HFpEF、HFmrEF和HFrEF的临床特征及左心室重塑对比分析

目的:探讨射血分数保留的心衰(HFpEF)、射血分数中间范围的心衰(HFmr EF)和射血分数下降的心衰(HFr EF)患者临床特征及左心室重塑的差别。方法:选取2013年2月1日至2016年12月31日在我院心内住院的308名心力衰竭患者作为研究对象,根据入院后首次心脏彩超结果,按左室射血分数(LVEF)将入选的心力衰竭患者分为HFr EF组、HFmr EF组和HFpEF组,回顾性分析所有患者的临床一般资料、化验结果、超声数据和用药情况,对比分析3组患者的临床特征及左心室重塑的差别。结果:HFpEF组为123例(39.9%),HFmr EF组为98例(31.5%),HFr EF组为88例(28.6%);其中HFpEF组女性比例高于HFr EF组(59.4%vs.38.6%,P0.05),高血压和房颤患病率HFpEF组高于HFr EF组(P0.05);HFpEF组左心室重构类型以向心性重塑为主,HFr EF组则以离心性重塑为主;HFmr EF组女性比例及高血压、房颤患病率等临床特征及左心室重塑类型分布则介于HFpEF组与HFr EF之间。结论:HFpEF,HFmr EF与HFr EF组患者临床特点及左心室重塑类型分布显著不同,应对不同左室射血分数的心力衰竭患者采取更有针对性的治疗措施。     

诺欣妥联合心脏运动康复对射血分数降低的心力衰竭疗效的研究

目的:探讨诺欣妥联合心脏运动康复对射血分数降低(HFr EF)的心力衰竭(HF)的临床疗效。方法:将我院心内科于2018年1月～2019年4月收治的70例HFr EF患者随机分为两组,各35例。对照组均给予诺欣妥规范治疗,实验组在此基础上根据心肺运动测试(CPET)测得代谢当量制定个性化心脏运动康复,包括院内、院外心脏康复干预及定期随访,为期6个月。采用彩色心脏超声诊断仪、心肺运动测试(CPET)分析两组治疗前后心肺功能变化,同时观察住院及随访期间的预后情况。结果:治疗6个月后,两组左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、左室收缩末期内径(LVESD)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)均明显改善,且实验组显著优于对照组(P0.05)。治疗6个月后,实验组AT明显升高,峰值VO2/kg、峰值VO2水平均有一定程度上升,且明显优于对照组(P0.05)。与对照组比较,实验组90d内HF再住院率(8.6%vs.28.6%)、随访期间MACEs发生率(17.1%vs.40.0%)均显著降低(P0.05)。结论:诺欣妥联合心脏运动康复治疗可使HFr EF患者显著获益,在改善心肺功能、运动能力及近期预后方面疗效显著,可作为HFr EF患者的一线治疗方案。     

射血分数正常性心力衰竭的预后研究--- 附三年随访结果分析

目的:评价射血分数(EF)正常性心力衰竭患者的流行病学特点及其3年预后,并与EF降低性心力衰竭患者进行比较.方法:选择2005-1至2006-12二所三甲医院心内科收治的461例慢性心衰患者,根据入院时左室EF分为EF正常组(EF＞=50%)和EF降低组(EF＜50%),进行为期3年的电话随访;终点事件包括全因死亡、心衰加重再住院.结果:慢性心衰患者中EF正常234例(50.7%),与EF下降患者比较,这类患者中较为高龄、多为女性;病因多为瓣膜病、高血压病及房颤;随访结果显示二组患者的终点事件发生率并无明显差异(P=0.578),Cox回归分析对其它因素校正后发现,房颤(RR=1.301,95%CI:0.995-1.701,P＜0.05)、年龄(RR=1.012,95%CI:1.003-1.022,P＜0.05)是影响慢性心衰患者3年预后的主要因素.结论:在慢性心衰中,EF正常的患者预后与EF下降者相似,对这类病人同样应加强监测及治疗.     

血清SIRT1水平与射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者炎性因子、氧化应激的相关性分析及对预后的影响研究

摘要 目的：探讨血清去乙酰化酶1（SIRT1） 水平与射血分数保留的心力衰竭（HFpEF）患者炎性因子、氧化应激的相关性,分析SIRT1预测HFpEF患者预后的价值。方法：选择2019年10月至2021年6月青岛阜外心血管病医院收治的190例HFpEF患者为HFpEF组,92例心功能正常的健康体检志愿者为对照组。HFpEF患者出院后随访12个月,统计随访期间不良心血管事件发生情况,多因素Logistic回归分析HFpEF患者预后不良的影响因素。结果：HFpEF组血清SIRT1水平低于对照组（P＜0.05）,白细胞介素（IL）-6、肿瘤坏死因子-α（TNF-α）、C反应蛋白（CRP）、丙二醛（MDA）、晚期氧化蛋白产物（AOPP）水平高于对照组（P＜0.05）。HFpEF患者血清SIRT1水平与IL-6、TNF-α、CRP、MDA、AOPP呈负相关（r=-0.496、-0.502、-0.419、-0.533、-0.542,P＜0.05）。190例患者2例失访,余188例HFpEF患者中41例预后不良,147例预后良好。预后不良组美国纽约心脏病协会（NYHA）Ⅳ级比例、IL-6、TNF-α、CRP、MDA、AOPP、N末端B型利钠肽前体（NT-proBNP）水平、左室收缩末期内径（LVEDS）、左室舒张末期内径（LVEDD）、二尖瓣舒张早期血流峰值（E）与舒张晚期血流峰值（A）（E/A）高于预后良好组（P＜0.05）,血清SIRT1水平、左心室射血分数（LVEF）低于预后良好组（P＜0.05）。高IL-6、高MDA、高NT-proBNP是HFpEF患者预后不良的危险因素（P＜0.05）,SIRT1是HFpEF患者预后不良的保护因素（P＜0.05）。结论：HFpEF患者血清SIRT1水平降低,与HFpEF患者炎症反应、氧化应激以及预后不良的发生有关,可作为HFpEF患者预后评估的辅助指标。     

射血分数正常性心力衰竭的预后研究——附三年随访结果分析

目的：评价射血分数（EF）正常性心力衰竭患者的流行病学特点及其3年预后,并与EF降低性心力衰竭患者进行比较。方法：选择2005-1至2006-12二所三甲医院心内科收治的461例慢性心衰患者,根据入院时左室EF分为EF正常组（EF〉=50%）和EF降低组（EF〈50%）,进行为期3年的电话随访;终点事件包括全因死亡、心衰加重再住院。结果：慢性心衰患者中EF正常234例（50.7%）,与EF下降患者比较,这类患者中较为高龄、多为女性;病因多为瓣膜病、高血压病及房颤;随访结果显示二组患者的终点事件发生率并无明显差异（P=0.578）,Cox回归分析对其它因素校正后发现,房颤（RR=1.301,95%CI：0.995-1.701,P〈0.05）、年龄（RR=1.012,95%CI：1.003-1.022,P〈0.05）是影响慢性心衰患者3年预后的主要因素。结论：在慢性心衰中,EF正常的患者预后与EF下降者相似,对这类病人同样应加强监测及治疗。     

炎症在射血分数保留型心力衰竭中的作用研究进展

射血分数保留型心力衰竭(heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, HFpEF)是指以左心室舒张功能障碍为主要特征且射血分数保留的一种心力衰竭。随着人口老龄化的到来和高血压、肥胖、糖尿病等代谢性疾病的增多，HFpEF患病率持续升高。与射血分数降低型心力衰竭(heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF)相比，传统抗心力衰竭药物未能明显降低HFpEF的死亡率，这与HFpEF的病理生理学机制复杂且合并症多相关。已知HFpEF的心脏结构改变主要表现为心肌细胞肥大、心肌纤维化和左心室肥厚，且通常合并肥胖、糖尿病、高血压、肾功能不全等疾病，但这些合并症如何诱发心脏结构和功能损害尚不完全明确。近期研究表明免疫炎症反应在HFpEF进展中发挥重要作用，本文着重综述了炎症在HFpEF发生和发展中的病理作用研究进展及抗炎疗法在HFpEF中的应用进展，以期为HFpEF的深入研究和防治提供参考。     

糖尿病对射血分数保留心力衰竭患者血生化指标、心脏指标及生活质量的影响

摘要 目的：探讨糖尿病（DM）对射血分数保留心力衰竭（HFpEF）患者血生化指标、心脏指标及生活质量的影响。方法：选取2017年1月-2019年5月我院收治的246例HFpEF患者作为研究对象,根据是否并发DM分为DM-HFpEF组（n=98）和NDM-HFpEF组（n=148）,比较两组患者基线资料、血生化指标,采用超声心动图检测心功能参数,采用明尼苏达心力衰竭生活质量调查表（MLHFQ）评价患者的生活质量。结果：两组患者体重、收缩压、合并冠心病比例、合并高血压比例相比较,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05);与NDM-HFpEF组患者相比,DM-HFpEF组患者白细胞计数（WBC）、中性粒细胞计数（N）、血肌酐（Scr）、甘油三酯（TG）、空腹血糖（FBG）、餐后两小时血糖（2hPBG）、K⁺水平升高,血红蛋白（Hb）、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇（HDL-C）水平降低（P＜0.05);DM- HFpEF组舒张末期左心室容积指数（LVEDVI）低于NDM-HFpEF组患者,室间隔厚度(IVS)、左心室后壁厚度（PWTD）、E峰、E/e''高于NDM-HFpEF组患者,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05);DM- HFpEF组患者MLHFQ中体力限制、社会限制、情绪、经济维度评分及总分高于NDM-HFpEF组患者,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05)。结论：DM促进了HFpEF患者IVS、PWTD的增厚,降低了心脏舒张功能和患者的生活质量,且明显加重了HFpEF患者血糖血脂的代谢紊乱。     

芪苈强心胶囊辅助治疗射血分数保留的心力衰竭的临床研究

目的：探讨芪苈强心胶囊辅助治疗射血分数保留的心力衰竭的临床疗效。方法：选择我院2012年6月-12月收治的108例射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者并将其随机分为两组,其中对照组46例,给予西医常规抗心衰治疗,治疗组62例,在对照组基础上加用芪苈强心胶囊。分别于治疗前、治疗8周后分析和比较两组的舒张早期峰值血流速度（EV）、舒张晚期峰值血流速度（AV）、E/A、E峰减速时间（EDT）、等容舒张时间（IRT）、脑钠肽等指标。结果：治疗组和对照组的总有效率分别为93.5%和80.4%,治疗组显著高于对照组（P〈0.05）。治疗后,两组患者的舒张EV、AV、E/A、EDT、IRT、脑钠肽水平均较治疗前明显改善,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,且治疗组患者的E/A、EDT改善显著优于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。两组治疗过程中均无明显毒副反应发生。结论：芪苈强心胶囊辅助治疗能有效改善射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者的临床症状及其左室舒张功能。     

心电图QRS波时限、左室射血分数与老年心力衰竭患者心功能的关系及对心功能恶化的预测价值研究

目的：探讨心电图QRS波时限（QTcd）、左室射血分数（LVEF）与老年心力衰竭患者心功能的关系及对心功能恶化的预测价值。方法：选取我院2018年1月到2022年1月收治的150例老年心力衰竭患者作为研究对象,将所有患者应用NYHA分级进行分组,Ⅰ级26例,Ⅱ级37例,Ⅲ级例54,Ⅳ级33例。对所有患者进行心电图与心脏超声诊断,对比四组患者QRSd、LVEF水平,并应用Spearman相关分析法分析QRSd、LVEF与老年心力衰竭患者心功能的相关性。随后对所有患者在出院后维持12个月的随访,将发生急性心肌梗死、死亡的终点事件患者和NYHA分级与治疗前相比升高>1级的患者分为心功能恶化组（n=50）,将其余患者分为非心功能恶化组（n=100）,对比两个亚组患者临床一般情况及QRSd、LVEF表达,并应用logistic回归分析分析QRSd、LVEF对老年心力衰竭患者心功能恶化的预测价值。结果：不同心功能分级老年心力衰竭患者QRSd、LVEF表达对比差异显著,Ⅳ级患者QRSd水平高于Ⅲ级、Ⅱ级和Ⅰ级患者,Ⅳ级患者LVEF水平低于Ⅲ级、Ⅱ级和Ⅰ级患者（P<0.05）;Spearm...     

慢性心力衰竭合并心房颤动发病的相关机制研究

目的:慢性心力衰竭(Chronic Heart Failure,CHF)是心血管系统常见的疾病,威胁患者的生存周期及生活质量。本研究针对慢性心力衰竭合并房颤的临床特征,进一步探讨其发病机制,为临床治疗提供依据。方法:将80例慢性心力衰竭患者平均分为两组,心律正常的为窦性心律组,伴有心房颤动的作为房颤组。观察并比较两组的左心室射血分数(LVEF)和二尖瓣口舒张期流速(E/A)等心脏功能指标。结果:房颤组左心室射血分数(LVEF)为(0.42±0.08);二尖瓣口舒张期流速(E/A)为(0.65±0.22);左心房内径(LAD)为(53.4±8.2)mm。窦律组左心室射血分数(LVEF)为(0.45±0.09);二尖瓣口舒张期流速(E/A)为(0.72±0.17);左心房内径(LAD)为(46.7±7.9)mm。房颤组患者的LVEF和E/A值均低于窦律组,而LAD则明显高于窦律组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。房颤组醛固酮、血管紧张素(AngII)、脑钠肽(BNP)及超敏C反应蛋白(hs-CRP)均高于窦律组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:慢性心力衰竭合并房颤的发病与患者体内神经内分泌体液系统水平和心脏结构功能有关,具体发病机制需进一步深入研究。     

Proteomic profiling of epicardial fat in heart failure with preserved versus reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction

In order to explore the proteomic signatures of epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) related to the mechanism of heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF/HFmrEF) and heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a comprehensive proteomic analysis of EAT was made in HFrEF/HFmrEF (n = 5) and HFpEF (n = 5) patients with liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry experiments. The selected differential proteins were verified between HFrEF/HFmrEF (n = 20) and HFpEF (n = 40) by ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). A total of 599 EAT proteins were significantly different in expression between HFrEF/HFmrEF and HFpEF. Among the 599 proteins, 58 proteins increased in HFrEF/HFmrEF compared to HFpEF, whereas 541 proteins decreased in HFrEF/HFmrEF. Of these proteins, TGM2 in EAT was down-regulated in HFrEF/HFmrEF patients and was confirmed to decrease in circulating plasma of the HFrEF/HFmrEF group (p = 0.019). Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed plasma TGM2 could be an independent predictor of HFrEF/HFmrEF (p = 0.033). Receiver operating curve analysis indicated that the combination of TGM2 and Gensini score improved the diagnostic value of HFrEF/HFmrEF (p = 0.002). In summary, for the first time, we described the proteome in EAT in both HFpEF and HFrEF/HFmrEF and identified a comprehensive dimension of potential targets for the mechanism behind the EF spectrum. Exploring the role of EAT may offer potential targets for preventive intervention of HF.     

A comparison of clinical outcomes following atrial fibrillation ablation for heart failure patients with preserved or reduced left ventricular function: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThis review aims to determine if patients who undergo atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) do better, or worse or the same compared to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).MethodsA search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed using the search terms: “atrial fibrillation”, “ablation” and terms related to HFpEF and HFrEF in order to identify studies that evaluated one or more of i) AF recurrence, ii) periprocedural complications and iii) adverse outcomes at follow up for patients with HFpEF and HFrEF who underwent AF ablation. Data was extracted from included studies and statistically pooled to evaluate adverse events and AF recurrence.Results5 studies were included in this review and the sample size of the studies ranged from 91 to 521 patients with heart failure. There was no significant difference in the pooled rate for no AF or symptom recurrence after AF ablation comparing patients with HFpEF vs HFrEF (RR 1.07 95%CI 0.86–1.33, p = 0.15). The most common complications were access site complications/haematoma/bleeding which occurred in similar proportion in each group; HFpEF (3.1%) and HFrEF (3.1%). In terms of repeat ablations, two studies were pooled to yield a rate of 78/455 (17.1%) for HFpEF vs 24/279 (8.6%) for HFrEF (p = 0.001.ConclusionsHeart failure patients with preserved or reduced ejection fraction have similar risk of AF or symptom recurrence after AF ablation but two studies suggest that patients with HFpEF are more likely to have repeat ablations.     

Características y resultados tras un año en pacientes ancianos ingresados con insuficiencia cardiaca y fracción de eyección reducida,intermedia o conservada

IntroductionThe latest European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure (HF) guidelines define three types of HF according to the ejection fraction (EF): HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) when EF < 40%, HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), when EF 40-49%, and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) when EF ≥ 50%. The objective of this study was to analyse the characteristics and results of elderly patients hospitalised with HF according to the new classification using EF.MethodsA prospective study was carried out with 531 HF patients aged ≥ 75 years classified according to EF, and admitted in the geriatric wards of 6 hospitals in Spain. An analysis was performed on the demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as well as the morbidity and mortality at one year of follow-up.ResultsAs regards EF, 17.1% had HFrEF, 10% had HFmrEF, and 72.9% had HFpEF. Patients with HFmrEF were more similar to those with HFrEF in terms of a younger age, predominance of men, and previous admission due to HF. This was also the case with the use of drugs for neurohormonal blockade. Patients with HFrEF (compared to those with HFmrEF and HFpEF), had higher mortality (35.2%, 24.5%, and 25.6%, respectively), more readmissions for HF (17.6%, 15.1%, and 14.5%, respectively), and more events (61.5%, 45.3%, and 52.5%, respectively), although there were no significant differences. There were also no differences observed in the survival analysis between the EF groups and the time-dependent outcome variables.ConclusionsIn elderly patients hospitalised with HF, those classified as HFmrEF did not show any clear differences with respect to those with HFrEF or HFpEF. There were no differences in terms of morbidity and mortality.     

Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Background: A significant proportion of heart failure (HF) patients have preserved ejection fraction (EF). Considering that inflammation and oxidative stress are involved in HF evolution, we investigated lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (LpPLA2), an enzyme involved in these pathophysiologic processes in relation to EF.

Methods and results: The study included 208 HF patients and 20 healthy controls. HF patients with preserved EF (HFpEF) represented 42.31% of all HF patients. LpPLA2 activity was significantly increased in HF patients when compared with controls and was higher in HFpEF than in HF with reduced EF patients (HFrEF). The incidence of left ventricular hypertrophy was higher in HFpEF than in HFrEF (EF < 50).

Conclusion: Confirming its role as a marker of vascular inflammation, LpPLA2 seems to be a biomarker constantly correlated with HF, regardless of etiology. Elevated plasma values of LpPLA2 in HFpEF are consistent with the exacerbated inflammatory status.     

伊伐布雷定治疗高龄老年射血分数中间值心衰患者的疗效观察

目的 评价伊伐布雷定治疗高龄老年射血分数中间值心衰(HFmrEF)患者的临床疗效.方法 选择我院治疗的120例高龄老年HFmrEF患者,按随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组各60例,对照组给予规范化抗心衰治疗,观察组在此基础上加用伊伐布雷定治疗.随访6个月后,比较两组治疗前后静息心率(RHR)、氨基末端脑钠肽前体(NT-p...     

Biomarkers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Biomarkers are widely used and studied in heart failure. Most studies have described the utility and performance of biomarkers in sub-studies of randomised clinical trials, where the vast majority of the patients suffered from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and not with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). As a result, there is a scarcity of data describing the levels, dynamics, clinical and biochemical correlates, and biology of biomarkers in patients suffering from HFpEF, whereas HFpEF is in fact a very frequent clinical entity. This article discusses the value of different biomarkers in HFpEF. We describe various aspects of natriuretic peptide measurements in HFpEF patients, with a focus on diagnosis, prognosis and the risk prediction of developing heart failure. Further, we will discuss several emerging biomarkers such as galectin-3 and suppression of tumorigenicity 2, and recently discovered ones such as growth differentiation factor-15 and syndecan-1.     

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in women: the Dutch Queen of Hearts program

Heart failure (HF) poses a heavy burden on patients, their families and society. The syndrome of HF comes in two types: with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The latter is on the increase and predominantly present in women, especially the older ones. There is an urgent need for mortality-reducing drugs in HFpEF, a disease affecting around 5 % of those aged 65 years and over. HFpEF develops in patients with risk factors and comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, COPD, but also preeclampsia. These conditions are likely to drive microvascular disease with involvement of the coronary microvasculature, which may eventually evolve into HFpEF. Currently, the diagnosis of HFPEF relies mainly on echocardiography. There are no biomarkers that can help diagnose female microvascular disease or facilitate the diagnosis of (early stages of) HFpEF. Recently a Dutch consortium was initiated, Queen of Hearts, with support from the Netherlands Heart Foundation, with the aim to discover and validate biomarkers for diastolic dysfunction and HFpEF in women. These biomarkers come from innovative blood-derived sources such as extracellular vesicles and circulating cells. Within the Queen of Hearts consortium, we will pursue female biomarkers that have the potential for further evolution in assays with point of care capabilities. As a spin-off, the consortium will gain knowledge on gender-specific pathology of HFpEF, possibly opening up novel treatment options.     

沙库巴曲缬沙坦钠在射血分数降低的心力衰竭患者的临床研究

摘要 目的：观察沙库巴曲缬沙坦钠治疗射血分数降低的心力衰竭(heart failure with reduced ejection fraction,HFrEF)患者的效果。方法：选取2018年1月-2018年12月内蒙古自治区人民医院心脏中心心血管内科收治的90例HFrEF患者,随机分为观察组和对照组,每组45例。对照组患者常规抗心衰治疗,其中血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂（angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor,ACEI）为盐酸贝那普利;观察组患者将常规抗心衰治疗中的ACEI替换为沙库巴曲缬沙坦钠,两组患者均治疗1月。比较两组患者治疗的总有效率、血浆N端前脑钠肽（N-terminal pro-B-type natriaretic peptide,NT-proBNP）、血浆肌钙蛋白T（cardiac troponin T,cTnT）、肌酸激酶同工酶（creatine kinase isoenzymes,CK-MB）、左室舒张末期内径（left ventricular end-diastolic diameter,LVEDD）、左室收缩末期内径（left ventricular end systolic diameter,LVESD）、左室射血分数（left ventricular ejection fraction,LVEF）、6分钟步行距离（6 minutes walking distance,6MWD）及不良反应。结果：观察组患者临床疗效优于对照组（P<0.05）,NT-proBNP、cTnT、LVEDD和LVESD较对照组明显降低（P<0.05）,LVEF和6MWD 较对照组明显增加（P<0.05）;对照组血肌酐水平显著高于观察组（P<0.05）。结论：沙库巴曲缬沙坦钠治疗HFrEF临床疗效好,能有效改善心功能。