Diagnosis Of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Research Articles

Utility and Validity of the HFA-PEFF andH2FPEF Scores in Patients With Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation.

Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) represents a significant clinical challenge. Two diagnostic scoring tools have been developed to aid the noninvasive diagnosis of HFpEF: the HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, Final etiology) and the H2FPEF scoring systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of these 2 scoring tools for the diagnosis of HFpEF against a gold standard of invasive evaluation in a cohort of patients with AF. The authors recruited consecutive patients with symptomatic AF and preserved ejection fraction who were scheduled for an AF ablation procedure. Gold-standard invasive diagnosis of HFpEF was performed at the AF ablation procedure using mean left atrial pressure at rest and following infusion of 500mL fluid. Each participant was scored according to the noninvasive HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of these scoring systems in diagnosing HFpEF. In total, 120 participants were recruited. HFpEF was diagnosed invasively in 88 (73.3%) participants, whereas 32 (26.7%) had no HFpEF. Using the HFA-PEFF score, 38 (31.7%) participants had a high probability of HFpEF and 82(68.3%) had low/intermediate probability of HFpEF. Using the H2FPEF tool, 72 (60%) participants had a high probability of HFpEF and 48 (40%) had intermediate probability. A high HFA-PEFF (≥5 points) score could diagnose HFpEF with a sensitivity of 40% and a specificity of 91%, and a high H2FPEF score (≥6 points) could diagnose HFpEFwith a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 66%. Overall diagnostic accuracy was similar using both tools (AUC:0.663 vs 0.707, respectively; P = 0.636). Against a gold standard of invasively diagnosed HFpEF, the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores demonstrate only moderate accuracy in patients with AF and should be utilized with caution in this cohort of patients. (Characterising Left Atrial Function and Compliance in Atrial Fibrillation; ACTRN12620000639921).

Heart Failure score and outcomes in patients with preserved ejection fraction after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but the diagnosis and prediction of the outcomes of HFpEF are difficult. Notably, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology proposed the use of the HFA-PEFF score in the diagnosis of HFpEF. This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of the pre- and post-procedural HFA-PEFF scores in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) after catheter ablation (CA) for AF. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac hospitalization for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint was AF recurrence. Overall, 354 patients with AF and preserved EF who underwent CA as well as blood tests and transthoracic echocardiography 2weeks before and 6months after CA from January 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled in the study. In the 354 participants, univariate analysis showed that the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with a 3-year risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]=3.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.07-6.73; P<0.001), whereas the pre-procedural HFA-PEFF score was not (HR=1.24, 95% CI=0.82-1.86, P=0.307). Further, the association between the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score and primary endpoint was not modified even after including other relevant variables into the score. Similar to the primary endpoint, the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with the 3-year risk of AF recurrence (P<0.001). In patients with preserved EF undergoing AF ablation, the HFA-PEFF score at 6months after CA was associated with the primary endpoint and AF recurrence at the 3-year follow-up.

Agreement of left atrial pressure with clinical risk scores and echocardiographic features in patients with atrial fibrillation referred for catheter ablation

Abstract Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently coexists with atrial fibrillation (AF). The diagnosis of HFpEF in AF is difficult because some diagnostic criteria for HFpEF may be associated with AF instead of HFpEF per se. Left atrial pressure (LAP) ≥15 mmHg has been used to confirm the diagnosis of HFpEF. Purpose We aimed to 1) determine LAP measurements in patients with AF undergoing catheter ablation; 2) assess the agreement between LAP measurement HFpEF risk scores and 3) determine the association between LAP measurement and clinical and echocardiographic features. Methods Consecutive patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF scheduled for catheter ablation were included. Participants were considered to have HFpEF if the mean LAP was ≥15 mm Hg. The LAP was measured only in sedated patients with spontaneous breathing. Participants had high probability of HFpEF if scored &amp;gt;5points in H2FPEF and/or ≥5 points in HFA-PEFF score. Results Of 107 participants, 29 (27%) had HFpEF according to mean LAP and 32 (30%) had high probability of HFpEF according to HFpEF scores. The highest agreement of HFpEF risk scores relative to elevated LAP was observed for H2FPEF score; among patients with mean LAP ≥15 mm Hg, 38% [n=11/29] of them had also high risk of HFpEF based on H2FPEF score, whereas only 10% [n=3/29] had high risk of HFpEF based on HFA-PEFF score. In multivariable analysis, the independent predictors of HFpEF were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; OR 0.77, 95%CI 0,.64-0.91), intraventricular septum diameter (IVSd; OR 1.75, 95%CI 1.11-2.74), global longitudinal strain (GLS; OR 1.24, 9%CI 1.05-1.48). Conclusions More than one-fourth of patients scheduled for catheter ablation had HFpEF according to elevated LAP. The highest agreement to elevated LAP was observed for the H2FPEF score. Predictors of HFpEF diagnosis were lower LVEF, higher IVSd and GLS.

