Implications of pulse wave velocity and central pulse pressure in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) and central pulse pressure (PP) are recognised as significant indicators of vascular health and predictors of cardiovascular outcomes. In this study, associations between central hemodynamics and left ventricular (LV) echocardiographic parameters were investigated in subjects with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), comparing the results to healthy individuals. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cross-sectional prospective controlled study included 50 subjects with HFrEF [mean LV ejection fraction (EF) 26 ± 6.5%] and 30 healthy controls (mean LVEF 65.9 ± 5.3%). Pulse wave analysis (PWA) and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) were used to measure central hemodynamics and arterial stiffness. The HFrEF group displayed higher cfPWV (8.2 vs. 7.2 m/s, p = 0.007) and lower central (111.3 vs. 121.7 mmHg, p = 0.001) and peripheral (120.1 vs. 131.5 mmHg, p = 0.002) systolic blood pressure. Central pulse pressure (PP) was comparable between the two groups (37.6 vs. 40.4 mmHg, p = 0.169). In the HFrEF group, cfPWV significantly correlated with left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) index (mL/m2) and LVEF, with LVEDV index being a significant independent predictor of cfPWV (R2 = 0.42, p = 0.003). Central PP was significantly associated with heart rate, LVEF and LVEDV index, with the latter being a significant independent predictor of central PP (R2 = 0.41, p < 0.001). These correlations were not observed in healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: Significant associations between central hemodynamic measures and LV echocardiographic parameters were identified, suggesting the potential to use PWA and cfPWV as possible tools for managing HFrEF.

What is the context?Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) affects millions of people worldwide.Vascular health plays a significant role in the development and progression of HFrEF.This study investigates two indicators of arterial stiffness­pulse wave velocity (PWV) and central pulse pressure (PP)­and their impact on the functioning of the heart in HFrEF patients compared to healthy individuals.What is new?The study found that higher carotid-femoral PWV and central PP, which typically indicate worse vascular health, were associated with better heart function in HFrEF patients. This paradoxical finding suggests that in the context of HFrEF, traditional markers of vascular health may have different implications.The study included non-invasive methods to evaluate these indicators, offering a potential new additional approach for monitoring and managing HFrEF.What is the impact?We could possibly use non-invasively evaluated PWV and central PP (measures of vascular function) as markers of left ventricular function assessment in HFrEF.

No evidence of automatic atrial overdrive pacing efficacy on reduction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is frequently encountered in pacemaker patients, most commonly in sick sinus syndrome. The combination of site-specific pacing in conjunction with an overdrive algorithm combined with antiarrhythmic drugs on the incidence of PAF in patients with a conventional indication for pacing is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with pacemaker indication and PAF received a DDDR-pacemaker, which included an automatic atrial overdrive (AO) algorithm. The atrial lead was implanted in either the right atrial appendage (RAA) (n = 83) or the right low-atrial septum (LAS) (n = 94). The algorithm was switched on or off in a 3 month, single blind crossover design and antiarrhythmic drugs were kept stable. A control group of 96 patients (LAS, n = 14; RAA, n = 84) without PAF served as controls to assess any proarrhythmic effect of overdrive pacing. Atrial fibrillation (AF) burden defined as cumulative time in mode switch was not reduced during automatic AO from either the RAA or from the LAS. The reduction was not effective both for AF of short (<24 h) and long (> or =24 h) duration. There was no atrial proarrhythmia induced by the overdrive algorithm in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: We could not demonstrate a reduction of AF burden defined as cumulative time in AF by the AO algorithm, in patients who are paced for standard indications and PAF, neither from the RAA nor from the LAS.