Diagnostic recommendations and phenotyping for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: knowing more and understanding less?

The role of coronary microvascular dysfunction in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common condition with few effective therapies and hence represents a major healthcare burden. The clinical syndrome of HFpEF can be caused by varying pathophysiological processes, with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) proposed as one of the aetiologies, although confirming causality has been challenging. CMD is characterised by the inability of the coronary vasculature to augment blood flow in response to a physiological stressor and has been established as the driver of angina in patients with non-obstructed coronaries (ANOCA), and this has subsequently led to efficacious endotype-directed therapies. CMD is also highly prevalent among sufferers of HFpEF and may represent a novel treatment target for this particular endotype of this condition. This review aims to discuss the role of the microcirculation in the healthy heart how it's dysfunction may precipitate HFpEF and explore the current diagnostic tools available. We also discuss the gaps in evidence and where we believe future research should be focussed.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: recent concepts in diagnosis, mechanisms and management

It is estimated that half of all patients with heart failure (HF) have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Yet this form of HF remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Differentiating HFpEF from other causes of dyspnoea may require advanced diagnostic methods, such as exercise echocardiography, invasive haemodynamics and investigations for 'HFpEF mimickers'. While the classification of HF has relied heavily on cut-points in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), recent evidence points towards a gradual shift in underlying mechanisms, phenotypes and response to therapies as LVEF increases. For example, among patients with HF, the proportion of hospitalisations and deaths due to cardiac causes decreases as LVEF increases. Medication classes that are efficacious in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have been less so at higher LVEF ranges, decreasing the risk of HF hospitalisation but not cardiovascular or all-cause death in HFpEF. These observations reflect the burden of non-cardiac comorbidities as LVEF increases and highlight the complex pathophysiological mechanisms, both cardiac and non-cardiac, underpinning HFpEF. Treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduces the risk of composite cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in HF hospitalisations; renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockers and angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors result in smaller reductions in HF hospitalisations among patients with HFpEF. Comprehensive management of HFpEF includes exercise as well as treatment of risk factors and comorbidities. Classification based on phenotypes may facilitate a more targeted approach to treatment than LVEF categorisation, which sets arbitrary cut-points when LVEF is a continuum. This narrative review summarises the pathophysiology, diagnosis, classification and management of patients with HFpEF.

The year in cardiovascular medicine 2021: heart failure and cardiomyopathies

In the year 2021, the universal definition and classification of heart failure (HF) was published that defines HF as a clinical syndrome with symptoms and/or signs caused by a cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels or objective evidence of cardiogenic congestion. This definition and the classification of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mildly reduced, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is consistent with the 2021 ESC Guidelines on HF. Among several other new recommendations, these guidelines give a Class I indication for the use of the sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HFrEF patients. As the first evidence-based treatment for HFpEF, in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, empagliflozin reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations. Several reports in 2021 have provided novel and detailed analyses of device and medical therapy in HF, especially regarding sacubitril/valsartan, SGLT2 inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, ferric carboxymaltose, soluble guanylate cyclase activators, and cardiac myosin activators. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, acute HF and myocardial injury is quite frequent, whereas myocarditis and long-term damage to the heart are rather uncommon.

Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues

In 1955, when John McCarthy and his colleagues proposed their first study of artificial intelligence, they suggested that 'every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it'. Whether that might ever be possible would depend on how we define intelligence, but what is indisputable is that new methods are needed to analyse and interpret the copious information provided by digital medical images, genomic databases, and biobanks. Technological advances have enabled applications of artificial intelligence (AI) including machine learning (ML) to be implemented into clinical practice, and their related scientific literature is exploding. Advocates argue enthusiastically that AI will transform many aspects of clinical cardiovascular medicine, while sceptics stress the importance of caution and the need for more evidence. This report summarizes the main opposing arguments that were presented in a debate at the 2021 Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Artificial intelligence is an advanced analytical technique that should be considered when conventional statistical methods are insufficient, but testing a hypothesis or solving a clinical problem-not finding another application for AI-remains the most important objective. Artificial intelligence and ML methods should be transparent and interpretable, if they are to be approved by regulators and trusted to provide support for clinical decisions. Physicians need to understand AI methods and collaborate with engineers. Few applications have yet been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcomes, so investment in research is essential.