This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 107/5/714    most recent 01.CIR.0000048123.22359.A0v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kawaguchi, M. Articles by Kass, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kawaguchi, M. Articles by Kass, D. A. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Heart Failure Related Collections Cardio-renal physiology/pathophysiology Other heart failure Congestive Hypertrophy Clinical Studies Related Article

(Circulation. 2003;107:714.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.

Clinical Investigation and Reports

Combined Ventricular Systolic and Arterial Stiffening in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Implications for Systolic and Diastolic Reserve Limitations

Miho Kawaguchi, MD; Ilan Hay, MD; Barry Fetics, MSE; David A. Kass, MD

From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md.

Correspondence to David A. Kass, MD, Halsted 500, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287. E-mail dkass{at}bme.jhu.edu

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
Background— Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HF-nlEF) is common in aged individuals with systolic hypertension and is frequently ascribed to diastolic dysfunction. We hypothesized that such patients also display combined ventricular-systolic and arterial stiffening that can exacerbate blood pressure lability and diastolic dysfunction under stress.

Methods and Results— Left ventricular pressure-volume relations were measured in patients with HF-nlEF (n=10) and contrasted with asymptomatic age-matched (n=9) and young (n=14) normotensives and age- and blood pressure-matched controls (n=25). End-systolic elastance (stiffness) was higher in patients with HF-nlEF (4.7±1.5 mm Hg/mL) than in controls (2.1±0.9 mm Hg/mL for normotensives and 3.3±1.0 mm Hg/mL for hypertensives; P<0.001). Effective arterial elastance was also higher (2.6±0.5 versus 1.9±0.5 mm Hg/mL) due to reduced total arterial compliance; the latter inversely correlated with end-systolic elastance (P=0.0001). Body size and stroke volumes were similar and could not explain differences in ventricular-arterial stiffening. HF-nlEF patients also displayed diastolic abnormalities, including higher left ventricular end-diastolic pressures (24.3±4.6 versus 12.9±5.5 mm Hg), caused by an upward-shifted diastolic pressure-volume curve. However, isovolumic relaxation and the early-to-late filling ratio were similar in age- and blood pressure-matched controls. Ventricular-arterial stiffening amplified stress-induced hypertension, which worsened diastolic function, and predicted higher cardiac energy costs to provide reserve output.

Conclusion— Patients with HF-lnEF have systolic-ventricular and arterial stiffening beyond that associated with aging and/or hypertension. This may play an important pathophysiological role by exacerbating systemic load interaction with diastolic function, augmenting blood pressure lability, and elevating cardiac metabolic demand under stress.

Key Words: heart failure • diastole • compliance • aging • hypertension

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
Congestive heart failure is predominantly a disease of the elderly, with nearly half of patients having a preserved ejection fraction (>50%; HF-nlEF).^1,2 Rehospitalization rates and prognosis are similar in patients with HF-nlEF to those in patients with systolic failure,^3,4 although symptoms are often more labile in the former, with abrupt-onset pulmonary edema, systolic hypertension, and greater volume-diuretic sensitivity.^2,5 Although mechanisms for HF-nlEF remain incompletely understood, diastolic dysfunction is thought to play a dominant role.^6–8 However, diastolic abnormalities are also common in elderly hypertensive individuals without heart failure,⁹ and they are generally not good predictors of exertional dyspnea with systolic failure.¹⁰ Furthermore, arterial hypertension, pressure lability, and paroxysmal symptoms in HF-nlEF are hard to ascribe purely to diastolic dysfunction.

See p 656

Another factor that may contribute to HF-nlEF pathophysiology is abnormal ventricular-arterial interaction due to stiffening of both systems. Vascular stiffness rises with age and hypertension,¹¹ which are both common features of HF-nlEF patients. Hundley et al¹² reported reduced aortic distensibility in HF-nlEF beyond that predicted by age that correlated with exercise intolerance. LV systolic stiffening (end-systolic elastance, E_es) also rises with age and, combined with artery stiffening, it can greatly amplify the effects of even small changes in blood volume on arterial pressure and cardiac workload.¹³ Systolic-ventricular and arterial stiffening could influence diastole by elevating systolic load to prolong relaxation, compromise filling, and raise end-diastolic pressure (EDP).¹⁴

The present study used pressure-volume (PV) analysis to test the hypothesis that HF-nlEF patients have increased systolic-ventricular and vascular stiffening above that predicted by age, body size, heart volume, and blood pressure. We further directly examined diastolic PV relations to clarify mechanisms of diastolic dysfunction and to provide experimental and theoretic analysis to support a role for coupled ventricular-arterial stiffening in limiting both systolic and diastolic reserve.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
Study Population
Four patient groups were studied. HF-nlEF patients (n=10) had chronic NYHA class II/III symptoms responsive to diuretics and were referred for cardiac catheterization to assess dyspnea, with 6 having a recent hospitalization for rapid-onset pulmonary edema. None had significant coronary artery or valvular disease, regional wall-motion abnormalities, or restriction/constriction (as based on right/left heart catheterization). EF was >50% (echo or ventriculogram) within 72 hours of symptoms. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was not required but was confirmed in 6 subjects (cardiac mass/body surface area 125g/m² and/or mean wall thickness >1.1 cm⁸). LVH was not definitively ascertained in 2 subjects, although neither had LVH by history, prior echocardiograms, or ECG.

Three nonfailure control groups were also studied: those <50 years with normal LV function (n=14; young normotensive controls); those 50 years with normal LV function (n=9; age-matched normotensive controls); and those 50 years with hypertension (systolic blood pressure >140 mm Hg; pulse pressure >60 mm Hg; n=25; CON-HTN). All but CON-HTN groups underwent invasive PV analysis by conductance/micromanometer catheter.¹⁵ Invasive studies (all groups) were performed between 1987 and 2001, with all patients fulfilling appropriate entry criteria used for analysis. Some of these data have been previously reported in other studies and contexts.^13,15 Young and age-matched control subjects were referred for atypical chest pain syndrome and had insignificant coronary artery disease, no LVH or valvular disease, and normal EF. CON-HTN subjects also had no history of coronary artery or myocardial disease. They were assessed noninvasively as part of a recent pharmacology study.¹⁶

Invasive PV Analysis
PV catheterization was performed as described previously.¹⁵ The volume signal was calibrated by matching catheter to thermodilution cardiac output and catheter to ventriculogram EF. This minimizes absolute volume image-estimation errors and couples thermodilution to simultaneous catheter data. Data were obtained at rest and during preload reduction via balloon obstruction of inferior vena caval inflow (NuMed). In 8 controls and 6 HF-nlEF patients, PV data were also obtained after sustained handgrip exercise (n=11; 2 to 5 minutes) or supine bicycle exercise (n=3; 3 to 10 minutes).

Noninvasive Analysis
CON-HTN subjects were not referred for catheterization, so data were obtained noninvasively. LV end-systolic elastance (E_es) was derived from arm-cuff pressures, echo-Doppler derived stroke volume (Philips, Sonos 5500), time intervals at onset and end-ejection, and EF.¹⁷ Stroke volume (SV) was the product of aortic outflow velocity-time integral (apical view) times cross-sectional area. The E/A filling-ratio was assessed using standard methods. M-mode and 2D echocardiograms were obtained in CON-HTN and HF-nlEF patients to assess wall thickness and mass. These data were not available for all young and age-matched normotensive control subjects, but none of these patients had documented LVH by ECG, history, or catheterization.

Data Analysis
For invasive studies, E_es was derived from multiple PV loops employing perpendicular regression.¹⁸ This relation can be curvilinear over a full loading range, thus yielding apparent negative volume-intercepts; however, nonlinearity was rarely manifest in the measured range. Noninvasive E_es was estimated by the following formula: E_es=(P_d-[E_ndxP_s])/(E_ndxSV), where E_nd is the predicted time-amplitude normalized-elastance at the onset of ejection and P_d and P_s are arm-cuff diastolic and systolic pressure, respectively.¹⁷ Diastolic PV relations were obtained from mid to late diastolic points from multiple end-expiratory beats at varying preloads and fit to the following elastic model: Pressure=P_o+(e^ßV-1), with chamber stiffness coefficient ß and pressure-offset P_o.¹⁹ Fits were also made to rest beats (before inferior vena cava occlusion) using the full filling period.

Effective arterial elastance (E_a) was the ratio of end-systolic pressure (ESP) to SV,²⁰ with ESP measured or estimated noninvasively (CON-HTN) as recently validated.¹⁷ Total arterial compliance was calculated from measured or estimated (transformed radial tonometry²¹) central aortic pressures using a Windkessel model.²¹ Isovolumic relaxation was quantified by an exponential model with non-zero asymptote. Systemic vascular resistance was the ratio of mean arterial pressure (measured aortic pressure or estimated from cuff pressure) to cardiac output.

