Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction-Determinants and Predictors of Mortality, Hospitalization and Quality of Life (Analysis from a Large Heart Failure Registry) LIU, Ming A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Medical Sciences The Chinese University of Hong Kong August 2012 DECLARATION OF ORGINALITY I hereby declare that all studies that are contained in this thesis are original research carried out by the author in the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. No part of the thesis has been submitted to other universities or institutions for a degree or diploma. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Cheuk-Man YU, for his giving me the precious opportunity to study in the Chinese University of Hong Kong; for his guidance, encouragement, patience, understanding and support over the years. His profound knowledge, dedicated attitude about research, creative and constructive advice, and patient guidance helped greatly in the completion of this thesis. I also appreciate my co-supervisor, Prof. Bryan P Yan for his invaluable suggestions and guidance through my study as well as revision of my thesis. I am also filled with gratitude to Prof. John E. Sanderson, for his great help with the study design and the comments and revision of the manuscripts. My project would not be possible without his support. I am deeply indebted to all professors in the cardiology team for their support and advice in my study: Prof. Alex PW Lee, Prof. YY Lam, Prof. Jing Ping Sun, Prof. Andrew Coats, Prof. Gabriel WK Yip, Prof. Qing Zhang, Prof. Fang Fang and Ms. Joey Kwong. Thanks to Dr. CP Chan from the bottom of my heart for originating and supplying patients’ data for the study. I appreciate Ms. Mang Zhang, Dr. Rui-Jie Li and Dr. Ming Dong for collecting some of patients’ data and Ms. Kidius Tam for the work of follow-up in the study. I also ii appreciate the work of Ms. Yong-Na Wen and the research team for screening patients. In addition, thanks for Ms. Xue-Ting Wang and Joyce Wong for entering patients’ data for the study. Thanks for Ms. Ka-Wai Chan and Ms Abbie Yip for doing questionnaires. I also wish to take the opportunity to thank the colleagues and friends in the cardiac team for their substantial support and warmly friendship: Dr. Jun-Min Xie, Dr. Qing Shang, Dr. Friendy Xiu-Xia Luo, Dr. Shang Wang, Ms. Leata Yeung, Ms. Skiva Chan, Ms. Soey Ou Yang, Ms. Olivia To, Ms. Mei-Ling Yip, Ms. Jenny Yip, Ms. Tracy Lam, Ms Miho Yu, Ms. Sheung Poon, Dr. Nancy Huang and Dr. Jing Wang. Thanks Ms. Wenmy Poon, Ms. Angel Ho, Ms. Amelia Iu n the cardiac admin team and Ms. Wing-Man Wong, Ms. Carmen Chiu, Ms. Wendy Lau and Ms. Shirley Wong in the Department of Medicine & Therapeutics, the Chinese University of Hong Kong for dealing with submitting abstracts and paper, dealing with issues related to my Ph.D. program. Last but not least, I would like express my deepest gratitude to my parents, for their endless patience, understanding, support and love in all my life. I would also express my deepest thanks to my girl friend - Dr. Song Li, for her consistent understanding, tolerance, help and care over the years. Finally, thanks to all patients who participated in our study to make all this possible. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A = transmitral flow velocity with atrial contraction; a′ = velocity of mitral annulus motion with atrial systole; ACEI,=angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ADHERE=Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry; Adur = duration of A; ALB=serum albumin; ALT=alanine aminotransferase; AR = flow from left atrium to pulmonary veins during atrial contraction; AUROC=area under ROC ARB=angiotensin II receptor blockers; ARdur = duration of AR; BMI=body mass index BNP=brain natriuretic peptide BP=blood pressure BUN=blood urea nitrogen; CAD=coronary artery disease; CCB=Calcium channel blockers. CI= confidence interval Cr=creatinine; CVD=primary cerebrovascular disease; iv CVP=central venous pressure D = diastolic; DT = deceleration time; DBP=diastolic blood pressure DM=diabetes mellitus; E = early diastolic transmitral flow velocity; e′ = velocity of early diastolic mitral annular motion; ECM=extracellular matrix EF=ejection fraction eGFR=estimated glomerular filtration rate; Hb=hemoglobin; HF=heart failure HFREF=heart failure with reduced ejection fraction HFPEF=heart failure with preserved ejection fraction HHD=hypertensive heart disease HR=hazard ratios HRQoL=Health related quality of life ICD-9-CM=International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification IQR=inter-quartile ranges LV=left ventricular LA=left atrium v LVEF=left ventricular ejection fraction LVH=left ventricular hypertrophy MDRD=Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula MMPs=matrix metalloproteinases NT-proBNP=N-terminal pro-BNP NYHA= New York Heart Association; PH=Pulmonary hypertension RAS= renin–angiotensin system ROC=receiver operating characteristics RV=right ventricle S = systolic SBP=systolic blood pressure; TDI=Tissue Doppler Imaging TIMPs=Tissue inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases VVC=ventricular–arterial stiffening vi PUBLICATIONS Full Paper: 1. Liu M, Chan CP, Yan BP, Zhang Q, Lam YY, Li RJ, Sanderson JE, Coats AJ, Sun JP, Yip GW, Yu CM. Albumin levels predict survival in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012;14(1):39-44. vii Abstracts 1. M. Liu, Alex PW Lee, CM. Yu, et al. Risk stratification for 1 year mortality in patients with heart failure and normal ejection fraction. ESC Congress 2012 (Oral Presentation) 2. Liu, M; Zhang, Q; Yan, BP; Lam, YY; Li, RJ; Sanderson, JE; Sun, JP; Chan,CP; Yip, GWK; Chan, JYS; Wu, EB; Chan, A; Chan, K; Lee, APW; Yu, CM. Increase in Prevalence but Improved Outcome for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in the Last Decade. CIRCULATION Volume: 124 Issue: 21 Supplement: S Meeting Abstract: A12293 Published: NOV 22 2011 3. M. Liu, GWK. Yip, CM. Yu, et al. Albumin levels predict survival in patients with heart failure and normal ejection fraction. ESC Congress 2011 (Poster Presentation) 4. Liu M, Yip GWK, Chan CP, Yan BP, Zhang Q, Lam YY, Li RJ, Sanderson JE, Yu CM. Effectiveness of a disease management program for heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction. European Heart Journal Volume: 31 Supplement: 1 Pages: 728-728 Published: Sep 2010 viii ABSTRACT Recently, many studies have found that many patients presenting with clinical heart failure (HF) had a left ventricular ejection fraction in the normal range. This entity has been termed “heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF).” Previous studies have indicated that patients who have HFPEF tend to be older, female, and to have a history of hypertension. However, little was known about the clinical outcome and related predictors of HFPEF patients in Chinese population. Long term quality of life (QOL) after treatment in HFPEF patients have not been well studied, especially in very elderly HFPEF. Furthermore, there has been no a risk score used HFPEF patients. We studied 847 HFPEF patients who were prospectively enrolled into a HF Registry from 2006 to 2010 at a teaching hospital. In addition, a historical cohort of patients admitted in our hospital from 2001 to 2005 was retrospectively retrieved and data searched using the ICD-9-CM code 428. Among this, 170 with HFPEF were selected for study. To adjust for the impact of baseline differences between the 2 cohorts on clinical outcomes, we calculated a propensity score. To establish a risk score, HFPEF patients were randomly divided into derivation group and validation group. We got a risk score from the derivation group and then checked in the validation one. QOL was assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) ix instruments. Main findings of our study included: 1. 1-year survival rates improved (65.5% vs. 76.9%, p=0.001) and HF re-hospitalization rates decreased (50.6% vs. 33.3%, p<0.001 in HFPEF patients admitted between 2001-2005 and 2006-2010, respectively). The improvement in 1-year survival (68.1% vs. 78.9%, p=0.02) and HF re-hospitalization (51.2% vs. 34.3%, p=0.002) remained significant after propensity score matching. 2. Baseline (30±16 vs. 28±16 vs. 29±16, p=0.87) and 12-months (15±14 vs. 16±14 vs. 15±12, p=0.92) MLHFQ score showed no significant differences with advancing age. Proportion of patients who experienced improvement in QOL at 12-months were similar among age groups (84.0% vs. 80.2% vs. 87.5%, p=0.68). 3. Six independent prognostic factors were identified, and each was assigned a number of points proportional to its regression coefficient: hypoalbuminemia (5 points), not use of CCB (3 points), history of HF (2.5 points), history of CVD (2.5 points), BUN>10mmol/L (2.5 points), age>78 years (2 points). We calculated risk scores for each patient and defined three risk groups: low risk (0 to 5.5 points), intermediate risk (6 to 10.5 points) and high risk (11 to 17.5 points). In the derivation cohort, the 1-year mortality rates for these three groups were 10.5%, 22.3%, and 48.7% respectively. In the validation cohort, the corresponding mortality rates were 15.4%, 25.3% and 39%. 4. Hypoalbuminemia was the most powerful predictor of 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients. x In summary, we found that the mortality of HFPEF patients in the first year decreased over time. Elderly HFPEF patients experienced similar improvements in QOL compared to younger ones. The clinical based risk score can be used to predict mortality of HFPEF patients. Hypoalbuminemia was the most powerful predictor of 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients. xi 中文摘要 近年,研究發現許多心臟衰竭患者的左室射血分數在正常範圍內。這種類型的 心臟衰竭,已被稱為“射血分數保持的心臟衰竭(HFPEF)”。研究還發現,HFPEF 患者往往是老年女性,有高血壓病史,其預後比射血分數降低的心衰更好。 然而,很少人研究過中國人中HFPEF患者的死亡率。同時,經治療后HFPEF患 者長期的生活質量是否改善沒有得到很好的研究,特別是在老年HFPEF患者中。 此外,到目前為止,一直沒有一個風險評分系統用於預測HFPEF患者的預後。 我們從2006年至2010年在一所大學附屬醫院建立的心臟衰竭注冊研究中,前瞻 性納入了847 名HFPEF的患者進行研究。此外,我們通過國際疾病分類第九版 臨床修正(ICD-9- CM)代碼428進行數據檢索,回顧性分析了2001年至2005年 入住我院的心臟衰竭的患者。其中170名射血分數超過50%的患者納入本研究。 爲了消除兩組病人基線差異對臨床終點的影響,我們計算出傾向性得分。在建 立風險評分方面,所有HFPEF患者隨機分為推導組和驗證組。從推導組中,我 們得到了風險評分,然後我們再在驗證組中測試評分系統是否可行。本研究中, 生活質量是通過明尼蘇達州心力衰竭問卷(MLHFQ)進行評估。 我們研究的主要發現包括: 1、與2001-2005年納入的HFPEF患者比,2006-2010年納入的HFPEF患者,一年 生存率有顯著提高(76.9%比65.5%,P = 0.001),心臟衰竭的再次住院率也顯 xii 著下降(33.3%比50.6%,P <0.001)。傾向得分匹配調整後1年生存率提高(78.9 %比68.1%,P = 0.02)和心衰再次住院率降低(34.3比%51.2%,P = 0.002)仍 然顯著。 2、各個年齡組基線(32±16比30±15比34±11,P = 0.12)和12個月(16±14比16±12 比19±13,P = 0.62)的MLHFQ得分均沒有顯著。HFPEF患者12個月時生活質量 得到改善的比例在年齡組之間相似(84.0%比80.2%比87.5%,P = 0.68)。 3、我們通過Cox多因素回歸分析得到了了6個獨立的預測HFPEF患者1年死亡率 的預後因素。每個因素根據其回歸系統獲得一個分數:低蛋白血症(5分),不 使用鈣通道阻滯劑(3分),充血性心臟衰竭病史(2.5分),腦血管疾病病史(2.5 分),尿素氮> 10mmol / L(2.5分),年齡> 78歲(2分)。每一個患者根據風 險分數而被分為三個危險人群:低風險(0至5.5分),中等風險(10.5分)和高 風險(11至17.5分)。在推導隊列,這三組的1年死亡率分別為10.5%,22.3%和 48.7%分別。在驗證隊列,相應的死亡率分別為15.4%,25.3%和39%。 4、低蛋白血症為HFPEF患者1年死亡率的最有力的預測指標。 綜上所述,我們發現,近年來,HFPEF患者一年的死亡率和心臟衰竭再次住院 率有所下降。與相對年輕的HFPEF患者相比,老年HFPEF患者經歷了類似的生 活質量的改善。從臨床常用的變量得到的風險評分可用於預測HFPEF患者1年死 亡率。低蛋白血症為HFPEF患者1年死亡率的最有力的預測指標。 xiii Table of Contents Declaration of originality..............................................................................................i Acknowledgement....................................................................................................... ii List of abbreviations………………………………………………...………………..iv Publications………………………………………………………………………….vii Full paper…………………………………………………………………….......vii Abstracts………………………………………………………………………..viii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………ix 中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………xii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………xiv List of Tables………………………………………………………………………xx List of Figures……………………………………………………………………xxi SECTION I LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………1 CHAPTER 1 DEFINITION, PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND DIAGNOSIS OF HFPEF……………………………………………………………………………......1 1.1 Definition of HFPEF……………………………………………………………2 1.2 Pathophysiology of HFPEF……………………………………………………..3 1.2.1 Structure abnormality in HFPEF…………………………………………...3 1.2.2 Diastolic dysfunction in HFPEF……………………………….………......10 1.2.3 Systolic function in HFPEF……………………………………………......12 1.2.4 Left atrial dysfunction in HFPEF…………………………………………14 1.2.5 Peripheral factors in HFPEF……………………………………………....15 xiv 1.3 Diagnosis of HFPEF…………………………………………………………….16 1.3.1 Clinical features…………………………………………………….…..….17 1.3.2 Echocardiographic features of HFPEF patients…………………………..18 1.3.3 BNP AND N-pro BNP assays……………………………...……………..18 CHAPTER 2 EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HFPEF……………………………………...28 2.1 Prevalence of HFPEF among HF patients……………………………………..28 2.2 Demographic features and comorbid conditions………………………………29 2.2.1 Age………………………………………………………..………………30 2.2.2 Gender…………………………………………………………..………...31 2.2.3 Hypertension……………………………………………………..……….31 2.2.4 Coronary artery disease……………………………………………..…….32 2.2.5 Atrial fibrillation………………………………………………………..…33 2.2.6 Diabetes Mellitus…………………………………………………………34 2.2.7 Renal Dysfunction…………………………………………………….......34 2.2.8 Body Mass Index…………………………………………………………..35 2.2.9 Anemia……………………………………………………………………..35 2.2.10 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease……………………………...…..35 2.3 Mortality of HFPEF patients……………………………………………………36 2.3.1 Mortality rates…………………………………………………………….36 2.3.2 Pattern of death……………………………………………………………37 2.4 Prognostic predictors……………………………………………………………38 2.5 Health related quality of life in HFPEF patients………………………………..40 xv CHAPTER 3 TREATMENT OF HFPEF PATIENTS……………………………..42 3.1 Non-pharmacologic Therapy……………………………………………………42 3.2 Medical and Surgical Therapy…………………………………………………..43 3.2.1 Clinical Studies……………………………………………………………43 3.2.2 Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials…………………………………...43 3.2.3 Current Therapeutic Recommendations…………………………………..45 Conclusions.............................................................................................................46 SECTIONS II STUDIES ABOUT HFPEF…………………………………………47 CHAPTER 4 OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS………………………………...47 4.1 Objectives of the study…………………………………………………………..47 4.2. Hypothesis……………………………………………………………………....48 CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………...49 5.1 Patient population……………………………………………………………….49 5.2 Definition of HFPEF patients…………………………………………………...49 5.3 Baseline patient data…………………………………………………………….50 5.4 Echocardiogram…………………………………………………………………50 5.5 Health related quality of life assessment……………………………………..…51 5.6 Follow-up and clinical outcome……………………….………………………..51 5.7 Statistical analysis……………………………………………………………….52 CHAPTER 6 IMPROVED 12 MONTH SURVIVAL OF PATIENTS ADMITTED WITH HFPEF OVER THE LAST DECADE………………………………………54 6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….….54 xvi 6.2 Methods…………………………………………………………………………54 6.21 Patient population………………………………………………………….54 6.2.2 Baseline patient data…………………..……………………………………55 6.2.3 Study endpoints……………………….……………………………………56 6.2.4 Statistical analysis…………………….……………………………………56 6.3 Results………………………………………………………………………...…57 6.3.1 Baseline patient characteristics…………..…………………………………57 6.3.2 Unadjusted clinical outcomes……………..………………………………..57 6.3.3 Propensity score adjusted clinical outcomes………………………………..58 6.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………………….58 6.5 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………...61 CHAPTER 7 QUALITY OF LIFE IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH HFPEF…....67 7.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….67 7.2 Methods……………………………………………………………………..….68 7.2.1 Patient population…………………………………………………………68 7.2.2 Health related quality of life assessment…………………………………69 7.2.3 Follow-up…………………………………………………………………69 7.2.4 Statistical analysis………………………………………………………...69 7.3 Results………………………………………………………………………….70 7.3.1 Baseline patient characteristics……………………………………………70 7.3.2 Mortality…………………………………………………………………71 7.3.3 Health-related quality of life………………………………………………71 xvii 7.3.4 Therapy……………………………………………………………………71 7.3.5 Predictors of HRQoL improvement in HFPEF patients…………………...72 7.4 Discussions……………………………………………………………………..72 7.5 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….75 CHAPTER 8 A RISK SCORE TO PREDICT 1 YEAR MORATALITY IN PATIENTS WITH HFPEF…………………………………………………………83 8.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….83 8.2 Methods………………………………………………………………………...84 8.2.1 Patient population……………………………………………………........84 8.2.2 Candidate Predictor Variables………………………………………….....84 8.2.3 Statistical analysis………………………………………………………...85 8.3 Results………………………………………………………………………….86 8.3.1 Patient Characteristics and Outcomes……………………………………86 8.3.2 Predictors of Mortality…………………………………………………..87 8.3.3 Generation of the Risk score……………………………………………..87 8.3.4 Validation of the risk score……………………...………………………...88 8.4 Discussions……………………………………………………………………..88 8.5 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………….91 CHAPTER 9 ALBUMIN LEVELS PREDICT SURVIVAL IN PATIENTS WITH HFPEF………………………………………………………………………………97 9.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..97 9.2 Methods………………………………………………………………………....97 xviii 9.2.1 Patient population…………………………………………………………97 9.2.2 Baseline measurement…………………………………………………….98 9.2.3 End points…………………………………………………………………99 9.2.4 Statistical analysis………………………………………………………99 9.3 Results………………………………………………………………………..100 9.3.1 Baseline patient characteristics……………………………………………100 9.3.2 Hypoalbuminemia and Cardiac Events………………………………….101 9.3.3 Albumin and body mass index (BMI)……………………………………..102 9.3.4 Causes of hypoaluminemia in HFPEF patients…………………………...102 9.4 Discussion…………………………………………………………………….103 9.4.1 Liver dysfunction………………………………………………………….104 9.4.2 Hemodilution……………………………………………………………...105 9.4.3 BMI and hypoalbuminemia……………………………………………….105 9.4.4 Renal failure…………………………………………………………….106 9.4.5 B-type Natriuretic Peptides and albumin……….…………….……......…107 9.5. Conclusions………………………………………………………………….109 CHAPTER 10 GENERAL SUMMARY…………………………………...………117 10.1 Main findings of our study…………………………………………………….117 10.2 Clinical implications………………………………………………………….119 10.3 Potential for final development of research…………………………………...120 CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………...123 References………………………………………………………………………….124 xix List of Tables Table 6-1 Baseline Characteristics of HFPEF patients enrolled in Cohort-1 and Cohort-2…………………………………………………………………...………...62 Table 7-1 Baseline Characteristics of HFPEF patients in different age subgroups…76 Table 7-2 Comparison of MLHFQ score among three age groups of HFPEF patients………………………………………………………………………............78 Table 7-3 Multivariate-regression of HRQOL improvement within 1 year for patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) patients……...................79 Table 8-1 Baseline Characteristics of HFPEF patients in derivation and validation groups…………………………………………………………………………...…...92 Table 8-2 Predictors of 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients……………………….94 Table 9-1 Baseline characteristics by the status of albumin in patients with HFPEF.…………………………………………………………………..…….…..110 Table 9-2 Cox-regression of all cause mortality within 1 year for patients HFPEF patients……………………………………………………………………………..111 xx List of Figures Figure 1-1 A comprehensive Doppler assessment of diastolic function………........21 Figure 6-1 Kaplan-Meier Survival Curve for 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients in Cohort-1 (2006-2010) and Cohort-1 (2001-2005)………………………………….65 Figure 6-2 Kaplan-Meier Survival Curve for 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients in Cohort-3 and Cohort-4 using propensity score matching…………………………..66 Figure 7-1 Change of MLHFQ scores (Total) between baseline and follow-up in different age groups………………………………………………………………..80 Figure 7-2 Change of MLHFQ scores (Physical scale) between baseline and follow-up in different age groups……………………………………………….….81 Figure 7-3 Change of MLHFQ scores (Emotional scale) between baseline and follow-up in different age groups………………………………………………….82 Figure 8-1 Kaplan–Meier Survival Curves for the Derivation Cohort and the Validation Cohort, According to the Prognostic Classification…...........................…95 Figure 8-2 ROC curve of prediction of risk score in 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients…………………………………………………………………………......96 Figure 9-1 Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showing HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia (Serum albumin≤34g/L) had significantly worse survival than patients without hypoalbuminemia……………………………………………….114 Figure 9-2 Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showing HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia (Serum albumin≤34g/L) had significantly higher cardiovascular death rate in 1y than patients without hypoalbuminemia…………………………...115 xxi Figure 9-3 ROC curve of prediction of serum albumin in 1 year’s survival for HFPEF patients…………………………………………………………………………......116 xxii SECTION I. LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER 1 DEFINITION, PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND DIAGNOSIS OF HFPEF Heart failure (HF) affects about 2% of the western population, with the prevalence increasing sharply from 1% in 40-year-old individuals to 10% above the age of 75 years. It is the most common cause of hospitalization in patients over 65 years of age.1, 2 For so many years, HF has been defined as a syndrome characterized by an impaired ability of the heart to fill with and/or to eject blood commensurate with the metabolic needs of the body, resulting in a classic constellation of signs or symptoms of pulmonary and systemic venous congestion. 1 While traditionally associated with the concept of ‘pump failure’ or reduced Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF), it has become widely recognized that HF can occur even when EF is preserved, constituting the syndrome of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). 3 Until the last two decades, the possibility that large numbers of HF patients might have HFPEF was not considered. As numerous studies have now demonstrated, HFPEF is common. The emergence of this ‘new’ form of HF engendered considerable early skepticism, despite growing epidemiologic evidence of its importance. Controversy 1 about the significance of HFPEF has largely but not completely abated. 1.1 Definition of HFPEF As recognition of the importance of HFPEF as a public health problem increased, controversy arose over the proper term to use for HFPEF. Most early studies referred to HFPEF as diastolic HF, a term implying that diastolic dysfunction is the key pathophysiologic mechanism responsible for hemodynamic perturbations and symptoms in these patients. Similarly, systolic HF was commonly used to refer to patients with HF with reduced or depressed EF (HFREF). Many consider HFPEF to be a disorder of diastolic function, while others believe that it may be due to a combination of diastolic abnormalities with subtle disturbances of systolic function that are insufficient to reduce LVEF. 4-7 In addition, studies using tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) have demonstrated the presence of diastolic and/or systolic dyssynchrony in patients with HFPEF.4,8 Since the term ‘diastolic heart failure’ implies that the functional abnormalities lie entirely in diastole which is now manifestly not so the descriptive term heart failure with a preserved (HFPEF) or normal ejection fraction (HFNEF)is preferred.9 EF is a continuous variable with a fairly normal distribution within the population,10 and the threshold value to define normal versus reduced EF is arbitrary. Although consensus seems to be building toward use of an EF higher than 50% to designate HFPEF, the approach to patients with borderline reduction in EF (EF of 40% to 50%) 2 adds to the complexity of the classification. 11 1.2. Pathophysiology of HFPEF Understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms in HFPEF needs a clear understanding of LV diastolic and systolic function and the manner in which LV function is influenced by volume status, which together with LV geometry determines preload, and of the arterial system, which together with LV geometry affects afterload. Although abnormal diastolic function has long been hypothesized to be the primary factor responsible for hemodynamic perturbations and symptoms in HFPEF, only recently have studies proved this hypothesis by studying diastolic function in patients with HFPEF and relevant control populations. Because LV structure and function are altered by age, gender, and cardiovascular disease in the absence of HF, it is important to understand how LV structure and function differ between persons with HFPEF and elderly persons with cardiovascular disease but no HF. Whereas abnormal diastolic function plays a key role in HFPEF, other mechanisms also contribute to the pathophysiologic process in many patients. 1.2.1 Structure abnormality in HFPEF 1.2.1.1 Chamber remodeling Many, but not all, patients with HFPEF exhibit a concentric pattern of LV remodeling and a hypertrophic process that is characterized by the following features 12-14 : a normal or near-normal end-diastolic volume; increased wall thickness and/or LV mass; 3 an increased ratio of myocardial mass to cavity volume; an increased relative wall thickness. The main physiological difference between HFREF and HFPEF is the increase in ventricular volume and change in shape due to ventricular remodeling. A myocardial infarction (or rarely viral myocarditis) appears to be a potent stimulant for the remodeling process, which leads to increased ventricular volumes and reduced ejection fraction.15 In hypertensive heart disease remodeling is a slower process. Initially LVH by itself leads to reduced systolic and diastolic function particularly in the long axis.16 Compensatory increased radial contraction normalizes the ejection fraction. However, at later stages further remodeling will occur, the LV volumes will increase and the patient will slip from HFPEF to more obvious HFREF. Thus, from a physiological point it is more sensible to categorise patients with HF according to whether remodeling has taken place. Studies have demonstrated that over 95% of patients with HFPEF have a normal LV end diastolic volume; 50 -66% have increased wall thicknesses, mass and relative wall thickness.1, 17 HFPEF is frequently associated with LV hypertrophy (LVH).18 These patients commonly have hypertensive heart disease which leads to concentric remodeling, cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and increased extracellular matrix that result in diastolic dysfunction and increased chamber stiffness. However, hypertensive heart disease and concentric remodeling are not the only causes of these abnormalities. For 4 example, diabetic heart disease, coronary artery disease, and advanced age even in the absence of LVH, can result in diastolic dysfunction. LVH is often considered an adaptive response to volume and pressure overload in order to normalize elevated wall stress. 4, 19 However, concentric remodeling is not adaptive.20 Prolonged LVH may contribute to cardiac dysfunction and significant increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease.21 Severe LVH is thought to be deleterious because it reduces subendocardial coronary flow reserve which in turn impairs diastolic function.22 By contrast, patients with HFREF exhibit a pattern of eccentric remodeling with an increase in end-diastolic volume, an increase in LV mass but little increase in wall thickness, and a substantial decrease in the ratio of mass to volume and thickness to radius. 22. 23 The molecular mechanism of LVH is still not clear. A review published recently summarized the possible mechanism of LVH in HFPEF.4 As we know, the calcineurin transcriptional pathways as well as the renin–angiotensin system (RAS) place a dominant role in the development of pressure-overload hypertrophy and HF.24,25 Interestingly, while blockade of calcineurin activity and RAS prevented the excessive LVH. Blockade of calcineurin activity did not prevent the development of fibrosis whereas the blockade of RAS reduced fibrosis. 26, 27 Abnormal diastolic filling is found in patients with hypertension even before any obvious LVH or change in systolic function 4, Mechanisms contributing to abnormal LV diastolic properties 5 include large artery stiffness, hypertension, ischaemia, diabetes, and intrinsic myocardial changes can occur with or without hypertrophy.27, 28 This might be explained by the suggestion that there are two types of hypertrophy in hypertensive hearts. Early LVH occurs to compensate for pressure overload (independent of the RAS) but the later stage of LVH is an excessive and unnecessary type driven by the activation of RAS.28 It is possible that only patients who develop the latter stages of LVH consisting of excessive hypertrophy and fibrosis (dependent on the RAS) progress to HFPEF In summary, remodeling is a very important therapeutic target and reversing remodeling is probably a powerful predictor of improvement. Nearly all treatments that are proven to reduce mortality and improve symptoms in heart failure have also induced reverse remodeling-for example, beta-blockers and cardiac resynchronisation therapy.29, 30 1.2.1.2 Cardiomyocyte and extracellular matrix remodeling Alterations in organ morphology and geometry are generally paralleled by differences at the microscopic level. In HFPEF, the cardiomyocyte exhibits an increased diameter with little or no change in cardiomyocyte length, corresponding to the increase in LV wall thickness with no change in LV volume. 4 By contrast, in HFREF the cardiomyocytes are elongated with little or no change in diameter, corresponding to the increase in LV volume with no change in LV wall thickness. 4 6 In HFPEF, there is an increase in the amount of collagen with a corresponding increment in the width and continuity of the fibrillar components of the extracellular matrix.12, 22, 23 There is also serologic evidence of an active fibrotic process in the myocardium of patients with HFPEF31. In HFREF, there is degradation and disruption of the fibrillar collagen, at least early in the development of HFREF. 22 ,23 12, In end-stage HFREF, replacement fibrosis and regional ischemic scarring may result in an overall increase in fibrillar collagen within the extracellular matrix. Increased myocyte growth is usually accompanied by increased connective tissue, the extracellular matrix (ECM), which is predominantly composed of collagen and to a lesser degree elastin, laminin, and fibronectin. There are collagen types I, III, and V within the myocardium, type I being most the abundant (85%). 4,28 Myocardial stiffness is determined by the composition and turnover rate of the extracellular matrix 32 . There is some evidence in animalmodels to indicate that the progression to overt HFPEF is associated with progression of myocardial stiffening rather than in LV relaxation abnormalities.33, 34 Therefore myocardial stiffness appears to play a significant role in HFPEF. Both collagen accumulations within the myocardium and LVH contribute to myocardial stiffening. There is evidence to suggest that myocardial stiffening is probably more due to the progression of collagen accumulation, collagen phenotype 7 shift and enhanced collagen cross-linking, than to hypertrophy 34,35. Experimental and human studies have demonstrated serological and morphometric evidence of increased myocardial fibrosis in patients with hypertensive heart disease (HHD). 36, 37 There is increased fibrillar collagen content, altered fibrillar collagen geometry, and an increased collagen I to III isotype ratio.38, 39 Collagen turnover is regulated by enzymes such as matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), a family of zinc-dependent interstitial enzymes, and their tissue inhibitors (TIMPs). In HHD, if TIMPs are increased and MMPs are decreased, this would favour decreased collagen degradation and increased collagen accumulation. Studies have found that in HHD, alteration in MMP profiles that favour decreased ECM degradation were associated with LVH and diastolic dysfunction. Furthermore, increased TIMP-1 level predicted the presence of heart failure, and higher levels of TIMP-1 were present in patients with HFPEF compared to those without.37 Recent studies in HFPEF have demonstrated the presence of an active fibrotic process, which is more marked with increasing severity of diastolic dysfunction. Elevated levels of serum carboxy-terminal telopeptide of procollagen type I, TIMP-1, amino-terminal propeptide of procollagen type III, carboxy-terminal telopeptide of procollagen type I, and MMP-2 were greater in more severe phases of diastolic dysfunction.38 Titin, a giant sarcomere protein that acts like a molecular spring, may play two roles in diastolic function: a recoil spring mechanism and a desensitizer of the myofilaments 8 to calcium. Titin isoform shifting may have an impact on diastolic function. In idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, Nagueh et al40 have recently shown an increase in the N2BA:N2B isoform ratio compared with controls. This shift to a larger isoform would predict a substantial decrease in passive myocardial stiffness, which was found in myocardial strips, but also affects the restoring forces and elastic recoil of the cardiac myocyte and hence ventricular suction. Titin is compressed when the myocyte shortens during systole. At the beginning of cell relaxation, when the actin-myosin crossbridges detach and active shortening tension begins to dissipate, the compressed titin forcefully expands and generates an intracellular "restoring force" that relengthens the sarcomere and myocyte 41. This restoring force creates substantial early diastolic ventricular elastic recoil that generates a negative LV pressure that sucks blood across the mitral valve and facilitates LV filling at low LV and left atrial diastolic (filling) pressures 42. The early diastolic elastic recoil is amplified during exercise when greater systolic myocyte shortening causes greater titin compression; this is a critical mechanism that enhances LV diastolic filling during exercise without an increase in left atrial and pulmonary capillary pressure 43. In addition to acting as a recoil spring, titin, in its compressed state, also interacts with the actin-myosin filament to desensitize it to calcium. Thus, the marked titin 9 compression at end-systole facilitates both the detachment of the actin-myosin crossbridge and cell relengthening by the two additive actions of desensitization and elastic recoil 41, 42. Mutations in the titin gene have been associated with a familial dilated cardiomyopathy 44 1.2.2 Diastolic dysfunction in HFPEF In HFPEF patients, abnormalities in diastolic function form the dominant pathophysiologic basis for the development of the clinical syndrome of HF. The major abnormalities in LV diastolic function includes: slowed, delayed and incomplete myocardial relaxation; impaired rate and extent of LV filling; shift of filling from early to late diastole; increased dependence on LV filling from atrial contraction; decreased early diastolic suction/recoil; increased LA pressure during the early filling; increased passive stiffness and decreased distensibility of the LV; impaired ability to augment cardiac output during exercise; reduced ability to augment relaxation during exercise; limited ability to utilize the Frank-Starling mechanism during exercise; increased diastolic LV, LA, pulmonary venous pressure at rest and/or during exercise. 12, 45-46 Impaired myocardial relaxation was the major abnormality in diastolic dysfunction of HFPEF patients. There were many evidences which supported this. Data from studies of humans with HFPEF,47,48,49 relevant animal models,50 and mathematical modeling systems51 indicate that impaired relaxation is present in HFPEF and may contribute to elevated mean LV diastolic pressures in HFPEF when the heart rate is increased and 10 particularly when marked increases in blood pressure occur along with tachycardia during exercise. Furthermore, any other factor that further shortens the diastolic filling period (prolonged contraction or long PR interval) will enhance the effect of impaired relaxation on LV diastolic pressures during filling and thus affect the mean LA pressure needed to fill the LV. Studies in patients with HFPEF have reported average resting values of tau of approximately 60 milliseconds (heart rate, approximately 70 beats/min), with values increasing to approximately 86 milliseconds during exercise.47,48 Whether therapies to enhance relaxation directly and specifically can be developed, and whether such therapies will relieve symptoms, remains an area of active investigation. Stiffness or elastance is defined as the relationship between the change in stress and the resulting strain. On the chamber level, the elastance of the LV varies over the cardiac cycle (time-varying elastance), and end-systolic and end-diastolic elastance are defined by the changes in systolic or diastolic pressure associated with a change in end-systolic or end-diastolic volume. Increases in LV diastolic stiffness will mandate higher LA pressures to maintain filling and thus promote elevated pulmonary venous pressures and pulmonary congestion when LA pressures are elevated or reduced cardiac output when LA pressures are not elevated. The difficulties inherent in characterizing LV diastolic stiffness in patients have limited studies characterizing ventricular diastolic stiffness in patients with HFPEF. 11 However, several studies using both invasive and noninvasive estimates of LV stiffness have shown increased LV stiffness in HFPEF22,53-54 compared with age-matched (but not always disease-matched) control cohorts without HF. 1.2.3 Systolic function in HFPEF By definition, LVEF and most indices of contractile function is normal or nearly normal in patients with HFPEF. Some have argued that in HFPEF systolic function is completely normal, and that the clinical condition is due entirely to diastolic dysfunction alone, and HFREF and HFPEF are distinctly different.13 These studies are based on global measurements derived from pressure–volume relationships. However, these studies take no account of regional dysfunction or abnormalities of long axis function, which are compensated for initially by increased radial function.9,55 Even measures such as tau and LV end diastolic pressure-volume relationships have considerable theoretical and practical drawbacks: neither accurately measures ‘relaxation’ or ‘stiffness’ as popularly supposed.55 Global pressure-volume loops can be remain normal despite significant changes in myocardial architecture and shape, which perhaps are reflected better by the long axis measurements. Numerous studies have shown that at rest, myocardial systolic function is impaired in many patients with HFPEF. Some of these studies have used load-dependent 12 measures, such as Doppler-derived systolic strain56, 57; some found that systolic peak early diastolic velocities decreased. In an early study Yip et al7 showed that both peak annular systolic and peak early diastolic velocities and the respective excursions that are measures of ventricular long axis function were lower in patients with HFPEF than in age-matched controls. These findings have now been confirmed in other studies.58–61 Thus, despite a normal ejection fraction, systolic function in the long axis is not normal in HFPEF. This should come as no surprise, as both LVH and fibrosis clearly affect systole as much as diastole. Shan et al62 showed that both peak annular systolic velocity and early diastolic velocity are equally affected by interstitial fibrosis within the myocardium. Moreover, the subendocardial fibres, which are mainly responsible for long axis contraction, may be more susceptible to the effects of fibrosis, hypertrophy and ischaemia because of their position, and thus explain why this measurement is a good early marker of disease. In addition, hypertension, LVH, ageing and diabetes all alter global myocardial architecture and fibre orientation, which would probably have important effects on ventricular torsion and recoil during relaxation. Reduced ventricular twist and long axis motion during systole also affect ventricular suction.63 There had been studies which showed systolic dysfunction in HFPEF using load-independent measures of contractility, such as stress-corrected midwall fiber shortening52,53 or measures of LV torsion or “twist.”64 Systolic dyssynchrony was also found in HFPEF patients. The prevalence of systolic 13 and diastolic dyssynchrony in patients with HFPEF was assessed in two observational series 8, 60. Using TDI, systolic and diastolic dyssynchrony were noted in 33-39% and 36-58% of HFPEF patients, respectively8. This prevalence is similar to that observed in patients with systolic HF. However, whether or not dyssynchrony is an important contributor to the pathophysiology of HFPEF remains uncertain In summary, myocardial systolic dysfunction can occur in the setting of a normal EF because concentric remodeling and cross-fiber shortening preserve the extent of endocardial motion relative to the diastolic cavity despite myofiber shortening.66,67 Although subtle at rest, these abnormalities are associated with impaired prognosis.56 Perhaps more important, the ability to enhance systolic function with exercise is dramatically impaired,68,69 contributing to impaired reserve function in HFPEF. 1.2.4 Left atrial dysfunction in HFPEF Although most discussion has centered on ventricular function in HFPEF, atrial function may also play an important role in the pathophysiologic process of HFPEF. Early- and mid-diastolic LV (and thus LA) pressures as well as systolic atrial pressures (atrial V wave) are important contributors to mean LA pressure, which is therefore the resistance to filling that the pulmonary venous system faces. Whereas LA systolic function compensates for reduced early filling in the earlier stages of HFPEF,70 atrial failure eventually occurs. Indeed, an often forgotten hemodynamic hallmark of restrictive cardiomyopathy is the presence of large V waves in the LA pressure 14 waveform in the absence of mitral regurgitation, reflecting reduced LA compliance. Reduced LA compliance has been shown to potently influence the development of pulmonary arterial hypertension in mitral valve disease and may play a similar role in HFPEF. Reduced LA systolic function limits LV filling in the setting of impaired relaxation and necessitates higher mean LA pressures to augment early diastolic filling. Thus, enlarged and dysfunctional atria may contribute to the pathophysiologic process of HFPEF. 1.2.5 Peripheral factors in HFPEF In a recent experimental study of HFPEF the time to complete relaxation was significantly longer than in controls, which worsened with increased arterial pressure.50 Furthermore end systolic elastance was increased in this experimental heart failure model and was closely linked to collagen volume fraction. Afterload affects both systolic and diastolic LV performance, prolonging contraction and relaxation. This effect is seen early in the progression of systolic dysfunction and leads to a shortening of the diastolic filling period. This action of an increased afterload would be particularly troublesome with faster heart rates such as with exercise or AF. Kawaguchi et al48 found in humans that end systolic elastance (stiffness) was higher in patients with HFPEF as was effective arterial elastance due to reduced total arterial compliance, and these were higher than that associated with ageing or hypertension. This ventricular–arterial stiffening (VVC), presumably due to abnormal myocardial 15 and arterial collagen, amplifies stress-induced hypertension, thus worsening diastolic dysfunction. 4VVC is important in the context of HFPEF because of its important effects on diastolic filling 4, 71. In patients with HFPEF, resting VVC is lower than in younger individuals 4,72 but similar to asymptomatic hypertensive elderly patients 49 and falls within a range where cardiac work and efficiency are not compromised. Indeed, large artery stiffness has been shown to have a strong inverse relationship with exercise capacity (peak VO2) in patients with HFPEF 73 . Borlaug et al4 found subtle systolic dysfunction in a large group of HFPEF patients compared to hypertensive controls but ventricular–vascular coupling ratio was similar. Plan TT et al4 found that during exercise despite similar VVC at rest in HFPEF patients compared to matched controls there was a marked disturbance of ventricular–vascular coupling in HFPEF patients due to a combination of greater increase in arterial stiffness and reduced LV end-systolic elastance response during exercise compared to age matched controls, the latter indicating a failure of contractile reserve.68 Impaired renal function and renal arterial atherosclerosis in the elderly may also be involved in causing rapid rises in blood pressure and excessive fluid retention. 1.3 Diagnosis of HFPEF Several criteria have been proposed to define the syndrome of HFPEF,3, 11, 74 the most comprehensive of which are the guidelines by the Echocardiography and Heart Failure Associations of the European Society of Cardiology.3 In general, these diagnostic 16 criteria share three features in common: (i) clinical signs or symptoms of HF; (ii) evidence of normal LV systolic function; and (iii) evidence of abnormal LV diastolic dysfunction. 1.3.1 Clinical features Patients with HFPEF were shown to have pathophysiologic characteristics similar to those of HFREF, including severely reduced exercise capacity, neuroendocrine activation, and impaired quality of life.27 As a result, the clinical manifestations of HFPEF are identical to those of HFREF. Clinical manifestations of HFPEF include dyspnea (including dyspnea on exertion, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and orthopnea), elevated jugular venous pressure, pulmonary rales, lower extremity edema, elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) levels, and radiographic evidence of pulmonary edema.3 No clinical features (symptoms, signs, or chest radiography) can be used to reliably distinguish between the two. This was illustrated in a report in which clinical data from 59 patients aged at least 60 years with symptoms of HF and an HFPEF were compared to data from 60 patients of the same age with an LVEF ≤35 percent and data from 28 age-matched healthy controls43. The patients with HFPEF had similar clinical manifestations (including peak VO2 and neurohumoral activation) as those with HFREF, although some parameters were less severe (natriuretic peptide levels, some quality of life measures). In another series, cardiopulmonary exercise parameters in patients with HFPEF and HFREF were indistinguishable75. Thus, assessment of EF with cardiac imaging is required in all 17 patients with new-onset HF. 1.3.2 Echocardiographic features of HFPEF patients 1.3.2.1 Doppler Echocardiographic Assessment of Diastolic Function and Filling Pressures In the most recent set of diagnostic criteria proposed by the European Society of Cardiology,3 echocardiographic and haemodynamic features are key components for the diagnosis of HFPEF. After first establishing the presence of signs or symptoms of HF, the presence of an EF>50% and a LV end-diastolic volume index <97 mL/m2 is the second essential criterion for the diagnosis.3 The third criterion is the presence of LV diastolic dysfunction, which can be demonstrated by Doppler echocardiography, cardiac catheterization, or BNP measurements. Assessment of diastolic dysfunction begins with the transmitral flow velocity profile. Decreases in the ratio of early to late diastolic filling (E/A), increases in the deceleration time, or increases in the isovolumic relaxation time indicate impaired relaxation. However, in the presence of impaired relaxation, increases in filling pressure progressively modify the transmitral gradient and mitral inflow pattern. As a result, diastolic function should be classified by using a combination of Doppler criteria including mitral inflow, tissue Doppler mitral annular motion, Color M-mode flow propagation velocity and pulmonary venous velocities. Using Doppler echocardiography, a ratio of mitral early diastolic inflow velocity to mitral early annular lengthening velocity (E/e′) exceeding 15 provides evidence for raised LV filling pressures. If the E/e′ ratio is ≤8, then LV filling 18 pressures are probably ‘normal’. If the E/e′ ratio is intermediate (>8 to<15), it may be necessary to consider a multi-parametric approach using ‘second line’ indices: the left atrial volume (>40 mL/m2), LV mass index (>122 g/m2 in women and >149 g/m2 in men), mitral inflow Doppler (ratio of early to late mitral inflow velocity <0.5 and deceleration time >280 ms), pulmonary venous flow velocity patterns (duration of pulmonary venous A-wave reversal <30 ms longer than duration of mitral A-wave), or the presence of AF. The utility of these ‘second line’ indices was evaluated in a retrospective study of patients referred to a tertiary echocardiography laboratory,30 where left atrial enlargement was shown to distinguish patients with E/e′ >15 from those with E/e′<8 with better diagnostic accuracy than LV mass index or Doppler measurements. However, prospective evaluation is still needed in patients with confirmed clinical HF and E/e′ in the intermediate range of 8–15, 31 Based on these features, diastolic function can be divided into 4 grades3 (Figure 1-1): ( 1) Normal diastolic function; (2) .Mild diastolic dysfunction (impaired relaxation): In patients with mild dysfunction the following findings are expected: mitral E/A ratio is <0.8, predominant systolic flow in the pulmonary venous flow (S>D), annular e' <8 cm/s (septal and lateral), and E/e' ratio <8 (septal and lateral). A reduced mitral E/A ratio in the presence of normal annular TD velocities can occur in normal old individuals and should not be used to diagnose diastolic dysfunction. (3) Moderate diastolic dysfunction (Pseudonormal) In patients with grade II diastolic dysfunction, mitral E/A ratio is ≥1, and average E/e' ratio (septal and lateral) is >10. In some 19 patients with moderate diastolic dysfunction, LV end diastolic pressure is the only pressure that is increased and recognized by Ar-A duration ≥30 ms. (4) Severe diastolic dysfunction (Restrictive filling pattern): With severe diastolic dysfunction (grade III) restrictive LV filling occurs with an E/A ratio ≥2, DT <160 ms, IVRT≤60 ms, systolic filling fraction ≤40 percent, and average E/e' ratio ≥13. LV filling may revert to one of impaired relaxation with successful therapy in some patients, whereas in others LV filling remains restrictive. The latter response predicts increased morbidity and mortality. 20 Figure 1-1 A comprehensive Doppler assessment of diastolic function. A = transmitral flow velocity with atrial contraction; a′ = velocity of mitral annulus motion with atrial systole; Adur = duration of A; AR = flow from left atrium to pulmonary veins during atrial contraction; ARdur = duration of AR; D = diastolic; DT = deceleration time; E = early diastolic transmitral flow velocity; e′=velocity of early diastolic mitral annular motion; S = systolic. (From Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, 21 Burnett JC Jr, et al: Burden of systolic and diastolic ventricular dysfunction in the community: Appreciating the scope of the heart failure epidemic. JAMA 2003; 289:194.) 