Uncovering Unrecognized Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Among Individuals With Obesity and Dyspnea.

Although heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has become the predominant heart failure subtype, it remains clinically under-recognized. HFpEF diagnosis is particularly challenging in the setting of obesity given the limitations of natriuretic peptides and resting echocardiography. We examined invasive and noninvasive HFpEF diagnostic criteria among individuals with obesity and dyspnea without known cardiovascular disease to determine the prevalence of hemodynamic HFpEF in the community. Research volunteers with dyspnea and obesity underwent resting echocardiography; participants with possible pulmonary hypertension qualified for invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing. HFpEF was defined using rest or exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure criteria (≥15 mm Hg or Δpulmonary capillary wedge pressure/Δcardiac output slope, >2.0 mm Hg·L-1·min-1). Among n=78 participants (age, 53±13 years; 65% women; body mass index, 37.3±6.8 kg/m2), 40 (51%) met echocardiographic criteria to undergo invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing. In total, 24 participants (60% among the cardiopulmonary exercise testing group, 31% among the total sample) were diagnosed with HFpEF by rest or exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (n=12) or exercise criteria (n=12). There were no differences in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; 79 [62-104] versus 73 [57-121] pg/mL) or resting echocardiography (mitral E/e' ratio, 9.1±3.1 versus 8.0±2.7) among those with versus without HFpEF (P>0.05 for all). Distributions of HFpEF diagnostic scores were similar, with the majority classified as intermediate risk (100% versus 93.75% [H2FPEF] and 87.5% versus 68.75% [HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pretest assessment, echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, functional testing, and final etiology)] in those with versus without HFpEF). Among adults with obesity and dyspnea without known cardiovascular disease, at least a third had clinically unrecognized HFpEF uncovered on invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Clinical, biomarker, resting echocardiography, and diagnostic scores were similar among those with and without HFpEF. These results suggest clinical underdiagnosis of HFpEF among individuals with obesity and dyspnea and highlight limitations of noninvasive testing in the identification of HFpEF.

A Mitochondrial Targeted Ubiquinol (MitoQ) Improves Immune Cell Bioenergetics in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a proinflammatory syndrome. Mitochondrial dysfunction that is characteristic of HFpEF could alter immunometabolism, attenuating the functional reserve of immune cells. In addition, immune cell mitochondrial respiration is a biomarker of systemic mitochondrial health. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a chronic oral mitochondrial targeted ubiquinol (MitoQ) on the immune cell bioenergetic profile in patients with HFpEF. We hypothesized that MitoQ administration in patients with HFpEF, would improve mitochondrial respiration in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC’s). METHODS: In this double-blind, crossover trial 8 patients with a clinical diagnosis of HFpEF (6 female, 2 male; 6 African American/Black, 2 white; mean ± SEM, Age, 58±5 years; BMI, 37±1 kg/m2) received a 4 week oral dose of MitoQ (MTQ, 20 mg/day) and placebo (PLB) in random order separated by a 2 week wash out period. Following completion of each trial arm, a venous blood sample was obtained and PBMCs were isolated using density gradient centrifugation. High resolution respirometry coupled with modulators of cellular respiration was performed to obtain basal respiration, ATP-linked respiration, maximal respiration, and spare respiratory capacity of the immune cells. Paired samples t-tests were used to compare variables between conditions. RESULTS: MitoQ was safe, well tolerated, and compliance was high (MTQ, 99 ± 1%; PLB, 89±4%). Basal respiration (MTQ, 106.4 ± 11.5 pmol/min; PLB, 66.5±5.9 pmol/min; p=0.002), ATP-linked respiration (MTQ, 41.4± 16.9 pmol/min; PLB, 16.3±6.7 pmol/min; p=0.04), maximal respiration (MTQ, 323.9 ± 50.0 pmol/min; PLB, 65.4±23.1 pmol/min; p=0.01), spare respiratory capacity (MTQ, 217.5 ± 39.6 pmol/min; PLB, 149.6 ±18.2 pmol/min; p=0.02), were higher following MTQ compared to PLB. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFpEF, administration of a mitochondrial targeted ubiquinol improved the immune cell mitochondrial respiration capacity and effciency. An increase in spare respiratory capacity following MTQ reflects an improvement in functional reserve that would augment the ability to respond to an acute stressor. These findings have positive implications for the ability to target and improve mitochondrial function in patients with HFpEF. Future work should investigate if the observed improvements in immune cell mitochondrial function are mirrored in other tissues. Supported by AHA 19CDA3474002. This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2024 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.

Comparative Genitourinary Safety of In-class Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors among Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Cohort Study.

The American Heart Association recommended sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) for the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, little is known about their real-world in-class comparative safety in patients with HFpEF. We aimed to assess the comparative safety of SGLT2i in the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) or genital infection separately or as a composite outcome among patients with HFpEF. This cohort study using MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare supplemental databases (2012-2020) included patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of HFpEF who initiated SGLT2i therapy. Three pairwise comparison groups were established: cohort 1, dapagliflozin versus canagliflozin; cohort 2, empagliflozin versus canagliflozin; and cohort 3, dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin. After stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare the risk of UTI or genital infection separately or as a composite outcome in each cohort. The risk of the composite outcome did not significantly differ between canagliflozin and dapagliflozin (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-1.14) or between empagliflozin and canagliflozin (aHR 1.25; 95% CI 0.77-2.05). Similarly, there was no evidence of difference between dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in this risk (aHR 0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21). The results of analyses separately assessing UTI or genital infection were similar. There was no significant difference in the risk of UTI or genital infection among patients with HFpEF who initiated canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.

The aetiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is heterogenous and overlaps with that of several comorbidities like atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, valvular heart disease, iron deficiency, or sarcopenia. The diagnosis of HFpEF involves evaluating cardiac dysfunction through imaging techniques and assessing increased left ventricular filling pressure, which can be measured directly or estimated through various proxies including natriuretic peptides. To better narrow down the differential diagnosis of HFpEF, European and American heart failure guidelines advocate the use of different algorithms including comorbidities that require diagnosis and rigorous treatment during the evaluation process. Therapeutic recommendations differ between guidelines. Whilst sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitors have a solid evidence base, the recommendations differ with regard to the use of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis. Unless indicated for specific comorbidities, the use of beta-blockers should be discouraged in HFpEF. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the current state of the art in HFpEF diagnosis, clinical evaluation, and treatment.

Applicability of H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF Scores in Chinese Patients Suffering From Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Complicated With Atrial Fibrillation

