Management Of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Research Articles

IMPACT OF CARDIAC REHABILITATION ON PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE WITH PRESERVED EJECTION FRACTION

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents more than one half of the heart failure (HF) cases worldwide with increased morbidity and mortality. No proven medical treatment till now has shown mortality benefit in HFpEF. This study aims to elucidate the benefit of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in HFpEF.Methods: 60 patients with HFpEF included in 2 groups with 1:1 randomization. The first group (the rehabilitation group) received usual medical care plus 2-3 rehabilitation sessions per week for 12 weeks using moderate intensity exercise with 40-75% of heart rate reserve on treadmill (up to 60 minutes according to the functional capacity). The second group (the control group) received only usual medical care. Comparison between the 2 groups using the percentage of improvement in echocardiographic diastolic function parameters, Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire (MLWHFQ) and 6 -minute walk test at baseline and after 12 weeks.Results: we found statistically significant difference between the two groups in favor of the rehabilitation group in the following parameters: a. MLWHFQ (total score mean percentage of reduction) 305.60 ± 158.44 versus (vs.) 69.44 ± 17.71 (p < 0.001). b. E/e` mean percentage of reduction 65.96 ± 34.55 vs. 18.23 ± 13.98 (p < 0.001). c. Left atrial volume index (LAVI) mean percentage of reduction 27.86 ± 13.27 vs. 8.03 ± 4.40 (p < 0.001). d. Pulmonary artery systolic pressure mean percentage of reduction was 33.85 ± 14.68 vs. 22.97 ± 16.54 (p=0.02). e. 6–minute walk test 111.79 ± 40.97 vs. 46.33 ± 11.58 (p < 0.001). f. Body mass index percentage of reduction 10.17 ± 3.64 vs. 2.80 ± 1.60 p < 0.001. g. Percentage of patients with down-grading of the grade of diastolic dysfunction 10 patients (33.3%) vs. 3 patients (10%) (P=0.028). h. No significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction or other parameters as E/A ratio, left atrial dimension , isovolumetric relaxation time, degree of left ventricular hypertrophy.Conclusion: Cardiac rehabilitation not only added significant functional improvement in the quality of life and functional capacity but also a significant structural improvement by improving the core items of diastolic function. In the Light of this study, we recommend exercise training based cardiac rehabilitation in HFpEF management

Clinical profile and contemporary management of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: results from the CHECK-HF registry.

BackgroundClinical management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) centres on treating comorbidities and is likely to vary between countries. Thus, to provide insight into the current management of HFpEF, studies from multiple countries are required. We evaluated the clinical profiles and current management of patients with HFpEF in the Netherlands.MethodsWe included 2153 patients with HFpEF (defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%) from the CHECK-HF registry, which included patients from 2013 to 2016.ResultsMedian age was 77 (IQR 15) years, 55% were women and the most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (51%), renal insufficiency (45%) and atrial fibrillation (AF, 38%). Patients between 65 and 80 years and those over 80 years had on average more comorbidities (up to 64% and 74%, respectively, with two or more comorbidities) than patients younger than 65 years (38% with two or more comorbidities, p-value < 0.001). Although no specific drugs are available for HFpEF, treating comorbidities is advised. Beta-blockers were most frequently prescribed (78%), followed by loop diuretics (74%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (67%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs, 39%). Strongest predictors for loop-diuretic use were older age, higher New York Heart Association class and AF.ConclusionThe medical HFpEF profile is determined by the underlying comorbidities, sex and age. Comorbidities are highly prevalent in HFpEF patients, especially in elderly HFpEF patients. Despite the lack of evidence, many HFpEF patients receive regular beta-blockers, RAS inhibitors and MRAs, often for the treatment of comorbidities.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01534-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Characteristics of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in primary care: a cross-sectional analysis.

