Although disease etiologies differ, heart failure patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF, respectively) both present with clinical symptoms when under stress and impaired exercise capacity. The extent to which the adaptation of heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), and cardiac output (CO) under stress conditions is altered can be quantified by stress testing in conjunction with imaging methods and may help to detect the diminishment in a patient’s condition early. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantify hemodynamic changes during physiological and pharmacological stress testing in patients with HF. A systematic literature search (PROSPERO 2020:CRD42020161212) in MEDLINE was conducted to assess hemodynamic changes under dynamic and pharmacological stress testing at different stress intensities in HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Pooled mean changes were estimated using a random effects model. Altogether, 140 study arms with 7,248 exercise tests were analyzed. High-intensity dynamic stress testing represented 73% of these data (70 study arms with 5,318 exercise tests), where: HR increased by 45.69 bpm (95% CI 44.51–46.88; I2 = 98.4%), SV by 13.49 ml (95% CI 6.87–20.10; I2 = 68.5%), and CO by 3.41 L/min (95% CI 2.86–3.95; I2 = 86.3%). No significant differences between HFrEF and HFpEF groups were found. Despite the limited availability of comparative studies, these reference values can help to estimate the expected hemodynamic responses in patients with HF. No differences in chronotropic reactions, changes in SV, or CO were found between HFrEF and HFpEF. When compared to healthy individuals, exercise tolerance, as well as associated HR and CO changes under moderate-high dynamic stress, was substantially impaired in both HF groups. This may contribute to a better disease understanding, future study planning, and patient-specific predictive models.Systematic Review Registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42020161212].

Background In [99mTc]Tc-DPD scintigraphy for myocardial ATTR amyloidosis, planar images 3 hour p.i. and SPECT/CT acquisition in L-mode are recommended. This study investigated if earlier planar images (1 hour p.i.) are beneficial and if SPECT/CT acquisition should be preferred in H-mode (180° detector angle) or L-mode (90°). Methods In SPECT/CT phantom measurements (NaI cameras, N = 2; CZT, N = 1), peak contrast recovery (CRpeak) was derived from sphere inserts or myocardial insert (cardiac phantom; signal-to-background ratio [SBR], 10:1 or 5:1). In 25 positive and 38 negative patients (reference: endomyocardial biopsy or clinical diagnosis), Perugini scores and heart-to-contralateral (H/CL) count ratios were derived from planar images 1 hour and 3 hour p.i. Results In phantom measurements, accuracy of myocardial CRpeak at SBR 10:1 (H-mode, 0.95-0.99) and reproducibility at 5:1 (H-mode, 1.02-1.14) was comparable for H-mode and L-mode. However, L-mode showed higher variability of background counts and sphere CRpeak throughout the field of view than H-mode. In patients, sensitivity/specificity were ≥ 95% for H/CL ratios at both time points and visual scoring 3 hour. At 1 hour, visual scores showed specificity of 89% and reduced reader’s confidence. Conclusions Early DPD images provided no additional value for visual scoring or H/CL ratios. In SPECT/CT, H-mode is preferred over L-mode, especially if quantification is applied apart from the myocardium.

No abstract

AimsWe investigated the incremental advantage in terms of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) reduction in patients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) versus patients treated with S/V only.MethodsConsecutive adult patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤40% who were followed in our outpatient clinic from January 2016 to December 2019 and treated with S/V were analysed.ResultsOut of eligible 147 patients, 99 were treated with S/V+MRA at baseline and 48 patients were treated with S/V. Patients treated with S/V+MRA were significantly younger (61.5 vs 67.8 years, p=0.006), had better basal renal function (serum creatinine 1.2 vs 1.4 mg/dL, p=0.006) and lower LVEF (30.9% vs 33.1%, p=0.039). At follow-up at 8–16 months, 84 out of 99 patients continued to be on S/V+MRA, and 39 out of 48 patients continued to be on S/V. Between these two groups, at follow-up, LVEF did not vary significantly, ΔNT-proBNP was not significantly different (−215.7 vs −165.9 pg/mL, p=0.93) and neither was the rate of hospitalisation for heart failure (9.5% vs 12.8%, p=0.58). Using general linear models, both age and basal NT-proBNP influenced significantly ΔNT-proBNP (respectively, p=0.002; p=0.005), while treatment with S/V+MRA versus S/V only did not significantly influence ΔNT-proBNP (p=0.462).ConclusionEven with the limitations of a small retrospective study, our results generate the hypothesis that MRA might not provide any additional value in patients with HFrEF treated with S/V. Larger studies are needed to test if MRA should remain a standard treatment in patients with HFrEF treated with S/V.