Biomarkers in acutely decompensated heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. American heart journal
(Impact Factor: 4.46).
11/2012; 164(5):763-770.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.08.014
Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) occurs with preserved (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF] ≥50%) or reduced (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] <50%) ejection fraction. Natriuretic peptide (NP) levels are lower in HFpEF than HFrEF. We hypothesized that lower NP levels in HFpEF may be associated with other differences in biomarkers, specifically, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation, oxidative stress, and a biomarker that reflects collagen synthesis.
In this prespecified ancillary analysis of patients with ADHF enrolled in the Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation study, clinical features and N-terminal pro-B-type NP, cystatin C, plasma renin activity, aldosterone, oxidative stress (uric acid), and procollagen type III N-terminal peptide were compared in HFpEF and HFrEF at enrollment and 60-day follow-up.
Compared with HFrEF (n = 219), HFpEF (n = 81) patients were older, heavier, more commonly female, less treated with RAAS antagonists, but with similar New York Heart Association class, jugular venous pressure, and edema severity. N-terminal pro-B-type NP was lower, and systolic blood pressure and cystatin C were higher in HFpEF. Despite higher systolic blood pressure and less RAAS antagonist use in HFpEF, plasma renin activity and aldosterone levels were similar in HFpEF and HFrEF as were uric acid and procollagen type III N-terminal peptide levels. Changes in biomarker levels from enrollment to 60 days were similar between HFrEF (n = 149) and HFpEF (n = 50).
Lower NP levels in decompensated HFpEF occur in association with similar ADHF severity, more impaired vascular and renal function but similar elevation of biomarkers that reflect RAAS activation, oxidative stress, and collagen synthesis as in HFrEF.
Available from: Damien Vitiello
- "Previous investigations have shown an increase in selected biomarkers such as IL-6 and NT-proBNP in patients with HFpEF [7, 8, 21]. Our findings confirm our former observations and data from other investigators showing significant increases of the C-reactive protein and IL-6 and demonstrating a significant proinflammatory state in these patients [7, 21, 22]. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background. Changes in cardiopulmonary reserve and biomarkers related to wall stress, inflammation, and oxidative stress concomitantly with the evaluation of peripheral arterial blood flow have not been investigated in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) compared with healthy subjects (CTL). Methods and Results. Eighteen HFpEF patients and 14 CTL were recruited. Plasma levels of inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers were measured at rest. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was measured at rest and peak exercise. Cardiopulmonary reserve was assessed using an exercise protocol with gas exchange analyses. Peripheral arterial blood flow was determined by strain gauge plethysmography. Peak VO2 (12.0 ± 0.4 versus 19.1 ± 1.1 mL/min/kg, P < 0.001) and oxygen uptake efficiency slope (1.55 ± 0.12 versus 2.06 ± 0.14, P < 0.05) were significantly decreased in HFpEF patients compared with CTL. BNP at rest and following stress, C-reactive-protein, interleukin-6, and TBARS were significantly elevated in HFpEF. Both basal and posthyperemic arterial blood flow were not significantly different between the HFpEF patients and CTL. Conclusions. HFpEF exhibits a severe reduction in cardiopulmonary reserve and oxygen uptake efficiency concomitantly with an elevation in a broad spectrum of biomarkers confirming an inflammatory and prooxidative status in patients with HFpEF.
International journal of vascular medicine 02/2014; 2014:917271. DOI:10.1155/2014/917271
Available from: Tsushung A Hua
- "Upon presentation, the two subgroups had similar clinical signs of congestion, but HFpEF patients had higher systolic blood pressure and lower NT-proBNP. The presence of lower natriuretic peptide levels in acutely decompensated HFpEF in association with similar AHF severity compared with HFrEF has also been previously reported by a sub-analysis of the Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE) trial.21 "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Serelaxin is effective in relieving dyspnoea and improving multiple outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF). Many AHF patients have preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Given the lack of evidence-based therapies in this population, we evaluated the effects of serelaxin according to EF in RELAX-AHF trial.
RELAX-AHF randomized 1161 AHF patients to 48-h serelaxin (30 μg/kg/day) or placebo within 16 h from presentation. We compared the effects of serelaxin on efficacy endpoints, safety endpoints, and biomarkers of organ damage between preserved (≥50%) and reduced (<50%, HFrEF) EF. HFpEF was present in 26% of patients. Serelaxin induced a similar dyspnoea relief in HFpEF vs. HFrEF patients by visual analogue scale-area under the curve (VAS-AUC) through Day 5 [mean change, 461 (-195, 1117) vs. 397 (10, 783) mm h, P = 0.87], but had possibly different effects on the proportion of patients with moderately or markedly dyspnoea improvement by Likert scale at 6, 12, and 24 h [odds ratio for favourable response, 1.70 (0.98, 2.95) vs. 0.85 (0.62, 1.15), interaction P = 0.030]. No differences were encountered in the effect of serelaxin on short- or long-term outcome between HFpEF and HFrEF patients including cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart/renal failure through Day 60, cardiovascular death through Day 180, and all-cause death through Day 180. Similar safety and changes in biomarkers (high-sensitivity troponin T, cystatin-C, and alanine/aspartate aminotransferases) were found in both groups.
In AHF patients with HFpEF compared with those with HFrEF, serelaxin was well tolerated and effective in relieving dyspnoea and had a similar effect on short- and long-term outcome, including survival improvement.
European Heart Journal 12/2013; 35(16). DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/eht497 · 15.20 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Heart failure (HF) can occur in patients with preserved (HFpEF, EF≥50%) or reduced (HFrEF, EF<50%) ejection fraction (EF), but changes in EF after HF diagnosis are not well described.
Methods and results:
Among a community cohort of incident HF patients diagnosed from 1984 to 2009 in Olmsted County, Minnesota, we obtained all EFs assessed by echocardiography from initial HF diagnosis until death or last follow-up through March 2010. Mixed effects models fit a unique linear regression line for each person using serial EF data. Compiled results allowed estimates of the change in EF over time in HFpEF and HFrEF. Among 1233 HF patients (48.3% male, mean age 75.0 years, mean follow-up 5.1 years), 559 (45.3%) had HFpEF at diagnosis. In HFpEF, on average, EF decreased by 5.8% over 5 years (P<0.001) with greater declines in older individuals and those with coronary disease. Conversely, EF increased in HFrEF (average increase 6.9% over 5 years, P<0.001). Greater increases were noted in women, younger patients, individuals without coronary disease, and those treated with evidence-based medications. Overall, 39% of HFpEF patients had an EF<50% and 39% of HFrEF patients had an EF≥50% at some point after diagnosis. Decreases in EF over time were associated with reduced survival whereas increases in EF were associated with improved survival.
These data suggest that progressive contractile dysfunction may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF. Prospective longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these observations and establish the mechanism and clinical relevance of decline in EF over time in HFpEF.
Circulation Heart Failure 08/2012; 5(6). DOI:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.111.966366 · 5.89 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.