BackgroundMany patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are undiagnosed, and UK general practice registers do not typically record heart failure (HF) subtype. Improvements in management of HFpEF is dependent on improved identification and characterisation of patients in primary care.AimTo describe a cohort of patients recruited from primary care with suspected HFpEF and compare patients in whom HFpEF was confirmed and refuted.Design & settingBaseline data from a longitudinal cohort study of patients with suspected HFpEF recruited from primary care in two areas of England.MethodA screening algorithm and review were used to find patients on HF registers without a record of reduced ejection fraction (EF). Baseline evaluation included cardiac, mental and physical function, clinical characteristics, and patient reported outcomes. Confirmation of HFpEF was clinically adjudicated by a cardiologist.ResultsIn total, 93 (61%) of 152 patients were confirmed HFpEF. The mean age of patients with HFpEF was 79 years, 46% were female, 80% had hypertension, and 37% took ≥10 medications. Patients with HFpEF were more likely to be obese, pre-frail or frail, report more dyspnoea and fatigue, were more functionally impaired, and less active than patients in whom HFpEF was refuted. Few had attended cardiac rehabilitation.ConclusionPatients with confirmed HFpEF had frequent multimorbidity, functional impairment, frailty, and polypharmacy. Although comorbid conditions were similar between people with and without HFpEF, the former had more obesity, symptoms, and worse physical function. These findings highlight the potential to optimise wellbeing through comorbidity management, medication rationalisation, rehabilitation, and supported self-management.

Abstract 14489: Physician Perspectives on the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF)

Introduction: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) carries high morbidity and mortality. Compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HFpEF is more difficult to diagnose and lacks in evidence-based treatments. We assessed the perceptions of CV specialists and primary care physicians (PCP) regarding HFpEF diagnosis and management. Methods: The online survey targeted 200 specialists and 200 (PCPs), offering a token honorarium. A total of 159 cardiologists (C), 59 internists (I), and 200 PCPs completed the survey. Results: All provinces were represented. The perceived prevalence of HFpEF vs HFrEF was similar across physician types (58% HFrEF, 42% HFpEF). Roughly 25% of PCPs did not differentiate between HF types. All physician types ranked symptom and mortality reduction as treatment priorities. The majority of specialists felt that HFpEF is best co-managed by primary and specialty care. One fifth of PCPs felt that HFpEF should be managed by primary care alone. Compared to specialists, PCPs were more likely to underestimate HFpEF mortality vs. HFrEF, less aware of gender differences, and less able to identify clinical findings of HFpEF vs. HFrEF. Fewer PCPs (33%) than specialists (50%) use natriuretic peptide (NP) levels for diagnosis, with PCPs expressing more uncertainty with NP utility. All physician types listed cost and limited availability as restrictions to use of NP testing. For evidence-based treatments in HF (ACEi/ARB, beta blockers, loop diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists), &gt;50% of PCPs incorrectly identified all agents as effective for HFpEF, with &lt;10% stating that none improved outcomes. Cardiologists were more likely than internists to identify the lack of evidence-based treatments. Conclusions: This survey reveals substantial knowledge and treatment gaps in the diagnosis and management of HFpEF, specifically amongst PCPs. Given the prevalence of HFpEF in primary care, and its substantial morbidity and mortality, strategies are required to reduce these gaps. All physician types recognized the need for increased availability of NP testing for HFpEF diagnosis.

Sex Differences in HFpEF

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) disproportionately affects women. Though no unifying theory exists to explain this phenomenon, the purpose of this review is to explore the many factors that likely contribute to this female predominance. Inflammation and microvascular ischemia are increasingly thought to play a role in promoting HFpEF, as is the presence of cardiometabolic traits including hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. All of these factors are more common in women. Female-specific risk factors, including a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and sequelae of breast cancer therapy, can further contribute to a woman’s risk. No targeted therapies exist for the management of HFpEF, but some therapies, including sacubitril/valsartan, have shown differential benefit in women. Though women with HFpEF have better outcomes than men, they have worse self-reported quality of life. More work is required to address these and other sex disparities. This review summarizes what is known about the pathophysiology of HFpEF, leading theories to explain this female predominance, sex-specific differences in the objective findings of HFpEF, outcomes, and response to therapies, and what work remains to be done.

Abstract 284: Length Of Stay In Index Hospitalization Of Decompensated Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction As A Factor For 30-day Readmission And 1-year Mortality

Introduction: Heart Failure is one of the leading causes of readmission in the United States. Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) accounts for a growing proportion of heart failure hospitalizations and accounts for approximately half of hospitalizations today. Unlike Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF), there are no consensus-driven guidelines for the management of HFpEF. Methods: We collected demographic data, co-morbidities, laboratory and echocardiographic data on patients hospitalized with HFpEF throughout our health care system between August 2016 to August 2017. We assessed length of stay (LOS), whether the patient was re-admitted for any cause within 30 days and whether the patient died within 1 year of index hospitalization. We performed a Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing patients who were both readmitted within 30 days for any reason and died within 1 year, against patients who were readmitted but were verified alive at one-year follow-up. Results: There were 366 patients hospitalized for HFpEF during the study period. Overall 30-day readmission rate was 24.3%, with a one-year mortality of 19.9%. One-year outcomes was verifiable for 359 patients. There were 27 patients who were readmitted within 30 days and died within one year of follow-up. Median LOS was significantly greater in patients during index hospitalization who died within 1 year of follow-up (Median LOS: 8 days, IQR 5-10 days), compared to patients who were readmitted within 30 days, but were alive at 1-year follow-up (Median LOS: 5 days, IQR: 3-8 days; p-value = 0.001). Conclusions: Among patients who were re-hospitalized within 30 days of an index hospitalization for HFpEF, LOS was significantly greater than patients who died within one year, compared to patients who remained alive at one-year follow-up. This may help identify a high-risk subset on index hospitalization and assist care transition teams and primary care physicians at follow-up in regarding discussions on goals of care and life sustaining treatments.

Cellular and Molecular Differences between HFpEF and HFrEF: A Step Ahead in an Improved Pathological Understanding.

Heart failure (HF) is the most rapidly growing cardiovascular health burden worldwide. HF can be classified into three groups based on the percentage of the ejection fraction (EF): heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF), heart failure with mid-range—also called mildly reduced EF— (HFmrEF), and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFmrEF can progress into either HFrEF or HFpEF, but its phenotype is dominated by coronary artery disease, as in HFrEF. HFrEF and HFpEF present with differences in both the development and progression of the disease secondary to changes at the cellular and molecular level. While recent medical advances have resulted in efficient and specific treatments for HFrEF, these treatments lack efficacy for HFpEF management. These differential response rates, coupled to increasing rates of HF, highlight the significant need to understand the unique pathogenesis of HFrEF and HFpEF. In this review, we summarize the differences in pathological development of HFrEF and HFpEF, focussing on disease-specific aspects of inflammation and endothelial function, cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and death, alterations in the giant spring titin, and fibrosis. We highlight the areas of difference between the two diseases with the aim of guiding research efforts for novel therapeutics in HFrEF and HFpEF.

Cardiac Rehabilitation Increases SIRT1 Activity and β-Hydroxybutyrate Levels and Decreases Oxidative Stress in Patients with HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Purpose Exercise training induces beneficial effects also by increasing levels of Sirtuin 1 (Sirt1) and β-hydroxybutyrate (βOHB). Up to date, no studies investigated the role of exercise training-based cardiac rehabilitation (ET-CR) programs on βOHB levels. Therefore, the present study is aimed at investigating whether a supervised 4-week ET-CR program was able to induce changes in Sirt1 activity and βOHB levels and to evaluate the possible relationship between such parameters, in Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) patients. Methods A prospective longitudinal observational study was conducted on patients consecutively admitted to the Cardiology and Cardiac Rehabilitation Units of “San Gennaro dei Poveri” Hospital in Naples, Italy. In fifty elderly patients affected by HFpEF, in NYHA II and III class, Sirt1 activity, Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC), βOHB, and Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein (Ox-LDL) levels were measured before and at the end of the ET-CR program. A control group of 20 HFpEF patients was also recruited, and the same parameters were evaluated 4 weeks after the beginning of the study. Results ET-CR induced an increase of Sirt1 activity, βOHB levels, and antioxidant capacity. Moreover, it was associated with a rise in NAD+ and NAD+/NADH ratio levels and a reduction in Ox-LDL. No changes affected the controls. Conclusion The characterization of the ET-CR effects from a metabolic viewpoint might represent an important step to improve the HFpEF management.

