scholarly journals Clinical Characteristics of Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thenappan Thenappan ◽  
Sanjiv J. Shah ◽  
Mardi Gomberg-Maitland ◽  
Brett Collander ◽  
Ajay Vallakati ◽  
...  
Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Rosenkranz ◽  
Marius M Hoeper ◽  
Doerte Huscher ◽  
David Pittrow ◽  
Christian F Opitz

Background: While targeted therapies are available for idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), evidence based treatment recommendations for pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are lacking. Methods and Results: Out of 5,935 patients in the prospective COMPERA registry, we analyzed patients with “typical” IPAH (n=421, ≤2 of the following risk factors: BMI >30 kg/m2, hypertension, CAD, diabetes and atrial fibrillation at the time of diagnosis), “atypical” IPAH (n=139, >2 risk factors) or PH-HFpEF (n=226) who received targeted PH therapies. Patients with PH-HFpEF, when compared to “typical” and “atypical” IPAH were older (73±8 vs. 62±17 and 71±9 years), had a higher BMI (30 vs. 26 and 32 kg/m2), and more comorbidities (98% vs. 73% and 100%, all p<0.001), respectively. However, mean PAP (46±9 vs. 47±13 and 44±11 mmHg), cardiac index (2.2±0.7 vs. 2,3±0,8 and 2,2±0,8 l/min), and mixed venous oxygen saturation (62±7 vs. 62±10 and 63±9%, all ns) were almost identical. As compared to “typical” and “atypical” IPAH, PH-HFpEF patients had a higher PAWP (20±4 vs. 9±3 and 10±4 mmHg), resulting in a lower calculated PVR (559±270 vs. 861±477 and 784±844 dyn.s.cm-5). Survival at 1, 2 and 3 years post diagnosis was not different between groups. PDE-5 inhibitors were the most common form of initial PH treatment in PH-HFpEF (94%), and combination therapy was less common compared to “typical” or “atypical” IPAH at 1 year (7% vs. 44% and 26%). All 3 groups responded to targeted PH therapies at 12 months, while treatment effects were less pronounced in PH-HFpEF: Compared to baseline, the median increase of the 6MWD at 1 year was 29, 50, and 60 m, respectively. Treatment discontinuations occurred more frequently in patients with PH-HFpEF than in IPAH, either because of side effects or lack of improvement. Conclusions: Despite almost identical alterations of pulmonary artery pressure and cardiac output, patients with PH-HFpEF differed with respect to age, comorbidities and certain hemodynamic features when compared to “typical” or “atypical” IPAH. All groups responded to targeted PH therapy, however tolerability and efficacy of PH drugs were reduced in patients with PH-HFpEF while survival was not different.


2019 ◽  
Vol 200 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taiki Nishihara ◽  
Eiichiro Yamamoto ◽  
Takanori Tokitsu ◽  
Daisuke Sueta ◽  
Koichiro Fujisue ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessie van Wezenbeek ◽  
Arno van der Bovenkamp ◽  
Jeroen N Wessels ◽  
Sophia-Anastasia Mouratoglou ◽  
Marie Jose Goumans ◽  
...  

Background: Patients with Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) and Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) have increased right atrial (RA) pressures. Whether the higher RA pressures are related to increased afterload or overall stiffening of the heart is unknown. The aim of this study is to gain further insight into the right atrium in HFpEF-PH. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients with HFpEF (no PH), HFpEF-PH and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) that underwent right heart catheterization and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. CMR was used to determine RA function by quantifying volume and strain on the 4-chamber view. Total, passive and active RA emptying fraction (RAEF) were calculated. RA stiffness was calculated by determining the slope of maximum and minimum pressure during v-wave and minimal and maximal RA volumes. Groups were compared with ANOVA and post-hoc comparison with Bonferroni correction. Results: 176 patients were included: 13 HFpEF, 33 HFpEF-PH and 130 PAH patients. Although afterload was lower in PAH and higher in HFpEF patients, as shown by mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) (41 ± 2 mmHg in HFpEF-PH vs 53 ± 21 mmHg in PAH vs 19 ± 1 mmHg in HFpEF, p<0.001) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) (2.3 ± 0.3 wu/m 2 in HFpEF-PH vs 5.7 ± 0.2 wu/m 2 in PAH vs 0.4 ± 0.06 wu/m 2 in HFpEF, p<0.001), mean RA pressure was significantly higher in HFpEF-PH patients compared to both groups (Figure 1A). HFpEF-PH patients had significantly increased RA stiffness compared to HFpEF and PAH patients (Figure 1B). Total RAEF was reduced in HFpEF-PH compared to PAH and HFpEF patients: passive RAEF was similar, but active RAEF was slightly reduced in HFpEF-PH (Figure 1C). This was in line with measurements of RA longitudinal strain (Figure 1D). Conclusions: Despite lower afterload, HFpEF-PH patients have worse RA function and increased RA stiffness compared to PAH. Higher RA pressures in HFpEF-PH may reflect additional stiffening of the heart.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christof Burgdorf ◽  
Janine Brockmöller ◽  
Henrieke Strampe ◽  
Monika Januszewski ◽  
Bjoern Andrew Remppis

Objectives: Although the PARAGON-HF trial failed to reach its primary endpoint, subgroups of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) still appear to benefit from Sacubitril/Valsartan therapy. As HFpEF patients with pulmonary hypertension display a specifically high mortality and morbidity, we evaluated the effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan in this subgroup of HFpEF patients.Methods: In this retrospective case-series of 18 patients with HFpEF and pulmonary hypertension, right heart catheterisation (RHC) for determination of invasive pulmonary pressure were performed at baseline (pre-Sacubitril/Valsartan) and 99 (71–156) days after transition from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers to Sacubitril/Valsartan (post-Sacubitril/Valsartan). Results are given as median and interquartile range.Results: After conversion to Sacubitril/Valsartan, RHC showed significantly reduced pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) compared to pre-Sacubitril/Valsartan [PAP systolic/diastolic/mean 44 (38–55)/15 (11–20)/27 (23–33) mm Hg vs. 51 (41–82)/22 (13–29)/33 (28–52) mm Hg, p &lt; 0.05 and p &lt; 0.01, respectively; PCWP 16 (12–20) mm Hg vs. 22 (15–27) mm Hg, p &lt; 0.05]. Median Sacubitril/Valsartan dosage was 24/26 mg BID (24/26 BID−49/51 mg BID). Clinically, New York Heart Association functional class improved in 12 of the 18 patients (p &lt; 0.01) after conversion to Sacubitril/Valsartan. Echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular function and cardiovascular co-medication did not differ markedly between pre- and post-Sacubitril/Valsartan.Conclusion: Sacubitril/Valsartan therapy is associated with an improvement of pulmonary hypertension in HFpEF patients.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nehal Hussain ◽  
Athanasios Charalampopoulos ◽  
Sheila Ramjug ◽  
Robin Condliffe ◽  
Charlie A. Elliot ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document