MSC Pretreatment for Improved Transplantation Viability Results in Improved Ventricular Function in Infarcted Hearts

Many clinical studies utilizing MSCs (mesenchymal stem cells, mesenchymal stromal cells, or multipotential stromal cells) are underway in multiple clinical settings; however, the ideal approach to prepare these cells in vitro and to deliver them to injury sites in vivo with maximal effectiveness remains a challenge. Here, pretreating MSCs with agents that block the apoptotic pathways were compared with untreated MSCs. The treatment effects were evaluated in the myocardial infarct setting following direct injection, and physiological parameters were examined at 4 weeks post-infarct in a rat permanent ligation model. The prosurvival treated MSCs were detected in the hearts in greater abundance at 1 week and 4 weeks than the untreated MSCs. The untreated MSCs improved ejection fraction in infarcted hearts from 61% to 77% and the prosurvival treated MSCs further improved ejection fraction to 83% of normal. The untreated MSCs improved fractional shortening in the infarcted heart from 52% to 68%, and the prosurvival treated MSCs further improved fractional shortening to 77% of normal. Further improvements in survival of the MSC dose seems possible. Thus, pretreating MSCs for improved in vivo survival has implications for MSC-based cardiac therapies and in other indications where improved cell survival may improve effectiveness.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure: A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%.

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Treatment of Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction

Background

Many patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) experience improvement or recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Data on clinical characteristics, outcomes, and medical therapy in patients with HF with improved ejection fraction (HFiEF) are scarce.

Methods and Results

Of 5625 consecutive patients hospitalized for acute HF in the KorAHF (Registry [Prospective Cohort] for Heart Failure in Korea) study, 5103 patients had baseline echocardiography and 2302 patients had follow‐up echocardiography at 12 months. HF phenotypes were defined as persistent HFrEF (LVEF ≤40% at baseline and at 1‐year follow‐up), HFiEF (LVEF ≤40% at baseline and improved up to 40% at 1‐year follow‐up), HF with midrange ejection fraction (LVEF between 40% and <50%), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (LVEF ≥50%). The primary outcome was 4‐year all‐cause mortality from the time of HFiEF diagnosis. Among 1509 HFrEF patients who had echocardiography 1 year after index hospitalization, 720 (31.3%) were diagnosed as having HFiEF. Younger age, female sex, de novo HF, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and β‐blocker use were positive predictors and diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease were negative predictors of HFiEF. During 4‐year follow‐up, patients with HFiEF showed lower mortality than those with persistent HFrEF in univariate, multivariate, and propensity‐score–matched analyses. β‐Blockers, but not renin–angiotensin system inhibitors or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, were associated with a reduced all‐cause mortality risk (hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.87; P=0.007). Benefits for outcome seemed similar among patients receiving low‐ or high‐dose β‐blockers (log‐rank, P=0.304).

Conclusions

HFiEF is a distinct HF phenotype with better clinical outcomes than other phenotypes. The use of β‐blockers may be beneficial for these patients.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01389843.