Respiratory muscle dysfunction is thought to contribute to exercise intolerance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); however, the underlying mechanisms are unknown. In the present study, patients with HFpEF had greater increases in leg muscle vascular resistance index and greater decreases in leg muscle blood flow index compared with controls during inspiratory resistive breathing (to activate the metaboreflex). Furthermore, respiratory muscle blood flow index responses normalized to pressure generation during inspiratory resistive breathing were exaggerated in HFpEF compared with controls.
Exercise-Induced Changes in Pulmonary Artery Wedge Pressure in Adults Post-Fontan Versus Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Non-Cardiac Dyspnoea
Abstract Aims Despite their universal predisposition, diagnosing diastolic dysfunction in patients post-Fontan palliation is challenging. Our aim was to compare exercise haemodynamics between adults post-Fontan and patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and non-cardiac dyspnoea (NCD). Methods and results Twenty-four adults (age ≥18 years) post-Fontan palliation with resting and exercise pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) measured during supine biking were identified. Forty-eight patients with HFpEF and 48 with NCD diagnosed at catheterization were selected for comparison. Mean age for Fontan patients was 30.3 ± 7.5 years; median ventricular ejection fraction was 52.5% (45–55.8), being <50% in 37.5%. Resting PAWP among Fontan patients was 10.2 ± 3.5 mmHg (>12 mmHg in 25%); PAWP was lower in Fontan patients than in HFpEF but higher than NCD. During exercise, PAWP was lower in the Fontan group than HFpEF (22.5 mmHg [19.3–28] vs. 28.2 ± 6.3; p = 0.0006) but higher than NCD (11.2 ± 4.2, p ≤ 0.0001). However, there were no differences in ΔPAWP/ΔQs between Fontan and HFpEF patients (4.0 [2.1–7.3] vs. 2.7 [1.6–4.4]; p = 0.10) with the ratio being higher post-Fontan than in NCD (0.6 [0.2–1.2]; p < 0.0001). ΔPAWP/ΔQs remained similar between HFpEF and Fontan patients even when those with ejection fraction <50% were excluded (2.7 [1.6–4.4] vs. 2.7 [1.0–5.8]; p = 0.97). Conclusion There were no differences in ΔPAWP/ΔQs ratios between post-Fontan and HFpEF patients, supporting markedly abnormal single ventricle compliance despite lower resting and exercise PAWP. Therefore, exercise invasive haemodynamics may represent a novel tool for the diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction in Fontan patients.
A Simple Score to Identify Increased Risk of Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
ImportanceTransthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) is a form of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Technetium Tc 99m pyrophosphate scintigraphy (PYP) enables ATTR-CM diagnosis. It is unclear which patients with HFpEF have sufficient risk of ATTR-CM to warrant PYP.ObjectiveTo derive and validate a simple ATTR-CM score to predict increased risk of ATTR-CM in patients with HFpEF.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRetrospective cohort study of 666 patients with HF (ejection fraction ≥ 40%) and suspected ATTR-CM referred for PYP at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from May 10, 2013, through August 31, 2020. These data were analyzed September 2020 through December 2020. A logistic regression model predictive of ATTR-CM was derived and converted to a point-based ATTR-CM risk score. The score was further validated in a community ATTR-CM epidemiology study of older patients with HFpEF with increased left ventricular wall thickness ([WT] ≥ 12 mm) and in an external (Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois) HFpEF cohort referred for PYP. Race was self-reported by the participants. In all cohorts, both case patients and control patients were definitively ascertained by PYP scanning and specialist evaluation.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPerformance of the derived ATTR-CM score in all cohorts (referral validation, community validation, and external validation) and prevalence of a high-risk ATTR-CM score in 4 multinational HFpEF clinical trials.ResultsParticipant cohorts included were referral derivation (n = 416; 13 participants [3%] were Black and 380 participants [94%] were White; ATTR-CM prevalence = 45%), referral validation (n = 250; 12 participants [5%]were Black and 228 participants [93%] were White; ATTR-CM prevalence = 48% ), community validation (n = 286; 5 participants [2%] were Black and 275 participants [96%] were White; ATTR-CM prevalence = 6% ), and external validation (n = 66; 23 participants [37%] were Black and 36 participants [58%] were White; ATTR-CM prevalence = 39%). Score variables included age, male sex, hypertension diagnosis, relative WT more than 0.57, posterior WT of 12 mm or more, and ejection fraction less than 60% (score range −1 to 10). Discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.92; P &lt; .001) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow; χ2 = 4.6; P = .46) were strong. Discrimination (AUC ≥ 0.84; P &lt; .001 for all) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 = 2.8; P = .84; Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 = 4.4; P = .35; Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 = 2.5; P = .78 in referral, community, and external validation cohorts, respectively) were maintained in all validation cohorts. Precision-recall curves and predictive value vs prevalence plots indicated clinically useful classification performance for a score of 6 or more (positive predictive value ≥25%) in clinically relevant ATTR-CM prevalence (≥10% of patients with HFpEF) scenarios. In the HFpEF clinical trials, 11% to 35% of male and 0% to 6% of female patients had a high-risk (≥6) ATTR-CM score.Conclusions and RelevanceA simple 6 variable clinical score may be used to guide use of PYP and increase recognition of ATTR-CM among patients with HFpEF in the community. Further validation in larger and more diverse populations is needed.