1.3.2.2 Left Atrial Enlargement Increases in left atrial (LA) dimension or volume are commonly present in patients with HFPEF.76.77 A left atrial volume indexed to body surface area (LA volume index) >32 mL/m2 was first recognized in the elderly as a strong predictor (P<0.003) of a cardiovascular event with a higher predictive value than other echocardiographically derived indices such as LV mass index (P=0.014) or LV diastolic dysfunction (P=0.029).78 In a population-based study, LA volume index was also strongly associated with the severity and duration of diastolic LV dysfunction: the left atrial volume index progressively increased from a value of 23±6 mL/m2 in normals to 25±8 mL/m2 in mild diastolic LV dysfunction, to 31±8 mL/m2 in moderate diastolic LV dysfunction, and finally to 48±12 mL/m2 in severe diastolic LV dysfunction.79 LA volume index was therefore proposed as a biomarker of both diastolic LV dysfunction and cardiovascular risk.80,81 A raised LA volume index (>26 mL/m2) has recently been recognized as a relatively load-independent marker of LV filling pressures and of LV diastolic dysfunction in patients with suspected heart failure and normal LVEF.82 In these patients, LA volume index is a more robust marker than left atrial area or left atrial diameter.83 For these reasons, the present consensus document considers a left 22 atrial volume index >40 mL/m2 to provide sufficient evidence of diastolic LV dysfunction when the E/e' ratio is non-conclusive (i.e., 8< E/e' <15) or when plasma levels of natriuretic peptides are elevated (Similarly, a left atrial volume index<29 mL/m2 is proposed as a prerequisite to exclude HFPEF. The conduit, reservoir, and pump functions of the LA in normal and pathophysiological conditions are further explained in the appendix. 1.3.2.3 Mildly abnormal systolic left ventricular function in HFPEF The presence of mildly abnormal systolic LV function constitutes the second criterion for the diagnosis of HFPEF. Since LVEF of heart failure patients presents as a unimodal distribution, the choice of a specific cut-off value remains arbitrary.11 The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Framingham Heart Study3 used an LVEF <50% as cut-off for normal or mildly abnormal systolic LV function and this cut-off value has meanwhile been used or proposed by other investigators.11, 84 LVEF needs to be assessed in accordance to the recent recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification of the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Echocardiography.85 It is of importance to note that in HFPEF reduced long-axis shortening is frequently compensated for by increased short-axis shortening. 1.3.2.4 Pulmonary Hypertension Just as chronic pulmonary venous hypertension leads to pulmonary arterial hypertension in HFREF, the same can occur in HFPEF, and an elevated tricuspid 23 regurgitant velocity indicative of pulmonary hypertension is extremely common in HFPEF86,87 . Pulmonary hypertension (PHT) in HFPEF is highly prevalent and often severe, and, as in LV systolic dysfunction,86 is a predictor of morbidity and mortality. 88,89 Because of the thin wall and distensibility, the right ventricle (RV) is more vulnerable by an excessive afterload than by preload. The pulmonary circulation is a central determinant of RV afterload, and an increase in RV ejection impedance can easily result in RV failure, tricuspid regurgitation, and central venous pressure (CVP) rise. 1.3.2.5 Other Doppler Echocardiographic Findings Regional wall motion abnormalities (with preserved EF) and right ventricular dilation, either from ischemic disease or secondary to chronic pressure overload from chronic pulmonary venous hypertension, can also be present at echocardiography in patients with HFPEF. Additional important negative findings to be considered at echocardiography include the absence of valvular disease important enough to cause the HF symptoms, pericardial tamponade, or pericardial constriction and the presence of congenital heart diseases such as atrial septal defect or other more extensive structural abnormalities .11 1.3.3 BNP AND N-pro BNP assays Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) is produced by ventricular myocardium in response to an increase of ventricular diastolic stretch and their secretion results in natriuresis, 24 vasodilation, and improved LV relaxation. Cardiac myocytes produce pro-BNP, which is subsequently cleaved in the blood into NT-proBNP and BNP.11 In patients with HFPEF, NT-proBNP values correlate with early diastolic LV relaxation indices, such as the time constant of LV relaxation, late diastolic LV relaxation indices, such as LV end-diastolic pressure, and the LV stiffness modulus. 11 BNP and NT-proBNP values also vary with the degree of LV diastolic dysfunction: progressively higher values were observed in patients with a mitral valve flow velocity pattern of impaired LV relaxation, pseudonormalization, or restriction.11,90 The area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve of NT-proBNP (0.83) equalled the area observed for LV end-diastolic pressure (0.84) and exceeded the area observed for an abnormal TD e'/a' ratio (0.81).11 Combining NT-proBNP with the E/e' ratio increased the area under the ROC curve from 83 to 95%.11 In contrast to its usefulness in symptomatic isolated diastolic LV dysfunction, natriuretic peptides were a suboptimal screening test for preclinical diastolic LV dysfunction.91 Numerous studies have now shown that on average, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) assay results are elevated in patients with HFPEF compared with results in persons without HF but are lower than levels in patients with reduced EF. As a result, it can be used in the diagnosis of HFPEF. For the diagnosis of HFPEF, a high positive predictive value was aimed for when choosing the cut-off values of NT-proBNP (220 pg/mL; Roche Diagnostics) and of BNP (200 25 pg/mL; Triage Biosite). For the exclusion of HFPEF, a high negative predictive value was aimed for and the respective cut-off values of NT-proBNP (120 pg/mL) and of BNP (100 pg/mL) were adjusted accordingly. NT-proBNP values of 120 and 220 pg/mL yielded, respectively, a negative predictive value of 93% and a positive predictive value of 80%.146 BNP values of 100 and 200 pg/mL yielded, respectively, a negative predictive value of 96% and a positive predictive value of 83%.11 Cut-off values of NT-proBNP were derived from ROC analysis performed in HFPEF patients presenting with exertional dyspnoea. 11 An ROC analysis for BNP in HFPEF patients presenting with exertional dyspnoea has not been reported. Cut-off values of BNP were therefore derived from ROC analysis performed in HFPEF patients presenting in the emergency room with acute heart failure.11 As cut-off values of NT-proBNP and BNP were derived from different HFPEF subgroups, their respective magnitudes and ranges cannot be compared. To achieve satisfactory positive predictive values, the diagnostic cut-offs of NT-proBNP and BNP had to be raised to a level, at which sensitivity drops below 80%. These results from the overlap of NT-proBNP and BNP values between controls and HFPEF patients, especially when the HFPEF patients present with exertional dyspnoea.92 Natriuretic peptides are therefore recommended mainly for exclusion of HFPEF and not for diagnosis of HFPEF. Furthermore, when used for diagnostic purposes, natriuretic peptides do not provide diagnostic stand-alone evidence of HFPEF and always need to be implemented with other non-invasive investigations. 26 There were some limitations in using the BNP in diagnosis of HFPEF. In normal individuals, the concentration of NT-proBNP rises with age and is higher in women than in men.11 BNP and NT-proBNP levels can be influenced by comorbidities such as sepsis, liver failure, or kidney failure. Plasma levels of BNP rise independently of LV filling pressures once glomerular filtration rate falls below 60 mL/min. BNP levels are lower in obese persons, and HFPEF patients are often obese. More important, increased transmural wall stress is the stimulus for enhanced BNP production. As HFPEF patients have dramatically different LV geometry (smaller LV cavity and thicker LV walls), their wall stress is much lower than in HF with reduced EF, even in the setting of high systolic and diastolic pressures.93 Thus, for diagnosis, BNP is less sensitive for detection of HFPEF, particularly in its early or milder stages. Similarly, BNP is less specific for the detection of HFPEF. Normal plasma BNP concentrations increase with age and are higher in women. Because patients with HFPEF are older and more often female than are patients with HF and a reduced EF, the standard partition value of 100 pg/mL suggested for the diagnosis of HF may not be appropriate in HFPEF. However, the prognostic value of NT-proBNP was shown to be robust in a large clinical trial of HFPEF patients.11 27 CHAPTER 2 EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HFPEF 2.1 Prevalence of HFPEF among HF patients The reported prevalence of preserved LVEF among patients with HF varied widely from 13 to 74% in early studies.3 There were many population-based studies with echocardiographic investigations performed in large community-based samples all over the world. 1Together, these recent studies provided a more refined estimate of the prevalence of HFPEF among patients with HF, which averaged 54%, with a range from 40 to 71%.94 Inherent difficulties in making an accurate diagnosis of HFPEF, the lack of standardization of diagnostic criteria, and the potential for misdiagnosis in these often elderly, overweight, or deconditioned patients limit the precision of these estimates.17 Nonetheless, the ‘true’ overall prevalence of HFPEF in the community has been estimated at 1.1-5.5% of the general population.95,96Of note, the prevalence of HFPEF in the community increased with advancing age, and was higher in women.1Further, the relative prevalence of HFPEF among all HF patients increased over time in a large hospital-based study in Olmsted County, MN, rising from 38 to 54% (of all HF cases) between 1987 and 2001.97 This temporal trend for increasing HFPEF occurred in association with increases in the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and atrial fibrillation (AF), but without a corresponding increase in the relative prevalence of HFREF. In the same time frame, survival was noted to improve in patients with HFREF, but not in those with HFPEF. These secular trends underscore the importance of HFPEF as a major and growing public health problem. 28 Until now, there has been little study about the prevalence of HFPEF patients in Asian population. Yip et al found that 66% of patients with a clinical diagnosis of heart failure had a normal LVEF in a Hong Kong study.98 TSUCHIHASHI-MAKAYA M et al studied 1,692 patients registered for the JCARE-CARD registry done in Japan. In this analysis, 429 patients (26%) had EF ≥50% and 985 patients (58%) had EF <40% (HF with reduced EF). 72 2.2 Demographic features and comorbid conditions Recent large epidemiological studies characterizing more than 57,000 HF patients have helped to confirm observations from previous smaller studies of selected patients,1 and more clearly define the demographic features of patients with HFPEF . In general, these patients are older women with a history of hypertension. The prevalence of other cardiovascular risk factors varies depending on the study setting and the diagnostic criteria for the condition. Although not uniformly reported, cardiovascular risk factors are highly prevalent in HFPEF in population-based studies and registries, and include obesity in 41-46%, coronary artery disease in 20-76%, diabetes mellitus in 13-70%, atrial fibrillation (AF) in 15-41%, and hyperlipidaemia in 16–77%. In studies that included both HFPEF and HFREF,1 patients with HFPEF were consistently found to be older, more often female, more predominantly hypertensive, and have a higher prevalence of AF but a lower prevalence of coronary artery disease compared with those with HFREF. Notably, non-cardiovascular co-morbidities also appear to be highly prevalent in HFPEF, consistent with an elderly 29 population, and include renal impairment, chronic lung diseases, anemia, cancer, liver disease, peptic ulcer disease, and hypothyroidism. Controlled clinical trials have, to date, included more than 10,000 HFPEF patients; the demographic characteristics and risk factor profiles of these individuals more closely resemble that of population-based studies in the more recently completed trials (I-PRESERVE, SENIORS, HKDHF, PEP-CHF) .1 2.2.1 Age Patients with HFPEF are generally older than 65 years, with many older than 80 years. Although cardiovascular disease may contribute to diastolic dysfunction in older people, studies have also suggested that diastolic function deteriorates with normal aging.72 The speed of LV relaxation declines with age in men and women, even in the absence of cardiovascular disease. Vascular, LV systolic, and LV diastolic stiffness increase with aging.72 Increases in vascular stiffness have been shown to be related to effort intolerance in patients with HFPEF. Structural cardiac changes with aging and functional changes at the cellular level involving blunted beta-adrenergic responsiveness, excitation-contraction coupling, and altered calcium-handling proteins may contribute to diastolic dysfunction with normal aging. 2.2.2 Gender Along with age, female gender is a potent risk factor for HFPEF. Indeed, there appear to be important age-gender interactions, such that the prevalence of HFPEF increases 30 more sharply with age in women than the prevalence of HFREF. Women accounts for a large amounts of HFPEF patients. In a large multicenter study with 37,699 HFPEF patients, 65% of HFPEF patients were women. 109 The reasons for the female prominence in HFPEF are not entirely clear, but women have higher vascular and LV systolic and diastolic stiffness than men do, and vascular and ventricular stiffness increases more dramatically with age in women.1 Women also demonstrate more concentric left ventricular remodeling and less ventricular dilatation in response to arterial hypertension. 100,101 Unique coronary vascular functional changes in women may also play a role in the pathophysiologic process of HFPEF. 2.2.3 Hypertension Hypertension (HT) is the most commonly associated cardiac condition in patients with HFPEF. Approximately 90% of patients with HFPEF have HT.102 Severe HT is common in acute exacerbations of HF with a preserved ejection fraction, and treating HT reduces the incidence of HF in older adults. Chronically increased blood pressure is an important stimulus for cardiac structural remodeling and functional changes. The resultant hypertensive heart disease is characterized by LVH (LVH), increasing vascular and ventricular systolic stiffness, impaired relaxation, and increased diastolic stiffness, all factors linked to the pathogenesis of HFPEF.101 In the presence of hypertensive heart disease, ischemia produces exaggerated increases in filling pressures, and hypertensive heart disease and ischemic heart disease are often present in combination in patients with HFPEF. Elucidating which factors mediate transition 31 to HFPEF in persons with hypertensive heart disease is an area of active investigation. A history of hypertension with LV (LV) hypertrophy is commonly associated with HFPEF.1 Also, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is common, and the loss of the atrial contribution and reduced filling time may combine to precipitate pulmonary oedema.1 HT predisposes towards the development of AF especially if LV filling pressures are high and LA size is increased. Thus, the onset of AF in a patient with hypertension may be the precipitating factor for the symptoms of heart failure to develop and the subsequent hospital admission. Ischemia and diabetes are also important. In a study from Hong Kong it was clear that hypertension, ischemic heart disease and diabetes overlapped and all were common in patients with HFPEF.103 All of these etiological factors can impair both systolic and diastolic function, particularly ventricular long axis function, even in the presence of a preserved LVEF.1 2.2.4 Coronary artery disease The reported prevalence of coronary artery disease or myocardial ischemia in patients with HFPEF varies widely.104 Although acute ischemia is known to cause diastolic dysfunction (see later), the role of coronary artery disease and ischemia in contributing to chronic diastolic dysfunction and symptoms in patients with HFPEF remains speculative. Despite uncertainty about the role of ischemia in the pathophysiologic process of HFPEF and a lack of data documenting that revascularization improves outcomes in patients with HFPEF, HF management guidelines recommend revascularization in those HFPEF patients in whom 'ischemia is felt to contribute to 32 diastolic dysfunction.105,106 Whether unique features (e.g., diffuse disease, more endothelial dysfunction) play a role in the pathophysiologic process of HFPEF in women remains to be determined. Even in the absence of epicardial coronary disease, aging, hypertension, and diabetes are associated with vascular rarefaction and reduced coronary microvascular density, which can lead to impaired coronary flow reserve and diastolic dysfunction during stress.107,108 2.2.5 Atrial fibrillation Atrial fibrillation (AF) is recognized as a frequent precipitant of acute decompensation in patients with HFPEF. The Euro Heart Failure Survey reported the presence of chronic AF was 25% in HF patients with LVEF ≥40%.109 Potential mechanisms responsible for this frequent presentation are discussed more fully later. Diastolic dysfunction, AF and HFPEF are common and related conditions that probably share common pathogenic mechanisms in the elderly. 2.2.6 Diabetes Mellitus Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a potent risk factor for HF. A study showed that and the prevalence of diabetes HFPEF was 29%110, which was similar to that of HFREF patients, suggesting that DM contributes to the pathophysiologic process of both forms of HF. The morphologic changes in the diabetic heart include myocyte hypertrophy, increased extracellular matrix (fibrosis), and intramyocardial microangiopathy. Functional changes, which may represent a continuum, include impaired 33 endothelium-dependent and endothelium-independent vasodilation, impaired LV relaxation, increased passive diastolic stiffness, and contractile dysfunction. Mechanisms contributing to structural and functional coronary vascular and myocardial changes are diverse and include metabolic disturbances, activation of proinflammatory and profibrotic mediators, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and increases in advanced glycation end products, which promote increased collagen accumulation and increased collagen stiffness. Accumulation of advanced glycation end products may play a role in age-related cardiac and vascular stiffening. 2.2.7 Renal Dysfunction The critical impact of renal function on morbidity and mortality in HF is well established.110 Studies have shown no difference in the severity of renal dysfunction in patients with reduced or preserved EF.96 D. Rusinaru et al. analyzed 358 HFPEF patients and found that 53% of patients had eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2.112 Furthermore, the incidence of worsening renal function during HF therapy is similar in patients with preserved or reduced EF.96Although the prevalence of renal vascular disease in HF has been poorly delineated, it is probably high, and bilateral renal artery stenosis with rapid-onset pulmonary edema is a well-recognized cause of HFPEF. Evaluation of the renal arteries should be considered in patients presenting with the triad of hypertension, renal dysfunction, and HFPEF. 2.2.8 Body Mass Index 34 Obesity is associated with an increased risk for HF. In general, patients with HFPEF are more often obese than are patients with HFREF, and the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction is increased in obese persons. Increased adiposity not only imposes an adverse hemodynamic load on the heart but also is a source of a large number of biologically active peptide and nonpeptide mediators, many linked to chronic inflammation. Increased body mass index is a risk factor for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and AF, all of which are associated with HFPEF. Studies using TDI or invasive LV pressure measurement have reported an association between diastolic dysfunction, elevated filling pressures, and obesity, even in the absence of a diagnosis of HF.111 2.2.9 Anemia Anemia was also a common comorbidity of HFPEF patients. SENIORS study112 found that anemia was similarly common in patients with LVEF≤35% and those with LVEF>35% (19.0 vs. 18.7%, P =0.89). They also found that anemia is an independent predictor of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons among elderly patients with chronic HF and reduced or preserved/mildly reduced LVEF. 2.2.10 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease There have been several studies which aimed to illustrate the relationship of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and the prognosis of HFPEF patients. Kwon et al113 found that In HF patients with coexisting COPD, cardiovascular and 35 pulmonary event-free survival of HFPEF was found to be similar to that of HFREF over 3 years follow-up. Rusinaru et al114found that COPD was an independent predictor of mortality in patients with preserved LV ejection fraction and in patients with reduced ejection fraction. 2.3 Mortality of HFPEF patients 2.3.1 Mortality rates Several studies have evaluated the short- and long-term mortality of HFPEF, compared these mortality patterns with that of HFREF, and assessed the prognostic factors that determine mortality risk in patients with HFPEF. HFPEF is associated with high in-hospital, short-term, and long-term mortality rates. In studies that have evaluated mortality during the peri-hospitalization period, the in-hospital mortality rates have ranged from 3-6.5% during the index hospitalization.115 Short-term (30-90 day) mortality also is high, ranging typically between 5 and 9.5%.115 The long-term mortality rates seem more variable in the reported literature. Annualized mortality rates ranged from about 3.5 to 6% in 3 of the large randomized clinical trials.77, 116 The lower mortality of HFPEF patients in clinical trials likely reflects a selection bias favouring relatively younger, more compliant individuals with less comorbidities. A meta-analysis of 7688 patients with HFPEF followed for about 4 years found an overall mortality of 32% (about an 8% annual mortality rate).117The longer term (5 years) mortality rates across observational 36 studies and registries evaluating prevalence cohorts of HFPEF are consistently high, although absolute rates have varied considerably from about 55 to 74%.118 There were many studies which tried to compare the mortality of HFPEF and that of HFREF. More recently, Somaratne et al.117 published the largest systematic meta-analytic comparison of death rates in the two kinds of HF; the investigators compared mortality in 7688 HFPEF patients with 16,831 HFREF patients from 17 studies, and noted a 50% lower hazard for mortality in HFPEF compared with HFREF. Another meta-analysis119 published recently studied 31 studies included 41,972 patients: 10,347 with HF-PEF and 31 625 with HF-REF. They found that patients with HFPEF had a lower risk of death than patients with HF-REF, and this difference is seen regardless of age, gender, and etiology of HF. However, absolute mortality is still high in patients with HFPEF highlighting the need for a treatment to improve prognosis. When regard to hospitalization rates, large prospective national registries have consistently demonstrated that 46–51% of hospitalized acute HF patients have a HFPEF.1 These patients are also just as likely to be re-admitted following discharge as patients with HFREF, with a re-hospitalization rate of 29% within 60-90 days,1 and a median time to re-hospitalization of 29 days.1 2.3.2 Pattern of death 37 There were still controversies on the reason of death for HFPEF patients. The proportion of deaths attributed to cardiovascular vs. non-cardiovascular causes in HFPEF varies with study design, mode of death ascertainment, and time period of the studies.116-118 As noted above, there is a general consensus that patients with HFPEF have high co-morbidity burden due to their elderly nature. Thus, a recent report from the Mayo Clinic120 (that was community-based, and in which the cause of death was adjudicated by a coroner) underscored that nearly half of HFPEF patients succumbed to non-cardiovascular diseases, and there has been a temporal trend for higher non-cardiovascular mortality in HFPEF in the most recent decade (late 1990s-early 2000). However, Lim et al studied 461 HFPEF patients and found that cardiovascular diseases was still the main cause of death for HFPEF patients after 3-year's follow-up. 121 Overall, community-based studies120,122 demonstrate a higher proportion of non-cardiovascular deaths, and clinical trials77,116 report a higher per cent of cardiovascular deaths. This pattern may reflect the enrolment of healthier patients with fewer co-morbidities in controlled clinical trials. Cardiovascular causes of death in HFPEF patients include sudden death, refractory HF (pump failure), myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular disease (stroke or coronary disease).77,117,120,121 When cause-specific mortality patterns are compared between HFPEF and HFREF, the latter has a higher burden of cardiovascular-related death compared with the former.120 2.4 Prognostic predictors 38 Several studies have examined the factors influencing mortality risk in HFPEF. Thus, in one of the largest series from Canada115 that systematically investigated the impact of prognostic factors, the following factors increased mortality risk: older age, associated co-morbidities (presence of peripheral vascular disease, dementia, or cancer each doubled mortality risk), worse clinical profile at presentation as reflected by anemia (Hemoglobin <10g/dL), higher serum creatinine (>150 mmol/L), hyponatraemia (<136 mmol/L), each of which increased mortality risk by 50%, and a lower systolic BP. Some other studies have emphasized a worse prognosis in men with HFPEF (compared with women),100 those with DM,109COPD,113,114 and AF.123 Some recent investigations have evaluated if the paradigm of reverse epidemiology observed in HFREF is also evident in HFPEF. The impact of etiology of HFPEF on mortality risk is less clear, with conflicting reports in the literature; a recent report noted similar mortality risk in HFPEF due to valve disease, hypertension or ischemic heart disease,118 whereas another study22 highlighted a worse prognosis in those with coronary disease as the basis of HFPEF. In summary, HFPEF has a high mortality risk, on an average lower than HFREF, a higher likelihood of non-cardiovascular death, and a range of prognostic factors that are generally similar to those noted for HFREF. These studies have reported that lower BMI, lower SBP, and lower total cholesterol are all markers of increased mortality risk in HFPEF, thereby extending the reverse epidemiology concept beyond HFREF. Kapoor studied 1, 236 consecutive patients 39 with a prior diagnosis of heart failure and a preserved EF (≥50%). They found that Obesity (BMI>30) was noted in 542 patients (44%). Furthermore, they found that Low BMI is associated with increased mortality in patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function. However, with a BMI of >45, mortality increased, raising the possibility of a U-shaped relationship between BMI and survival. Risk score is very useful in predicting outcome for HFREF patients. Several predictive models have been reported for long term outcomes in HF with reduced ejection fraction.124, 125 However, these models have not included HFPEF patients. Furthermore, existing studies focus on clinical trial populations, which may not represent the general HF population, or the use of non-contemporary cohorts, which may have limited applicability to current practice. 