Data in the text and table are presented as mean±SD. Between-group comparisons were performed by ANOVA, with a Tukey test for multiple comparisons.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
Patient Demographics and Hemodynamics
CON-HTN and HF-nlEF individuals had similar ages and systolic, mean, and pulse pressures (Table). HF-nlEF subjects were predominantly women, had slightly higher resting EF, and greater mean LV wall thicknesses. All groups had similar SV. Heart rate was slightly lower in CON-HTN, which may have reflected the noninvasive setting. Height, weight, and body surface areas were similar between HF-nlEF and the other groups. Concurrent medications included ß-blockers and/or calcium channel blockers, particularly in CON-HTN and HF-nlEF patients. Few subjects had diabetes mellitus.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Hemodynamic Characteristics of Patient Groups

Ventricular-Vascular Stiffening in HF-nlEF
Figure 1A displays representative PV relations from a normotensive control and HF-nlEF patient and shows marked E_es and E_a elevation in the latter subject. For the group data, E_es was >2-fold higher than normotensive controls and nearly 50% greater than CON-HTN (Figure 1B; E_es: HF-nlEF, 4.7±1.5 mm Hg/mL; CON-HTN, 3.3±1.0 mm Hg/mL; young and age-matched normotensives, 2.1±0.88 mm Hg/mL; P<0.00001). E_a was 2.6±0.5 mm Hg/mL in HF-nlEF versus 1.9±0.5 mm Hg/mL in other groups (P<0.0001). E_es and E_a directly correlated (Figure 1C). However, coupling-ratio (E_es/E_a) declined in both CON-HTN and HF-nlEF similarly (versus normotensive controls); thus, E_es and E_a increase rather than abnormal coupling best identified symptomatic patients.

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Increased Ees and Ea in patients with HF-nlEF. A, Example PV data in a control (age 65 years) and HF-nlEF patient (age 66 years). There is near matching of Ees and Ea in the control patient, but both are increased with a disproportionate rise in Ees in HF-nlEF. B, Group data for Ees and Ea. C (left), Correlation of Ees and Ea (P<0.00001; r=0.8; regression model including patient group as covariate). C (right), Ea/Ees coupling ratio. Both CON-HTN and HF-nlEF patients had significantly lower ratios versus normotensive controls. *P<0.005; P<0.03 vs young (CON-y) and age-matched (CON-o) normotensive controls; P<0.005 vs CON-HTN.

E_a is influenced by systemic vascular resistance, heart rate, and pulsatile load.²⁰ Systemic vascular resistance did not significantly differ between HF-nlEF and controls (Table), and heart rate was similar in all but CON-HTN patients. To assess pulsatile load more directly, total arterial compliance was determined (Figure 2A). Even after adjusting for mean arterial pressure, SV, and body size (and/or weight), compliance was significantly lower in CON-HTN and HF-nlEF groups versus controls (P<0.0001) and was reduced more in HF-nlEF than in CON-HTN patients (P<0.05). Compliance inversely correlated with E_es (Figure 2B; regression model including body surface area and SV), with further elevation in E_es due to the presence of HF-nlEF (P<0.05).

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. A, Total arterial compliance (Ca) is reduced in CON-HTN and HF-nlEF patients vs young (CON-y) and age-matched (CON-o) normotensive controls but is even lower in HF-nlEF vs CON-HTN patients. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was only slightly different between HF-nlEF and young normotensive controls. *P<0.001 vs all normotensive controls; P<0.05 vs CON-HTN. B, Inverse correlation between Ca and LV Ees. Symbols are as in Figure 1C. Compliance is a significant predictor of Ees (P<0.0001, r=0.65) in a multivariate model including body surface area and SV.

Diastolic Function in HF-nlEF
HF-nlEF patients had higher EDP than controls (24.3±4.6 versus 12.9±5.5 mm Hg; P<0.001) yet similar isovolumic relaxation rates (Figure 3A). The E:A ratio was lower in both CON-HTN and HF-nlEF subjects versus normotensive controls and so did not distinguish between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (Figure 3A). However, end-diastolic pressure-volume relations (EDPVR) were abnormal in HF-nlEF patients by being shifted significantly upward in both early and late diastole. Figure 3B shows data from a HF-nlEF subject and displays both the resting curve and data obtained from multiple beats at varying preloads after internal vena cava obstruction. Rest data were generally shifted above that measured after right ventricular unloading, particularly during initial filling. From these data, both pressure offset (P_o; 9.3±5.2 versus -0.52±5.9 mm Hg; P<0.0001) and chamber stiffness (ß; 0.06±0.03 versus 0.036±0.2; P<0.02) were higher in HF-nlEF than controls (Figure 3C). The latter correlated with LV mass (P<0.05). P_o derived from the multibeat analysis was less, but still greater in HF-nlEF than controls (5.4±5.6 versus -0.61±4.0 mm Hg; P<0.002). However, ß from these data no longer differed between groups (0.03±0.01 versus 0.029±0.01 mL^-1; P=0.8).

