Relation of N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide and Left Ventricular Diastolic Function to Exercise Tolerance in Patients With Significant Valvular Heart Disease and Normal Left Ventricular Systolic Function

Contemporary Evidence and Practice on Right Heart Catheterization in Patients with Acute or Chronic Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) has a global prevalence of 1-2%, and the incidence around the world is growing. The prevalence increases with age, from around 1% for those aged <55 years to >10% for those aged 70 years or over. Based on studies in hospitalized patients, about 50% of patients have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and 50% have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HF is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and HF-related hospitalizations are common, costly, and impact both quality of life and prognosis. More than 5-10% of patients deteriorate into advanced HF (AdHF) with worse outcomes, up to cardiogenic shock (CS) condition. Right heart catheterization (RHC) is essential to assess hemodynamics in the diagnosis and care of patients with HF. The aim of this article is to review the evidence on RHC in various clinical scenarios of patients with HF.

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.

N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Tricuspid Valve Replacement

The aim of the present study was to retrospectively investigate the prognostic value of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in tricuspid valve replacement (TVR). A total of 73 TVR patients who had NT-proBNP measured on the first postoperative morning during a period of 10 years from February 2008 to December 2018 were included in the study. The endpoint was postsurgery all-cause in-hospital mortality. The outcome-based cut-point optimization was performed using X-tile software. NT-proBNP with the maximum χ² score and the minimum P value will be used as the optimal cut-point. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test were adopted to calculate and compare survival rates stratified by tertiles and the cut-point. Predictive capabilities of NT-proBNP were tested using univariable and multivariable Cox regression. Overall, 20 (27.3%) in-hospital deaths occurred. Postsurgery hospital stay was 21 days (interquartile range, 16-32 day). NT-proBNP were divided into low (<1262 pg/mL), medium (1262-4003 pg/mL), and high (≥4003 pg/mL) tertiles. The optimal cut-off point determined using X-tile was 3639 pg/mL. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a strong association between worse survival and elevated NT-proBNP expressed as tertiles (log-rank P = 0.002) and stratified by optimal cut point (log-rank P < 0.001). Multivariable Cox survival analysis demonstrated that NT-proBNP was a strong predictor of mortality (logNT-proBNP hazard ratio [HR], 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-3.37; P = 0.002). In NT-proBNP tertiles model, multivariable Cox survival analysis showed that patients in the medium and high NT-proBNP tertiles had 6.32-fold (adjusted HR, 7.32; 95% CI, 0.76-70.69; P = 0.085) and 16.11-fold (adjusted HR, 17.11; 95% CI, 1.92-152.68, P = 0.011) increased risk for mortality, respectively, compared with patients in the low tertile. Elevated postoperative NT-proBNP level is a potential independent and strong in-hospital postsurgery mortality risk factor in TVR, thus may serve as a useful surrogate marker for risk-stratification.

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.

Diastolic dysfunction and exercise capacity in patients with metabolic syndrome and overweight/obesity

Background

Left ventricle diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) is a common finding in high risk individuals, its presence being associated with reduced exercise capacity (EC). We assessed the prevalence of LVDD, applying the 2016 guidelines of the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE)/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), in a population with overweight/obesity and metabolic syndrome and its association with EC.

Methods and results

This was a prospective, cross-sectional study of a cohort of 235 patients (mean age of 65 ± 5 years old and 33% female) without heart disease and an ejection fraction >50% who underwent a complete echocardiographic assessment and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Individuals meeting three or more criteria of the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines are considered to have LVDD, while tests are considered indeterminate in those meeting only two. Overall, 178 (76%) of our patients met one echocardiographic cutoff value for LVDD, 91 (39%) met two and 7 (3%) three or more. Patients meeting three cutoffs values showed a significant reduction in maximal oxygen uptake (16 ± 3 vs. 19.6 ± 5 ml/kg/min, p < .05), unlike those with indeterminate tests. In multiple regression analysis, meeting three cutoffs was associated with number of METS (ß = −2.2, p = .018). In exploratory analysis, using two criteria based on cutoffs different from those proposed in the guidelines, we identified groups with different EC.

Conclusions

The application of 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines limited the prevalence of LVDD to 3%. This group showed a clear reduction of the EC. New echocardiographic cutoff values proposed in this study allow us to establish subgroups with different levels of EC.