Search

It is hypothesized that inflammation leads to heart failure. Results from observational studies thus far have been inconsistent and it is unclear whether inflammation is causally associated with new-onset heart failure. Mendelian randomization analyses are less prone to biases common in observational studies such as reverse causation and unmeasured confounding. The aim of this study was to investigate the causal relation between various inflammatory biomarkers with risk of new-onset heart failure by using a two-sample Mendelian randomization approach.Ten inflammatory biomarkers with available genome-wide association studies (GWAS) among individuals of European ancestry were identified and included C-reactive protein (CRP), immunoglobulin E, tumour necrosis factor (TNF), toll-like receptor 4, interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, interleukin 2 receptor subunit α, interleukin 6 receptor subunit α, interleukin 16, 17 and 18. For the associations between the identified SNPs and heart failure, we used the largest GWAS meta-analysis performed by the Heart Failure Molecular Epidemiology for Therapeutic Targets Consortium with 47 309 participants with heart failure and 930 014 controls. For our main analyses, we used the inverse-variance weighted method.We included 63 SNPs. CRP, TNF, interleukin 2, 16 and 18 were not associated with heart failure with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.01 [95% confidence interval (95% CI: 0.94-1.09), 1.11 (95% CI: 0.80-1.48), 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93-1.02), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96-1.03) and 1.01 (95% CI: 0.97-1.06), respectively. The other biomarkers were also not associated with the risk of heart failure and suffered from weak instrument bias.This Mendelian randomization study could not determine a causal relationship between inflammation and risk of heart failure. However, some biomarkers suffered from weak instrument bias.

This study sought to identify sex differences in central and peripheral factors that contribute to the pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) by using complementary invasive hemodynamic and echocardiographic approaches.Women are overrepresented among patients with HFpEF, and there are established sex differences in myocardial structure and function. Exercise intolerance is a fundamental feature of HFpEF; however, sex differences in the physiological determinants of exercise capacity in HFpEF are yet to be established.Patients with exertional intolerance with confirmed HFpEF were included in this study. Evaluation of the subjects included resting and exercise hemodynamics, echocardiography, and mixed venous blood gas sampling.A total of 161 subjects included 114 females (71%). Compared to males, females had a higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) indexed to peak exercise workload (0.8 [0.5 to 1.2] mm Hg/W vs. 0.6 [0.4 to 1] mm Hg/W, respectively; p = 0.001) and lower systemic (1.1 [0.9 to 1.5] ml/mm Hg vs. 1 [0.7 to 1.2] ml/mm Hg, respectively; p = 0.019) and pulmonary (2.9 [2.2 to 4.2] ml/mm Hg vs. 2.4 [1.9 to 3] ml/mm Hg, respectively; p = 0.032) arterial compliance at exercise. Mixed venous blood gas analysis demonstrated a greater rise in lactate indexed to peak workload (0.05 [0.04 to 0.09] mmol/l/W vs. 0.04 [0.03 to 0.06] mmol/l/W, respectively; p = 0.007) in women compared to men. Women had higher mitral inflow velocity to diastolic mitral annular velocity at early filling (E/e') ratios at rest and peak exercise, along with a higher ejection fraction and smaller ventricular dimensions.Women with HFpEF demonstrate poorer diastolic reserve with higher echocardiographic and invasive measurements of left ventricular filling pressures at exercise, accompanied by lower systemic and pulmonary arterial compliance and poorer peripheral oxygen kinetics.