On the search for the right definition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Drug Therapy for Acute and Chronic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction with Hypertension: A State-of-the-Art Review

In this comprehensive state-of-the-art review, we provide an evidence-based analysis of current drug therapies for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the acute and chronic phases with concurrent hypertension. Additionally, we explore the latest developments and emerging evidence on the efficacy, safety, and clinical outcomes of common and novel drug treatments in the management of HFpEF with concurrent hypertension. During the acute phase of HFpEF, intravenous diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and vasodilators are pivotal, while in the chronic phase, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have proven effective in enhancing clinical outcomes. However, the use of calcium channel blockers in HFpEF with hypertension should be approached with caution, owing to their potential negative inotropic effects. We also explored emerging drug therapies for HFpEF, such as sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators, novel MRAs, and ivabradine. Notably, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown promise in reducing heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFpEF, regardless of their diabetic status. Additionally, ARNI and sGC stimulators have demonstrated potential in improving symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life. Nonetheless, additional research is necessary to pinpoint optimal treatment strategies for HFpEF with concurrent hypertension. Furthermore, long-term studies are essential to assess the durability and sustained benefits of emerging drug therapies. Identification of novel targets and mechanisms underlying HFpEF pathophysiology will pave the way for innovative drug development approaches in the management of HFpEF with concurrent hypertension.

Expert proposal to characterize cardiac diseases with normal or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and symptoms of heart failure by comprehensive echocardiography

Currently, the term "heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF)" is based on echocardiographic parameters and clinical symptoms combined with elevated or normal levels of natriuretic peptides. Thus, "HFpEF" as a diagnosis subsumes multiple pathophysiological entities making a uniform management plan for "HFpEF" impossible. Therefore, a more specific characterization of the underlying cardiac pathologies in patients with preserved ejection fraction and symptoms of heart failure is mandatory. The present proposal seeks to offer practical support by a standardized echocardiographic workflow to characterize specific diagnostic entities associated with "HFpEF". It focuses on morphological and functional cardiac phenotypes characterized by echocardiography in patients with normal or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The proposal discusses methodological issues to clarify why and when echocardiography is helpful to improve the diagnosis. Thus, the proposal addresses a systematic echocardiographic approach using a feasible algorithm with weighting criteria for interpretation of echocardiographic parameters related to patients with preserved ejection fraction and symptoms of heart failure. The authors consciously do not use the diagnosis "HFpEF" to avoid misunderstandings. Central illustration: Scheme illustrating the characteristic echocardiographic phenotypes and their combinations in patients with "HFpEF" symptoms with respect to the respective cardiac pathology and pathophysiology as well as the underlying typical disease.

Impact of heart failure on the clinical profile and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with rivaroxaban. Data from the EMIR study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the presence of heart failure (HF) on the clinical profile and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) anticoagulated with rivaroxaban.

METHODS

Observational and non-interventional study that included AF adults recruited from 79 Spanish centers, anticoagulated with rivaroxaban ≥ 6 months before inclusion. Data were analyzed according to baseline HF status.

RESULTS

Out of 1,433 patients, 326 (22.7%) had HF at baseline. Compared to patients without HF, HF patients were older (75.3 ± 9.9 vs. 73.8 ± 9.6 years; p = 0.01), had more diabetes (36.5% vs. 24.3%; p < 0.01), coronary artery disease (28.2% vs. 12.9%; p < 0.01), renal insufficiency (31.7% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.01), higher CHA2DS2-VASc (4.5 ± 1.6 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4; p < 0.01) and HAS-BLED (1.8 ± 1.1 vs. 1.5 ± 1.0; p < 0.01). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, among HF patients, annual rates of stroke/systemic embolism/transient ischemic attack, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularization and cardiovascular death), cardiovascular death, and major bleeding were 1.2%, 3.0%, 2.0%, and 1.4%, respectively. Compared to those patients without HF, HF patients had greater annual rates of MACE (3.0% vs. 0.5%; p < 0.01) and cardiovascular death (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p < 0.01), without significant differences regarding other outcomes, including thromboembolic or bleeding events. Previous HF was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio 3.4; 95% confidence interval 1.6-7.3; p = 0.002) but not for thromboembolic events or major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Among AF patients anticoagulated with rivaroxaban, HF patients had a worse clinical profile and a higher MACE risk and cardiovascular mortality. HF was independently associated with the development of MACE, but not with thromboembolic events or major bleeding.

