scholarly journals 347 From arterial hypertension to left ventricular hypertrophy and heart failure: role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_G) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Borsi ◽  
Davide Lazzeroni ◽  
Luca Moderato ◽  
Claudio Stefano Centorbi ◽  
Matteo Bini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Hypertrophy ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventilatory Efficiency ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Chronotropic Response ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Exercise

Abstract Aims Arterial hypertension (AHT) represents the leading cause of heart failure (HF). A complex cardiovascular (CV) continuum of events leads to the progression from AHT to left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), the hallmark of hypertensive heart (HH), towards heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) represents an important tool to evaluate HF patients (both with HFpEF and HFrEF) allowing quantification of functional capacity and mechanisms of dyspnoea as well as providing prognostic markers. To investigate CPET responses in AHT patients at various stages of disease progression from AHT to LVH and HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction. Methods and results From a CPET registry of 1.397 consecutive subjects, 92 patients were selected (matched according to age, gender, BMI, CV risk factors, beta-blockers) and divided into four groups: 23 AHT patients without LVH, 23 HH patients, 23 HFpEF patients and 23 HFrEF. HFrEF were defined according to LV-EF values while HFpEF were defined according to the presence of NYHA Class ≥2 and HFA-PEFF Score. Mean age was 65 ± 10 years, mean BMI was 28.5 ± 5, male gender was prevalent 83% and 33% had diabetes. Both HFpEF and HFrEF showed lower cardiorespiratory fitness (peak VO2; P < 0.001), cardiovascular efficiency (VO2/Watt slope: P < 0.001), oxygen pulse (VO2/HR: P < 0.001), cardiac output (P < 0.001) and stroke volume (P < 0.001) at peak as well as lower chronotropic response (P < 0.001), ventilatory efficiency (VE/VCO2 slope: P < 0.001), and heart rate recovery (HRR: P = 0.004) compared with both AHT and HH groups. Interestingly, no differences between HFpEF and HFrEF have been found in all CPET data except for chronotropic response (using Tanaka equation), lower in HFpEF (37.5 ± 16.5 vs. 53.5 ± 20.5; P < 0.001) and ventilatory efficiency, lower in HFrEF (VE/VCO2 slope: 32 ± 5 vs. 37 ± 10; P < 0.001). Finally, adding functional capacity (peak VO2) data to ESC Criteria an improvement in HFpEF diagnosis accuracy was found, with 82% sensitivity and 90% specificity (AUC: 859—95% CI: 754–963; P < 0.0001). Conclusions Despite the intrinsic differences in ejection fraction, both HFpEF and HFrEF shares similar cardiopulmonary mechanisms and cardiovascular responses to exercise. CPET may represent a useful tool in order to identify and stratify hypertensive heart patients with HFpEF with high diagnostic accuracy.

scholarly journals Central and obstructive apneas prevalence in heart failure with reduced, mid-range and preserved ejection fraction

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Borrelli ◽  
P Sciarrone ◽  
F Gentile ◽  
N Ghionzoli ◽  
G Mirizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Apnea Hypopnea Index ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
2D Echocardiography

Abstract Background Central apneas (CA) and obstructive apneas (OA) are highly prevalent in heart failure (HF) both with reduced and preserved systolic function. However, a comprehensive evaluation of apnea prevalence across HF according to ejection fraction (i.e HF with patients with reduced, mid-range and preserved ejection fraction- HFrEf, HFmrEF and HFpEF, respectively) throughout the 24 hours has never been done before. Materials and methods 700 HF patients were prospectively enrolled and then divided according to left ventricular EF (408 HFrEF, 117 HFmrEF, 175 HFpEF). All patients underwent a thorough evaluation including: 2D echocardiography; 24-h Holter-ECG monitoring; cardiopulmonary exercise testing; neuro-hormonal assessment and 24-h cardiorespiratory monitoring. Results In the whole population, prevalence of normal breathing (NB), CA and OA at daytime was 40%, 51%, and 9%, respectively, while at nighttime 15%, 55%, and 30%, respectively. When stratified according to left ventricular EF, CA prevalence decreased from HFrEF to HFmrEF and HFpEF: (daytime CA: 57% vs. 43% vs. 42%, respectively, p=0.001; nighttime CA: 66% vs. 48% vs. 34%, respectively, p<0.0001), while OA prevalence increased (daytime OA: 5% vs. 8% vs. 18%, respectively, p<0.0001; nighttime OA: 20 vs. 29 vs. 53%, respectively, p<0.0001). When assessing moderte-severe apneas, defined with an apnea/hypopnea index >15 events/hour, prevalence of CA was again higher in HFrEF than HFmrEF and HFpEF both at daytime (daytime moderate-severe CA: 28% vs. 19% and 23%, respectively, p<0.05) and at nighttime (nighttime moderate-severe CA: 50% vs. 39% and 28%, respectively, p<0.05). Conversely, moderate-severe OA decreased from HFrEF to HFmrEF to HFpEF both at daytime (daytime moderate-severe OA: 1% vs. 3% and 8%, respectively, p<0.05) and nighttime (noghttime moderate-severe OA: 10% vs. 11% and 30%, respectively, p<0.05). Conclusions Daytime and nighttime apneas, both central and obstructive in nature, are highly prevalent in HF regardless of EF. Across the whole spectrum of HF, CA prevalence increases and OA decreases as left ventricular systolic dysfunction progresses, both during daytime and nighttime. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals Pharmacogenomic study of heart failure and candesartan response from the CHARM programme

