Mild aortic valve disease and the diastolic pressure-volume relationship in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Running on empty: Factors underpinning impaired cardiac output reserve in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is frequently attributed etiologically to an underlying left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, although its pathophysiology is far more complex and can exhibit significant variations among patients. This review endeavours to systematically unravel the pathophysiological heterogeneity by illustrating diverse mechanisms leading to an impaired cardiac output reserve, a central and prevalent haemodynamic abnormality in HFpEF patients. Drawing on previously published findings from our research group, we propose a pathophysiology-guided phenotyping based on the presence of: (1) LV diastolic dysfunction, (2) LV systolic pathologies, (3) arterial stiffness, (4) atrial impairment, (5) right ventricular dysfunction, (6) tricuspid valve regurgitation, and (7) chronotopic incompetence. Tailored to each specific phenotype, we explore various potential treatment options such as antifibrotic medication, diuretics, renal denervation and more. Our conclusion underscores the pivotal role of cardiac output reserve as a key haemodynamic abnormality in HFpEF, emphasizing that by phenotyping patients according to its individual pathomechanisms, insights into personalized therapeutic approaches can be gleaned.

Cardiac dysfunction rather than aortic valve stenosis severity drives exercise intolerance and adverse haemodynamics

AIMS

To study the impact of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs. aortic stenosis (AS) lesion severity on left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, left atrial (LA) dysfunction, haemodynamics, and exercise capacity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (n = 206) with at least moderate AS (aortic valve area ≤0.85 cm/m2) and discordant symptoms underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with simultaneous echocardiography. The population was stratified according to the probability of underlying HFpEF by the heavy, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, elder, filling pressure (H2FPEF) score [0-5 (AS/HFpEF-) vs. 6-9 points (AS/HFpEF+)] and AS severity (Moderate vs. Severe). Mean age was 73 ± 10 years with 40% women. Twenty-eight patients had Severe AS/HFpEF+ (14%), 111 Severe AS/HFpEF- (54%), 13 Moderate AS/HFpEF+ (6%), and 54 Moderate AS/HFpEF- (26%). AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF- patients, irrespective of AS severity, had a lower LV global longitudinal strain, impaired diastolic function, reduced LV compliance, and more pronounced LA dysfunction. The pulmonary arterial pressure-cardiac output slope was significantly higher in AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF- (5.4 ± 3.1 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2 mmHg/L/min, respectively; P = 0.003), mainly driven by impaired cardiac output and chronotropic reserve, with signs of right ventricular pulmonary arterial uncoupling. AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF- was associated with a lower peak aerobic capacity (11.5 ± 3.7 vs. 15.9 ± 5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; P < 0.0001) but did not differ between Moderate and Severe AS (14.7 ± 5.5 vs. 15.2 ± 5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; P = 0.6).

CONCLUSION

A high H2FPEF score is associated with a reduced exercise capacity and adverse haemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe AS. Both exercise performance and haemodynamics correspond better with intrinsic cardiac dysfunction than AS severity.

Pulmonary Hypertension Associated with Left Heart Disease

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a common complication of diseases affecting the left heart, mostly found in patients suffering from heart failure, with or without preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Initially driven by a passive increase in left atrial pressure (postcapillary PH), several mechanisms may lead in a subset of patient to significant structural changes of the pulmonary vessels or a precapillary component. In addition, the right ventricle may be independently affected, which results in right ventricular to pulmonary artery uncoupling and right ventricular failure, all being associated with a worse outcome. The differential diagnosis of PH associated with left heart disease versus pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is especially challenging in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and/or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). A stepwise approach to diagnosis is proposed, starting with a proper clinical multidimensional phenotyping to identify patients in whom hemodynamic confirmation is deemed necessary. Provocative testing (exercise testing, fluid loading, or simple leg raising) is useful in the cath laboratory to identify patients with abnormal response who are more likely to suffer from HFpEF. In contrast with group 1 PH, management of PH associated with left heart disease must focus on the treatment of the underlying condition. Some PAH-approved targets have been unsuccessfully tried in clinical studies in a heterogeneous group of patients, some even leading to an increase in adverse events. There is currently no approved therapy for PH associated with left heart disease.

Global Public Health Burden of Heart Failure: An Updated Review

Heart failure (HF) is a rapidly growing public health issue with an estimated prevalence of 64 million people globally. Although the incidence of HF has stabilised worldwide and seems to be declining in developed countries, the prevalence is increasing due to the ageing of the population, improved survival after MI and improved treatment and survival of patients with HF. Yet, HF remains associated with high mortality and morbidity, poor quality of life and functional capacity, and confers a substantial burden to the healthcare system. The prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity rates reported show geographical variations, depending on the different aetiologies and clinical characteristics observed among patients with HF. In this review, we provide an overview of the global epidemiology of HF with updated data on prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity worldwide.

Impact of concomitant mitral valve surgery on the clinical outcomes of patients with moderate functional mitral regurgitation and HFpEF undergoing aortic valve replacement: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) worsens the prognosis of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). While concomitant mitral valve surgery (MVS) is recommended for severe FMR during aortic valve replacement (AVR), the optimal treatment of moderate FMR, especially in those with HFpEF, remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of MVS in patients with moderate FMR and HFpEF undergoing AVR.

METHODS

A total of 212 consecutive patients (AVR: 34.0%, AVR-MVS: 66.0%) during 2010 and 2019 were enrolled. Survival outcomes were compared. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test were applied to compare the survival outcomes. The primary endpoint was the overall mortality.

RESULTS

The mean age was 58.9 [Formula: see text] 11.9 years, and 27.8% of them were female. During a median follow-up of 16.4 months, AVR-MVS did not reduce the risk of mid-term MACCE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-4.17, Plog-rank = 0.396), while it showed a tendency toward higher MACCE risk in the IPTW analysis (HR: 2.62, 95% CI: 0.84-8.16, Plog-rank = 0.096). In addition, AVR-MVS increased the risk of mortality as compared to isolated AVR (0 vs. 10%, Plog-rank = 0.016), which was sustained in the IPTW analysis  (0 vs. 9.9%, Plog-rank<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with moderate FMR and HFpEF, isolated AVR might be more reasonable than AVR-MVS.