Search

Aims: Comorbidities play a significant role towards the pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), characterized by abnormal macrovascular function and altered ventricular–vascular coupling. However, our understanding of the role of comorbidities and arterial stiffness in HFpEF remains incomplete. We hypothesized that HFpEF is preceded by a cumulative rise in arterial stiffness as cardiovascular comorbidities accumulate, beyond that associated with ageing. Methods and results: Arterial stiffness was assessed using pulse wave velocity (PWV) in five groups: Group A, healthy volunteers (n = 21); Group B, patients with hypertension (n = 21); Group C, hypertension and diabetes mellitus (n = 20); Group D, HFpEF (n = 21); and Group E, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n = 11). All patients were aged 70 and above. Mean PWV increased from Groups A to D (PWV 10.2, 12.2, 13.0, and 13.7 m/s, respectively) as vascular comorbidities accumulated independent of age, renal function, haemoglobin, obesity (body mass index), smoking status, and hypercholesterolaemia. HFpEF exhibited the highest PWV and HFrEF displayed near‐normal levels (13.7 vs. 10 m/s, P = 0.003). PWV was inversely related to peak oxygen consumption (r = −0.304, P = 0.03) and positively correlated with left ventricular filling pressures (E/e′) on echocardiography (r = −0.307, P = 0.014). Conclusions: This study adds further support to the concept of HFpEF as a disease of the vasculature, underlined by an increasing arterial stiffness that is driven by vascular ageing and accumulating vascular comorbidities, for example, hypertension and diabetes. Reflecting a pulsatile arterial afterload associated with diastolic dysfunction and exercise capacity, PWV may provide a clinically relevant tool to identify at‐risk intermediate phenotypes (e.g. pre‐HFpEF) before overt HFpEF occurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Chronic heart failure (HF) is a common disease and one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are different diseases with distinct as well as comparable pathophysiologies and diverse responses to therapeutic agents. We aimed to identify possible pathobiochemical signalling pathways and biomarkers in HFpEF and HFrEF by using a broad proteomic approach. Methods and results: A total of 180 biomarkers in the plasma of a representative subgroup (71 years old) of HFpEF (70% female) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50% and HFrEF (18% female) with an LVEF ≤ 40% patients (n = 127) from the Prevalence and Clinical Course of Diastolic Dysfunction and Diastolic Heart Failure (DIAST‐CHF) trial were examined and compared with a healthy control group (n = 40; 48% female). We were able to identify 35 proteins that were expressed significantly different in both HF groups compared with the control group. We determine 29 unique proteins expressed in HFpEF and 33 unique proteins in HFrEF. Significantly up‐regulated trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) and down‐regulated contactin‐1 could be identified as previously unknown biomarkers for HF. However, TFF3 is also a predictive factor for the occurrence of a cardiovascular event in HFpEF patients. In HFpEF, serine protease 27 was found at reduced levels for the first time, which could offer a new therapeutic target. Additionally, network analyses showed a special role of platelet‐derived growth factor subunit A, Dickkopf‐related protein 1, and tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 6 in HFpEF patients, whereas perlecan and junctional adhesion molecule A stood out in the HFrEF group. Overall, signalling pathways of metabolic processes, cellular stress, and iron metabolism seemed to be important for HFrEF, whereas for HFpEF, oxygen stress, haemostasis, cell renewal, cell migration, and cell proliferation are in the foreground. Conclusions: The identified proteins and signalling pathways offer new therapeutic and diagnostic approaches for patients with chronic HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last years, major progress occurred in heart failure (HF) management. Quadruple therapy is now mandatory for all the patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Whilst verciguat is becoming available across several countries, omecamtiv mecarbil is waiting to be released for clinical use. Concurrent use of potassium‐lowering agents may counteract hyperkalaemia and facilitate renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor implementations. The results of the EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR‐Preserved) trial were confirmed by the Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction (DELIVER) trial, and we now have, for the first time, evidence for treatment of also patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. In a pre‐specified meta‐analysis of major randomized controlled trials, sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors reduced all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and HF hospitalization in the patients with HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction. Other steps forward have occurred in the treatment of decompensated HF. Acetazolamide in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) trial showed that the addition of intravenous acetazolamide to loop diuretics leads to greater decongestion vs. placebo. The addition of hydrochlorothiazide to loop diuretics was evaluated in the CLOROTIC trial. Torasemide did not change outcomes, compared with furosemide, in TRANSFORM‐HF. Ferric derisomaltose had an effect on the primary outcome of CV mortality or HF rehospitalizations in IRONMAN (rate ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.66–1.02; P = 0.070). Further options for the treatment of HF, including device therapies, cardiac contractility modulation, and percutaneous treatment of valvulopathies, are summarized in this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is one of the most rapidly growing cardiovascular health burden worldwide, but there is still a lack of understanding about the HFpEF pathophysiology. The nitric oxide (NO) signalling pathway has been identified as a potential key element. The aim of our study was to investigate markers of NO metabolism [l‐arginine (l‐Arg), homoarginine (hArg), and asymmetric and symmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA and SDMA)], additional biomarkers [N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP), endothelin‐1 (ET‐1), mid‐regional pro‐adrenomedullin (MR‐proADM), copeptin, and high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein (hsCRP)], and the endothelial function in an integrated approach focusing on associations with clinical characteristics in patients with HFpEF. Methods and results: Seventy‐three patients, prospectively enrolled in the 'German HFpEF Registry', were analysed. Inclusion criteria were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50%; New York Heart Association functional class ≥ II; elevated levels of NT‐proBNP > 125 pg/mL; and at least one additional criterion for structural heart disease or diastolic dysfunction. All patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and pulse amplitude tonometry (EndoPAT™). Patients were categorized in two groups based on their retrospectively calculated HFA‐PEFF score. Serum concentrations of l‐Arg, hArg, ADMA, SDMA, NT‐proBNP, ET‐1, MR‐proADM, copeptin, and hsCRP were determined. Patients had a median age of 74 years, 47% were female, and median LVEF was 57%. Fifty‐two patients (71%) had an HFA‐PEFF score ≥ 5 (definitive HFpEF), and 21 patients (29%) a score of 3 to 4 (risk for HFpEF). Overall biomarker concentrations were 126 ± 32 μmol/L for l‐Arg, 1.67 ± 0.55 μmol/L for hArg, 0.74 (0.60;0.85) μmol/L for SDMA, and 0.61 ± 0.10 μmol/L for ADMA. The median reactive hyperaemia index (RHI) was 1.55 (1.38;1.87). SDMA correlated with NT‐proBNP (r = 0.291; P = 0.013), ET‐1 (r = 0.233; P = 0.047), and copeptin (r = 0.381; P = 0.001). ADMA correlated with ET‐1 (r = 0.250; P = 0.033) and hsCRP (r = 0.303; P = 0.009). SDMA was associated with the left atrial volume index (β = 0.332; P = 0.004), also after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities. Biomarkers were non‐associated with the RHI. A principal component analysis revealed two contrary clusters of biomarkers. Conclusions: Our findings suggest an impaired NO metabolism as one possible key pathogenic determinant in at least a subgroup of patients with HFpEF. We argue for further evaluation of NO‐based therapies. Upcoming studies should clarify whether subgroups of HFpEF patients can take more benefit from therapies that are targeting NO metabolism and pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Evidence on the association between ambient temperature and the onset of acute heart failure (AHF) is scarce and mixed. We sought to investigate the incidence of AHF admissions based on ambient temperature change, with particular interest in detecting the difference between AHF with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: Individualized AHF admission data from January 2015 to December 2016 were obtained from a multicentre registry (Tokyo CCU Network Database). The primary event was the daily number of admissions. A linear regression model, using the lowest ambient temperature as the explanatory variable, was selected for the best‐estimate model. We also applied the cubic spline model using five knots according to the percentiles of the distribution of the lowest ambient temperature. We divided the entire population into HFpEF + HFmrEF and HFrEF for comparison. In addition, the in‐hospital treatment and mortality rates were obtained according to the interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the lowest ambient temperature (IQR1 <5.5°C; IQR25.5–13.3°C; IQR3 13.3–19.7°C; and IQR4 >19.7°C). The number of admissions for HFpEF, HFmrEF and HFrEF were 2736 (36%), 1539 (20%), and 3354 (44%), respectively. The lowest ambient temperature on the admission day was inversely correlated with the admission frequency for both HFpEF + HFmrEF and HFrEF patients, with a stronger correlation in patients with HFpEF + HFmrEF (R2 = 0.25 vs. 0.05, P < 0.001). In the sensitivity analysis, the decrease in the ambient temperature was associated with the greatest incremental increases in HFpEF, followed by HFmrEF and HFrEF patients (3.5% vs. 2.8% vs. 1.5% per −1°C, P < 0.001), with marked increase in admissions of hypertensive patients (systolic blood pressure >140 mmHg vs. 140–100 mmHg vs. <100 mmHg, 3.0% vs. 2.0% vs. 0.8% per −1°C, P for interaction <0.001). A mediator analysis indicated the presence of the mediator effect of systolic blood pressure. The in‐hospital mortality rate (7.5%) did not significantly change according to ambient temperature (P = 0.62). Conclusions: Lower ambient temperature was associated with higher frequency of AHF admissions, and the effect was more pronounced in HFpEF and HFmrEF patients than in those with HFrEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]