Current understanding of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Addition of Amlodipine or Valsartan for Improvement of Diastolic Dysfunction Associated with Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive patients are at increased risk of diastolic dysfunction. The hypothesis of this study was that addition of amlodipine would be superior to valsartan in improving diastolic dysfunction associated with hypertension.

METHODS

In this randomized trial, we randomly assigned 104 controlled, hypertensive patients with diastolic dysfunction to receive either amlodipine 2.5 mg or valsartan 40 mg, in addition to antihypertensive therapy. The primary end point was the change in the ratio of early mitral inflow velocity to early mitral annular relaxation velocity (E/E′) from baseline to the 6-month follow-up. Secondary end points included changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP), left ventricular (LV) mass index, and left atrial volume index.

RESULTS

SBP decreased significantly from baseline in both treatment groups (p < 0.001). E/E′ decreased significantly from 13.0 ± 2.2 to 12.0 ± 2.7 in the amlodipine arm and from 14.4 ± 4.3 to 12.7 ± 3.7 in the valsartan arm (p < 0.01 in both groups). The change of E/E′ was not significantly different between treatment groups (p = 0.25). There were also no significant between-group differences regarding the changes in SBP, LV mass index, and left atrial volume index. Two patients (3.8%) in the amlodipine group and 1 (16%) in the valsartan group had serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial involving controlled hypertensive patients, addition of amlodipine or valsartan was associated with an improvement of diastolic dysfunction, but the effects on diastolic dysfunction did not differ significantly between the treatment groups.

Assessing strategies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction at the outpatient clinic

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) is the most common form of heart failure (HF), its diagnosis being a challenge to the outpatient clinic practice.

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare two strategies derived from algorithms of the European Society of Cardiology Diastology Guidelines for the diagnosis of HFPEF.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study with 166 consecutive ambulatory patients (67.9±11.7 years; 72% of women). The strategies to confirm HFPEF were established according to the European Society of Cardiology Diastology Guidelines criteria. In strategy 1 (S1), tissue Doppler echocardiography (TDE) and electrocardiography (ECG) were used; in strategy 2 (S2), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) measurement was included.

RESULTS

In S1, patients were divided into groups based on the E/E'ratio as follows: GI, E/E'> 15 (n = 16; 9%); GII, E/E'8 to 15 (n = 79; 48%); and GIII, E/E'< 8 (n = 71; 43%). HFPEF was confirmed in GI and excluded in GIII. In GII, TDE [left atrial volume index (LAVI) ≥ 40 mL/m2; left ventricular mass index LVMI) > 122 for women and > 149 g/m2 for men] and ECG (atrial fibrillation) parameters were assessed, confirming HFPEF in 33 more patients, adding up to 49 (29%). In S2, patients were divided into three groups based on BNP levels. GI (BNP > 200 pg/mL) consisted of 12 patients, HFPEF being confirmed in all of them. GII (BNP ranging from 100 to 200 pg/mL) consisted of 20 patients with LAVI > 29 mL/m2, or LVMI ≥ 96 g/m2 for women or ≥ 116 g/m2 for men, or E/E'≥ 8 or atrial fibrillation on ECG, and the diagnosis of HFPEF was confirmed in 15. GIII (BNP < 100 pg/mL) consisted of 134 patients, 26 of whom had the diagnosis of HFPEF confirmed when GII parameters were used. Measuring BNP levels in S2 identified 4 more patients (8%) with HFPEF as compared with those identified in S1.

CONCLUSION

The association of BNP measurement and TDE data is better than the isolated use of those parameters. BNP can be useful in identifying patients whose diagnosis of HF had been previously excluded based only on TDE findings.

Diagnosis and management of pulmonary hypertension associated with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is commonly seen in patients who present with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) and is considered a marker of poor prognosis. While PH in this setting is thought to result from pulmonary venous congestion, there is a subset of patients in which pulmonary pressures fail to improve with appropriate management of diastolic heart failure and go on to develop a clinical picture similar to that of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Despite the utility of Doppler echocardiography and exercise testing in the initial evaluation of patients with suspected PH-LVDD, the diagnosis can only be confirmed using right heart catheterization. Management of PH-LVDD centers on both optimizing fluid management and afterload reduction to reducing left ventricular diastolic pressures and also increase pulmonary venous return. To date, there is no clear evidence that addition of PH-specific drugs can improve clinical outcomes, and their use should only be considered in the setting of clinical trials. In conclusion, PH-LVDD remains a challenging clinical entity that complicates the management of left ventricular dysfunction and significantly contributes to its morbidity and mortality. Determination of the optimal diagnostic and treatment strategies for this form of PH should be the goal of future studies.