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Pierre Dubé ◽  
Olympe Chazara ◽  
Audrey Lemaçon ◽  
Géraldine Asselin ◽  
Sylvie Provost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Genetic Variant ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Genome Wide Association Studies ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Genome Wide ◽  
Cardiovascular Endpoint

Aims. The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme consisted of three parallel, randomised, double-blind clinical trials comparing candesartan with placebo in patients with heart failure (HF) categorised according to left ventricular ejection fraction and tolerability to an ACE inhibitor. We conducted a pharmacogenomic study of the CHARM studies to identify genetic predictors of heart failure progression and the efficacy and safety of treatment with candesartan. Methods. We performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) with the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure in 2727 patients from CHARM-Overall and stratified by CHARM study according to preserved and reduced ejection fraction. The safety endpoints were hyperkalaemia, renal dysfunction, hypotension, and change in systolic blood pressure. We also conducted a genome-wide gene-level collapsing analysis from whole-exome sequencing data with the composite cardiovascular endpoint. Results. We found the genetic variant rs66886237 at 8p21.3 near the gene GFRA2 to be associated with the composite cardiovascular endpoint in 1029 HF patients with preserved ejection fraction from the CHARM-Preserved study [hazard ratio (HR): 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.55-2.35; P=1.7x10-9], but not in patients with reduced ejection fraction. None of the GWAS for candesartan safety or efficacy passed the significance threshold. Conclusions. We have identified a candidate genetic variant potentially predictive of the progression of heart failure in patients with preserved ejection fraction. The findings require further replication and we cannot exclude the possibility that the results may be chance findings.

P6356Comparisons of clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with and without atrial fibrillation: results from a multicenter PURSUIT-HFpEF registry

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Masuda ◽  
T Kanda ◽  
M Asai ◽  
T Mano ◽  
T Yamada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Heart Failure Patients ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

Abstract Background The presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been demonstrated to be associated with poor clinical outcomes in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction. Objective This study aimed to elucidate the impact of the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the clinical characteristics, therapeutics, and outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods PURSUIT-HFpEF is a multicenter prospective observational study including patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction of >50%. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or severe valvular disease were excluded. Results Of 486 HFpEF patients (age, 80.8±9.0 years old; male, 47%) from 24 cardiovascular centers, 199 (41%) had AF on admission. Patients with AF had lower systolic blood pressures (142±27 vs. 155±35mmHg, p<0.0001) and higher heart rates (91±29 vs. 82±26bpm, p<0.0001) than those without. There was no difference in the usage of inotropes or mechanical ventilation between the 2 groups. A higher quality of life score (EQ5D, 0.72±0.27 vs. 0.63±0.30, p=0.002) was observed at discharge in patients with than without AF. In addition, AF patients tended to demonstrate lower in-hospital mortality rates (0.5% vs. 2.4%, p=0.09) and shorter hospital stays (20.3±12.1 vs. 22.6±18.4 days, p=0.09) than those without. During a mean follow up of 360±111 days, mortality (14.1% vs. 15.3) and heart failure re-hospitalization rates (13.1% vs. 13.9%) were comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusion In contrast to heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction, AF on admission was not associated with poor long-term clinical outcomes among HFpEF patients. Several in-hospital outcomes were better in patients with AF than in those without. Acknowledgement/Funding None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document