Objective To analyze the diagnostic values of H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HFpEF complicated with atrial fibrillation (HFpEF-AF) in Chinese patients and explore the related factors. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted.A total of 835 consecutive HFpEF patients treated in the Department of Geriatric Cardiology,the First Hospital of Lanzhou University from 2009 to 2020 were selected and assigned to a HFpEF-AF group (n=267) and a HFpEF group (n=568) according to the presence of AF or not.HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores were used for retrospective diagnosis and the diagnostic consistency of the two scores was assessed.One hundred and thirty-six healthy volunteers with age and sex matching the patients during the same period were selected as healthy controls.The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were established for H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores in diagnosing HFpEF-AF and HFpEF,on the basis of which the diagnostic performance of the two scores was evaluated. Results There was no difference in the HFA-PEFF score between the two groups (P=0.070).However,the HFpEF-AF group had higher mean H2FPEF score and higher proportion of patients with the score no less than 6 than the HFpEF group (P<0.001).According to the ROC curves,HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores demonstrated high performance in diagnosing all HFpEF patients,with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.892 and 0.922 and the optimal cut-offs of 4 and 4,respectively.The HFA-PEFF score showed similar performance in diagnosing HFpEF and HFpEF-AF,with the AUC of 0.899 and 0.911,respectively.The H2FPEF score had higher performance in diagnosing HFpEF-AF (AUC of approximately 1.000) and low performance in diagnosing HFpEF (AUC of 0.885). Conclusions The HFA-PEFF score is applicable in the diagnosis of both HFpEF and HFpEF-AF.The H2FPEF score may underestimate HFpEF in Chinese patients,and its applicability in the Chinese patients with HFpEF alone remains to be investigated.

Abstract P164: Patient-Reported Awareness and Understanding of the Diagnosis of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for half of all HF cases, is difficult to diagnose and manage, and represents the fastest growing subtype of HF in the US. Lack of awareness about the HFpEF diagnosis among patients contributes to delays in seeking care, reduced participation in self-management, and worse health outcomes. Methods: This study explored HFpEF-related knowledge among patients using semi-structured interviews guided by the “Integrated Health Literacy Model”. Patients were asked to describe 1) their heart condition, as they understand it; 2) where they currently learn about their heart condition; 3) what they want to learn more about; and 4) who can help them learn more. Results: In this study, 10 patients with HFpEF were recruited from a local health care system ( Table ). All patients were unaware of having HFpEF; 8 out of 10 thought they had "congestive HF." Patients learned about their condition from cardiologists, primary care physicians and clinic staff. All reported using the Internet to seek information, though in some cases information was confusing or contradictory to what they were told before. Patients noted that they had symptoms for a long time before learning the symptoms were HF-related. Patients wish to know more about the prognosis, factors that can help or make their condition worse, signs and symptoms to monitor, use of wearable devices to monitor, how to live longer and non-pharmacological treatment options. Most patients wanted to learn more about their condition from cardiologists, however, some faced challenges in their current cardiology care, citing lack of time during the clinic visit, difficulty with medical terminology and inability to ask follow-up questions. Patients emphasized a need for more emotional support at the time of diagnosis and help addressing mental health. Conclusion: Patients were not aware they had HFpEF, expressed multiple needs for education and support, and identified cardiologists as the most credible source of education.

A nomogram for predicting the risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BackgroundThis study purposed to design and establish a nomogram to predict the risk of having heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. MethodThe clinical data of 1031 patients diagnosed with heart failure (HF) in the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University from January 2018 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, among which 618 patients were diagnosed with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Patients were randomly divided into a training set (70%, n = 722) and a validation set (30%, n = 309). The prediction model of HFpEF was established by using clinical characteristic data parameters, and the risk of having HFpEF was predicted by using a nomogram. Single-factor analysis was used to select independent risk factors (P < 0.05), and then binary logistic regression was used to screen predictive variables (P < 0.05). The discrimination ability of the model was evaluated by the ROC curve and calculating the area under the curve (AUC). In addition, the predictive ability of the established nomogram was evaluated using calibration curves and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test (HL test), and the clinical net benefit was evaluated using decision curve analysis (DCA). ResultsThe results of binary logistic regression analysis showed that age, gender, hypertension, coronary heart disease, glycosylated hemoglobin, serum creatinine, E/e’ septal, relative wall thickness (RWT), left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) were independent influencing factors for the risk of having HFpEF (P < 0.05). Based on the results of logistic regression analysis, a nomogram was established and calibration curves were made. The prediction model showed that the AUC of the training dataset was 0.876 (95%CI, 0.851–0.902), and 0.837 (95%CI, 0.791–0.883) in the validation set. According to the calibration curves and HL test, the nomogram shows good calibration, and DCA shows that our model is clinically useful. ConclusionA nomogram prediction model was constructed to predict the patient's risk of having HFpEF. This prediction model indicated that the combination of creatinine, E/e’, RWT, LVMI and PH may be valuable in the diagnosis of HFpEF.

