Search

Background Implantation of an interatrial shunt device (IASD) in patients with heart failure (HF) reduces left atrial hypertension by shunting oxygenated blood to the right heart and lungs. The attendant increases in pulmonary blood flow (Qp) and oxygen content may alter pulmonary vascular function, while left-to-right shunting might compromise systemic perfusion. Objectives The authors hypothesized that IASD would improve indexes of pulmonary artery (PA) function at rest and during exercise in HF patients without reducing systemic blood flow (Qs). Methods This is a pooled analysis from 2 trials assessing the effects of the IASD on resting and exercise hemodynamics in HF patients (n = 79) with EF ≥40% with baseline and repeated hemodynamic evaluation between 1 and 6 months. Patients with pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >4 WU or right ventricular dysfunction were excluded. Results Qp and PA oxygen content increased by 27% and 7% following IASD. These changes were associated with salutary effects on pulmonary vascular function (17% reduction in PVR, 12% reduction in PA elastance [pulmonary Ea], and 24% increase in PA compliance). Qp increased during exercise to a greater extent following IASD compared with baseline, which was associated with reductions in exercise PVR and pulmonary Ea. Patients with increases in PA compliance following IASD experienced greater improvements in supine exercise duration. There was no reduction in Qs following IASD at rest or during exercise. Conclusions Implantation of an IASD improves pulmonary vascular function at rest and during exercise in selected patients with HF and EF ≥40%, without compromising systemic perfusion. Further study is warranted to identify underlying mechanisms and long-term pulmonary hemodynamic effects of IASD. (REDUCE LAP-HF Trial [REDUCE LAP-HF]; NCT01913613; and REDUCE LAP-HF Randomized Trial I [REDUCE LAP-HF I]; NCT02600234)

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for HF symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), left ventricular (LV) filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.

OBJECTIVES 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. BACKGROUND 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. METHODS 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. RESULTS 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] mmHg/W vs. 0.6 [0.4 to 1] mmHg/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/e0) ratios at rest and peak exercise, along with a higher ejection fraction and smaller ventricular dimensions. CONCLUSIONS 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. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

OBJECTIVES 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. BACKGROUND 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. METHODS 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. RESULTS 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] mmHg/W vs. 0.6 [0.4 to 1] mmHg/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/e0) ratios at rest and peak exercise, along with a higher ejection fraction and smaller ventricular dimensions. CONCLUSIONS 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. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

In patients with left ventricular heart failure (HF), the development of pulmonary hypertension (PH) and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction are frequent and have important impact on disease progression, morbidity, and mortality, and therefore warrant clinical attention. Pulmonary hypertension related to left heart disease (LHD) by far represents the most common form of PH, accounting for 65-80% of cases. The proper distinction between pulmonary arterial hypertension and PH-LHD may be challenging, yet it has direct therapeutic consequences. Despite recent advances in the pathophysiological understanding and clinical assessment, and adjustments in the haemodynamic definitions and classification of PH-LHD, the haemodynamic interrelations in combined post- and pre-capillary PH are complex, definitions and prognostic significance of haemodynamic variables characterizing the degree of pre-capillary PH in LHD remain suboptimal, and there are currently no evidence-based recommendations for the management of PH-LHD. Here, we highlight the prevalence and significance of PH and RV dysfunction in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and provide insights into the complex pathophysiology of cardiopulmonary interaction in LHD, which may lead to the evolution from a 'left ventricular phenotype' to a 'right ventricular phenotype' across the natural history of HF. Furthermore, we propose to better define the individual phenotype of PH by integrating the clinical context, non-invasive assessment, and invasive haemodynamic variables in a structured diagnostic work-up. Finally, we challenge current definitions and diagnostic short falls, and discuss gaps in evidence, therapeutic options and the necessity for future developments in this context., SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

International audience; ABSTRACT: Acute cardiovascular dysfunction occurs perioperatively in more than 20% of cardiosurgical patients, yet current acute heart failure (HF) classification is not applicable to this period. Indicators of major perioperative risk include unstable coronary syndromes, decompensated HF, significant arrhythmias and valvular disease. Clinical risk factors include history of heart disease, compensated HF, cerebrovascular disease, presence of diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency and high-risk surgery. EuroSCORE reliably predicts perioperative cardiovascular alteration in patients aged less than 80 years. Preoperative B-type natriuretic peptide level is an additional risk stratification factor. Aggressively preserving heart function during cardiosurgery is a major goal. Volatile anaesthetics and levosimendan seem to be promising cardioprotective agents, but large trials are still needed to assess the best cardioprotective agent(s) and optimal protocol(s). The aim of monitoring is early detection and assessment of mechanisms of perioperative cardiovascular dysfunction. Ideally, volume status should be assessed by 'dynamic' measurement of haemodynamic parameters. Assess heart function first by echocardiography, then using a pulmonary artery catheter (especially in right heart dysfunction). If volaemia and heart function are in the normal range, cardiovascular dysfunction is very likely related to vascular dysfunction. In treating myocardial dysfunction, consider the following options, either alone or in combination: low-to-moderate doses of dobutamine and epinephrine, milrinone or levosimendan. In vasoplegia-induced hypotension, use norepinephrine to maintain adequate perfusion pressure. Exclude hypovolaemia in patients under vasopressors, through repeated volume assessments. Optimal perioperative use of inotropes/vasopressors in cardiosurgery remains controversial, and further large multinational studies are needed. Cardiosurgical perioperative classification of cardiac impairment should be based on time of occurrence (precardiotomy, failure to wean, postcardiotomy) and haemodynamic severity of the patient's condition (crash and burn, deteriorating fast, stable but inotrope dependent). In heart dysfunction with suspected coronary hypoperfusion, an intra-aortic balloon pump is highly recommended. A ventricular assist device should be considered before end organ dysfunction becomes evident. Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation is an elegant solution as a bridge to recovery and/or decision making. This paper offers practical recommendations for management of perioperative HF in cardiosurgery based on European experts' opinion. It also emphasizes the need for large surveys and studies to assess the optimal way to manage perioperative HF in cardiac surgery.