Abstract
Background
Coronary microvascular disease has been described in heart failure (HF) in presence of angiographically normal epicardial coronary arteries. The prevalence of a reduction of coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) in different types of HF and its link with left ventricular contractile reserve (LVCR) is unclear.
Aim
To assess CFVR and LVCR in HF.
Methods
In a prospective, observational, multicenter study, we recruited 380 patients (234 male, 61%, age 66±11 years): 143 (38%) with HF and reduced (<40%) ejection fraction (HFrEF); 98 (26%) with HF and mid-range (40–50%) ejection fraction (HFmrEF); 139 (36%) patients with HF and preserved (>50%) ejection fraction (HFpEF). A control group of 52 asymptomatic patients (23 male, 44%, age 61±14 years) referred to testing for screening was also selected (Controls). All patients underwent dipyridamole (0.84 mg/kg) stress echocardiography in 12 accredited laboratories of 3 countries (Argentina, Brazil and Italy). CFVR was calculated as the stress/rest ratio of diastolic peak flow velocity pulsed-Doppler assessment of left anterior descending (LAD) artery flow. We assessed left ventricular contractile reserve (LVCR) based on global LV Force (systolic blood pressure/end-systolic volume).
Results
Reduced (≤2.0) CFVR was observed in 0/52 controls (0%); 25/139 HFpEF (18%); 28/98 HFmrEF (29%); 78/143 HFrEF (54%, p<0.001 vs all other groups). CFVR was highest in controls (2.80±0.57), lower in HFpEF (2.51±0.57) and HFmrEF (2.26±0.44), lowest in HFrEF (2.04±0.48, p<0.001 vs all other groups). The correlation with LVCR was absent in controls (r=0.098, p=0.491) and HFmrEF (r=0.032, p=0.756), present in HFrEF (r=0.375, p<0.001) and HFpEF (r=0.314, p<0.001).
LVCR vs CFVR
Conclusions
CFVR is frequently abnormal in all types of HF, although more frequently and more profoundly in HFrEF. CFVR mirrors contractile reserve in HFrEF and - less tightly - in HFpEF.
Early predictors of left ventricular function improvement late after myocardial infarction
