Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in patients with unexplained dyspnoea using left ventricular pressure-volume loops at rest and on exertion
Authors: Gessner R , Huebner A C , Schmeisser A , Steendijk P , Laufs U , Wachter R 
Published: October 2024

Abstract

Background
To date, diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging, especially in euvolaemic patients presenting with unexplained dyspnoea on exertion and reduced exercise capacity. A stepwise approach was introduced with the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm*, in which a relevant number of patients has to undergo invasive workup for a final judgement.

Purpose
The present study aimed to examine a population of patients with unexplained dyspnoea on exertion, using the diagnostic methods endorsed by the HFA-PEFF algorithm as well as left ventricular (LV) pressure-volume loops at rest, on exertion, and during caval occlusion, in order to identify and describe different phenotypes of HFpEF.

Methods
We prospectively included patients with unexplained dyspnoea on exertion, a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥ 50%, and without an obvious cause of the dyspnoea. All patients underwent a comprehensive invasive haemodynamic workup. After invasive rule-out of a haemodynamically relevant coronary artery stenosis, we performed a right heart catheterization at rest (R) and on exertion (E) with an arm ergometer. Real-time continuous pressure-volume loops were obtained using a 7-French conductance catheter at rest, on exertion, and under temporal preload reduction via partial occlusion of the vena cava inferior.

Results
Thirty patients were included. Two patients had to be excluded from further analysis (one due to a technical failure of the conductance catheter and one with severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure &gt; 200 mmHg) during the assessment). The 28 patients in this analysis had a mean age of 64.4±9.7 years and 57% were female. Eleven patients fulfilled invasively easily obtainable diagnostic criteria of HFpEF (mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (mPCWP) at rest ≥ 15 mmHg, exertional mPCWP ≥ 25 mmHg, LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) at rest ≥ 16 mmHg, or exertional LVEDP ≥ 25 mmHg) according to the current guideline*. An additional 15 patients had a normal mPCWP and LVEDP, but fulfilled diagnostic criteria for HFpEF measured by the conductance catheter (time constant of LV relaxation tau &gt; 48 ms and/ or chamber stiffness b &gt; 0.27). We referred to this group as "early HFpEF". Patients with early HFpEF had a significantly higher systolic blood pressure, a worse LV relaxation time, and were more likely to exhibit chronotropic insufficiency compared to the HFpEF group (Table 1). HFpEF patients were characterised by significantly higher natriuretic peptides, LVEDP on exertion, and LV stiffness compared to patients with early HFpEF (pressure-volume loops are depicted in Figure 1).

Conclusion
Invasive haemodynamic testing for HFpEF in patients with unexplained dyspnoea on exertion via right heart catheterization without obtaining LV pressure-volume loops had a false negative rate of 58%. Better detection, the prognosis, and treatment of this "early HFpEF" population warrants further research.Table 1Figure 1