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

Contemporary treatment options in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) constitutes approximately half of the heart failure population, with its prevalence markedly increasing with older age and the presence of cardio-metabolic comorbidities. Although HFpEF is associated with a high symptom- and mortality burden, historically there have been few evidence-based treatment options for patients with HFpEF. Recent randomized clinical trials have expanded evidence on pharmacological treatment options, introducing new agents for managing HFpEF. Given the complex clinical phenotype with pathophysiological heterogeneity and evolving diagnostic standards, the evidence-based management of HFpEF remains challenging for clinicians. This review summarizes the latest evidence from contemporary randomized clinical trials and recent guideline recommendations to provide guidance for the treatment of patients with HFpEF.

CMR to characterize myocardial structure and function in heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Despite remarkable progress in therapeutic drugs, morbidity, and mortality for heart failure (HF) remains high in developed countries. HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) now accounts for around half of all HF cases. It is a heterogeneous disease, with multiple aetiologies, and as such poses a significant diagnostic challenge. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has become a valuable non-invasive modality to assess cardiac morphology and function, but beyond that, the multi-parametric nature of CMR allows novel approaches to characterize haemodynamics and with magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), the study of metabolism. Furthermore, exercise CMR, when combined with lung water imaging provides an in-depth understanding of the underlying pathophysiological and mechanistic processes in HFpEF. Thus, CMR provides a comprehensive phenotyping tool for HFpEF, which points towards a targeted and personalized therapy with improved diagnostics and prevention.

Pulmonary hypertension associated with left heart disease

Left heart disease (LHD) is the most common cause of pulmonary hypertension (PH), which may be classified further as isolated post-capillary (ipcPH) or combined post- and pre-capillary PH (cpcPH). The 7th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension PH-LHD task force reviewed newly reported randomised clinical trials and contemplated novel opportunities for improving outcome. Results from major randomised clinical trials reinforced prior recommendations against the use of pulmonary arterial hypertension therapy in PH-LHD outside of clinical trials, and suggested possible harm. Greater focus on phenotyping was viewed as one general strategy by which to ultimately improve clinical outcomes. This is potentially achievable by individualising ipcPH versus cpcPH diagnosis for patients with pulmonary arterial wedge pressure within a diagnostic grey zone (12-18 mmHg), and through a newly developed PH-LHD staging system. In this model, PH accompanies LHD across four stages (A=at risk, B=structural heart disease, C=symptomatic heart disease, D=advanced), with each stage characterised by progression in clinical characteristics, haemodynamics and potential therapeutic strategies. Along these lines, the task force proposed disaggregating PH-LHD to emphasise specific subtypes for which PH prevalence, pathophysiology and treatment are unique. This includes re-interpreting mitral and aortic valve stenosis through a contemporary lens, and focusing on PH within the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and amyloid cardiomyopathy clinical spectra. Furthermore, appreciating LHD in the profile of PH patients with chronic lung disease and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease is essential. However, engaging LHD patients in clinical research more broadly is likely to require novel methodologies such as pragmatic trials and may benefit from next-generation analytics to interpret results.

Exploration of the Potential Biomarker FNDC5 for Discriminating Heart Failure in Patients with Coronary Atherosclerosis

Coronary atherosclerosis leading to ischemic artery disease is one of the etiological factors to develop heart failure (HF). This study aimed to investigate potential biomarkers for discriminating HF in atherosclerotic patients. This study included 40 consecutive atherosclerotic patients who underwent angiography. Concentrations of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), fibronectin type III domain containing 5 (FNDC5), and Phosphodiesterase 9A (PDE9A) were measured in 20 atherosclerotic patients with HF symptoms/signs and 20 without HF symptoms/signs. Circulating BNP levels were elevated, while FNDC5 levels were reduced in atherosclerotic patients with HF symptoms/signs compared to those without HF symptoms/signs. Pearson correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between FNDC5 and BNP. Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis indicated that both FNDC5 and BNP were able to discriminate HF in atherosclerotic patients. Our findings suggest that FNDC5, along with BNP, has independent value as a biomarker for discriminating HF in patients with coronary atherosclerosis.

Long-term prognostic value of the H2FPEF score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

A considerable proportion of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have underlying heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which can be challenging for diagnosis because significant valvular heart disease should be excluded before diagnosing HFpEF. This study investigated the long-term prognostic value of the pre-procedural H2FPEF score in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) undergoing TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients who underwent TAVI between October 2013 and May 2017 were enrolled from the Optimized CathEter vAlvular iNtervention-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Japanese multicentre registry. After excluding 914 patients, 1674 patients with preserved EF ≥ 50% (median age: 85 years, 72% female) were selected for calculation of the H2FPEF score and were dichotomized into two groups: the low H2FPEF score [0-5 points; n = 1399 (83.6%)] group and the high H2FPEF score [6-9 points; n = 275 (16.4%)] group. Patients with high H2FPEF scores were associated with a higher prevalence of New York Heart Association Functional Class III/IV (59.3% vs. 43.7%, P < 0.001), diabetes (24.4% vs. 18.5%, P = 0.03), and paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (15.9% vs. 6.2%, P < 0.001). These patients showed worse prognoses than those with low H2FPEF scores regarding the cumulative 2 year all-cause mortality (26.3% vs. 15.5%, log-rank P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (10.5% vs. 5.4%, log-rank P < 0.001), HF hospitalization (16.2% vs. 6.7%, log-rank P < 0.001), and the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (23.8% vs. 10.8%, log-rank P < 0.001). After adjustment for several confounders, the high H2FPEF scores were independently associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-2.00; P = 0.011] and for the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.38-2.74; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the excess risk of high H2FPEF scores relative to low H2FPEF scores for the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization increased with a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (STS score <8%: adjusted HR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.50-3.85; P < 0.001; STS score ≥8%: adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.79-2.28; P = 0.28; Pinteraction = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

The H2FPEF score is useful for predicting long-term adverse outcomes after TAVI, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and HF hospitalization for patients with preserved EF. More aggressive interventions targeting HFpEF in addition to the TAVI procedure might be relevant in patients with high H2FPEF scores, particularly in those with a lower surgical risk.

Uncovering Unrecognized Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Among Individuals With Obesity and Dyspnea

BACKGROUND

Although heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has become the predominant heart failure subtype, it remains clinically under-recognized. HFpEF diagnosis is particularly challenging in the setting of obesity given the limitations of natriuretic peptides and resting echocardiography. We examined invasive and noninvasive HFpEF diagnostic criteria among individuals with obesity and dyspnea without known cardiovascular disease to determine the prevalence of hemodynamic HFpEF in the community.

METHODS

Research volunteers with dyspnea and obesity underwent resting echocardiography; participants with possible pulmonary hypertension qualified for invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing. HFpEF was defined using rest or exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure criteria (≥15 mm Hg or Δpulmonary capillary wedge pressure/Δcardiac output slope, >2.0 mm Hg·L-1·min-1).

RESULTS

Among n=78 participants (age, 53±13 years; 65% women; body mass index, 37.3±6.8 kg/m2), 40 (51%) met echocardiographic criteria to undergo invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing. In total, 24 participants (60% among the cardiopulmonary exercise testing group, 31% among the total sample) were diagnosed with HFpEF by rest or exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (n=12) or exercise criteria (n=12). There were no differences in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; 79 [62-104] versus 73 [57-121] pg/mL) or resting echocardiography (mitral E/e' ratio, 9.1±3.1 versus 8.0±2.7) among those with versus without HFpEF (P>0.05 for all). Distributions of HFpEF diagnostic scores were similar, with the majority classified as intermediate risk (100% versus 93.75% [H2FPEF] and 87.5% versus 68.75% [HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pretest assessment, echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, functional testing, and final etiology)] in those with versus without HFpEF).

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with obesity and dyspnea without known cardiovascular disease, at least a third had clinically unrecognized HFpEF uncovered on invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Clinical, biomarker, resting echocardiography, and diagnostic scores were similar among those with and without HFpEF. These results suggest clinical underdiagnosis of HFpEF among individuals with obesity and dyspnea and highlight limitations of noninvasive testing in the identification of HFpEF.

Chronic Heart Failure in Patients Hospitalized in 2002 and 2021: Comparative Analysis of Prevalence, Clinical Course and Drug Therapy

AIM

Comparative analysis of the prevalence of chronic heart failure (CHF), clinical and medical history data, and drug therapy of patients admitted to a cardiology hospital in 2002 and 2021.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study analyzed the medical records of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CHF who were admitted in 2002 (n=210) and 2021 (n=381) to a specialized cardiology hospital.

RESULTS

According to medical records of 2021, the proportion of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CHF (87.6%) in the cohort of patients admitted to a cardiology hospital was twice as high as in 2002 (46.4%; p<0.001). The majority of patients with CHF in the study sample were patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). The proportion of such patients significantly increased to reach 75.9% in 2021 compared to 58.6% in 2002 (p<0.001). At the same time, the number of severe forms of CHF (NYHA functional class (FC) IV) decreased by 10% and was 13.2% in 2002 and 1.3% in 2021 (p<0.001). In the majority of patients, ischemic heart disease (98.1 and 91.1% in 2002 and 2021, respectively, p<0.001) and hypertension (80.5 and 98.2%, respectively, p<0.001) were diagnosed as the cause for CHF. Furthermore, the incidence of comorbidity increased significantly: atrial fibrillation was detected in 12.3% of patients in 2002 and 26.4% in 2021 (p < 0.001); type 2 diabetes mellitus, in 14.3 and 32% of patients (p <0.001); and obesity, in 33.3 and 43.7% of patients, respectively (p=0.018). The frequency of using the major groups of drugs increased during the analyzed period: renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers were administered to 71.9% of patients in 2002 and to 87.7% in 2021 (p<0.001); beta-blockers were administered to 53.3 and 82.4% of patients (p<0.001); and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, to 1.9 and 18.6% of patients, respectively (p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

In 2021, the proportion of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CHF in the patient cohort admitted to a cardiology hospital was twice as high as in 2002; the phenotype with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction predominated in the CHF structure. During the analyzed twenty-year period, the prevalence of comorbidities increased among CHF patients. The prescription frequency of pathogenetic evidence-based therapy has significantly increased by 2021, however, it remains insufficient even in patients with CHF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Harnessing the Synergy of SGLT2 Inhibitors and Continuous Ketone Monitoring (CKM) in Managing Heart Failure among Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

Heart failure (HF) management in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is particularly challenging due to its increased prevalence and the associated risks of hospitalization and mortality, driven by diabetic cardiomyopathy. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-is) offer a promising avenue for treating HF, specifically the preserved ejection fraction variant most common in T1D, but their utility is hampered by the risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). This review investigates the potential of SGLT2-is in T1D HF management alongside emergent Continuous Ketone Monitoring (CKM) technology as a means to mitigate DKA risk through a comprehensive analysis of clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews. The evidence suggests that SGLT2-is significantly reduce HF hospitalization and enhance cardiovascular outcomes. However, their application in T1D patients remains limited due to DKA concerns. CKM technology emerges as a crucial tool in this context, offering real-time monitoring of ketone levels, which enables the safe incorporation of SGLT2-is into treatment regimes by allowing for early detection and intervention in the development of ketosis. The synergy between SGLT2-is and CKM has the potential to revolutionize HF treatment in T1D, promising improved patient safety, quality of life, and reduced HF-related morbidity and mortality. Future research should aim to employ clinical trials directly assessing this integrated approach, potentially guiding new management protocols for HF in T1D.

Left ventricular and atrial myocardial strain in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the evidence so far and prospects for phenotyping strategy

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents a significant proportion of heart failure cases. Accurate diagnosis is challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of the disease and limitations in traditional echocardiographic parameters.

MAIN BODY

This review appraises the application of Global Longitudinal Strain (GLS) and Left Atrial Strain (LAS) as echocardiographic biomarkers in the diagnosis and phenotyping of HFpEF. Strain imaging, particularly Speckle Tracking Echocardiography, offers a superior assessment of myocardial deformation, providing a more detailed insight into left heart function than traditional metrics. Normal ranges for GLS and LAS are considered, acknowledging the impact of demographic and technical factors on these values. Clinical studies have demonstrated the prognostic value of GLS and LAS in HFpEF, especially in predicting cardiovascular outcomes and distinguishing HFpEF from other causes of dyspnea. Nevertheless, the variability of strain measurements and the potential for false-negative results underline the need for careful clinical interpretation. The HFA-PEFF scoring system's integration of these biomarkers, although systematic, reveals gaps in addressing the full spectrum of HFpEF pathology. The combined use of GLS and LAS has been suggested to define HFpEF phenogroups, which could lead to more personalized treatment plans.

CONCLUSION

GLS and LAS have emerged as pivotal tools in the non-invasive diagnosis and stratification of HFpEF, offering a promise for tailored therapeutic strategies. Despite their potential, a structured approach to incorporating these biomarkers into standard diagnostic workflows is essential. Future clinical guidelines should include clear directives for the combined utilization of GLS and LAS, accentuating their role in the multidimensional assessment of HFpEF.

Novel Strategies in Diagnosing Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a prevalent global condition affecting approximately 50% of the HF population. With the aging of the worldwide population, its incidence and prevalence are expected to rise even further. Unfortunately, until recently, no effective medications were available to reduce the high mortality and hospitalization rates associated with HFpEF, making it a significant unmet need in cardiovascular medicine. Although HFpEF is commonly defined as HF with normal ejection fraction and elevated left ventricular filling pressure, performing invasive hemodynamic assessments on every individual suspected of having HFpEF is neither feasible nor practical. Consequently, several clinical criteria and diagnostic tools have been proposed to aid in diagnosing HFpEF. Overall, these criteria and tools are designed to assist healthcare professionals in identifying and evaluating patients who may have HFpEF based on a combination of signs, symptoms, biomarkers, and non-invasive imaging findings. By employing these non-invasive diagnostic approaches, clinicians can make informed decisions regarding the best pharmacological and rehabilitation strategies for individuals with suspected HFpEF. This literature review aims to provide an overview of all currently available methods for diagnosing and monitoring this disabling condition.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: The Pathophysiological Mechanisms behind the Clinical Phenotypes and the Therapeutic Approach

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an increasingly frequent form and is estimated to be the dominant form of HF. On the other hand, HFpEF is a syndrome with systemic involvement, and it is characterized by multiple cardiac and extracardiac pathophysiological alterations. The increasing prevalence is currently reaching epidemic levels, thereby making HFpEF one of the greatest challenges facing cardiovascular medicine today. Compared to HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the medical attitude in the case of HFpEF was a relaxed one towards the disease, despite the fact that it is much more complex, with many problems related to the identification of physiopathogenetic mechanisms and optimal methods of treatment. The current medical challenge is to develop effective therapeutic strategies, because patients suffering from HFpEF have symptoms and quality of life comparable to those with reduced ejection fraction, but the specific medication for HFrEF is ineffective in this situation; for this, we must first understand the pathological mechanisms in detail and correlate them with the clinical presentation. Another important aspect of HFpEF is the diversity of patients that can be identified under the umbrella of this syndrome. Thus, before being able to test and develop effective therapies, we must succeed in grouping patients into several categories, called phenotypes, depending on the pathological pathways and clinical features. This narrative review critiques issues related to the definition, etiology, clinical features, and pathophysiology of HFpEF. We tried to describe in as much detail as possible the clinical and biological phenotypes recognized in the literature in order to better understand the current therapeutic approach and the reason for the limited effectiveness. We have also highlighted possible pathological pathways that can be targeted by the latest research in this field.

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.

Systemic Arterial Oxygen Levels Differentiate Pre- and Post-capillary Predominant Hemodynamic Abnormalities During Exercise in Undifferentiated Dyspnea on Exertion

BACKGROUND

Whether systemic oxygen levels (SaO2) during exercise can provide a window into invasively derived exercise hemodynamic profiles in patients with undifferentiated dyspnea on exertion is unknown.

METHODS

We performed cardiopulmonary exercise testing with invasive hemodynamic monitoring and arterial blood gas sampling in individuals referred for dyspnea on exertion. Receiver operator analysis was performed to distinguish heart failure with preserved ejection fraction from pulmonary arterial hypertension.

RESULTS

Among 253 patients (mean ± SD, age 63 ± 14 years, 55% female, arterial O2 [PaO2] 87 ± 14 mmHg, SaO2 96% ± 4%, resting pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [PCWP] 18 ± 4mmHg, and pulmonary vascular resistance [PVR] 2.7 ± 1.2 Wood units), there was no exercise PCWP threshold, measured up to 49 mmHg, above which hypoxemia was consistently observed. Exercise PaO2 was not correlated with exercise PCWP (rho = 0.04; P = 0.51) but did relate to exercise PVR (rho = -0.46; P < 0.001). Exercise PaO2 and SaO2 levels distinguished left-heart-predominant dysfunction from pulmonary-vascular-predominant dysfunction with an area under the curve of 0.89 and 0.89, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Systemic O2 levels during exercise distinguish relative pre- and post-capillary pulmonary hemodynamic abnormalities in patients with undifferentiated dyspnea. Hypoxemia during upright exercise should not be attributed to isolated elevation in left heart filling pressures and should prompt consideration of pulmonary vascular dysfunction.

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.

Proteomics and Precise Exercise Phenotypes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

While exercise impairments are central to symptoms and diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), prior studies of HFpEF biomarkers have mostly focused on resting phenotypes. We combined precise exercise phenotypes with cardiovascular proteomics to identify protein signatures of HFpEF exercise responses and new potential therapeutic targets.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed 277 proteins (Olink) in 151 individuals (N=103 HFpEF, 48 controls; 62±11 years; 56% women) with cardiopulmonary exercise testing with invasive monitoring. Using ridge regression adjusted for age/sex, we defined proteomic signatures of 5 physiological variables involved in HFpEF: peak oxygen uptake, peak cardiac output, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure/cardiac output slope, peak pulmonary vascular resistance, and peak peripheral O2 extraction. Multiprotein signatures of each of the exercise phenotypes captured a significant proportion of variance in respective exercise phenotypes. Interrogating the importance (ridge coefficient magnitude) of specific proteins in each signature highlighted proteins with putative links to HFpEF pathophysiology (eg, inflammatory, profibrotic proteins), and novel proteins linked to distinct physiologies (eg, proteins involved in multiorgan [kidney, liver, muscle, adipose] health) were implicated in impaired O2 extraction. In a separate sample (N=522, 261 HF events), proteomic signatures of peak oxygen uptake and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure/cardiac output slope were associated with incident HFpEF (odds ratios, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.50-0.90] and 1.43 [95% CI, 1.11-1.85], respectively) with adjustment for clinical factors and B-type natriuretic peptides.

CONCLUSIONS

The cardiovascular proteome is associated with precision exercise phenotypes in HFpEF, suggesting novel mechanistic targets and potential methods for risk stratification to prevent HFpEF early in its pathogenesis.