2.5 Health related quality of life in HFPEF patients Health related quality of life (HRQoL) is very useful in the epidemiology of HF patients. There was little study about the HRQoL in HFPEF patients. Lewis studied 2709 HF patients and found that in symptomatic HF patients, HRQoL was equally impaired in both preserved and low LVEF populations in baseline.126 Horeska et al did a similar study. HRQoL between patients with HF-PEF and HF-REF did not differ significantly. When adjusting the HRQoL scores for BNP, an association between HRQoL and LVEF was not found, i.e. patients with HF-PEF and HF-REF with similar BNP levels had the same impairment in QoL.127 However, there has not been study 40 which compared the QoL change after a long-term’s follow-up. 41 CHAPTER3. TREATMENT OF HFPEF PATIENTS In general, the management of HFPEF has two objectives. The first is to treat the presenting syndrome of HF-relieve resting or exercise-associated venous congestion and eliminate precipitating factors. The second is to reverse the factors responsible for diastolic dysfunction or other perturbations that lead to HFPEF. Both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic strategies may be used to achieve these objectives. Present treatment strategies for HFPEF are largely based on assumptions of its pathophysiologic mechanisms and on extrapolations from proven strategies used in HF with a reduced EF. 3.1 Non-pharmacologic Therapy General measures that may be used in the management of patients with chronic HFPEF are not different from those pursued in patients with HF with a reduced EF. They include daily monitoring of weight, attention to diet and lifestyle, patient education, and close medical follow-up. In patients with HFPEF, aggressive control of hypertension, tachycardia, and other potential precipitants of HF decompensation should be emphasized. Although there are no adequate clinical trials with appropriate outcome endpoints, such as increased longevity, decreased symptoms, or improved quality of life, to prove the benefits of exercise training in patients with HFPEF definitively, several clinical and experimental studies have suggested that exercise training would be beneficial for such patients.110 42 3.2 Medical and Surgical Therapy In contrast to the treatment of HFREF, information to guide the pharmacologic therapy for patients with HFPEF is lacking. There were Limited available data from clinical studies and randomized controlled clinical trials for the therapy of HFPEF patients. However, no drug was recommended to use for HFPEF patients until now. 3.2.1 Clinical Studies Small controlled studies have been performed with various standard HF drugs in patients with HFPEF. The drugs used have included ACEI, angiotensin receptor antagonists, beta blockers, and calcium channel blockers. These trials have, however, been small or have produced inconclusive results.103 3.2.2 Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials The Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial included a small subgroup of patients with HFPEF. In the HFPEF group, digoxin did not alter the primary endpoint of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality but did reduce HF hospitalizations.128 Unfortunately, total cardiovascular hospitalizations were not reduced because of an increased rate of admissions for unstable angina, which completely negated the beneficial effect of reduced HF hospitalizations. In the CHARM-Preserved Trial,77 HF patients with an EF higher than 40% were randomized to candesartan (an angiotensin receptor antagonist) or placebo in addition 43 to standard therapy. Fewer patients in the candesartan group than in the placebo group reached the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, a finding that reached statistical significance only after adjustment for nonsignificant differences in baseline characteristics. The I-PRESERVE trial116 tested the angiotensin receptor blocker irbesartan in 4128 patients who were at least 60 years of age and had New York Heart Association Class II, III, or IV HF and an EF of at least 45%. The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for a cardiovascular cause (HF, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, arrhythmia, or stroke). Secondary outcomes included death from HF or hospitalization for HF, death from any cause and from cardiovascular causes, and quality of life. Irbesartan had no effect on any of the prespecified outcome measures. In the PEP-CHF trial, patients older than 70 years with chronic HF and normal or near-normal EF were randomized to perindopril (an ACEI) or placebo.129 The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or unplanned HF-related hospitalization. Both enrollment and event rates were lower than anticipated, and there was a high rate of cessation of blinded therapy, with crossover to open-label ACE inhibitor use in both groups. These factors limited the strength of the study, which did not show significant reduction in the primary endpoint. Some trends toward benefit, primarily driven by reduction in HF-related hospitalizations, were observed at 1 year, 44 when crossover therapy rates were lower. The SENIORS trial tested the effect of the beta1-selective blocker nebivolol in patients with HF.130 Nebivolol also has vasodilator properties thought to be related to its effects on nitric oxide release. This trial was not restricted to those with normal EF. There was a modest but significant reduction in the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalizations, which was driven primarily by the effect on hospitalizations. Prespecified subgroup analysis in patients with EF less than versus more than 35% did not detect any trends toward reduced benefit in those with higher EF. Unfortunately, there were very few patients with EF higher than 50% in this trial. The Hong Kong diastolic heart failure study103 randomized 150 patients with HFPEF (EF > 45%) to diuretics alone, diuretics plus irbesartan, or diuretics plus ramipril. Quality of life assessment, 6-minute walk test, and Doppler echocardiography were performed at baseline and at 12, 24, and 52 weeks. The quality of life score and 6-minute walk test increased similarly, and hospitalizations were similar in all three groups. Modest improvements in Doppler systolic and diastolic indices and NT-proBNP levels were seen only in the irbesartan and ramipril groups. 3.2.3 Current Therapeutic Recommendations In addition, it is important to treat other contributing comorbidities and risk factors aggressively, such as diabetes, hyperlipidemia, renal dysfunction, and renal vascular 45 disease. One retrospective study has shown that statin use, but not the use of beta blockers, ACEI, or calcium channel blockers, is associated with improved survival in patients with HFPEF. Until more clinical trials are performed in patients with HFPEF, the empiric nature of therapeutic recommendations and their uncertain benefit must be recognized. CONCLUSIONS In summary, HFPEF currently accounts for more than 50% of all HF patients and as the prevalence of HFPEF in the HF population rises by 1% per year. Diastolic dysfunction is the main pathophysiology in HFPEF patients. Diagnosis of HFPEF was based on the symptoms or signs of HF, mildly abnormal systolic function and diastolic dysfunciton. The prevalence of HFPEF patients among HF patients was about 50%. They were more likely to be older, more likely to be female and more likely to have co-morbidities such as DM, AF, renal failure, COPD when compared with HFREF patients. The mortality rate of HFPEF was as high as that of HFREF patients. Main reason of death was still not clear. There was no recommended medical treatment for HFPEF until now. 46 SECTIONS II STUDIES ABOUT HFPEF CHAPTER4. OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS 4.1 Objectives of the study There have been many studies about the epidemiology of HFPEF patients in the past ten years. However, there were still some issues which were not clear for HFPEF patients. For example, little was known about the clinical outcome including mortality and hospitalization of HFPEF patients in Chinese population. Whether the prognostic factors of HFPEF patients in Chinese population were the same as those of other races was still unknown. Furthermore, there has been no a risk score for predicting outcome of HFPEF patients until now, which is important for decision making in clinical practice. Finally, long term health related quality of life (HRQoL) after treatment in HFPEF patients and determinants of QOL improvement have not been well studied, especially in very elderly HFPEF patients. As a result, we tried to do an epidemiology study of HFPEF patients from a large HF registry. Main objectives of our studies included: 1. To investigate the clinical outcome of HFPEF patients admitted to hospital over a 10 year (2001-2010)’s period. 2. To find the predictors of QOL improvement for HFPEF patients. 3. To find the effect of age on quality of life in HFPEF patients 4. To find the determinants and predictors of mortality, hospitalization for HFPEF patients. 47 5. To develop an assessment Model that predicts 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients. 4.2 Hypothesis The hypothesis of our studies included: 1. Clinical outcome of HFPEF patients admitted to hospital in recent five years was better than those admitted earlier due to more recognition of the disease. 2. QOL in elderly HFPEF patients improves similarly as that of younger HFPEF patients after treatment. 3. There would be some difference in the determinants and predictors of mortality, hospitalization for HFPEF patients in Chinese population compared to other countries due to the race difference. 4. A risk assessment model could be built with simple parameters to predict 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients. 48 CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY 5.1 Patient population Consecutive heart failure (HF) patients were prospectively enrolled into a HF Registry from June 2006 to December 2010 at a university affiliated teaching hospital. Baseline demographics, investigations (e.g. transthoracic echocardiography, routine blood testing) and therapy were obtained during index hospital. HF patients enrolled in HF registry received 3 month and 12 month’s follow-up by research nurses except for routine cardiac clinic visit at our hospital. Diagnosis of HFPEF was based on the clinical diagnosis and standard transthoracic echocardiography Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction was defined as ejection fraction of more than 50%. A historical cohort of HF patients admitted in our hospital from January 2001 to June 2005 were retrospectively retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Clinical Management System and data searched using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code 428 (Heart Failure).131 Among these cohort, HF patients who have transthoracic echocardiography done within hospitalization and LVEF more than 50% by standard transthoracic echocardiography were selected for study. 5.2 Definition of HFPEF patients HFPEF in our study was defined using the criteria of the Echocardiography and Heart Failure Associations of the European Society of Cardiology.11 In general, these 49 diagnostic criteria share three features in common: (i) clinical signs or symptoms of HF; (ii) evidence of normal LV systolic function; and (iii) evidence of abnormal LV diastolic dysfunction. Preserved ejection fraction was defined as ejection fraction of more than 50% in our study. 5.3 Baseline patient data The following baseline characteristics of HFPEF patients were analyzed: gender, age, atrial fibrillation (AF), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal failure, diabetes mellitus (DM), primary cerebrovascular disease (CVD), hyperlipidemia, current smokers, systolic blood pressure (SBP) at admission, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at admission, heart rate at admission, hemoglobin (Hb), sodium, blood urea, Cr, ALB, ALT, and medications at discharge [diuretics, aldosterone antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), beta-blocker, calcium channel blockers (CCB), digoxin, warfarin, statins]. 5.4 Echocardiogram Comprehensive 2-dimensional with Doppler transthoracic echocardiography was performed in all participants (Vivid Five or Seven, General Electric, Milwaukee, WI, USA) using a 2.5-MHz probe. All images were digitally stored with at least 3 cardiac cycles for off-line analysis. The LV volumes and ejection fraction were assessed by bi-plane Simpson’s method. The presence of LV diastolic dysfunction was 50 confirmed by Doppler echocardiography by interrogation of transmitral flow pattern, pulmonary venous inflow pattern, and pulse-wave tissue Doppler imaging assessment of peak myocardial early diastolic velocity.7,8 At least 3 consecutive beats in sinus rhythm were measured and averaged. 5.5 Health related quality of life assessment Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) instruments. The MLHFQ was designed to measure the effects of heart failure and its treatments on an individual’s HRQoL.103 The MLHFQ asks the individuals to indicate, using a scale ranging from 0 to 5, how much each of 21 symptoms prevented them from living as they desired during the past 30 days. Total score may be derived by summing the responses. The MLHFQ has 2 subscales. The physical scale is composed of 8 questions, with scores ranging from 0 to 40. The emotional scale is composed of 5 questions, with scores ranging from 0 to 25 points. Higher scores reflect a poorer HRQoL.103 5.6 Follow-up and clinical outcome 3-month and 12-month follow-up was conducted by clinical interview at our hospital to assess HRQoL. Cardiac events were retrieved from review of patient medical records though the dedicated electronic system which recorded patient events, hospitalizations and details of clinic follow up. 51 5.7 Statistical Analysis All continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical parameters were presented as frequency (percentage) as appropriate. The difference between continuous variables was analyzed by student t-test. Chi-square or Fisher exact test was used for categorical data. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed to demonstrate 1 year survival in different group of patients. The log-rank test was used to determine if actuarial survival was significantly different. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using Cox-proportional hazards models. We put 27 variables into univariate analysis for screening the predictors of 1 year mortality in our study. They were: gender, age, atrial fibrillation (AF), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal failure, diabetes mellitus (DM), primary cerebrovascular disease(CVD), hyperlipidemia, current smokers, systolic blood pressure (SBP) at admission, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at admission, heart rate at admission, hemoglobin (Hb), sodium, BUN, Cr, ALB, ALT, and medications at discharge [diuretics, aldosterone antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), beta-blocker, calcium channel blockers (CCB), digoxin, warfarin, statins]. To adjust for the impact of baseline differences between the 2 cohorts on clinical outcomes, we calculated a focused propensity score132-134. This method uses measured 52 variables which were different between the two cohorts to predict cohort assignment. To establish a risk score, all HFPEF patients were randomly divided into derivation group and validation group. We got a risk score from the derivation group and then we validated the score in the rest of HFPEF patients. A p≤0.05 (2-tailed) was considered as statistically significant. Data were analyzed using SPSS 17.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL). 53 CHAPTER 6 IMPROVED 12 MONTH SURVIVAL OF PATIENTS ADMITTED WITH HFPEF OVER THE LAST DECADE 6.1 Introduction Recent studies have shown that survival of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) is improving but the reasons are not well established or studied1. There may be changes in patient demographics, pattern of disease, pattern of co-morbidities, management, awareness of this disease and so on. However, little was known about the change of outcome for HFPEF patients in resent years among Chinese population. We performed a study to investigate the change of outcome of HFPEF patients at a single institution over a 10-year period. We aim to assess the pattern, treatment and outcomes of patients with HFPEF. We also try to determine independent predictors of mortality and change of predictors for HFPEF patients over 10-year’s period. 6.2 Methods 6.2.1 Patient population Consecutive heart failure (HF) patients were prospectively enrolled into a HF Registry from June 2006 to December 2010 at a university affiliated teaching hospital. Baseline demographics, investigations (e.g. transthoracic echocardiography, routine blood testing) and therapy were obtained during index hospital. HF patients enrolled in 54 HF registry received 3 month and 12 month’s follow-up by research nurses except for routine cardiac clinic visit at our hospital. Diagnosis of HFPEF was based on the clinical diagnosis and standard transthoracic echocardiography Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction was defined as ejection fraction of more than 50%. A historical cohort of HF patients admitted in our hospital from January 2001 to June 2005 were retrospectively retrieved from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Clinical Management System and data searched using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code 428 (Heart Failure).131 Among these cohort, HF patients who have transthoracic echocardiography done within hospitalization and LVEF ejection fraction of more than 50% by standard transthoracic echocardiography were selected for study. 6.2.2 Baseline patient data HFPEF patients prospectively enrolled from 2006 through 2010(Cohort-1) and those enrolled in 2001-2005 (Cohort-2) were compared. The following baseline characteristics were used for comparison: gender, age, atrial fibrillation (AF), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal failure, diabetes mellitus (DM), primary cerebrovascular disease (CVD), hyperlipidemia, current smokers, systolic blood pressure (SBP) at admission, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at admission, heart rate at admission, hemoglobin (Hb), sodium, blood urea, serum creatinine level (Cr), serum albumin levels (ALB) and medications 55 at discharge [diuretics, aldosterone antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), beta-blocker, calcium channel blockers (CCB), digoxin, warfarin, statins]. 6.2.3 Study end points The primary outcome for the study was time to death within one year. Secondary outcomes included time to heart failure re-hospitalization. 6.2.4 Statistical analysis Categorical data were expressed as percentages, and continuous variables expressed as mean ±SD and/or median with inter-quartile ranges (IQR). Continuous variables were compared using Student's t-tests. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact tests as appropriate. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences in survival between two cohorts were assessed by the log-rank test. To adjust for the impact of baseline differences between the 2 cohorts on clinical outcomes, we calculated a focused propensity score132-134. This method uses measured variables which were different between the two cohorts to predict cohort assignment. Using the propensity score, we adjusted both Cohort-1 and Cohort-2 which made the two cohorts similar in baseline characteristics. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). All calculated p values were two-sided and p value <0.05 were considered statistically significant. 56 6.3 Results 6.3.1 Baseline patient characteristics 847 HFPEF patients prospectively enrolled from 2006 through 2010 (Cohort-1) and 170 HFPEF patients enrolled between from 2001 through 2005 (Cohort-2) were studied. Baseline characteristics of HF patients in Cohort-1 and Cohort-2 were showed in Table 7-1. HFPEF patients in Cohort-1 were older than those in Cohort -2. (77±11 vs. 74 ±11, p<0.001). The prevalence of hypertension was also much higher in Cohort-1 than that of Cohort-2 (66% in Cohort-1 vs. 57% in Cohort-2, p=0.03). HFPEF patients in Cohort-2 were more likely to be current smokers, have history of CHF, history of IHD, history of hyperlipidemia than those in Cohort-1. HFPEF patients in Cohort-2 also had higher heart rate, systolic blood pressure, blood urea, Cr level as well as lower sodium, Hb and albumin level compared with those in Cohort -1. Incubation rates and rates of receiving cardiac angiogram were also higher in Cohort-2. In medication at discharge, patients in Cohort -1 were less likely to be prescribed with regular nitrates. Other than this, there was no significant difference in prescription rates of ACEI/ARBs and Beta-blocker between the two cohorts. 6.3.2 Unadjusted Clinical Outcomes During the mean follow-up of 12 months, 175 HFPEF patients died in Corhort-1 and 54 HFPEF patients in Cohort-1. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that one year survival of HFPEF improved over time (78.8% in Cohort-1 vs. 68.2% in Cohort-2, Log-rank 57 χ2=9.5, p=0.002) (Figure 1), while heart failure re-hospitalization rates also decreased over time (33.4% in Cohort-1 vs. 50.6% in Cohort-2, p<0.001). 6.3.3 Propensity Score Adjusted Clinical Outcomes After matching for potential confounders, including all significant differences, we selected 125 HFPEF patients in Cohort-1 (Cohort-3) and 125 HFPEF patients (Cohort-4) in Cohort-2 for comparison of the 1 year’s survival. During the follow-up of 12 months, 35 HFPEF patients in Cohort-3 and 53 HFPEF patients in Cohort-4 died. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that one year survival of HFPEF still improved over time (78.9% in Cohort-3 vs. 68.1% in Cohort-4, Log-rank χ2=6.03, p=0.01) (Figure 2), while heart failure re-hospitalization rate also decreased over time (34.3% in Cohort-3 vs. 51.2% in Cohort-4, p=0.002). 6.4 Discussion Major findings of our study were that survival of patients admitted with HFPEF improved over a 10 year period from 2001 to 2010. Even after matching the baseline characteristics of recent and old cohorts, the survival still improved. Community-based studies suggest that overall survival among patients with HF is improving.135More and more studies have been focus on the outcome of HFPEF patients recently. There were many studies which studied the mortality of HFPEF patients by comparing with patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction 58 (HFREF). A meta-analysis found that patients with HFPEF have a lower risk of death than patients with HFREF, and this difference is seen regardless of age, gender, and etiology of HF. Absolute mortality is still high in patients with HFPEF highlighting the need for a treatment to improve prognosis.119 However, few studies were focus on the change of mortality in HFPEF patients over time. Ovan et al found among patients with reduced ejection fraction, survival improved significantly over time, whereas there was no trend toward improvement among patients with preserved ejection fraction.97 These observations suggest that improvement over time in the survival of broader populations of patients with heart failure may be due primarily to improvement among those with reduced ejection fraction. Although several interventions known to improve survival among patients with reduced ejection fraction were introduced into clinical practice during the study period, no agents have been proven to improve survival among patients with preserved ejection fraction.128-130 Thus they thought that it was not unexpected that survival among patients with preserved ejection fraction did not change significantly over the study period. The results of our study were opposite to Owan’s study. We found that the mortality of HFPEF patients improved in the recent five years when compared to previous HFPEF cohorts in our hospital. We confirmed our results by matching baseline characteristics using propensity score. There may be three reasons for this finding. First hypothesis was that recent HFPEF patients who enrolled in our HF 59 registry received more follow-up by our research nurses. However, we found that there was no difference in the outcome of patients who came to follow-up and those who didn’t come to follow-up. It did not support our hypothesis. Second, improved outcome of HFPEF would be due to more awareness of this disease. HFPEF as a possible diagnosis was more recognized in the past 5 years. However, there has not been standard therapy for HFPEF patients until now. So we have no evidence to support that improved outcome was related to more awareness of the disease. Third, improved treatment may be a factor. However, there was no significant change in the use of medication between the two cohorts (except a lower rate of nitrate usage in the later cohort) which is somewhat surprising. The apparent improvement in outcome therefore must due to other reasons other than more frequent use of standard anti-heart failure therapies such as ACEI/ARBs etc. In part this observation also attests to the lack of any medication proven to improve mortality in HFPEF patients. But increased recognition of the condition will lead to earlier treatment of risk factors such as HT and diabetes and this may be a factor in the improved outcome. Renal function was better in the later cohort which was consistent with this. Finally, dose of medications at discharged, actual drugs used and difference in the drugs prescribed in follow-up would be reasons. However we have no related data to support. Further studies were needed. Limitations There are some limitations in our study. First, there was selection bias because we used 60 different methods to select patients hospitalized in 2001-2005 and those in 2006-2010. Patients enrolled in 2001-2005 were historical cohorts and they were more severe than the current cohort. They were not consecutive recruited that they couldn’t represent the real HFPEF cohort enrolled in our hospital between 2001 and 2005. Second, the sample size was unmatched in HFPEF patients hospitalized in 2001-2005 and those in 2006-2010. However, we used propensity score to match the patient number and characteristics and compared the true mortality rates between the two groups to reduce the selection bias. Finally, only HF patients with echocardiography data were enrolled in our study. Those patients without echo done would have effect on the outcome of HFPEF patients. 