a pre-specified sub-study of PARAGON-HF. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with cognitive decline i.e., a decrease in MMSE score of ≥3 points by 48 weeks. Time-updated Cox proportional hazards regressions and semiparametric proportional rates models were used to examine the subsequent risk of clinical outcomes after a decline in MMSE scores of ≥1-, 2- and 3-points during follow-up respectively, adjusted for known prognostic variables including NT-proBNP and baseline MMSE. Results A total of 450 (15.5% of the population) patients experienced a decrease in MMSE score of ≥3 points from baseline, at any follow-up visit. The corresponding number for a decrease in MMSE score of ≥2 points and ≥1 point was 755 (26.1%) and 1231 (42.5%), respectively. Independent predictors of cognitive decline at 48 weeks included older age, living in Latin America or the Asia/Pacific region, ischemic etiology, prior HF hospitalization, history of stroke/TIA, and lower serum albumin level (Figure 1). There was a graded relationship between the size of the decrease in MMSE score from baseline and the subsequent risk of mortality. Notably, a decrease of ≥3 points was associated with a 50% increase in the subsequent risk of death from any cause (adjusted HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.11) and a 90% elevation in risk of death from cardiovascular causes (1.89, 1.25-2.86), respectively, after extensive adjustment for known prognostic variables and baseline MMSE score. By contrast, cognitive decline during follow-up was not associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization or the composite of HF hospitalization or CV death (Figure 2). Conclusions In patients with HFpEF, a decline in MMSE score during follow-up is independently associated with a graded increase in the risk for mortality, but not of HF hospitalization.The predictors for cognitive declineRisk of outcomes after a decline in MMSE

Abstract Background NT-proBNP levels are associated with disease severity and outcomes in patients with HF across the spectrum of LVEF. Recently, it has been suggested that the effectiveness of certain treatments may vary by NT-proBNP level with greater benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, and smaller benefit from vericiguat, in patients with higher NT-proBNP levels. We examined the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes across the range of NT-proBNP levels in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF. Purpose To evaluate clinical outcomes, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, according to NT-proBNP levels, in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF, using the pooled dataset of participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials. Methods The PARADIGM-HF (n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (n=4822) trials enrolled patients with HF, functional limitation, and elevated NT-proBNP levels. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10mg twice daily in PARADIGM-HF, and those with LVEF ≥45% to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or valsartan 160mg twice daily in PARAGON-HF. Patients were categorized by quintiles of NT-proBNP level and using NT-proBNP as a continuous variable, analysed using restricted cubic splines. The primary outcome in the present study was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 13195 patients in the pooled PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF dataset, 13142 (99.6%) patients with baseline NT-proBNP were analysed. Patients with higher NT-proBNP levels were more often male, had lower body mass index and LVEF, worse New York Heart Association functional class, worse kidney function, and more atrial fibrillation, while age was similar across NT-proBNP levels. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with NT-proBNP level: quintile 1, 5.9 (95%CI 5.3-6.5); quintile 2, 7.5 (95%CI 6.9-8.2); quintile 3, 9.0 (95%CI 8.2-9.7); quintile 4, 12.0 (95%CI 11.1-12.9); and quintile 5, 20.8 (95%CI 19.6-22.2) (Figure 1). Similar trends were observed for other outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across NT-proBNP levels: the hazard ratio for the primary outcome in NT-proBNP quintile 1 was 0.79 (95%CI 0.65-0.96); quintile 2, 0.87 (95%CI 0.72-1.04); quintile 3, 0.79 (95%CI 0.66-0.93); quintile 4, 0.85 (95%CI 0.73-0.99); and quintile 5, 0.86 (95%CI 0.76-0.97), P-interaction=0.86. The consistent benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was also seen when NT-proBNP was analysed as a continuous variable (Figure 2). The absolute benefit was greatest in quintile 5 of NT-proBNP; the number needed to treat for quintile 5 was 16 versus 37 for the quintile 1 for the primary endpoint. Conclusions Patients with higher NT-proBNP had worse outcomes, but the benefits of sacubitril valsartan were consistent across the range of NT-proBNP levels of participants in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF.Kaplan-Meier curvesEffect of sac/val across NT-proBNP range

Abstract Background Concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of use and safety of beta-blockers (BBs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, randomized trial evidence is still lacking. Purpose To perform an observational analysis of the association between BB use and clinical outcomes in a large dataset of patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Methods We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The associations between baseline BB use and outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 16,951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13,400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12,812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 95.1% at 1 year and 93.1% at 2 years (in patients who survived more than 1 and 2 years, respectively). Overall, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.91-1.05]) but among patients with HFmrEF, BB users had a lower HR (0.84 [95% CI 0.71-0.98]), whereas in HFpEF the HR was similar BB users and non-users (0.99 [95% CI 0.92-1.08]). However, after comprehensive adjustment for known prognostic variables, including NT-proBNP, BB use was associated with a better outcome in the overall cohort (HR 0.81 [0.74-0.88]), and this association was maintained across the range of LVEF (Figure 1). In subgroup analyses, the risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, with or without a history of hypertension, or with or without a baseline heart rate &lt;70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (Figure 2). Conclusions Although this is an observational analysis of non-randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables. Figure Legends Figure 1. Association between beta-blocker use and outcomes across the range of LVEF. Risk in beta-blocker users versus non-users is shown as an adjusted continuous hazard ratio Figure 2. Association between beta-blocker use and non-use in the overall population and clinically relevant patient subgroups, shown as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR). The outcome analyzed was the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome)Figure 1Figure 2

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is common in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction but its clinical correlates and prognostic associations are poorly understood. METHODS: We analyzed cognitive function, using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction enrolled in a prespecified substudy of the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the variables associated with lower MMSE scores at baseline and postbaseline decline in MMSE scores at 48 weeks. Cox proportional hazards regression and semiparametric proportional rates models were used to examine the risk of clinical outcomes related to baseline MMSE scores, and decline in MMSE scores during follow-up, adjusted for prognostic variables including NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). RESULTS: At baseline, cognitive function was normal (MMSE score 28–30) in 1809 of 2895 patients (62.5%), borderline (score 24–27) in 794 (27.4%), and impaired (score <24) in 292 (10.1%). Variables associated with both a lower MMSE score at baseline and a decline in score from baseline included older age, a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, and lower serum albumin. Compared with those with baseline MMSE scores of 28 to 30, patients in the lower MMSE score categories had a stepwise increase in the risk of the composite of time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06–1.53) for those with scores of 24 to 27 and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.21–2.06) for those with scores <24, respectively. These associations were also found for the individual components of the composite and all-cause death. Likewise, cognitive impairment was associated with a 50% higher risk of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Examining the change in MMSE score from baseline, a decrease in MMSE score during follow-up was associated with a higher risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, even modest baseline impairment of cognitive function was associated with worse outcomes, including death. A decline in MMSE score during follow-up was a strong predictor of mortality, independent of other prognostic variables.

ABSTRACT Aims In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Among the 16 951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12 812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1–Q3: 2.5–5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74–0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate &lt;70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02). Conclusions In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.

Background The epidemiology and pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) differ in women and men. Whether these differences extend to the subgroup of patients with advanced HF is not well defined. Methods and Results This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult Olmsted County, Minnesota residents with advanced HF (European Society of Cardiology criteria) from 2007 to 2017. Differences in survival and hospitalization risks in women and men following advanced HF development were examined using Cox proportional hazard regression and Andersen‐Gill models, respectively. Of 936 individuals with advanced HF, 417 (44.6%) were women and 519 (55.4%) were men (self‐reported sex). Time from development of HF to advanced HF was similar in women and men (median 3.2 versus 3.6 years). Women were older at diagnosis (mean age 79 versus 75 years), less often had coronary disease and hyperlipidemia, but more often had hypertension and depression ( P <0.05 for each). Advanced HF with preserved ejection fraction was more prevalent in women than men (60% versus 30%, p<0.001). There were no differences in adjusted risks of all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.77–1.03]), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70–1.02]), all‐cause hospitalizations (HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.90–1.20]), or HF hospitalizations (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.75–1.11]) between women and men. However, adjusted cardiovascular mortality was lower in women versus men with advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.56–0.93]). Conclusions Women more often present with advanced HF with preserved ejection fraction and men with atherosclerotic disease and advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction. Despite these differences, survival and hospitalization risks are largely comparable in women and men with advanced HF.