Obesity-Related Biomarkers Are Associated With Exercise Intolerance and HFpEF

BACKGROUND

Obesity and adiposity are associated with an increased risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); yet, specific underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We sought to examine the association of obesity-related biomarkers including adipokines (leptin, resistin, adiponectin), inflammatory markers (CRP [C-reactive protein], IL-6 [interleukin-6]), and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) with HFpEF status, exercise capacity, and cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

We studied 509 consecutive patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% and chronic dyspnea, who underwent clinically indicated cardiopulmonary exercise test with invasive hemodynamic monitoring between 2006 and 2017. We defined HFpEF based on the presence of elevated left ventricular filling pressures at rest or during exercise. Fasting blood samples collected at the time of the cardiopulmonary exercise test were used to assay obesity-related biomarkers. We examined the association of log-transformed biomarkers with HFpEF status and exercise traits using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models.

RESULTS

We observed associations of obesity-related biomarkers with measures of impaired exercise capacity including peak VO2 (P≤0.002 for all biomarkers). The largest effect size was seen with leptin, where a 1-SD higher leptin was associated with a 2.35 mL/kg per min lower peak VO2 (β, -2.35±0.19; P<0.001). In addition, specific biomarkers were associated with distinct measures of exercise reserve including blood pressure (homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, leptin, adiponectin; P≤0.002 for all), and chronotropic response (CRP, IL-6, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, leptin, and resistin; P<0.05 for all). Our findings suggest that among the obesity-related biomarkers studied, higher levels of leptin and CRP are independently associated with increased odds of HFpEF, with odds ratios of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.09-1.70) and 1.25 (95% CI, 1.03-1.52), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific obesity-related pathways including inflammation, adipokine signaling, and insulin resistance may underlie the association of obesity with HFpEF and exercise intolerance.

[Pulmonary hypertension associated with left heart disease (group 2)]

Pulmonary hypertension associated with left heart disease (PH-LHD) corresponds to group two of pulmonary hypertension according to clinical classification. Haemodynamically, this group includes isolated post-capillary pulmonary hypertension (IpcPH) and combined post- and pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension (CpcPH). PH-LHD is defined by an mPAP > 20 mmHg and a PAWP > 15 mmHg, pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) with a cut-off value of 2 Wood Units (WU) is used to differentiate between IpcPH and CpcPH. A PVR greater than 5 WU indicates a dominant precapillary component. PH-LHD is the most common form of pulmonary hypertension, the leading cause being left heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF, HFrEF), valvular heart disease and, less commonly, congenital heart disease. The presence of pulmonary hypertension is associated with increased symptom burden and poorer outcome across the spectrum of left heart disease. Differentiating between group 1 pulmonary hypertension with cardiac comorbidities and PH-LHD, especially due to HFpEF, is a particular challenge. Therapeutically, no general recommendation for the use of PDE5 inhibitors in HFpEF-associated CpcPH can be made at this time. There is currently no reliable rationale for the use of PAH drugs in IpcPH, nor is therapy with endothelin receptor antagonists or prostacyclin analogues recommended for all forms of PH-LHD.

Effect of diabetes mellitus on association between galectin-3 and H2FPEF score in patients with unexplained dyspnea and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on the association between Galectin-3 (Gal-3) and the H2FPEF score in patients with unexplained dyspnea and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on patients with unexplained dyspnea and a preserved LVEF in the Cardiology Department of Elazıg Medical Park Hospital, Turkey. The patients were evaluated based on the presence of DM and the H2FPEF score. Gal-3 levels were compared between groups, and the effect of DM on Gal-3 was assessed. The level of statistical significance in all tests was set at p < .05.

RESULTS

Gal-3 and H2FPEF scores were higher in patients with DM (p < .001 and p = .027, respectively). Gal-3 and HbA1C values were elevated in patients with moderate to high H2FPEF scores (p < .01 and p = .036, respectively). DM and Hypertension were more prevalent in patients with moderate to high H2FPEF scores (p = 0.024, p < 0.001, respectively). A strong correlation was observed between Gal-3 and the H2FPEF score (r = 0.375, p < .001). Gal-3 could predict patients with a moderate to high H2FPEF score using a cut-off value of 14.7, with a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 67% (AUC: 0.702).

CONCLUSIONS

Gal-3 serves as an independent predictor of the H2FPEF score in the presence of DM, and the diagnostic capability of Gal-3 for Heart Failure with preserved LVEF remains unaffected by DM.

What are the outcomes of dietary interventions in Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To determine the efficacy of dietary interventions in Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF).

METHOD AND RESULTS

Keyword searches were performed in five bibliographic databases to identify randomized or controlled studies of dietary interventions conducted in HFpEF or mixed heart failure (HF) samples published in the English language. Studies were appraised for bias and synthesized into seven categories based on the similarity of the intervention or targeted population. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed via the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. Twenty-five unique interventions were identified; 17 were considered for meta-analysis. Most studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. There was moderate-quality evidence that caloric restriction led to clinically meaningful improvements in blood pressure and body weight. There was moderate-quality evidence that carbohydrate restriction resulted in meaningful reductions in blood pressure. There was very low-quality evidence that protein supplementation improved blood pressure and body weight and moderate-quality evidence for clinically meaningful improvements in function.

CONCLUSIONS

While some types of dietary interventions appeared to deliver clinically meaningful change in critical outcomes; the study heterogeneity and overall quality of the evidence make it difficult to make firm recommendations. Greater transparency when reporting the nutritional composition of interventions would enhance the ability to pool studies.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019145388.

Right Heart Adaptation to Exercise in Pulmonary Hypertension: An Invasive Hemodynamic Study

BACKGROUND

Right heart failure (RHF) is associated with a dismal prognosis in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). Exercise right heart catheterization may unmask right heart maladaptation as a sign of RHF. We sought to (1) define the normal limits of right atrial pressure (RAP) increase during exercise; (2) describe the right heart adaptation to exercise in PH owing to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (PH-HFpEF) and in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH); and (3) identify the factors associated with right heart maladaptation during exercise.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed rest and exercise right heart catheterization from patients with PH-HFpEF and PAH. Right heart adaptation was described by absolute or cardiac output (CO)-normalized changes of RAP during exercise. Individuals with noncardiac dyspnea (NCD) served to define abnormal RAP responses (>97.5th percentile). Thirty patients with PH-HFpEF, 30 patients with PAH, and 21 patients with NCD were included. PH-HFpEF were older than PAH, with more cardiovascular comorbidities, and a higher prevalence of severe tricuspid regurgitation (P < .05). The upper limit of normal for peak RAP and RAP/CO slope in NCD were >12 mm Hg and ≥1.30 mm Hg/L/min, respectively. PH-HFpEF had higher peak RAP and RAP/CO slope than PAH (20 mm Hg [16-24 mm Hg] vs 12 mm Hg [9-19 mm Hg] and 3.47 mm Hg/L/min [2.02-6.19 mm Hg/L/min] vs 1.90 mm Hg/L/min [1.01-4.29 mm Hg/L/min], P < .05). A higher proportion of PH-HFpEF had RAP/CO slope and peak RAP above normal (P < .001). Estimated stressed blood volume at peak exercise was higher in PH-HFpEF than PAH (P < .05). In the whole PH cohort, the RAP/CO slope was associated with age, the rate of increase in estimated stressed blood volume during exercise, severe tricuspid regurgitation, and right atrial dilation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PH-HFpEF display a steeper increase of RAP during exercise than those with PAH. Preload-mediated mechanisms may play a role in the development of exercise-induced RHF.

Pulmonary artery wedge pressure and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure during exercise in patients with dyspnoea

Background

Pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) during exercise, as a surrogate for left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic pressure (EDP), is used to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, LVEDP is the gold standard to assess LV filling, end-diastolic PAWP (PAWPED) is supposed to coincide with LVEDP and mean PAWP throughout the cardiac cycle (PAWPM) better reflects the haemodynamic load imposed on the pulmonary circulation. The objective of the present study was to determine precision and accuracy of PAWP estimates for LVEDP during exercise, as well as the rate of agreement between these measures.

Methods

46 individuals underwent simultaneous right and left heart catheterisation, at rest and during exercise, to confirm/exclude HFpEF. We evaluated: linear regression between LVEDP and PAWP, Bland-Altman graphs, and the rate of concordance of dichotomised LVEDP and PAWP ≥ or < diagnostic thresholds for HFpEF.

Results

At peak exercise, PAWPM and LVEDP, as well as PAWPED and LVEDP, were fairly correlated (R2>0.69, p<0.01), with minimal bias (+2 and 0 mmHg respectively) but large limits of agreement (±11 mmHg). 89% of individuals had concordant PAWP and LVEDP ≥ or <25 mmHg (Cohen's κ=0.64). Individuals with either LVEDP or PAWPM ≥25 mmHg showed a PAWPM increase relative to cardiac output (CO) changes (PAWPM/CO slope) >2 mmHg·L-1·min-1.

Conclusions

During exercise, PAWP is accurate but not precise for the estimation of LVEDP. Despite a good rate of concordance, these two measures might occasionally disagree.

Inflammation as a therapeutic target in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for around half of all cases of heart failure and may become the dominant type of heart failure in the near future. Unlike HF with reduced ejection fraction there are few evidence-based treatment strategies available. There is a significant unmet need for new strategies to improve clinical outcomes in HFpEF patients. Inflammation is widely thought to play a key role in HFpEF pathophysiology and may represent a viable treatment target. In this review focusing predominantly on clinical studies, we will summarise the role of inflammation in HFpEF and discuss potential therapeutic strategies targeting inflammation.

Haemodynamic validation of the three-step HFA-PEFF algorithm to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

The HFA-PEFF algorithm (Heart Failure Association-Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide score, Functional testing in cases of uncertainty, Final aetiology) is a three-step algorithm to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). It provides a three-level likelihood of HFpEF: low (score < 2), intermediate (score 2-4), or high (score > 4). HFpEF may be confirmed in individuals with a score > 4 (rule-in approach). The second step of the algorithm is based on echocardiographic features and natriuretic peptide levels. The third step implements diastolic stress echocardiography (DSE) for controversial diagnostic cases. We sought to validate the three-step HFA-PEFF algorithm against a haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF based on rest and exercise right heart catheterization (RHC).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Seventy-three individuals with exertional dyspnoea underwent a full diagnostic work-up following the HFA-PEFF algorithm, including DSE and rest/exercise RHC. The association between the HFA-PEFF score and a haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF, as well as the diagnostic performance of the HFA-PEFF algorithm vs. RHC, was assessed. The diagnostic performance of left atrial (LA) strain < 24.5% and LA strain/E/E' < 3% was also assessed. The probability of HFpEF was low/intermediate/high in 8%/52%/40% of individuals at the second step of the HFA-PEFF algorithm and 8%/49%/43% at the third step. After RHC, 89% of patients were diagnosed as HFpEF and 11% as non-cardiac dyspnoea. The HFA-PEFF score resulted associated with the invasive haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF (P < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of the HFA-PEFF score for the invasive haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF were 45% and 100% for the second step of the algorithm and 46% and 88% for the third step of the algorithm. Neither age, sex, body mass index, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation influenced the performance of the HFA-PEFF algorithm, as these characteristics were similarly distributed over the true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative cases. Sensitivity of the second step of the HFA-PEFF score was non-significantly improved to 60% (P = 0.08) by lowering the rule-in threshold to >3. LA strain alone had a sensitivity and specificity of 39% and 14% for haemodynamic HFpEF, increasing to 55% and 22% when corrected for E/E'.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with rest/exercise RHC, the HFA-PEFF score lacks sensitivity: Half of the patients were wrongly classified as non-cardiac dyspnoea after non-invasive tests, with a minimal impact of DSE in modifying HFpEF likelihood.

How to Manage Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Practical Guidance for Clinicians

Although patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%) comprise nearly half of those with chronic heart failure, evidence-based treatment options for this population have historically been limited. Recently, however, emerging data from prospective, randomized trials enrolling patients with HFpEF have greatly altered the range of pharmacologic options to modify disease progression in selected patients with HFpEF. In the context of this evolving landscape, clinicians are increasingly in need of practical guidance regarding the best approach to management of this growing population. In this review, we build on the recently published heart failure guidelines by integrating contemporary data from recent randomized trials to provide a contemporary framework for diagnosis and evidence-based treatment of patients with HFpEF. Where gaps in knowledge persist, we provide "best available" data from post hoc analyses of clinical trials or data from observational studies to guide management until more definitive studies are available.

