Exercise haemodynamics in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pulmonary Hypertension Associated with Left Heart Disease

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a common complication of diseases affecting the left heart, mostly found in patients suffering from heart failure, with or without preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Initially driven by a passive increase in left atrial pressure (postcapillary PH), several mechanisms may lead in a subset of patient to significant structural changes of the pulmonary vessels or a precapillary component. In addition, the right ventricle may be independently affected, which results in right ventricular to pulmonary artery uncoupling and right ventricular failure, all being associated with a worse outcome. The differential diagnosis of PH associated with left heart disease versus pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is especially challenging in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and/or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). A stepwise approach to diagnosis is proposed, starting with a proper clinical multidimensional phenotyping to identify patients in whom hemodynamic confirmation is deemed necessary. Provocative testing (exercise testing, fluid loading, or simple leg raising) is useful in the cath laboratory to identify patients with abnormal response who are more likely to suffer from HFpEF. In contrast with group 1 PH, management of PH associated with left heart disease must focus on the treatment of the underlying condition. Some PAH-approved targets have been unsuccessfully tried in clinical studies in a heterogeneous group of patients, some even leading to an increase in adverse events. There is currently no approved therapy for PH associated with left heart disease.

Shedding Light on Latent Pulmonary Vascular Disease in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a distinct hemodynamic phenotype has been recently described, ie, latent pulmonary vascular disease (HFpEF-latentPVD), defined by exercise pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >1.74 WU.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore the pathophysiological significance of HFpEF-latentPVD.

METHODS

The authors analyzed a cohort of patients who had undergone supine exercise right heart catheterization with cardiac output (CO) measured by direct Fick method, between 2016 and 2021. HFpEF-latentPVD patients were compared with HFpEF control patients.

RESULTS

Out of 86 HFpEF patients, 21% qualified as having HFpEF-latentPVD, 78% of whom had PVR >2 WU at rest. Patients with HFpEF-latentPVD were older, with a higher pretest probability of HFpEF, and more frequently experienced atrial fibrillation and at least moderate tricuspid regurgitation (P < 0.05). PVR trajectories differed between HFpEF-latentPVD patients and HFpEF control patients (Pinteraction = 0.008), slightly increasing in the former and reducing in the latter. HFpEF-latentPVD patients displayed more frequent hemodynamically significant tricuspid regurgitation during exercise (P = 0.002) and had more impaired CO and stroke volume reserve (P < 0.05). Exercise PVR was correlated with mixed venous O2 tension (R2 = 0.33) and stroke volume (R2 = 0.31) in HFpEF-latentPVD patients. The HFpEF-latentPVD patients had had higher dead space ventilation during exercise and higher PaCO2 (P < 0.05), which correlated with resting PVR (R2 = 0.21). Event-free survival was reduced in HFpEF-latentPVD patients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that when CO is measured by direct Fick, few HFpEF patients have isolated latent PVD (ie, normal PVR at rest, becoming abnormal during exercise). HFpEF-latentPVD patients present with CO limitation to exercise, associated with dynamic tricuspid regurgitation, altered ventilatory control, and pulmonary vascular hyperreactivity, portending a poor prognosis.

Pulmonary artery wedge pressure and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure during exercise in patients with dyspnoea

Background

Pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) during exercise, as a surrogate for left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic pressure (EDP), is used to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, LVEDP is the gold standard to assess LV filling, end-diastolic PAWP (PAWPED) is supposed to coincide with LVEDP and mean PAWP throughout the cardiac cycle (PAWPM) better reflects the haemodynamic load imposed on the pulmonary circulation. The objective of the present study was to determine precision and accuracy of PAWP estimates for LVEDP during exercise, as well as the rate of agreement between these measures.

Methods

46 individuals underwent simultaneous right and left heart catheterisation, at rest and during exercise, to confirm/exclude HFpEF. We evaluated: linear regression between LVEDP and PAWP, Bland-Altman graphs, and the rate of concordance of dichotomised LVEDP and PAWP ≥ or < diagnostic thresholds for HFpEF.

Results

At peak exercise, PAWPM and LVEDP, as well as PAWPED and LVEDP, were fairly correlated (R2>0.69, p<0.01), with minimal bias (+2 and 0 mmHg respectively) but large limits of agreement (±11 mmHg). 89% of individuals had concordant PAWP and LVEDP ≥ or <25 mmHg (Cohen's κ=0.64). Individuals with either LVEDP or PAWPM ≥25 mmHg showed a PAWPM increase relative to cardiac output (CO) changes (PAWPM/CO slope) >2 mmHg·L-1·min-1.

Conclusions

During exercise, PAWP is accurate but not precise for the estimation of LVEDP. Despite a good rate of concordance, these two measures might occasionally disagree.

Haemodynamic validation of the three-step HFA-PEFF algorithm to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

The HFA-PEFF algorithm (Heart Failure Association-Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide score, Functional testing in cases of uncertainty, Final aetiology) is a three-step algorithm to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). It provides a three-level likelihood of HFpEF: low (score < 2), intermediate (score 2-4), or high (score > 4). HFpEF may be confirmed in individuals with a score > 4 (rule-in approach). The second step of the algorithm is based on echocardiographic features and natriuretic peptide levels. The third step implements diastolic stress echocardiography (DSE) for controversial diagnostic cases. We sought to validate the three-step HFA-PEFF algorithm against a haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF based on rest and exercise right heart catheterization (RHC).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Seventy-three individuals with exertional dyspnoea underwent a full diagnostic work-up following the HFA-PEFF algorithm, including DSE and rest/exercise RHC. The association between the HFA-PEFF score and a haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF, as well as the diagnostic performance of the HFA-PEFF algorithm vs. RHC, was assessed. The diagnostic performance of left atrial (LA) strain < 24.5% and LA strain/E/E' < 3% was also assessed. The probability of HFpEF was low/intermediate/high in 8%/52%/40% of individuals at the second step of the HFA-PEFF algorithm and 8%/49%/43% at the third step. After RHC, 89% of patients were diagnosed as HFpEF and 11% as non-cardiac dyspnoea. The HFA-PEFF score resulted associated with the invasive haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF (P < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of the HFA-PEFF score for the invasive haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF were 45% and 100% for the second step of the algorithm and 46% and 88% for the third step of the algorithm. Neither age, sex, body mass index, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation influenced the performance of the HFA-PEFF algorithm, as these characteristics were similarly distributed over the true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative cases. Sensitivity of the second step of the HFA-PEFF score was non-significantly improved to 60% (P = 0.08) by lowering the rule-in threshold to >3. LA strain alone had a sensitivity and specificity of 39% and 14% for haemodynamic HFpEF, increasing to 55% and 22% when corrected for E/E'.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared with rest/exercise RHC, the HFA-PEFF score lacks sensitivity: Half of the patients were wrongly classified as non-cardiac dyspnoea after non-invasive tests, with a minimal impact of DSE in modifying HFpEF likelihood.