Preload stress echocardiography by using dynamic postural alteration can identify high risk patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Haemodynamic assessment during stress testing is not commonly performed for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) due to its invasiveness, less feasibility, and safety concerns. Passive leg-lifting (PLL) manoeuvres have been introduced as a simple alternative for non-invasive preload stress testing; however, the haemodynamic load imposed on the cardiovascular system is unsatisfactory, which precludes the accurate assessment of the preload reserve for patients with HF. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the haemodynamic characteristics of patients with HFrEF in response to a preload stress during dynamic postural alterations by combining the semi-sitting position (SSP) and PLL. We also evaluated whether combined postural stress could be used for risk stratification for these patients. Methods For this study, 101 patients with HFrEF and 35 age- and sex-matched normal controls were prospectively recruited. At each postural position (i.e., baseline, SSP, and PLL), all standard echocardiographic and Doppler variables were obtained. Adverse cardiac events were prespecified as the combined endpoints of death from or hospitalisation for deteriorated HF, or sudden cardiac death. Clinical follow-up was conducted for a median of 7 months. Results During PLL stress, the stroke volume index (SVi) significantly increased in both controls (from 40 ± 6 to 43 ± 6 mL/m², P = 0.03) and HFrEF patients (from 31 ± 9 to 34 ± 10 mL/m², P = 0.03). Conversely, during SSP stress, the SVi significantly decreased for both controls (from 40 ± 6 to 37 ± 6 mL/m², P = 0.03) and HFrEF patients (31 ± 9 to 28 ± 8 mL/m², P = 0.03). During the follow-up period, 16 patients developed cardiac events. In patients without events, the Frank-Starling mechanism was well preserved (Fig. A). Namely, the SVi significantly increased from 31 ± 9 to 35 ± 10 mL/m² (P = 0.02) during PLL stress, while the SVi significantly decreased from 31 ± 8 to 28 ± 8 mL/m² (P = 0.02) during SSP stress. In contrast, for patients with cardiac events, the SVi did not change during postural alterations (n.s), which indicated that the failing heart operates on the flat portion of the Frank-Starling curve (Fig. A). When patients were divided into three equal sub-groups based on the total difference in the SVi during dynamic postural stress, patients with impaired preload reserve (third trimester, ΔSVi ≤ 3.0 mL/m²) showed significantly worse event-free survival than the other two sub-groups (Fig. B; P < 0.001). In a Cox proportional-hazard analysis, baseline LVEF (hazard ratio 0.93; P = 0.04), and ΔSVi during postural stress (hazard ratio 0.76; P = 0.004) were predictors of future cardiac events. Conclusions The combined assessment of dynamic postural stress during PLL and SPP is a simple, time-saving, and easy-to-use clinical tool for the assessment of preload reserve for patients with HFrEF. Moreover, postural stress echocardiography proved to contribute to the risk stratification for these patients. Abstract Figure.