Exercise intolerance is a primary manifestation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and is associated with abnormal hemodynamics and a poor quality of life. Two multiparametric scoring systems have been proposed to diagnose HFpEF. This study sought to determine the performance of the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores for predicting exercise capacity and echocardiographic findings of intracardiac pressures during exercise in subjects with dyspnea on exertion referred for bicycle stress echocardiography. In a subset, simultaneous expired gas analysis was performed to measure the peak oxygen consumption (VO2). Patients with HFpEF (n = 83) and controls without HF (n = 104) were enrolled. The H2FPEF score was obtainable for all patients while the HFA-PEFF score could not be calculated for 23 patients (feasibility 88%). Both H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores correlated with a higher E/e′ ratio (r = 0.49 and r = 0.46), lower systolic tricuspid annular velocity (r =  − 0.44 and =  − 0.24), and lower cardiac output (r =  − 0.28 and r =  − 0.24) during peak exercise. Peak VO2 and exercise duration decreased with an increase in H2FPEF scores (r =  − 0.40 and r =  − 0.32). The H2FPEF score predicted a reduced aerobic capacity (AUC 0.71, p = 0.0005), but the HFA-PEFF score did not (p = 0.07). These data provide insights into the role of the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores for predicting exercise intolerance and abnormal hemodynamics in patients presenting with exertional dyspnea.

Background: Cardiac power output is a measure of cardiac performance, and its prognostic significance has been shown in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction may have altered cardiac performance, but the prognostic relevance of cardiac power output is unknown. This study sought to determine the association between cardiac power output and clinical outcomes in HF with preserved ejection fraction and to compare its prognostic effect to other measures of cardiac performance including ventricular-arterial coupling and mechanical efficiency. Methods: Cardiac power output normalized to left ventricular mass was assessed by echocardiography in 408 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. Load-independent contractility (end-systolic elastance), arterial elastance, its coupling (arterial elastance/end-systolic elastance), left ventricular global longitudinal strain, and mechanical efficiency (stroke work/pressure-volume area) were also estimated noninvasively. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization. Results: The primary composite outcome occurred in 84 patients during a median follow-up of 19.4 months. There was a dose-dependent association between cardiac power output and the composite outcomes, in which patients with the lowest tertile of cardiac power output had >3-fold risk than those with the highest tertile (hazard ratio, 3.04 [95% CI, 1.66–5.57]; P =0.0003). In a multivariable model, lower cardiac power output was independently associated with adverse outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.70 per 1 SD [95% CI, 0.49–0.97]; P =0.03). In contrast, left ventricular size, end-systolic elastance, arterial elastance, arterial elastance/end-systolic elastance ratio, and left ventricular mechanical efficiency were not associated with outcomes. Cardiac power output provided an incremental prognostic effect over the model based on clinical (age, gender, diastolic blood pressure, and atrial fibrillation) and echocardiographic markers (left atrial size, pulmonary pressures, global longitudinal strain, and the ratio of early diastolic mitral inflow velocity to early diastolic mitral annular tissue velocity; P =0.03). Conclusions: In patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, cardiac power output was independently and incrementally associated with adverse outcomes whereas other markers of cardiac performance were not.

No abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) after deferred revascularization based on fractional flow reserve (FFR). Background: FFR is a practical technique for assessing the functional severity of intermediate coronary stenosis. Prior research has revealed a satisfactory outcome in patients after the deferral of percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary lesions based on FFR measurement. However, little research has been conducted focusing on patients undergoing HD. Methods: The retrospective study comprised 225 consecutive patients with FFR assessment and deferred revascularization between January 2016 and December 2019. Based on a deferral cutoff FFR value of >0.80, we assessed the differences in all-cause death, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and target vessel failure (TVF) between the HD (n = 69) and non-HD groups (n = 156) during a mean ± standard deviation routine follow-up of 32.2 ± 13.4 months.Results: Although the HD group had significantly higher rates of diabetes mellitus than the non-HD group (53.6% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.021), there were no significant differences in sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, or other risk factors between the groups, nor with respect to stenosis diameter or mean FFR.The HD group had a significantly higher incidence of TVF than the non-HD group (34.8% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001), as well as a significantly higher risk of allcause death and MACEs. Conclusions:The study revealed that deferred revascularization in coronary lesions with an FFR value of >0.80 in patients undergoing HD was associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, it is important to carefully monitor patients with intermediate coronary stenosis undergoing HD.

No abstract