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. A, Mean group data for EDP, relaxation time constant (Tau), and early/late filling ratio (E:A). *P<0.001 vs young (CON-y) and age-matched (CON-o) normotensive controls. B, Example of diastolic PV data and fits from resting steady state beat (SS) and multibeat analysis after internal vena cava obstruction (MB). Steady-state data were typically shifted upward and were more abruptly nonlinear due to pressure elevation in the early filling phase. C, Summary data for end-diastolic volume PV relation exponential fits from steady-state and multibeat analyses. Data for all normotensive controls were very similar and were therefore combined (CON). *P<0.001; P<0.02.

Coupling Ventricular/Arterial Stiffening and Diastolic Function
Combined ventricular-arterial stiffening augments systolic pressures at higher loads¹³ and could thus adversely impact diastolic relaxation and pressure.¹⁴ Figure 4 shows PV data from example HF-nlEF patients before and during hand grip exercise, revealing a hypertensive response concordant with the high basal E_es, and elevated EDP during stress. On average, ESP rose to 200.5±12.3 mm Hg, EDP to 32.3±8.6 mm Hg, and relaxation time to 85.7±23.1 ms (all P<0.05 versus baseline). Unlike baseline, relaxation during exercise was significantly longer in HF-nlEF patients than controls (58.9±21 ms; P<0.05); the latter group also generated a lower ESP (169±24 mm Hg; P<0.01 versus HF-nlEF). Analysis of only handgrip exercise (used in the majority of subjects) yielded similar disparities (ie, ESP=202±1 mm Hg and tau=95.4±18.2 ms in HF-nlEF patients versus 166±24 mm Hg and 55.6±20.1 ms in controls; P<0.01 for both versus HF-nlEF).

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. PV relations before (dashed line) and after (dark solid line) sustained isometric handgrip in 2 patients with HF-nlEF. Baseline loops display elevated Ees and Ea, predicting the marked hypertensive response with loading. This was accompanied by increased EDP and prolonged relaxation (see text), supporting a mechanism whereby ventricular-arterial stiffening could couple to diastolic dysfunction.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
Heart failure with preserved systolic function is fairly common, yet its pathophysiology remains uncertain. Most studies have focused on diastolic abnormalities, and the term diastolic heart failure is often used synonymously. Although diastolic parameters are often abnormal,⁸ they are not necessarily the sole or dominant factors defining dysfunction, nor do they necessarily guarantee clinical heart failure²² or exertional dyspnea.¹⁰ Furthermore, having a preserved EF does not automatically imply that systolic function is normal, as demonstrated by the increased systolic stiffening found in HF-nIEF patients in the present investigation. Recent studies have begun exploring other contributors, such as arterial stiffening,¹² although the role of hypertension per se in this change has remained unclear. The present study provides evidence supporting both vascular and ventricular-systolic stiffening in these patients and demonstrates that both abnormalities cannot be simply ascribed to age, body size, SV, or arterial pressure differences. These findings may better explain common features of HF-nlEF and help broaden its pathophysiological and therapeutic focus.

Pathophysiology of Systolic-Ventricular and Arterial Stiffening
Combined systolic-ventricular and arterial stiffening can influence cardiovascular function in several ways. First, a high basal E_es blunts contractile reserve, because further increase coupled to positive inotropy is limited and has only modest effects on net ejection. Whether a high basal E_es itself reflects intrinsic contractility is less clear, because structural changes from hypertrophy or fibrosis can also increase E_es.¹⁵ Second, high E_es and E_a augment systolic pressure sensitivity to cardiac loading,^13,23 exacerbating hypertensive responses during exertion. Verapamil lowers both paremeters,²⁴ thus enhancing aerobic exercise capacity in the elderly.²⁵ Enhanced sensitivity of blood pressure to circulating volume and diuretics is common in HF-nlEF patients and may trigger rapid-onset pulmonary edema.⁵ Although ascribed to low LV diastolic compliance, similar blood pressure sensitivity is not observed in systolic-depression with elevated EDP. Rather, combined ventricular-systolic/arterial stiffening more directly predicts enhanced pressure-load dependence,¹³ perhaps favoring blood redistribution into more compliant pulmonary veins.

Another consequence of ventricular-arterial stiffening may be increased cardiac energy costs to provide blood flow. Arterial stiffening raises myocardial oxygen consumption for a given SV,²⁶ and ventricular systolic stiffening amplifies this effect. As shown by model analysis (Figure 5), higher E_es and/or E_a increase the cardiac energy cost to deliver a given increase in SV. On the basis of the present data, this energy cost is predicted to be >50% higher HF-nlEF versus controls and might limit reserve in those with concomitant heart or coronary artery disease.

View larger version (68K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Model-based prediction of cardiac energy cost to increase SV as a function of systolic-ventricular (Ees) and effective arterial (Ea) stiffnesses. The model is based on definition equations23 [ESP=Ees(EDV-SV-Vo) and ESP=EaxSV] to predict total PV area {PVA; sum of stroke work and potential energy33: 0.5xEa[SV2+SV(EDV-Vo)]}, which at constant end-diastolic volume (EDV) and volume-intercept (Vo) is differentiated with respect to SV to yield an expression for the change in PV area for a given change in SV: d(PVA)/dSV=EaxEes(EDV-Vo)/[(Ea+Ees)+Ea(EDV-Vo)/2]. This equation is plotted as a 3D surface in the figure and shows how increasing Ea or Ees elevates the metabolic cost of raising SV. Measured Ees-Ea values define the placement of each group on this surface. Unlike the controls, HF-nlEF patients have a greater predicted cardiac energy cost of providing cardiac output increases. Con-o indicates age-matched normotensive controls; Con-y, young normotensive controls.

Finally, increased ventricular-arterial stiffening and the consequent rise in systolic pressure during stress can worsen diastolic function, as demonstrated by the exercise data. Cardiac relaxation is delayed by elevated systolic pressure and can translate into increased EDP.¹⁴ Elevated E_es and E_a in HF-nlEF patients likely exacerbate hypertensive stress responses (Figure 4), delaying relaxation, limiting filling, and raising diastolic pressures.

Diastolic Dysfunction in HF-nlEF
The majority of evidence supporting diastolic dysfunction in HF-nlEF is based on noninvasive analysis, revealing relaxation delay, increased velocity of E-wave deceleration, and an E:A velocity ratio <1.0.^8,27 As in the present study, the latter is often found in asymptomatic elderly and/or hypertensive individuals²² and is thus less specific. Invasive data are limited, but recent studies have shown a high prevalence of EDP elevation >16 mm Hg (92%) and relaxation delay (79%).⁸ HF-nlEF patients in the present study also had elevated EDP, although relaxation decay was more variable. The latter may relate to a lower incidence of LVH and to relaxation analysis incorporating a non-zero pressure decay asymptote. Elevation of EDPVR, and thus P_o, increases the derived relaxation constant when zero-pressure decay is assumed.¹⁹

Far less is known about the diastolic PV curve in HF-nlEF, and although it is assumed to be steeper,⁶ there are very few data to confirm this. Kitzman et al²⁸ found that exercise intolerance in HF-nlEF patients was associated with higher EDP at a similar end-diastolic volume, suggesting failure of the Frank-Starling mechanism. Similar changes were observed in the present study (Figure 4). Yet, such EDPVR shifts are more often due to higher extrinsic forces coupling right-left heart pressure¹⁹ than to intrinsic stiffening. The present study assessed EDPVR from both rest-data and multiple cycles measured after right heart/pericardial unloading. At rest (condition that EDP is usually measured), the EDPVR was shifted upward (increased P_o), with a higher ß stiffness coefficient. Elevation of the early filling phase of this relation may reflect loading influences on relaxation,¹⁴ but may also be ascribed to higher left atrial pressures that determine the pressure at mitral valve opening (ie, onset of filling). Both P_o and ß declined when derived from the data measured with right ventricular unloading, with no residual difference in ß between HF-nlEF and controls; this highlights the importance of loading conditions to the resting EDPVR. One potential source of such loading in HF-nlEF is enlargement of epicardial volumes from wall thickening with normal cavity volumes.²⁹ Right heart pressures were not available to assess this offset directly, but the decline in P_o between rest and internal vena cava occlusion data supports this mechanism.³⁰ Clearly, diastolic dysfunction was present in HF-nlEF patients as well, but the precise nature of EDPVR changes were somewhat different to that generally held, and suggested a more prominent role of loading.

Study Comparisons and Limitations
There are some differences between the present study and recently reported data that deserve comment. LVH was documented in 60% of the HF-nlEF subjects, whereas it was required for entry in the study of Zile et al,⁸ and this may explain some disparities. However, nearly a third of the asymptomatic CON-HTN subjects also met LVH criteria. Thus, although common, LVH is not required for HF-nlEF. In addition, HF-nlEF patients were somewhat younger in our study than in other reports,^1,2,31 although they were very similar to populations in others.⁸

The present study has several limitations. A methodological one is that CON-HTN subjects were not studied invasively. These patients had no primary indication for catheterization, and hypertensive individuals of advanced age with normal hearts and coronary arteries are rarely referred to our invasive laboratory. Although this necessitated noninvasive analysis, these methods have been validated against invasive measures, showing excellent correlation without systematic bias.¹⁷ Mean arterial pressure was estimated from systolic/diastolic cuff data in CON-HTN. However, comparisons of this approach to actual waveform means (invasive studies) yielded a strong correlation (P<10^-8; r=0.94; slope=0.99). We could not rule out effects of chronic medications on measured systolic and diastolic function. However, if anything, HF-nlEF patients were more likely treated with one or both of a ß-adrenergic or Ca²⁺-channel blocker, both of which reduce E_es and may lower E_a as well.²⁴ Estimation of chamber stiffness from diastolic curves has limitations given that the equilibrium volume cannot be precisely determined in the intact heart. Finally, the control groups did not fully reflect features observed in the HF-nlEF patients, for example, the female sex bias, and this could have contributed to the findings. Although E_es and E_a are reportedly higher in women (of similar age to subjects in the present study),³² this difference is far less than observed in the HF-nlEF patients (ie, E_es of 2.65 versus 1.96). Importantly, higher E_es and E_a in women occurred with smaller heart sizes and SVs,³² whereas neither differed among groups in the present study.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
HF-nlEF is not solely a diastolic disease but is also characterized by systolic-ventricular and arterial stiffening and, thus, adverse coupling between the systems. This may more directly explain the systemic pressure lability and diuretic sensitivity that is commonly observed. By limiting mechanisms of cardiovascular reserve, exacerbating diastolic abnormalities, and potentially raising cardiac energy demand, combined stiffening may play an important pathophysiological role in this disorder. To date, no specific therapies have been proven to benefit this form of heart failure, although several trials are now underway to address this. Expanding the conceptual view of HF-nlEF to include abnormal cardiac-arterial coupling and testing the impact of reducing heart/arterial stiffening in these patients should further help in the search for such therapies.

Received August 9, 2002; revision received October 24, 2002; accepted October 28, 2002.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 

1. Vasan RS, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, et al. Congestive heart failure in subjects with normal versus reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: prevalence and mortality in a population-based cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 33: 1948–1955.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
2. Kitzman DW, Gardin JM, Gottdiener JS, et al. Importance of heart failure with preserved systolic function in patients 65 years of age: CHS Research Group Cardiovascular Health Study. Am J Cardiol. 2001; 87: 413–419.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
3. Senni M, Redfield MM. Heart failure with preserved systolic function: a different natural history? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 1277–1282.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
4. Tsutsui H, Tsuchihashi M, Takeshita A. Mortality and readmission of hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure and preserved versus depressed systolic function. Am J Cardiol. 2001; 88: 530–533.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
5. Gandhi SK, Powers JC, Nomeir AM, et al. The pathogenesis of acute pulmonary edema associated with hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 17–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Zile MR, Brutsaert DL. New concepts in diastolic dysfunction and diastolic heart failure, part II: causal mechanisms and treatment. Circulation. 2002; 105: 1503–1508.[Free Full Text]
   
7. Vasan RS, Levy D. Defining diastolic heart failure: a call for standardized diagnostic criteria. Circulation. 2000; 101: 2118–2121.[Free Full Text]
   
8. Zile MR, Gaasch WH, Carroll JD, et al. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction: is measurement of diastolic function necessary to make the diagnosis of diastolic heart failure? Circulation. 2001; 104: 779–782.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
9. Kitzman DW. Diastolic dysfunction in the elderly: genesis and diagnostic and therapeutic implications. Cardiol Clin. 2000; 18: 597–617.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
   
10. Wilson JR, Rayos G, Yeoh TK, et al. Dissociation between exertional symptoms and circulatory function in patients with heart failure. Circulation. 1995; 92: 47–53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
11. Avolio AP, Deng FQ, Li WQ, et al. Effects of aging on arterial distensibility in populations with high and low prevalence of hypertension: comparison between urban and rural communities in China. Circulation. 1985; 71: 202–210.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
12. Hundley WG, Kitzman DW, Morgan TM, et al. Cardiac cycle-dependent changes in aortic area and distensibility are reduced in older patients with isolated diastolic heart failure and correlate with exercise intolerance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 796–802.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
13. Chen CH, Nakayama M, Nevo E, et al. Coupled systolic-ventricular and vascular stiffening with age: implications for pressure regulation and cardiac reserve in the elderly. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 32: 1221–1227.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
14. Leite-Moreira AF, Correia-Pinto J, Gillebert TC. Afterload induced changes in myocardial relaxation: a mechanism for diastolic dysfunction. Cardiovasc Res. 1999; 43: 344–353.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
15. Pak PH, Maughan WL, Baughman KL, et al. Mechanism of acute mechanical benefit from VDD pacing in hypertrophied heart: Similarity of responses in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and hypertensive heart disease. Circulation. 1998; 98: 242–248.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
16. Kass DA, Shapiro EP, Kawaguchi M, et al. Improved arterial compliance by a novel advanced glycation end-product crosslink breaker. Circulation. 2001; 104: 1464–1470.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
17. Chen CH, Fetics B, Nevo E, et al. Noninvasive single-beat determination of left ventricular end-systolic elastance in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 2028–2034.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
18. Senzaki H, Chen C-H, Kass DA. Single beat estimation of end-systolic pressure-volume relation in humans: a new method with the potential for non-invasive application. Circulation. 1996; 94: 2497–2506.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
19. Kass DA. Assessment of diastolic dysfunction: invasive modalities. Cardiol Clin. 2000; 18: 571–586.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
20. Kelly RP, Ting CT, Yang TM, et al. Effective arterial elastance as index of arterial vascular load in humans. Circulation. 1992; 86: 513–521.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
21. Fetics B, Nevo E, Chen C-H, et al. Parametric model derivation of transfer function for non-invasive estimation of aortic pressure by radial tonometry. IEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1999; 46: 698–706.
    
22. Caruana L, Petrie MC, Davie AP, et al. Do patients with suspected heart failure and preserved left ventricular systolic function suffer from "diastolic heart failure" or from misdiagnosis? A prospective descriptive study. BMJ. 2000; 321: 215–218.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
23. Kass DA, Kelly RP. Ventriculo-arterial coupling: Concepts, assumptions, and applications. Ann Biomed Eng. 1992; 20: 41–62.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
24. Kass DA, Wolff MR, Ting CT, et al. Diastolic compliance of hypertrophied ventricle is not acutely altered by pharmacologic agents influencing active processes. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 119: 466–473.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
25. Chen CH, Nakayama M, Talbot M, et al. Verapamil acutely reduces ventricular-vascular stiffening and improves aerobic exercise performance in elderly individuals. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 33: 1602–1609.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
26. Kelly RP, Tunin R, Kass DA. Effect of reduced aortic compliance on cardiac efficiency and contractile function of in situ canine left ventricle. Circ Res. 1992; 71: 490–502.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
27. Zile MR, Brutsaert DL. New concepts in diastolic dysfunction and diastolic heart failure, part I: diagnosis, prognosis, and measurements of diastolic function. Circulation. 2002; 105: 1387–1393.[Free Full Text]
    
28. Kitzman DW, Higgenbotham MB, Cobb FR, et al. Exercise intolerance in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular systolic function: failure of the Frank-Starling mechanism. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991; 17: 1065–1072.[Abstract]
    
29. Moore TD, Frenneaux MP, Sas R, et al. Ventricular interaction and external constraint account for decreased stroke work during volume loading in CHF. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2001; 281: H2385–H2391.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
30. Dauterman K, Pak PH, Nussbacher A, et al. Contribution of external forces to left ventricle diastolic pressure: implications for the clinical use of the Frank-Starling law. Ann Intern Med. 1995; 122: 737–742.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
31. Senni M, Tribouilloy CM, Rodeheffer RJ, et al. Congestive heart failure in the community: trends in incidence and survival in a 10-year period. Arch Intern Med. 1999; 159: 29–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
32. Hayward CS, Kalnins WV, Kelly RP. Gender-related differences in left ventricular chamber function. Cardiovasc Res. 2001; 49: 340–350.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
33. Suga H. Ventricular energetics. Physiol Rev. 1990; 70: 247–277.[Free Full Text]
    

Related Article:

Heart Failure With a Normal Ejection Fraction: Is It Really a Disorder of Diastolic Function?

Daniel Burkhoff, Mathew S. Maurer, and Milton Packer
Circulation 2003 107: 656-658. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. D. Chantler, E. G. Lakatta, and S. S. Najjar Arterial-ventricular coupling: mechanistic insights into cardiovascular performance at rest and during exercise J Appl Physiol, October 1, 2008; 105(4): 1342 - 1351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N C Edwards, C J Ferro, J N Townend, and R P Steeds Aortic distensibility and arterial-ventricular coupling in early chronic kidney disease: a pattern resembling heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Heart, August 1, 2008; 94(8): 1038 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Bauer, G.A. MacGowan, A. Blain, K. Bushby, and V. Straub Steroid treatment causes deterioration of myocardial function in the {delta}-sarcoglycan-deficient mouse model for dilated cardiomyopathy Cardiovasc Res, June 30, 2008; (2008) cvn131v3. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. L. Handoko and W. J. Paulus Polishing the diastolic dysfunction measurement stick Eur J Echocardiogr, June 11, 2008; (2008) jen181v1. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Westermann, M. Kasner, P. Steendijk, F. Spillmann, A. Riad, K. Weitmann, W. Hoffmann, W. Poller, M. Pauschinger, H.-P. Schultheiss, et al. Role of Left Ventricular Stiffness in Heart Failure With Normal Ejection Fraction Circulation, April 22, 2008; 117(16): 2051 - 2060. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D H MacIver and M Townsend A novel mechanism of heart failure with normal ejection fraction Heart, April 1, 2008; 94(4): 446 - 449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Osranek, J. H. Eisenach, B. K. Khandheria, K. Chandrasekaran, J. B. Seward, and M. Belohlavek Arterioventricular Coupling and Ventricular Efficiency After Antihypertensive Therapy: A Noninvasive Prospective Study Hypertension, February 1, 2008; 51(2): 275 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M. Farasat, C. H. Morrell, A. Scuteri, C.-T. Ting, F. C.P. Yin, H. A. Spurgeon, C.-H. Chen, E. G. Lakatta, and S. S. Najjar Pulse Pressure Is Inversely Related to Aortic Root Diameter Implications for the Pathogenesis of Systolic Hypertension Hypertension, February 1, 2008; 51(2): 196 - 202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Kass An epidemic of dyssynchrony: but what does it mean? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 2008; 51(1): 12 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. R. S. Fernandes, J. F. Polak, S. Cheng, B. D. Rosen, B. Carvalho, K. Nasir, R. McClelland, G. Hundley, G. Pearson, D. H. O'Leary, et al. Arterial Stiffness Is Associated With Regional Ventricular Systolic and Diastolic Dysfunction: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., January 1, 2008; 28(1): 194 - 201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. van Heerebeek, N. Hamdani, M. L. Handoko, I. Falcao-Pires, R. J. Musters, K. Kupreishvili, A. J.J. Ijsselmuiden, C. G. Schalkwijk, J. G.F. Bronzwaer, M. Diamant, et al. Diastolic Stiffness of the Failing Diabetic Heart: Importance of Fibrosis, Advanced Glycation End Products, and Myocyte Resting Tension Circulation, January 1, 2008; 117(1): 43 - 51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Nagayama, E. Takimoto, S. Sadayappan, J. O. Mudd, J.G. Seidman, J. Robbins, and D. A. Kass Control of In Vivo Contraction/Relaxation Kinetics by Myosin Binding Protein C: Protein Kinase A Phosphorylation Dependent and Independent Regulation Circulation, November 20, 2007; 116(21): 2399 - 2408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. A. Jaber, C. S. P. Lam, D. M. Meyer, and M. M. Redfield Revisiting methods for assessing and comparing left ventricular diastolic stiffness: impact of relaxation, external forces, hypertrophy, and comparators Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, November 1, 2007; 293(5): H2738 - H2746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. A. Borlaug, V. Melenovsky, M. M. Redfield, K. Kessler, H.-J. Chang, T. P. Abraham, and D. A. Kass Impact of Arterial Load and Loading Sequence on Left Ventricular Tissue Velocities in Humans J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 16, 2007; 50(16): 1570 - 1577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. J. Paulus, C. Tschope, J. E. Sanderson, C. Rusconi, F. A. Flachskampf, F. E. Rademakers, P. Marino, O. A. Smiseth, G. De Keulenaer, A. F. Leite-Moreira, et al. How to diagnose diastolic heart failure: a consensus statement on the diagnosis of heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction by the Heart Failure and Echocardiography Associations of the European Society of Cardiology Eur. Heart J., October 2, 2007; 28(20): 2539 - 2550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. P. Shapiro, C. S.P. Lam, J. B. Patel, S. F. Mohammed, M. Kruger, D. M. Meyer, W. A. Linke, and M. M. Redfield Acute and Chronic Ventricular-Arterial Coupling in Systole and Diastole: Insights From an Elderly Hypertensive Model Hypertension, September 1, 2007; 50(3): 503 - 511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. H. Gaasch and W. C. Little Assessment of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function and Recognition of Diastolic Heart Failure Circulation, August 7, 2007; 116(6): 591 - 593. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. K. Dandapantula, L. Afonso, H. Katkuri, L. Chandu, J. R. Spears, B. P. Shapiro, M. M. McGoon, and M. M. Redfield Unexplained Pulmonary Hypertension in Elderly Patients: Role of Heart Failure With Normal Ejection Fraction, Bernheim Effect, and Reverse Bernheim Effect Chest, June 1, 2007; 131(6): 1987 - 1988. [Full Text] [PDF]