Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic narrative review of the evidence

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common condition in clinical practice, affecting more than half of patients with HF. HFpEF is associated with morbidity and mortality and with considerable healthcare resource utilization and costs. Therefore, early diagnosis is crucial to facilitate prompt management, particularly initiation of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Although European guidelines define HFpEF as the presence of symptoms with or without signs of HF, left ventricular EF ≥ 50%, and objective evidence of cardiac structural and/or functional abnormalities, together with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, the diagnosis of HFpEF remains challenging. First, there is no clear consensus on how HFpEF should be defined. Furthermore, diagnostic tools, such as natriuretic peptide levels and resting echocardiogram findings, are significantly limited in the diagnosis of HFpEF. As a result, some patients are overdiagnosed (i.e., elderly people with comorbidities that mimic HF), although in other cases, HFpEF is overlooked. In this manuscript, we perform a systematic narrative review of the diagnostic approach to patients with HFpEF. We also propose a comprehensible algorithm that can be easily applied in daily clinical practice and could prove useful for confirming or ruling out a diagnosis of HFpEF.

Insight into different phenotypic presentations of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for half of all HF diagnoses, and its prevalence is increasing at an alarming rate. Lately, it has been recognized as a clinical syndrome due to diverse underlying etiology and pathophysiological mechanisms. The classic echocardiographic features of HFpEF have been well described as preserved ejection fraction (≥50%), left ventricular hypertrophy, and left atrial enlargement. However, echocardiography can play a key role in identifying the principal underlying mechanism responsible for HFpEF in the individual patient. The recognition of different phenotypic presentations of HFpEF (infiltrative, metabolic, genetic, and inflammatory) can assist the clinician in tailoring the appropriate management, and offer prognostic information. The goal of this review is to highlight several key phenotypes of HFpEF and illustrate the classic clinical scenario and echocardiographic features of each phenotype with real patient cases.

Análise Crítica e Limitações do Diagnóstico de Insuficiência Cardíaca com Fração de Ejeção Preservada (ICFEp)

Com o aumento da expectativa de vida da população e a maior frequência de fatores de risco como obesidade, hipertensão arterial e diabetes, espera-se um aumento na prevalência de insuficiência cardíaca com fração de ejeção preservada (ICFEp). Entretanto, no momento, o diagnóstico e o tratamento de pacientes com ICFEp permanecem desafiadores. O diagnóstico sindrômico de ICFEp inclui diversas etiologias e doenças com tratamentos específicos, mas que apresentam pontos em comum em relação à apresentação clínica e à avaliação laboratorial no que diz respeito aos biomarcadores como BNP e NT-ProBNP, à avaliação ecocardiográfica do remodelamento cardíaco e às pressões de enchimento diastólico ventricular esquerdo. Extensos ensaios clínicos randomizados envolvendo a terapia nesta síndrome falharam na demonstração de benefícios para o paciente, fazendo-se necessária uma reflexão acerca do diagnóstico, dos mecanismos de morbidade, da taxa de mortalidade e da reversibilidade. Na revisão, serão abordados os conceitos atuais, as controvérsias e, especialmente, os desafios no diagnóstico da ICFEp através de uma análise crítica do escore da European Heart Failure Association.

Right Heart Pulmonary Circulation Unit Response to Exercise in Patients with Controlled Systemic Arterial Hypertension: Insights from the RIGHT Heart International NETwork (RIGHT-NET)

BACKGROUND

Systemic arterial hypertension (HTN) is the main risk factor for the development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The aim of the study was was to assess the trends in PASP, E/E' and TAPSE during exercise Doppler echocardiography (EDE) in hypertensive (HTN) patients vs. healthy subjects stratified by age.

METHODS

EDE was performed in 155 hypertensive patients and in 145 healthy subjects (mean age 62 ± 12.0 vs. 54 ± 14.9 years respectively, p < 0.0001). EDE was undertaken on a semi-recumbent cycle ergometer with load increasing by 25 watts every 2 min. Left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) dimensions, function and hemodynamics were evaluated.

RESULTS

Echo-Doppler parameters of LV and RV function were lower, both at rest and at peak exercise in hypertensives, while pulmonary hemodynamics were higher as compared to healthy subjects. The entire cohort was then divided into tertiles of age: at rest, no significant differences were recorded for each age group between hypertensives and normotensives except for E/E' that was higher in hypertensives. At peak exercise, hypertensives had higher pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) and E/E' but lower tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) as age increased, compared to normotensives. Differences in E/E' and TAPSE between the 2 groups at peak exercise were explained by the interaction between HTN and age even after adjustment for baseline values (p < 0.001 for E/E', p = 0.011 for TAPSE). At peak exercise, the oldest group of hypertensive patients had a mean E/E' of 13.0, suggesting a significant increase in LV diastolic pressure combined with increased PASP.

CONCLUSION

Age and HTN have a synergic negative effect on E/E' and TAPSE at peak exercise in hypertensive subjects.

The E/e' Ratio-Role in Risk Stratification of Acute Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background and Objectives: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a worldwide management problem. Although there is a general effort for characterizing this population, few studies have assessed the predictive value of the echocardiographic E/e’ ratio in patients with acute HFpEF. The aim of the study was to identify groups with different prognosis in patients hospitalized with a first acute episode of HFpEF. Materials and Methods: The primary endpoint of the study was heart failure readmissions (HFR) at 6 months, while the secondary outcome was six-month mortality. We consecutively enrolled 91 patients hospitalized for the first time with acute HFpEF. We examined the E/e’ ratio as an independent predictor for HFR using univariate regression. Results: We identified and validated the E/e’ ratio as an independent predictor for HFR. An E/e’ ratio threshold value of 13.80 was calculated [(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) = 0.693, sensitivity = 78.60%, specificity = 55%, p < 0.004)] and validated as an inflection point for an increased number of HFR. Thus, we divided the study cohort into two groups: group 1 with an E/e’ ratio < 13.80 (n = 39) and group 2 with an E/e’ ratio > 13.80 (n = 49). Compared to group 1, group 2 had an increased number of HFR (p = 0.003) and a shorter time to first HFR (p = 0.002). However, this parameter did not influence all-cause mortality within six months (p = 0.84). Conclusions: The dimensionless E/e’ ratio is a useful discriminator between patients with acute HFpEF. An E/e’ value over 13.80 represents a simple, yet effective instrument for assessing the HFR risk. However, all-cause mortality at six months is not influenced by the E/e’ ratio.

How to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm: a consensus recommendation from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the 'HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm'. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for HF symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e'), left ventricular (LV) filling pressure estimated using E/e', left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2-4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.

New expectations for diastolic function assessment in transthoracic echocardiography based on a semi-automated computing of strain–volume loops

Aims

Early diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) by determination of diastolic dysfunction is challenging. Strain–volume loop (SVL) is a new tool to analyse left ventricular function. We propose a new semi-automated method to calculate SVL area and explore the added value of this index for diastolic function assessment.

Method and results

Fifty patients (25 amyloidosis, 25 HFpEF) were included in the study and compared with 25 healthy control subjects. Left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved and similar between groups. Classical indices of diastolic function were pathological in HFpEF and amyloidosis groups with greater left atrial volume index, greater mitral average E/e’ ratio, faster tricuspid regurgitation (P &lt; 0.0001 compared with controls). SVL analysis demonstrated a significant difference of the global area between groups, with the smaller area in amyloidosis group, the greater in controls and a mid-range value in HFpEF group (37 vs. 120 vs. 72 mL.%, respectively, P &lt; 0.0001). Applying a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifier, results show a mean area under the curve of 0.91 for the comparison between HFpEF and amyloidosis groups.

Conclusion

SVLs area is efficient to identify patients with a diastolic dysfunction. This new semi-automated tool is very promising for future development of automated diagnosis with machine-learning algorithms.

How to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm: a consensus recommendation from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the 'HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm'. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for heart failure symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e'), LV filling pressure estimated using E/e', left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2-4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F₁ : Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F₂ : Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.

Heart rate and blood pressure monitoring in heart failure

It has been long known that incessant tachycardia and severe hypertension can cause heart failure (HF). In recent years, it has also been recognized that more modest elevations in either heart rate (HR) or blood pressure (BP), if sustained, can be a risk factor both for the development of HF and for mortality in patients with established HF. Heart rate and BP are thus both modifiable risk factors in the setting of HF. What is less clear is the question whether routine systematic monitoring of these simple physiological parameters to a target value can offer clinical benefits. Measuring these parameters clinically during patient review is recommended in HF management in most HF guidelines, both in the acute and chronic phases of the disease. More sophisticated systems now allow long-term automatic or remote monitoring of HR and BP and whether this more detailed patient information can improve clinical outcomes will require prospective RCTs to evaluate. In addition, analysis of patterns of both HR and BP variability can give insights into autonomic function, which is also frequently abnormal in HF. This window into autonomic dysfunction in our HF patients can also provide further independent prognostic information and may in itself be target for future interventional therapies. This article, developed during a consensus meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC concerning the role of physiological monitoring in the complex multi-morbid HF patient, highlights the importance of repeated assessment of HR and BP in HF, and reviews gaps in our knowledge and potential future directions.

Left ventricular function monitoring in heart failure

Imaging modalities are used for screening, risk stratification and monitoring of heart failure (HF). In particular, echocardiography represents the cornerstone in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Despite the well-known limitations of LV ejection fraction, this parameter, repeated assessment of LV function is recommended for the diagnosis and care of patients with HF and provides prognostic information. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has an essential role in phenotyping and appropriate guiding of the therapy of patients with chronic HF. This document reflects the key points concerning monitoring LV function discussed at a consensus meeting on physiological monitoring in the complex multi-morbid HF patient under the auspices of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC.