Differential Clinical Profiles, Exercise Responses, and Outcomes Associated With Existing HFpEF Definitions

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common, yet there is currently no consensus on how to define HFpEF according to various society and clinical trial criteria. How clinical and hemodynamic profiles of patients vary across definitions is unclear. We sought to determine clinical characteristics, as well as physiologic and prognostic implications of applying various criteria to define HFpEF.

METHODS

We examined consecutive patients with chronic exertional dyspnea (New York Heart Association class II to IV) and ejection fraction ≥50% referred for comprehensive cardiopulmonary exercise testing with invasive hemodynamic monitoring. We applied societal and clinical trial HFpEF definitions and compared clinical profiles, exercise responses, and cardiovascular outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 461 patients (age 58±15 years, 62% women), 416 met American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), 205 met European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and 55 met Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) criteria for HFpEF. Clinical profiles and exercise capacity varied across definitions, with peak oxygen uptake of 16.2±5.2 (ACC/AHA), 14.1±4.2 (ESC), and 12.7±3.1 mL·kg^-1·min^-1 (HFSA). A total of 243 patients had hemodynamic evidence of HFpEF (abnormal rest or exercise filling pressures), of whom 222 met ACC/AHA, 161 met ESC, and 41 met HFSA criteria. Over a mean follow-up of 3.8 years, the incidence of cardiovascular outcomes ranged from 75 (ACC/AHA) to 298 events per 1000 person-years (HFSA). Application of clinical trial definitions of HFpEF similarly resulted in distinct patient classification and prognostication.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of different HFpEF classifications variably enriches for future cardiovascular events, but at the expense of not including up to 85% of individuals with physiologic evidence of HFpEF. Comprehensive phenotyping of patients with suspected heart failure highlights the limitations and heterogeneity of current HFpEF definitions and may help to refine HFpEF subgrouping to test therapeutic interventions.

Heart failure progression and mortality in atrial fibrillation patients with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) worsens cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of heart failure (HF) and vice versa. The impact of rate or rhythm control strategies on HF progression and survival remains unclear.

METHODS

We examined the risk of HF progression in AF patients (pts) with a prior HF event and minimal or no HF burden (NYHA class 0 or 1). They were stratified into HF with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40%, pEF) or reduced EF (< 40%, rEF). HF subgroups from the Rate and Rhythm arm were compared for the primary outcome of worsening HF or death (WHFD), total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-two AF pts (HFpEF = 349, HFrEF = 143) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were generally comparable in the Rate and Rhythm arms of the two subgroups. Over a median follow-up of 4 years, HF recurred and worsened in 66.6% and 41.2% of pts by ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 NYHA classes, respectively. HF progression by even 1 NYHA class increased the mortality risk in HFpEF (hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.25-3.4; p = 0.004) and HFrEF (HR 1.9; 95% CI 0.99-3.66; p = 0.054). Cardiovascular hospitalization (CVH) increased in HFpEF (HR 3.67; 95% CI 2.56, 5.25; p < 0.0001) and HFrEF (HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.53-5.14; p = 0.0009). HF progression by 2 or more NYHA classes or death was significantly worse in pts with HFrEF with the Rate control strategy compared with the Rhythm control (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.03-2.53; p = 0.036) but similar in pts with HFpEF (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.64-1.21; p = 0.440).The time to first AF recurrence was longer in the Rhythm arms of both HF subgroups as compared with Rate (Figure, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) HF progression in AF pts with a prior HF event confers significant mortality and CVH risk in both HFrEF and HFpEF populations. (2) HF progression is more pronounced with a Rate control strategy in AF pts with HFrEF, but is comparable to Rhythm control in AF pts with HFpEF. (3) A Rhythm control strategy may be desirable to reduce HF progression in pts with HFrEF and AF. Prospective clinical trials appear warranted to examine HF progression by treatment strategy in HFpEF and HFrEF populations with AF.