European journal of heart failure · 2023
Haemodynamic and metabolic phenotyping of patients with aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction: A specific phenotype of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
De Biase Nicolò, Mazzola Matteo, Del Punta Lavinia, Di Fiore Valerio, De Carlo Marco, Giannini Cristina, Costa Giulia, Paneni Francesco, Mengozzi Alessandro, Nesti Lorenzo, Gargani Luna, Masi Stefano, Pugliese Nicola Riccardo
Аннотация
AIMS: Degenerative aortic valve stenosis with preserved ejection fraction (ASpEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) display intriguing similarities. This study aimed to provide a non-invasive, comparative analysis of ASpEF versus HFpEF at rest and during exercise.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 148 patients with HFpEF and 150 patients with degenerative moderate-to-severe ASpEF, together with 66 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. All subjects received a comprehensive evaluation at rest and 351/364 (96%) performed a combined cardiopulmonary exercise stress echocardiography test. Patients with ASpEF eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 125) also performed cardiac computed tomography (CT). HFpEF and ASpEF patients showed similar demographic distribution and biohumoral profiles. Most patients with ASpEF (134/150, 89%) had severe high-gradient aortic stenosis; 6/150 (4%) had normal-flow, low-gradient ASpEF, while 10/150 (7%) had low-flow, low-gradient ASpEF. Both patient groups displayed significantly lower peak oxygen consumption (VO2 ), peak cardiac output, and peak arteriovenous oxygen difference compared to controls (all p < 0.01). ASpEF patients showed several extravalvular abnormalities at rest and during exercise, similar to HFpEF (all p < 0.01 vs. controls). Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) thickness was significantly greater in ASpEF than HFpEF and was inversely correlated with peak VO2 in all groups. In ASpEF, EAT was directly related to echocardiography-derived disease severity and CT-derived aortic valve calcium burden.
CONCLUSION: Functional capacity is similarly impaired in ASpEF and HFpEF due to both peripheral and central components. Further investigation is warranted to determine whether extravalvular alterations may affect disease progression and prognosis in ASpEF even after valve intervention, which could support the concept of ASpEF as a specific sub-phenotype of HFpEF.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 148 patients with HFpEF and 150 patients with degenerative moderate-to-severe ASpEF, together with 66 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. All subjects received a comprehensive evaluation at rest and 351/364 (96%) performed a combined cardiopulmonary exercise stress echocardiography test. Patients with ASpEF eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 125) also performed cardiac computed tomography (CT). HFpEF and ASpEF patients showed similar demographic distribution and biohumoral profiles. Most patients with ASpEF (134/150, 89%) had severe high-gradient aortic stenosis; 6/150 (4%) had normal-flow, low-gradient ASpEF, while 10/150 (7%) had low-flow, low-gradient ASpEF. Both patient groups displayed significantly lower peak oxygen consumption (VO2 ), peak cardiac output, and peak arteriovenous oxygen difference compared to controls (all p < 0.01). ASpEF patients showed several extravalvular abnormalities at rest and during exercise, similar to HFpEF (all p < 0.01 vs. controls). Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) thickness was significantly greater in ASpEF than HFpEF and was inversely correlated with peak VO2 in all groups. In ASpEF, EAT was directly related to echocardiography-derived disease severity and CT-derived aortic valve calcium burden.
CONCLUSION: Functional capacity is similarly impaired in ASpEF and HFpEF due to both peripheral and central components. Further investigation is warranted to determine whether extravalvular alterations may affect disease progression and prognosis in ASpEF even after valve intervention, which could support the concept of ASpEF as a specific sub-phenotype of HFpEF.