射血分数保留的老年心力衰竭患者的临床特征

目的:分析和比较射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFp EF)、射血分数中间值(HFmr EF)及射血分数降低的老年心力衰竭(HFr EF)患者临床特征的差异。方法:选取2017年9月至2018年8月哈尔滨市第一医院收治的老年慢性心力衰竭患者共287例,根据心动超声所测左室舒张末期内径(LVEF)值将其分为3组:HFpEF组175例、HFmr EF组50例和HFr EF组62例。比较各组患者一般情况、心动超声检查结果、血清学指标的差异。结果:(1)与HFr EF组患者比较,HFpEF组患者年龄、性别、吸烟史、体重指数(BMI)、原发冠心病、高血压、2型糖尿病患者比例、房颤发生率及心功能分级构成比均具有统计学差异(P0.05);(2)与HFr EF组相比较,HFpEF组患者的E/A比值,左房内径、肺动脉内径、LVEDD较小,而室间隔厚度较厚(P0.05);(3)与HFr EF组患者相比,HFpEF组血清总胆固醇、甘油三酯较高;血肌酐、血尿素氮、血尿酸、超敏C反应蛋白、N-末端脑钠肽前体水平较低,具有统计学差异(P0.05)。结论:老年HFpEF心力衰竭患者以女性居多,体重指数较大,以向心性肥胖为主,血压水平较高,心功能II级者比例高,有明显的舒张功能不全,易发生房性心律失常,房颤发生率高,主要病因为高血压。     

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。     

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.     

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。     

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。     

上胸段硬膜外阻滞治疗慢性心力衰竭合并房颤的临床研究

目的:比较上胸段硬膜外阻滞对有无合并房颤的扩张型心肌病心衰患者的疗效差异。方法:入选40例扩张型心肌病心衰患者,根据入院心电图有无房颤分为房颤组和非房颤组。所有患者均在抗心力衰竭常规治疗基础上,给予胸段硬膜外阻滞治疗4周,比较治疗前、后NYHA心功能分级、血浆N末端脑钠肽前体(NT-pro BNP)水平、左室射血分数(LVEF)、左室舒张期内径(LVEDD)及左房前后径(LAD)的变化情况。结果:与治疗前比较,两组患者经治疗后的NYHA心功能分级、NT-pro BNP、LVEF、LVEDD及LAD均明显改善(均P0.05),差异有统计学意义,但两组间各指标治疗前后的差值无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:对于慢性心力衰竭合并房颤的患者而言,给予抗心力衰竭常规治疗基础上联合上胸段硬膜外阻滞治疗有效,且房颤的存在与否不影响上胸段硬膜外阻滞的疗效。     

扩张型心肌病合并充血性心力衰竭的相关因素Logistic 分析

目的:寻找扩张型心肌病(DCM)合并充血性心力衰竭(CHF)的独立危险因素,为临床预防和治疗扩心病患者的病情提供依据。方法:选择我院收治的扩张型心肌病患者125例,按照NYHA分级分组,将心功能Ⅱ-Ⅳ级同时左心室射血分数(LVEF)<40%的患者91例定义为观察组;将心功能Ⅰ级同时左心室射血分数≥40%的患者34例定义为对照组。在比较两组临床资料的基础上,采用logistic多因素分析方法确立扩张型心肌病合并心力衰竭的独立危险因素。结果:单因素分析结果发现,观察组中的"房颤"及"脉压≥70mmHg"这两个参数比对照组的数量明显增多,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。logistic多因素分析发现"脉压≥70mmHg"、"房颤"是扩心病合并心力衰竭的独立危险因素。结论:"脉压≥70mmHg"、"房颤"是扩张型心肌病合并充血性心力衰竭的独立危险因素,需要在临床治疗扩心病患者时警惕这两项指标的异常。     

高龄老年心衰患者外周血淋巴细胞GRK2的表达研究

目的:观察高龄老年心衰患者外周血淋巴细胞GRK2的表达及其与心脏射血分数(EF)的关系。方法:选取80岁以上心衰患者16例,按EF分为两组:EF45%组(n=7),EF≥45%组(n=9),80岁以上高龄健康老人作为对照组(n=8),分别抽取外周血2ml,分离淋巴细胞,提取RNA,检测GRK2mRNA的表达。结果:EF45%组的高龄心衰患者外周血淋巴细胞GRK2mRNA的表达高于EF≥45%组(P0.05),且两组明显高于对照组。随着EF的减低,外周血淋巴细胞GRK2mRNA的表达增加。结论:随着EF的减低,高龄心衰患者外周血淋巴细胞GRK2mRNA的表达增加,外周血淋巴细胞GRK2的检测有助于判断高龄老年心衰患者心功能状况及临床治疗心衰疗效的判定。     

外周血单核细胞端粒长度和端粒酶hTERT 活性在心力衰竭中的变化研究

目的:探讨心力衰竭患者外周血单核细胞端粒长度和端粒酶h TERT活性在心衰发生进程中的变化情况和意义。方法:按照筛选要求选择患者,根据入选标准分为心衰组(49例)和非心衰组(44例)。记录患者的年龄、性别、生活习惯及疾病情况,超声检测患者心脏功能,测量左心室舒张末内径(LVEDD)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)。在不同时间点,抽取外周血分离单核细胞,用PCR方法检测端粒长度和端粒酶h TERT活性。结果:对照组比较,心衰组患者心脏左室舒张末内径明显增加,射血分数明显降低(P0.05);在第1、7天,心衰组患者外周血单核细胞端粒长度较对照组明显缩短、端粒酶h TERT活性明显增强。第7天较同组第1天端粒长度有所增加,端粒酶h TERT活性有所减低,但与对照组相比,端粒长度显著缩短,端粒酶h TERT显著增高(P0.05)。结论:心力衰竭后患者端粒长度和端粒酶h TERT活性明显变化,并随心衰发病具有一定波动,提示端粒和端粒酶可能参与了心衰发展进程。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

衰弱对老年射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者左室舒张功能、认知功能和跌倒风险的影响

摘要 目的：观察衰弱对老年射血分数保留的心力衰竭（HFpEF）患者左室舒张功能、认知功能和跌倒风险的影响。方法：选择2021年1月至 2022年11月期间西安交通大学第一附属医院收治的176例老年HFpEF患者。根据衰弱情况将患者分为非衰弱组（n=92）、衰弱前期组（n=48）、衰弱组（n=36）。对比三组左室舒张功能[左心室射血分数（LVEF）、二尖瓣Ｅ峰血流速度（E）/二尖瓣Ａ峰血流速度（A）、左室收缩末期内径（LVESD）、E/二尖瓣环间隔侧和侧壁侧平均组织多普勒速度（e''）、左室舒张末期内径（LVEDD）]、认知功能[简易智能精神状态检查量表（MMSE）、蒙特利尔认知评估量表（MoCA）]、跌倒风险[汉化的预防老年人意外、死亡、伤害工具（STEADI）评分]以及心脏不良事件总发生率。结果：三组LVEF、LVEDD、LVESD、E/A组间对比未见统计学差异（P>0.05）。衰弱组、衰弱前期组的E/e''高于非衰弱组，且衰弱组高于衰弱前期组（P<0.05）。衰弱组、衰弱前期组的MMSE、MoCA评分低于非衰弱组，且衰弱组低于衰弱前期组（P<0.05）。衰弱组、衰弱前期组的跌倒风险评分高于非衰弱组，且衰弱组高于衰弱前期组（P<0.05）。衰弱组、衰弱前期组的心脏不良事件总发生率高于非衰弱组，且衰弱组高于衰弱前期组（P<0.05）。结论：衰弱可在一定程度上影响老年HFpEF患者左室舒张功能，降低患者的认知功能，增加跌倒风险和心脏不良事件总发生率。     

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...     

心脏彩超评估高血压左心室肥厚伴左心衰竭患者心功能的临床价值及与NYHA分级的关系研究

目的:探讨心脏彩超评估高血压左心室肥厚(LVH)伴左心衰竭患者心功能的临床价值,分析其超声指标与美国纽约心脏病协会(NYHA)分级的相关性。方法:选择2017年5月至2018年5月我院收治的127例高血压LVH伴左心衰竭患者为观察组,根据NYHA分级将其分为NYHAⅡ级组(41例)、Ⅲ级组(47例)、Ⅳ级组(39例),另选择100例体检的健康志愿者为对照组。所有受试者均接受心脏彩超获得相关参数[左心房内径(LAD)、左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、左心室收缩末期内径(LVESD)、左心室短轴缩短率(LVFS)、左心室后壁厚度(LVPWT)、室间隔厚度(IVST)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、左心室舒张早期充盈峰最大充盈速度/舒张晚期充盈峰最大峰值速度(E/A)比值、Tei指数],分析心脏彩超相关参数与NYHA分级之间相关性。结果:观察组患者LAD、LVEDD、LVESD、LVPWT、IVST、Tei指数高于对照组(P0.05),LVFS、LVEF、E/A比值低于对照组(P0.05)。Tei指数随着NYHA分级增高而增高(P0.05),LVFS、LVEF、E/A比值随着NYHA分级增高而降低(P0.05)。Spearman秩相关分析结果显示,Tei指数与NYHA分级呈正相关(rs=0.398,P0.05),LVFS、LVEF、E/A比值与NYHA分级呈负相关(rs=-0.285,-0.442,-0.305,P0.05)。结论:高血压LVH伴左心衰竭患者发生明显左室肥厚和左心功能降低,心脏彩超可准确评估高血压LVH伴左心衰竭患者的心功能和病情严重程度,且部分心脏彩超相关参数与NYHA分级相关。