Distinguishing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A phenomics approach.

AIM: Pathophysiological differences between patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (EF) remain unclear. Therefore we used a phenomics approach, integrating selected proteomics data with patient characteristics and cardiac structural and functional parameters, to get insight into differential pathophysiological mechanisms and identify potential treatment targets. METHODS AND RESULTS: We report data from a representative subcohort of the prospective Singapore Heart Failure Outcomes and Phenotypes (SHOP), including patients with HFrEF (EF <40%, n = 217), HFpEF (EF ≥50%, n = 213), and age- and sex-matched controls without HF (n = 216). We measured 92 biomarkers using a proximity extension assay and assessed cardiac structure and function in all participants using echocardiography. We used multi-block projection to latent structure analysis to integrate clinical, echocardiographic, and biomarker variables. Candidate biomarker targets were cross-referenced with small-molecule and drug databases. The total cohort had a median age of 65 years (interquartile range 60-71), and 50% were women. Protein profiles strongly discriminated patients with HFrEF (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.89) and HFpEF (AUC = 0.94) from controls. Phenomics analyses identified unique druggable inflammatory markers in HFpEF from the tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily (TNFRSF), which were positively associated with hypertension, diabetes, and increased posterior and relative wall thickness. In HFrEF, interleukin (IL)-8 and IL-6 were possible targets related to lower EF and worsening renal function. CONCLUSION: We identified pathophysiological mechanisms related to increased cardiac wall thickness parameters and potentially druggable inflammatory markers from the TNFRSF in HFpEF.

Titration of medications and outcomes in multi-ethnic heart failure cohorts (with reduced ejection fraction) from Singapore and New Zealand.

AIMS: We investigated titration patterns of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers, quality of life (QoL) over 6 months, and associated 1 year outcome [all-cause mortality/heart failure (HF) hospitalization] in a real-world population with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%) from a prospective multi-centre study were examined for use and dose [relative to guideline-recommended maintenance dose (GRD)] of ACEis/ARBs and beta-blockers at baseline and 6 months. 'Stay low' was defined as <50% GRD at both time points, 'stay high' as ≥50% GRD, and 'up-titrate' and 'down-titrate' as dose trajectories. Among 1110 patients (mean age 63 ± 13 years, 16% women, 26% New York Heart Association Class III/IV), 714 (64%) were multi-ethnic Asians from Singapore and 396 were from New Zealand (mainly European ethnicity). Baseline use of either ACEis/ARBs or beta-blockers was high (87%). Loop diuretic was prescribed in >80% of patients, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in about half of patients, and statins in >90% of patients. At baseline, only 11% and 9% received 100% GRD for each drug class, respectively, with about half (47%) achieving ≥50% GRD for ACEis/ARBs or beta-blockers. At 6 months, a large majority remained in the 'stay low' category, one third remained in 'stay high', whereas 10-16% up-titrated and 4-6% down-titrated. Patients with lower (vs. higher) N-terminal pro-beta-type natriuretic peptide levels were more likely to be up-titrated or be in 'stay high' for ACEis/ARBs and beta-blockers (P = 0.002). Ischaemic aetiology, prior HF hospitalization, and enrolment in Singapore (vs. New Zealand) were independently associated with higher odds of 'staying low' (all P < 0.005) for prescribed doses of ACEis/ARBs and beta-blockers. Adjusted for inverse probability weighting, ≥100% GRD for ACEis/ARBs [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.73] and ≥50% GRD for beta-blockers (HR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.37-0.90) (vs. Nil) were associated with lower hazards for 1 year composite outcome. Country of enrolment did not modify the associations of dose categories with 1 year composite outcome. Higher medication doses were associated with greater improvements in QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Although HF medication use at baseline was high, most patients did not have these medications up-titrated over 6 months. Multiple clinical factors were associated with changes in medication dosages. Further research is urgently needed to investigate the causes of lack of up-titration of HF therapy (and its frequency), which could inform strategies for timely up-titration of HF therapy based on clinical and biochemical parameters.

Epicardial adipose tissue related to left atrial and ventricular function in heart failure with preserved versus reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction.

AIM: Different associations between epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) and cardiac function have been suggested in patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) versus reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF/HFmrEF). However, few studies have directly compared the association between EAT and left atrial (LA) and left ventricular (LV) function in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF/HFmrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied EAT thickness using transthoracic echocardiography in a multicentre cohort of 149 community-dwelling controls without heart failure, 99 patients with HFpEF, and 366 patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF. EAT thickness was averaged from parasternal long-axis and short-axis views, respectively, and off-line speckle tracking analysis was performed to quantify LA and LV function. Data were validated in an independent cohort of 626 controls, 243 patients with HFpEF, and 180 patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF. For LV function, LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) was measured in both derivation and validation cohorts. For LA function, LAGLS at reservoir, contractile and conduit phase were measured in the derivation cohort, and only LAGLS at reservoir phase was measured in the validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, EAT thickness was lower in HFrEF/HFmrEF (7.3 ± 2.5 mm) compared to HFpEF (8.3 ± 2.6 mm, p < 0.05) and controls (7.9 ± 1.8 mm, p < 0.05). Greater EAT thickness was associated with better LV and contractile LA function in HFrEF/HFmrEF, but not in HFpEF (p for interaction <0.05). These findings were confirmed in the validation cohort, where EAT thickness was lower in HFrEF/HFmrEF (6.7 ± 1.4 mm) compared to HFpEF (9.6 ± 2.8 mm; p < 0.05) and controls (7.7 ± 2.3 mm; p < 0.05). Greater EAT thickness was associated with better LV and reservoir LA function in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF but worse LV and reservoir LA function in patients with HFpEF (p for interaction <0.05). Thickened EAT (EAT thickness >10 mm) was associated with LA dysfunction (LAGLS at reservoir phase <23%) in HFpEF, but not in HFrEF/HFmrEF. CONCLUSION: Epicardial adipose tissue thickness is greater in patients with HFpEF than HFrEF/HFmrEF. Increased EAT thickness is associated with worse LA and LV function in HFpEF but the opposite in HFrEF/HFmrEF.

Ethnic differences in quality of life and its association with survival in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing quality of life (QoL) is a key priority in the management of heart failure (HF). HYPOTHESIS: To investigate ethnic differences in QoL and its association with 1-year survival among patients with HF. METHODS: A prospective nationwide cohort (n = 1070, mean age: 62 years, 24.5% women) of Chinese (62.3%), Malay (26.7%) and Indian (10.9%) ethnicities from Singapore, QoL was assessed using the Minnesota Living with HF Questionnaire (MLHFQ) at baseline and 6 months. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality. RESULTS: At baseline, Chinese had a lower (better) mean MLHFQ total score (29.1 ± 21.6) vs Malays (38.5 ± 23.9) and Indians (41.7 ± 24.5); P < .001. NYHA class was the strongest independent predictor of MLHFQ scores (12.7 increment for class III/IV vs I/II; P < .001). After multivariable adjustment (including NT-proBNP levels, medications), ethnicity remained an independent predictor of QoL (P < .001). Crude 1-year mortality in the overall cohort was 16.5%. A 10-point increase of the physical component (of MLHFQ) was associated with a hazard (HR 1.22, 95% 1.03-1.43) of 1-year mortality (P = .018) in the overall cohort. An interaction between MLHFQ and ethnicity was found (P = .019), where poor MLHFQ score (per 10-point increase) predicted higher adjusted mortality only in Chinese (total score: HR 1.18 [95% CI 1.07-1.30]; physical: HR 1.44 [95% CI 1.17-1.75]; emotional score: HR 1.45 [95% CI 1.05-2.00]). CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity is an independent determinant of QoL in HF. Despite better baseline QoL in Chinese, QoL was more strongly related to survival in Chinese vs Malays and Indians. These findings have implications for HF trials that use patient-reported outcomes as endpoints.

Clinical outcomes of intracoronary eptifibatide bolus only versus intracoronary bolus and intravenous infusion of eptifibatide in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Intracoronary bolus of eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been shown to result in higher local platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor occupancy with improved microvascular perfusion. It is unclear whether intracoronary administration of eptifibatide in a larger patient population results in favourable clinical outcomes. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of two regimens of intracoronary eptifibatide (bolus only versus bolus followed by intravenous infusion) in patients undergoing primary PCI for ST-elevation MI. They were divided into two groups: Group A (n=67) who received fixed-dose intracoronary eptifibatide bolus only and Group B (n=88) who received intracoronary bolus and continuous intravenous infusion of eptifibatide for 18 h. The preliminary findings from our registry showed that both regimens were associated with good angiographic outcomes, few bleeding events and low in-hospital major adverse cardiac events. A large prospective randomized, multi-centre trial is needed to confirm our observation.