One-year outcomes after transcatheter insertion of an interatrial shunt device for the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background—Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction has a complex pathophysiology and remains a therapeutic challenge. Elevated left atrial pressure, particularly during exercise, is a key contributor to morbidity and mortality. Preliminary analyses have demonstrated that a novel interatrial septal shunt device that allows shunting to reduce the left atrial pressure provides clinical and hemodynamic benefit at 6 months. Given the chronicity of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, evidence of longer-term benefit is required. Methods and Results—Patients (n=64) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%, New York Heart Association class II–IV, elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (≥15 mm Hg at rest or ≥25 mm Hg during supine bicycle exercise) participated in the open-label study of the interatrial septal shunt device. One year after interatrial septal shunt device implantation, there were sustained improvements in New York Heart Association class (P<0.001), quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score, P<0.001), and 6-minute walk distance (P<0.01). Echocardiography showed a small, stable reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (P<0.001), with a concomitant small stable increase in the right ventricular end-diastolic volume index (P<0.001). Invasive hemodynamic studies performed in a subset of patients demonstrated a sustained reduction in the workload corrected exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (P<0.01). Survival at 1 year was 95%, and there was no evidence of device-related complications. Conclusions—These results provide evidence of safety and sustained clinical benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients 1 year after interatrial septal shunt device implantation. Randomized, blinded studies are underway to confirm these observations

Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Pathophysiology, Evaluation and Management Considerations: Review of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

Despite increasing prevalence in critical care units, cardiogenic shock related to HF (HF-CS) is incompletely understood and distinct from acute myocardial infarction related CS. This review highlights the pathophysiology, evaluation, and contemporary management of HF-CS

Left atrial enlargement is associated with pulmonary vascular disease in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Aims: Elevated left atrial (LA) pressure is a pathophysiologic hallmark of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Chronically elevated LA pressure leads to LA enlargement, which may impair LA function and increase pulmonary pressures. We sought to evaluate the relationship between LA volume and pulmonary arterial haemodynamics in patients with HFpEF. Methods and results: Data from 85 patients (aged 69 ± 8 years) who underwent exercise right heart catheterisation and echocardiography were retrospectively analysed. All had symptoms of heart failure, LVEF ≥50% and haemodynamic features of HFpEF. Patients were divided into LAVI-based tertiles (≤34mL/m2, >34 to ≤45mL/m2, >45mL/m2). A subgroup analysis was performed in patients with recorded LA global reservoir strain (n=60), with reduced strain defined as ≤24%. Age, sex, BSA and LVEF were similar between volume groups. LA volume was associated with blunted increases in cardiac output with exercise (ΔCO) (Padjusted < .001), higher resting mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) (Padjusted = .003), with similar wedge pressure (PCWP) (Padjusted = 1). Pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) increased with increasing LA volume (Padjusted < .001). Larger LA volumes featured reduced LA strain (Padjusted < .001), with reduced strain associated with reduced pulmonary vascular resistance-compliance (RC) time (0.34 [0.28–0.40] vs 0.38 [0.33–0.43], P = .03). Conclusion: Increasing LA volume may be associated with more advanced pulmonary vascular disease in HFpEF, featuring higher pulmonary vascular resistance and pulmonary pressures. Reduced LA function, worse at increasing LA volumes, is associated with a disrupted pulmonary resistance-compliance relationship, further augmenting impaired pulmonary haemodynamics

Latent pulmonary vascular disease may alter the response to therapeutic atrial shunt device in heart failure

Background: In the REDUCE LAP-HF II trial, implantation of an atrial shunt device did not provide, overall, clinical benefit for patients with heart failure and preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF). However, pre-specified analyses identified differences in response in subgroups defined by pulmonary artery systolic pressure during submaximal exercise, right atrial (RA) volume, and sex. Shunt implantation reduces left atrial (LA) pressures but increases pulmonary blood flow, which may be poorly tolerated in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD). Based upon these results, we hypothesized that patients with latent PVD, defined as elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) during exercise, might be harmed by shunt implantation, and conversely that patients without PVD might benefit. Methods: REDUCE LAP-HF II enrolled 626 patients with HF, EF ≥40%, exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ≥25 mmHg, and resting PVR <3.5 WU who were randomized 1:1 to atrial shunt device or sham control. The primary outcome, a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal ischemic stroke, recurrent HF events, and change in health status, was analyzed using the win ratio. Latent PVD was defined as PVR ≥1.74 WU (highest tertile) at peak exercise, measured prior to randomization. Results: Compared to patients without PVD (n=382), those with latent PVD (n=188) were older, had more atrial fibrillation and right heart dysfunction, and were more likely to have elevated LA pressure at rest. Shunt treatment was associated with worse outcomes in patients with PVD (win ratio 0.60, [95% CI 0.42, 0.86]; p=0.005) and signal of clinical benefit in patients without PVD (win ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.02, 1.68]; p=0.038). Patients with larger RA volumes and men had worse outcomes with the device, and both groups were more likely to have pacemakers, HFmrEF, and increased LA volume. For patients without latent PVD or pacemaker (n=313, 50% of randomized patients), shunt treatment resulted in more robust signal of clinical benefit (win ratio 1.51 [95% CI 1.14, 2.00]; p=0.004). Conclusions: In patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF, the presence of latent PVD uncovered by invasive hemodynamic exercise testing identifies patients who may worsen with atrial shunt therapy, whereas those without latent PVD may benefit