Functional and Metabolic Imaging in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Promises, Challenges, and Clinical Utility

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is recognised as an increasingly prevalent, morbid and burdensome condition with a poor outlook. Recent advances in both the understanding of HFpEF and the technological ability to image cardiac function and metabolism in humans have simultaneously shone a light on the molecular basis of this complex condition of diastolic dysfunction, and the inflammatory and metabolic changes that are associated with it, typically in the context of a complex patient. This review both makes the case for an integrated assessment of the condition, and highlights that metabolic alteration may be a measurable outcome for novel targeted forms of medical therapy. It furthermore highlights how recent technological advancements and advanced medical imaging techniques have enabled the characterisation of the metabolism and function of HFpEF within patients, at rest and during exercise.

The controversial role of beta-blockers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Beta-blocker (BB) therapy is a main pillar in treating patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and has shown a prognostic benefit. However, evidence for application of BB in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), especially in the absence of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation or arterial hypertension, is scarce. HFpEF is characterized by elevations in left atrial pressure and reduced compliance of the left ventricle leading to a hampered increase of cardiac output (CO) during exercise, which results in exertional dyspnea. This may be due to either a limited increase in stroke volume or reduced chronotropy during physical activity. We critically discuss the pathophysiological background of HFpEF, current data on BB in heart failure therapy, as well as the potential benefits and harms of BB therapy in HFpEF. Furthermore, we argue that non-cardio selective BB with peripheral activity to reduce afterload may be more suitable in this population than cardio-selective BB. Although preliminary data on BB in HFpEF are available, multicenter prospective trials to assess a reduction of cardiovascular morbidity are warranted. Future trials need to focus on phenotyping HFpEF patients and assess who may benefit most from tailored BB therapy.

Malnutrition in real-world patients hospitalized for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and its potential impact on generalizability of EMPEROR-Preserved trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) empagliflozin, its suitability for patients with heart failure (HF) in the real-world setting remains unclear. Considering the unique pharmacological profile of SGLT2i (e.g., glucose excretion leading to calorie loss) and increasingly aging patients with HF, applicability of trials' finding in patients with malnutrition is important.

METHODS

We examined 1633 consecutive patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; >40%) enrolled in a multicenter-based acute HF registry. After applying the EMPEROR-Preserved eligibility criteria, we compared the baseline characteristics of trial-eligible and actual trial participants, and patients with and without malnutrition among the trial-eligible group. Malnutrition was assessed by the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI). The trial-eligible patients were divided into high (GNRI≥92) and low (GNRI<92) nutritional groups, and a composite endpoint comprising all-cause death and HF rehospitalization was evaluated.

RESULTS

Majority (70.2%) of the analyzed patients were eligible for the EMPEROR-Preserved trial (age: 77 ± 12 years and body mass index [BMI]: 22.0 ± 4.1 kg/m²), but were older and had lower BMIs than the actual trial participants. Notably, 51.9% of the eligible patients were at high risk for malnutrition and had a higher rate of the composite endpoint than non-malnourished counterparts (HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.04-1.56, P = 0.020). The difference in outcomes was predominantly due to mortality from non-cardiac causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Mostly patients with HF in a real-world setting met the EMPEROR-Preserved criteria; however, approximately half were at high risk for malnutrition with poorer outcomes owing to non-cardiac-related causes.

Diagnostic signature for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): a machine learning approach using multi-modality electronic health record data

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is thought to be highly prevalent yet remains underdiagnosed. Evidence-based treatments are available that increase quality of life and decrease hospitalization. We sought to develop a data-driven diagnostic model to predict from electronic health records (EHR) the likelihood of HFpEF among patients with unexplained dyspnea and preserved left ventricular EF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The derivation cohort comprised patients with dyspnea and echocardiography results. Structured and unstructured data were extracted using an automated informatics pipeline. Patients were retrospectively diagnosed as HFpEF (cases), non-HF (control cohort I), or HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; control cohort II). The ability of clinical parameters and investigations to discriminate cases from controls was evaluated by extreme gradient boosting. A likelihood scoring system was developed and validated in a separate test cohort. The derivation cohort included 1585 consecutive patients: 133 cases of HFpEF (9%), 194 non-HF cases (Control cohort I) and 1258 HFrEF cases (Control cohort II). Two HFpEF diagnostic signatures were derived, comprising symptoms, diagnoses and investigation results. A final prediction model was generated based on the averaged likelihood scores from these two models. In a validation cohort consisting of 269 consecutive patients [with 66 HFpEF cases (24.5%)], the diagnostic power of detecting HFpEF had an AUROC of 90% (P < 0.001) and average precision of 74%.

CONCLUSION

This diagnostic signature enables discrimination of HFpEF from non-cardiac dyspnea or HFrEF from EHR and can assist in the diagnostic evaluation in patients with unexplained dyspnea. This approach will enable identification of HFpEF patients who may then benefit from new evidence-based therapies.

Effect of pharmacological treatment on outcomes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Optimal treatment strategies for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain uncertain. The goal of this study was to compare the treatment effects of different therapeutic agents for patients with HFpEF.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before June 2022 were searched from PubMed, Clinical Trials gov, and the Cochrane Central Register databases. Combined odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the primary and secondary outcomes. All-cause death was the primary endpoint and cardiac death, hospitalization for HF, and worsening HF (WHF) events were secondary endpoints in this meta-analysis.

Results

Fifteen RCTs including 31,608 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All-cause and cardiac death were not significantly correlated between drug treatments and placebo. Compared with placebo, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors significantly reduced HF hospitalizations [odds ratio (OR) = 0.64, (95% confidence interval (95%CI 0.43 − 0.96), OR = 0.73, (95%CI 0.61 − 0.86), and OR = 0.74, (95%CI 0.66 − 0.83), respectively] without heterogeneity among studies. Only SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced WHF events [OR = 0.75, (95%CI 0.67 − 0.83)].

Conclusions

No treatments were effective in reducing mortality, but ARNIs, ACEIs or SGLT2 inhibitors reduced HF hospitalizations and only SGLT2 inhibitors reduced WHF events for patients with HFpEF.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12933-022-01679-2.

Exercise haemodynamics in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Exercise right heart catheterization (RHC) is considered the gold-standard test to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, exercise RHC is an insufficiently standardized technique, and current haemodynamic thresholds to define HFpEF are not universally accepted. We sought to describe the exercise haemodynamics profile of HFpEF cohorts reported in literature, as compared with control subjects.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic literature review until December 2020. Studies reporting pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) at rest and peak exercise were extracted. Summary estimates of all haemodynamic variables were evaluated, stratified according to body position (supine/upright exercise). The PAWP/cardiac output (CO) slope during exercise was extrapolated. Twenty-seven studies were identified, providing data for 2180 HFpEF patients and 682 controls. At peak exercise, patients with HFpEF achieved higher PAWP (30 [29-31] vs. 16 [15-17] mmHg, P < 0.001) and mean right atrial pressure (P < 0.001) than controls. These differences persisted after adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, and body position. However, peak PAWP values were highly heterogeneous among the cohorts (I²  = 93%), with a relative overlap with controls. PAWP/CO slope was steeper in HFpEF than in controls (3.75 [3.20-4.28] vs. 0.95 [0.30-1.59] mmHg/L/min, P value < 0.0001), even after adjustment for covariates (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite methodological heterogeneity, as well as heterogeneity of pooled haemodynamic estimates, the exercise haemodynamic profile of HFpEF patients is consistent across studies and characterized by a steep PAWP rise during exercise. More standardization of exercise haemodynamics may be advisable for a wider application in clinical practice.

Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction as an Exercise Deficiency Syndrome: JACC Focus Seminar 2/4

Across differing spectrums of cardiac function and cardiac pathologies, there are strong associations between measures of cardiorespiratory fitness and burden of symptoms, quality of life, and prognosis. In this part 2 of a 4-part series, we contend that there is a strong association among physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, and cardiac function. We argue that a chronic lack of exercise is a major risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in some patients. In support of this hypothesis, increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, greater stroke volumes, greater cardiac output and peak oxygen consumption, and fewer clinical events. Conversely, physical inactivity results in cardiac atrophy, reduced output, reduced chamber size, and decreased ability to augment cardiac performance with exercise. Moreover, physical inactivity is a strong predictor of heart failure risk and death. In sum, exercise deficiency should be considered part of the broad heart failure with preserved ejection fraction phenotype.

Exercise training ameliorates myocardial phenotypes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction by changing N6-methyladenosine modification in mice model

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) shows complicated and not clearly defined etiology and pathogenesis. Although no pharmacotherapeutics have improved the survival rate in HFpEF, exercise training has become an efficient intervention to improve functional outcomes. Here, we investigated N6-methyladenosine (m6A) RNA methylation modification in a “two-hit” mouse model with HFpEF and HFpEF with exercise (HFpEF + EXT). The manner of m6A in HFpEF and HFpEF + EXT hearts was explored via m6A-specific methylated RNA immunoprecipitation followed by high-throughput and RNA sequencing methods. A total amount of 3992 novel m6A peaks were spotted in HFpEF + EXT, and 426 differently methylated sites, including 371 hypermethylated and 55 hypomethylated m6A sites, were singled out for further analysis (fold change &gt;2, p &lt; 0.05). According to gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analyses, unique m6A-modified transcripts in HFpEF + EXT were associated with apoptosis-related pathway and myocardial energy metabolism. HFpEF + EXT had higher total m6A levels and downregulated fat mass and obesity-related (FTO) protein levels. Overexpression of FTO cancels out the benefits of exercise in HFpEF + EXT mice by promoting myocyte apoptosis, myocardial fibrosis and myocyte hypertrophy. Totally, m6A is a significant alternation of epitranscriptomic processes, which is also a potentially meaningful therapeutic target.

Pressure–flow responses to exercise in aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation and diastolic dysfunction

Background

Haemodynamic exercise testing is important for evaluating patients with dyspnoea on exertion and preserved ejection fraction. Despite very different pathologies, patients with pressure (aortic stenosis (AS)) and volume (mitral regurgitation (MR)) overload and diastolic dysfunction after recent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reach similar filling pressure levels with exercise. The pressure–flow relationships (the association between change in cardiac output (∆CO) and change in pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (∆PAWP) may provide insight into haemodynamic adaptation to exercise in these groups.

Methods and results

One hundred sixty-eight subjects aged >50 years with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50% underwent invasive exercise testing. They were enrolled in four different studies: AS (40 patients), AMI (52 patients), MR (43 patients) and 33 healthy subjects. Haemodynamic data were measured at rest, at 25 W, 75 W and at peak exercise. In all groups, PAWP increased with exercise. The greatest increase was observed in patients with AMI (from 12.7±3.9 mm Hg to 33.1±8.2 mm Hg, p<0.0001) and patients with AS (from 11.8±3.9 mm Hg to 31.4±6.1 mm Hg, p<0.0001), and the smallest was observed in healthy subjects (from 8.3±2.4 mm Hg to 21.1±7.5 mm Hg, p<0.0001). In all groups, the relative pressure increase was greatest at the beginning of the exercise. CO increased most in healthy patients (from 5.3±1.1 to 16.0±3.0 L/min, p<0.0001) and least in patients with AS (from 5.3±1.2 L/min to 12.4±2.6 L/min, p<0.0001). The pressure–flow relationships (∆PAWP/∆CO) and differed among groups (p=0.02). In all groups, the pressure–flow relationship was steepest in the initial phase of the exercise test. The AMI and AS groups (2.3±1.2 mm Hg/L/min and 3.0±1.3 mm Hg/L/min, AMI and AS, respectively) had the largest overall pressure–flow relationship; the healthy group had the smallest initially and at peak exercise (1.3±1.1 mm Hg/L/min) followed by MR group (1.9±1.4 mm Hg/L/min).

Conclusion

The pressure–flow relationship was steepest in the initial phase of the exercise test in all groups. The pressure–flow relationship differs between groups.

Trial registration numbers

NCT01974557, NCT01046838, NCT02961647 and NCT02395107.

Prognostic Value of HFA-PEFF Score in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background

The HFA-PEFF score may help in predicting long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF).

Methods

We retrieved data from 1,332 patients undergoing TAVI between 2010 and 2019 from the Prospective Segeberg TAVI Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192774). We calculated the HFA-PEFF score for 1,022 patients who had preserved EF (≥50%). To assess the prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF score in predicting adverse events, we dichotomised the patients according to a cut-off score of five (score <5 group: n=528 (51.6%), score ≥5 group: n=494 (48.3%)).

Results

The HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups were older (81.9±6.3 years vs. 80.3±6.9 years; p<0.001) and had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (35.1% vs 20.8%; p<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (30.1% vs 26.1%; p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses over 24 months showed increased cardiovascular (CV) mortality (12.5% vs. 7.7%, log-rank; p=0.028) and first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (7.7% vs. 4.0%, log-rank p=0.014) in the HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups compared with those of lower scores. No significant difference in all-cause mortality between both groups was observed (22.0% vs. 17.9%, log-rank p=0.127). In multivariate analysis, HFA-PEFF score ≥5 failed to predict CV mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.90-2.08, p=0.140) and time to first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (aHR 1.49, 95% CI: 0.83-2.65, p=0.181).

