Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
The clinical syndrome comprising heart failure (HF) symptoms but with a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) that is not diminished, eg, HF with preserved EF, is increasingly the predominant form of HF in the developed world, and soon to reach epidemic proportions. It remains among the most challenging of clinical syndromes for the practicing clinician and scientist alike, with a multitude of proposed mechanisms involving the heart and other organs and complex interplay with common comorbidities. Importantly, its morbidity and mortality are on par with HF with reduced EF, and as the list of failed treatments continues to grow, HF with preserved EF clearly represents a major unmet medical need. The field is greatly in need of a more unified approach to its definition and view of the syndrome that engages integrative and reserve pathophysiology beyond that related to the heart alone. We need to reflect on prior treatment failures and the message this is providing, and redirect our approaches likely with a paradigm shift in how the disease is viewed. Success will require interactions between clinicians, translational researchers, and basic physiologists. Here, we review recent translational and clinical research into HF with preserved EF and give perspectives on its evolving demographics and epidemiology, the role of multiorgan deficiencies, potential mechanisms that involve the heart and other organs, clinical trials, and future directions.
Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome characterized by breathlessness (dyspnea) at normal or at low-level exertion, fatigue, and fluid retention. As the name implies, HF centrally involves impaired heart function, and the percent of blood volume ejected with each beat, or ejection fraction (EF), has traditionally served as an indicator of pump dysfunction, being low in dilated hearts with depressed systolic performance. However, nearly half of all patients with HF symptoms have an EF that is preserved (exceeding 50%).1 Importantly, the prevalence of HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) is rising, with morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs on par with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF).2–5 This syndrome has proven particularly challenging on virtually every front: (1) consensus-based diagnostic criteria result in a heterogeneous population that has proven challenging for clinical studies and trials; (2) multiple mechanisms have been proposed but many remain hypothetical because of limited access to live human heart tissue; (3) good experimental models do not really exist, as many capture components of the human disease but do not reflect its integrative complexity; and (4) HFpEF patients are afflicted with multiple common comorbidities, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, vasculopathy, renal disease, atrial fibrillation, metabolic syndrome, that have a major impact on the syndrome and mortality. Given this, it is perhaps not surprising that we have yet to find an evidence-based HFpEF therapy beyond diuretics for fluid overload, and conventional treatments for comorbidities.
In this article, we provide an overview of HFpEF for both the clinician and basic research scientist, which includes a brief examination of its diagnostic criteria and evolving epidemiology, a summary of proposed mechanisms involving the heart and other organs, a discussion of our valiant but unsuccessful prior efforts to develop an effective therapy, and a review of newer potential approaches. The literature refers to HFpEF by several names including diastolic HF and HF with normal EF. HFpEF is currently the accepted form, and we stick to that here. The companion review in this issue by Loffredo et al6 focuses on the basic science underlying age-related cardiac disease, most notably diastolic dysfunction. Many of these changes are thought to be relevant to HFpEF, though direct evidence remains limited for most of them. In this presentation, we focus on the major human data findings.
HFpEF: What’s in a Name?
Until fairly recently, patients with clinical HF yet with a normal-range EF and evidence of slow chamber relaxation were given a diagnosis of diastolic HF.7–9 However, subsequent studies of such patients showed minimal diastolic dysfunction in many,10–12 similar abnormalities in elderly patients with hypertensive heart disease but no HF,13,14 and key nondiastolic features such as limited systolic reserve, abnormal volume regulation, and maladaptive ventricular–arterial interaction.12,15–17 In other words, a normal-range EF did not imply normal systolic function. As these and other noncardiac features were recognized, the disease was renamed HF with normal EF, though as of only 8 years ago, there was sufficient debate that diastolic HF and HF with normal EF were suggested to be used interchangeably.18 As more studies questioned whether systole is truly normal,19–21 the name changed to HFpEF,22,23 which is now the accepted standard.
Making the Diagnosis of HFpEF
To an extent, the diagnostic criteria for HFpEF have evolved along with its name. By the late 1990s, criteria included signs and symptoms of HF with an objective measurement of exercise intolerance; normal left ventricular (LV) function defined as LVEF >45%; and abnormal LV relaxation, filling, diastolic distensibility, or diastolic stiffness.24 Several embellishments were made involving morphological changes in the heart (eg, hypertrophy, atrial enlargement, diastolic dysfunction),25 but these have gradually been removed as many patients often lacked a particular diastolic or structural defect, yet had all the hallmarks of an HF syndrome. Recent guidelines from the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association consensus statement reconfirm that in practice, the diagnosis of HFpEF is based on typical symptoms and signs of HF in a patient with a normal LVEF and no significant valvular abnormalities by echocardiography.26 Diastolic abnormalities are mentioned, but nothing specific. The European Society of Cardiology requires normal or mildly abnormal LV function and evidence of abnormal LV relaxation, filling, diastolic distensibility, and diastolic stiffness.27 We agree that although patients with HFpEF often have diastolic dysfunction, this should not be required for the diagnosis. In cases where dyspnea of unknown cause is present and EF is >50%, then objective evidence of cardiac dysfunction at rest or more likely with exertion would be important to demonstrate to assign an HF diagnosis. It is important for experimental biologists to appreciate that many humans have abnormal diastolic function with a normal EF, and that this combination per se does not mean they have HF. Too often one sees animal models presented as HFpEF where diastolic pressures are elevated or relaxation is delayed and EF is in the normal range. This may be a model of diastolic abnormalities, but it is not a priori HFpEF.
Epidemiology of HFpEF
Cross-sectional studies from Westernized countries have established a view of HFpEF as occurring in elderly, predominantly female patients, with small hypertrophied hearts and a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation.3,4,28–30 Those reporting race have found a white predominance.29,30 However, growing evidence suggests that HFpEF patients are far more diverse (Table 1). Melenovsky et al13 studied HFpEF in an urban population, finding a somewhat younger, predominantly black (76%) population with high rates of hypertension, marked ventricular hypertrophy, and obesity. Similar findings were reported by the New York Heart Failure Registry, with black HFpEF patients also reporting worse renal function.31 These differences as recently reviewed by Shah32 likely impact therapy responses and net outcome. Increasingly, epidemiological data report a much more balanced sex distribution,33 and this is seen in most clinical trials.34–36 The National Ambulatory Cohort of Veterans study examined nearly all men with HF: 30% had HFpEF.37 Compared to those with HFrEF, they were older, were more likely white, had higher systolic blood pressure, and had a higher prevalence of comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, and psychiatric disorders). Internationally, HFpEF can be more common than HFrEF, as in Hong Kong where it accounts for 67% of HF admissions,38 occurring equally in men and women with high rates of hypertension. In Germany, HF is more common in elderly women, largely because of HFpEF.39 These data reveal that HFpEF spans sex, race, and ethnicity and affects increasingly younger patients. The traditional concept that hypertension and hypertrophy are dominant features conflicts with clinical studies in which patients display near normal blood pressures on average and less than half have LVH.33–35 This affects our understanding of the disease and patient selection for clinical trials.
|Characteristics||Olmsted Co, MN40||Olmsted Co, MN (2006)40||Ontario, CA4||Framingham41||OPTIMIZE29||ADHERE30||Baltimore, MD13||NY HF Consortium31||Chicago, IL33||China38|
|Sample size, n||244||2167||880||220||10 072||26 322||37||619||419||132|
|% 1-y survival||71||78||80†||65†||86 (1.5 y)|
|Diabetes mellitus, %||37||33.1||31.7||22||41||45||61||45.9||33||35|
|Chronic kidney disease, %||26||9.5||33||9 (end-stage renal disease)|
|Atrial fibrillation, %||41.3||31.8||29||32||21||23.4||26|
|SBP, mm Hg||132±23||156||145±24||150±33||153±33||143±25||160±36||125±20|
|DBP, mm Hg||67±14||76±13||75±19||79±21||69±14||84±20||70±12|
|Serum creatinine, mg/dL||1.6±1.1||1.5±0.9||1.2||1.7±1.5||1.4±0.7||1.6±1.5|
|ACE-I, %||34||36||68||40||55 (ACE-I or ARB)|
|Aldosterone antagonist, %||4||5||5||5|
The clinical outcomes of HFpEF are similar to those with HFrEF, including in-hospital morbidity and hospital readmission rates.4,29,30 Although in-hospital mortality may be slightly higher in HFrEF, 30-day to 1-year mortality after discharge is similar between groups.4,29,30 Patients with either HF syndrome have comparable functional limitations and poor quality of life.42,43 Risk factors for mortality in HFpEF include advanced age, renal impairment, and hemodynamic instability (hypotension, tachycardia).30 There are differences in the causes of morbidity and mortality between the groups, with morbidity in HFpEF often being driven more by non-HF cardiovascular conditions,37,44,45 and ≈40% of deaths being linked to noncardiac causes.46,47
Mechanisms of Disease
Given the multifaceted constellation of comorbidities that are almost invariably present in HFpEF patients, its underlying pathophysiology remains subject to debate. Among the leading contenders are diastolic dysfunction, impaired systolic rest and/or reserve function, abnormal ventricular–arterial coupling, inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, depressed heart rate response (chronotropic incompetence), altered myocardial energetics and peripheral skeletal muscle metabolism and perfusion, pulmonary hypertension (PH), and renal insufficiency. Several of these mechanisms are noncardiac. A major challenge to the field is that truly representative experimental models of HFpEF do not exist, and human data, particularly direct myocardial analysis, remain limited. There are no data from beating muscle or cells from human hearts. Animal models usually focus on 1 or 2 features common to HFpEF such as pressure overload (aortic banding or hypertension), obesity, diabetes mellitus, renal disease, aging, or ischemic heart disease without infarction. For practical reasons, however, multiple defects are rarely combined, and in this sense, existing animal models fall short of capturing the complexity of the human disease. Finally, there has long been a debate that HFrEF and HFpEF differ only in the letters r and p; that they are part of a continuum sharing key mechanisms. As attractive as this seems, we think that mechanistic data and trial experience to date would suggest otherwise. In this section, we address current cellular/tissue and integrative mechanisms, relying principally on data obtained in humans. These mechanisms are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
HFpEF often presents with diastolic abnormalities including delayed early relaxation, myocardial and myocyte stiffening, and associated changes in filling dynamics. Slow relaxation has been documented in patients by means of invasive pressure recordings or echo-Doppler imaging parameters.11,13,15,40,48–50 The magnitude of delay is such that its impact on resting diastolic pressures, particularly in mid to late diastole, is slight, but at faster heart rates48 or conditions of increased vascular loading,15 this delay can become a more prominent contributor to elevated pressures. Most of the reported data compare relaxation rates to that of age-matched normotensive subjects or hypertensive patients without LV hypertrophy (LVH); however, the combination of LVH and hypertension without HF generates similar delay.13
The mechanisms for slowed chamber relaxation in HFrEF include reduction in the expression and regulation of proteins involved with calcium cycling into and out of the sarcoplasmic reticulum,51 depression of β-adrenergic signaling, oxidative stress targeting calcium-handling proteins,52 and reduced recoil of elastic elements compressed during systole.53 Many of the same abnormalities are suspected in HFpEF, though direct proof remains limited given the lack of live tissue for human myocardial analysis. Clinical studies have found β-adrenergic responsiveness to be depressed.54 In an interesting study of biopsy samples from HFpEF and HFrEF patients, Hamdani et al55 found that the expression of calcium-handling proteins and phosphorylation of myofilament proteins were similar between the groups (there were no normal controls). β1-adrenergic receptor expression was somewhat reduced in HFpEF; however, G-protein receptor kinase 2 and 5 expression, which can suppress stimulatory adrenergic signaling, was far more elevated in HFrEF. Relaxation is also controlled by passive recoil of elastic elements, notably titin, compressed during systole.53 With the termination of active force generation, these molecular springs uncoil quickly, and re-extension contributes to the kinetics of force decline. Dilated hearts have depressed recoil,56 as the heart does not contract sufficiently to compress the elastic elements. However, as HFpEF volumes are generally normal, recoil may be less affected.