[The Valsalva load test and spectral tracking echocardiography effectiveness in the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction]

Aim      To determine the applicability of speckle-tracking EchoCG (STE) and the Valsalva maneuver for diagnosis of heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (CHFpEF).Material and methods  Transthoracic STE with simultaneous electrocardiogram (ECG) recording was performed for patients with CHFpEF and healthy sex- and age-matched subjects (control group) at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver. The study was conducted in compliance with standards of Good Clinical Practice and principles of the Helsinki Declaration. The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of the St. Petersburg State University.Results During the Valsalva maneuver, deviations of both global and segmental myocardial strain were more pronounced than at rest. In patients of the study group performing the Valsalva maneuver, LV end-diastolic volume and LV end-systolic volume (99 %) were increased. Heart rate was considerably reduced (significance of difference &gt;99%) in patients with CHFpEF during the Valsalva maneuver compared to the control group. The increased predictive value of these parameters during the Valsalva maneuver can justify the inclusion of this method in early detection and prognostic assessment of CHFpEF.Conclusion      Speckle-tracking EchoCG with the Valsalva maneuver is a noninvasive, generally available, and easily reproducible outpatient method for diagnosis of CHFpEF.

[Applicability of the load dynamometric test and speckle tracking echocardiography in the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction diagnosis]

Aim    To compare myocardial deformation properties in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) and in healthy volunteers at rest and during a dynamometric test; to determine a possibility of using this method for diagnosing HSpEF.Material and methods    STE with simultaneous electrocardiogram recording was performed for patients with HSpEF and healthy volunteers of the control group at rest and during a dynamometric test. The subjects were instructed to maintain a submaximal compression of a hand dynamometer for 3 min and to apply a maximum effort during the last 30 sec while continuing to breathe regularly. Concentrations of markers for myocardial injury and HF were measured. Statistical analytical methods are provided in Results. For other calculations, a MS Office (Microsoft Excel) application software package was used.Results    Differences in myocardial deformation variables between healthy volunteers and HF patients were more obvious during exercise, including changes of the variables from the resting values. As compared with the control group, patients with HFpEF had considerable deviations of the heart rate and the left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLSLV) (significance of differences calculated with ANOVA was higher than 95% and 80%; p&lt;0.05 and p&lt;0.2, respectively). Patients with a significant change in the strain, regardless of the direction of the change, showed a decrease in the left ventricular ejection fraction (EFLV) during the test with a probability above 95% according to the Fischer test. Also, patients with HFpEF had higher concentrations of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and symptoms of HF. Compared to evaluation of overall GLSLV, calculation of deformation variables by segment detected more differences between patients with HFpEF and control subjects.Conclusion    STE with a dynamometric test is an effective, noninvasive method for diagnosing HFpEF that is easy to perform in the outpatient conditions.

Health-related Quality of Life Increases After First-time Acute Myocardial Infarction: a Population-based Study

INTRODUCTION

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) affects patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). AMI may decrease HRQOL, thus negatively affecting QOL. However, the improvements in interventional treatment and early rehabilitation after AMI may have a positive effect on HRQOL.

AIM

We evaluated HRQOL in patients after the first AMI treated in a reference cardiology centre in Poland and assessed which clinical variables affect HRQOL after AMI.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We prospectively evaluated HRQOL in 60 consecutive patients suffering after their first AMI during the index hospitalisation and again after 6 months, using: (i) MacNew, (ii) World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) BREF, and (iii) Short Form (SF) 36.

RESULTS

As measured by the MacNew questionnaire, global, social, and physical functioning did not change (p≥0.063), whereas emotional functioning improved 6 months after AMI, compared to index hospitalisation (p=0.002). As measured by WHOQOL BREF, physical health, psychological health, and environmental functioning did not change (p≥0.321), whereas social relationships improved 6 months after AMI (p=0.042). As assessed by SF-36, the global HRQOL improved after AMI (p=0.044). Patients with improved HRQOL in SF-36 often had a higher baseline body mass index (p=0.046), dyslipidaemia (p=0.046), and lower left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF; p=0.013). LVEF<50% was the only variable associated with improved HRQOL in multivariate analysis (OR 4.463, 95% CI 1.045 - 19.059, p=0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

HRQOL increased 6 months after the first AMI, especially in terms of emotional functioning and social relationships. Patients with LVEF<50% were likely to have improved HRQOL.

Do we need a definition of acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) might soon become the most prevalent type of acute heart failure. Still, despite more than 30 years of research on HFpEF, not only do we lack specific treatment, but also a generally accepted definition of HFpEF. Since 2016, several definitions and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing both diastolic dysfunction and overt HFpEF. However, all of them focus exclusively on chronic (and not acute) HFpEF. Recent studies showed that acute HFpEF may be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea. The aim of our article was to address two questions: (1) why there is a need for specific diagnostic criteria for acute HFpEF, and (2) what such definition of acute HFpEF should encompass.KEY MESSAGES:Several scores and algorithms have been proposed for diagnosing chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), however, so far, there is no definition of acute HFpEF.Acute HFpEF seems to be overdiagnosed in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea.Definition of acute HFpEF should comprise both (1) features of chronic HFpEF and (2) markers of increased left ventricular filling pressures and/or of pulmonary congestion.

Current Status of Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Therapy in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a significantly symptomatic disease and has a poor prognosis similar to that of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Contrary to HFrEF, HFpEF is difficult to diagnose, and the recommended diagnostic algorithm of HFpEF is complicated. Several therapies for HFpEF have failed to reduce mortality or morbidity. HFpEF is thought to be a complex and heterogeneous systemic disorder that has various phenotypes and multiple comorbidities. Therefore, therapeutic strategies of HFpEF need to change depending on the phenotype of the patient. This review highlights the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of HFpEF.

Characteristics and Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation with Respect to the Presence or Absence of Heart Failure. Insights from the Multicenter Polish Atrial Fibrillation (POL-AF) Registry

Background: We aimed to assess characteristics and treatment of AF patients with and without heart failure (HF). Methods: The prospective, observational Polish Atrial Fibrillation (POL-AF) Registry included consecutive patients with AF hospitalized in 10 Polish cardiology centers in 2019–2020. Results: Among 3999 AF patients, 2822 (71%) had HF (AF/HF group). Half of AF/HF patients had preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Compared to patients without HF (AF/non–HF), AF/HF patients were older, more often male, more often had permanent AF, and had more comorbidities. Of AF/HF patients, 98% had class I indications to oral anticoagulation (OAC). Still, 16% of patients were not treated with OAC at hospital admission, and 9%—at discharge (regardless of the presence of HF and its subtypes). Of patients not receiving OAC upon admission, 61% were prescribed OAC (most often apixaban) at discharge. AF/non–HF patients more often converted from AF at admission to sinus rhythm at discharge compared to AF/HF patients (55% vs. 30%), despite cardioversion performed as often in both groups. Class I antiarrhythmics were more often prescribed in AF/non–HF than in AF/HF group (13% vs. 8%), but still as many as 15% of HFpEF patients received them. Conclusions: Over 70% of hospitalized AF patients have coexisting HF. A significant number of AF patients does not receive the recommended OAC.