Conclusion

The HFA-PEFF score showed limited value in predicting long-term mortality and adverse heart failure-related events in patients with preserved EF undergoing TAVI. Clinical variables specific to this population could complement the HFA-PEFF score for better risk prediction.

The role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Current classifications of HF categorize patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or greater as HF with preserved ejection fraction or HFpEF. Echocardiography is the first line imaging modality in assessing diastolic function given its practicality, low cost and the utilization of Doppler imaging. However, the last decade has seen cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) emerge as a valuable test for the sometimes challenging diagnosis of HFpEF. The unique ability of CMR for myocardial tissue characterization coupled with high resolution imaging provides additional information to echocardiography that may help in phenotyping HFpEF and provide prognostication for patients with HF. The precision and accuracy of CMR underlies its use in clinical trials for the assessment of novel and repurposed drugs in HFpEF. Importantly, CMR has powerful diagnostic utility in differentiating acquired and inherited heart muscle diseases presenting as HFpEF such as Fabry disease and amyloidosis with specific treatment options to reverse or halt disease progression. This state of the art review will outline established CMR techniques such as transmitral velocities and strain imaging of the left ventricle and left atrium in assessing diastolic function and their clinical application to HFpEF. Furthermore, it will include a discussion on novel methods and future developments such as stress CMR and MR spectroscopy to assess myocardial energetics, which show promise in unraveling the mechanisms behind HFpEF that may provide targets for much needed therapeutic interventions.

Exercise Testing in HFpEF: an Appraisal Through Diagnosis, Pathophysiology and Therapy A Clinical Consensus Statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) universally complain of exercise intolerance and dyspnoea as key clinical correlates. Cardiac as well as extracardiac components play a role for the limited exercise capacity, including an impaired cardiac and peripheral vascular reserve, a limitation in mechanical ventilation and/or gas exchange with reduced pulmonary vascular reserve, skeletal muscle dysfunction and iron deficiency/anaemia. Although most of these components can be differentiated and quantified through gas exchange analysis by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), the information provided by objective measures of exercise performance have not been systematically considered in the recent algorithms/scores for HFpEF diagnosis, neither by European nor US groups. The current Clinical Consensus Statement by the HFA and EAPC Association of the ESC aims at outlining the role of exercise testing and its pathophysiological, clinical and prognostic insights, addressing the implication of a thorough functional evaluation from the diagnostic algorithm to the pathophysiology and treatment perspectives of HFpEF. Along with these goals, we provide a specific analysis on the evidence that CPET is the standard for assessing, quantifying, and differentiating the origin of dyspnoea and exercise impairment and even more so when combined with echo and/or invasive hemodynamic evaluation is here provided. This will lead to improved quality of diagnosis when applying the proposed scores and may also help useful to implement the progressive characterization of the specific HFpEF phenotypes, a critical step toward the delivery of phenotype-specific treatments.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

The Cardiomyocyte in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction-Victim of Its Environment?

Heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) is becoming the predominant form of HF. However, medical therapy that improves cardiovascular outcome in HF patients with almost normal and normal systolic left ventricular function, but diastolic dysfunction is missing. The cause of this unmet need is incomplete understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology, the heterogeneity of the patient population, and poor matching of therapeutic mechanisms and primary pathophysiological processes. Recently, animal models improved understanding of the pathophysiological role of highly prevalent and often concomitantly presenting comorbidity in HFpEF patients. Evidence from these animal models provide first insight into cellular pathophysiology not considered so far in HFpEF disease, promising that improved understanding may provide new therapeutical targets. This review merges observation from animal models and human HFpEF disease with the intention to converge cardiomyocytes pathophysiological aspects and clinical knowledge.

Right atrial pressure represents cumulative cardiac burden in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Right-sided filling pressure is elevated in some patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We hypothesized that right atrial pressure (RAP) would represent the cumulative burden of abnormalities in the left heart, pulmonary vasculature, and the right heart.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Echocardiography was performed in 399 patients with HFpEF. RAP was estimated from inferior vena cava morphology and its respiratory change [estimated right atrial pressure (eRAP)], and patients were divided according to eRAP (3 or ≥8 mmHg). Patients with higher eRAP displayed more severe abnormalities in LV diastolic function as well as right heart structure and function than those with normal eRAP. Cardiac deaths or HF hospitalization occurred in 84 patients over a median follow-up of 19.0 months (interquartile range 6.7-36.9). The presence of higher eRAP was independently associated with an increased risk of the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 2.20 vs. normal eRAP group, 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.62, P = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier curves separating the patients into four groups based on eRAP and E/e' ratio showed that event-free survival varied among the groups, providing an incremental prognostic value of eRAP over E/e' ratio. The classification and regression tree analysis demonstrated that eRAP was the strongest predictor of the outcome followed by right ventricular dimension, E/e' ratio, and estimated right ventricular systolic pressure, stratifying the patients into four risk groups (incident rate 8.8-72.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data may provide new insights into the prognostic role of RAP in the complex pathophysiology of HFpEF and suggest the utility of eRAP for the risk stratification in patients with HFpEF.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

Treatment of heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasingly prevalent, is associated with high morbidity, and has very few effective treatments.Current Concepts: HFpEF is a heterogeneous syndrome arising from the interplay of cardiac (diastolic, systolic dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular dysfunction, left atrial dysfunction, and chronotropic incompetence) and extracardiac (endothelial dysfunction, skeletal muscle abnormality, pulmonary disease, and renal dysfunction) abnormalities. Although various pharmacological therapies of HFpEF have been introduced and studied, most of them showed a limited clinical benefit. With some advancement in the specific phenotype of HFpEF, diuretics, mineralocorticoid antagonists, sacubitril/valsartan, and lifestyle modifications are recommended as important treatments. Recently, EMPEROR-Preserved trials showed that empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for patients with HFpEF, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. Several non-pharmacological therapies, including interatrial septal shunt and pacing therapies, have been introduced and are under investigation.Discussion and Conclusion: HFpEF has been recognized as the single greatest unmet need in cardiovascular medicine. Further research is required to understand the concrete pathophysiology for each phenotype of HFpEF. Prevention and management of comorbidities and risk factors for HFpEF are of great importance. Sodiumglucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may contribute to a change in clinical practice, given the lack of therapeutic options available for patients with HFpEF.