Myocardial and Myocyte Stiffening
Passive myocardial stiffness is often observed in HFpEF and is considered an important contributor to disease manifestations. Chamber-level analysis has consisted of invasively measured steady-state pressure–volume relations,48,57 as well as simplified noninvasive estimates58 including the end-diastolic volume at a pressure of 20 mm Hg.33 The causes for myocardial stiffening are divided into factors influencing the extracellular space such as fibrosis and infiltrative processes, and those intrinsic to the myocyte itself (Figure 1).
Myocardial fibrosis is a well-established feature of HFrEF, and total collagen volume is similarly increased in HFpEF endomyocardial biopsy tissue.59–61 Both collagen type 1 and type III expression and tissue staining are elevated in HFpEF and are coupled to reduced collagenase, metalloproteinase-1, but increased tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase-1 expression, which may further enhance fibrosis.62,63 In addition to altering matrix turnover, cross-linking of collagen including the formation of advanced glycation end products contributes to fibrosis and stiffening.64,65 Potential mechanisms for the altered matrix structure include inflammation, diabetes mellitus, and neurohumoral stimuli such as the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS). Markers of inflammatory cells are found in HFpEF tissue63 and have been proposed to play an important role in the disease.66,67 The high prevalence of diabetes mellitus in HFpEF suggests a mechanism for fibrosis and AGE deposition. However, biopsy studies have found such correlations in HFrEF but not in HFpEF.64 RAAS activation stimulates pathological fibrosis in many animal models and has long been presumed to be a major factor in HFpEF. However, the failure of multiple anti-RAAS clinical HFpEF trials suggests either that other factors or mechanisms are more important, or that fibrosis is not as central as assumed.
An alternative mechanism perhaps is myocardial infiltration by amyloid proteins such as transthyretin. This liver-synthesized protein is a common form of amyloid whose genetic variations cause hereditary amyloidosis. Recent autopsy data of HF hearts with an EF>40% at the time of diagnosis found moderate to severe wild type transthyretin deposition in 5%, with evidence of amyloid deposition in 19%.68 Whether transthyretin polymorphisms associated with disease69 play a role in HFpEF remains unknown.
Extracellular matrix abnormalities are generally similar between HFrEF and HFpEF, whereas myocyte stiffness differs, being higher in cells from HFpEF. Borbély et al59 first reported higher passive stiffness in isolated HFpEF myocytes versus controls. This stiffening was normalized by incubation of cells with protein kinase A, a change also more prominent in myocytes from HFpEF than from HFrEF hearts.61 Analogous studies have extended this to protein kinase G (PKG) stimulation as well.70 The protein principally responsible for protein kinase A and PKG responsive cellular stiffening seems to be titin, a macromolecular spring whose elasticity varies with its isoform and post-translational modifications including phosphorylation and oxidation (reviewed by Linke et al71). Titin is synthesized as either the more compliant (fetal) N2BA or stiffer (adult) N2B form.72 Signaling by thyroid hormone, insulin, and Gq-protein–coupled receptors to the phosphoinositol 3 kinase–Akt–mammalian target of rapamycin pathway enhances N2B expression. The N2BA:N2B ratio generally increases in human HFrEF, but changes with HFpEF remain less certain, with early data suggesting a decline61 and subsequent work finding an increase versus normal controls.73 Titin phosphorylation targets 2 major regions, one in the N2B element (N2Bus) and the other in the PEVK (rich in proline, glutamate, valine, and lysine) region. The former is targeted by protein kinase A, PKG, and calcium–calmodulin activated kinase IIδ74–76 all of which reduce passive stiffness.59,70,71,75 Titin oxidative formation of disulfide bonds in the N2B region, on the other hand, increases stiffness,77 though an alternative oxidative modification, S-glutathionylation, reduces stiffness.78
The capacity of PKG to modify titin and lower stiffness has formed the basis for several therapeutic interventions that activate this pathway including natriuretic peptides and phosphodiesterase type 5A (PDE5A) inhibitors.79,80 However, human HFpEF myocardial cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) levels and associated PKG activity have been observed to be low, far below that in HFrEF or hypertrophy due to aortic stenosis.70 This is consistent with hypophosphorylated titin and could play an important role in stiffer HFpEF myocytes. The mechanism for depressed PKG activity may involve reduced nitric oxide (NO)-dependent cGMP synthesis because of oxidative stress. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) can interfere with NO-related signaling at multiple nodes, oxidation of soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) impairs its responsiveness to NO to generate cGMP,81 NO synthase can become uncoupled by oxidation resulting in its synthesis of superoxide,82 and NO–ROS interactions thwart downstream signaling. Importantly, the capacity of PDE5A inhibition to augment PKG activity depends on cyclase generation of cGMP, so this imbalance has clinical implications for treatments.
Resting Systolic Function: Is It Normal?
EF largely informs us about chamber dilation as until end-stage HF, stroke volume (the numerator) is usually maintained and end-diastolic volume (the denominator) rises. Preserved EF does not imply that systole is normal, and indeed a key set of observations that favored the name change to HFpEF suggested the opposite.19,20,83,84 This has been recently observed using tissue Doppler speckle tracking; HFpEF patients had reduced longitudinal and circumferential strain compared with age- and sex-matched hypertensive patients with diastolic dysfunction but no clinical HF.85 However, studies using catheterization with imaging or conductance catheter measurements to derive pressure–volume relations have found that resting load–independent indexes of systolic function were essentially normal in HFpEF.16,86 Isolated skinned myocyte data from HFpEF showed similar maximal calcium-activated force,15,55,59 but that is about all we know from human HFpEF tissue. Some measures of systole such as end-systolic elastance (Ees), a measure of systolic stiffening, were higher in several HFpEF studies,15,58 and this seems particularly true in urban populations with a high percent of blacks. Rather than implying increased resting contractility, the higher Ees may reflect myocardial hypertrophy, fibrosis, infiltrative disease, or titin modifications.
Systolic ejection involves the interaction of time-varying properties of the ventricular pump and the vascular impedance to which it is connected. Vascular stiffening has long been associated with aging and is exacerbated by comorbidities such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease. To preserve adequate coupling of the heart to arterial system, ventricular systolic stiffening also increases, and this combined ventricular–vascular (VV) stiffening is a feature of HFpEF.15,40,87 This limits systolic reserve that would normally accompany further rises in Ees, contributes to increased cardiac energy demands required to enhance cardiac output,15 and plays a central role in arterial pressure lability accompanying small changes in chamber preload volume. VV coupling is often represented by the ratio of effective arterial elastance (the ratio of end-systolic pressure to stroke volume) that lumps systemic resistance, pulsatile loading, and heart rate effects, into a single afterload parameter. VV coupling is then indexed by effective arterial elastance/Ees ratio that normally ranges from 0.5 to 1.2 to optimize cardiac work and efficiency.88 In HFpEF, effective arterial elastance and Ees both increase, although similar increases are observed in patients with hypertension (±LVH) but without HF.15,58 When both Ees and effective arterial elastance are increased, modest changes in LV filling as altered by diuresis or sodium loading (eg, dietary indiscretions) induce marked swings in blood pressure and thus cardiac work with little change in stroke volume.15
Limitations of Cardiovascular Reserve
The vast majority of HFpEF hemodynamic and myocardial data pertain to resting conditions, but arguably, this syndrome is first and foremost one of limited reserve and exertional intolerance. Multiple mechanisms likely play a role, including depressed systolic augmentation, limited heart rate augmentation (chronotropic incompetence), diastolic filling abnormalities, and reduced peripheral vascular dilation.
Kitzman et al89 reported among the first studies of exercise capacity in HFpEF patients and highlighted failure of these patients to increase end-diastolic volume and thus engage the Frank–Starling mechanism. However, this study was limited with 3 of the 7 patients having classic hypertrophic or restrictive cardiomyopathy, diseases known to impair preload reserve. Borlaug et al90 studied 17 HFpEF patients versus a similar number of non-HF controls matched for comorbidities (in particular both LVH and hypertension) and found reduced exercise capacity and peak oxygen consumption (VO2) in the HFpEF group related to reduced cardiac output reserve. However, rather than being from impaired diastolic filling, low cardiac output augmentation was related to a failure to enhance heart rate and peripherally vasodilate.90 Chronotropic incompetence has since been reported by multiple investigators91,92 and been found in large trials.35 This has implications for the use of β-blockers and sinus node suppressors (If blockers) in the syndrome. The normally rapid heart rate decline after cessation of exercise is delayed in HFpEF, and this behavior is thought to be due to autonomic dysfunction and an independent risk factor for cardiac death.90,92,93 Impaired peripheral vasodilation has been documented in exercised HFpEF patients using MRI.94 Borlaug et al16 examined cardiac systolic reserve in exercising HFpEF subjects and found that in addition to peripheral dilation and heart rate limitations, contractility increases were also depressed, resulting in VV mismatching.
Even if heart rate were to increase in HFpEF, studies found that the ventricular response would likely be abnormal. The normal positive force frequency was depressed in patients with LVH, many having presented with HF symptoms.95 However, in 2 subsequent HFpEF studies, LV function with incremental pacing increased contractility compared with controls or showed no difference,48,96 although reserve was limited because of impaired diastolic filling. The normal controls in both studies surprisingly showed no decline in either end-diastolic filling or stroke volume at faster heart rates, as has previously been shown.95 Thus, the HFpEF response was more consistent with normal physiology. Preload reserve limitations were not observed in several HFpEF exercise hemodynamic studies16,90; whether diastolic filling is truly restricted in HFpEF during tachycardia remains uncertain.
Myocardial Energetics and Skeletal Muscle Metabolism
Among potential mechanisms for limited cardiac systolic reserve with HFpEF are abnormalities of myocardial energetics, including adenosine triphosphate (ATP) generation and shuttling between phosphocreatine and ATP by the creatine kinase reaction. Smith et al97 used NMR spectroscopy to assess patients with non-HFrEF (few technically had HFpEF) and found that myocardial [ATP] was not significantly reduced in LVH or in LVH+HF compared with controls. However, cardiac [phosphocreatine] was 30% less in LVH with or without HF, reducing the phosphocreatine/ATP ratio in both groups. In addition, creatine kinase flux was 65% lower in LVH+HF than in controls, more than double the decline in LVH alone. Another study examining HFpEF found a significant decline in phosphocreatine/ATP compared with controls.98 In a recent study to evaluate whether skeletal muscle abnormalities contribute to decreased peak exercise VO2 (peak VO2) in HFpEF, Kitzman et al99 performed cardiopulmonary exercise testing and needle biopsies of the vastus lateralis muscle to assess muscle fiber type distribution, capillary density, and peak VO2. HFpEF patients had reduced type I oxidative muscle fibers, type I/II fiber ratio, and capillary-to-fiber ratio compared with healthy controls; the percent of type II fibers was greater in HFpEF. The type I fibers and capillary-to-fiber ratio was significantly associated with peak VO2. Exercise intolerance may also be impaired by endothelial dysfunction and abnormal skeletal muscle metabolism, including reduced mitochondrial volume and enzymes, and muscle atrophy. Although the specific defects remain to be identified in HFpEF, several studies have found that limited cardiac reserve fails to explain exertional intolerance and have highlighted abnormal skeletal muscle performance as likely contributors.100,101
Role of Inflammation
Results from LV endomyocardial biopsy70 and analyses of inflammatory cell markers63 suggest that increased oxidative stress and depressed NO signaling resulting in inflammation play a key role in HFpEF.66,67 The multitude of HFpEF comorbidities may contribute to a proinflammatory state102; circulating inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor α, soluble ST2, and pentraxin 3 are elevated in HFpEF.103–106 Systemic inflammation could lead to endothelial dysfunction supported by higher expression of vascular cell adhesion molecules such as VCAM-1, E-selectin, and ROS.63 Increased ROS lowers bioavailable NO and thus reduces cGMP/PKG activation, which can worsen myocyte stiffness as already noted, and also contribute to hypertrophic disease and fibrosis. TGFβ signaling may also be increased in HFpEF myocardium,63 although data remain limited. The complex and cell-specific signaling linked to this cytokine suggests that therapeutic targeting could prove difficult.107,108
Biomarkers in HFpEF: A Clue to Mechanisms?
Plasma biomarkers consisting of proteins, peptides, and micro-RNAs can reflect chronic and acute changes in structure and function of the myocardium, as well as changes in volume status, loading conditions, and vascular tone. Several of these biomarkers are of interest in HFpEF to aid in diagnosis and prognosis and to help better understand mechanisms of disease. The natriuretic peptides are perhaps the best characterized biomarkers in HFpEF. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is typically higher in HFpEF than in non-HF patients, but lower than in HFrEF.109,110 BNP linearly correlates with LV diastolic pressure and with LV diastolic wall stress in HFpEF; the smaller LV cavity size and thicker walls with resultant lower end-diastolic wall stress may account for lower BNP levels.111 Biomarkers of extracellular matrix turnover and fibrosis in HFpEF have recently been reviewed, including soluble ST2, galectin-3; collagen propeptides (PICP [type 1 procollagen C-terminal propeptide], PINP [amino-terminal propeptide of type I collagen], PIINP [amino-terminal propeptide of type II collagen]); collagen telopeptides; matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-8, and MMP-9); tissue inhibitor of MMPs (TIMP-1, TIMP-4); and osteopontin, all of which can be elevated.111 Additional biomarkers including renal biomarkers (cystatin C, urinary albumin), cardiac troponins, and inflammatory markers (discussed previously) have also been noted to be elevated in HFpEF.112 Although nearly all of these biomarkers support the diagnosis of HFpEF to some extent, a smaller subset may help predict outcomes, and even fewer may be used to guide therapies (primarily the natriuretic peptides). Micro-RNAs as biomarkers for outcome and treatment selection have been described in HFrEF, but to date, no results have been reported in human HFpEF.
PH and the Right Ventricle
PH defined by a mean pulmonary artery pressure >25 mm Hg is commonly associated with HFrEF and harbingers a worse outcome. Data on PH in HFpEF are more limited, but studies are reporting a fairly high prevalence that importantly predicts increased morbidity and mortality.33,113,114 Pulmonary artery systolic pressure rises along with pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) in patients with both hypertension and HFpEF; however, after adjusting for PCWP, pulmonary systolic pressure is still higher in HFpEF.113 This indicates that PH is due to more than pulmonary venous hypertension (PVH). Distinguishing these factors can be challenging. By definition, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is differentiated from PVH in that the latter has an elevated PCWP >15 mm Hg. Estimation of PCWP by noninvasive methods is not always possible, and PCWP obtained at the time of right heart catheterization is influenced by the patient’s volume status when the procedure is done. Robbins et al115 performed a fluid challenge at the time of catheterization to differentiate PAH from PVH, and of 207 patients meeting criteria for PAH, 22% developed elevated PCWP after a fluid bolus and were thus reclassified as overt PVH. Borlaug et al8 has demonstrated that many HFpEF patients who have normal PCWP at rest display marked increases with supine exercise associated with PAH. The implications of such data are that many patients with PH may have an under-recognized component of PVH linked to left-sided HF (including HFpEF), which is manifested more under conditions of exertion or volume loading.116
An additional role of PCWP from LV disease to PAH was revealed by Tedford et al,117 who studied the inverse relation between total pulmonary arterial compliance (CPa) and resistance (RPa) in patients with varying levels of PAH and PCWP elevation. The CPa–RPa relation is hyperbolic with a tight interdependence between the 2 properties, which is unique to the pulmonary vasculature. This results from having vascular compliance reside with the smaller peripheral vessels where resistance is also regulated, unlike the systemic arteries where the aorta provides most of the compliance but no resistance. The CPa–RPa relation was remarkably invariant, but it did change with a rise in PCWP, with CPa declining at the same RPa. This indicates that PCWP affects pulmonary arterial pulsatile load and thus right ventricular (RV) systolic load and likely has implications for HFpEF and PH. As with PH, RV dysfunction is a well-established predictor of poor outcomes in increased mortality in HFrEF, and this may apply to HFpEF in that RV wall thickening was predictive of worse outcomes.33
Chronic kidney disease occurs in 26% to 53% of HFpEF and is associated with poor prognosis.30,118,119 Beyond baseline impairment, worsening renal function during HFpEF hospital admission predicts higher mortality at 6 months, with a 7-year survival of only 9%.119 Albuminuria is an established independent risk factor of mortality in the general population, reflecting glomerular injury, activation of the RAAS system, and systemic inflammation, and has been reported in a third of HFpEF patients.120 During a 2.5-year follow-up period, those with albuminuria at all strata of estimated glomerular filtration rate had higher rates of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death.120 Finally, albuminuria can limit the efficacy of furosemide by binding the compound in tubular fluid, preventing its interaction with ion transporters.
In HFrEF, the mechanism of renal dysfunction is classically related to low cardiac output and decreased renal perfusion. Given that impaired volume homeostasis is a prominent presenting feature of HFpEF, it is quite likely that renal insufficiency is partly to blame; the question is by what mechanism. Does intrinsic renal dysfunction (as a complication of other comorbidities) lead to myocardial inflammation, fibrosis, and resultant HFpEF? Does HFpEF cause renal dysfunction by triggering RAAS pathway activation, by promoting venous congestion,121 or from side effects of HF medications? There are intriguing pathways that may link renal and cardiac disease such as transient receptor potential channel 6, a Gq-receptor– and ROS-activated nonselective cation channel that plays an important role in proteinuria, glomerular dysfunction,122 cardiac hypertrophy,123 and fibrosis.124 Impaired renal regulation combined with enhanced cardiovascular sensitivity to fluid retention because of VV stiffening and diminished diuretic efficacy can coconspire to worsen symptoms in HFpEF patients.
In many HFpEF patients, fluid retention is less apparent in the periphery but not infrequently occurs in the abdominal cavity. This may play a significant role in cardiorenal disease in HF beyond vascular congestion, as recently reviewed by Verbrugge et al.125 Although this pathophysiology is not unique to HFpEF, it does likely play a role in fluid homeostasis, and is an area deserving attention. The splanchnic vasculature normally contains ≈25% of total blood volume in capacitance veins. This capacitance function is impaired in HF, with increased neurohormonal activation resulting in venoconstriction in the setting of long-standing congestion. Splanchnic microcirculation and lymphatic flow are essential to preserve fluid homeostasis, and with HF, increased capillary hydrostatic pressure drives filtration of fluid through to the lymphatic system. Once lymph efflux is maximal, however, interstitial fluid with associated proteins cannot be adequately drained, leading to protein-rich edema and expansion of the interstitial space. With the splanchnic vasculature and microcirculation no longer able to cope with progressive volume overload, intra-abdominal pressure increases. Normal intra-abdominal pressure is 5 to 7 mm Hg; intra-abdominal hypertension with intra-abdominal pressure >12 mm Hg can lead to organ dysfunction. Consequences include abnormal hepatic regulation of renal function; splanchnic bed congestion, which creates a false state of hypovolemia; and nonocclusive bowel ischemia, which may eventually result in circulating endotoxin.
Treatment of HFpEF
A Brief History of Neutral Trials
Targeting the RAAS and β-adrenergic stimulation pathways has long been considered reasonable for HFpEF, the former based on its link to hypertension, fibrosis, and fluid imbalance, and the latter to improve time for diastolic filling. Yet, despite their clear success in HFrEF, no clinical trial of these standard therapies has revealed similar mortality benefits, and only a few trials have shown symptomatic improvement in HFpEF. The major recent neutral trials are summarized in Table 2. These include studies of β-blockade (Randomized trial to determine the effect of nebivolol on mortality and cardiovascular hospital admission in elderly patients with heart failure [SENIORS],126 Japanese Diastolic Heart Failure [J-DHF],127 and Effects of Nebivolol on Clinical Symptoms, Exercise Capacity, and Left ventricular Function in Diastolic Dysfunction [ELANDD]128), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (Perindopril in Elderly People with Chronic Heart Failure [PEP-CHF]),129 angiotensin receptor blockers (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction [I-PRESERVE]),130 aldosterone antagonists (Effect of Spironolactone on Diastolic Function and Exercise Capacity in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction [ALDO-DHF],36 Randomized Aldosterone Antagonism in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction [RAAM-PEF],131 and Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist [TOPCAT]34), digoxin (Digitalis Intervention Group-Preserved Ejection Fraction [DIG-PEF]),45 and sildenafil (RELAX).35 Despite broad acceptance of diastolic impairment as a contributor to HFpEF, few of these studies actually report diastolic analysis or cardiac structural data, making it difficult to assess the impact of therapy on these characteristics.
A few studies have showed positive signals for potential benefits in HFpEF. The PEP-CHF study evaluated angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in HF patients without demonstrable LV dysfunction and was underpowered for its primary composite end point of all-cause mortality and unplanned HF-related hospitalization, but did see some improvements in symptoms, exercise capacity, and fewer HF hospitalizations in the first observation year.129 The Effects of Candesartan in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and Preserved Left-Ventricular Ejection Fraction (CHARM-Preserved) trial demonstrated that compared with placebo, HFpEF patients who received the angiotensin receptor blockers candesartan had fewer hospital admissions for HF, although there was no mortality benefit from the medication compared with placebo.132 Many HFpEF patients are treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension, and our clinical outcome data reflect this background therapy.
In 2013, the ALDO-DHF study tested the impact of an aldosterone antagonist in HFpEF with the primary end points being improved diastolic function and exercise capacity.36 Some measures of diastolic function improved, though maximal exercise capacity, clinical symptoms, and quality of life were not changed. One critique of the study was that patients had early-stage HFpEF without overt signs of volume overload. The larger 2014 TOPCAT study also did not meet its primary composite end point (cardiovascular mortality, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of HF).34 There was a small, borderline significant decline in hospitalizations. Interestingly, a major interacting factor was where patients were recruited and the criteria used for their entry; Eastern European patients were entered based on HF hospitalization criteria, but follow-up course in the placebo arm of this group was surprisingly benign. By contrast, patients in the United States met natriuretic peptide level entry criteria and had a higher event rate. Spironolactone improved the latter group.
The Effect of Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibition on Exercise Capacity and Clinical Status in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) trial tested a new concept that by blocking PDE5A, cGMP/PKG signaling in HFpEF might be enhanced, with associated benefits.35 PDE5A hydrolyzes cGMP primarily generated by NO–sGC by blocking the enzyme, drugs such as sildenafil can augment cGMP and thus PKG activity in multiple organs relevant to HF. Experimental studies in mice with pressure overload,133 cytotoxicity from doxorubicin,134 and myocardial infarction135–137 have shown benefits from chronic PDE5A inhibition. PDE5A inhibition also enhanced natriuretic peptide-stimulated pulmonary vasodilation in a canine HF model.138 Prior single-center studies had reported benefits of PDE5A inhibition in patients with HFrEF, particularly those with PH, and in PH patients with preserved EF.139–141 However, RELAX was neutral, reporting no benefit of sildenafil compared with placebo in the primary end point (change in peak VO2 after 24 weeks of therapy) or in any of a myriad of secondary functional and structural end points including markers of clinical status. Some argued that choosing exercise capacity as the end point was problematic because of the high number of comorbidities and noncardiac factors that influence this outcome in HFpEF.142 In addition, the patient population may have played a major role in the neutral findings, as they had relatively mild diastolic dysfunction, the majority lacked LVH (only 53% met criteria and median LV mass index was essentially normal), and many had no overt PH or RV dysfunction, with minimal systolic hypertension. This means that there likely was little for PKG to affect in the heart as experimental studies have shown that sildenafil has negligible effect in mild LVH but far more efficacy if applied to severe disease, as only the latter triggers maladaptive signaling that PKG can offset.143 As noted, HFpEF patients have low myocardial cGMP,70 so there would be insufficient cGMP for PDE5a inhibition to modify. natriuretic peptide levels were mildly increased in some patients in RELAX and were minimally elevated in many of the patients, so an alternative cGMP source was not active.
