Patient phenotype profiling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to guide therapeutic decision making. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association, the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the European Society of Hypertension

Prognostic Assessment of HLM Score in Heart Failure Due to Ischemic Heart Disease: A Pilot Study

Background: Ischemic heart disease (IHD) represents the main cause of heart failure (HF). A prognostic stratification of HF patients with ischemic etiology, particularly those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), may be challenging due the variability in clinical and hemodynamic status. The aim of this study is to assess the prognostic power of the HLM score in a population of patients with ischemic HF and in a subgroup who developed HF following ACS. Methods: This is an observational, prospective, single-center study, enrolling consecutive patients with a diagnosis of ischemic HF. Patients were stratified according to the four different HLM stages of severity, and the occurrence of CV death, HFH, and worsening HF events were evaluated at 6-month follow-up. A sub-analysis was performed on patients who developed HF following ACS at admission. Results: The study included 146 patients. HLM stage predicts the occurrence of CV death (p = 0.01) and CV death/HFH (p = 0.003). Cox regression analysis confirmed HLM stage as an independent predictor of CV death (OR: 3.07; 95% IC: 1.54-6.12; p = 0.001) and CV death/HFH (OR: 2.45; 95% IC: 1.43-4.21; p = 0.001) in the total population of patients with HF due to IHD. HLM stage potentially predicts the occurrence of CV death (p < 0.001) and CV death/HFH (p < 0.001) in patients with HF following ACS at admission. Conclusions: Pathophysiological-based prognostic assessment through HLM score is a potentially promising tool for the prediction of the occurrence of CV death and CV death/HFH in ischemic HF patients and in subgroups of patients with HF following ACS at admission.

Targeting obesity for therapeutic intervention in heart failure patients

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a highly heterogeneous syndrome, making it challenging to improve prognosis with pharmacotherapy. Obesity is one of the leading phenotypes of HFpEF, and its prevalence continues to grow worldwide. Consequently, obesity-targeted interventions have attracted attention as a novel treatment strategy for HFpEF.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the association between the pathogenesis of obesity and HFpEF and the potential for obesity-targeted pharmacotherapeutic strategies in HFpEF, together with the latest evidence. The literature search was conducted in PubMed up to April 2024.

EXPERT OPINION

The STEP HFpEF (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity and HFpEF) and SELECT (Semaglutide Effects on Cardiovascular Outcomes in People with Overweight or Obesity) trials recently demonstrated that the glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, semaglutide, improves various aspects of clinical outcomes in obese HFpEF patients and significantly reduces cardiovascular and heart failure events in non-diabetic obese patients, along with a substantial weight loss. Future clinical trials with other incretin mimetics with more potent weight loss and sub-analyses of the SELECT trial may further emphasize the importance of the obesity phenotype-based approach in the treatment of HFpEF.

2024 update in heart failure

In the last years, major progress has occurred in heart failure (HF) management. The 2023 ESC focused update of the 2021 HF guidelines introduced new key recommendations based on the results of the last years of science. First, two drugs, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and finerenone, a novel nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), are recommended for the prevention of HF in patients with diabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD). Second, SGLT2 inhibitors are now recommended for the treatment of HF across the entire left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum. The benefits of quadruple therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are well established. Its rapid and early up-titration along with a close follow-up with frequent clinical and laboratory re-assessment after an episode of acute HF (the so-called 'high-intensity care' strategy) was associated with better outcomes in the STRONG-HF trial. Patients experiencing an episode of worsening HF might require a fifth drug, vericiguat. In the STEP-HFpEF-DM and STEP-HFpEF trials, semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly administered for 1 year decreased body weight and significantly improved quality of life and the 6 min walk distance in obese patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with or without a history of diabetes. Further data on safety and efficacy, including also hard endpoints, are needed to support the addition of acetazolamide or hydrochlorothiazide to a standard diuretic regimen in patients hospitalized due to acute HF. In the meantime, PUSH-AHF supported the use of natriuresis-guided diuretic therapy. Further options and most recent evidence for the treatment of HF, including specific drugs for cardiomyopathies (i.e., mavacamten in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and tafamidis in transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis), device therapies, cardiac contractility modulation and percutaneous treatment of valvulopathies, with the recent finding from the TRILUMINATE Pivotal trial, are also reviewed in this article.

Diastolic Heart Failure Mechanisms and Assessment Revisited

The syndrome of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) makes up about half of the HF population. The HF mechanisms in these patients are varied and not fully understood. In addition, the term "diastolic HF" was switched to HFpEF because of difficulties in measuring the left ventricular (LV) diastolic performance. In the late stages, HFpEF carries a prognosis that is as bad as or worse than that of HFrEF. Hence, it is important to recognize LV diastolic impairment at an earlier stage so that the causal mechanisms, if any, can be treated to retard its progression. Despite the availability of numerous disease-modifying agents for HFrEF, there are hardly any available treatments for HFpEF. With our aging population, there will be an epidemic of HFpEF and hence this entity needs attention and respect. In this paper, we review the fundamental mechanisms of HFpEF, the physiology of LV filling and how LV diastolic function can be comprehensively measured. We also speculate how this may help with the early recognition of diastolic HF and its treatment.

Exercise Stress Echocardiography-Based Phenotyping of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome requiring improved phenotypic classification. Previous studies have identified subphenotypes of HFpEF, but the lack of exercise assessment is a major limitation. The aim of this study was to identify distinct pathophysiologic clusters of HFpEF based on clinical characteristics, and resting and exercise assessments.

METHODS

A total of 265 patients with HFpEF underwent ergometry exercise stress echocardiography with simultaneous expired gas analysis. Cluster analysis was performed by the K-prototype method with 21 variables (10 clinical and resting echocardiographic variables and 11 exercise echocardiographic parameters). Pathophysiologic features, exercise tolerance, and prognosis were compared among phenogroups.

RESULTS

Three distinct phenogroups were identified. Phenogroup 1 (n = 112 [42%]) was characterized by preserved biventricular systolic reserve and cardiac output augmentation. Phenogroup 2 (n = 58 [22%]) was characterized by a high prevalence of atrial fibrillation, increased pulmonary arterial and right atrial pressures, depressed right ventricular systolic functional reserve, and impaired right ventricular-pulmonary artery coupling during exercise. Phenogroup 3 (n = 95 [36%]) was characterized by the smallest body mass index, ventricular and vascular stiffening, impaired left ventricular diastolic reserve, and worse exercise capacity. Phenogroups 2 and 3 had higher rates of composite outcomes of all-cause mortality or heart failure events than phenogroup 1 (log-rank P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Exercise echocardiography-based cluster analysis identified three distinct phenogroups of HFpEF, with unique exercise pathophysiologic features, exercise capacity, and clinical outcomes.

Obesity and metabolic syndrome in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a cross-sectional analysis of the Veradigm Cardiology Registry

BACKGROUND

The proportion of heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction has been rising over the past decades and has coincided with increases in the prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome. The relationship between these interconnected comorbidities and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is still poorly understood. This study characterized obesity and metabolic syndrome among real-world patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

We identified adults with heart failure in the Veradigm Cardiology Registry, previously the PINNACLE Registry, with a left ventricular ejection fraction measurement ≥ 50% between 01/01/2016 and 12/31/2019. Patients were stratified by obesity diagnosis and presence of metabolic syndrome (≥ 3 of the following: diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity). We captured baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and used multivariable logistic regression to examine the odds of having cardiac (atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass surgery, myocardial infarction, and stroke/transient ischemic attack) and non-cardiac (chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, and peripheral artery disease) comorbidities of interest. The models adjusted for age and sex, and the main covariates of interest were obesity and metabolic burden score (0-3 based on the presence of diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia). The models were run with and without an obesity*metabolic burden score interaction term.

RESULTS

This study included 264,571 patients with HFpEF, of whom 55.7% had obesity, 52.5% had metabolic syndrome, 42.5% had both, and 34.3% had neither. After adjusting for age, sex, and burden of other metabolic syndrome-associated diagnoses, patients with HFpEF with obesity had lower odds of a diagnosis of other evaluated comorbidities relative to patients without obesity. The presence of metabolic syndrome in HFpEF appears to increase comorbidity burden as each additional metabolic syndrome-associated diagnosis was associated with higher odds of assessed comorbidities except atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSION

Obesity was common among patients with HFpEF and not always co-occurring with metabolic syndrome. Multivariable analysis suggested that patients with obesity may develop HFpEF in the absence of other driving factors such as cardiovascular disease or metabolic syndrome.

Pathophysiological Link and Treatment Implication of Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) results from a complex interplay of age, genetic, cardiac remodeling, and concomitant comorbidities including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Renal failure is an important comorbidity of HFpEF, as well as a major pathophysiological mechanism for those patients at risk of developing HFpEF. Heart failure (HF) and CKD are intertwined conditions sharing common disease pathways; the so-called "kidney tamponade", explained by an increase in intracapsular pressure caused by fluid retention, is only the latest model to explain renal injury in HF. Recognizing the different phenotypes of HFpEF remains a real challenge; the pathophysiological mechanisms of renal dysfunction may differ across the HF spectrum, as well as the prognostic role. A better understanding of the role of cardiorenal interactions in patients with HF in terms of symptom status, disease progression, and prognosis remains essential in HF management. Historically, patients with HF and CKD have been scarcely represented in clinical trial populations. Current concerns affect the practical approach to HF treatment, and, in this context, physicians are frequently hesitant to prescribe and titrate both new and old treatments. Therefore, the extensive application of HF drugs in diverse HF subtypes with numerous comorbidities and different renal dysfunction etiologies remains a controversial matter of discussion. Numerous recently introduced drugs, such as sodium-glucose-linked transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), constitute a new therapeutic option for patients with HF and CKD. Because of their protective vascular and hormonal actions, the use of these agents may be safely extended to patients with renal dysfunction in the long term. The present review delves into the phenotype of patients with HFpEF and CKD from a pathophysiological perspective, proposing a treatment approach that suggests a practical stepwise algorithm for the proper application of life-saving therapies in clinical practice.

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.

The role of multimorbidity in patients with heart failure across the left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

The aim of this analysis was to provide data on the overall comorbidity burden, both cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV, in a large real-world heart failure (HF) population across the ejection fraction (EF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with HF from the Swedish HF Registry between 2000 and 2021 were included. Of 91 463 patients (median age 76 years [interquartile range 67-82]), 98% had at least one among the 17 explored comorbidities (94% at least one CV and 85% at least one non-CV comorbidity). All comorbidities, except for coronary artery disease (CAD), were more frequent in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). Patients with multiple comorbidities were older, more likely female, inpatients, with HFpEF, worse New York Heart Association class and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. In a multivariable Cox model, 12 comorbidities were independently associated with a higher risk of death from any cause. The highest risk was associated with dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-1.65), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.34-1.41), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.28-1.35). Obesity was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.79-0.84). CAD and valvular heart disease were associated with a higher risk of all-cause and CV mortality, but not non-CV mortality, whereas cancer and musculo-skeletal disease increased the risk of non-CV mortality. A significant interaction with EF was observed for several comorbidities. Occurrence of CV and non-CV outcomes was related to the number of CV and non-CV comorbidities, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The burden of both CV and non-CV comorbidities was high in HF regardless of EF, but overall higher in HFpEF. Multimorbidity was associated with a high risk of death with a different burden on CV or non-CV outcomes.

The burden of frailty in heart failure: Prevalence, impacts on clinical outcomes and the role of heart failure medications

BACKGROUND

Frailty often coexists with heart failure (HF), which significantly aggravates the clinical outcomes of older adults. However, studies investigating the interplay between frailty and HF in older adults are scarce. We aimed to assess the prevalence of frailty using the cumulative deficit approach and evaluate the impacts of frailty on health utilization, use of HF-related medications and adverse clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, all-cause readmissions and HF readmissions) among older HF patients.

METHODS

A total of 38 843 newly admitted HF patients were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and categorized into three frailty subgroups (fit, mild frailty and severe frailty) based on the multimorbidity frailty index. Cox regression models and Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard models were used to estimate the impacts of frailty on clinical outcomes at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Generalized estimating equation models were further conducted to evaluate the associations between longitudinal and time-varying use of HF-related medications and clinical outcomes among distinct frailty subgroups.

RESULTS

Of 38 843 older HF patients (mean age 80.4 ± 8.5 years, 52.3% females) identified, 68.3% were categorized as frail (47.5% of mild frailty and 20.8% of severe frailty). The median number of readmissions (fit: 1 [inter-quartile range-IQR 2], mild frailty: 1 [IQR 2] and severe frailty: 2 [IQR 3]) increased with the severity of frailty. Only 27.3% of HF patients died of cardiovascular diseases regardless of their frailty status. Compared with the fit group, the severe frailty group was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.21), all-cause readmissions (subdistributional hazard ratio (sHR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.16-1.25) and HF-related readmissions (sHR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09-1.20) at 2 years of follow-up. Those who used triple or more HF-related medications were at lower risk for all-cause readmissions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49, 95% CI 0.44-0.54) and HF-related readmissions (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37-0.47) at 2 years of follow-up even in the severe frailty group.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty is highly prevalent and associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, all-cause readmissions and HF readmissions among older HF patients. Those who were using triple or more HF-related medications were at lower risk of adverse clinical outcomes across distinct frailty subgroups. Further studies are needed to optimize the treatment strategies for older HF patients with distinct frailty status.

Obesity, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has a high prevalence, affecting more than 50% of patients with heart failure. HFpEF is associated with multiple comorbidities, and obesity is one of the most common. A distinct phenotype has been proposed for obese patients with HFpEF. Recent data show the beneficial role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for weight loss in diabetic and non-diabetic patients with obesity or overweight when given as adjunctive therapy to diet and exercise. The mechanisms of action are related to paracrine and endocrine signalling pathways within the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and central nervous system that delay gastric emptying, decrease appetite, augment pancreatic beta-cell insulin secretion, and suppress pancreatic glucagon release. These drugs are therefore potentially indicated for treatment of patients with HFpEF and obesity or overweight. Efficacy and safety need to be shown by clinical trials with a first one, Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (STEP HFpEF), recently concluded. The aim of the present review is to provide the pathophysiological and pharmacological rationale for GLP-1 RA administration to obese patients with HFpEF.

Back to the basics: The need for an etiological classification of chronic heart failure

The left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), despite its severe limitations, has had an epicentral role in heart failure (HF) classification, management, and risk stratification for decades. The major argument favoring the LVEF based HF classification has been that it defines groups of patients in which treatment is effective. However, this reasoning has recently collapsed, since medical treatment with neurohormonal inhibitors, has proved beneficial in most HF patients regardless of the LVEF. In addition, there has been compelling evidence, that the LVEF provides poor guidance for device treatment of chronic HF (implantation of cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy) since sudden cardiac death may occur and cardiac dyssynchronization may be disastrous in all HF patients. The same holds true for LV assist device implantation, in which the LVEF has been used as a surrogate for LV size. In this review article we update the evidence questioning the use of LVEF-based HF classification and argue that guidance of chronic HF treatment should transition to more contemporary concepts. Specifically, we propose an etiologic chronic HF classification predominantly based on epidemiological data, which will be foundational for further higher resolution phenotyping in the emerging era of precision medicine.

One small STEP, one giant leap: Semaglutide in the obese phenotype of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

While bodyweight reduction should be a primary intervention target in obese heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients, no pharmacological treatments have shown evidence. The STEP HFpEF trial1 showed that semaglutide significantly improved various aspects of heart failure-related clinical outcomes in obese HFpEF patients, along with remarkable weight loss.

Current Insights and Future Directions in the Treatment of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure is a clinical syndrome associated with poor quality of life, substantial healthcare resource utilization, and premature mortality, in large part related to high rates of hospitalizations. The clinical manifestations of heart failure are similar regardless of the ejection fraction. Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there are few therapeutic options for treating heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Molecular therapies that have shown reduced mortality and morbidity in heart failure with reduced ejection have not been proven to be effective for patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. The study of pathophysiological processes involved in the production of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is the basis for identifying new therapeutic means. In this narrative review, we intend to synthesize the existing therapeutic means, but also those under research (metabolic and microRNA therapy) for the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Insights into the Interaction of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Sleep-Disordered Breathing

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is emerging as a widespread disease with global socioeconomic impact. Patients with HFpEF show a dramatically increased morbidity and mortality, and, unfortunately, specific treatment options are limited. This is due to the various etiologies that promote HFpEF development. Indeed, cluster analyses with common HFpEF comorbidities revealed the existence of several HFpEF phenotypes. One especially frequent, yet underappreciated, comorbidity is sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), which is closely intertwined with the development and progression of the "obese HFpEF phenotype". The following review article aims to provide an overview of the common HFpEF etiologies and phenotypes, especially in the context of SDB. As general HFpEF therapies are often not successful, patient- and phenotype-individualized therapeutic strategies are warranted. Therefore, for the "obese HFpEF phenotype", a better understanding of the mechanistic parallels between both HFpEF and SDB is required, which may help to identify potential phenotype-individualized therapeutic strategies. Novel technologies like single-cell transcriptomics or CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing further broaden the groundwork for deeper insights into pathomechanisms and precision medicine.

Modulation of Pulsatile Left Ventricular Afterload by Renal Denervation in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Arterial stiffening contributes to hemodynamic derangements in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We sought to investigate the impact of renal denervation on pulsatile left ventricular loading in patients with HFpEF and hypertensive patients without heart failure (control).

METHODS

Patients underwent renal denervation for treatment of hypertension and were followed up at 3 months at a single center. A validated computer model of the arterial tree, noninvasive aortic flow curves, left ventricular volumes, and E/e' as inputs were used to determine key parameters of left ventricular vascular load.

RESULTS

In comparison to controls (n=30), patients with HFpEF (n=30) demonstrated lower total arterial compliance (mean difference, -0.41 [95% CI, -0.72 to -0.10] mL/mm Hg), higher impedance of the proximal aorta (Zc: 0.02; 0.01 to 0.04 mHg·s/mL), premature wave reflections (shorter backward wave transit time normalized to ejection time: -3.5; -6.5% to -0.5%), and higher wave reflection magnitude (reflection coefficient: 7.3; 2.8% to 11.9%). Overall, daytime systolic (-9.2; -12.2 to -6.2 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressures (-5.9; -7.6 to -4.1 mm Hg) as well as blood pressure variability (-2.0; -3.0 to -0.9 mm Hg) decreased after renal denervation. In patients with HFpEF, total arterial compliance (0.42; 0.17 to 0.67 mL/mm Hg) and backward transit time normalized to ejection time (1.7; 0.4% to 3.0%) increased; Zc (-0.01; -0.02 to -0.01 mm Hg·s/mL) and reflection coefficient (-2.6; -5.0% to -0.3%) decreased after renal denervation. This was accompanied by a symptomatic improvement in patients with HFpEF.

CONCLUSION

HFpEF is characterized by heightened aortic stiffness and unfavorable pulsatile left ventricular load. These abnormalities are partly normalized after renal denervation.