The Role of Statins in the Management of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

To discuss the current evidence regarding the role of statins in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome with numerous contributors to its pathophysiology, including inflammation, arterial stiffness, and dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system. The management of HFpEF is currently symptomatic whereas agents that improve the survival of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, including beta-blockers, inhibitors of renin angiotensin system, and aldosterone antagonists have showed no effect on the outcome of HFpEF. On the other hand, preliminary data suggest that statins might reduce the risk of hospitalization and improve the survival of patients with HFpEF. The pleiotropic actions of these agents, particularly their effects on left ventricular function and structure and their antiinflammatory and vasoprotective actions, appear to be implicated in the improved survival of patients with HFpEF treated with statins. Given the rising prevalence of HFpEF and the lack of treatments that affect the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of this population, these apparent benefits of statins have potentially important clinical implication. However, randomized controlled trials are clearly needed to establish the role of statins in the management of HFpEF.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, atrial fibrillation, and the role of senile amyloidosis.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are very common conditions, particularly in the elderly. However, the mechanisms underlying the two disorders, including their intricate interaction have not been fully resolved. Here, our aim is to review the evidence on the role of the two types of senile amyloidosis in this connection. Two types of senile amyloidosis can be identified: wild-type transthyretin (TTR)-derived amyloidosis (ATTRwt) and isolated atrial amyloidosis (IAA). ATTRwt is an underlying condition that is being increasingly recognized in patients with HFpEF and often accompanied by AF. IAA is an established cause of AF, adding to the mechanism problem. New diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities have emerged that may facilitate clinical management of (senile) amyloidosis, which in turn may have implications for the management of HFpEF and AF.

Role of spironolactone in the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is currently responsible for about half of the patients affected with HF and is associated with impaired functional capacity, as well as significant morbidity due to frequent hospitalizations. Unfortunately, despite its poor prognosis, the management of HFpEF is very controversial and no therapy has been so far shown to reduce mortality in HFpEF. Spironolactone antagonizes the effect of aldosterone and can lead to a reduction in fibrosis and an improvement in left ventricular (LV) function. Furthermore, spironolactone decreases extracellular matrix turnover and myocardial collagen content and improves endothelial vasomotor dysfunction, mechanisms known to influence the progression of HF. Thus, given the aforementioned beneficial actions of spironolactone, extensive research has been conducted to explore the effects of spironolactone on HFpEF. Our review aims to present and discuss the clinical and scientific data pertaining to the role of spironolactone in the treatment of patients with HFpEF.

Diastolic Dysfunction, an Underestimated New Challenge in Dialysis.

Heart failure (HF) is very common in the general population and specifically in CKD patients due to higher prevalence of traditional and CKD-related risk factors. In particular, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can affect over 50% of dialysis patients. However, little is known about this entity in CKD. It has been inadequately recognized over time and few data exist regarding clinical profiles and outcomes in dialysis patients. The aim of this paper is to do a critical appraisal of the diagnosis, clinical impact, and management of HFpEF with a focus on new diagnostic criteria and its impact on dialysis.

Current Management and Future Directions of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: a Contemporary Review.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a complex and debilitating syndrome, is commonly seen in elderly populations. Exacerbation of HFpEF is among the most common reasons for hospital admission in the USA. The high rate of morbidity and mortality from this condition underscores the fact that HFpEF is heterogeneous, complex, and poorly characterized. Randomized, controlled trials have been very successful at identifying treatments for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but effective treatment options for HFpEF are lacking. Here, we discuss (1) the pathophysiology of HFpEF, (2) a standardized diagnostic and therapeutic approach, (3) a comparison of the management of recent guidelines, and (4) challenges and future directions for HFpEF management. The authors believe that it is important to identify new subtypes of HFpEF to better classify genotypes and phenotypes of HFpEF and to develop novel targeted therapies. It is our hypothesis that big data analytics will shine new light on unique HFpEF phenotypes that better respond to treatment modalities.

Recognition, Diagnosis, and Management of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

The clinical syndrome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unique in terms of etiologies, diagnostic criteria, costs, and treatment modalities when compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. There is an emerging paradigm shift that recognizes the clinical syndrome of HFpEF and its various phenotypes. Understanding these HFpEF phenotypes is crucial to understanding the pathophysiology of HFpEF, which in turn can further guide our management strategies. This review outlines the diagnostic criteria, introduces the common clinical phenotypes, and discusses treatments currently utilized in practice for the management of HFpEF.

Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Prevention and Management.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex clinical syndrome that constitutes nearly half of all heart failure cases. Because of lack of effective pharmacological targets to improve outcomes, the emphasis of the management and prevention of HFpEF should be through control of risk factors. This review will use the framework proposed by the American Heart Association on 7 simple measures ("Life's Simple 7") that involves diet and lifestyle changes to achieve ideal cardiovascular health. These 7 measures include (1) smoking, (2) obesity, (3) exercise, (4) diet, (5) blood pressure, (6) cholesterol, and (7) glucose control, which can help control the most common comorbidities and risk factors associated with HFpEF, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. Therefore, application of these 7 simple measures would be a patient-centered and cost-effective way of prevention and management of HFpEF.

Current Perspectives on Systemic Hypertension in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a prevalent but incompletely understood syndrome. Traditional models of HFpEF pathophysiology revolve around systemic HTN and other causes of increased left ventricular afterload leading to left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and diastolic dysfunction. However, emerging models attribute the development of HFpEF to systemic proinflammatory changes secondary to common comorbidities which include HTN. Alterations in passive ventricular stiffness, ventricular-arterial coupling, peripheral microvascular function, systolic reserve, and chronotropic response occur. As a result, HFpEF is heterogeneous in nature, making it difficult to prescribe uniform therapies to all patients. Nonetheless, treating systemic HTN remains a cornerstone of HFpEF management. Antihypertensive therapies have been linked to LVH regression and improvement in diastolic dysfunction. However, to date, no therapies have definitive mortality benefit in HFpEF. Non-pharmacologic management for HTN, including dietary modification, exercise, and treating sleep disordered breathing, may provide some morbidity benefit in the HFpEF population. Future research is need to identify effective treatments, perhaps in more specific subgroups, and focus may need to shift from reducing mortality to improving exercise capacity and symptoms. Tailoring antihypertensive therapies to specific phenotypes of HFpEF may be an important component of this strategy.

A transcatheter intracardiac shunt device for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (REDUCE LAP-HF): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1 trial