Lessons Learned From Trials to Date
There are several potential reasons why these established HFrEF therapies have failed to benefit in HFpEF. First, our fixation on RAAS signaling may indeed be misplaced. It seems unlikely that neurohormonal stimulation is not involved in HFpEF, but it may not be as sustained, with less impact gleaned by its blockade. Perhaps HFpEF is less a neurohormonal-driven disease as compared with HFrEF but rather is an integrative physiology disorder where hemodynamics and the control of blood volume and its distribution are more important.
In the case of sildenafil, the question remains whether one needs to stimulate cGMP generation first and then perhaps add in a PDE5A inhibitor. While combining nitrates and PDE5A inhibitors remains relatively contraindicated, low doses of a synthesis stimulator such as a direct sGC activator or natriuretic peptides might still prove effective, particularly if then combined with a blocker of cGMP hydrolysis.
Another important contributing factor is the patient population enrolled in clinical trials. In comparing population-based cohort descriptions to patients enrolled in clinical trials of HFpEF, it seems that the adverse outcome rates in the placebo groups in trials are markedly less than what is observed at the population-study level (compare Table 1 and Table 2). How do we explain this discrepancy? In comparing the cohorts, patients enrolled in HFpEF therapy trials (irrespective of which treatment arm) have a lower prevalence of hypertension (lower systolic blood pressure), less LVH (when reported), and somewhat less coronary artery disease. Each of these individual morbidities portends increased risk of adverse outcome; together their lower rates reflect a healthier cohort in the trials. This may reflect the multicenter and often international recruitment in trials versus more local and homogeneous sources in population studies, as well as involvement in a trial itself versus uncontrolled longitudinal observations. It argues for improving our capture of the truly at-risk HFpEF group, something we are not presently doing. It also suggests that more intensive clinical engagement, as accompanies being a participant even in the placebo arm, is rather effective.
|Inclusion criteria||LVEF >40%||LVEF >45%; diastolic dysfunction by Doppler echo; NYHA class II–III||LVEF >45%; NYHA II–IV; hospitalization for HF within past 6 mo||LVEF >45%; clinical signs/symptoms of HF; normal sinus rhythm||LVEF >50%; NYHA II–III, evidence of diastolic dysfunction||LVEF >50%, NYHA II–III; elevated BNP||LVEF >50; elevated NT-proBNP; reduced exercise capacity||LVEF >45%; controlled hypertension (SBP <140 or <160 mm Hg if on 3+ medication; serum potassium <5.0 mmol; history of hospitalization for HF in past 12 mo or elevated BNP/NT-proBNP)|
|Primary end point||Composite cardiovascular death and unplanned hospitalization for HF||Change in 6MWT||Composite cardiovascular death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular cause||Combined HF hospitalization or HF mortality||Changes in diastolic function (E/e′) and maximum exercise capacity (peak VO2)||Change in 6MWT||Change in peak VO2||Composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for HF|
|Outcome||Negative||Negative||Negative||Negative||Improved diastolic function; did not improve exercise capacity||Negative||Negative||Negative; lower hospitalization for HF in Spironolactone group|
|1-y survival, %||Placebo 90*; treatment 90*||Placebo 90*; treatment 90*||Placebo 77; treatment 77||Placebo 100; treatment >99||6-mo survival: placebo 100; treatment 97||Placebo >90; treatment >90|
|Patient characteristics, means or %|
|NYHA class, %||I (18), II (69), III (11), IV (2)||II (77), III (21)||II (21), III (77), IV (3)||I (19), II (59), III (20), IV (1)||II (85), III (15)||II (67), III (33)||II (49), III (51)||I (3), II (63), III (33), IV (0.4)|
|Diabetes mellitus, %||28||21||28||27||61||62||42||32|
|Left ventricular hypertrophy, %||48|
|SBP, mm Hg||134||134||137||135||130||124 (median)||129|
|DBP, mm Hg||75||81||79||79||71||76|
|Body mass index, kg/m2||24||30||30||29||30||33 (median)||32|
|BNP, pg/mL||219||255||234 (median)|
|NT-proBNP, pg/mL||360||179 (median)||757 (median)||950 (median)|
|Serum creatinine, mg/dL||1.0||1.0||1.6||1.3||1.1|
|LV mass, g/m2.7, orLVMI, g/m2||126 g/m2||108 g/m2||49 g/m2.7||77 g/m2|
|ACE-I, %||24||75 (ACE-I or ARB)||26||86||78||95 (ACE-I or ARB)||65 (ACE-I or ARB)||65|
|Aldosterone antagonist, %||21||15||12|
Finally, HFpEF is a simple enough label to apply to a patient, but the result is often profoundly heterogeneous, and differences among nations and medical practices can make it nearly impossible to create meaningful clinical trials. The different constellations of comorbidities also raises the bar very high for a therapeutic home run, as these may play a greater role in symptoms and treatment responses than generally assumed. An approach to this was recently suggested by Shah,144 who described the concept of matchmaking HFpEF patients to clinical trials. Subgroups involving major features such as hypertension/LVH or PH may respond differentially to a given therapy, and better population selection for clinical trials could yield more promising results.
New Therapeutic Avenues for HFpEF
HMG-Co-A Reductase Inhibitors
The use of HMG-Co-A reductase inhibitors, or statins, has yet to be tested in a large-scale trial. Observational reports of statin therapy in HFpEF have shown mixed findings for effects on diastolic parameters, although meta-analyses of 11 studies, mostly retrospective, suggest a significant benefit on survival.145,146 This is speculated to involve pleomorphic anti-inflammatory effects. Definitive trials have yet to be performed and may prove difficult given existing widespread use of statins in many HFpEF patients.
The neutral results of β-blocker trials in HFpEF led investigators to pursue therapies targeting the sinus node, including the inward funny (If) channel blocker, ivabradine, which slows sinus rate but has no impact on contractility or the peripheral vasculature, unlike β-blockade.147,148 Experimental data in mice with obesity and diabetes mellitus148 found reduced aortic stiffness and fibrosis and improvement in LV function from 4 weeks of ivabradine therapy.147,148 Kosmala et al149 recently published findings from a 7-day randomized clinical trial of ivabradine versus placebo in 61 HFpEF patients. Patients had improved peak VO2, exercise capacity, and decreased exercise–induced E/E′ ratio (index of diastolic pressure). There were no adverse events. Using a fairly homogenous cohort of patients with early-stage HFpEF may have helped this particular study. However, heart rate lowering seems unlikely to benefit all HFpEF patients, particularly those with resting bradycardia or chronotropic incompetence, where further blunting heart rate increase could worsen cardiac output reserve and thus exercise capacity. Also, patients with advanced diastolic disease with restrictive physiology are unlikely to benefit as filling occurs early and rapidly in these patients anyway, and heart rate becomes a primary determinant of cardiac output. Larger-scale, multicenter studies will be needed to test the utility of this approach.
Neprilysin Inhibitor (LCZ696)
Neprilysin is a zinc-dependent metalloprotease that degrades biologically active NPs, including atrial natriuretic peptide, BNP, and C-type natriuretic peptide. It does not affect the biologically inactive N-terminal proBNP.150 Natriuretic peptides can promote myocardial relaxation, reduce hypertrophy, and are integral to diuresis, natriuresis, and modest vasodilation.151 Clinical data for all of these effects are less well documented, but benefits have been observed. A recent randomized clinical trial compared LCZ696,152 which combines a neprilysin inhibitor prodrug AHU377 and the AT1 receptor blocker (valsartan), to valsartan alone in 266 HFpEF patients.151 LCZ696 led to a greater decline in N-terminal proBNP; however, cardiac structure and function and symptom composite metrics were similar between groups. Patients receiving LCZ696 had a greater reduction in blood pressure (≈6 mm Hg) by 12 weeks and fall in N-terminal proBNP remained significant after adjusting for this blood pressure change. Adverse effects were similar between the groups; overall, LCZ696 was well tolerated. The findings of this phase 2 study are promising and a large, multicenter study is underway comparing LCZ696 to enalapril (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction [PARADIGM-HF]).
Exercise intolerance is a major complaint of all HF patients. It is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality and is increasingly a leading outcome in pharmacological trials of HFpEF. Exercise training has been used to improve outcomes in HFrEF, particularly in patients with ischemic disease, and is being viewed as a potential therapy for HFpEF.153 Exercise training provides cardioprotection against ischemia-reperfusion injury (see excellent recent review by Powers et al),154 in part by suppressing ROS-mediated cellular damage, decreasing cytosolic free calcium, and reducing inflammatory changes from leukocyte infiltration and mitochondrial damage. Cardioprotection from exercise training is biphasic. The first phase is rapid in onset and short in duration (onset at 30 minutes, lasting 3 hours) and involves activation of the endogenous antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase in mitochondria of ventricular myocytes. The second phase is longer lasting (9 days), with multiple proposed mechanisms of benefit, including improved coronary circulation, stimulation of cytosolic antioxidants, increased heat shock proteins, increase in sarcolemmal- and mitochondrial-ATP–sensitive K channels, increase in cyclooxygenase 2, increased NO signaling, and altered mitochondrial phenotype (increased antioxidant capacity). Many of these mechanisms have been implicated in the development of HF, including HFpEF.
Kitzman et al155 reported findings from the first randomized, controlled study of exercise training in older patients with HFpEF during a 16-week period. The primary outcome of peak exercise oxygen uptake significantly improved in the exercise therapy group compared with controls. Improvements were also noted in exercise time, 6-minute walk distance, ventilatory anaerobic threshold, peak power output, and the physical component of the quality of life score. Interestingly, exercise training did not seem to improve endothelial function or arterial stiffness in a study of exercise training evaluating flow-mediated arterial dilation and carotid artery stiffness.156 These initial studies of exercise training are promising and suggest that exercise training should be considered part of the treatment algorithm, along with pharmacological agents, for the management of HFpEF. Effective translation in a population that is notably sedentary and often morbidly obese will undoubtedly pose challenges, however.
Targeting Neural Reflex Arcs: Renal Denervation and Nerve Stimulation
Long-standing, resistant hypertension is common in HFpEF patients, and alternatives to traditional pharmacological therapies are being sought. Renal sympathetic denervation is an example, and early results in small, nonplacebo controlled studies raised substantial optimism that this would be effective.157,158 However, the 2014 Renal Denervation in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension [SYMPLICITY HTN 3] Trial which studied 553 patients in a 2:1 randomization between active denervation or sham procedure, found no significant difference in the primary end point of reduced systolic pressure at 6 months.159 This was strikingly different from the prior SYMPLICITY HTN-2 trial, which found significant blood pressure decline along with reduced LV mass and improved diastolic function in the active treatment arm, but also lacked a true placebo control.160 The reasons for the discrepancies between the trials are being debated, but certainly the unbridled enthusiasm that had first met this therapy has been tempered.
Additional strategies to modulate autonomic tone include vagal nerve stimulators161 and carotid baroreceptor stimulators,162 which are emerging as promising therapies with pleomorphic effects. Among the proposed mechanisms of vagal nerve stimulation are anti-inflammatory effects, increased NO signaling, anticytokine effects, improved baroreflex sensitivity, and RAAS inhibition.163 The Increase Of Vagal Tone in CHF (INOVATE-HF) study will test vagal nerve stimulation (CardioFit system, BioControl, Israel) in HFrEF patients,163 but interest is there for HFpEF as well. While still largely in experimental stages, spinal cord stimulators is another approach that has shown some utility in HF patients.164 A HFrEF study (Defeat-HF, NCT01112579) has completed enrollment with results due in 2015. Lastly, endovascular cardiac plexus stimulation may offer an alternative way to increase contractility without increasing heart rate.165
Pumps, Devices, and Monitors
Device therapy has made enormous inroads into HFrEF with pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. The role of each in HFpEF is undefined; some patients with symptomatic chronotropic incompetence receive pacemakers, and those with a history of sudden death receive a defibrillator. Dyssynchrony in HFpEF can occur although it seems more rare than with HFrEF, and the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy has not yet been demonstrated in HFpEF. If anything, inducing dyssynchrony on purpose by single-site ventricular pacing was found to benefit a group of HFpEF patients with severe concentric LVH and end-systolic cavity obliteration.166,167 The rationale was that such patients have excessive contraction, and generating dyssynchrony increases end-systolic volume at rest, building back in some reserve capacity during exercise.