Evaluating RDW’s Role in Heart Failure Mortality: Insights and Implications

To the Editor, I am writing to express my appreciation for the recent publication by Umit Yuksek, "Red Cell Distribution Width Is an Independent Predictor of 1-Year Mortality in a Turkish Patient Population with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure" [1]. This study contributes significantly to our understanding of prognostic factors in acute heart failure, highlighting the importance of red cell distribution width (RDW) as an independent predictor of 1-year mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. The methodology used in the study, which involved a cohort of 101 patients, provides an analysis of the predictive value of RDW as well as traditional clinical predictors. The finding that a 1% increase in RDW is associated with a 44% increase in 1-year mortality is particularly striking and emerging as a simple but powerful prognostic marker in clinical practice. In addition to the limitations mentioned by the author, there are a few other factors that could potentially impact the results. First, studies on the effect of demographic characteristics on the value of RDW show that RDW is associated with various clinical conditions and demographic factors [2]. It has been reported that RDW can be affected by a number of factors, such as age, gender, inflammation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with acute decompensated heart failure may also be frequently intertwined with these diseases during their initial admission. The fact that some of these important demographic characteristics were not clearly explained in the patient population of the study may be important in terms of influencing the results of the study. The criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the study are also not comprehensive and clear. We think that these should be specified in more detail. In addition, the non-invasive diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is difficult and controversial. For this reason, it is recommended to use scoring systems like H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF for the diagnosis of HFpEF [3,4]. We believe that if any echocardiography or laboratory parameters other than the EF were evaluated while considering this patient group, it would be good to mention the methodology section. However, mentioning this issue in the limitations section may be useful if it is not mentioned. Second, when we look at the comparison of the clinical and laboratory characteristics of the subgroups with normal, high, and very high RDW values, it is noteworthy that factors such as Killip classification, mitral insufficiency, atrial fibrillation, cardiogenic shock, inotropic drug requirement, which may have significant effects on mortality in acute HEART FAILURE, do not have a significant relationship with high RDW. It also appears that even if it is not statistically significant, the EF value is positively correlated with RDW. As a result, despite this important success of RDW in showing a 1-year mortality estimate, it also has a weak relationship with many other mortality predictor parameters in acute heart failure, suggesting that unforeseen clinical conditions or parameters may potentially affect RDW in this study group. Statistically significant findings may not always be clinically or biologically significant. RDW may indicate that it is a clinically important variable, but this effect may be small and not make a significant difference in practice. The reason for coming to this conclusion is that the important limitations mentioned above may affect the study results. In conclusion, we believe that further research is necessary to investigate the mechanisms underlying the association between RDW and mortality in acute heart failure patients and to examine the potential of RDW to guide therapeutic interventions. We commend the author of this study, which not only enriches our understanding but also opens avenues for future research in acute heart failure management, and we thank the journal for publishing it. Yours sincerely

2024 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multi-organ systemic syndrome that involves cardiac and extra-cardiac pathophysiological abnormalities. Its growing prevalence causes a major public concern worldwide. HFpEF is usually associated with multiple comorbidities, and non-cardiovascular death is common in patients with HFpEF. In Asia, patients with HFpEF has a younger age, higher prevalence of diabetes and chronic kidney disease than Western countries. A 2-step diagnostic algorithm is recommended in this guideline. In the first step, the diagnosis of HFpEF can be made if patients have symptoms and/or signs of heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%, increased natriuretic peptide, and objective evidence of left atrial or left ventricular abnormalities or raised left ventricular filling pressure. If diagnosis is still uncertain, invasive or noninvasive stress test can be performed in the second step. Comorbidities need to be controlled in HFpEF. Weight reduction for obesity and supervised exercise training are recommended for HFpEF. For pharmacological therapy, diuretic is used to relieve congestion and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, empagliflozin or dapagliflozin, is recommended to improve prognosis of HFpEF. The research on HFpEF is advancing at a rapid pace. It is expected that newer modalities for diagnosis and management of HFpEF could appear in the near future.

Comparative effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A real-world study.

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but little is known about their real-world comparative effectiveness among patients with HFpEF. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of SAC/VAL vs ARBs in preventing HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization among patients with HFpEF. We conducted a cohort study using IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases to identify patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of HFpEF and initiation of SAC/VAL (2015-2020) or ARB (2009-2014) therapy. The index date was the date of the first SAC/VAL or ARB prescription fill. After propensity score (PS) matching with a ratio of 1 up to 3, Cox proportional hazards regression was used with robust variance estimators to compare the risks of HF-related hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization between the 2 therapies. Several subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the main analysis. After PS matching, 2,520 patients (846 receiving SAC/VAL and 1,674 receiving an ARB) were included in the final analyses. After controlling for covariates, there was no difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.77). There was also no difference in the risk of all-cause hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.24). Among individuals with private or Medicare Advantage insurance plans, there was no significant difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization between adults with HFpEF who received SAC/VAL and those who received ARB therapy.

The value of speckle-tracking stratified strain combined with myocardial work measurement in evaluating left ventricular function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a highly prevalent progressive disease accompanied by poor quality of life, high utilization of medical resources, morbidity, and mortality. However, the role of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction has yet to be well elaborated despite the preservation of the LV ejection fraction. This study aimed to explore the diagnostic value of speckle-tracking stratified strain combined with myocardial work (MW) measurement in evaluating LV systolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. A total of 125 study consecutive individuals, 64 HFpEF patients, and 61 controls were prospectively enrolled in the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University. In addition to the conventional echocardiographic parameters, LV stratified strain and MW parameters were statistically compared between the HFpEF and control groups. The global longitudinal strain (GLS) of the subendocardium, myocardium, and subepicardium (GLSendo, GLSmyo, and GLSepi); the transmural gradient (ΔGLS); the global myocardial work index (GWI), global myocardial work efficiency (GWE), global myocardial constructive work (GCW), and the global myocardial wasted work (GWW) were included. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of these univariate and multivariable logistic models in detecting impaired LV systolic function in HFpEF. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to evaluate the generalizability of the predictive model. Stratified strains values showed a gradient decline from GLSendo to GLSepi in both control and HFpEF patients. Compared with the control group, HFpEF patients had a significantly reduced GLSepi, GLSmyo, GLSendo, ΔGLS, GWI, GWE, and GCW and a significantly increased GWW (all P<0.001). In the derivation set, the optimal logistic model (combined stratified strain and MW variables) demonstrated the highest performance in predicting LV systolic function impairment in HFpEF patients. The best-performing model with a mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.966 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88 to 1] accessed by 10-fold cross-validation. In the validation set, the AUC of the optimal logistic model was 0.933 (95% CI: 0.85 to 1), the sensitivity was 87%, and the specificity was 93%. Both speck-tracking stratified strain and MW measurement may sensitively detect impairment of LV myocardial function at an early stage for patients with HFpEF. Combining the two techniques may improve the quality of HFpEF diagnosis and may provide a reference value for the early diagnosis of HFpEF in the future.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: How to Deal with This Chameleon.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by a notable heterogeneity in both phenotypic and pathophysiological features, with a growing incidence due to the increase in median age and comorbidities such as obesity, arterial hypertension, and cardiometabolic disease. In recent decades, the development of new pharmacological and non-pharmacological options has significantly impacted outcomes, improving clinical status and reducing mortality. Moreover, a more personalized and accurate therapeutic management has been demonstrated to enhance the quality of life, diminish hospitalizations, and improve overall survival. Therefore, assessing the peculiarities of patients with HFpEF is crucial in order to obtain a better understanding of this disorder. Importantly, comorbidities have been shown to influence symptoms and prognosis, and, consequently, they should be carefully addressed. In this sense, it is mandatory to join forces with a multidisciplinary team in order to achieve high-quality care. However, HFpEF remains largely under-recognized and under-treated in clinical practice, and the diagnostic and therapeutic management of these patients remains challenging. The aim of this paper is to articulate a pragmatic approach for patients with HFpEF focusing on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of HFpEF.

Revascularization for Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the main causes of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The efficacy of revascularization therapy in patients with HFpEF and CAD, however, remains unclear. Patients who underwent coronary angiography from January 2017 to December 2019 were included in this retrospective study if they further satisfied the diagnosis of HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% plus plasma N-terminal pro-BNP ≥125pg/ml) and CAD (patients had a history of confirmed myocardial infarction or ≥50% stenosis in at least 1 epicardial coronary vessel). Clinical data, way of revascularization, and outcome events (unplanned repeated revascularization, HF readmission, cardiovascular death, readmission of cerebral hemorrhage/stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding, and all-cause death) were recorded and analyzed. A total of 1,111 patients were enrolled for the present analysis. Based on whether the revascularization was complete or not, the patients were divided into the complete revascularization group (n=780) and the incomplete/no revascularization group (n=331). All patients were followed up with a median of 355days. The overall rates of unplanned repeated revascularization, HF readmission, and cardiovascular death were 6.6%, 5.0%, and 0.4%, respectively. Compared with incompletely/not revascularized patients, completely revascularized patients had a lower rate of unplanned repeated revascularization (10.9% vs 4.7%, p <0.001) and cardiovascular death (0.9% vs 0.1%, p=0.048). However, HF readmission, readmission of cerebral hemorrhage/stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding, and noncardiac death were comparable between the 2 groups. The regression analysis showed that hyperlipidemia, previous myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, and way of revascularization were associated with the composite events of unplanned repeated revascularization, HF readmission, and cardiovascular death during the follow-up. Complete revascularization may reduce unplanned repeated revascularization and cardiovascular death for patients with HFpEF and CAD.

Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) currently causes about half of the heart failure related hospitalizations. With the aging of the population and increasing prevalence of risk factors and comorbidities, such as arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus and obesity, HFpEF prevalence is expected to increase as well. With regards to quality of life, overall morbidity, and mortality, HFpEF patients have a similarly adverse prognosis as patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The leading symptoms of exertional dyspnea and exercise intolerance with concomitant clinical signs of heart failure should, therefore, prompt diagnostic tests to exclude or confirm HFpEF. Considering the main pathophysiological mechanisms, echocardiography is crucial to non-invasively identify signs of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, impaired myocardial relaxation, and elevated filling pressures. Elevated NT-proBNP may furthermore indicate increased LV wall stress and volume overload. If the results of these investigations are inconclusive, parameters of elevated filling pressures can be measured invasively by right or left heart catheterization. High pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) or left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) may confirm a HFpEF diagnosis. Ongoing studies are investigating potential distinct phenotypes within the HFpEF patient group.

Artificial intelligence methods for improved detection of undiagnosed heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains under-diagnosed in clinical practice despite accounting for nearly half of all heart failure (HF) cases. Accurate and timely diagnosis of HFpEF is crucial for proper patient management and treatment. In this study, we explored the potential of natural language processing (NLP) to improve the detection and diagnosis of HFpEF according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) diagnostic criteria. In a retrospective cohort study, we used an NLP pipeline applied to the electronic health record (EHR) to identify patients with a clinical diagnosis of HF between 2010 and 2022. We collected demographic, clinical, echocardiographic and outcome data from the EHR. Patients were categorized according to the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Those with LVEF ≥50% were further categorized based on whether they had a clinician-assigned diagnosis of HFpEF and if not, whether they met the ESC diagnostic criteria. Results were validated in a second, independent centre. We identified 8606 patients with HF. Of 3727 consecutive patients with HF and LVEF ≥50% on echocardiogram, only 8.3% had a clinician-assigned diagnosis of HFpEF, while 75.4% met ESC criteria but did not have a formal diagnosis of HFpEF. Patients with confirmed HFpEF were hospitalized more frequently; however the ESC criteria group had a higher 5-year mortality, despite being less comorbid and experiencing fewer acute cardiovascular events. This study demonstrates that patients with undiagnosed HFpEF are an at-risk group with high mortality. It is possible to use NLP methods to identify likely HFpEF patients from EHR data who would likely then benefit from expert clinical review and complement the use of diagnostic algorithms.