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) is a common, globally recognised, form of heart failure for which no treatment has yet been shown to improve symptoms or prognosis. The pathophysiology of HFPEF is complex but characterised by increased left atrial pressure, especially during exertion, which might be a key therapeutic target. The rationale for the present study was that a mechanical approach to reducing left atrial pressure might be effective in HFPEF. The REDUCe Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients with Heart Failure (REDUCE LAP-HF) study was an open-label, single-arm, phase 1 study designed to assess the performance and safety of a transcatheter interatrial shunt device (IASD, Corvia Medical, Tewkesbury, MA, USA) in patients older than 40 years of age with symptoms of HFPEF despite pharmacological therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction higher than 40%, and a raised pulmonary capillary wedge pressure at rest (>15 mm Hg) or during exercise (>25 mm Hg). The study was done at 21 centres (all departments of cardiology in the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Australia, and New Zealand). The co-primary endpoints were the safety and performance of the IASD at 6 months, together with measures of clinical efficacy, including functional capacity and clinical status, analysed per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01913613. Between Feb 8, 2014, and June 10, 2015, 68 eligible patients were entered into the study. IASD placement was successful in 64 patients and seemed to be safe and well tolerated; no patient had a peri-procedural or major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event or need for cardiac surgical intervention for device-related complications during 6 months of follow-up. At 6 months, 31 (52%) of 60 patients had a reduction in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure at rest, 34 (58%) of 59 had a lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure during exertion, and 23 (39%) of 59 fulfilled both these criteria. Mean exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure was lower at 6 months than at baseline, both at 20 watts workload (mean 32 mm Hg [SD 8] at baseline vs 29 mm Hg [9] at 6 months, p=0·0124) and at peak exercise (34 mm Hg [8] vs 32 [8], p=0·0255), despite increased mean exercise duration (baseline vs 6 months: 7·3 min [SD 3·1] vs 8·2 min [3·4], p=0·03). Sustained device patency at 6 months was confirmed by left-to-right shunting (pulmonary/systemic flow ratio: 1·06 [SD 0·32] at baseline vs 1·27 [0·20] at 6 months, p=0·0004). Implantation of an interatrial shunt device is feasible, seems to be safe, reduces left atrial pressure during exercise, and could be a new strategy for the management of HFPEF. The effectiveness of IASD compared with existing treatment for patients with HFPEF requires validation in a randomised controlled trial. Corvia Medical Inc.

Optimizing the Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in the Elderly by Targeting Comorbidities (OPTIMIZE-HFPEF)

AimsThe pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) is not fully understood. A recently proposed mechanism for HFPEF is that it is a systemic pro-inflammatory state induced by comorbidities, leading to microvascular endothelial dysfunction and subsequent cardiac remodeling and dysfunction. We hypothesize that targeting comorbidities will improve outcomes in elderly patients with HFPEF. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine whether the combination of systematic screening and optimal management of prespecified comorbidities associated with HFPEF improves outcomes. MethodsThis multicenter, prospective, randomized intervention trial uses an open procedure with blinded endpoint assessment. Patients with HFPEF aged >60 years (n = 360) will be randomized 1:1 to the usual care or intervention arm of the trial. When randomized to the intervention arm, all patients will be systematically screened and optimally treated for the most frequent cardiovascular, metabolic, respiratory, and renal comorbidities. The primary endpoint is a composite clinical score that classifies each randomized patient as improved or deteriorated based on objective and subjective data at a 24-month follow-up performed by a blinded endpoint committee. ConclusionRather than targeting cardiac dysfunction, our study aims to present evidence for a possible paradigm shift in the management of HFPEF. Our novel concept focuses on the management of comorbidities as predisposing factors in HFPEF.

Endothelial Progenitors and Blood Microparticles: Are They Relevant to Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction?

Endothelial Progenitors and Blood Microparticles: Are They Relevant to Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction?

Advances in the pathophysiology and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

With the failure of multiple trials to identify a successful therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), attention has shifted to defining specific phenotypes within the HFpEF spectrum in an effort to develop a targeted approach to treatment. Here we summarize the most recent studies investigating the pathophysiology and clinical features of HFpEF, and discuss recent clinical trials in the context of developing treatments that look toward the underlying cause of this disorder. Advances in basic science and clinical research have further characterized HFpEF, identifying multiple pathophysiological mechanisms that ultimately lead to exercise intolerance and volume overload. The success of small studies focused on specific subsets of the HFpEF population has promoted the concept that there may not be one treatment strategy that can universally be applied to HFpEF. HFpEF is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and accounts for approximately half of patients with chronic heart failure. HFpEF is a complex disease, encompassing a diverse cohort of patients and marked by the presence of multiple etiological mechanisms. The failure to develop successful therapies for the management of HFpEF may be because of inadequate standardization of the HFpEF diagnosis, overly broad inclusion criteria and inadequate differentiation of disease subtypes. Given the heterogeneity among patients with HFpEF, much of the current research is focused on understanding of pathophysiology and identifying disease phenotypes that may respond to a targeted treatment approach. Several newer approaches, including neprilysin inhibition and device therapy, offer promise for a new era of HFpEF treatment.