Another type of technology relates to monitor systems that provide physiological information,168 and these too may prove valuable for helping stabilize HFpEF patients and reduce their hospitalization rates. Some of the monitor data comes from existing device therapies, such as cardiac resynchronization therapy systems that also provide intrathoracic impedance measures via the RV lead,169 or monitor heart rate variability and patient activity level. These are limited however, to patients receiving CRT. Alternatively, devices that purely work as monitors have been developed and typically assess some pressure measure correlated with central vascular volume, with the goal of identifying critical fluid overload and symptoms before aggressive intervention is needed. These include right ventricular pressure monitors,170 pulmonary artery pressure sensors (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor),169 and left atrial pressure monitors (sensor system implanted transvenously into the atrial septum, oriented toward the left atrium).171 Drug delivery systems such as furosemide pumps might be linked to hemodynamic sensors as an innovative way to treat HF patients in real time, particularly targeting those patients who have a narrow range of filling pressure and fluid status tolerance, a common situation in HFpEF.
Miscellaneous Clinical Trials
Several other studies are currently underway examining the role of activation of the NO–sGC pathway. These are stimulated by appreciation for the hemodynamic sensitivity of HFpEF patients to vaso/venodilators, and the potential to stimulate a PKG signaling pathway, which is otherwise deficient. These trials are generally small and many are single center or involve small consortiums. They are examining the potential value of inorganic nitrite (NCT01932606), isosorbide dinitrate combined with hydralazine (NCT01516346), an oral sGC stimulator BAY1021189 (dose-ranging study called Effects, Safety and Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Four Dose Regimens of the Oral sGC Stimulator BAY1021189 (SOCRATES PRESERVED), sponsored by Bayer, NCT01951638), and a trial of udenafil, a PDE5A inhibitor (NCT01599117). There are also several ongoing trials of renal denervation (Renal Denervation in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [RDT-PEF], NCT01840059, and Renal Denervation for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [RESPECT-HF], NCT02041130), as well as a trial of acute HF management in HFpEF, evaluating diuretic strategy with and without low-dose dopamine (Diuretics and Dopamine in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [ROPA-DOP], NCT01901809).
HFpEF remains among the more challenging of clinical presentations to diagnose and manage. Lack of a clear and consistent mechanism among the many patients that fall into a HFpEF definition, variations in the comorbidities that modify its presentation and course, and the long list of failed therapies make it a poster child for Unmet Medical Needs. Addressing this need is all the more important given the devastating morbidity and mortality and stress on the global healthcare system that the syndrome exacts. We are making progress, but it has been extraordinarily slow, and some reassessment of our concepts and perhaps some paradigm changes are in order.
First, we need to recognize that the face of HFpEF varies. There are marked differences in HFpEF among different populations around the world based on medical practices, urban versus rural living, racial subgroups, etc. It is increasingly a disease of younger individuals, affecting men and women equally. In many locations, obesity is a common feature, and we need to understand much more how this affects the syndrome.
Second, we need to better subclassify HFpEF patients. Clinical trials and our overall approach would likely be improved by identifying patients based on dominant mechanisms of disease and symptom severity; the grab-bag diagnosis of HFpEF does not tell us much. For example, patients with substantial diastolic dysfunction with or without structural heart disease may behave differently from those with marked systolic hypertension and ventricular–vascular miscoupling, or from those with substantial inflammatory conditions, or chronotropic incompetence. Some sense of the severity of the defect would be helpful.
Third, we need more myocardial tissue. Not only biopsy pieces but muscle that can also be used to study live beating cells so we can better identify what has happened and why. We recognize this is nontrivial because these hearts are rarely ever replaced with a transplant—although, if the heart is central enough to the disease, perhaps this will change. The recent spread of integrative pathophysiology studies in humans is welcome, and more are needed.
Fourth, we need to improve experimental models, if possible. Animal models are typically designed to be monothematic on purpose, and while useful, efforts to combine common comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus or some other proinflammatory state would be welcome. Appreciation that aortic banding or rodents fed high-fat diet is not HFpEF despite having some diastolic dysfunction and a preserved EF is important. Still, there is great value in chopping up the puzzle, and experimental efforts are revealing novel signaling cascades and therapies worth trying even from models that capture 1 or 2 dimensions of the disease. However, caveat emptor.
Fifth, we need to consider therapies outside of the traditional HFrEF box. The failure of many clinical anti-RAAS trials and β-blocker trials sends a message about what types of pathways and mechanisms are involved, and we should listen to them. HFpEF is truly a systems physiology disease, and treatments that integrate multiple targets, such as neuromodulators or pleomorphic drugs, may prove most effective. We may soon have full feedback control systems that sense drug requirements and deliver them automatically; this could be a game changer. We call the disease HFpEF, but more and more data show skeletal muscle abnormalities are critical, and we need to start focusing on why and what this can mean for effective therapy.
The hope is that as we better focus on each of these issues, and gain new insights into how HFpEF works as a disease, we should finally be able to move it off the unmet need shelf where it has remained for some time, and onto one with our successful HF managements.
Unmet Needs in Cardiovascular Science and Medicine: Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Mechanisms, Clinical Features, and Therapies
Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Molecular Pathways of the Aging Myocardium
Guest Editor: Michael Zile
B-type natriuretic peptide
cyclic guanosine monophosphate
pulmonary arterial compliance
end systolic elastance
heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction
heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction
left ventricular hypertrophy
pulmonary arterial hypertension
pulmonary capillary wedge pressure
phosphodiesterase type 5A
protein kinase G
pulmonary venous hypertension
reactive oxygen species
pulmonary arterial resistance
Sources of Funding
This study was supported by
Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL,; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association.Circulation. 2013; 127:e6–e245.LinkGoogle Scholar
Steinberg BA, Zhao X, Heidenreich PA, Peterson ED, Bhatt DL, Cannon CP, Hernandez AF, Fonarow GC; Get With the Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators. Trends in patients hospitalized with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: prevalence, therapies, and outcomes.Circulation. 2012; 126:65–75.LinkGoogle Scholar
Owan TE, Hodge DO, Herges RM, Jacobsen SJ, Roger VL, Redfield MM. Trends in prevalence and outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.N Engl J Med. 2006; 355:251–259.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bhatia RS, Tu JV, Lee DS, Austin PC, Fang J, Haouzi A, Gong Y, Liu PP. Outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a population-based study.N Engl J Med. 2006; 355:260–269.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Liao L, Jollis JG, Anstrom KJ, Whellan DJ, Kitzman DW, Aurigemma GP, Mark DB, Schulman KA, Gottdiener JS. Costs for heart failure with normal vs reduced ejection fraction.Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:112–118.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Loffredo FS, Nikolova AP, Pancoast JR, Lee RT. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: molecular pathways of the aging myocardium.Circ Res. 2014; 115:97–107.LinkGoogle Scholar
Zile MR, Baicu CF, Gaasch WH. Diastolic heart failure–abnormalities in active relaxation and passive stiffness of the left ventricle.N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:1953–1959.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Borlaug BA, Nishimura RA, Sorajja P, Lam CS, Redfield MM. Exercise hemodynamics enhance diagnosis of early heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Circ Heart Fail. 2010; 3:588–595.LinkGoogle Scholar
Westermann D, Kasner M, Steendijk P, Spillmann F, Riad A, Weitmann K, Hoffmann W, Poller W, Pauschinger M, Schultheiss HP, Tschöpe C. Role of left ventricular stiffness in heart failure with normal ejection fraction.Circulation. 2008; 117:2051–2060.LinkGoogle Scholar
Zile MR, Gaasch WH, Carroll JD, Feldman MD, Aurigemma GP, Schaer GL, Ghali JK, Liebson PR. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction: is measurement of diastolic function necessary to make the diagnosis of diastolic heart failure?Circulation. 2001; 104:779–782.LinkGoogle Scholar
Zile MR, Brutsaert DL. New concepts in diastolic dysfunction and diastolic heart failure: part I: diagnosis, prognosis, and measurements of diastolic function.Circulation. 2002; 105:1387–1393.LinkGoogle Scholar
Burkhoff D, Maurer MS, Packer M. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction: is it really a disorder of diastolic function?Circulation. 2003; 107:656–658.LinkGoogle Scholar
Melenovsky V, Borlaug BA, Rosen B, Hay I, Ferruci L, Morell CH, Lakatta EG, Najjar SS, Kass DA. Cardiovascular features of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction versus nonfailing hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy in the urban Baltimore community: the role of atrial remodeling/dysfunction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49:198–207.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kitzman DW. Diastolic dysfunction in the elderly. Genesis and diagnostic and therapeutic implications.Cardiol Clin. 2000; 18:597–617, x.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kawaguchi M, Hay I, Fetics B, Kass DA. Combined ventricular systolic and arterial stiffening in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: implications for systolic and diastolic reserve limitations.Circulation. 2003; 107:714–720.LinkGoogle Scholar
Borlaug BA, Olson TP, Lam CS, Flood KS, Lerman A, Johnson BD, Redfield MM. Global cardiovascular reserve dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56:845–854.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Melenovsky V, Borlaug BA, Rosen B, Hay I, Ferruci L, Morell CH, Lakatta EG, Najjar SS, Kass DA. Cardiovascular features of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction versus nonfailing hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy in the urban Baltimore community: the role of atrial remodeling/dysfunction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49:198–207.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Quiñones MA, Zile MR, Massie BM, Kass DA; Writing Committee of the Dartmouth Diastolic Discourses. Chronic heart failure: a report from the Dartmouth Diastole Discourses.Congest Heart Fail. 2006; 12:162–165.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yip G, Wang M, Zhang Y, Fung JW, Ho PY, Sanderson JE. Left ventricular long axis function in diastolic heart failure is reduced in both diastole and systole: time for a redefinition?Heart. 2002; 87:121–125.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yu CM, Lin H, Yang H, Kong SL, Zhang Q, Lee SW. Progression of systolic abnormalities in patients with “isolated” diastolic heart failure and diastolic dysfunction.Circulation. 2002; 105:1195–1201.LinkGoogle Scholar
Aurigemma GP, Zile MR, Gaasch WH. Contractile behavior of the left ventricle in diastolic heart failure: with emphasis on regional systolic function.Circulation. 2006; 113:296–304.LinkGoogle Scholar
Jessup M, Abraham WT, Casey DE, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, Konstam MA, Mancini DM, Rahko PS, Silver MA, Stevenson LW, Yancy CW. 2009 focused update: ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.Circulation. 2009; 119:1977–2016.LinkGoogle Scholar
Lindenfeld J, Albert NM, Boehmer JP,. HFSA 2010 comprehensive heart failure practice guideline.J Card Fail. 2010; 16:e1–194.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 24. How to diagnose diastolic heart failure. European study group on diastolic heart failure.Eur Heart J. 1998; 19:990–1003.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yturralde RF, Gaasch WH. Diagnostic criteria for diastolic heart failure.Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2005; 47:314–319.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B,; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:e147–e239.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD,; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.Eur Heart J. 2012; 33:1787–1847.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Vasan RS, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Evans JC, Reiss CK, Levy D. Congestive heart failure in subjects with normal versus reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: prevalence and mortality in a population-based cohort.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 33:1948–1955.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fonarow GC, Stough WG, Abraham WT, Albert NM, Gheorghiade M, Greenberg BH, O’Connor CM, Sun JL, Yancy CW, Young JB; OPTIMIZE-HF Investigators and Hospitals. Characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with preserved systolic function hospitalized for heart failure: a report from the OPTIMIZE-HF Registry.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50:768–777.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yancy CW, Lopatin M, Stevenson LW, De Marco T, Fonarow GC; ADHERE Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators. Clinical presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes of patients admitted with acute decompensated heart failure with preserved systolic function: a report from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) Database.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47:76–84.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Klapholz M, Maurer M, Lowe AM,; New York Heart Failure Consortium. Hospitalization for heart failure in the presence of a normal left ventricular ejection fraction: results of the New York Heart Failure Registry.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43:1432–1438.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Shah S. Review: heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in African Americans.Ethn Dis. 2012; 22:432–438.MedlineGoogle Scholar
Burke MA, Katz DH, Beussink L, Selvaraj S, Gupta DK, Fox J, Chakrabarti S, Sauer AJ, Rich JD, Freed BH, Shah SJ. Prognostic importance of pathophysiologic markers in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.Circ Heart Fail. 2014; 7:288–299.LinkGoogle Scholar
Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Assmann SF,; TOPCAT Investigators. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:1383–1392.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Redfield MM, Chen HH, Borlaug BA,; RELAX Trial. Effect of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition on exercise capacity and clinical status in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized clinical trial.JAMA. 2013; 309:1268–1277.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Edelmann F, Wachter R, Schmidt AG,; Aldo-DHF Investigators. Effect of Spironolactone on diastolic function and exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the ALDO-DHF randomized controlled trial.JAMA. 2013; 309:781–791.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ather S, Chan W, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Ramasubbu K, Zachariah AA, Wehrens XH, Deswal A. Impact of noncardiac comorbidities on morbidity and mortality in a predominantly male population with heart failure and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59:998–1005.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yip GW, Ho PP, Woo KS, Sanderson JE. Comparison of frequencies of left ventricular systolic and diastolic heart failure in Chinese living in Hong Kong.Am J Cardiol. 1999; 84:563–567.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Tiller D, Russ M, Greiser KH, Nuding S, Ebelt H, Kluttig A, Kors JA, Thiery J, Bruegel M, Haerting J, Werdan K. Prevalence of symptomatic heart failure with reduced and with normal ejection fraction in an elderly general population-the CARLA study.PLoS One. 2013; 8:e59225.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lam CS, Roger VL, Rodeheffer RJ, Bursi F, Borlaug BA, Ommen SR, Kass DA, Redfield MM. Cardiac structure and ventricular-vascular function in persons with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction from Olmsted County, Minnesota.Circulation. 2007; 115:1982–1990.LinkGoogle Scholar
Lee DS, Gona P, Vasan RS, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Wang TJ, Tu JV, Levy D. Relation of disease pathogenesis and risk factors to heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction: insights from the Framingham Heart Study of the national heart, lung, and blood institute.Circulation. 2009; 119:3070–3077.LinkGoogle Scholar
Lewis EF, Lamas GA, O’Meara E,; CHARM Investigators. Characterization of health-related quality of life in heart failure patients with preserved versus low ejection fraction in CHARM.Eur J Heart Fail. 2007; 9:83–91.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra T, Lesman-Leegte I, van Veldhuisen DJ, Sanderman R, Jaarsma T. Quality of life is impaired similarly in heart failure patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.Eur J Heart Fail. 2011; 13:1013–1018.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, Michelson EL, Olofsson B, Ostergren J; CHARM Investigators and Committees. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial.Lancet. 2003; 362:777–781.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ahmed A, Rich MW, Fleg JL, Zile MR, Young JB, Kitzman DW, Love TE, Aronow WS, Adams KF, Gheorghiade M. Effects of digoxin on morbidity and mortality in diastolic heart failure: the ancillary digitalis investigation group trial.Circulation. 2006; 114:397–403.LinkGoogle Scholar
Chan MM, Lam CS. How do patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction die?Eur J Heart Fail. 2013; 15:604–613.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mangla A, Kane J, Beaty E, Richardson D, Powell LH, Calvin JE. Comparison of predictors of heart failure-related hospitalization or death in patients with versus without preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.Am J Cardiol. 2013; 112:1907–1912.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Wachter R, Schmidt-Schweda S, Westermann D, Post H, Edelmann F, Kasner M, Lüers C, Steendijk P, Hasenfuss G, Tschöpe C, Pieske B. Blunted frequency-dependent upregulation of cardiac output is related to impaired relaxation in diastolic heart failure.Eur Heart J. 2009; 30:3027–3036.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lester SJ, Tajik AJ, Nishimura RA, Oh JK, Khandheria BK, Seward JB. Unlocking the mysteries of diastolic function: deciphering the Rosetta Stone 10 years later.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51:679–689.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto K, Redfield MM, Nishimura RA. Analysis of left ventricular diastolic function.Heart. 1996; 75:27–35.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kranias EG, Bers DM. Calcium and cardiomyopathies.Subcell Biochem. 2007; 45:523–537.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Sag CM, Wagner S, Maier LS. Role of oxidants on calcium and sodium movement in healthy and diseased cardiac myocytes.Free Radic Biol Med. 2013; 63:338–349.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Helmes M, Lim CC, Liao R, Bharti A, Cui L, Sawyer DB. Titin determines the Frank-Starling relation in early diastole.J Gen Physiol. 2003; 121:97–110.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Norman HS, Oujiri J, Larue SJ, Chapman CB, Margulies KB, Sweitzer NK. Decreased cardiac functional reserve in heart failure with preserved systolic function.J Card Fail. 2011; 17:301–308.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hamdani N, Paulus WJ, van Heerebeek L, Borbély A, Boontje NM, Zuidwijk MJ, Bronzwaer JG, Simonides WS, Niessen HW, Stienen GJ, van der Velden J. Distinct myocardial effects of beta-blocker therapy in heart failure with normal and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.Eur Heart J. 2009; 30:1863–1872.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bell SP, Nyland L, Tischler MD, McNabb M, Granzier H, LeWinter MM. Alterations in the determinants of diastolic suction during pacing tachycardia.Circ Res. 2000; 87:235–240.LinkGoogle Scholar
Penicka M, Bartunek J, Trakalova H, Hrabakova H, Maruskova M, Karasek J, Kocka V. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in outpatients with unexplained dyspnea: a pressure-volume loop analysis.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55:1701–1710.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lam CS, Roger VL, Rodeheffer RJ, Bursi F, Borlaug BA, Ommen SR, Kass DA, Redfield MM. Cardiac structure and ventricular-vascular function in persons with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction from Olmsted County, Minnesota.Circulation. 2007; 115:1982–1990.LinkGoogle Scholar
Borbély A, van der Velden J, Papp Z, Bronzwaer JG, Edes I, Stienen GJ, Paulus WJ. Cardiomyocyte stiffness in diastolic heart failure.Circulation. 2005; 111:774–781.LinkGoogle Scholar
Kasner M, Westermann D, Lopez B, Gaub R, Escher F, Kühl U, Schultheiss HP, Tschöpe C. Diastolic tissue Doppler indexes correlate with the degree of collagen expression and cross-linking in heart failure and normal ejection fraction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57:977–985.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
van Heerebeek L, Borbély A, Niessen HW, Bronzwaer JG, van der Velden J, Stienen GJ, Linke WA, Laarman GJ, Paulus WJ. Myocardial structure and function differ in systolic and diastolic heart failure.Circulation. 2006; 113:1966–1973.LinkGoogle Scholar
González A, López B, Querejeta R, Zubillaga E, Echeverría T, Díez J. Filling pressures and collagen metabolism in hypertensive patients with heart failure and normal ejection fraction.Hypertension. 2010; 55:1418–1424.LinkGoogle Scholar
Westermann D, Lindner D, Kasner M, Zietsch C, Savvatis K, Escher F, von Schlippenbach J, Skurk C, Steendijk P, Riad A, Poller W, Schultheiss HP, Tschöpe C. Cardiac inflammation contributes to changes in the extracellular matrix in patients with heart failure and normal ejection fraction.Circ Heart Fail. 2011; 4:44–52.LinkGoogle Scholar
van Heerebeek L, Hamdani N, Handoko ML,. Diastolic stiffness of the failing diabetic heart: importance of fibrosis, advanced glycation end products, and myocyte resting tension.Circulation. 2008; 117:43–51.LinkGoogle Scholar
Badenhorst D, Maseko M, Tsotetsi OJ, Naidoo A, Brooksbank R, Norton GR, Woodiwiss AJ. Cross-linking influences the impact of quantitative changes in myocardial collagen on cardiac stiffness and remodelling in hypertension in rats.Cardiovasc Res. 2003; 57:632–641.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Glezeva N, Baugh JA. Role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and its potential as a therapeutic target [published online ahead of print September 5, 2013].Heart Fai Revhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10741-013-9405-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10741-013-9405-8.Google Scholar
Paulus WJ, Tschöpe C. A novel paradigm for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: comorbidities drive myocardial dysfunction and remodeling through coronary microvascular endothelial inflammation.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:263–271.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mohammed SF, Mirzoyev SA, Edwards WD, Dogan A, Grogan DR, Dunlay SM, Roger VL, Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, Zeldenrust SR, Redfield MM. Left ventricular amyloid deposition in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.JACC Heart Fail. 2014; 2:113–122.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Dungu JN, Anderson LJ, Whelan CJ, Hawkins PN. Cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis.Heart. 2012; 98:1546–1554.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
van Heerebeek L, Hamdani N, Falcão-Pires I, Leite-Moreira AF, Begieneman MP, Bronzwaer JG, van der Velden J, Stienen GJ, Laarman GJ, Somsen A, Verheugt FW, Niessen HW, Paulus WJ. Low myocardial protein kinase G activity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Circulation. 2012; 126:830–839.LinkGoogle Scholar
Linke WA, Hamdani N. Gigantic business: titin properties and function through thick and thin.Circ Res. 2014; 114:1052–1068.LinkGoogle Scholar
Lahmers S, Wu Y, Call DR, Labeit S, Granzier H. Developmental control of titin isoform expression and passive stiffness in fetal and neonatal myocardium.Circ Res. 2004; 94:505–513.LinkGoogle Scholar
Borbély A, Falcao-Pires I, van Heerebeek L, Hamdani N, Edes I, Gavina C, Leite-Moreira AF, Bronzwaer JG, Papp Z, van der Velden J, Stienen GJ, Paulus WJ. Hypophosphorylation of the Stiff N2B titin isoform raises cardiomyocyte resting tension in failing human myocardium.Circ Res. 2009; 104:780–786.LinkGoogle Scholar
Krüger M, Kötter S, Grützner A, Lang P, Andresen C, Redfield MM, Butt E, dos Remedios CG, Linke WA. Protein kinase G modulates human myocardial passive stiffness by phosphorylation of the titin springs.Circ Res. 2009; 104:87–94.LinkGoogle Scholar
Hamdani N, Krysiak J, Kreusser MM, Neef S, Dos Remedios CG, Maier LS, Krüger M, Backs J, Linke WA. Crucial role for Ca2(+)/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase-II in regulating diastolic stress of normal and failing hearts via titin phosphorylation.Circ Res. 2013; 112:664–674.LinkGoogle Scholar
Yamasaki R, Wu Y, McNabb M, Greaser M, Labeit S, Granzier H. Protein kinase A phosphorylates titin’s cardiac-specific N2B domain and reduces passive tension in rat cardiac myocytes.Circ Res. 2002; 90:1181–1188.LinkGoogle Scholar
Grützner A, Garcia-Manyes S, Kötter S, Badilla CL, Fernandez JM, Linke WA. Modulation of titin-based stiffness by disulfide bonding in the cardiac titin N2-B unique sequence.Biophys J. 2009; 97:825–834.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Alegre-Cebollada J, Kosuri P, Giganti D, Eckels E, Rivas-Pardo JA, Hamdani N, Warren CM, Solaro RJ, Linke WA, Fernández JM. S-glutathionylation of cryptic cysteines enhances titin elasticity by blocking protein folding.Cell. 2014; 156:1235–1246.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bishu K, Hamdani N, Mohammed SF, Kruger M, Ohtani T, Ogut O, Brozovich FV, Burnett JC, Linke WA, Redfield MM. Sildenafil and B-type natriuretic peptide acutely phosphorylate titin and improve diastolic distensibility in vivo.Circulation. 2011; 124:2882–2891.LinkGoogle Scholar
Hamdani N, Franssen C, Lourenço A,. Myocardial titin hypophosphorylation importantly contributes to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a rat metabolic risk model.Circ Heart Fail. 2013; 6:1239–1249.LinkGoogle Scholar
Tsai EJ, Liu Y, Koitabashi N, Bedja D, Danner T, Jasmin JF, Lisanti MP, Friebe A, Takimoto E, Kass DA. Pressure-overload-induced subcellular relocalization/oxidation of soluble guanylyl cyclase in the heart modulates enzyme stimulation.Circ Res. 2012; 110:295–303.LinkGoogle Scholar
Takimoto E, Champion HC, Li M, Ren S, Rodriguez ER, Tavazzi B, Lazzarino G, Paolocci N, Gabrielson KL, Wang Y, Kass DA. Oxidant stress from nitric oxide synthase-3 uncoupling stimulates cardiac pathologic remodeling from chronic pressure load.J Clin Invest. 2005; 115:1221–1231.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bruch C, Gradaus R, Gunia S, Breithardt G, Wichter T. Doppler tissue analysis of mitral annular velocities: evidence for systolic abnormalities in patients with diastolic heart failure.J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2003; 16:1031–1036.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Vinereanu D, Nicolaides E, Tweddel AC, Fraser AG. “Pure” diastolic dysfunction is associated with long-axis systolic dysfunction. Implications for the diagnosis and classification of heart failure.Eur J Heart Fail. 2005; 7:820–828.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kraigher-Krainer E, Shah AM, Gupta DK, Santos A, Claggett B, Pieske B, Zile MR, Voors AA, Lefkowitz MP, Packer M, McMurray JJ, Solomon SD; PARAMOUNT Investigators. Impaired systolic function by strain imaging in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63:447–456.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Baicu CF, Zile MR, Aurigemma GP, Gaasch WH. Left ventricular systolic performance, function, and contractility in patients with diastolic heart failure.Circulation. 2005; 111:2306–2312.LinkGoogle Scholar
Borlaug BA, Kass DA. Ventricular-vascular interaction in heart failure.Cardiol Clin. 2011; 29:447–459.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kelly RP, Ting CT, Yang TM, Liu CP, Maughan WL, Chang MS, Kass DA. Effective arterial elastance as index of arterial vascular load in humans.Circulation. 1992; 86:513–521.LinkGoogle Scholar
Kitzman DW, Higginbotham MB, Cobb FR, Sheikh KH, Sullivan MJ. Exercise intolerance in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular systolic function: failure of the Frank-Starling mechanism.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991; 17:1065–1072.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Borlaug BA, Melenovsky V, Russell SD, Kessler K, Pacak K, Becker LC, Kass DA. Impaired chronotropic and vasodilator reserves limit exercise capacity in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction.Circulation. 2006; 114:2138–2147.LinkGoogle Scholar
Brubaker PH, Joo KC, Stewart KP, Fray B, Moore B, Kitzman DW. Chronotropic incompetence and its contribution to exercise intolerance in older heart failure patients.J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2006; 26:86–89.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Phan TT, Shivu GN, Abozguia K, Davies C, Nassimizadeh M, Jimenez D, Weaver R, Ahmed I, Frenneaux M. Impaired heart rate recovery and chronotropic incompetence in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Circ Heart Fail. 2010; 3:29–34.LinkGoogle Scholar
Cole CR, Blackstone EH, Pashkow FJ, Snader CE, Lauer MS. Heart-rate recovery immediately after exercise as a predictor of mortality.N Engl J Med. 1999; 341:1351–1357.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Puntawangkoon C, Kitzman DW, Kritchevsky SB, Hamilton CA, Nicklas B, Leng X, Brubaker PH, Hundley WG. Reduced peripheral arterial blood flow with preserved cardiac output during submaximal bicycle exercise in elderly heart failure.J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2009; 11:48.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Liu CP, Ting CT, Lawrence W, Maughan WL, Chang MS, Kass DA. Diminished contractile response to increased heart rate in intact human left ventricular hypertrophy. Systolic versus diastolic determinants.Circulation. 1993; 88:1893–1906.LinkGoogle Scholar
Westermann D, Kasner M, Steendijk P, Spillmann F, Riad A, Weitmann K, Hoffmann W, Poller W, Pauschinger M, Schultheiss HP, Tschöpe C. Role of left ventricular stiffness in heart failure with normal ejection fraction.Circulation. 2008; 117:2051–2060.LinkGoogle Scholar
Smith CS, Bottomley PA, Schulman SP, Gerstenblith G, Weiss RG. Altered creatine kinase adenosine triphosphate kinetics in failing hypertrophied human myocardium.Circulation. 2006; 114:1151–1158.LinkGoogle Scholar
Phan TT, Abozguia K, Nallur Shivu G, Mahadevan G, Ahmed I, Williams L, Dwivedi G, Patel K, Steendijk P, Ashrafian H, Henning A, Frenneaux M. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is characterized by dynamic impairment of active relaxation and contraction of the left ventricle on exercise and associated with myocardial energy deficiency.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54:402–409.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kitzman DW, Nicklas B, Kraus WE, Lyles MF, Eggebeen J, Morgan TM, Haykowsky M. Skeletal muscle abnormalities and exercise intolerance in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2014; 306:H1364–H1370.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bhella PS, Prasad A, Heinicke K, Hastings JL, Arbab-Zadeh A, Adams-Huet B, Pacini EL, Shibata S, Palmer MD, Newcomer BR, Levine BD. Abnormal haemodynamic response to exercise in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Eur J Heart Fail. 2011; 13:1296–1304.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Haykowsky MJ, Brubaker PH, Morgan TM, Kritchevsky S, Eggebeen J, Kitzman DW. Impaired aerobic capacity and physical functional performance in older heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction: role of lean body mass.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013; 68:968–975.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Edelmann F, Stahrenberg R, Gelbrich G, Durstewitz K, Angermann CE, Düngen HD, Scheffold T, Zugck C, Maisch B, Regitz-Zagrosek V, Hasenfuss G, Pieske BM, Wachter R. Contribution of comorbidities to functional impairment is higher in heart failure with preserved than with reduced ejection fraction.Clin Res Cardiol. 2011; 100:755–764.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kalogeropoulos A, Georgiopoulou V, Psaty BM, Rodondi N, Smith AL, Harrison DG, Liu Y, Hoffmann U, Bauer DC, Newman AB, Kritchevsky SB, Harris TB, Butler J; Health ABC Study Investigators. Inflammatory markers and incident heart failure risk in older adults: the Health ABC (Health, Aging, and Body Composition) study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55:2129–2137.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Collier P, Watson CJ, Voon V, Phelan D, Jan A, Mak G, Martos R, Baugh JA, Ledwidge MT, McDonald KM. Can emerging biomarkers of myocardial remodelling identify asymptomatic hypertensive patients at risk for diastolic dysfunction and diastolic heart failure?Eur J Heart Fail. 2011; 13:1087–1095.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Shah KB, Kop WJ, Christenson RH, Diercks DB, Henderson S, Hanson K, Li SY, deFilippi CR. Prognostic utility of ST2 in patients with acute dyspnea and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.Clin Chem. 2011; 57:874–882.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Matsubara J, Sugiyama S, Nozaki T, Sugamura K, Konishi M, Ohba K, Matsuzawa Y, Akiyama E, Yamamoto E, Sakamoto K, Nagayoshi Y, Kaikita K, Sumida H, Kim-Mitsuyama S, Ogawa H. Pentraxin 3 is a new inflammatory marker correlated with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with normal ejection fraction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57:861–869.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Koitabashi N, Danner T, Zaiman AL, Pinto YM, Rowell J, Mankowski J, Zhang D, Nakamura T, Takimoto E, Kass DA. Pivotal role of cardiomyocyte TGF-β signaling in the murine pathological response to sustained pressure overload.J Clin Invest. 2011; 121:2301–2312.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Rainer PP, Hao S, Vanhoutte D, Lee DI, Koitabashi N, Molkentin JD, Kass DA. Cardiomyocyte-specific transforming growth factor β suppression blocks neutrophil infiltration, augments multiple cytoprotective cascades, and reduces early mortality after myocardial infarction.Circ Res. 2014; 114:1246–1257.LinkGoogle Scholar
van Veldhuisen DJ, Linssen GC, Jaarsma T, van Gilst WH, Hoes AW, Tijssen JG, Paulus WJ, Voors AA, Hillege HL. B-type natriuretic peptide and prognosis in heart failure patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61:1498–1506.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bishu K, Deswal A, Chen HH, LeWinter MM, Lewis GD, Semigran MJ, Borlaug BA, McNulty S, Hernandez AF, Braunwald E, Redfield MM. Biomarkers in acutely decompensated heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction.Am Heart J. 2012; 164:763–770.e3.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Zile MR, Baicu CF. Biomarkers of diastolic dysfunction and myocardial fibrosis: application to heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction.J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2013; 6:501–515.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
O’Meara E, de Denus S, Rouleau JL, Desai A. Circulating biomarkers in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2013; 10:350–358.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lam CS, Roger VL, Rodeheffer RJ, Borlaug BA, Enders FT, Redfield MM. Pulmonary hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a community-based study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53:1119–1126.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Shah AM, Shah SJ, Anand IS, Sweitzer NK, O’Meara E, Heitner JF, Sopko G, Li G, Assmann SF, McKinlay SM, Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Solomon SD; TOPCAT Investigators. Cardiac structure and function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: baseline findings from the echocardiographic study of the treatment of preserved cardiac function heart failure with an aldosterone antagonist trial.Circ Heart Fail. 2014; 7:104–115.LinkGoogle Scholar
Robbins IM, Hemnes AR, Pugh ME, Brittain EL, Zhao DX, Piana RN, Fong PP, Newman JH. High prevalence of occult pulmonary venous hypertension revealed by fluid challenge in pulmonary hypertension.Circ Heart Fail. 2014; 7:116–122.LinkGoogle Scholar
Borlaug BA. Invasive assessment of pulmonary hypertension: time for a more fluid approach?Circ Heart Fail. 2014; 7:2–4.LinkGoogle Scholar
Tedford RJ, Hassoun PM, Mathai SC, Girgis RE, Russell SD, Thiemann DR, Cingolani OH, Mudd JO, Borlaug BA, Redfield MM, Lederer DJ, Kass DA. Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure augments right ventricular pulsatile loading.Circulation. 2012; 125:289–297.LinkGoogle Scholar
Shah SJ, Heitner JF, Sweitzer NK,. Baseline characteristics of patients in the treatment of preserved cardiac function heart failure with an aldosterone antagonist trial.Circ Heart Fail. 2013; 6:184–192.LinkGoogle Scholar
Rusinaru D, Buiciuc O, Houpe D, Tribouilloy C. Renal function and long-term survival after hospital discharge in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Int J Cardiol. 2011; 147:278–282.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Miura M, Shiba N, Nochioka K, Takada T, Takahashi J, Kohno H, Shimokawa H; CHART-2 Investigators. Urinary albumin excretion in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: an interim analysis of the CHART 2 study.Eur J Heart Fail. 2012; 14:367–376.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Nohria A, Hasselblad V, Stebbins A, Pauly DF, Fonarow GC, Shah M, Yancy CW, Califf RM, Stevenson LW, Hill JA. Cardiorenal interactions: insights from the ESCAPE trial.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51:1268–1274.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Dryer SE, Reiser J. TRPC6 channels and their binding partners in podocytes: role in glomerular filtration and pathophysiology.Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2010; 299:F689–F701.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Eder P, Molkentin JD. TRPC channels as effectors of cardiac hypertrophy.Circ Res. 2011; 108:265–272.LinkGoogle Scholar
