Dataset Information

Left atrial structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Left atrial (LA) structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is only established in small studies. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of LA structure and function in order to find differences between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. English literature on LA structure and function using echocardiography was reviewed to calculate pooled prevalence and weighted mean differences (WMD). A total of 61 studies, comprising 8806 patients with HFrEF and 9928 patients with HFpEF, were included. The pooled prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was 34.4% versus 42.8% in the acute inpatient setting, and 20.1% versus 33.1% in the chronic outpatient setting when comparing between HFrEF and HFpEF. LA volume index (LAVi), LA reservoir global longitudinal strain (LAGLS_R), and E/e' was 59.7 versus 52.7 ml/m², 9.0% versus 18.9%, and 18.5 versus 14.0 in the acute inpatient setting, and 48.3 versus 38.2 ml/m², 12.8% versus 23.4%, and 16.9 versus 13.5 in the chronic outpatient setting when comparing HFrEF versus HFpEF, respectively. The relationship between LAVi and LAGLS_R was significant in HFpEF, but not in HFrEF. Also, in those studies that directly compared patients with HFrEF versus HFpEF, those with HFrEF had worse LAGLS_R [WMD = 16.3% (22.05,8.61); p < 0.001], and higher E/e' [WMD = -0.40 (-0.56, -0.24); p < 0.05], while LAVi was comparable. When focusing on acute hospitalized patients, E/e' was comparable between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. Despite the higher burden of AF in HFpEF, patients with HFrEF had worse LA global function. Left atrial myopathy is not specifically related to HFpEF.

SUBMITTER: Jin X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9388424 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Left atrial structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jin Xuanyi X Nauta Jan F JF Hung Chung-Lieh CL Ouwerkerk Wouter W Teng Tiew-Hwa Katherine TK Voors Adriaan A AA Lam Carolyn Sp CS van Melle Joost P JP

Heart failure reviews 20220126 5

Left atrial (LA) structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is only established in small studies. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of LA structure and function in order to find differences between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. English literature on LA structure and function using echocardiography was reviewed to calculate pooled prevalence and weighted mean differences (WMD). A total of 61 studies, comprising 8806 patients ...[more]

PMID: 35079942

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsTwo key echocardiographic parameters that are currently used to diagnose heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are left atrial volume index (LAVi) and left ventricular mass index (LVMi). We investigated whether patients' characteristics, biomarkers, and co-morbidities are associated with these parameters and whether the relationships differ between patients with HFpEF or HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).MethodsWe consecutively enrolled 831 outpatients with typical signs and symptoms of HF and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and categorized patients based upon left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): LVEF < 40% (HFrEF), LVEF between 40% and 50% (HF with mid-range ejection fraction), and LVEF ≥ 50% (HFpEF). The study includes consecutively enrolled HF patients from an HF outpatient clinic at a tertiary medical centre in the Netherlands. All patients underwent baseline characterization, laboratory measurements, and echocardiography.ResultsFour hundred sixty-nine patients had HFrEF, 189 HF with mid-range ejection fraction, and 173 HFpEF. The patients with HFrEF were rather male [HFrEF: 323 (69%); HFpEF: 80 (46%); P < 0.001], and the age was comparable (HFrEF 67 ± 13; HFpEF 70 ± 14; P = 0.069). In HFpEF, more patients had hypertension [190 (40.5%); 114 (65.9%); P < 0.001], higher body mass indices (27 ± 8; 30 ± 7; P < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation [194 (41.4); 86 (49.7); P = 0.029]. The correlation analyses showed that in HFrEF patients, LAVi was significantly associated with age (β 0.293; P < 0.001), male gender (β 0.104; P = 0.042), body mass index (β -0160; P = 0.002), diastolic blood pressure (β -0.136; P < 0.001), New York Heart Association (β 0.174; P = 0.001), atrial fibrillation (β 0.381; P < 0.001), galectin 3 (β 0.230; P < 0.001), NT-proBNP (β 0.183; P < 0.001), estimated glomerular filtration rate (β -0.205; P < 0.001), LVEF (β -0.173; P = 0.001), and LVMi (β 0.337; P < 0.001). In HFpEF patients, only age (β 0.326; P < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (β 0.386; P < 0.001), NT-proBNP (β 0.176; P = 0.036), and LVMi (β 0.213; P = 0.013) were associated with LAVi.ConclusionsAlthough LVMi and LAVi are hallmark parameters to diagnose HFpEF, they only correlate with a few characteristics of HF and mainly with atrial fibrillation. In contrast, in HFrEF patients, LAVi relates strongly to several other HF parameters. These findings underscore the complexity in visualizing the pathophysiology of HFpEF and question the relation between cardiac structural remodeling and the impact of co-morbidities.