Pressure–flow responses to exercise in aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation and diastolic dysfunction
Background Haemodynamic exercise testing is important for evaluating patients with dyspnoea on exertion and preserved ejection fraction. Despite very different pathologies, patients with pressure (aortic stenosis (AS)) and volume (mitral regurgitation (MR)) overload and diastolic dysfunction after recent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reach similar filling pressure levels with exercise. The pressure–flow relationships (the association between change in cardiac output (∆CO) and change in pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (∆PAWP) may provide insight into haemodynamic adaptation to exercise in these groups. Methods and results One hundred sixty-eight subjects aged >50 years with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50% underwent invasive exercise testing. They were enrolled in four different studies: AS (40 patients), AMI (52 patients), MR (43 patients) and 33 healthy subjects. Haemodynamic data were measured at rest, at 25 W, 75 W and at peak exercise. In all groups, PAWP increased with exercise. The greatest increase was observed in patients with AMI (from 12.7±3.9 mm Hg to 33.1±8.2 mm Hg, p<0.0001) and patients with AS (from 11.8±3.9 mm Hg to 31.4±6.1 mm Hg, p<0.0001), and the smallest was observed in healthy subjects (from 8.3±2.4 mm Hg to 21.1±7.5 mm Hg, p<0.0001). In all groups, the relative pressure increase was greatest at the beginning of the exercise. CO increased most in healthy patients (from 5.3±1.1 to 16.0±3.0 L/min, p<0.0001) and least in patients with AS (from 5.3±1.2 L/min to 12.4±2.6 L/min, p<0.0001). The pressure–flow relationships (∆PAWP/∆CO) and differed among groups (p = 0.02). In all groups, the pressure–flow relationship was steepest in the initial phase of the exercise test. The AMI and AS groups (2.3±1.2 mm Hg/L/min and 3.0±1.3 mm Hg/L/min, AMI and AS, respectively) had the largest overall pressure–flow relationship; the healthy group had the smallest initially and at peak exercise (1.3±1.1 mm Hg/L/min) followed by MR group (1.9±1.4 mm Hg/L/min). Conclusion The pressure–flow relationship was steepest in the initial phase of the exercise test in all groups. The pressure–flow relationship differs between groups. Trial registration numbers NCT01974557 , NCT01046838 , NCT02961647 and NCT02395107 .
HF?EF: The Mysterious Relationship Between Heart Failure and Ejection Fraction Continues
Abstract Obesity and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represent two intermingling epidemics driving perhaps the greatest unmet health problem in cardiovascular medicine in the 21st century. Many patients with HFpEF are either overweight or obese, and recent data have shown that increased body fat and its attendant metabolic sequelae have widespread, protean effects systemically and on the cardiovascular system leading to symptomatic HFpEF. The paucity of effective therapies in HFpEF underscores the importance of understanding the distinct pathophysiological mechanisms of obese HFpEF to develop novel therapies. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of the cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular features of the obese phenotype of HFpEF, how increased adiposity might pathophysiologically contribute to the phenotype, and how these processes might be targeted therapeutically.
Management of Atrial Fibrillation Across the Spectrum of Heart Failure With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia among patients with heart failure (HF), and HF is the most common cause of death for patients presenting with clinical AF. AF is frequently associated with pathological atrial myocardial dysfunction and remodeling, a triad that has been called atrial myopathy. AF can be the cause or consequence of clinical HF, and the directionality varies between individual patients and across the spectrum of HF. Although initial trials suggested no advantage for a systematic rhythm control strategy in HF with reduced ejection fraction, recent data suggest that select patients may benefit from attempts to maintain sinus rhythm with catheter ablation. Preliminary data also show a close relationship among AF, left atrial myopathy, mitral regurgitation, and HF with preserved ejection, with potential clinical benefits to catheter ablation therapy. The modern management of AF in HF also requires consideration of the degree of atrial myopathy and chronicity of AF, in addition to the pathogenesis and phenotype of the underlying left ventricular HF. In this review, we summarize the contemporary management of AF and provide practical guidance and areas in need of future investigation.
Diagnosis of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Among Patients With Unexplained Dyspnea
Exercise Testing in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: An Appraisal Through Diagnosis, Pathophysiology and Therapy – A Clinical Consensus Statement of the Heart Failure Association and European Association of Preventive Cardiology of the Europ
Abstract Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) universally complain of exercise intolerance and dyspnoea as key clinical correlates. Cardiac as well as extracardiac components play a role for the limited exercise capacity, including an impaired cardiac and peripheral vascular reserve, a limitation in mechanical ventilation and/or gas exchange with reduced pulmonary vascular reserve, skeletal muscle dysfunction and iron deficiency/anaemia. Although most of these components can be differentiated and quantified through gas exchange analysis by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), the information provided by objective measures of exercise performance has not been systematically considered in the recent algorithms/scores for HFpEF diagnosis, by neither European nor US groups. The current clinical consensus statement by the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims at outlining the role of exercise testing and its pathophysiological, clinical and prognostic insights, addressing the implications of a thorough functional evaluation from the diagnostic algorithm to the pathophysiology and treatment perspectives of HFpEF. Along with these goals, we provide a specific analysis of the evidence that CPET is the standard for assessing, quantifying, and differentiating the origin of dyspnoea and exercise impairment and even more so when combined with echocardiography and/or invasive haemodynamic evaluation. This will lead to improved quality of diagnosis when applying the proposed scores and may also help to implement the progressive characterization of the specific HFpEF phenotypes, a critical step toward the delivery of phenotype-specific treatments.