scholarly journals Similarities and Differences between the Pathogenesis and Pathophysiology of Diastolic and Systolic Heart Failure

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuo Komamura
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Diastolic Heart Failure ◽  
Systolic Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Low Cardiac Output ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Ventricular Filling

Pathophysiology of heart failure has been considered to be a damaged state of systolic function of the heart followed by a state of low cardiac output that is, systolic heart failure. Even if systolic function is preserved, left ventricular filling in diastole can be impeded and resulted in elevation of filling pressure and symptoms of heart failure. This kind of heart failure is called diastolic heart failure. Nowadays, diastolic heart failure is referred to as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), whereas systolic heart failure is referred to as heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In this paper, the similarities and differences between the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of diastolic and systolic heart failure were reviewed. Although diastolic heart failure is a common condition of heart failure worldwide, its pathophysiology has not been sufficiently elucidated. This is thought to be the most significant reason for a lack of established treatment methods for diastolic heart failure. We hope to proceed with future studies on this topic.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction – A Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otto A Smiseth ◽  
Anders Opdahl ◽  
Espen Boe ◽  
Helge Skulstad
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Diastolic Heart Failure ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Filling Pressure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Objective Evidence

Heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HF-PEF), sometimes named diastolic heart failure, is a common condition most frequently seen in the elderly and is associated with arterial hypertension and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Symptoms are attributed to a stiff left ventricle with compensatory elevation of filling pressure and reduced ability to increase stroke volume by the Frank-Starling mechanism. LV interaction with stiff arteries aggravates these problems. Prognosis is almost as severe as for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), in part reflecting co-morbidities. Before the diagnosis of HF-PEF is made, non-cardiac etiologies must be excluded. Due to the non-specific nature of heart failure symptoms, it is essential to search for objective evidence of diastolic dysfunction which, in the absence of invasive data, is done by echocardiography and demonstration of signs of elevated LV filling pressure, impaired LV relaxation, or increased LV diastolic stiffness. Antihypertensive treatment can effectively prevent HF-PEF. Treatment of HF-PEF is symptomatic, with similar drugs as in HF-REF.

ACCESSMENT OF RIGHT VENTRICULAR SYSTOLIC FUNCTION USING TAPSE

2011 ◽  
pp. 62-70
Author(s):  
Lien Nhut Nguyen ◽  
Anh Vu Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Systolic Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Background: The prognostic importance of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction has been suggested in patients with systolic heart failure (due to primary or secondary dilated cardiomyopathy - DCM). Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) is a simple, feasible, reality, non-invasive measurement by transthoracic echocardiography for evaluating RV systolic function. Objectives: To evaluate TAPSE in patients with primary or secondary DCM who have left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% and to find the relation between TAPSE and LVEF, LVDd, RVDd, RVDd/LVDd, RA size, severity of TR and PAPs. Materials and Methods: 61 patients (36 males, 59%) mean age 58.6 ± 14.4 years old with clinical signs and symtomps of chronic heart failure which caused by primary or secondary DCM and LVEF ≤ 40% and 30 healthy subject (15 males, 50%) mean age 57.1 ± 16.8 were included in this study. All patients and controls were underwent echocardiographic examination by M-mode, two dimentional, convensional Dopler and TAPSE. Results: TAPSE is significant low in patients compare with the controls (13.93±2.78 mm vs 23.57± 1.60mm, p<0.001). TAPSE is linearly positive correlate with echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction (r= 0,43; p<0,001) and linearly negative correlate with RVDd (r= -0.39; p<0.01), RVDd/LVDd (r=-0.33; p<0.01), RA size (r=-0.35; p<0.01), TR (r=-0.26; p<0.05); however, no correlation was found with LVDd and PAPs. Conclusions: 1. Decreased RV systolic function as estimated by TAPSE in patients with systolic heart failure primary and secondary DCM) compare with controls. 2. TAPSE is linearly positive correlate with LVEF (r= 0.43; p<0.001) and linearly negative correlate with RVDd (r= -0.39; p<0.01), RVDd/LVDd (r=-0.33; p<0.01), RA size (r=-0.35; p<0.01), TR (r=-0.26; p<0.05); however, no correlation is found with LVDd and PAPs. 3. TAPSE should be used routinely as a simple, feasible, reality method of estimating RV function in the patients systolic heart failure DCM (primary and secondary).

scholarly journals Treatment of Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction: What Is the Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 203
Author(s):  
Eleni-Evangelia Koufou ◽  
Angelos Arfaras-Melainis ◽  
Sahil Rawal ◽  
Andreas P. Kalogeropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction

In this review, we briefly outline our current knowledge on the epidemiology, outcomes, and pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and discuss in more depth the evidence on current treatment options for this group of patients. In most studies, the clinical background of patients with HFmrEF is intermediate between that of patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in terms of demographics and comorbid conditions. However, the current evidence, stemming from observational studies and post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials, suggests that patients with HFmrEF benefit from medications that target the neurohormonal axes, a pathophysiological behavior that resembles that of HFrEF. Use of β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sacubitril/valsartan is reasonable in patients with HFmrEF, whereas evidence is currently scarce for other therapies. In clinical practice, patients with HFmrEF are treated more like HFrEF patients, potentially because of history of systolic dysfunction that has partially recovered. Assessment of left ventricular systolic function with contemporary noninvasive modalities, e.g., echocardiographic strain imaging, is promising for the selection of patients with HFmrEF who will benefit from neurohormonal antagonists and other HFrEF-targeted therapies.

scholarly journals Association of Ischemic Evaluation and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Admitted With New‐Onset Heart Failure

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin McGuinn ◽  
Theodore Warsavage ◽  
Mary E. Plomondon ◽  
Javier A. Valle ◽  
P. Michael Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Systolic Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
New Diagnosis ◽  
New Onset

Background The significant morbidity associated with systolic heart failure makes it imperative to identify patients with a reversible cause. We thus sought to evaluate the proportion of patients who received an ischemic evaluation after a hospitalization for new‐onset systolic heart failure. Methods and Results Patients admitted with a new diagnosis of heart failure and a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40%) were identified in the VA Healthcare System from January 2006 to August 2017. Among those who survived 90 days without a readmission, we evaluated the proportion of patients who underwent an ischemic evaluation. We identified 9625 patients who were admitted with a new diagnosis of systolic heart failure with a concomitant reduction in ejection fraction. A minority of patients (3859, 40%) underwent an ischemic evaluation, with significant variation across high‐performing (90th percentile) and low‐performing (10th percentile) sites (odds ratio, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.90–4.31). Patients who underwent an evaluation were more likely to be treated with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (75% versus 64%, P <0.001) or beta blockers (92% versus 82%, P <0.001) and subsequently undergo percutaneous (8% versus 0%, P <0.001) or surgical (2% versus 0%, P <0.001) revascularization. Patients with an ischemic evaluation also had a significantly lower adjusted hazard of all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47–0.61) compared with those without an evaluation. Conclusions Ischemic evaluations are underutilized in patients admitted with heart failure and a new reduction in left ventricular systolic function. A focused intervention to increase guideline‐concordant care could lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes.

Heart failure

2010 ◽  
pp. 3-28
Author(s):  
Juan Carlos Kaski
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Diastolic Heart Failure ◽  
Systolic Heart Failure ◽  
The Body ◽  
Pharmacological Management ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Structural Abnormalities

Introduction 4 Chronic heart failure with reduced LVEF (systolic heart failure) 6 Pharmacological management of chronic heart failure 8 Non-pharmacological management of chronic heart failure 18 Chronic heart failure with preserved LVEF (diastolic heart failure) 20 Acute heart failure 22 Clinical trials 26 Heart failure (HF) is a complex condition that results from cardiac functional and/or structural abnormalities that affect the ability of the heart to pump blood, and is often defined as the inability of the heart to adequately perfuse the organs of the body. Symptoms of HF vary depending on several factors but the most common manifestations of HF are dyspnoea and fatigue. Of importance, HF is not necessarily associated with a reduced ejection fraction (EF) (systolic HF), as up to 50% of cases occur in the presence of a preserved systolic function (diastolic dysfunction)....

scholarly journals P791 Left atrial stiffness as a predictor of cardiac events in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: the impact of diabetes

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Bytyci ◽  
N R Pugliese ◽  
A Bajraktari ◽  
M Mazzola ◽  
G Bajraktari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Ventricular Remodeling ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background and Aim Diabetes mellitus (DM) affects left ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF), but its effect on left atrial (LA) remodeling and their combined effect on survival and other clinical events (CE) remain to be elucidated. We evaluated in this study the relationship between DM and left atrial (LA) remodeling in a group of HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), Methods This studied 136 consecutive HFrEF patients (65 ± 11 years), 36 diabetics, using conventional and tissue Doppler echocardiography. LA dimension and function were measured and cavity stiffness was calculated with the formula: LA stiffness = E/e’ratio/LA strain. Results The age, gender, LV end-systolic dimension, LV end-diastolic dimension, LV EF and BNP level did not differ between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Diabetic patients with HFrEF had higher NYHA functional class (p = 0.02), reduced right ventricle (RV) systolic function (p = 0.01) and increased LA stiffness (p = 0.02) . At follow up of 55 ± 37 months, survival free from CE was 69% in non-diabetics compared with 44.4% in diabetics (X2 12.7; p&lt; 0.0001). The CE free survival was lower in patients with increased LA stiffnes, irrespective of the presence of DM: 1) Patients with HFrEF without DM and normal LA stiffness (85%); 2) Patients with HFrEF without DM and with increased LA stiffness (50%); 3) Patients with HFrEF with DM and with normal LA stiffness (71%) and patients with HFrEF with DM and with increased LA stiffness (27%) (X2 29.6; p&lt; 0.0001, Figure 1). Conclusion Compromised LA stiffness as surrogate of LA remodeling is associated with poor outcome in patients with heart failure and reduced EF. The presence of diabetes in patients with HFrEF and increased LA stiffness has incremental prognostic value. Abstract P791 Figure.

scholarly journals P1818 Baseline clinical, echocardiographic and laboratory characteristics of HFrEF patients who were started with sacubitryl+ walsartan in different clinical status: long-term stabile vs after acute heart f

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Wisniowska-Smialek ◽  
A Karabinowska ◽  
K Holcman ◽  
E Dziewiecka ◽  
A Lesniak-Sobelga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Systolic Function ◽  
Nyha Class ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
P Value ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Heart Failure Exacerbation ◽  
Short Time

Abstract Background According to the latest approach new class ARNI with sacubitryl-valsartan may be ordered in clinically stable heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction ( HFrEF) or short time after acute heart failure exacerbation. Methods: Since July 2016 till February 2019 we started ARNI in 50 HFrEF patients; 33 (66%) were clinically stabile during at least 3 months and 17 (34%) were short time after HF exacerbation. Results: There were no differences in age (63 vs 58) and BMI between groups. Clinically stabile patients presented significantly lower NYHA class (2 ± 0,5 vs 3 ± 0,7) and lower NT-proBNP level (1948 pg/ml vs 5570 pg/ml) in comparison to those after HF decompensation. There were no differences in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), volume (LVEDV) and ejection fraction (EF) between both groups. Patients after HF decompensation had greater left and right atrium area(LAA, RAA respectively), higher estimated pulmonary artery pressure (PASP) and reduced right ventricular systolic function expressed with TAPSE (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion) in comparison to stabile patients. Patients from both groups presented similar physical activity tolerance estimated with 6-minute walking test ( 6- MWT): 369 m vs 402 m (tbl). Conclusions: Clinical, echocardiographic and laboratory differences were observed between groups of HFrEF patients with different clinical status when ARNI was administrated. Parameter Stabile n = 33 After HF decompensation n= 17 p- value BMI [kg/m2] 25(23-36) 25(21-26) 0,72 Age [years] 63 (39-68) 58 (42-67) 0,81 NYHA 2 ± 0,5 3 ± 0,7 0,001 NT-proBNP [pg/ml] 1948(601-2933) 5570(4147-8021) P&lt; 0,001 6 MWT dystans [m] 369(327-432) 402(240-480) 0,32 FW [%] 23 (18-28) 19(15-26) 0,17 LVEDD [mm] 69(59-76) 64(63-71) 0,32 LVEDvol [ml] 242(153-324) 225(178-235) 0,29 TAPSE [mm] 19(14-21) 14(13-16) 0,02 LAA [cm2] 28(24-34) 36(27-39) 0,032 RAA [cm2] 19(16-30) 26(23-32) 0,046 PASP [mmHg] 31(23-43) 43(38-55) 0,046

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document