Phosphodiesterase inhibitor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Although heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a serious disease, only limited options are available for its treatment. Recent studies have analyzed the effects of phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors, especially PDE5 and PDE3 inhibitors, in patients with HFpEF, with mixed outcomes. Methods: We searched PUBMED and EMBASE databases up to August 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical trials that tested the effects of PDE inhibitors on patients with HFpEF were included as eligible studies. Indicators of left ventricular (LV) function, pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), right ventricular (RV) function, exercise capacity, and quality of life (QOL) were used to evaluate the efficacy of PDE inhibitors in HFpEF. Results: Six RCTs that reported in 7 studies were included to evaluate the efficiency of PDE inhibitors on HFpEF patients. In the pooled analysis, PDE inhibitors showed insignificant changes in the ratio of early diastolic mitral inflow to annular velocities, left atrial volume index, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP), pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), peak oxygen uptake, 6-minute walking test distance, as well as Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score. However, substantial improvement was observed in the tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE). Additionally, the regression analysis showed that PDE inhibitor administration time is a critical factor for the decrease in PASP. Conclusions: PDE inhibitors did not effectively improve LV function, PAP, exercise capacity, and QOL in patients with HFpEF. However, they improved RV function with significant difference, suggesting that PDE inhibitors might be a promising option for HFpEF patients with RV dysfunction.

Rationale and design of SAVI-AoS: A physiologic study of patients with symptomatic moderate aortic valve stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

Background: Moderate aortic valve stenosis occurs twice as often as severe aortic stenosis (AS) and carries a similarly poor prognosis. Current European and American guidelines offer limited insight into moderate AS (MAS) patients with unexplained symptoms. Measuring valve physiology at rest while most patients experience symptoms during exertion might represent a conceptual limitation in the current grading of AS severity. The stress aortic valve index (SAVI) may delineate hemodynamically significant AS among patients with MAS. Objectives: To investigate the diagnostic value of SAVI in symptomatic MAS patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 50%): aortic valve area (AVA) > 1 cm2 plus either mean valve gradient (MG) 15-39 mmHg or maximal aortic valve velocity (AOV max) 2.5-3.9 m/s. Short-term objectives include associations with symptom burden, functional capacity, and cardiac biomarkers. Long-term objectives include clinical outcomes. Methods and results: Multicenter, non-blinded, observational cohort. AS severity will be graded invasively (aortic valve pressure measurements with dobutamine stress testing for SAVI) and non-invasively (echocardiography during dobutamine and exercise stress). Computed tomography (CT) of the aortic valve will be scored for calcium, and hemodynamics simulated using computational fluid dynamics. Cardiac biomarkers and functional parameters will be serially monitored. The primary objective is to see how SAVI and conventional measures (MG, AVA and Vmax) correlate with clinical parameters (quality of life survey, 6-minute walk test [6MWT], and biomarkers). Conclusions: The SAVI-AoS study will extensively evaluate patients with unexplained, symptomatic MAS to determine any added value of SAVI versus traditional, resting valve parameters.

Ventilatory power, a cardiopulmonary exercise testing parameter for the prediction of pulmonary hypertension at right heart catheterization.

BACKGROUND: Several cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) parameters (peak VO2, PetCO2 and VE/VCO2) emerged as tools for the prediction of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Less is known on ventilatory power (VP) in patients with suspect PAH. AIM: To ascertain possible correlations between VP derived at CPET and hemodynamic parameters at right heart catheterization (RHC) indicative of PH. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive outpatients with suspect of PAH were assessed by CPET and RHC; VP was defined as peak SBP divided by the minute ventilation-CO2 production slope at CPET and Diastolic Pressure Gradient (DPG), Trans-pulmonary Pressure Gradient (TPG), mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) at RHC were also assessed and compared with VP. RESULTS: VP values were inversely related to mPAP (r -0.427, p 0.003), DPG (r -0.36, p 0.019), TPG (r: -0.43, p 0.004), and PVR (r -0.52, p 0.001). Correlations remained significant even after correction at multivariate analysis for age and gender. VP values below median identified subjects with mPAP ≥ 25 mmHg with an odds ratio of 4.5 (95% confidence interval 1.05-19.36, p < 0.05), an accuracy of 0.712 at ROC curve analysis (95% confidence interval 0.534-0.852, p < 0.05) and a positive predictive power 82%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected PAH, VP assessed at CPET might provide further information in predicting PAH at RHC. Correlations with PVR and DPG may be helpful in differentiating patients with isolated post-capillary PH from those with combined post-capillary and pre-capillary.