Sex differences in heart failure patients assessed by combined echocardiographic and cardiopulmonary exercise testing

BackgroundWe aimed to test the differences in peak VO2 between males and females in patients diagnosed with heart failure (HF), using combined stress echocardiography (SE) and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET).MethodsPatients who underwent CPET and SE for evaluation of dyspnea or exertional intolerance at our institution, between January 2013 and December 2017, were included and retrospectively assessed. Patients were divided into three groups: HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HF with mildly reduced or reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFrEF), and patients without HF (control). These groups were further stratified by sex.ResultsOne hundred seventy-eight patients underwent CPET-SE testing, of which 40% were females. Females diagnosed with HFpEF showed attenuated increases in end diastolic volume index (P = 0.040 for sex × time interaction), significantly elevated E/e' (P < 0.001), significantly decreased left ventricle (LV) end diastolic volume:E/e ratio (P = 0.040 for sex × time interaction), and lesser increases in A-VO2 difference (P = 0.003 for sex × time interaction), comparing to males with HFpEF. Females diagnosed with HFmrEF/HFrEF showed diminished increases in end diastolic volume index (P = 0.050 for sex × time interaction), mostly after anaerobic threshold was met, comparing to males with HFmrEF/HFrEF. This resulted in reduced increases in peak stroke volume index (P = 0.010 for sex × time interaction) and cardiac output (P = 0.050 for sex × time interaction).ConclusionsCombined CPET-SE testing allows for individualized non-invasive evaluation of exercise physiology stratified by sex. Female patients with HF have lower exercise capacity compared to men with HF. For females diagnosed with HFpEF, this was due to poorer LV compliance and attenuated peripheral oxygen extraction, while for females diagnosed with HFmrEF/HFrEF, this was due to attenuated increase in peak stroke volume and cardiac output. As past studies have shown differences in clinical outcomes between females and males, this study provides an essential understanding of the differences in exercise physiology in HF patients, which may improve patient selection for targeted therapeutics

Heart Failure-Induced Brain Injury

Heart failure (HF) is a systemic illness with grave implications for bodily functions. The brain, among other vital organs, often suffers insults as a result of HF, and both anatomic and functional brain abnormalities were found in the HF population. This injury was demonstrated across a wide range of clinical conditions and cardiac functions and was shown to affect patients\u27 outcomes. Although reduced cardiac output and high burden of cardiovascular risk factors are the prevailing explanations for these findings, there are data showing the involvement of neurohormonal, nutritional, and inflammatory mechanisms in this complex process. Here, the authors review the suggested pathophysiology behind brain injury in HF, describe its effect on patients\u27 outcomes, offer a diagnostic approach, and discuss possible therapeutic options

Acute pulmonary pressure change after transition to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction

Aims Sacubitril/valsartan combines renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition with amplification of natriuretic peptides. In addition to well-described effects, natriuretic peptides exert direct effects on pulmonary vasculature. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) has not been fully defined. Methods and results This was a retrospective case-series of PAP changes following transition from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction and a previously implanted CardioMEMS (TM) sensor. Pre-sacubitril/valsartan and post-sacubitril/valsartan PAPs were compared for each patient by examining averaged consecutive daily pressure readings from 1 to 5 days before and after sacubitril/valsartan exposure. PAP changes were also compared between patients based on elevated trans-pulmonary gradients (trans-pulmonary gradient >= 12 mmHg) at time of CardioMEMS (TM) sensor implantation. The cohort included 18 patients, 72% male, mean age 60.1 +/- 13.6 years. There was a significant decrease in PAPs associated with transition from ACEI/ARB to sacubitril/valsartan. The median (interquartile range) pre-treatment and post-treatment change in mean, systolic and diastolic PAPs were -3.6 (-9.8, -0.7) mmHg (P < 0.001), -6.5 (-15.0, -2.0) mmHg (P = 0.001), and -2.5 (-5.7, -0.7) (P = 0.001), respectively. The decrease in PAPs was independent of trans-pulmonary gradient (F(1,16) = 0.49, P = 0.49). Conclusions In this retrospective case series, transition from ACEI/ARB to sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an early and significant decrease in PAPs

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Myocarditis vs. COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis—Same or Different?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine-induced myocarditis possibly share common mechanisms secondary to overactivation of the immune system. We aimed to compare the presenting characteristics of ICIs and COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis. We performed a retrospective analysis of characteristics of patients diagnosed with either ICIs or COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis and compared the results to a control group of patients diagnosed with acute viral myocarditis. Eighteen patients diagnosed with ICIs (ICI group) or COVID-19 vaccine (COVID-19 vaccine group)-induced myocarditis, and 20 patients with acute viral myocarditis (Viral group) were included. The ICI group presented mainly with dyspnea vs. chest pain and fever among the COVID-19 vaccine and Viral groups. Peak median high sensitivity Troponin I was markedly lower in the ICI group (median 619 vs. 15,527 and 7388 ng/L, p = 0.004). While the median left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was 60% among all groups, the ICI group had a lower absolute mean LV global longitudinal strain (13%) and left atrial conduit strain (17%), compared to the COVID-19 vaccine (17% and 30%) and Viral groups (18% and 37%), p = 0.016 and p = 0.001, respectively. Despite a probable similar mechanism, ICI-induced myocarditis’s presenting characteristics differed from COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis