Search

Abstract Circulating proteins may provide insights into the varying biological mechanisms involved in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to identify specific proteomic patterns for HF, by comparing proteomic profiles across the ejection fraction spectrum. We investigated 4210 circulating proteins in 739 patients with normal (Stage A/Healthy) or elevated (Stage B) filling pressures, HFpEF, or ischemic HFrEF (iHFrEF). We found 2122 differentially expressed proteins between iHFrEF-Stage A/Healthy, 1462 between iHFrEF–HFpEF and 52 between HFpEF-Stage A/Healthy. Of these 52 proteins, 50 were also found in iHFrEF vs. Stage A/Healthy, leaving SLITRK6 and NELL2 expressed in lower levels only in HFpEF. Moreover, 108 proteins, linked to regulation of cell fate commitment, differed only between iHFrEF–HFpEF. Proteomics across the HF spectrum reveals overlap in differentially expressed proteins compared to stage A/Healthy. Multiple proteins are unique for distinguishing iHFrEF from HFpEF, supporting the capacity of proteomics to discern between these conditions.

Abstract Aims In a large proportion of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, echocardiographic estimation of left atrial pressure (LAP) is not possible when the ratio of the peak early left ventricular filling velocity over the late filling velocity (E/A ratio) is not available, which may occur due to several potential causes. Left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) is correlated with LV filling pressures and may serve as an alternative parameter in these patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether LASr can be used to estimate LAP in HFrEF patients in whom E/A ratio is not available. Methods and results Echocardiograms of chronic HFrEF patients were analysed and LASr was assessed with speckle tracking echocardiography. LAP was estimated using the current ASE/EACVI algorithm. Patients were divided into those in whom LAP could be estimated using this algorithm (LAPe) and into those in whom this was not possible because E/A ratio was not available (LAPne). We assessed the prognostic value of LASr on the primary endpoint (PEP), which comprised the composite of hospitalization for the management of acute or worsened HF, left ventricular assist device implantation, cardiac transplantation, and cardiovascular death, whichever occurred first in time. We studied 153 patients with a mean age of 58 years of whom 76% men and 82% who were in NYHA class I‐II. A total of 86 were in the LAPe group and 67 in the LAPne group. LASr was significantly lower in the LAPne group as compared with the LAPe group (15.8% vs. 23.8%, P

BackgroundWe investigated whether repeatedly measured global longitudinal strain (GLS) has incremental prognostic value over repeatedly measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and a single “baseline” GLS value, in chronic heart failure (HF) patients.MethodsIn this prospective observational study, echocardiography was performed in 173 clinically stable chronic HF patients every six months during follow up. During a median follow-up of 2.7 years, a median of 3 (25th–75th percentile:2–4) echocardiograms were obtained per patient. The endpoint was a composite of HF hospitalization, left ventricular assist device, heart transplantation, cardiovascular death. We compared hazard ratios (HRs) for the endpoint from Cox models (used to analyze the first available GLS measurements) with HRs from joint models (which links repeated measurements to the time-to-event data).ResultsMean age was 58 ± 11 years, 76% were men, 81% were in New York Heart Association functional class I/II, and all had LVEF < 50% (mean ± SD: 27 ± 9%). The endpoint was reached by 53 patients. GLS was persistently decreased over time in patients with the endpoint. However, temporal GLS trajectories did not further diverge in patients with versus without the endpoint and remained stable during follow-up. Both single measurements and temporal trajectories of GLS were significantly associated with the endpoint [HR per SD change (95%CI): 2.15(1.34–3.46), 3.54 (2.01–6.20)]. In a multivariable model, repeatedly measured GLS maintained its prognostic value while repeatedly measured LVEF did not [HR per SD change (95%CI): GLS:4.38 (1.49–14.70), LVEF:1.14 (0.41–3.23)]. The association disappeared when correcting for repeatedly measured NT-proBNP.ConclusionTemporal evolution of GLS was associated with adverse events, independent of LVEF but not independent of NT-proBNP. Since GLS showed decreased but stable values in patients with adverse prognosis, single measurements of GLS provide sufficient information for determining prognosis in clinical practice compared to repeated measurements, and temporal GLS patterns do not add prognostic information to NT-proBNP.