Andreas J Rieth1, Manuel J Richter2,3, Khodr Tello3, Henning Gall3, Hossein A Ghofrani2,3,4, Stefan Guth5, Christoph B Wiedenroth5, Werner Seeger3, Steffen D Kriechbaum6, Veselin Mitrovic6, P Christian Schulze7, Christian W Hamm6,8. 1. Department of Cardiology, Kerckhoff-Klinik GmbH, Benekestr 2-8, 61231, Bad Nauheim, Germany. a.rieth@kerckhoff-klinik.de. 2. Department of Pneumology, Kerckhoff-Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Universities of Giessen and Marburg Lung Center (UGMLC), member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Giessen, Germany. 4. Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Kerckhoff-Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany. 6. Department of Cardiology, Kerckhoff-Klinik GmbH, Benekestr 2-8, 61231, Bad Nauheim, Germany. 7. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany. 8. Department of Cardiology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Universities of Giessen and Marburg, Giessen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore whether classification of patients with heart failure and mid-range (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) identifies differences in their exercise hemodynamic profile, and whether classification according to an index of right ventricular (RV) function improves differentiation. BACKGROUND: Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF have hemodynamic compromise on exertion. The classification according to LVEF implies a key role of the left ventricle. However, RV involvement in exercise limitation is increasingly recognized. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion/systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (TAPSE/PASP) ratio is an index of RV and pulmonary vascular function. Whether exercise hemodynamics differ more between HFmrEF and HFpEF than between TAPSE/PASP tertiles is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed 166 patients with HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%) or HFmrEF (LVEF 40-49%) who underwent basic diagnostics (laboratory testing, echocardiography at rest, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPET]) and exercise with right heart catheterization. Hemodynamics were compared according to echocardiographic left ventricular or RV function. RESULTS: Exercise hemodynamics (e.g. pulmonary arterial wedge pressure/cardiac output [CO] slope, CO increase during exercise, and maximum total pulmonary resistance) showed no difference between HFpEF and HFmrEF, but significantly differed across TAPSE/PASP tertiles and were associated with CPET results. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide concentration also differed significantly across TAPSE/PASP tertiles but not between HFpEF and HFmrEF. CONCLUSION: In patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF, TAPSE/PASP emerged as a more appropriate stratification parameter than LVEF to predict clinically relevant impairment of exercise hemodynamics. Stratification of exercise hemodynamics in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF according to LVEF or TAPSE/PASP, showing significant distinctions only with the RV-based strategy. All data are shown as median [upper limit of interquartile range] and were calculated using the independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis test. PVR pulmonary vascular resistance; max maximum level during exercise.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore whether classification of patients with heart failure and mid-range (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) identifies differences in their exercise hemodynamic profile, and whether classification according to an index of right ventricular (RV) function improves differentiation. BACKGROUND: Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF have hemodynamic compromise on exertion. The classification according to LVEF implies a key role of the left ventricle. However, RV involvement in exercise limitation is increasingly recognized. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion/systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (TAPSE/PASP) ratio is an index of RV and pulmonary vascular function. Whether exercise hemodynamics differ more between HFmrEF and HFpEF than between TAPSE/PASP tertiles is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed 166 patients with HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%) or HFmrEF (LVEF 40-49%) who underwent basic diagnostics (laboratory testing, echocardiography at rest, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPET]) and exercise with right heart catheterization. Hemodynamics were compared according to echocardiographic left ventricular or RV function. RESULTS: Exercise hemodynamics (e.g. pulmonary arterial wedge pressure/cardiac output [CO] slope, CO increase during exercise, and maximum total pulmonary resistance) showed no difference between HFpEF and HFmrEF, but significantly differed across TAPSE/PASP tertiles and were associated with CPET results. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide concentration also differed significantly across TAPSE/PASP tertiles but not between HFpEF and HFmrEF. CONCLUSION: In patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF, TAPSE/PASP emerged as a more appropriate stratification parameter than LVEF to predict clinically relevant impairment of exercise hemodynamics. Stratification of exercise hemodynamics in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF according to LVEF or TAPSE/PASP, showing significant distinctions only with the RV-based strategy. All data are shown as median [upper limit of interquartile range] and were calculated using the independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis test. PVR pulmonary vascular resistance; max maximum level during exercise.
Keywords:
Exercise hemodynamics; Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction; Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; Right heart; TAPSE/PASP ratio
Authors: M Guazzi; F Bandera; G Pelissero; S Castelvecchio; L Menicanti; S Ghio; P L Temporelli; R Arena Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Andreas Rieth; Manuel Jonas Richter; Henning Gall; Werner Seeger; Hossein A Ghofrani; Veselin Mitrovic; Christian W Hamm Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Ugo Corrà; Pier Giuseppe Agostoni; Stefan D Anker; Andrew J S Coats; Maria G Crespo Leiro; Rudolph A de Boer; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Loreena Hill; Mitja Lainscak; Lars H Lund; Marco Metra; Piotr Ponikowski; Jillian Riley; Petar M Seferović; Massimo F Piepoli Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Michael R Bristow; David P Kao; Khadijah K Breathett; Natasha L Altman; John Gorcsan; Edward A Gill; Brian D Lowes; Edward M Gilbert; Robert A Quaife; Douglas L Mann Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Jan F Nauta; Yoran M Hummel; Joost P van Melle; Peter van der Meer; Carolyn S P Lam; Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Pascal Bauer; Khodr Tello; Lutz Kraushaar; Oliver Dörr; Stanislav Keranov; Faeq Husain-Syed; Holger Nef; Christian W Hamm; Astrid Most Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 6.138