HFNEF, HFpEF, HF-PEF, or DHF

Traditional Chinese medicine for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: clinical evidence and potential mechanisms

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction accounts for a large proportion of heart failure, and it is closely related to a high hospitalization rate and high mortality rate of cardiovascular disease. Although the methods and means of modern medical treatment of HFpEF are becoming increasingly abundant, they still cannot fully meet the clinical needs of HFpEF patients. Traditional Chinese medicine is an important complementary strategy for the treatment of diseases in modern medicine, and it has been widely used in clinical research on HFpEF in recent years. This article reviews the current situation of HFpEF management, the evolution of guidelines, the clinical evidence and the mechanism of TCM in the treatment of HFpEF. The purpose of this study is to explore the application of TCM for HFpEF, to further improve the clinical symptoms and prognosis of patients and to provide a reference for the diagnosis and treatment of the disease.

Valvular Disease and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a clinical syndrome of shortness of breath and/or exercise intolerance secondary to elevated left ventricular filling pressures at rest or with exertion either as a result of primary diastolic dysfunction (primary HFpEF) or secondary to specific underlying causes (secondary HFpEF). In secondary HFpEF, early intervention of underlying valvular heart disease generally improves symptoms and prolongs survival. In primary HFpEF, there is increasing awareness of the existence and prognostic implications of secondary atrioventricular valve regurgitation. Further studies will clarify their mechanisms and the effectiveness of valvular intervention in this intriguing HFpEF subgroup.

Obstructive sleep apnoea, intermittent hypoxia and heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is recognised to be a potent risk factor for hypertension, coronary heart disease, strokes and heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. However, the association between OSA and heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less well recognised. Both conditions are very common globally.It appears that there are many similarities between the pathological effects of OSA and other known aetiologies of HFpEF and its postulated pathophysiology. Intermittent hypoxia induced by OSA leads to widespread stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and more importantly a systemic inflammatory state associated with oxidative stress. This is similar to the consequences of hypertension, diabetes, obesity and ageing that are the common precursors to HFpEF. The final common pathway is probably via the development of myocardial fibrosis and structural changes in collagen and myocardial titin that cause myocardial stiffening. Thus, considering the pathophysiology of OSA and HFpEF, OSA is likely to be a significant risk factor for HFpEF and further trials of preventive treatment should be considered.

Clinical characteristics and prognosis of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: insights from a multi-centre registry study in China

Background

Heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (EF) (HFmrEF) has attracted increasing attention in recent years. However, the understanding of HFmrEF remains limited, especially among Asian patients. Therefore, analysis of a Chinese HF registry was undertaken to explore the clinical characteristics and prognosis of HFmrEF.

Methods

A total of 755 HF patients from a multi-centre registry were classified into three groups based on EF measured by echocardiogram at recruitment: HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) (n = 211), HFmrEF (n = 201), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) (n = 343). Clinical data were carefully collected and analyzed at baseline. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality while the secondary endpoints included hospitalization due to HF and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during 1-year follow-up. Cox regression and Logistic regression were performed to identify the association between the three EF strata and 1-year outcomes.

Results

The prevalence of HFmrEF was 26.6% in the observed HF patients. Most of the clinical characteristics of HFmrEF were intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF. But a significantly higher ratio of prior myocardial infarction (p = 0.002), ischemic heart disease etiology (p = 0.004), antiplatelet drug use (p = 0.009), angioplasty or stent implantation (p = 0.003) were observed in patients with HFmrEF patients than those with HFpEF and HFrEF. Multivariate analysis showed that the HFmrEF group presented a better prognosis than HFrEF in all-cause mortality [p = 0.022, HR (95%CI): 0.473(0.215–0.887)], cardiovascular mortality [p = 0.005, HR (95%CI): 0.270(0.108–0.672)] and MACE [p = 0.034, OR (95%CI): 0.450(0.215–0.941)] at 1 year. However, no significant differences in 1-year outcomes were observed between HFmrEF and HFpEF.

Conclusion

HFmrEF is a distinctive subgroup of HF. The strikingly prevalence of ischemic history among patients with HFmrEF might indicate a key to profound understanding of HFmrEF. Patients in HFmrEF group presented better 1-year outcomes than HFrEF group. The long-term prognosis and optimal medications for HFmrEF require further investigations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1177-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Adipose Tissue: A Story of Two Tales

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by signs and symptoms of heart failure in the presence of a normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Although it accounts for up to 50% of all clinical presentations of heart failure, there are no evidence-based therapies for HFpEF to reduce morbidity and mortality. Additionally there is a lack of mechanistic understanding about the pathogenesis of HFpEF. HFpEF is associated with many comorbidities (such as obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, etc.) and is coupled with both cardiac and extra-cardiac abnormalities. Large outcome trials and registries reveal that being obese is a major risk factor for HFpEF. There is increasing focus on investigating the link between obesity and HFpEF, and the role that the adipose tissue and the heart, and the circulating milieu play in development and pathogenesis of HFpEF. This review discusses features of the obese-HFpEF phenotype and highlights proposed mechanisms implicated in the inter-tissue communication between adipose tissue and the heart in obesity-associated HFpEF.

