Diastolic heart failure (DHF) currently accounts for more than 50% of all heart failure patients. DHF is also referred to as heart failure with normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (HFNEF) to indicate that HFNEF could be a precursor of heart failure with reduced LVEF. Because of improved cardiac imaging and because of widespread clinical use of plasma levels of natriuretic peptides, diagnostic criteria for HFNEF needed to be updated. The diagnosis of HFNEF requires the following conditions to be satisfied: (i) signs or symptoms of heart failure; (ii) normal or mildly abnormal systolic LV function; (iii) evidence of diastolic LV dysfunction. Normal or mildly abnormal systolic LV function implies both an LVEF > 50% and an LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) <97 mL/m(2). Diagnostic evidence of diastolic LV dysfunction can be obtained invasively (LV end-diastolic pressure >16 mmHg or mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure >12 mmHg) or non-invasively by tissue Doppler (TD) (E/E' > 15). If TD yields an E/E' ratio suggestive of diastolic LV dysfunction (15 > E/E' > 8), additional non-invasive investigations are required for diagnostic evidence of diastolic LV dysfunction. These can consist of blood flow Doppler of mitral valve or pulmonary veins, echo measures of LV mass index or left atrial volume index, electrocardiographic evidence of atrial fibrillation, or plasma levels of natriuretic peptides. If plasma levels of natriuretic peptides are elevated, diagnostic evidence of diastolic LV dysfunction also requires additional non-invasive investigations such as TD, blood flow Doppler of mitral valve or pulmonary veins, echo measures of LV mass index or left atrial volume index, or electrocardiographic evidence of atrial fibrillation. A similar strategy with focus on a high negative predictive value of successive investigations is proposed for the exclusion of HFNEF in patients with breathlessness and no signs of congestion. The updated strategies for the diagnosis and exclusion of HFNEF are useful not only for individual patient management but also for patient recruitment in future clinical trials exploring therapies for HFNEF.

Over the past decade, myocardial structure, cardiomyocyte function, and intramyocardial signaling were shown to be specifically altered in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). A new paradigm for HFPEF development is therefore proposed, which identifies a systemic proinflammatory state induced by comorbidities as the cause of myocardial structural and functional alterations. The new paradigm presumes the following sequence of events in HFPEF: 1) a high prevalence of comorbidities such as overweight/obesity, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and salt-sensitive hypertension induce a systemic proinflammatory state; 2) a systemic proinflammatory state causes coronary microvascular endothelial inflammation; 3) coronary microvascular endothelial inflammation reduces nitric oxide bioavailability, cyclic guanosine monophosphate content, and protein kinase G (PKG) activity in adjacent cardiomyocytes; 4) low PKG activity favors hypertrophy development and increases resting tension because of hypophosphorylation of titin; and 5) both stiff cardiomyocytes and interstitial fibrosis contribute to high diastolic left ventricular (LV) stiffness and heart failure development. The new HFPEF paradigm shifts emphasis from LV afterload excess to coronary microvascular inflammation. This shift is supported by a favorable Laplace relationship in concentric LV hypertrophy and by all cardiac chambers showing similar remodeling and dysfunction. Myocardial remodeling in HFPEF differs from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, in which remodeling is driven by loss of cardiomyocytes. The new HFPEF paradigm proposes comorbidities, plasma markers of inflammation, or vascular hyperemic responses to be included in diagnostic algorithms and aims at restoring myocardial PKG activity.

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for HF symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), left ventricular (LV) filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.

Half of patients with heart failure (HF) have a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). Morbidity and mortality in HFpEF are similar to values observed in patients with HF and reduced EF, yet no effective treatment has been identified. While early research focused on the importance of diastolic dysfunction in the pathophysiology of HFpEF, recent studies have revealed that multiple non-diastolic abnormalities in cardiovascular function also contribute. Diagnosis of HFpEF is frequently challenging and relies upon careful clinical evaluation, echo-Doppler cardiography, and invasive haemodynamic assessment. In this review, the principal mechanisms, diagnostic approaches, and clinical trials are reviewed, along with a discussion of novel treatment strategies that are currently under investigation or hold promise for the future.

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre‐test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for heart failure symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non‐cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), LV filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.