Davis J, Burr AR, Davis GF, Birnbaumer L, Molkentin JD. A TRPC6-dependent pathway for myofibroblast transdifferentiation and wound healing in vivo.Dev Cell. 2012; 23:705–715.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Verbrugge FH, Dupont M, Steels P, Grieten L, Malbrain M, Tang WH, Mullens W. Abdominal contributions to cardiorenal dysfunction in congestive heart failure.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:485–495.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Flather MD, Shibata MC, Coats AJ,; SENIORS Investigators. Randomized trial to determine the effect of nebivolol on mortality and cardiovascular hospital admission in elderly patients with heart failure (SENIORS).Eur Heart J. 2005; 26:215–225.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto K, Origasa H, Hori M; J-DHF Investigators. Effects of carvedilol on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the Japanese Diastolic Heart Failure Study (J-DHF).Eur J Heart Fail. 2013; 15:110–118.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Conraads VM, Metra M, Kamp O, De Keulenaer GW, Pieske B, Zamorano J, Vardas PE, Böhm M, Dei Cas L. Effects of the long-term administration of nebivolol on the clinical symptoms, exercise capacity, and left ventricular function of patients with diastolic dysfunction: results of the ELANDD study.Eur J Heart Fail. 2012; 14:219–225.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Cleland JG, Tendera M, Adamus J, Freemantle N, Polonski L, Taylor J; PEP-CHF Investigators. The Perindopril in Elderly People with Chronic Heart Failure (PEP-CHF) study.Eur Heart J. 2006; 27:2338–2345.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Massie BM, Carson PE, McMurray JJ, Komajda M, McKelvie R, Zile MR, Anderson S, Donovan M, Iverson E, Staiger C, Ptaszynska A; I-PRESERVE Investigators. Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:2456–2467.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Deswal A, Richardson P, Bozkurt B, Mann DL. Results of the Randomized Aldosterone Antagonism in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction trial (RAAM-PEF).J Card Fail. 2011; 17:634–642.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, Michelson EL, Olofsson B, Ostergren J; CHARM Investigators and Committees. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved trial.Lancet. 2003; 362:777–781.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Takimoto E, Champion HC, Li M, Belardi D, Ren S, Rodriguez ER, Bedja D, Gabrielson KL, Wang Y, Kass DA. Chronic inhibition of cyclic GMP phosphodiesterase 5A prevents and reverses cardiac hypertrophy.Nat Med. 2005; 11:214–222.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fisher PW, Salloum F, Das A, Hyder H, Kukreja RC. Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition with sildenafil attenuates cardiomyocyte apoptosis and left ventricular dysfunction in a chronic model of doxorubicin cardiotoxicity.Circulation. 2005; 111:1601–1610.LinkGoogle Scholar
Pérez NG, Piaggio MR, Ennis IL, Garciarena CD, Morales C, Escudero EM, Cingolani OH, Chiappe de Cingolani G, Yang XP, Cingolani HE. Phosphodiesterase 5A inhibition induces Na+/H+ exchanger blockade and protection against myocardial infarction.Hypertension. 2007; 49:1095–1103.LinkGoogle Scholar
Salloum FN, Chau VQ, Hoke NN, Abbate A, Varma A, Ockaili RA, Toldo S, Kukreja RC. Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor, tadalafil, protects against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion through protein-kinase g-dependent generation of hydrogen sulfide.Circulation. 2009; 120:S31–S36.LinkGoogle Scholar
Kass DA, Champion HC, Beavo JA. Phosphodiesterase type 5: expanding roles in cardiovascular regulation.Circ Res. 2007; 101:1084–1095.LinkGoogle Scholar
Forfia PR, Lee M, Tunin RS, Mahmud M, Champion HC, Kass DA. Acute phosphodiesterase 5 inhibition mimics hemodynamic effects of B-type natriuretic peptide and potentiates B-type natriuretic peptide effects in failing but not normal canine heart.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49:1079–1088.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lepore JJ, Maroo A, Bigatello LM, Dec GW, Zapol WM, Bloch KD, Semigran MJ. Hemodynamic effects of sildenafil in patients with congestive heart failure and pulmonary hypertension: combined administration with inhaled nitric oxide.Chest. 2005; 127:1647–1653.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Nagendran J, Archer SL, Soliman D, Gurtu V, Moudgil R, Haromy A, St Aubin C, Webster L, Rebeyka IM, Ross DB, Light PE, Dyck JR, Michelakis ED. Phosphodiesterase type 5 is highly expressed in the hypertrophied human right ventricle, and acute inhibition of phosphodiesterase type 5 improves contractility.Circulation. 2007; 116:238–248.LinkGoogle Scholar
Lewis GD, Shah R, Shahzad K, Camuso JM, Pappagianopoulos PP, Hung J, Tawakol A, Gerszten RE, Systrom DM, Bloch KD, Semigran MJ. Sildenafil improves exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with systolic heart failure and secondary pulmonary hypertension.Circulation. 2007; 116:1555–1562.LinkGoogle Scholar
Guazzi M, Bandera F, Forfia P. Sildenafil and exercise capacity in heart failure.JAMA. 2013; 310:432.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Nagayama T, Hsu S, Zhang M, Koitabashi N, Bedja D, Gabrielson KL, Takimoto E, Kass DA. Pressure-overload magnitude-dependence of the anti-hypertrophic efficacy of PDE5A inhibition.J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2009; 46:560–567.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Shah SJ. Matchmaking for the optimization of clinical trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: no laughing matter.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:1339–1342.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fukuta H, Little WC. Observational studies of statins in heart failure with preserved systolic function.Heart Fail Clin. 2008; 4:209–216.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fukuta H, Sane DC, Brucks S, Little WC. Statin therapy may be associated with lower mortality in patients with diastolic heart failure: a preliminary report.Circulation. 2005; 112:357–363.LinkGoogle Scholar
Reil JC, Reil GH, Böhm M. Heart rate reduction by I(f)-channel inhibition and its potential role in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2009; 19:152–157.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Reil JC, Hohl M, Reil GH, Granzier HL, Kratz MT, Kazakov A, Fries P, Müller A, Lenski M, Custodis F, Gräber S, Fröhlig G, Steendijk P, Neuberger HR, Böhm M. Heart rate reduction by If-inhibition improves vascular stiffness and left ventricular systolic and diastolic function in a mouse model of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Eur Heart J. 2013; 34:2839–2849.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kosmala W, Holland DJ, Rojek A, Wright L, Przewlocka-Kosmala M, Marwick TH. Effect of If-channel inhibition on hemodynamic status and exercise tolerance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized trial.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:1330–1338.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
von Lueder TG, Atar D, Krum H.Current role of neprilysin inhibitors in hypertension and heart failure [published online ahead of print May 14, 2014].Pharmacol Therpii: S0163-7258(14)00097-7. doi: 10.1016/j.Google Scholar
Solomon SD, Zile M, Pieske B, Voors AA, Shah A, Kraigher-Krainer E, Shi V, Bransford T, Takeuchi M, Gong JJ, Lefkowitz M, Packer M, McMurray JJV; Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB on Management Of heart failUre with preserved ejectioN fracTion (PARAMOUNT) Investigators. The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a phase II randomised-controlled trial.J Card Fail. 2012; 18:883.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gu J, Noe A, Chandra P, Al-Fayoumi S, Ligueros-Saylan M, Sarangapani R, Maahs S, Ksander G, Rigel DF, Jeng AY, Lin TH, Zheng W, Dole WP. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of LCZ696, a novel dual-acting angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi).J Clin Pharmacol. 2010; 50:401–414.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Edelmann F, Gelbrich G, Düngen HD, Fröhling S, Wachter R, Stahrenberg R, Binder L, Töpper A, Lashki DJ, Schwarz S, Herrmann-Lingen C, Löffler M, Hasenfuss G, Halle M, Pieske B. Exercise training improves exercise capacity and diastolic function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: results of the Ex-DHF (Exercise training in Diastolic Heart Failure) pilot study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58:1780–1791.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Powers SK, Smuder AJ, Kavazis AN, Quindry JC. Mechanisms of exercise-induced cardioprotection.Physiology (Bethesda). 2014; 29:27–38.MedlineGoogle Scholar
Kitzman DW, Brubaker PH, Morgan TM, Stewart KP, Little WC. Exercise training in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial.Circ Heart Fail. 2010; 3:659–667.LinkGoogle Scholar
Kitzman DW, Brubaker PH, Herrington DM, Morgan TM, Stewart KP, Hundley WG, Abdelhamed A, Haykowsky MJ. Effect of endurance exercise training on endothelial function and arterial stiffness in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62:584–592.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Böhm M, Ewen S, Linz D, Reil JC, Schirmer SH, Ukena C, Mahfoud F. Therapeutic potential of renal sympathetic denervation in patients with chronic heart failure.EuroIntervention. 2013; 9(suppl R):R122–R126.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Esler MD, Krum H, Schlaich M, Schmieder RE, Böhm M, Sobotka PA; Symplicity HTN-2 Investigators. Renal sympathetic denervation for treatment of drug-resistant hypertension: one-year results from the Symplicity HTN-2 randomized, controlled trial.Circulation. 2012; 126:2976–2982.LinkGoogle Scholar
Bhatt DL, Kandzari DE, O’Neill WW, D’Agostino R, Flack JM, Katzen BT, Leon MB, Liu M, Mauri L, Negoita M, Cohen SA, Oparil S, Rocha-Singh K, Townsend RR, Bakris GL; SYMPLICITY HTN-3 Investigators. A controlled trial of renal denervation for resistant hypertension.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370:1393–1401.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Esler MD, Krum H, Sobotka PA, Schlaich MP, Schmieder RE, Bohm M. Renal sympathetic denervation in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension (the symplicity htn-2 trial): a randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2010; 376:1903–1909.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
De Ferrari GM, Crijns HJ, Borggrefe M, Milasinovic G, Smid J, Zabel M, Gavazzi A, Sanzo A, Dennert R, Kuschyk J, Raspopovic S, Klein H, Swedberg K, Schwartz PJ; CardioFit Multicenter Trial Investigators. Chronic vagus nerve stimulation: a new and promising therapeutic approach for chronic heart failure.Eur Heart J. 2011; 32:847–855.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Scheffers IJ, Kroon AA, Schmidli J,. Novel baroreflex activation therapy in resistant hypertension: results of a European multi-center feasibility study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56:1254–1258.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hauptman PJ, Schwartz PJ, Gold MR, Borggrefe M, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Starling RC, Mann DL. Rationale and study design of the increase of vagal tone in heart failure study: INOVATE-HF.Am Heart J. 2012; 163:954–962.e1.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lopshire JC, Zipes DP. Spinal cord stimulation for heart failure: preclinical studies to determine optimal stimulation parameters for clinical efficacy.J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2014; 7:321–329.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi M, Sakurai S, Takaseya T, Shiose A, Kim HI, Fujiki M, Karimov JH, Dessoffy R, Massiello A, Borowski AG, Van Wagoner DR, Jung E, Fukamachi K. Effects of percutaneous stimulation of both sympathetic and parasympathetic cardiac autonomic nerves on cardiac function in dogs.Innovations (Phila). 2012; 7:282–289.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Pak PH, Maughan WL, Baughman KL, Kieval RS, Kass DA. Mechanism of acute mechanical benefit from VDD pacing in hypertrophied heart: similarity of responses in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and hypertensive heart disease.Circulation. 1998; 98:242–248.LinkGoogle Scholar
Kass DA, Chen CH, Talbot MW, Rochitte CE, Lima JA, Berger RD, Calkins H. Ventricular pacing with premature excitation for treatment of hypertensive-cardiac hypertrophy with cavity-obliteration.Circulation. 1999; 100:807–812.LinkGoogle Scholar
Abraham WT. Disease management: remote monitoring in heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators, resynchronization devices, and haemodynamic monitors.Europace. 2013; 15(suppl 1):i40–i46.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Bourge RC, Aaron MF, Costanzo MR, Stevenson LW, Strickland W, Neelagaru S, Raval N, Krueger S, Weiner S, Shavelle D, Jeffries B, Yadav JS; CHAMPION Trial Study Group. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2011; 377:658–666.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bourge RC, Abraham WT, Adamson PB, Aaron MF, Aranda JM, Magalski A, Zile MR, Smith AL, Smart FW, O’Shaughnessy MA, Jessup ML, Sparks B, Naftel DL, Stevenson LW; COMPASS-HF Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of an implantable continuous hemodynamic monitor in patients with advanced heart failure: the COMPASS-HF study.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51:1073–1079.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Troughton RW, Ritzema J, Eigler NL,; HOMEOSTASIS Investigators. Direct left atrial pressure monitoring in severe heart failure: long-term sensor performance.J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2011; 4:3–13.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar