The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated

Multimodality imaging in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: an expert consensus document of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging

Nearly half of all patients with heart failure (HF) have a normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and the condition is termed heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). It is assumed that in these patients HF is due primarily to LV diastolic dysfunction. The prognosis in HFpEF is almost as severe as in HF with reduced EF (HFrEF). In contrast to HFrEF where drugs and devices are proven to reduce mortality, in HFpEF there has been limited therapy available with documented effects on prognosis. This may reflect that HFpEF encompasses a wide range of different pathological processes, which multimodality imaging is well placed to differentiate. Progress in developing therapies for HFpEF has been hampered by a lack of uniform diagnostic criteria. The present expert consensus document from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) provides recommendations regarding how to determine elevated LV filling pressure in the setting of suspected HFpEF and how to use multimodality imaging to determine specific aetiologies in patients with HFpEF.Cardiolog

Scar imaging in the dyssynchronous left ventricle: Accuracy of myocardial metabolism by positron emission tomography and function by echocardiographic strain

International audiencePurpose: Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is reduced in patients with high left ventricular (LV) scar burden, in particular when scar is located in the LV lateral wall or septum. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can identity scar, but is not feasible in all patients. This study investigates if myocardial metabolism by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and contractile function by echocardiographic strain are alternatives to LGE-CMR. Methods: In a prospective multicenter study, 132 CRT candidates (91% with left bundle branch block) were studied by speckle tracking strain echocardiography, and 53 of these by FDG-PET. Regional myocardial FDG metabolism and peak systolic strain were compared to LGE-CMR as reference method. Results: Reduced FDG metabolism (andlt;70% relative) precisely identified transmural scars (≥50% of myocardial volume) in the LV lateral wall, with area under the curve (AUC) 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90–1.00). Reduced contractile function by strain identified transmural scars in the LV lateral wall with only moderate accuracy (AUC = 0.77, CI 0.71–0.84). However, absolute peak systolic strain andgt;10% could rule out transmural scar with high sensitivity (80%) and high negative predictive value (96%). Neither FDG-PET nor strain identified septal scars (for both, AUC andlt; 0.80). Conclusions: In CRT candidates, FDG-PET is an excellent alternative to LGE-CMR to identify scar in the LV lateral wall. Furthermore, preserved strain in the LV lateral wall has good accuracy to rule out transmural scar. None of the modalities can identify septal scar. Clinical trial registration: The present study is part of the clinical study “Contractile Reserve in Dyssynchrony: A Novel Principle to Identify Candidates for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRID–CRT)”, which was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02525185). © 2022 The Author(s