Alternative Echocardiographic Algorithm for Left Ventricular Filling Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Predictors and Outcomes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients With a Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Above or Below 60

Background Although potential therapeutic candidates for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are emerging, it is still unclear whether they will be effective in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 60% or higher. Our aim was to identify the clinical characteristics of these patients with HFpEF by comparing them to patients with LVEF below 60%. Methods and Results From a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort (PURSUIT-HFpEF [Prospective Multicenter Obsevational Study of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction]), we investigated 812 consecutive patients (median age, 83 years; 57% women), including 316 with 50% ≤ LVEF <60% and 496 with 60% ≤ LVEF, and compared the clinical backgrounds of the 2 groups and their prognoses for cardiac mortality or HF readmission. Two hundred four adverse outcomes occurred at a median of 366 days. Multivariable Cox regression tests adjusted for age, sex, heart rate, atrial fibrillation, estimated glomerular filtration rate, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and prior heart failure hospitalization revealed that systolic blood pressure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.925 [95% CI, 0.862-0.992]; P=0.028), high-density lipoprotein to C-reactive protein ratio (HR, 0.975 [95% CI, 0.944-0.995]; P=0.007), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (HR, 0.870 [95% CI, 0.759-0.997]; P=0.037) were uniquely associated with outcomes among patients with 50% ≤ LVEF <60%, whereas only the ratio of peak early mitral inflow velocity to velocity of mitral annulus early diastolic motion e'(HR, 1.034 [95% CI, 1.003-1.062]; P=0.034) was associated with outcomes among patients with 60% ≤ LVEF. Conclusions Prognostic factors show distinct differences between patients with HFpEF with 50% ≤ LVEF <60% and with 60% ≤ LVEF. These findings suggest that the 2 groups have different inherent pathophysiology. Registration URL: https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000024414; Unique identifier: UMIN000021831 PURSUIT-HFpEF.

Visual echocardiographic scoring system of the left ventricular filling pressure and outcomes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Aims

Elevated left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP) is a powerful indicator of worsening clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); however, detection of elevated LVFP is often challenging. This study aimed to determine the association between the newly proposed echocardiographic LVFP parameter, visually assessed time difference between the mitral valve and tricuspid valve opening (VMT) score, and clinical outcomes of HFpEF.

Methods and results

We retrospectively investigated 310 well-differentiated HFpEF patients in stable conditions. VMT was scored from 0 to 3 using two-dimensional echocardiographic images, and VMT ≥2 was regarded as a sign of elevated LVFP. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization during the 2 years after the echocardiographic examination. In all patients, Kaplan–Meier curves showed that VMT ≥2 (n = 54) was associated with worse outcomes than the VMT ≤1 group (n = 256) (P < 0.001). Furthermore, VMT ≥2 was associated with worse outcomes when tested in 100 HFpEF patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) (P = 0.026). In the adjusted model, VMT ≥2 was independently associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.46–4.61; P = 0.001). Additionally, VMT scoring provided an incremental prognostic value over clinically relevant variables and diastolic function grading (χ² 10.8–16.3, P = 0.035).

Conclusions

In patients with HFpEF, the VMT score was independently and incrementally associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Moreover, it could also predict clinical outcomes in HFpEF patients with AF.