Is heart failure with mid range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) a distinct clinical entity or an overlap group?

Background

The new category of heart failure (HF), Heart Failure with mid range Ejection Fraction (HFmrEF) has recently been proposed with recent publications reporting that HFmrEF represents a transitional phase. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with HFmrEF and to establish what proportion of patients transitioned to other types of HF, and how this affected clinical outcomes.

Methods and results

Patients were diagnosed with HF according to the 2016 ESC guidelines. Clinical outcomes and variables were recorded for all consecutive in-patients referred to the heart failure service. In total, 677 patients with new HF were identified; 25.6% with HFpEF, 21% with HFmrEF and 53.5% with HFrEF. While clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of HFmrEF were intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF, HFmrEF patients had the best outcome, with higher mortality in the HFrEF population (p 0.02) and higher HF rehospitalisation rates in the HFpEF population (p < 0.01).38.7% of the HFmrEF patients transitioned (56.4% to HFpEF and 43.6% to HFrEF) with fewest deaths in the patients that transitioned to HFpEF (p 0.04), and fewest HF readmissions in the patients that remained as HFmrEF (<0.01).

Conclusion

HFmrEF patients had the best outcomes, compared to high rates of mortality seen in patients with HFrEF and high rates of HF readmissions seen in patients with HFpEF. Only 1/3 of HFmrEF patients transitioned during follow up, with the lowest mortality seen in patients transitioning to HFpEF.

New Classification for Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction: Greater clarity or more confusion?

The latest European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of heart failure include a new patient group for those with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). By defining this group of patients as a separate entity, the ESC hope to encourage more research focusing on patients with HFmrEF. Previously, patients with this condition were caught between two classifications-heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Hopefully, the inclusion of new terminology will not increase confusion, but rather aid our understanding of heart failure, a complex clinical syndrome.

Is heart failure with midrange ejection fraction similar to preserved ejection fraction? Against

The new European guidelines (2016) for heart failure (HF) include the concept of HF with intermediate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), i.e. an LVEF between 40 and 49%. Although few studies have been carried out, there are claims that HF with intermediate LVEF is not the same as HF with preserved LVEF. Perhaps the most consistent claim is the high percentage of associated ischemic heart disease, which could reflect LVEF recovery after adequate anti-ischemic treatment of HF with depressed LVEF, or even the progressive deterioration of LVEF following an ischemic event.

From breathless to failure: symptom onset and diagnostic meaning in patients with heart failure-a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore 2 key points in the heart failure diagnostic pathway-symptom onset and diagnostic meaning-from the patient perspective.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from a secondary care clinic in central England following referral from primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Over age 55 years with a recent (<1 year) diagnosis of heart failure confirmed by a cardiologist following initial presentation to primary care.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were carried out with 16 participants (11 men and 5 women, median age 78.5 years) in their own homes. Data were audio-recorded and transcribed. Participants were asked to describe their diagnostic journey from when they first noticed something wrong up to and including the point of diagnosis. Data were analysed using the framework method.

RESULTS

Participants initially normalised symptoms and only sought medical help when daily activities were affected. Failure to realise that anything was wrong led to a delay in help-seeking. Participants' understanding of the term 'heart failure' was variable and 1 participant did not know he had the condition. The term itself caused great anxiety initially but participants learnt to cope with and accept their diagnosis over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater public awareness of symptoms and adequate explanation of 'heart failure' as a diagnostic label, or reconsideration of its use, are potential areas of service improvement.

Deliberations on Diastolic Heart Failure

Studies of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and diastolic heart failure (DHF), published during the past 4 decades, include a prodigious number and wide variety of research efforts. This review report considers some of the historical literature and incorporates more recent information supporting the idea that patients with DHF constitute a subgroup of the heterogeneous population of patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction. Clinical investigation, particularly therapeutic trials, should be directed at specific targets within the population of interest, not at the broad heart failure with preserved ejection fraction population. To accomplish this, it is important to stipulate criteria for the diagnosis of DHF and to limit our attention to specific subgroups or phenotypes.