Project description:Higher left ventricular (LV) mass, wall thickness, and internal dimension are associated with increased heart failure (HF) risk. Whether different LV hypertrophy patterns vary with respect to rates and types of HF incidence is unclear. In this study, 4,768 Framingham Heart Study participants (mean age 50 years, 56% women) were classified into 4 mutually exclusive LV hypertrophy pattern groups (normal, concentric remodeling, concentric hypertrophy, and eccentric hypertrophy) using American Society of Echocardiography-recommended thresholds of echocardiographic LV mass indexed to body surface area and relative wall thickness, and these groups were related to HF incidence. Whether risk for HF types (HF with reduced ejection fraction [<45%] vs preserved ejection fraction [≥45%]) varied by hypertrophy pattern was then evaluated. On follow-up (mean 21 years), 458 participants (9.6%, 250 women) developed new-onset HF. The age- and gender-adjusted 20-year HF incidence increased from 6.96% in the normal left ventricle group to 8.67%, 13.38%, and 15.27% in the concentric remodeling, concentric hypertrophy, and eccentric hypertrophy groups, respectively. After adjustment for co-morbidities and incident myocardial infarction, LV hypertrophy patterns were associated with higher HF incidence relative to the normal left ventricle group (p = 0.0002); eccentric hypertrophy carried the greatest risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 2.54), followed by concentric hypertrophy (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.87). Participants with eccentric hypertrophy had a higher propensity for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.37), whereas those with concentric hypertrophy were more prone to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.51). In conclusion, in this large community-based sample, HF risk varied by LV hypertrophy pattern, with eccentric and concentric hypertrophy predisposing to HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction, respectively.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction have no overt volume overload and normal resting left atrial (LA) pressure.ObjectivesThis study sought to characterize patients with normal resting LA pressure (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [PCWP] <15 mm Hg) but exercise-induced left atrial hypertension (EILAH).MethodsThe REDUCE LAP-HF II (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc. IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure) trial randomized 626 patients with ejection fraction ≥40% and exercise PCWP ≥25 mm Hg to atrial shunt or sham procedure. The primary trial outcome, a hierarchical composite of death, heart failure hospitalization, intensification of diuretics, and change in health status was compared between patients with EILAH and those with heart failure and resting left atrial hypertension (RELAH).ResultsPatients with EILAH (29%) had similar symptom severity, but lower natriuretic peptide levels, higher 6-minute walk distance, less atrial fibrillation, lower left ventricular mass, smaller LA volumes, lower E/e', and better LA strain. PCWP was lower at rest, but had a larger increase with exercise in EILAH. Neither group as a whole had a significant effect from shunt therapy vs sham. Patients with EILAH were more likely to have characteristics associated with atrial shunt responsiveness (peak exercise pulmonary vascular resistance <1.74 WU) and no pacemaker (63% vs 46%; P < 0.001). The win ratio for the primary outcome was 1.56 (P = 0.08) in patients with EILAH and 1.51 (P = 0.04) in those with RELAH when responder characteristics were present.ConclusionsPatients with EILAH had similar symptom severity but less advanced myocardial and pulmonary vascular disease. This important subgroup may be difficult to diagnose without invasive exercise hemodynamics, but it has characteristics associated with favorable response to atrial shunt therapy. (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc. IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure [REDUCE LAP-HF TRIAL II]; NCT03088033).

Project description:BackgroundLeft atrial (LA) size is an established marker of risk for adverse outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the independent prognostic importance of LA function in HFpEF is not known.Methods and resultsWe assessed LA function measured by speckle-tracking echocardiography in 357 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the Treatment Of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial who were in sinus rhythm at the time of echocardiography. Lower peak LA strain, indicating LA dysfunction, was associated with older age, higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, worse LV and right ventricular systolic function, and worse LV diastolic function. At a mean follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range, 18-43months), 91 patients (25.5%) experienced the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and aborted sudden death. Lower peak LA strain was associated with a higher risk of the composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.96 per unit of reduction in strain; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.99; P=0.009) and of HF hospitalization alone (hazard ratio, 0.95 per unit of reduction in strain; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.98; P=0.003). The association of LA strain with incident HF hospitalization remained significant after adjustment for clinical confounders, but not after further adjustment for LV global longitudinal strain and the E/E' ratio, parameters of LV systolic and diastolic function, respectively.ConclusionsLA dysfunction in HFpEF is associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization independent of potential clinical confounders, but not independent of LV strain and filling pressure. Impairment in LV systolic and diastolic function largely explains the association between impaired LA function and higher risk of HF hospitalization in HFpEF.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302.

Dataset Information

Left atrial structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Left atrial structure and function in heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets