HFA‐PEFF score: prognosis in patients with preserved ejection fraction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Heart Failure score and outcomes in patients with preserved ejection fraction after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but the diagnosis and prediction of the outcomes of HFpEF are difficult. Notably, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology proposed the use of the HFA-PEFF score in the diagnosis of HFpEF. This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of the pre- and post-procedural HFA-PEFF scores in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) after catheter ablation (CA) for AF. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac hospitalization for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint was AF recurrence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Overall, 354 patients with AF and preserved EF who underwent CA as well as blood tests and transthoracic echocardiography 2 weeks before and 6 months after CA from January 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled in the study. In the 354 participants, univariate analysis showed that the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with a 3-year risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.07-6.73; P < 0.001), whereas the pre-procedural HFA-PEFF score was not (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.82-1.86, P = 0.307). Further, the association between the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score and primary endpoint was not modified even after including other relevant variables into the score. Similar to the primary endpoint, the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with the 3-year risk of AF recurrence (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with preserved EF undergoing AF ablation, the HFA-PEFF score at 6 months after CA was associated with the primary endpoint and AF recurrence at the 3-year follow-up.

Long-term prognostic value of the H2FPEF score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

A considerable proportion of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have underlying heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which can be challenging for diagnosis because significant valvular heart disease should be excluded before diagnosing HFpEF. This study investigated the long-term prognostic value of the pre-procedural H2FPEF score in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) undergoing TAVI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients who underwent TAVI between October 2013 and May 2017 were enrolled from the Optimized CathEter vAlvular iNtervention-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Japanese multicentre registry. After excluding 914 patients, 1674 patients with preserved EF ≥ 50% (median age: 85 years, 72% female) were selected for calculation of the H2FPEF score and were dichotomized into two groups: the low H2FPEF score [0-5 points; n = 1399 (83.6%)] group and the high H2FPEF score [6-9 points; n = 275 (16.4%)] group. Patients with high H2FPEF scores were associated with a higher prevalence of New York Heart Association Functional Class III/IV (59.3% vs. 43.7%, P < 0.001), diabetes (24.4% vs. 18.5%, P = 0.03), and paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (15.9% vs. 6.2%, P < 0.001). These patients showed worse prognoses than those with low H2FPEF scores regarding the cumulative 2 year all-cause mortality (26.3% vs. 15.5%, log-rank P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (10.5% vs. 5.4%, log-rank P < 0.001), HF hospitalization (16.2% vs. 6.7%, log-rank P < 0.001), and the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (23.8% vs. 10.8%, log-rank P < 0.001). After adjustment for several confounders, the high H2FPEF scores were independently associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-2.00; P = 0.011] and for the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.38-2.74; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the excess risk of high H2FPEF scores relative to low H2FPEF scores for the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization increased with a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (STS score <8%: adjusted HR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.50-3.85; P < 0.001; STS score ≥8%: adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.79-2.28; P = 0.28; Pinteraction = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

The H2FPEF score is useful for predicting long-term adverse outcomes after TAVI, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and HF hospitalization for patients with preserved EF. More aggressive interventions targeting HFpEF in addition to the TAVI procedure might be relevant in patients with high H2FPEF scores, particularly in those with a lower surgical risk.

Prognostic Impact of Modified H2FPEF Score in Patients Receiving Trans-Catheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

H2FPEF is a recently introduced score for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Many patients with severe aortic stenosis have clinical/subclinical HFpEF and have worsening heart failure even after trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We investigated the prognostic impact of the H2FPEF score in TAVR candidates.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TAVR procedures at a single academic center between 2015 and 2022 were included. The H2FPEF score was calculated using baseline characteristics before TAVR. The prognostic impact of the score on the post-TAVR composite endpoint, consisting of all-cause death and heart failure readmissions during the 2-year observation period, was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients (median age 86 years, 70 males) were included. The median value of H2FPEF score was 3 (2, 4). The score was significantly associated with the primary outcome with a hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% confidence interval 1.02-1.74, p = 0.036). We constructed a modified H2FPEF score by adjusting cutoffs of several items for better prognostic stratification (i.e., age and body mass index). A modified score had a higher area under the curve than the original one (0.65 vs. 0.59, p = 0.028) and was independently associated with the primary outcome with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.01-1.49, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

A modified H2FPEF score, which was originally developed to diagnose the presence of HFpEF, could be used to risk-stratify elderly patients receiving TAVR. The clinical utility of this score should be validated in future studies.

Effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in elderly people with severe aortic stenosis with different types of heart failure

BACKGROUND

Impaired left ventricular function is an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-term changes of echocardiographic parameters, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level and adverse events amongst patients with heart failure (HF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University between September 2017 and September 2022. TAVR cases were stratified into three groups [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)] by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Baseline characteristics, changes in echocardiographic parameters (1 week and 1 month), BNP (1 month), and NYHA class (6 months) post-TAVR were compared across the three groups. Meanwhile, we observed the adverse events of the patients after TAVR.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients were included, of whom 15 (15.6%) had HFrEF, 15 (15.6%) had HFmrEF, and 66 (68.8%) had HFpEF. Compared to the HFpEF subgroup, patients in the HFrEF subgroup were younger (p < 0.05), and with a higher BNP (p < 0.05). The left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) in HFrEF group decreased significantly after TAVR. HFmrEF and HFrEF patients showed significant improvements in LVEF after TAVR. The pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP), aortic valve peak gradient (AVPG) and aortic valve peak gradient (V_max) decreased significantly 1 month after TAVR in all three groups compared to the baseline (all p < 0.05). BNP significantly reduced in HFrEF group compared to HFpEF patients after TAVR (p < 0.05). The majority of patients experienced an improvement at least one NYHA class in all three groups 6 months post-TAVR. There is no significant increase in the risk of adverse events in the HFrEF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent TAVR achieved significant improvements in BNP, NYHA class, LVEDD, LVEF, and PASP across the three HF classes, with a more rapid and pronounced improvement in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups. Complication rates were low in the different HF groups. There is no significant increase in the risk of periprocedural complications in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Exercise, and Medical Therapies

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for more than one-half of total heart failure cases, with a high prevalence and poor prognosis, especially in older and female patients. Patients with HFpEF are characterized by hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and diastolic dysfunction, and the main symptoms are dyspnea and exercise intolerance. HFpEF is currently poorly studied, and pharmacological treatment for HFpEF is still underexplored. Accumulating clinical trials have shown that exercise could exert benefits on diastolic dysfunction and quality of life in patients with HFpEF. However, there is a high limitation for applying exercise therapy due to exercise intolerance in patients with HFpEF. Key effectors of exercise-protection could be novel therapeutic targets for developing drugs to prevent and treat HFpEF. In this review article, we provide an overview of the pathogenic factors, diagnostic methods, research animal models, the mechanisms of exercise-mediated cardiac protection, and current treatments for HFpEF.

Prognostic Value of HFA-PEFF Score in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background

The HFA-PEFF score may help in predicting long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF).

Methods

We retrieved data from 1,332 patients undergoing TAVI between 2010 and 2019 from the Prospective Segeberg TAVI Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192774). We calculated the HFA-PEFF score for 1,022 patients who had preserved EF (≥50%). To assess the prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF score in predicting adverse events, we dichotomised the patients according to a cut-off score of five (score <5 group: n=528 (51.6%), score ≥5 group: n=494 (48.3%)).

Results

The HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups were older (81.9±6.3 years vs. 80.3±6.9 years; p<0.001) and had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (35.1% vs 20.8%; p<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (30.1% vs 26.1%; p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses over 24 months showed increased cardiovascular (CV) mortality (12.5% vs. 7.7%, log-rank; p=0.028) and first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (7.7% vs. 4.0%, log-rank p=0.014) in the HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups compared with those of lower scores. No significant difference in all-cause mortality between both groups was observed (22.0% vs. 17.9%, log-rank p=0.127). In multivariate analysis, HFA-PEFF score ≥5 failed to predict CV mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.90-2.08, p=0.140) and time to first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (aHR 1.49, 95% CI: 0.83-2.65, p=0.181).

Conclusion

The HFA-PEFF score showed limited value in predicting long-term mortality and adverse heart failure-related events in patients with preserved EF undergoing TAVI. Clinical variables specific to this population could complement the HFA-PEFF score for better risk prediction.

Association of Increased Vascular Stiffness with Cardiovascular Death and Heart Failure Episodes Following Intervention on Symptomatic Degenerative Aortic Stenosis

Background. The resistive (RI) and pulsatile (PI) indices are markers of vascular stiffness (VS) which are associated with outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. We aimed to assess whether VS might predict incidence of cardiovascular death (CVD) and heart failure (HF) episodes following intervention on degenerative aortic valve stenosis (DAS). Methods. The distribution of increased VS (RI ≥ 0.7 and PI ≥ 1.3) from supra-aortic arteries was assessed in patients with symptomatic DAS who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR, n = 127) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI, n = 119). During a 3-year follow-up period (FU), incidences of composite endpoint (CVD and HF) were recorded. Results. Increased VS was found in 100% of TAVI patients with adverse event vs. 88.9% event-free TAVI patients (p = 0.116), and in 93.3% of AVR patients with event vs. 70.5% event-free (p = 0.061). Kaplan–Mayer free-survival curves at 1-year and 3-year FU were 90.5% vs. 97.1 % and 78% vs. 97.1% for patients with increased vs. lower VS. (p = 0.014). In univariate Cox analysis, elevated VS (HR 7.97, p = 0.04) and age (HR 1.05, p = 0.024) were associated with risk of adverse outcomes; however, both failed in Cox multivariable analysis. Conclusions. Vascular stiffness is associated with outcome after DAS intervention. However, it cannot be used as an independent outcome predictor.