Obesity-Related Differences in Pathomechanism and Outcomes in Patients With HFpEF: A CMR Study

BackgroundClinical significance of an integrated evaluation of epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) and the right ventricle (RV) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unknown. ObjectivesThe authors investigated the potential of EAT and RV quantification for obesity-related pathophysiology and risk stratification in obese HFpEF patients using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). MethodsA total of 150 patients (obese, body mass index ≥30 kg/m2; n = 73, nonobese, body mass index <30 kg/m2; n = 77) with a clinical diagnosis of HFpEF undergoing CMR were retrospectively identified. EAT volume surrounding both ventricles were quantified with manual delineation on cine images. Total RV volume (TRVV) was calculated as the sum of RV cavity and mass at end-diastole. The endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality and first HF hospitalization. ResultsDuring a median follow-up of 46 months, 39 nonobese patients (51%) and 32 obese patients (44%) experienced the endpoint. EAT was a prognostic biomarker regardless of obesity and was independently correlated with TRVV. In obese HFpEF, EAT correlated with RV longitudinal strain (r = 0.32, P = 0.006), and increased amount of EAT and TRVV was associated with greater left ventricular end-diastolic eccentric index (r = 0.36, P = 0.002). The integration of RV quantification into EAT provided improved risk stratification with a C-statistic increase from 0.70 to 0.79 in obese HFpEF. Obese patients with EAT<130 ml and TRVV<180 ml had low risk (annual event rate 3.2%), while those with increased EAT ≥130 ml and TRVV ≥180 ml had significantly higher risk (annual event rate 11.8%; P < 0.001). ConclusionsCMR quantification of EAT and RV structure provides additive risk stratification for adverse outcomes in obese HFpEF.

Effectiveness of a cardiac rehabilitation program on biomechanical, imaging, and physiological biomarkers in elderly patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): FUNNEL + study protocol

BackgroundPatients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a low functional status, which in turn is a risk factor for hospital admission and an important predictor of survival in HFpEF. HFpFE is a heterogeneous syndrome and recent studies have suggested an important role for careful, pathophysiological-based phenotyping to improve patient characterization. Cardiac rehabilitation has proven to be a useful tool in the framework of secondary prevention in patients with HFpEF. Facilitating decision-making and implementing cardiac rehabilitation programs is a challenge in public health systems for HFpEF management. The FUNNEL + study proposes to evaluate the efficacy of an exercise and education-based cardiac rehabilitation program on biomechanical, physiological, and imaging biomarkers in patients with HFpEF.MethodsA randomised crossover clinical trial is presented among people older than 70 years with a diagnosis of HFpEF. The experimental group will receive a cardiac rehabilitation intervention for 12 weeks. Participants in the control group will receive one educational session per week for 12 weeks on HFpEF complications, functional decline, and healthy lifestyle habits. VO2peak is the primary outcome. Biomechanical, imaging and physiological biomarkers will be assessed as secondary outcomes. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks.DiscussionIdentifying objective functional parameters indicative of HFpEF and the subsequent development of functional level stratification based on functional impairment ("biomechanical phenotypes") may help clinicians identify cardiac rehabilitation responders and non-responders and make future clinical decisions. In this way, future pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, such as exercise, could be improved and tailored to improve quality of life and prognosis and reducing patients' hospital readmissions, thereby reducing healthcare costs.Trial registrationNCT05393362 (Clinicaltrials.gov).