6.5 Conclusions In our population of Chinese patients with HFPEF, 1 year mortality and HF re-hospitalization decreased over the last decade. Further study such as investigating the impact of dose and actual type of medication, the role of HF registry on the outcome of HFPEF patients are needed for investigation of the improvement. 61 Table 6-1 Baseline Characteristics of HFPEF patients enrolled in Cohort-1 and Cohort-2 Parameters HFPEF patients HFPEF patients Before propensity score matched After propensity score matched (N=1017) (N=250) Cohort-1 Cohort-2 p value Cohort-3 Cohort-4 p value (2006-2010) (2001-2005) (2006-2010) (2001-2005) (N=847) (N=170) (n=125) Age, years 77±11 74±11 <0.001 74±11 75±10 0.51 Female, n (%) 547 (63) 109 (64) 0.81 81 (65) 77 (62) 0.60 Smokers, n (%) 229 (28) 26 (15) 0.001 22 (18) 21 (17) 0.87 SBP, mmHg 153±31 174±38 <0.001 174±34 168±37 0.26 LVEF, % 62±8 65±11 0.002 65±11 0.99 Cr, umol/L 147±121 214±212 <0.001 163±147 181±165 0.36 Hb, g/dl 11.4±2.2 11.2±2.5 0.27 11.5±2.3 11.4±2.4 0.63 Blood urea, mmol/L 11±9 13±8 0.007 11±7 12±7 0.68 Albumin, g/L 36±5 35±8 0.03 35±6 35±8 0.77 Na, mmol/L 139±5 138±5 0.006 138±5 138±5 0.84 Medical 65±9 (n=125) history-no. (%) HT 561 (66) 97 (57) 0.03 84 (68) 76 (61) 0.25 DM 346 (41) 77 (46) 0.26 66 (53) 62 (50) 0.61 62 CAD 212(25) 59(35) 0.01 32 (26) 41 (33) 0.21 AF 231(28) 50(30) 0.58 34(27) 37 (30) 0.67 COPD 90 (12) 18 (11) 0.83 8 (7) 14 (11) 0.24 CVA 128 (15) 20(12) 0.26 16 (13) 14 (11) 0.70 Hyperlipidemia 145(17) 12 (7) 0.001 10 (8) 11 (9) 0.82 CRF 144 (17) 52 (31) <0.001 25 (20) 32 (26) 0.29 HF 318 (38) 48 (28) 0.02 42 (34) 24 (27) 0.25 Incubation 33 (4) 40 (24) <0.001 14 (11) 14 (11) 1.00 9 (5) <0.001 2 (2) 4 (3) 0.41 Coronary angiogram 4 (0.5) Medication-no. (%) ACEI/ARB 393 (47) 91 (54) 0.09 58 (46) 71 (57) 0.10 Beta-blockers 367 (44) 75 (44) 0.86 53 (42) 51 (41) 0.78 Aldosterone 35 (4) 5(3) 0.46 9 (7.2) 4 (3.2) 0.15 Regular nitrates 184 (22) 83(49) <0.001 31 (25) 65 (52) <0.001 Digoxin 113 (13) 21 (12) 0.72 13 (10) 17 (14) 0.44 CCB 250 (30) 44 (26) 0.34 35 (28) 34 (27) 0.89 Diuretics 516 (61) 117 (69) 0.05 63 (50) 87 (70) 0.002 Antagonists SBP, systolic blood pressure at admission; LVEF, LV ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; BMI, body mass index; DM, diabetes mellitus; CAD, coronary artery disease; AF, atrial fibrillation; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVD, primary cerebrovascular disease; HF, heart failure; Cr, creatinine; 63 eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; Hb, hemoglobin; ALB, serum albumin; QOL, quality of life ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blockers; CCB, Calcium channel blockers. 64 Figure 6-1 Kaplan-Meier Survival Curve for 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients in Cohort-1 (2006-2010) and Cohort-2 (2001-2005) 65 Figure 6-2 Kaplan-Meier Survival Curve for 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients in Cohort-3 and Cohort-4 using propensity score matching 66 CHAPTER 7 QUALITY OF LIFE IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH HFPEF 7.1 Introduction The prevalence of elderly patients presenting with heart failure (HF) is increasing with an ageing population and their management remains a major therapeutic challenge. Many elderly patients with HF have relatively preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) and consequently in large population studies most HFPEF patients were older than 60 years. In addition, advanced age is an important determinant of outcomes for patients with HFPEF.115 However, community practice surveys reveal that there is a disproportionately lower use of cardiovascular medications among elderly patients with HF who may stand to benefit.136 Reasons include limited trial data to guide the care of the elderly and uncertainty about benefits and risks of newer medications. This population usually receives less medication such as ACEI or Beta-blockers because of concerns related to the frequently associated co-morbidities. 137 Health related quality of life (HRQoL) is increasingly more relevant in the management of heart failure patients as survival increases and the population ages. Studies have shown that health status in terms of symptoms and emotions strongly predicts long term clinical outcomes in heart failure patients 127. One study found that there was no difference in the unadjusted mean summary Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score of HFPEF and Heart Failure-Low EF 67 patients.127 However, little is known about the long term health status after treatment in HFPEF patients, especially the very elderly. There are also limited studies about the effect of medication such as ACEI/ARB or Beta-blockers on HRQoL of elderly HFPEF patients. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of age on HRQoL in HFPEF patients. We also tried to determine if the effect of age on HRQoL in HFPEF patients was influenced by the medications prescribed such as ACEI/ARB or Beta-blockers. 7.2 Methods 7.2.1 Patient population We enrolled 847 consecutive HFPEF patients [LVEF ≥50%, including all causes of heart failure] in our hospital between 01 June 2006 and 31 December 2010. Patients were excluded if they died within 12-month’s follow-up (n= 94) or they did not come for follow-up at 3 months or 12 months after discharge (n=87). Finally, there were a total 495 HFPEF patients with HRQoL assessment recorded at baseline and 271 patients with measurements at baseline and follow-up. Medical records review for this study was approved by the institutional clinical ethical review board. 68 7.2.2 Health related quality of life assessment Health-related quality of life was assessed by the MLHFQ instruments. The MLHFQ was designed to measure the effects of heart failure and its treatments on an individual’s HRQoL.127 The MLHFQ asks the individuals to indicate, using a scale ranging from 0 to 5, how much each of 21 symptoms prevented them from living as they desired during the past 30 days. Total score may be derived by summing the responses. The MLHFQ has 2 subscales. The physical scale is composed of 8 questions, with scores ranging from 0 to 40. The emotional scale is composed of 5 questions, with scores ranging from 0 to 25 points. Higher scores reflect a poorer HRQoL.126 7.2.3 Follow-up 3-month and 12-month follow-up was conducted by clinical interview at our hospital to assess HRQoL. Cardiac events were retrieved from review of patient medical records though the dedicated electronic system which recorded patient events, hospitalizations and details of clinic follow up. 7.2.4 Statistical analysis Categorical data were expressed as percentages, and continuous variables expressed as mean ±SD and/or median with inter-quartile ranges (IQR). Continuous variables were compared using Student's t-tests. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests as appropriate. HRQoL was analyzed using a 69 repeated measures analysis of variance procedure that allowed for imputation of any missing data through a general linear model. The general linear model allowed us to look at different age subgroups, time, and interaction effects. Odd ratios (OR) were calculated using logistic regression models. We entered 9 variables into the univariate analysis for screening the predictors of HRQoL improvement in our study which were: gender, age, MLHFQ scores at baseline, LVEF at baseline, history of primary cerebrovascular diseases(CVD), New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class and medications at discharge [angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), beta-blockers, diurectics]. A p≤0.05 (2-tailed) was considered as statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). 7.3 Results 7.3.1 Baseline patient characteristics After 12 months’ follow-up, 94 HFPEF patients died within one year while full follow-up. 271 HFPEF patients had HRQoL measurements done at baseline and at 3 and 12 months follow up and constitute the cohort for analysis. Patients aged <66, 66-85 and ≥85 years accounted for 12.1%, 67.4% and 20.3% of these 271 HFPEF patients, respectively. HFPEF patients aged ≥85 years were more likely to have history of hypertension and less likely to be treated with beta-blockers than younger patients at baseline, but there was no other difference in baseline characteristics among three age subgroups. Baseline characteristics of the study cohort are shown in Table 7-1. 70 7.3.2 Mortality Cardiovascular mortality over one year (9.6%) was higher in elderly HFPEF patients (age≥80years) than younger ones (age<80 years) (14.8% vs. 8%, p<0.001). Total 1 year mortality was 12.8%, 19.8% and 29.6% in the three age groups respectively. HRQoL at baseline was related to 1 year mortality in the whole cohort [HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03, p=0.004] 7.3.3 Health-related quality of life The mean MLHFQ total scores across 3 time points were similar in three groups and improved from 30 to 15 in patients with age<66 years, from 28 to 15 in patients with age 66-85 years and from 29 to 15 in patients with age≥85years after 12 months’ follow-up (Table 7-2). Overall 71-84% of patients felt that their HRQoL had improved and in this respect there was no difference among the three age groups (p=0.28) (Figure 7-1). When compared the Physical Scale and the Emotional Scale, there was still no differences among the three groups (Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3). We found no interaction on the effect of age group in HRQoL score, although the time effect was significant in three groups. 7.3.4 Therapy At baseline there were no significant differences in the use of ACEI/ARB therapy in the different age groups. (46.9% vs. 46.6% vs. 49.1%, p=0.95). Over the follow up period overall 54.9% of HFPEF patients were taking ACEI/ARBs (53.2% vs. 56.3% 71 vs. 52.6% in three age groups, respectively, p=0.86), a slight but non-significant increase. However, the percentage of very elderly patients taking beta-blockers was significantly lower (Table 7-1). At follow up this did not change significantly. 7.3.5 Predictors of HRQoL improvement in HFPEF patients Neither age nor prescribing ACEI/ARB can predict HRQOL improvement in our cohort in univariate analysis. After adjusting for all potential confounders in the multivariable analysis, only baseline MLHFQ score (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11; p<0.001) was found to be the most powerful predictor of HRQoL improvement in HFPEF patients at 1 year (Table 7-3). Despite the lower use of BB in the very elderly it was not a negative predictor for HRQoL. 7.4 Discussions The main finding of this study is that HRQoL in very elderly HFPEF patients can improve to the same extent as younger HFPEF patients after 1 year. In addition, in this study there was no difference in the medication prescribed in 1 year between elderly HFPEF patients and younger ones which may be connected to the response. This is the first study to demonstrate that the very elderly have as much to gain from modern therapy as younger patients in terms of HRQoL. Our results are particularly relevant to contemporary medical practice as the prevalence of HF increases from a few percentage only at age 50 to about 10% in 72 people over 80 years of age. Approximately 80% of patients hospitalize with HF are older than 85 years. Many studies showed long-term prognosis in HF patients older than 80 years was poor138. However, patient-centered outcomes such as HRQoL, have gained greater importance, particularly because life expectances for HF patients have increased, and HF patients have to adjust to living with a chronic condition and for many (elderly) patients HRQoL appears to be more important than longer survival. There has been very few previous work on this important aspect of life for the elderly and none on the effect of therapy Hoekstra et al127 found that HRQOL was similarly impaired in patients with HFPEF as in HFREF and Jaarsma et al140 also showed that baseline HRQOL assessment was similar in patients older than 50 years old with HFPEF or HFREF. Our study also found that the percentage usage of ACEI/ARB or Beta-blockers increased similarly between very elderly HFPEF patients and younger ones after 1 year follow-up. However, cardiovascular mortality was higher in elderly HFPEF patients than younger ones, which was similar with the results of the Mahjoub et al study138 (Cardiovascular causes were recorded in over 60% of deaths of HF patients with age >80 years). Although it is well established that ACEI and Beta-blocker can reduce mortality in HFREF patients there is no proof of significant benefit from these drugs in patients with HFPEF. However, many studies found that use of ACEI/ARB and Beta-blocker was associated with better survival in HFPEF patients age> 65yr141. 73 Inherent difficulties in therapy management and perhaps a higher prevalence of renal insufficiency at advanced ages may account for the lower prescription rates of ACE-inhibitors in elderly HF patients found in many studies. However, we found that Beta-blocker usage was significantly lower in the very elderly at baseline. But Beta-blocker treatment was recently reported to be well tolerated and not associated with an increased risk of adverse events in elderly HF patients142. It is not clear why the usage of Beta Blockers was so much lower at baseline in the very elderly in our cohort. Probably, concerns about possible side-effects deterred prescribing but this may be unfounded. It seems likely that the similar HRQoL improvement demonstrated in the very elderly patients may be related to a high rate ACEI/ARB prescriptions used our study. Possibly the improvement in the elderly could be greater if Beta-blockers were used more frequent. Overviews of trials with ACE-inhibitors and beta-blockers have demonstrated that in the HFREF population the benefits on mortality apply to both young and old patients. However, despite this in may reports standard treatment with ACEIs etc in these very elderly HF patients is not as frequent as in younger patients. Fonarow G136 et al found that elderly (Age>75 years) HFREF patients received less ACEI/ARB treatment than younger ones (78.8% vs.84.3%). In the HFPEF group, which is mainly elderly, lower prescription rates of ACEI/ARB and Beta-blockers have also been found. In the study by Mofgensen et al 137 only 38.3% of elderly HF patients (52.6% with LVEF>45%) received ACEI/ARB compared with 54.1% in younger HF patients. 74 Limitations There are a few limitations in our study. First, the sample sizes of elderly HFPEF patients were relatively small. Second, many patients were lost to follow-up within 1 year. This may reflect the local health care organization. Despite the lack of difference between the age groups in the use of medication the overall usage of standard heart failure therapy was low, especially aldosterone blockade which may be more beneficial in the HFPEF population. It is possible that the HRQOL improvements in the whole population could have been greater if the usage of standard medications for HF had been higher. Also, although suggestive we are unable to demonstrate conclusively or precisely from our data the degree to which the improvement of HRQoL in elderly HFPEF patients was due to the use of medications such as ACEI/ARB and beta-blockers. 7.5 Conclusions Very elderly HFPEF patients can experience similar improvement in quality of life compared to younger patients with appropriate treatment. Age per se should not deter against treatment such as ACEI/ARBs and Beta-blocker because of potential benefits in quality of life. 75 Table 7-1 Baseline Characteristics of HFPEF patients in different age subgroups Parameters Age<66 yr Age 66-85 yr Age> 85yr p value (n=49) (n=164) (n=58) Age, years 57±8 77±4 88±3 <0.001 Female, n (%) 34 (69) 103 (63) 42 (72) 0.35 Smokers, n (%) 13(27) 48(30) 14(24) 0.72 SBP, mmHg 153±35 153±34 157±21 0.83 LVEF, % 62±8 64±9 62±7 0.08 NYHA III-IV, n(%) 31(66) 119(77) 48(84) 0.09 BMI, kg/m2 24±4 25±4 24±5 0.70 Cr, umol/L 127±70 136±98 115±44 0.30 Hb, g/dl 12.2±2.4 11.6±2.3 11.9±2.3 0.09 Blood urea, mg/dl 10±6 10±5 9±5 0.48 Na, mmol/L 138±5 139±4 138±5 0.12 HT 22(45) 116 (72) 42 ((71) <0.001 DM 24 (49) 64 (40) 20 (35) 0.33 CAD 8(17) 46(29) 12 (21) 0.21 AF 15(32) 48(30) 15(32) 0.41 COPD 4(9) 17(11) 10(20) 0.19 CVA 5(10) 21(13) 10(18) 0.51 Hyperlipidemia 11(22) 31(19) 6(10) 0.24 Medical history-no. (%) 76 CRF 5(10) 26(16) 5(9) 0.32 HF 18(37) 52(32) 21(37) 0.73 Total scores 30±16 28±16 29±16 0.87 Physical Subscale Scores 16±8 17±9 16±9 0.94 5±5 7±5 0.48 MLHFQ scores Emotional Subscale Scores 6±5 Medication-no. (%) ACEI/ARB 23(47) 76(47) 27(49) 0.95 Beta-blockers 29(59) 82(50) 16(29) 0.005 Aldosterone antagonists 1(4) 9(9) 2(8) 0.67 Digoxin 9(18) 20(12) 8(15) 0.55 CCB 17(35) 47(29) 18(33) 0.69 Diuretics 32(65) 100(61) 29(53) 0.37 SBP, systolic blood pressure at admission; LVEF, LV ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; BMI, body mass index; DM, diabetes mellitus; CAD, coronary artery disease; AF, atrial fibrillation; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVD, primary cerebrovascular disease; HF, heart failure; Cr, creatinine; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; Hb, hemoglobin; ALB, serum albumin; HRQOL, quality of life ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blockers; CCB, Calcium channel blockers. 77 Table 7-2 Comparison of MLHFQ score among three age groups of HFPEF patients Parameters Age<66y Age 66-85 Age>85y P value Baseline 30±16 28±16 29±16 0.87 3 month 20±16*# 20±15 *# 21±16 *# 0.95 1 year 15±14† 16±14 † 15±12† 0.92 Baseline 16±8 17±9 16±9 0.94 3 month 10±9 *# 10±8 *# 12±10 *# 0.52 1 year 8±8† 9±8† 8±8† 0.61 MLHFQ Scores (Mean+ SD) MLHFQ Scores (Physical subscale) MLHFQ Scores (Emotional subscale) Baseline 6±5 5±5 7±5 0.48 3 month 5±5 # 5±4 # 4±4 *# 0.49 1 year 4±4 † 3±4 † 3±3 † 0.64 * p<0.05 when comparing the baseline and 3 month MLHFQ scores # p<0.05 when comparing the baseline and 1 year MLHFQ scores † p<0.05 when comparing the 3month and 1 year MLHFQ scores 78 Table 7-3 Multivariate-regression of HRQOL improvement within 1 year for patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) patients Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis Variable OR 95%CI p value OR 95%CI p value Age, per year increase 0.97 0.95-1.01 0.06 - - - Female 1.39 0.77-2.48 0.27 - - - LVEF at baseline 1.06 1.02-1.10 0.007 - - - Baseline MLHFQ scores 1.08 1.05-1.11 <0.001 1.08 1.05-1.11 <0.001 NYHA class III-IV 1.87 0.99-3.53 0.05 History of CVD 0.37 0.18-0.77 0.01 - - - Diuretics at discharge 1.53 0.87-2.71 0.14 - - - Beta-blocker at discharge 1.52 0.86-2.70 0.15 - - - ACEI/ARBs at discharge 1.06 0.60-1.87 0.83 - - - OR, Odds ratios; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals; NYHA, New York Heart Association; DM, diabetes mellitus; CVD, primary cerebrovascular disease; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blockers; 79 Figure 7-1 Change of MLHFQ scores (Total) between baseline and follow-up in different age groups 80 Figure 7-2 Change of MLHFQ scores (Physical scale) between baseline and follow-up in different age groups 81 Figure 7-3 Change of MLHFQ scores (Emotional scale) between baseline and follow-up in different age groups 82 CHAPTER 8 A RISK SCORE TO PREDICT 1 YEAR MORATALITY IN PATIENTS WITH HFPEF 8.1 Introduction In clinical practice, risk models may be useful to inform patient triage and treatment decisions. Patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) provide a unique setting for such prognostic tools. HF is prevalent and an increasingly common reason for hospitalization all over the world and thus has a substantial public health and economic impact.97 In the past ten years, the prevalence of HF patients with normal ejection fraction (HFPEF), a common group comprising at least 50% of the whole HF population has increased.97 Physicians often do not calibrate HF therapy to a patient’s risk for adverse outcomes, failing to deliver effective therapies to the highest risk patients, for whom the benefits of therapy are likely to be greatest. The ability to predict mortality risk could inform clinical decision-making, although there is still no proven therapy that reduces mortality in HFPEF patients at the moment. However, objective prognostic information could guide the appropriate application of monitoring and treatment, potentially resulting in improvements in the quality of care delivered to and outcomes of patients hospitalized with HFPEF. Several predictive models have been reported for long term outcomes in HF with reduced ejection fraction.124, 125 However, these models have not included HFPEF patients. Furthermore, existing studies focus on clinical trial populations, which may not represent the general HF population, or the use of non-contemporary cohorts, which 83 may have limited applicability to current practice. The objective of this study was to derive and validate a predictive model for 1 year mortality using readily available clinical data in a large contemporary population-based cohort of patients hospitalized with HFPEF in a university hospital. This information was then used to guide the development of a user-friendly and accessible risk score for 1 year hospital mortality for HFPEF. 8.2 Methods 8.2.1 Patient population We enrolled 847 consecutive HFPEF patients (LVEF ≥50%, including all causes of heart failure) in our hospital between 06 June 2006 and 31 December 2010. The study population was randomly divided into derivation (70%, n=588) and validation (30%, n=259) cohorts. Medical record review was approved by the institutional review board. 8.2.2 Candidate Predictor Variables Potential predictor variables were selected based on prior literature, clinical relevance, and general availability at time of presentation. The following variable domains were considered: gender, age, atrial fibrillation (AF), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal failure, diabetes mellitus (DM), primary cerebrovascular disease (CVD), hyperlipidemia, current smokers, systolic 84 blood pressure (SBP) at admission, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at admission, heart rate at admission, hemoglobin (Hb), sodium, blood urea, Cr, ALB, ALT, and medications at discharge [diuretics, aldosterone antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), beta-blocker, calcium channel blockers (CCB), digoxin, warfarin, statins]. 8.2.3 Statistical analysis Categorical data were expressed as percentages, and continuous variables expressed as mean ±SD and/or median with inter-quartile ranges (IQR). Continuous variables were compared using Student's t-tests. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests as appropriate. Cox- regression analysis was performed to assess candidate predictors of 1 year mortality from a prior selected demographic, clinical, laboratory, and medication variables, based on existing literature and a statistically significant univariate relationship with mortality in the derivation sample. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences in survival between groups were assessed by the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models were used to determine the contribution of these variables. To develop a practical prognostic score, we assigned the risk factors identified by multivariate analysis weighted points proportional to the β regression coefficient values (rounded to the nearest integer). A risk score was then calculated 85 for each patient, and the population was divided into three categories: patients at low risk, patients at intermediate risk, and patients at high risk for death. Model validation had two steps: discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was assessed with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under ROC (AUROC) curves, sensitivity, and specificity. A cumulative risk score was calculated for every patient in the validation cohort. ROC curves were plotted with 1–specificity and sensitivity measured along the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively, with all possible cumulative risk scores in the validation cohort as cutoff points for the prediction of death within 1 year of follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). All calculated p values were two-sided and p value <0.05 were considered statistically significant. 8.3 Results 8.3.1 Patient Characteristics and Outcomes The characteristics of patients enrolled in our study are shown in the Table 8-1. No significant differences in patient characteristics were present between the derivation and validation samples. Death occurred in 119 (20.2%) patients within 12 months in derivation cohort. Those who died were older and more likely to have hypoalbuminemia, history of congestive heart failure, history of cerebrovascular disease. They also had higher serum creatinine, blood urea levels as well as lower serum sodium, albumin and hemoglobin levels at admission than those who were alive. 86 Additionally, those who died were likely to use ACEI/ARBs, Beta-Blockers and CCB at discharge of index hospitalization. 8.3.2 Predictors of Mortality In multivariable analysis, hypoalbuminemia (HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.97-4.14; p<0.001), history of congestive heart failure (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.10-2.30; p=0.01), history of cerebrovascular disease (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.05-2.63; p=0.03, blood urea>10mmol/L (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.10-2.31; p=0.02), not use of calcium channel blockers (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.18-2.97; p=0.01), age>78 years (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.03-2.23; p=0.035), were independent predictors of 1 year’s death. (Shown in Table 8-2) 8.3.3 Generation of the Risk score To calculate a risk score, we assigned each of the six prognostic variables a number of points that was proportional to its regression coefficient (Table 2). Each of the six independent prognostic factors was assigned a number of points proportional to its regression coefficient: hypoalbuminemia (5 points), not use of calcium channel blockers (3 points), history of congestive heart failure (2.5 points), history of cerebrovascular disease (2.5 points), blood urea nitrogen>10mmol/L (2.5 points), age>78 years (2 points). A score was calculated for each patient by adding together the points corresponding to his or her risk factors. We calculated risk scores for each patient and defined three risk groups: low risk (0 to 5.5 points), intermediate risk (6 to 10.5 points) and high risk (11 to 17.5 points). . 87 8.3.4 Validation of the risk score Classification of the derivation cohort according to risk score resulted in the assignment of 46.0% of the patients to the low-risk group, 36.6% to the intermediate-risk group, and 14.4% to the high-risk group. The results were similar for the validation cohort: 47.8% of the patients were in the low-risk group, 35.5% in the intermediate-risk group, and 16.7% in the high-risk group. In the development cohort, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that the 1-year mortality rates for the low-, intermediate-, and high risk groups were 10.5%, 22.3%, and 48.7%, respectively (Log-rank χ2=66.3, p<0.001). In the validation cohort, the 1-year mortality rates for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 15.4%, 25.3%, and 39%, respectively (Log-rank χ2=10.9, p=0.004) (Figure 8-1). The C statistic for the point system was 0.72 in the development cohort and 0.62 in the validation cohort (Figure 8-2). 8.4 Discussion In this study we have developed a risk score which reliably predicts 1 year mortality in patients with HFPEF and which is based on 6 clinical factors routinely collected at the time of admission: Hypoalbuminemia, history of CHF, history of CVD, blood urea>10mmol/L, not using CCB and age>78 years. The risk score provides a simple method to stratify a HFPEF patient’s risk of death at 1 year into low-risk (0 to 5.5 points), intermediate-risk (6 to 10.5 points) or high-risk (11 to 17.5 points). 88 Recent studies estimated that the prevalence of HFPEF among patients with HF averaged 54%, with a range from 40 to 71%143,144. Furthermore, Bhatia126 et al found that HFPEF patients had also high 1 year mortality similar to those with HFREF patients. Our study is the first study to create a predictive model for 1 year outcome of HFPEF patients. There are many available risk stratification models for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with SHF. But the available risk stratification models for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with HF have limitations. The Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) study124 identified blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine, and systolic blood pressure as the best predictors of in-hospital mortality using classification and regression tree analysis. This model is appealing because it uses only 3 variables to classify patients as low, intermediate, or high risk. A prognostic model for in-hospital mortality from OPTIMIZE-HF was recently published with some overlapping variables but did not have a separate derivation and validation cohort and did not include data on admission BUN.125 Another study reported that the presence of cancer, systolic blood pressure<124 mm Hg, serum creatinine <1.4 mg/dL, BUN >37 mg/dL, serum sodium <136 mol/L, and age >70 years predicted in-hospital mortality.145 However, these three studies only recruited SHF patients. HFPEF patients were not included in these two studies. The GWTG-HF risk score is another predictive model for in-hospital mortality of HF 89 patients including HFPEF patients.146,147 This score uses commonly available clinical variables to predict in-hospital mortality and provides clinicians with a validated tool for risk stratification that is applicable to a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure, including those with preserved LV systolic function. However, this model can only be used in predicting in-hospital mortality rather than long-term mortality of HFPEF patients. The predictors found in our study were similar with those of other studies. Tribouilloy et al also found that history of stroke, age and lower eGFR was independent predictor for 5 year mortality of HFPEF patients.118 There is little information previously about the use of hypoalbuminemia for the prediction of outcome of HFPEF patients. Our group found that hypoalbuminemia was common in HFPEF patients and was associated with increased risk of death.148 Renal dysfunction might be the main pathophysiologic mechanism underlying hypoalbuminemia in HFPEF patients. We also found the not use of CCB was an independent predictor of 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients. Until now there has not been randomized clincal trial which suggested use of CCB could reduce mortality of HFPEF patients. Our finding may be related to high prevalence of hypertension in our HFPEF patient. Over 60% of HFPEF patients in our cohort had a history of hypertension. Hypertension had been found a predicitor of poor outcome for HFPEF patients in previous studies.1 The use of CCB may be asscoiated with improved outcome of HFPEF patients through better 90 control of hypertension inour cohort. Another reason would be related to reduced heart rate when using CCB especially the non-dihydropyridines such as diltiazem and verapamil. 30% of HFPEF patients had history of AF in our cohort. Reduced heart rate by use of CCB may be related to better ourcome in HFPEF pateints. Further study about use of CCB and outcome of HFPEF patients was needed. Limitations There are some limitations in our study. First, the sample sizes of HFPEF patients were relatively small. Second, we did not have biomarkers such as BNP and echocardiographic parameters such as restrictive filling patern for prediction. Third, specific causes of death were not studied in our cohort. Finally, the score could be only suitable for Chinese populations . 8.5 Conclusions A risk score derived from commonly available clinical variables can be used to predict 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients. Application of the risk score could influence the quality of care provided to patients hospitalized with HFPEF, which might be important in clinical practice especially in an ageing society like Hong Kong. 91 Table 8-1 Baseline Characteristics of HFPEF patients in derivation and validation groups Parameters Derivation group Validation group (N=588) (N=259) Death Alive Death Alive (N=119) (N=469) (n=76) (n=235) Age, years 80±10 76±11 0.003 77±12 77±10 0.93 Female, n (%) 68 (57) 308 (66) 0.08 38 (66) 121 (61) 0.49 Smokers, n (%) 32 (28) 126 (28) 0.91 17 (30) 52 (27) 0.70 SBP, mmHg 145±31 155±31 0.002 155±35 153±31 0.72 LVEF, % 62±9 62±8 0.70 63±8 62±8 0.49 BMI, kg/m2 24±5 25±4 0.44 25±3 24± 0.12 Cr, umol/L 174±146 131±87 <0.001 176±140 132±93 0.03 Hb, g/dl 11.1±2.5 11.7±2.2 0.02 10.5±2.1 11.6±2.1 0.001 Blood urea, mmol/L 13±9 10±5 <0.001 13±9 11±15 0.24 Albumin, g/L 33±6 37±5 <0.001 33±6 37±4 <0.001 Na, mmol/L 138±5 139±5 0.53 138±6 139±5 0.05 Medical P value p value history-no. (%) HT 71 (60) 304 (66) 0.17 38 (67) 139 (70) 0.61 DM 39 (33) 189 (41) 0.11 26 (45) 86 (43) 0.85 CAD 23 (20) 120 (26) 0.12 9 (16) 57 (29) 0.05 AF 40(34) 126 (28) 0.18 11 (19) 54 (28) 0.19 92 COPD 16 (15) 51 (13) 0.46 6 (12) 16 (9) 0.55 CVA 25 (21) 61 (13) 0.03 10 (17) 29 (15) 0.64 Hyperlipidemia 11 (9) 84(18) 0.02 11 (20) 37 (19) 0.90 CRF 26 (22) 67 (15) 0.05 14 (24) 27 (14) 0.06 HF 60 (50) 167 (36) 0.005 17 (29) 72 (36) 0.32 ACEI/ARB 43 (36) 222 (48) 0.02 18 (31) 105 (54) 0.003 Beta-blockers 44 (37) 222 (48) 0.04 17 (29) 80 (41) 0.11 Aldosterone 3 (3) 19 (4) 0.42 4 (7) 8 (4) 0.38 Digoxin 14 (12) 68 (15) 0.42 5 (9) 26 (13) 0.34 CCB 24 (20) 150 (33) 0.01 15 (26) 58 (30) 0.58 Statin 32 (27) 148 (32) 0.30 15 (26) 74 (38) 0.10 Diuretics 71 (60) 290 (63) 0.58 31 (53) 121 (62) 0.26 Medication-no. (%) Antagonists SBP, systolic blood pressure at admission; LVEF, Left ventricular ejection fraction; BMI, body mass index; DM, diabetes mellitus; CAD, coronary artery disease; AF, atrial fibrillation; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVD, primary cerebrovascular disease; HF, heart failure; Cr, creatinine; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; Hb, hemoglobin; ALB, serum albumin; QOL, quality of life ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blockers; CCB, Calcium channel blockers. 93 Table 8-2 Predictors of 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis Variable HR 95%CI P value β HR 95%CI P value Age>78 years 1.58 1.08-2.31 0.02 0.42 1.52 1.03-1.94 0.04 Hb<10 g/L 1.59 1.08-2.35 0.02 - - - - Urea>10 mmol/L 1.69 1.18-2.44 0.005 0.51 1.59 1.10-2.31 0.02 Cr>150 umol/L 1.73 1.19-2.51 0.004 - - - - Hypoalbuminemia 3.18 2.20-4.58 <0.001 1.05 2.86 1.98-4.14 <0.001 History of CHF 1.70 1.19-2.43 0.004 0.47 1.59 1.10-2.30 0.01 History of CVD 1.62 1.04-2.52 0.03 0.51 1.67 1.05-2.63 0.03 of 1.51 1.04-2.20 0.03 - - - - of 1.55 1.07-2.26 0.02 - - - - Not use of CCB 1.84 1.17-2.88 0.008 0.61 1.87 1.18-2.97 0.008 SBP at admission 0.99 0.98-1.00 0.001 - - - - Not use Beta-blocker Not use ACEI/ARBs Hb, hemoglobin; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; Cr, creatinine; CHF, congestive heart failure; CVD, cerebrovascular disease; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blockers; CCB, calcium channel blockers; SBP, systolic blood pressure; 94 Figure 8-1 Kaplan–Meier Survival Curves for the Derivation Cohort and the Validation Cohort, According to the Prognostic Classification. 95 Figure 8-2 ROC curve of prediction of risk score in 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients 96 CHARTER 9 ALBUMIN LEVELS PREDICT SURVIVAL IN PATIENTS WITH HFPEF 9.1 Introduction Although hypoalbuminemia occurs in one third of patients with systolic heart failure (HF)149 and has been demonstrated to be independently associated with increased risk of death,150 little is known the relationship between hypoalbuminaemia and outcome in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF), a common group with at least 50% in whole HF population. Linssen et al151 found that atrial fibrillation was associated with higher N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and was independently related to death or HF hospitalization in HFPEF patients. In another study, von Haehling S et al112 found that anaemia was also an independent predictor of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons among elderly patients with chronic HF and reduced or preserved/mildly reduced LVEF. However, albumin has not been studied previously as a potential predictor of outcome in HFPEF patients until now. The primary goal of this study was to examine the hypothesis that low serum albumin is also an independent predictor of survival in HFPEF patients. 9.2 Methods 9.2.1 Patient population We enrolled 611 consecutive HFPEF patients (LV ejection fraction ≥50%, including all causes of heart failure) in our hospital between 01 June 2006 and 31 December 2009. Patients were excluded if serum albumin results were unavailable (n=35). 97 Finally, there were total 576 HFPEF patients with both Doppler-echocardiography and routine blood testing including albumin levels which obtained within 24 hour after admission. Medical record review was approved by the institutional review board. 9.2.2 Baseline measurements Serum albumin levels were analyzed by the clinical laboratory using a bromocresol purple dye-binding method. The reference range for this albumin assay is 35 to 47 g/L at our institution. Comprehensive 2-dimensional with Doppler transthoracic echocardiography was performed in all participants (Vivid Five or Seven, General Electric, Milwaukee, WI, USA) using a 2.5-MHz probe. All images were digitally stored with at least 3 cardiac cycles for off-line analysis. The LV volumes and ejection fraction were assessed by bi-plane Simpson’s method. The presence of LV diastolic dysfunction was confirmed by Doppler echocardiography by interrogation of transmitral flow pattern, pulmonary venous inflow pattern, and pulse-wave tissue Doppler imaging assessment of peak myocardial early diastolic velocity.152, 153 At least 3 consecutive beats in sinus rhythm were measured and averaged. A standardized quality of life (QOL) questionnaire was completed during admission. QOL was assessed using the Minnesota Heart Failure Symptom Questionnaire, which has been previously validated in this population.103,154 98 Other causes may be responsible for hypoabluminemia in HF patients including liver dysfunction, renal failure and hemodilution. Therefore, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was used to evaluate the liver function, a history of renal failure, creatinine (Cr), blood urea level and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for renal dysfunction. eGFR was measured using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula in our study.155 Weight changes between baseline and discharge was recorded and those with a weight loss >5% between baseline and 3 months was considered significant. 9.2.3 End points The primary outcome for the study was all-cause mortality within 1 year. Secondary outcome included cardiovascular death and HF re-hospitalization within 1 year. 9.2.4 Statistical analysis All continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical parameters were presented as frequency (percentage) as appropriate. The difference between continuous variables was analyzed by student t-test. Chi-square or Fisher exact test was used for categorical data. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed to demonstrate 1 year survival in patients with low versus normal albumin levels. The log-rank test was used to determine if actuarial survival was significantly different. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using Cox-proportional hazards models. We put 27 variables into univariate analysis for screening the predictors of 1 year mortality in 99 our study. They were: gender, age, atrial fibrillation (AF), coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal failure, diabetes mellitus (DM), primary cerebrovascular disease(CVD), hyperlipidemia, current smokers, systolic blood pressure (SBP) at admission, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at admission, heart rate at admission, hemoglobin (Hb), sodium, blood urea, Cr, ALB, ALT, and medications at discharge [diuretics, aldosterone antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), beta-blocker, calcium channel blockers (CCB), digoxin, warfarin, statins]. A p≤0.05 (2-tailed) was considered as statistically significant. Data were analyzed using SPSS 17.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL). 9.3 Results 9.3.1 Baseline patient characteristics We studied 576 patients (209 males, mean age 77±10 years, range 32-98 years) with HFPEF (among cases, 83% in NYHA class III or IV). Baseline characteristics of the study cohort are shown in Table 6-1. The mean LV ejection fraction (EF) was 64±9% and mean albumin was 36g/L (range 29-53g/L). According to serum albumin ≤34g/L defined as hypoalbuminemia, 160 patients (28%) were hypoalbuminemia. Hypoalbuminemia was more common in patients with DM, chronic renal failure, low Hb and lower levels of serum sodium, higher levels of blood urea and Cr. There was no difference in LVEF, NYHA class III-IV, CAD, AF or COPD between those with and without hypoalbuminemia. Patients with hypoalbuminemia were less likely to be 100 treated with ACEI/ARB, diuretics or beta-blockers at discharge. 9.3.2 Hypoalbuminemia and Cardiac Events All patients were followed up for 1 year and 134 died within this period. The survival was significantly lower in patients with hypoalbuminemia compared to those without at 1 year follow-up (50% vs. 84%, Log-rank χ2=53.3, p<0.001; Figure 9-1), unadjusted hazard ratios [HR 3.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.33 to 4.57, p<0.001]. Cardiovascular mortality was also significantly higher in HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia than those without at 1 year (21.8% vs. 8.9%, Log-rank χ2=19.7, p<0.001; Figure 9-2). When using the albumin level as a continuous variable for survival analysis, we found that the Area under Curve (AUC) was 0.70 for the prediction of 1 years’ survival (Cut-off value: 34 g/L, sensitivity 79%, specificity 50%, p<0.001; Figure 9-3). There was no significant difference in HF re-hospitalization between those with and without hypoalbuminemia during follow-up of 1 year. Univariate analysis indicated that HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia had an unadjusted HR of 3.26 (95% CI 2.33-4.57, p<0.001; Table 6-2) for 1 year mortality, compared to normal serum albumin group patients. Other variables entered into the multivariable model included: age, male, Cr levels, SBP, history of CVD, history of DM, blood urea levels, Hb levels and use of ACEI/ARB at discharge (Table 6-2). After adjusting for these potential confounders in the multivariable analysis, hypoalbuminemia (HR, 3.18; 95% CI, 2.77-4.45; p<0.001), history of CVD (HR, 1.67; 101 95% CI, 1.07-2.59; p=0.02) and older age (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; p=0.02) were found to be the most powerful predictors of all cause mortality in HFPEF patients at 1 year (Table 9-2). 9.3.3 Albumin and body mass index (BMI) The prevalence of hypoalbuminemia appeared to differ in BMI groups (29.4%, 24.5%, 23.6% and 20.0% in HFPEF patients with BMI<18.5, 18.5-24.9, 25-29.9 and >30, respectively although this was not statistically significant (p=0.91). After stratification of the study cohort into subgroups based on BMI, hypoalbuminemia remained significantly associated with increased mortality. In HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia, we found that there was no significant difference of 1 year survival among patients with BMI<18.5 (50%), 18.5-24.9 (69%), 25-29.9 (73%) and >30 (60%) (p=0.69). 9.3.4 Causes of hypoaluminemia in HFPEF patients The mean level of ALT was normal in our study cohort, and there was no difference between the patients with hypoalbuminemia and those without (Table 9-1). The serum level of Cr, BUN and history of renal failure were significantly higher in patients with hypoalbuminemia than those without. However, eGFR was not significantly different between the two groups (Table 9-1). Finally, to analyze the effect of hemodilution in HFPEF patients, the weight records at 102 baseline and 3 months were checked but were available only in 17% (102/611) HFPEF patients of this study and therefore this was not analyzed further. 9.4 Discussion In this study, we found that hyopalbuminemia was present in approximately 30% of HFPEF patients. At baseline, patients with hypoalbuminemia had lower levels of serum sodium and Hb but higher levels of blood urea and Cr, which support the hypothesis that HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia may have more serious heart failure with some degree of renal failure. Importantly, the presence of hypoalbuminemia was associated with significantly increased risk of all causes death or death attributed to cardiovascular cause. Increased morbidity and mortality persisted even after adjustments for potential confounders such as hypertension, diabetes, renal insufficiency and ischemic heart disease. Our results differ from the data of Uthamalingam156 et al, the only published study about the relationship between serum albumin and outcome in HFPEF. They found that in a cohort of 438 patients with acute decompensate heart failure 54% overall had hypoalbuminemia (defined as a serum albumin ≤34g/L) and was predictive of outcome but mainly in those with reduced EF heart failure (SHF). In the preserved LVEF group (with LVEF >40%, n=194) there was no difference in 1 year mortality between those with or without hypoalbuminemia. However, the mortality in those with hypoalbuminemia was slightly higher in the SHF group than HFPEF (23% versus 103 19%; NS). However, in our study there was a clear and strong relationship between hypoalbuminemia and total and cardiovascular mortality. One possible explanation is the larger numbers in this study with 576 HFPEF patients (compared to 194) with 134 deaths, compared to 37 deaths in the HFPEF group in the Uthamalingam156 et al study. Albumin is a hepatic protein, and its plasma concentration is mainly influenced by several factors, including rate of albumin synthesis, exogenous albumin loss and dilution.157-160 Synthesis of albumin is affected by nutritional intake, colloid oncotic pressure variations, and liver function.157, 160 Plasma albumin levels are known to be decreased in inflammatory conditions, including infection, trauma, and surgery.2 Fillipatos160 et al found that baseline hypoalbuminaemia was associated with increased risk of incident HF during 10 years of follow-up among community-dwelling older adults without HF. Low plasma levels in HF are probably due to multiple causes including malnutrition, reduced synthesis due to hepatic congestion, hemodilution, increased metabolic activity, inflammation, and proteinuria.161 9.4.1 Liver dysfunction Liver dysfunction may be a main cause of hypoalbuminemia in HF patients. Uthamalingam155 et al found that low serum albumin levels were associated with increased severity of tricuspid regurgitation. Previous studies have linked right atrial pressure and tricuspid regurgitation to hypoalbuminemia.162, 163 These suggested a potential causal role, with loss of nutrients due to increased hepatic venous congestion, 104 decreased hepatic synthesis of albumin, as well as protein-losing enteropathy. In our cohort, we used the ALT to evaluate the liver function of HFPEF patients and found that there was no difference in ALT level at baseline between the patients with hypoalbuminemia and those without. We did not found sufficient evidence to support the concept that liver dysfunction maybe the cause of hypoalbuminemia in HFPEF patients. 9.4.2 Hemodilution Hemodilution may be present in HFPEF and contributes to hypoalbuminemia.164 Unfortunately, the weight changes recordings were only available in 17% of our study population, and could not be used as the evidence to support this mechanism. In a recent study of dilutional anemia, Abramov165 et al found a higher prevalence of an expansion of plasma volume in patients with HF and low EF compared with those with HFPEF (100% vs. 71%). They concluded that dilutional anemia caused by an expansion in plasma volume without a red cell deficit occurs more commonly in patients with HF and low EF than those with HFPEF. Probably the same arguments can be applied to hypoalbuminemia. 9.4.3 BMI and hypoalbuminemia “Wasting disease” in HF, also known as cardiac cachexia, has been identified as a strong predictor of adverse prognosis.166 This undernutrition, which has been variably defined as weight loss over time, low BMI, low percent ideal body weight, or 105 decreased fat mass, has invariably been linked to poor outcomes in HF.167, 168 Many studies have suggested that decreased protein synthesis due to cardiac cachexia may be a cause of low albumin in HF.168-170 Our study found that there was an inverse trend between the percentage of hypoalbuminemia and BMI in patients with HFPEF, but this was not statistically significant. Moreover, Uthamalingam155 et al found no relationship between hypoalbuminemia and BMI. We compared the survival of patients with lower BMI and normal BMI in the hypoalbuminemia group and found that there was no significant difference in 1 year survival. This suggests that hypoalbuminemia and cachexia in HFPEF patients may have discrete pathophysiologic mechanisms and that hypoalbuminemia may not only be related to energy intake. 9.4.4 Renal failure In chronic disease states such as end-stage renal disease or dialysis and diabetes, hypoalbuminemia is common and it may be due to renal failure. In our study, we found that HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia were more likely to have history of chronic renal failure and higher Cr as well as blood urea levels than those without. This result suggested the renal dysfunction was one of the causes of hypoalbuminemia in HFPEF patients, which was similar with patients in systolic heart failure.2, 10 Renal failure, per se is not a cause of hypoalbuminemia, except for patients with underlying nephrotic syndrome. Rather, it probably reflects more severe HF. There is also evidence that severe hypoalbuminemia promotes fluid retention and edema through a 106 lowering in plasma oncotic pressure, which may in turn aggravate both cardiac and renal failure. 