Right heart function is the main determinant of prognosis in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). At present, no treatments are currently available that directly target the right ventricle, as we will demonstrate in this article.Meta-analysis of clinical trials in PAH revealed that current PAH medication seems to have limited cardiac-specific effects when analysed by the pump-function graph. Driven by the hypothesis that ''left'' and right heart failure might share important underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, we evaluated the clinical potential of left heart failure (LHF) therapies for PAH, based on currently available literature.As in LHF, the sympathetic nervous system and the renin-angiotension-aldosterone system are highly activated in PAH. From LHF we know that intervening in this process, e.g. by angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibition or b-blockade, is beneficial in the long run. Therefore, these medications could be also beneficial in PAH. Furthermore, the incidence of sudden cardiac death in PAH could be reduced by implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Finally, pilot studies have demonstrated that interventricular dyssynchrony, present at end-stage PAH, responded favourably to cardiac resynchronisation therapy as well.In conclusion, therapies for LHF might be relevant for PAH. However, before they can be implemented in PAH management, safety and efficacy should be evaluated first in well-designed clinical trials.

Aims  In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF), strict and regular rate control with atrioventricular junction ablation and biventricular pacemaker (Ablation + CRT) has been shown to be superior to pharmacological rate control in reducing HF hospitalizations. However, whether it also improves survival is unknown. Methods and results  In this international, open-label, blinded outcome trial, we randomly assigned patients with severely symptomatic permanent AF >6 months, narrow QRS (≤110 ms) and at least one HF hospitalization in the previous year to Ablation + CRT or to pharmacological rate control. We hypothesized that Ablation + CRT is superior in reducing the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. A total of 133 patients were randomized. The mean age was 73 ± 10 years, and 62 (47%) were females. The trial was stopped for efficacy at interim analysis after a median of 29 months of follow-up per patient. The primary endpoint occurred in 7 patients (11%) in the Ablation + CRT arm and in 20 patients (29%) in the Drug arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.65; P = 0.004]. The estimated death rates at 2 years were 5% and 21%, respectively; at 4 years, 14% and 41%. The benefit of Ablation + CRT of all-cause mortality was similar in patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤35% and in those with >35%. The secondary endpoint combining all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization was significantly lower in the Ablation + CRT arm [18 (29%) vs. 36 (51%); HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22–0.73; P = 0.002]. Conclusions  Ablation + CRT was superior to pharmacological therapy in reducing mortality in patients with permanent AF and narrow QRS who were hospitalized for HF, irrespective of their baseline EF. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02137187.

In PAH, the L-R delay in myocardial peak shortening is caused by lengthening of the duration of RV shortening. This L-R delay is related to LVSB, decreased LV filling, and decreased stroke volume.

No abstract

ObjectiveImplantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) have substantially improved the survival of patients with cardiomyopathy. Eligibility for this therapy requires a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35 %. This is largely based on studies using echocardiography. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is increasingly utilised for LVEF assessment, but several studies have shown differences between LVEF assessed by CMR and echocardiography. The present study compared LVEF assessment by CMR and echocardiography in a heart failure population and evaluated effects on eligibility for device therapy.Methods152 patients (106 male, mean age 65.5 ± 9.9 years) referred for device therapy were included. During evaluation of eligibility they underwent both CMR and echocardiographic LVEF assessment. CMR volumes were computed from a stack of short-axis images. Echocardiographic volumes were computed using Simpson’s biplane method.ResultsThe study population demonstrated an underestimation of end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) by echocardiography of 71 ± 53 ml (mean ± SD) and 70 ± 49 ml, respectively. This resulted in an overestimation of LVEF of 6.6 ± 8.3 % by echocardiography compared with CMR (echocardiographic LVEF 31.5 ± 8.7 % and CMR LVEF 24.9 ± 9.6 %). 28 % of patients had opposing outcomes of eligibility for cardiac device therapy depending on the imaging modality used.ConclusionWe found EDV and ESV to be underestimated by echocardiography, and LVEF assessed by CMR to be significantly smaller than by echocardiography. Applying an LVEF cut-off value of 35 %, CMR would significantly increase the number of patients eligible for device implantation. Therefore, LVEF cut-off values might need reassessment when using CMR.