Literature DB >> 12413374

Pathophysiological characterization of isolated diastolic heart failure in comparison to systolic heart failure.

Dalane W Kitzman1, William C Little, Peter H Brubaker, Roger T Anderson, W Gregory Hundley, Christian T Marburger, Bridget Brosnihan, Timothy M Morgan, Kathryn P Stewart.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Many older patients with symptoms of congestive heart failure have a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the pathophysiology of this disorder, presumptively termed diastolic heart failure (DHF), is not well characterized and it is unknown whether it represents true heart failure.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the 4 key pathophysiological domains that characterize classic heart failure by systematically performing measurements in older patients with presumed DHF and comparing these results with those from age-matched healthy volunteers and patients with classic systolic heart failure (SHF). DESIGN AND
SETTING: Observational clinical investigation conducted in 1998 in a general community and teaching hospital in Winston-Salem, NC. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 147 subjects aged at least 60 years. Fifty-nine had isolated DHF defined as clinically presumed heart failure, LVEF of at least 50%, and no evidence of significant coronary, valvular, or pulmonary disease. Sixty had typical SHF (LVEF < or =35%). Twenty-eight were age-matched healthy volunteer controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Left ventricular structure and function, exercise capacity, neuroendocrine function, and quality of life.
RESULTS: By echocardiography, mean (SE) LVEF was 60% (2%) in patients with DHF vs 31% (2%) in those with SHF and 54% (2%) in controls. Mean (SE) LV mass-volume ratio was markedly increased in patients with DHF (2.12 [0.14] g/mL) vs those with SHF (1.22 [0.14] g/mL) (P<.001) and vs controls (1.49 [0.17] g/mL) (P =.002). Peak oxygen consumption by expired gas analysis during cycle ergometry was similar in the DHF and SHF groups (14.2 [0.5] and 13.1 [0.5] mL/kg per minute, respectively; P =.40) and in both was markedly reduced compared with healthy controls (19.9 [0.7] mL/kg per minute) (P =.001 for both). Ventilatory anaerobic threshold was similar in the DHF and SHF groups (9.1 [0.3] and 8.7 [0.3] mL/kg per minute, respectively; P<.001) and in both was reduced compared with healthy controls (11.5 [0.4] mL/kg per minute) (P<.001). Norepinephrine levels were similar in the DHF (306 [64] pg/mL) and SHF (287 [62] pg/mL) groups (P =.56) and in both were markedly increased vs healthy controls (169 [80] pg/mL) (P =.007 and.03, respectively). Brain natriuretic peptide was substantially increased in both the DHF (56 [30] pg/mL) and the SHF (154 [28] pg/mL) groups compared with healthy controls (3 [38] pg/mL) (P =.02 and.001, respectively). Quality-of-life decrement score as assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire was substantially increased from the benchmark score of 10 in both groups (SHF: 43.8 [3.9]; DHF: 24.8 [4.4]).
CONCLUSION: Patients with isolated DHF have similar though not as severe pathophysiologic characteristics compared with patients with typical SHF, including severely reduced exercise capacity, neuroendocrine activation, and impaired quality of life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12413374     DOI: 10.1001/jama.288.17.2144

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  238 in total

1.  Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction: treatments for a complex syndrome?

Authors:  Samuel Bernard; Mathew S Maurer
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2012-08

Review 2.  Exercise training in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Authors:  Ambarish Pandey; Akhil Parashar; Dharam Kumbhani; Sunil Agarwal; Jalaj Garg; Dalane Kitzman; Benjamin Levine; Mark Drazner; Jarett Berry
Journal:  Circ Heart Fail       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 8.790

3.  Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Acute Heart Failure Patients (REHAB-HF) trial: Design and rationale.

Authors:  Gordon R Reeves; David J Whellan; Pamela Duncan; Christopher M O'Connor; Amy M Pastva; Joel D Eggebeen; Leigh Ann Hewston; Timothy M Morgan; Shelby D Reed; W Jack Rejeski; Robert J Mentz; Paul B Rosenberg; Dalane W Kitzman
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 4.749

4.  Excessive breathlessness in patients with diastolic heart failure.

Authors:  K K A Witte; N P Nikitin; J G F Cleland; A L Clark
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-04-18       Impact factor: 5.994

5.  Diastolic heart failure.

Authors:  Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-11-22

6.  Prognosis in heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function: prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Philip A MacCarthy; Mark T Kearney; James Nolan; Amanda J Lee; Robin J Prescott; Ajay M Shah; W Paul Brooksby; Keith A A Fox
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-07-12

7.  Evaluation of exercise capacity using wave intensity in chronic heart failure with normal ejection fraction.

Authors:  Yoichi Takaya; Manabu Taniguchi; Motoaki Sugawara; Saori Nobusada; Kengo Kusano; Teiji Akagi; Hiroshi Ito
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  Does irbesartan improve the risk of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes among patients with HF and PEF?

Authors:  JoAnn Lindenfeld
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 9.  Physical function and exercise training in older patients with heart failure.

Authors:  Andrew J Stewart Coats; Daniel E Forman; Mark Haykowsky; Dalane W Kitzman; Amy McNeil; Tavis S Campbell; Ross Arena
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 10.  Current Management and Future Directions of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: a Contemporary Review.

Authors:  Chayakrit Krittanawong; Marrick L Kukin
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-03-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.