26 9.4.5 B-type Natriuretic Peptides and albumin Several studies have found that serum albumin was a strong and independent predictor of adverse outcome in patient with HF even after adjusting for B-type Natriuretic Peptides (BNP).172 437 consecutive patients with chronic systolic HF under optimal treatment, BNP (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.28-1.72, p <0.001) and serum albumin (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.98, p=0.015) independently predicted cardiac death during a median follow up of 1,113 days.173 A similar observation was made in patients with acute HF syndromes. In 707 consecutive patients admitted to 2 hospitals with this condition, BNP (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08-1.54, p=0.004), and serum albumin (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.96, p <0.001) independently predicted death during a median follow-up of 421 days.172 Hypoalbuminemia was also identified as the strongest prognostic factor in 349 elderly patients with acute HF, along with prior HF hospitalization, serum sodium, blood urea nitrogen and BNP.174 In another clinical study that included 146 nonagerians, serum albumin was the sole predictor of mortality (HR 0.28 95% CI 0.14-0.54, p< 0.001) after adjusting for age, arterial blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, BNP, and routine laboratory tests.175 However, the studies mentioned above were focus on the SHF patients rather than HFPEF patients. Unfortunately we have no data of BNP in our HFPEF patients. Relationship of BNP and albumin in HFPEF patients still needed further study. 107 Evidence is growing that hypoalbuminemia may contribute to the progression of the syndrome of heart failure through a facilitation of pulmonary edema, myocardial edema, fluid retention, diuretic resistance, oxidative stress, inflammatory state. This may in part explain the powerful prognostic relevance of serum albumin in heart failure regardless of its phenotype and comorbidities.26 Our finding indicated the hypoalbuminaemia was the most powerful predictor for the prognosis of HFPEF patients. Since hypoalbuminaemia is also a marker of malnutrition, it provides further impetus for prospectively examining a potential preventative or therapeutic role of nutritional intervention in HFPEF patients. Limitations We acknowledge certain limitations in the current study. First, this study was observational and evaluated a cohort of patients with acutely decompensate heart failure. Patients with chronic stable heart failure were excluded. Second, hemodilution is one of the cause of hypoalbuminemia, but we do not have enough data to analyze; also ALT may not be sensitive enough used as a marker of liver dysfunction, but it was the only available marker of live function in this study. Third, serum markers of inflammation, such as C-reactive protein which would help to delineate the pathophysiologic relationship between albumin, inflammation, and mortality were not measured. Forth, proteinuria was not assessed in our patients, which was a potential 108 cause of hypoalbuminemia but it unlikely to be the main cause in this group of patients. Finally, we are unable to compare albuminemia with BNP in predicting outcome of HF patients. 9.5 Conclusions The results of this study indicate that hypoalbuminemia was common in HFPEF patients and that HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia have increased risk of mortality compared to those without hypoalbuminemia, even after adjustment for multiple prognostic factors. Albumin levels could serve as a simple biomarker for identifying HFPEF patients at a higher risk of death as in reduced EF heart failure. Renal dysfunction may be the main pathophysiologic mechanism underlying hypoalbuminemia in HFPEF patients. Further investigation into mechanisms underlying hypoalbuminemia is warranted and may result in identifying potential novel targets for HFPEF therapy. 109 Table 9-1 Baseline characteristics by the status of albumin in patients with HFPEF Parameters All HFPEF ALB<34g/L ALB>34g/L p value (n=576) (n=160) (n=416) Age, years 77±10 78±9 76±11 0.07 Female, n (%) 367 (64) 97 (61) 270 (65) 0.34 Smokers, n (%) 139 (24) 35(22) 104 (25) 0.03 SBP, mmHg 154±33 149±36 156±31 0.003 LVEF, % 63.7±8.9 63.4±9.1 62.7±8.1 0.42 NYHA Class III-IV, n (%) 433 (83) 118 (84) 315 (82) 0.58 BMI, kg/m2 24.5±4.5 24.1±4.2 24.8±4.4 0.17 Hypertension, n (%) 373(65) 97 (61) 276 (66) 0.23 DM, n (%) 238 (41) 79 (50) 159 (38) 0.01 CAD, n (%) 141(25) 33 (21) 108 (26) 0.20 AF, n (%) 159(28) 40 (25) 119 (29) 0.40 COPD, n (%) 64 (11) 13 (8) 51 (12) 0.16 CVD, n (%) 72 (13) 20 (13) 52 (13) 0.98 Hyperlipidemia, n (%) 94 (16) 23 (15) 71 (17) 0.45 History of renal failure, n (%) 97 (17) 45 (28) 52 (13) <0.001 Prior history of HF, n (%) 218 (38) 62 (39) 156 (38) 0.74 Demographic data 110 Laboratory Serum Cr, umol/L 145.6±113.1 184.8±161.6 126.9±71.6 <0.001 eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 51.8±32 50.3±47 52.9±22 0.51 ALT, IU/L 33.9±54 33.9±63 33.9±50 0.99 Hb, g/dl 11.5±2.4 10.4±2.5 11.9±2.1 <0.001 Blood urea, mmol/L 10.8±10.6 13.1±15.3 9.7±8.2 0.006 ALB, g/L 36±5 29±4 39±3 <0.001 Serum sodium, mmol/L 138.6±4.9 137.7±5.4 139.0±4.6 0.01 Total scores 32.6±15.0 33.6±14.0 32.0±15.0 0.41 Physical Subscale Scores 18.3±7.6 18.6±7.3 18.2±7.8 0.71 Emotional Subscale Scores 6.3±4.7 6.6±4.5 6.2±4.8 0.56 ACEI/ARB, n (%) 298 (52) 63 (39) 235 (57) <0.001 Beta-blocker, n (%) 238 (41) 55 (34) 183 (44) 0.04 Aldosterone antagonists, n (%) 28 (5) 7 (4) 21 (5) 0.74 Digoxin, n (%) 75 (13) 15 (10) 60 (14) 0.11 CCB, n (%) 139 (24) 29 (18) 110 (26) 0.04 Diuretics, n (%) 407 (71) 101 (63) 306 (74) 0.01 QOL scores Medications SBP, systolic blood pressure at admission; LVEF, LV ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; BMI, body mass index; DM, diabetes mellitus; CAD, coronary artery disease; AF, atrial fibrillation; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary 111 disease; CVD, primary cerebrovascular disease; HF, heart failure; Cr, creatinine; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; Hb, hemoglobin; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; ALB, serum albumin; QOL, quality of life ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blockers; CCB, Calcium channel blockers. 112 Table 2 Cox-regression of all cause mortality within 1 year for HFPEF patients Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis Variable HR 95%CI p value HR 95%CI p value Age, per year increase 1.03 1.01-1.05 0.003 1.03 1.01-1.05 0.02 Male 1.35 0.97-1.88 0.08 - - - umol/L 1.01 1.00-1.01 <0.001 - - - Serum Cr, per increase SBP, per mmHg increase 0.99 0.98-1.00 0.03 - - - History of CVD 1.61 1.05-2.47 0.03 1.67 1.07-2.59 0.02 History of DM 0.73 0.51-1.03 0.07 - Serum albumin<34g/L 3.26 2.33-4.57 <0.001 3.18 2.27-4.45 <0.001 Blood urea, per mmol/L 1.01 1.01-1.02 0.01 - - - - increase Hb, per g/L increase 0.89 0.83-0.96 0.002 - - - ACEI/ARB at discharge 0.66 0.47-0.93 0.02 - - - HR, Hazard ratios; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals; Cr, creatinine; SBP, systolic blood pressure at admission; CVD, primary cerebrovascular disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; Hb, hemoglobin; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blockers; 113 Figure 9-1 Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showing HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia (Serum albumin≤34g/L) had significantly worse survival than patients without hypoalbuminemia. 114 Figure 9-2 Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showing HFPEF patients with hypoalbuminemia (Serum albumin≤34g/L) had significantly higher cardiovascular death rate in 1y than patients without hypoalbuminemia. 115 Figure 9-3 ROC curve of prediction of serum albumin levels in 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients Serum albumin Cut-off value Sensitivity Specificity AUC P value 34 79% 50% 0.70 <0.001 116 CHAPTER 10 GENERAL SUMMARY 10.1 Main findings of our study Our study was first study which investigated the characteristics, mortality, quality of life and prognosis factors of HFPEF patients in Chinese population. We found that the HFPEF patients admitted in recent 5 year had lower mortality and heart failure re-hospitalization rate in the first year than the previous cohort. We also studied the change of health related Quality of life among HFPEF patients in a long-term follow-up for the first time. We found that elderly HFPEF patient experienced similar improvements in QOL compared to younger patients during follow-up after an index hospital admission and therefore should not be denied treatment. Further more, we have developed a risk score which reliably predicts 1 year mortality in patients with HFNEF and which is based on 6 clinical factors routinely collected at the time of admission. Hypoalbuminemia was found to be the most powerful predictor of 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients in our cohort for the first time. Our study was mainly focus on the all cause mortality and the related predictors for the mortality of HFPEF patients. Lim et al did a review to analyze the 1-year mortality of HFPEF patients in observational studies and clinical trials. They found that 1-yeaer mortality of HFPEF patients were around 22%-29%, which was similar to our study. However, little studies tried to compare the change of mortality overtime. We found that the mortality of HFPEF patients improved in the recent five years when 117 compared to previous HFPEF cohorts in our hospital. It may be due to that HFPEF as a possible diagnosis was more recognized in the past 5 years. Improved treatment may also be a factor. For HFPEF patients, there was little study about the health-related quality of life, especially in elderly patients. We found that HRQOL in very elderly HFPEF patients can improve to the same extent as younger HFPEF patients after 1 year. In addition, in this study there was no difference in the medication prescribed in 1 year between elderly HFPEF patients and younger ones which may be connected to the HRQOL response. In order to find the predictors of 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients, we built up and validated a risk model for predicting 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients using 6 simple and clinical based parameters. Application of the risk score could influence the quality of care provided to patients hospitalized with HFPEF, which might be important in clinical practice especially in an ageing society like Hong Kong. In the course of finding predictors of death for HFPEF patients, we found that we found that hyopalbuminemia was present in approximately 30% of HFPEF patients. Furthermore, the presence of hypoalbuminemia was associated with significantly increased risk of all causes death or death attributed to cardiovascular cause. Increased morbidity and mortality persisted even after adjustments for potential confounders 118 such as hypertension, diabetes, renal insufficiency and ischemic heart disease. Renal dysfunction may be the main pathophysiologic mechanism underlying hypoalbuminemia in HFPEF patients. These results suggests physicians to pay attention to the albumin level for HFPEF patients In summary, the mortality and heart failure re-hospitalization rate in the first year was decreased over time in HFPEF patients. Elderly HFPEF patient experienced similar improvements in QOL compared to younger patients during follow-up after an index hospital admission and therefore should not be denied treatment. An assessment model using clinical available parameters was useful in predicting 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients. Hypoalbuminemia was the most powerful predictor of 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients. 10.2 Clinical implications Our study found that lower albumin was related to higher mortality of HFPEF patients. It suggested that physicians should pay more attention to the nutrition status of HFPEF patients. Furthermore, we found that renal failure would be a cause for hypoalbuminemia in HFPEF patients. As a result, we should be caution with the renal function of HFPEF patients in the therapy, especially when using high dose of diuretics. Second, we found that the outcome of HFPEF patients improved in the past ten years 119 in our cohort. Although the reason of better outcome was still unclear, we suspected that more awareness of the disease would be a reason. Our study also suggested maybe a HF registry could benefit for HFPEF patients. Third, we established a risk score for predicting 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients. The risk score may instruct and help with the therapy of HFPEF patients. As mentioned before, physicians would be more careful of renal functions and diuretics doses of HFPEF patients. They would also pay more attention to the meeting the target of anti-hypertension therapy for HFPEF patients, as hypertension was served as a risk factor for the outcome of HFPEF patients. Finally, we found that QOL had improved similarly in very elderly HFPEF patients as with the younger ones. Many studies showed that anti-hypertension therapy was less enough in very elderly HFPEF patients. There would be many reasons for that. One of the reasons would be the side-effect of the drugs used in the treatment of HFPEF patients such as ACEI/ARBs and beta-blockers. Co-morbidity such as renal failure and diabetes would be another concern. These findings suggested that therapy of HFPEF patients including anti-hypertension therapy should be similar in both elderly and younger patients. 10.3 Potential for final development of research First, the sample size of our study is still relatively small. As a result, predictive 120 value of the risk score built on our study still needed to revise in the future. Second, the reason of why HFPEF patients admitted to hospital recently had better outcome than the earlier cohort was still not clear. Next step we will try to compare the exact drugs and doses used in two cohorts of HFPEF patients. Third, we will follow-up HFPEF patients for longer time and build a new risk score for predicting long-term's outcome. In addition to improve the quality of current studies by enlarging sample sizes, we will try to find more predictors for HFPEF patients in the future. SENIORS study found that there was a trend that nebivolol could reduce all cause mortality of HFREF patients when compared with placebo. But few HFPEF patients were included in this trial. There was still unclear that whether heart rate would be a risk factor for HFPEF patients. We can try to do some analysis to check if HR could predict mortality for HFPEF patients. A study found that lower cholesterol level was associated with worse outcome of HFPEF patients. This finding was agreed with our results that history of hyperlipidemia was associated with better outcome in our cohort. We can try to check the lipid levels including total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C and TG for each HFPEF patients. Based on this, we can confirm whether higher LDL-C was an independent factor of death for HFPEF patients. We can also find if statin therapy is related to the outcome of HFPEF patients. 121 When regard to HRQoL, we can also try to do more analysis on the HFPEF patients. There had been studies which illustrated that QoL impaired similarly in HFPEF and HFREF patients. However, there have not been many studies which was focus on the long term's change of QoL between HFREF and HFPEF until now. We can do a longer follow-up to check if change of QoL was similar in both HFREF and HFPEF patients after a long term's follow-up. 122 CHAPTER11 CONCLUSIONS In this cohort study, we found that the mortality and heart failure re-hospitalization rate in the first year was decreased over time in HFPEF patients. Elderly HFPEF patient experienced similar improvements in QOL compared to younger patients during follow-up after an index hospital admission. A risk score derived from commonly available clinical variables can be used to predict 1 year mortality of HFPEF patients, which might be useful in clinical practice. Hypoalbuminemia was the most powerful predictor of 1 year mortality for HFPEF patients in our study. 123 REFERENCES 1. Lam CS, Donal E, Kraigher-Krainer E, Vasan RS. Epidemiology and clinical course of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail 2011;13:18-28. 2. Jessup M, Brozena S. Heart failure. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2007-18. 3. Vasan RS, Levy D. Defining diastolic heart failure: a call for standardized diagnostic criteria. Circulation 2000;101:2118-21. 4. Phan TT, Shivu GN, Abozguia K, Sanderson JE, Frenneaux M. The pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: From molecular mechanisms to exercise haemodynamics. Int J Cardiol 2011, doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.06.113 5. Burkhoff D, Maurer MS, Packer M. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction: is it really a disorder of diastolic function? Circulation 2003;107:656-8. 6. Nikitin NP, Witte KK, Clark AL, Cleland JG. Color tissue Doppler-derived long-axis left ventricular function in heart failure with preserved global systolic function. Am J Cardiol 2002;90:1174-7. 7. 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;87:121-5. 8. Yu CM, Zhang Q, Yip GW, Lee PW, Kum LC, Lam YY, Fung JW. Diastolic and systolic asynchrony in patients with diastolic heart failure: a common but ignored condition. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:97-105. 9. Sanderson JE. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction. Heart 2007;93:155-8. 124 10. Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Burnett JC, Jr., Mahoney DW, Bailey KR, Rodeheffer RJ. Burden of systolic and diastolic ventricular dysfunction in the community: appreciating the scope of the heart failure epidemic. Jama 2003;289:194-202. 11. Paulus WJ, Tschope C, Sanderson JE, Rusconi C, Flachskampf FA, Rademakers FE, Marino P, Smiseth OA, De Keulenaer G, Leite-Moreira AF, Borbely A, Edes I, Handoko ML, Heymans S, Pezzali N, Pieske B, Dickstein K, Fraser AG, Brutsaert DL. How to diagnose diastolic heart failure: a consensus statement on the diagnosis of heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction by the Heart Failure and Echocardiography Associations of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2007;28:2539-50. 12. 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. 13. Baicu CF, Zile MR, Aurigemma GP, Gaasch WH. Left ventricular systolic performance, function, and contractility in patients with diastolic heart failure. Circulation 2005;111:2306-12. 14. 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. 15. Mann DL, Bristow MR. Mechanisms and models in heart failure: the 125 biomechanical model and beyond. Circulation 2005;111:2837-49. 16. Wang M, Yip GW, Wang AY, Zhang Y, Ho PY, Tse MK, Yu CM, Sanderson JE. Tissue Doppler imaging provides incremental prognostic value in patients with systemic hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. J Hypertens 2005;23:183-91. 17. Persson H, Lonn E, Edner M, Baruch L, Lang CC, Morton JJ, Ostergren J, McKelvie RS. Diastolic dysfunction in heart failure with preserved systolic function: need for objective evidence:results from the CHARM Echocardiographic Substudy-CHARMES. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:687-94. 18. De Keulenaer GW, Brutsaert DL. Systolic and diastolic heart failure: different phenotypes of the same disease? Eur J Heart Fail 2007;9:136-43. 19. Selvetella G, Hirsch E, Notte A, Tarone G, Lembo G. Adaptive and maladaptive hypertrophic pathways: points of convergence and divergence. Cardiovasc Res 2004;63:373-80. 20. Sano M, Schneider MD. Still stressed out but doing fine: normalization of wall stress is superfluous to maintaining cardiac function in chronic pressure overload. Circulation 2002;105:8-10. 21. Levy D, Garrison RJ, Savage DD, Kannel WB, Castelli WP. Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham Heart Study. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1561-6. 22. Borbely A, van der Velden J, Papp Z, Bronzwaer JG, Edes I, Stienen GJ, Paulus WJ. Cardiomyocyte stiffness in diastolic heart failure. Circulation 2005;111:774-81. 23. van Heerebeek L, Borbely A, Niessen HW, Bronzwaer JG, van der Velden J, 126 Stienen GJ, Linke WA, Laarman GJ, Paulus WJ. Myocardial structure and function differ in systolic and diastolic heart failure. Circulation 2006;113:1966-73. 24. Vatner SF, Shannon R, Hittinger L. Reduced subendocardial coronary reserve. A potential mechanism for impaired diastolic function in the hypertrophied and failing heart. Circulation 1990;81:III8-14. 25. Molkentin JD, Lu JR, Antos CL, Markham B, Richardson J, Robbins J, Grant SR, Olson EN. A calcineurin-dependent transcriptional pathway for cardiac hypertrophy. Cell 1998;93:215-28. 26. Sakata Y, Masuyama T, Yamamoto K, Nishikawa N, Yamamoto H, Kondo H, Ono K, Otsu K, Kuzuya T, Miwa T, Takeda H, Miyamoto E, Hori M. Calcineurin inhibitor attenuates left ventricular hypertrophy, leading to prevention of heart failure in hypertensive rats. Circulation 2000;102:2269-75. 27. Kitzman DW, Little WC, Brubaker PH, Anderson RT, Hundley WG, Marburger CT, Brosnihan B, Morgan TM, Stewart KP. Pathophysiological characterization of isolated diastolic heart failure in comparison to systolic heart failure. Jama 2002;288:2144-50. 28. Lorell BH, Carabello BA. Left ventricular hypertrophy: pathogenesis, detection, and prognosis. Circulation 2000;102:470-9. 29. Groenning BA, Nilsson JC, Sondergaard L, Fritz-Hansen T, Larsson HB, Hildebrandt PR. Antiremodeling effects on the left ventricle during beta-blockade with metoprolol in the treatment of chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:2072-80. 127 30. Yu CM, Chau E, Sanderson JE, Fan K, Tang MO, Fung WH, Lin H, Kong SL, Lam YM, Hill MR, Lau CP. Tissue Doppler echocardiographic evidence of reverse remodeling and improved synchronicity by simultaneously delaying regional contraction after biventricular pacing therapy in heart failure. Circulation 2002;105:438-45. 31. Martos R, Baugh J, Ledwidge M, O'Loughlin C, Conlon C, Patle A, Donnelly SC, McDonald K. Diastolic heart failure: evidence of increased myocardial collagen turnover linked to diastolic dysfunction. Circulation 2007;115:888-95. 32. Fukuda N, Terui T, Ishiwata S, Kurihara S. Titin-based regulations of diastolic and systolic functions of mammalian cardiac muscle. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2010;48:876-81. 33. Masuyama T, Yamamoto K, Sakata Y, Doi R, Nishikawa N, Kondo H, Ono K, Kuzuya T, Sugawara M, Hori M. Evolving changes in Doppler mitral flow velocity pattern in rats with hypertensive hypertrophy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:2333-8. 34. Yamamoto K, Masuyama T, Sakata Y, Doi R, Ono K, Mano T, Kondo H, Kuzuya T, Miwa T, Hori M. Local neurohumoral regulation in the transition to isolated diastolic heart failure in hypertensive heart disease: absence of AT1 receptor downregulation and 'overdrive' of the endothelin system. Cardiovasc Res 2000;46:421-32. 35. Norton GR, Tsotetsi J, Trifunovic B, Hartford C, Candy GP, Woodiwiss AJ. Myocardial stiffness is attributed to alterations in cross-linked collagen rather than total collagen or phenotypes in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Circulation 1997;96:1991-8. 128 36. Diez J, Panizo A, Gil MJ, Monreal I, Hernandez M, Pardo Mindan J. Serum markers of collagen type I metabolism in spontaneously hypertensive rats: relation to myocardial fibrosis. Circulation 1996;93:1026-32. 37. Querejeta R, Lopez B, Gonzalez A, Sanchez E, Larman M, Martinez Ubago JL, Diez J. Increased collagen type I synthesis in patients with heart failure of hypertensive origin: relation to myocardial fibrosis. Circulation 2004;110:1263-8. 38. Lopez B, Gonzalez A, Varo N, Laviades C, Querejeta R, Diez J. Biochemical assessment of myocardial fibrosis in hypertensive heart disease. Hypertension 2001;38:1222-6. 39. Lopez B, Querejeta R, Varo N, Gonzalez A, Larman M, Martinez Ubago JL, Diez J. Usefulness of serum carboxy-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I in assessment of the cardioreparative ability of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive patients. Circulation 2001;104:286-91. 40. Nagueh SF, Shah G, Wu Y, Torre-Amione G, King NM, Lahmers S, Witt CC, Becker K, Labeit S, Granzier HL. Altered titin expression, myocardial stiffness, and left ventricular function in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. Circulation 2004;110:155-62. 41. Helmes M, Trombitas K, Granzier H. Titin develops restoring force in rat cardiac myocytes. Circ Res 1996;79:619-26. 42. 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. 43. Cheng CP, Noda T, Nozawa T, Little WC. Effect of heart failure on the mechanism 129 of exercise-induced augmentation of mitral valve flow. Circ Res 1993;72:795-806. 44. Gerull B, Gramlich M, Atherton J, McNabb M, Trombitas K, Sasse-Klaassen S, Seidman JG, Seidman C, Granzier H, Labeit S, Frenneaux M, Thierfelder L. Mutations of TTN, encoding the giant muscle filament titin, cause familial dilated cardiomyopathy. Nat Genet 2002;30:201-4. 45. 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;104:779-82. 46. Zile MR. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: is this diastolic heart failure? J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1519-22. 47. 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;350:1953-9. 48. 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;107:714-20. 49. 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;115:1982-90. 50. Munagala VK, Hart CY, Burnett JC, Jr., Meyer DM, Redfield MM. Ventricular 130 structure and function in aged dogs with renal hypertension: a model of experimental diastolic heart failure. Circulation 2005;111:1128-35. 51. Hay I, Rich J, Ferber P, Burkhoff D, Maurer MS. Role of impaired myocardial relaxation in the production of elevated left ventricular filling pressure. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2005;288:H1203-8. 52. 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;88:1893-906. 53. van Heerebeek L, Hamdani N, Handoko ML, Falcao-Pires I, Musters RJ, Kupreishvili K, Ijsselmuiden AJ, Schalkwijk CG, Bronzwaer JG, Diamant M, Borbely A, van der Velden J, Stienen GJ, Laarman GJ, Niessen HW, Paulus WJ. Diastolic stiffness of the failing diabetic heart: importance of fibrosis, advanced glycation end products, and myocyte resting tension. Circulation 2008;117:43-51. 54. Westermann D, Kasner M, Steendijk P, Spillmann F, Riad A, Weitmann K, Hoffmann W, Poller W, Pauschinger M, Schultheiss HP, Tschope C. Role of left ventricular stiffness in heart failure with normal ejection fraction. Circulation 2008;117:2051-60. 55. 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;7:820-8. 56. Borlaug BA, Lam CS, Roger VL, Rodeheffer RJ, Redfield MM. Contractility and ventricular systolic stiffening in hypertensive heart disease insights into the 131 pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:410-8. 57. Vinch CS, Aurigemma GP, Simon HU, Hill JC, Tighe DA, Meyer TE. Analysis of left ventricular systolic function using midwall mechanics in patients >60 years of age with hypertensive heart disease and heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2005;96:1299-303. 58. 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;105:1195-201. 59. Petrie MC, Caruana L, Berry C, McMurray JJ. "Diastolic heart failure" or heart failure caused by subtle left ventricular systolic dysfunction? Heart 2002;87:29-31. 60. Garcia EH, Perna ER, Farias EF, Obregon RO, Macin SM, Parras JI, Aguero MA, Moratorio DA, Pitzus AE, Tassano EA, Rodriguez L. Reduced systolic performance by tissue Doppler in patients with preserved and abnormal ejection fraction: new insights in chronic heart failure. Int J Cardiol 2006;108:181-8. 61. 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;16:1031-6. 62. Shan K, Bick RJ, Poindexter BJ, Shimoni S, Letsou GV, Reardon MJ, Howell JF, Zoghbi WA, Nagueh SF. Relation of tissue Doppler derived myocardial velocities to myocardial structure and beta-adrenergic receptor density in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:891-6. 63. Ashikaga H, Criscione JC, Omens JH, Covell JW, Ingels NB, Jr. Transmural left 132 ventricular mechanics underlying torsional recoil during relaxation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2004;286:H640-7. 64. Tan YT, Wenzelburger F, Lee E, Heatlie G, Leyva F, Patel K, Frenneaux M, Sanderson JE. The pathophysiology of heart failure with normal ejection fraction: exercise echocardiography reveals complex abnormalities of both systolic and diastolic ventricular function involving torsion, untwist, and longitudinal motion. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:36-46. 65. Wang J, Kurrelmeyer KM, Torre-Amione G, Nagueh SF. Systolic and diastolic dyssynchrony in patients with diastolic heart failure and the effect of medical therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:88-96. 66. Shimizu G, Hirota Y, Kita Y, Kawamura K, Saito T, Gaasch WH. Left ventricular midwall mechanics in systemic arterial hypertension. Myocardial function is depressed in pressure-overload hypertrophy. Circulation 1991;83:1676-84. 67. de Simone G, Devereux RB. Rationale of echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular wall stress and midwall mechanics in hypertensive heart disease. Eur J Echocardiogr 2002;3:192-8. 68. 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;54:402-9. 69. Ennezat PV, Lefetz Y, Marechaux S, Six-Carpentier M, Deklunder G, Montaigne 133 D, Bauchart JJ, Mounier-Vehier C, Jude B, Neviere R, Bauters C, Asseman P, de Groote P, Lejemtel TH. Left ventricular abnormal response during dynamic exercise in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction at rest. J Card Fail 2008;14:475-80. 70. Phan TT, Abozguia K, Shivu GN, Ahmed I, Leyva F, Patel K, Frenneaux M. Increased atrial contribution to left ventricular filling compensates for impaired early filling during exercise in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Card Fail 2009;15:890-7. 71. Frenneaux M, Williams L. Ventricular-arterial and ventricular-ventricular interactions and their relevance to diastolic filling. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2007;49:252-62. 72. Chen CH, Nakayama M, Nevo E, Fetics BJ, Maughan WL, Kass DA. Coupled systolic-ventricular and vascular stiffening with age: implications for pressure regulation and cardiac reserve in the elderly. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:1221-7. 73. Hundley WG, Kitzman DW, Morgan TM, Hamilton CA, Darty SN, Stewart KP, Herrington DM, Link KM, Little WC. Cardiac cycle-dependent changes in aortic area and distensibility are reduced in older patients with isolated diastolic heart failure and correlate with exercise intolerance. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:796-802. 74. Dickstein K, Cohen-Solal A, Filippatos G, McMurray JJ, Ponikowski P, Poole-Wilson PA, Stromberg A, van Veldhuisen DJ, Atar D, Hoes AW, Keren A, Mebazaa A, Nieminen M, Priori SG, Swedberg K. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008: the Task Force for the diagnosis 134 and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Eur J Heart Fail 2008;10:933-89. 75. Farr MJ, Lang CC, Lamanca JJ, Zile MR, Francis G, Tavazzi L, Gaasch WH, St John Sutton M, Itoh H, Mancini D. Cardiopulmonary exercise variables in diastolic versus systolic heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2008;102:203-6. 76. Schellings MW, Pinto YM, Heymans S. Matricellular proteins in the heart: possible role during stress and remodeling. Cardiovasc Res 2004;64:24-31. 77. Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, Michelson EL, Olofsson B, Ostergren J. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial. Lancet 2003;362:777-81. 78. Tsang TS, Barnes ME, Gersh BJ, Takemoto Y, Rosales AG, Bailey KR, Seward JB. Prediction of risk for first age-related cardiovascular events in an elderly population: the incremental value of echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1199-205. 79. Pritchett AM, Mahoney DW, Jacobsen SJ, Rodeheffer RJ, Karon BL, Redfield MM. Diastolic dysfunction and left atrial volume: a population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:87-92. 80. Douglas PS. The left atrium: a biomarker of chronic diastolic dysfunction and cardiovascular disease risk. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1206-7. 135 81. Alsaileek AA, Osranek M, Fatema K, McCully RB, Tsang TS, Seward JB. Predictive value of normal left atrial volume in stress echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1024-8. 82. Lim TK, Ashrafian H, Dwivedi G, Collinson PO, Senior R. Increased left atrial volume index is an independent predictor of raised serum natriuretic peptide in patients with suspected heart failure but normal left ventricular ejection fraction: Implication for diagnosis of diastolic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2006;8:38-45. 83. Tsang TS, Abhayaratna WP, Barnes ME, Miyasaka Y, Gersh BJ, Bailey KR, Cha SS, Seward JB. Prediction of cardiovascular outcomes with left atrial size: is volume superior to area or diameter? J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1018-23. 84. Yturralde RF, Gaasch WH. Diagnostic criteria for diastolic heart failure. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2005;47:314-9. 85. Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, Flachskampf FA, Foster E, Pellikka PA, Picard MH, Roman MJ, Seward J, Shanewise J, Solomon S, Spencer KT, St John Sutton M, Stewart W. Recommendations for chamber quantification. Eur J Echocardiogr 2006;7:79-108. 86. 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;53:1119-26. 87. Kjaergaard J, Akkan D, Iversen KK, Kjoller E, Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C, Hassager C. Prognostic importance of pulmonary hypertension in patients with heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:1146-50. 136 88. Damman K, van Deursen VM, Navis G, Voors AA, van Veldhuisen DJ, Hillege HL. Increased central venous pressure is associated with impaired renal function and mortality in a broad spectrum of patients with cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:582-8. 89. Mullens W, Abrahams Z, Francis GS, Sokos G, Taylor DO, Starling RC, Young JB, Tang WH. Importance of venous congestion for worsening of renal function in advanced decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:589-96. 90. Lubien E, DeMaria A, Krishnaswamy P, Clopton P, Koon J, Kazanegra R, Gardetto N, Wanner E, Maisel AS. Utility of B-natriuretic peptide in detecting diastolic dysfunction: comparison with Doppler velocity recordings. Circulation 2002;105:595-601. 91. Redfield MM, Rodeheffer RJ, Jacobsen SJ, Mahoney DW, Bailey KR, Burnett JC, Jr. Plasma brain natriuretic peptide to detect preclinical ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction: a community-based study. Circulation 2004;109:3176-81. 92. Mottram PM, Leano R, Marwick TH. Usefulness of B-type natriuretic peptide in hypertensive patients with exertional dyspnea and normal left ventricular ejection fraction and correlation with new echocardiographic indexes of systolic and diastolic function. Am J Cardiol 2003;92:1434-8. 93. Iwanaga Y, Nishi I, Furuichi S, Noguchi T, Sase K, Kihara Y, Goto Y, Nonogi H. B-type natriuretic peptide strongly reflects diastolic wall stress in patients with chronic heart failure: comparison between systolic and diastolic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:742-8. 137 94. Owan TE, Redfield MM. Epidemiology of diastolic heart failure. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2005;47:320-32. 95. Gibson DG, Francis DP. Clinical assessment of left ventricular diastolic function. Heart 2003;89:231-8. 96. Caruana L, Petrie MC, Davie AP, McMurray JJ. Do patients with suspected heart failure and preserved left ventricular systolic function suffer from "diastolic heart failure" or from misdiagnosis? A prospective descriptive study. Bmj 2000;321:215-8. 97. 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;355:251-9. 98. 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;84:563-7. 99. Hsich EM, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Hernandez AF, Peterson ED, Schwamm LH, Bhatt DL, Fonarow GC. Sex differences in in-hospital mortality in acute decompensated heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Am Heart J;163:430-7, 437 e1-3. 100. Scantlebury DC, Borlaug BA. Why are women more likely than men to develop heart failure with preserved ejection fraction? Curr Opin Cardiol 2011;26:562-8. 101. Diamond JA, Phillips RA. Hypertensive heart disease. Hypertens Res 2005;28:191-202. 102. Chen MA. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in older adults. Am J 138 Med 2009;122:713-23. 103. Yip GW, Wang M, Wang T, Chan S, Fung JW, Yeung L, Yip T, Lau ST, Lau CP, Tang MO, Yu CM, Sanderson JE. The Hong Kong diastolic heart failure study: a randomised controlled trial of diuretics, irbesartan and ramipril on quality of life, exercise capacity, left ventricular global and regional function in heart failure with a normal ejection fraction. Heart 2008;94:573-80. 104. Choudhury L, Gheorghiade M, Bonow RO. Coronary artery disease in patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function. Am J Cardiol 2002;89:719-22. 105. Executive summary: HFSA 2006 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline. J Card Fail 2006;12:10-38. 106. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, Jessup M, Konstam MA, Mancini DM, Michl K, Oates JA, Rahko PS, Silver MA, Stevenson LW, Yancy CW, Antman EM, Smith SC, Jr., Adams CD, Anderson JL, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Jacobs AK, Nishimura R, Ornato JP, Page RL, Riegel B. ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure): developed in collaboration with the American College of Chest Physicians and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 2005;112:154-235. 107. Hoenig MR, Bianchi C, Rosenzweig A, Sellke FW. The cardiac microvasculature 139 in hypertension, cardiac hypertrophy and diastolic heart failure. Curr Vasc Pharmacol 2008;6:292-300. 108. Lenzen MJ, Scholte op Reimer WJ, Boersma E, Vantrimpont PJ, Follath F, Swedberg K, Cleland J, Komajda M. Differences between patients with a preserved and a depressed left ventricular function: a report from the EuroHeart Failure Survey. Eur Heart J 2004;25:1214-20. 109. Aguilar D, Deswal A, Ramasubbu K, Mann DL, Bozkurt B. Comparison of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction among those with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol;105:373-7. 110. Smith GL, Lichtman JH, Bracken MB, Shlipak MG, Phillips CO, DiCapua P, Krumholz HM. Renal impairment and outcomes in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1987-96. 111. Powell BD, Redfield MM, Bybee KA, Freeman WK, Rihal CS. Association of obesity with left ventricular remodeling and diastolic dysfunction in patients without coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 2006;98:116-20. 112. von Haehling S, van Veldhuisen DJ, Roughton M, Babalis D, de Boer RA, Coats AJ, Manzano L, Flather M, Anker SD. Anaemia among patients with heart failure and preserved or reduced ejection fraction: results from the SENIORS study. Eur J Heart Fail;13:656-63. 113. Kwon BJ, Kim DB, Jang SW, Yoo KD, Moon KW, Shim BJ, Ahn SH, Cho EJ, Rho TH, Kim JH. Prognosis of heart failure patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and coexistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur J Heart 140 Fail;12:1339-44. 114. Rusinaru D, Saaidi I, Godard S, Mahjoub H, Battle C, Tribouilloy C. Impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on long-term outcome of patients hospitalized for heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:353-8. 115. 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;355:260-9. 116. Massie BM, Carson PE, McMurray JJ, Komajda M, McKelvie R, Zile MR, Anderson S, Donovan M, Iverson E, Staiger C, Ptaszynska A. Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2456-67. 117. Somaratne JB, Berry C, McMurray JJ, Poppe KK, Doughty RN, Whalley GA. The prognostic significance of heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: a literature-based meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:855-62. 118. Tribouilloy C, Rusinaru D, Mahjoub H, Souliere V, Levy F, Peltier M, Slama M, Massy Z. Prognosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a 5 year prospective population-based study. Eur Heart J 2008;29:339-47. 119. Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC). The survival of patients with heart failure with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2011. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr254 120. Henkel DM, Redfield MM, Weston SA, Gerber Y, Roger VL. Death in heart failure: a community perspective. Circ Heart Fail 2008;1:91-7. 141 121. Grigorian-Shamagian L, Otero Ravina F, Abu Assi E, Vidal Perez R, Teijeira-Fernandez E, Varela Roman A, Moreira Sayagues L, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR. Why and when do patients with heart failure and normal left ventricular ejection fraction die? Analysis of >600 deaths in a community long-term study. Am Heart J 2008;156:1184-90. 122. Tsuchihashi-Makaya M, Hamaguchi S, Kinugawa S, Yokota T, Goto D, Yokoshiki H, Kato N, Takeshita A, Tsutsui H. Characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized patients with heart failure and reduced vs preserved ejection fraction. Report from the Japanese Cardiac Registry of Heart Failure in Cardiology (JCARE-CARD). Circ J 2009;73:1893-900. 123. Banerjee A, Taillandier S, Olesen JB, Lane DA, Lallemand B, Lip GY, Fauchier L. Ejection fraction and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: the Loire Valley Atrial Fibrillation Project. Eur J Heart Fail;14:295-301. 124. Fonarow GC, Adams KF, Jr., Abraham WT, Yancy CW, Boscardin WJ. Risk stratification for in-hospital mortality in acutely decompensated heart failure: classification and regression tree analysis. Jama 2005;293:572-80. 125. Abraham WT, Fonarow GC, Albert NM, Stough WG, Gheorghiade M, Greenberg BH, O'Connor CM, Sun JL, Yancy CW, Young JB. Predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for heart failure: insights from the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF). J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:347-56. 126. Lewis EF, Lamas GA, O'Meara E, Granger CB, Dunlap ME, McKelvie RS, 142 Probstfield JL, Young JB, Michelson EL, Halling K, Carlsson J, Olofsson B, McMurray JJ, Yusuf S, Swedberg K, Pfeffer MA. 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. 127. 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;13:1013-8. 128. Ahmed A, Rich MW, Fleg JL, Zile MR, Young JB, Kitzman DW, Love TE, Aronow WS, Adams KF, Jr., Gheorghiade M. Effects of digoxin on morbidity and mortality in diastolic heart failure: the ancillary digitalis investigation group trial. Circulation 2006;114:397-403. 129. Cleland JG, Tendera M, Adamus J, Freemantle N, Polonski L, Taylor J. The perindopril in elderly people with chronic heart failure (PEP-CHF) study. Eur Heart J 2006;27:2338-45. 130. Flather MD, Shibata MC, Coats AJ, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Parkhomenko A, Borbola J, Cohen-Solal A, Dumitrascu D, Ferrari R, Lechat P, Soler-Soler J, Tavazzi L, Spinarova L, Toman J, Bohm M, Anker SD, Thompson SG, Poole-Wilson PA. 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;26:215-25. 131. Roger VL, Weston SA, Redfield MM, Hellermann-Homan JP, Killian J, Yawn BP, Jacobsen SJ. Trends in heart failure incidence and survival in a community-based 143 population. Jama 2004;292:344-50. 132. D'Agostino RB, Jr. Propensity scores in cardiovascular research. Circulation 2007;115:2340-3. 133. Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, Strom BL. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:280-7. 134. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:550-9. 135. Levy D, Kenchaiah S, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Kupka MJ, Ho KK, Murabito JM, Vasan RS. Long-term trends in the incidence of and survival with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1397-402. 136. Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM, Stough WG, Gheorghiade M, Greenberg BH, O'Connor CM, Sun JL, Yancy C, Young JB. Age- and gender-related differences in quality of care and outcomes of patients hospitalized with heart failure (from OPTIMIZE-HF). Am J Cardiol 2009;104:107-15. 137. Mogensen UM, Ersboll M, Andersen M, Andersson C, Hassager C, Torp-Pedersen C, Gustafsson F, Kober L. Clinical characteristics and major comorbidities in heart failure patients more than 85 years of age compared with younger age groups. Eur J Heart Fail 2011;13:1216-23 138. Mahjoub H, Rusinaru D, Souliere V, Durier C, Peltier M, Tribouilloy C. Long-term survival in patients older than 80 years hospitalised for heart failure. A 144 5-year prospective study. Eur J Heart Fail 2008;10:78-84. 139. Tehrani F, Phan A, Chien CV, Morrissey RP, Rafique AM, Schwarz ER. Value of medical therapy in patients >80 years of age with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol 2009;103:829-33. 140. Jaarsma T, Halfens R, Abu-Saad HH, Dracup K, Stappers J, van Ree J. Quality of life in older patients with systolic and diastolic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 1999;1:151-60. 141. Shah R, Wang Y, Foody JM. Effect of statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and beta blockers on survival in patients >or=65 years of age with heart failure and preserved left ventricular systolic function. Am J Cardiol 2008;101:217-22. 142. Andersson B, Caidahl K, di Lenarda A, Warren SE, Goss F, Waldenstrom A, Persson S, Wallentin I, Hjalmarson A, Waagstein F. Changes in early and late diastolic filling patterns induced by long-term adrenergic beta-blockade in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Circulation 1996;94:673-82. 143. Devereux RB, Roman MJ, Liu JE, Welty TK, Lee ET, Rodeheffer R, Fabsitz RR, Howard BV. Congestive heart failure despite normal left ventricular systolic function in a population-based sample: the Strong Heart Study. Am J Cardiol 2000;86:1090-6. 144. Ceia F, Fonseca C, Mota T, Morais H, Matias F, de Sousa A, Oliveira A. Prevalence of chronic heart failure in Southwestern Europe: the EPICA study. Eur J Heart Fail 2002;4:531-9. 145. Rohde LE, Goldraich L, Polanczyk CA, Borges AP, Biolo A, Rabelo E, 145 Beck-Da-Silva L, Clausell N. A simple clinically based predictive rule for heart failure in-hospital mortality. J Card Fail 2006;12:587-93. 146. Peterson PN, Rumsfeld JS, Liang L, Albert NM, Hernandez AF, Peterson ED, Fonarow GC, Masoudi FA. A validated risk score for in-hospital mortality in patients with heart failure from the American Heart Association get with the guidelines program. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010;3:25-32. 147. Forman DE, Cannon CP, Hernandez AF, Liang L, Yancy C, Fonarow GC. Influence of age on the management of heart failure: findings from Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF). Am Heart J 2009;157:1010-7. 148. Liu M, Chan CP, Yan BP, Zhang Q, Lam YY, Li RJ, Sanderson JE, Coats AJ, Sun JP, Yip GW, Yu CM. Albumin levels predict survival in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail 2012;14:39-44. 149. Pasini E, Opasich C, Pastoris O, Aquilani R. Inadequate nutritional intake for daily life activity of clinically stable patients with chronic heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2004;93:41A-43A. 150. Horwich TB, Kalantar-Zadeh K, MacLellan RW, Fonarow GC. Albumin levels predict survival in patients with systolic heart failure. Am Heart J 2008;155:883-9. 151. Linssen GC, Rienstra M, Jaarsma T, Voors AA, van Gelder IC, Hillege HL, van Veldhuisen DJ. Clinical and prognostic effects of atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail;13:1111-20. 152. Yu CM, Sanderson JE, Shum IO, Chan S, Yeung LY, Hung YT, Cockram CS, 146 Woo KS. Diastolic dysfunction and natriuretic peptides in systolic heart failure. Higher ANP and BNP levels are associated with the restrictive filling pattern. Eur Heart J 1996;17:1694-702. 153. Yu CM, Lin H, Zhang Q, Sanderson JE. High prevalence of left ventricular systolic and diastolic asynchrony in patients with congestive heart failure and normal QRS duration. Heart 2003;89:54-60. 154. Sanderson JE, Chan SK, Yip G, Yeung LY, Chan KW, Raymond K, Woo KS. Beta-blockade in heart failure: a comparison of carvedilol with metoprolol. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34:1522-8. 155. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:461-70. 156. Uthamalingam S, Kandala J, Daley M, Patvardhan E, Capodilupo R, Moore SA, Januzzi JL, Jr. Serum albumin and mortality in acutely decompensated heart failure. Am Heart J 2010;160:1149-55. 157. Don BR, Kaysen G. Serum albumin: relationship to inflammation and nutrition. Semin Dial 2004;17:432-7. 158. Fuhrman MP, Charney P, Mueller CM. Hepatic proteins and nutrition assessment. J Am Diet Assoc 2004;104:1258-64. 159. De Feo P, Lucidi P. Liver protein synthesis in physiology and in disease states. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2002;5:47-50. 147 160. Mitch WE. Malnutrition: a frequent misdiagnosis for hemodialysis patients. J Clin Invest 2002;110:437-9. 161. Filippatos GS, Desai RV, Ahmed MI, Fonarow GC, Love TE, Aban IB, Iskandrian AE, Konstam MA, Ahmed A. Hypoalbuminaemia and incident heart failure in older adults. Eur J Heart Fail 2011;13:1078-86. 162. Pasini E, Aquilani R, Gheorghiade M, Dioguardi FS. Malnutrition, muscle wasting and cachexia in chronic heart failure: the nutritional approach. Ital Heart J 2003;4:232-5. 163. Carr JG, Stevenson LW, Walden JA, Heber D. Prevalence and hemodynamic correlates of malnutrition in severe congestive heart failure secondary to ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 1989;63:709-13. 164. Ajayi AA, Adigun AQ, Ojofeitimi EO, Yusuph H, Ajayi OE. Anthropometric evaluation of cachexia in chronic congestive heart failure: the role of tricuspid regurgitation. Int J Cardiol 1999;71:79-84. 165. Anker SD, Coats AJ. Cardiac cachexia: a syndrome with impaired survival and immune and neuroendocrine activation. Chest 1999;115:836-47. 166. Abramov D, Cohen RS, Katz SD, Mancini D, Maurer MS. Comparison of blood volume characteristics in anemic patients with low versus preserved left ventricular ejection fractions. Am J Cardiol 2008;102:1069-72. 167. Androne AS, Katz SD, Lund L, LaManca J, Hudaihed A, Hryniewicz K, Mancini DM. Hemodilution is common in patients with advanced heart failure. Circulation 2003;107:226-9. 148 168. Anker SD, Ponikowski P, Varney S, Chua TP, Clark AL, Webb-Peploe KM, Harrington D, Kox WJ, Poole-Wilson PA, Coats AJ. Wasting as independent risk factor for mortality in chronic heart failure. Lancet 1997;349:1050-3. 169. Horwich TB, Fonarow GC, Hamilton MA, MacLellan WR, Woo MA, Tillisch JH. The relationship between obesity and mortality in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:789-95. 170. Toth MJ, Matthews DE. Whole-body protein metabolism in chronic heart failure: relationship to anabolic and catabolic hormones. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2006;30:194-201. 171. Springer J, Filippatos G, Akashi YJ, Anker SD. Prognosis and therapy approaches of cardiac cachexia. Curr Opin Cardiol 2006;21:229-33. 172. Arques S, Ambrosi P. Human serum albumin in the clinical syndrome of heart failure. J Card Fail 2011;17:451-8. 173. De Groote P, Mouquet F, Lamblin N, Dagorn J, Le Tourneau T, Hennebert O, et al. Serum uric acid is a powerful predictor of survival in patients with stable chronic heart failure receiving beta-blocker therapy. Circulation 2007;116:II-650. 174. Kinugasa Y, Kato M, Sugihara S, Hirai M, Kotani K, Ishida K, Yanagihara K, Kato Y, Ogino K, Igawa O, Hisatome I, Shigemasa C. A simple risk score to predict in-hospital death of elderly patients with acute decompensated heart failure--hypoalbuminemia as an additional prognostic factor. Circ J 2009;73:2276-81. 175. Yanagisawa S, Miki K, Yasuda N, Hirai T, Suzuki N, Tanaka T. Clinical outcomes and prognostic factor for acute heart failure in nonagenarians: impact of 149 hypoalbuminemia on mortality. Int J Cardiol 2010;145:574-6. 150
© Copyright 2024