Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Electrocardiography wikipedia , lookup
Coronary artery disease wikipedia , lookup
Remote ischemic conditioning wikipedia , lookup
Management of acute coronary syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Antihypertensive drug wikipedia , lookup
Myocardial infarction wikipedia , lookup
Cardiac contractility modulation wikipedia , lookup
Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia wikipedia , lookup
Cardiac surgery wikipedia , lookup
Heart failure wikipedia , lookup
Dextro-Transposition of the great arteries wikipedia , lookup
European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging (2016) 17, 106–113 doi:10.1093/ehjci/jev144 Value of exercise echocardiography in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a substudy from the KaRen study Erwan Donal1,2*, Lars H. Lund3, Emmanuel Oger4, Amélie Reynaud2, Frédéric Schnell2, Hans Persson5, Elodie Drouet6, Cecilia Linde3, and Claude Daubert1,2, on behalf of the KaRen investigators 1 Cardiologie, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France; 2CIC-IT 804, LTSI INSERM 1099, Université Rennes-1, Hôpital Pontchaillou, rue Henri Le Guillou, F-35000 Rennes, France; 3Pharmacologie Clinique et CIC-IP 0203, CHU Rennes et Université Rennes-1, Rennes, France; 4Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm, Solna, Sweden; 5Danderyds Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; and 6Cellule recherche clinique et registres, Société Française de Cardiologie et URC Paris Est, Paris, France Received 25 February 2015; accepted after revision 13 May 2015; online publish-ahead-of-print 16 June 2015 Background KaRen is a multicentre study designed to characterize and follow patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In a subgroup of patients with clinical signs of congestion but left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) .45%, we sought to describe and analyse the potential prognostic value of echocardiographic parameters recorded not only at rest but also during a submaximal exercise stress echocardiography. Exercise-induced changes in echo parameters might improve our ability to characterize HFpEF patients. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Method Patients were prospectively recruited in a single tertiary centre following an acute HF episode with NT-pro-BNP and results .300 pg/mL (BNP . 100 pg/mL) and LVEF . 45% and reassessed by exercise echo-Doppler after 4 –8 weeks of dedicated treatment. Image acquisitions were standardized, and analysis made at end of follow-up blinded to patients’ clinical status and outcome. In total, 60 patients having standardized echocardiographic acquisitions were included in the analysis. Twenty-six patients (43%) died or were hospitalized for HF (primary outcome). The mean + SD workload was 45 + 14 watts (W). Mean + SD resting LVEF and LV global longitudinal strain was 57.6 + 9.5% and 214.5 + 4.2%, respectively. Mean + SD resting E/e′ was 11.3 + 4.7 and 13.1 + 5.3 in those patients who did not and those who did experience the primary outcome, respectively (P ¼ 0.03). Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) peak velocity during exercise were 3.3 + 0.5 and 3.7 + 0.5 m/s (P ¼ 0.01). Exercise TR was independently associated with HF-hospitalization or death after adjustment on baseline clinical and biological characteristics. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Conclusion Exercise echocardiography may contribute to identify HFpEF patients and especially high-risk ones. Our study suggested a prognostic value of TR recorded during an exercise. That was demonstrated independently of the value of resting E/e′ . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Keywords Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction † Echocardiography † Right ventricle † Strain Introduction Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex pathophysiological entity. Echocardiographic parameters offer a key tool for syndrome diagnosis as indicated in the new ESC guidelines.1 HFpEF is defined as an association of typical HF signs and symptoms, normal or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and normal or small LV volumes, pertinent structural heart disease [LV hypertrophy/left atrial (LA) enlargement], and evidence of diastolic dysfunction.1 Only a few papers have proposed exercise echocardiography as a relevant diagnostic tool in HfpEF.2 – 5 The relevance of echocardiographic parameters that could be recorded during an exercise remains an issue particularly pregnant in this complex HFpEF syndrome. A strong correlation between E/e′ and physical activity has been demonstrated in a large series of patients including patients with HFpEF.6 We have * Corresponding author: Tel: +33 2 99 28 25 25; fax: +33 2 99 28 25 10, Email: [email protected] Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. & The Author 2015. For permissions please email: [email protected]. 107 Exercise echocardiography and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction previously reported that longitudinal systolic and diastolic LV as well as right ventricular (RV) functions assessed during a submaximal exercise stress echocardiography can distinguish symptomatic HFPEF patients from matched normal controls.7 In the present study, we sought to evaluate the value of submaximal exercise-echocardiographic parameters that are usually recorded at rest and that one can record during an exercise. The exercise echocardiography was systematically performed in stable state in the weeks following an acute HF episode to characterize and potentially predict the long-term clinical outcome in patients with HFpEF. of the patient to the exercise. Thus, exercise testing could have been interrupted promptly in the event of typical chest pain, constraining breathlessness, dizziness, muscular exhaustion, drop in BPs or severe hypertension (systolic BP ≥ 250 mmHg), or significant ventricular arrhythmia. The test was considered abnormal if the patient presented one or more of the following criteria: angina, evidence of shortness of breath at a low workload level (,50 W), dizziness, syncope, or nearsyncope, ≥2 mm ST segment depression compared with baseline, rise in systolic blood during exercise ,20 mmHg, fall in systolic BP during exercise, or complex ventricular arrhythmias. Exercise duration was designed to be 8 – 10 min for every patient. Enough time was set to record a complete echocardiographic evaluation at each step. Methods Two-dimensional and tissue Doppler echocardiography 8 The design of the KaRen study has been published elsewhere. KaRen was designed to enrol patients showing HF symptoms who attended the emergency ward, and to follow them up 4 – 8 weeks after the acute episode. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) acute presentation at hospital admission with clinical HF signs and symptoms, according to the Framingham criteria; (ii) BNP . 100 pg/mL or NT-pro-BNP . 300 pg/mL; (3) LVEF . 45% by echocardiography within the first 72 h. In this exercise, echocardiography substudy, measurements were carried out in a subgroup of patients after 4–8 weeks following an acute HF exacerbation. All patients enrolled in Rennes were invited to participate in the submaximal exercise echo study. After ensuring, they were haemodynamically stable (no functional or clinical signs of acute HF decompensation and no argument for any symptomatic coronary artery disease) and they had no neurological or orthopaedic limitation, patients who agreed underwent a semi-supine exercise test. Treatments including betablockers were not modified for the test. All patients had to be in sinus rhythm at the time of the exercise stress echocardiography but patients could have been identified as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients. The echo-protocol was always the same, all the exams being performed by the same investigator (E.D.). A particular attention was brought to get the Doppler recording of the tricuspid regurgitation (TR) at rest and during exercise. All the parasternal and apical views were used to get this maximal velocity as a first thing at each step of the standardized echocardiographic protocol we were and we are using after our initial experience.7 All the measurements were performed according to the guidelines, offline by a dedicated physician working at the echo core Lab (CIC-IT 804, Rennes, France). This analysis was done afterwards, blinded from any clinical consideration. The results of the exercise echocardiography were not provided to the clinician. All patients underwent detailed echocardiographic examination at rest and at the maximal workload sustained during exercise using a Vingmed VividTM 7 or e9 (GE Healthcare, Horten, Norway). The position of the patient was constant from baseline to the end on the tilt table and always the same inclination. LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, as well as LVEF, were measured using the modified biplane Simpson’s method from the apical four- and two-chamber views. Left and right atrial volumes were calculated using the biplane area – length method from the apical four- and two-chamber views and indexed to the body surface area.9 The early filling (E) and atrial (A) peak velocities, as well as the deceleration time of early filling and isovolumic relaxation time, were measured from transmitral flow. All measurements were averaged over three beats (3 – 5 according to the homogeneity of the results). Peak mitral annular myocardial velocity of the LV septal and lateral walls were recorded (and averaged) using the real-time pulse-wave tissue Doppler method, which allowed for measuring the mean peak systolic (s′ ), early diastolic (e′ ), and late diastolic (a′ ) velocities.10 LV filling pressure was calculated as the ratio of early mitral diastolic inflow velocity to early diastolic mitral annular velocity (averaged from the septal and the lateral side of the mitral annulus) (E/e′ ).10 Peak annular RV freewall velocities (RV s′ and RV e′ for peak systolic and early diastolic velocities, respectively) were measured using the same method. Tricuspid annular peak systolic excursion was calculated using M-mode echocardiography.11 Peak systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) was estimated using the Bernouilli formula according to the tricuspid maximal jet velocity. TR maximal velocity was used as a surrogate marker of PAP according to recommendation.12 That was predefined because the assessment of right atrial pressure could be challenging at rest but was supposed even more questionable during the exercise. Standardized submaximal exercise testing Speckle tracking After a clinical examination, arterial blood pressure (BP) measurement (Dinamap Procare Auscultatory 100), 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), and resting transthoracic echocardiography (Vivid 7, General Electric Healthcare, Horten, Norway), patients underwent a standard supine exercise (slightly on the left side) echocardiography on a tilting table using an electromagnetic cycle ergometer (Ergometrics). Exercise testing started at an initial workload of 30 W, with increase to 45 (if the exercise capacity was too weak) and 60 and 90 W every 3 min according to individual patient’s capabilities. The pedalling rate was of 60 rpm. The ECG was recorded continuously, and BP was measured every 2 min during both exercise and recovery. BP, ECG, and echocardiographic images were acquired at rest and at a predefined maximal heart rate range (HR, 100 – 120/min), with at least three beats recorded. According to current practice, the physician was standing closed to the patient performing the images, assessing the clinical, ECG, and BP adaptation LV longitudinal strains were assessed using the speckle tracking method.13 The apical four-, two-, and three-chamber images were analysed offline by tracing the endocardium in end-diastole, and the thickness of the region of interest was adjusted so as to include the entire myocardium. The software automatically tracked myocardial deformation on the subsequent frame, and the results were displayed graphically. End-systolic peaks were automatically considered for the measurement of global longitudinal strain (GLS) and maximal peaks were manually tracked for the look for mechanical dyssynchrony. The intraobserver and interobserver variabilities as well as repeatability were previously reported.7 The GE healthcare EchoPAC BT 12 was used. Follow-up After the ‘4 – 8 weeks scheduled visit’, patients were prospectively followed via phone call or by means of correspondence with their 108 E. Donal et al. physicians every 6 months for at least 18 months. The follow-up was closed for all patients on 31 October 2012. A dedicated research team blinded to the initial visit and 4 – 8 week visit (registry unit from the French Society of Cardiology)8 documented hospitalizations and cause of hospitalization, death, as well as causes of death. Definition of cardiovascular events and primary clinical end-point The primary clinical endpoint was time to first heart failure hospitalisation or all-cause death. Heart failure had to be defined as primary diagnosis in the patient file for adjudicating hospitalisation as HF related hospitalisation. Statistical analysis Continuous variables were reported using central tendency and dispersion measurements. Qualitative variables were expressed as frequency and percentage. The primary outcome was defined as either death or readmission for HF whichever came first (censoring applied at the date of hospitalization for patients for hospitalized for HF and who subsequently died). We used the Cox proportional hazard model to analyse ‘time to event’ data. The assumption that covariates exhibited a linear form was checked using the shape of parameter estimate plots by mid-point quartile intervals, and the pattern of martingale residual plots as a function of the corresponding covariate. Departure from the proportional hazards assumption was investigated using timedependent explanatory variables, in addition to a plot of the scaled Schoenfeld residuals as a function of time. To develop a prediction model and to test whether some exercise parameters added some incremental information to parameters measured at rest, we started with selected echo parameters measured at rest (those associated with the outcome in univariate Cox regression analysis at a P , 0.10), and then added selected exercise parameters (those associated with the outcome in univariate Cox regression analysis at a P , 0.10 and not highly correlated with parameters measured at rest, Spearman coefficient ,0.7). A stepwise backward selection retained parameters associated with outcome at a P-value of ,0.05. We then adjusted those selected echo parameters on clinical and basic laboratory data (those associated with the outcome in univariate Cox regression analysis at a P-value of ,0.10 among age, gender, medical history, drug use, creatinine, and NT-pro-BNP levels). Considering the limited available data and that some echo parameters had some missing data, we did multiple imputations using the Monte Carlo Markov Chain method. All analyses used procedures available in SAS software, version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Ethics for the substudy A specific authorization has been obtained for the KaRen exerciseechocardiographic substudy (authorization 0820-679). A specific informed consent has been signed by the included patients. Results From December 2008 to January 2012, 60 of the 203 patients included at the Rennes University Hospital in the KaRen registry were enrolled in the substudy. The reason for not participating in the substudy were significant orthopaedic or neurologic limitation (n ¼ 45), suboptimal quality of resting echocardiography (missing data) (n ¼ 33) and refusal to participate (n ¼ 65). There were some minor differences in baseline clinical characteristics between patients participating and patients non-participating in the substudy (that have been reported elsewhere14) with a higher proportion of males (63.3%, P ¼ 0.0015) and a higher resting SBP (138 + 23 mmHg, P ¼ 0.01) in the substudy population. Mean age was 74.8 + 7.4 years and 28 patients (46.7%) had history of atrial fibrillation or flutter. The workload sustained during exercise was 45 + 14 W (30–90 watts). There was no broad QRS. The exercise time ranged between 6 and 12 min (Table 1). There was strictly no argument for any coronary artery disease, with no chest pain, no segmental wall motion abnormality observed during the exercise. No Table 1 Main baseline clinical characteristics of patients included in the ‘KaRen exercise stress echocardiography’ substudy; Comparison with the whole cohort enrolled in Rennes-KaRen centre Label Substudy (N 5 60) KaRen in Rennes (N 5 203) P-value Age (years) Female gender, n (%) NYHA I/II/III/IV, n 74.8 + 7.4 76.8 + 9.6 0.1782 20 (36.4) 3/47/5/0 76 (50.7) 11/87/35/8 0.0690 0.0067 ............................................................................................................................................................................... Weight (kg) 73.1 + 17.8 78.6 + 19.8 0.0739 BMI (kg/m2) Overweight/obese, n (%) 27.8 + 5.9 15 (27.8)/20 (37.0) 29.3 + 6.4 46 (31.5)/61 (41.8) 0.1325 0.5029 Diagnosis of HF prior to enrolment, n (%) 24 (43.6) 58 (38.9) 0.5426 History of coronary artery disease, n (%) History of AF/flutter, n (%) 22 (36.6) 28 (46.7) 38 (25.5) 96 (64.4) 0.7982 0.1279 Arterial hypertension, n (%) 51 (85) 119 (79.9) 0.9831 Type 2 diabetes, n (%) NT pro-BNP (ng/L), median (p25– p75) 13 (23.6) 2067 [1419–4969] 33 (22.1) 257 [1313– 5216] 0.8214 0.7211 Haemoglobin (g/L) 122.4 + 14.9 119.5 + 18.6 0.2544 Creatinine (mmol/L) 102.5 + 50.1 110.7 + 58.5 0.3544 BMI, body mass index; HF, heart failure. 109 Exercise echocardiography and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction ECG significant change was, as well, observed. The amount of exercise was limited in these elderly patients with HFpEF. Therefore, the changes observed during the exercise were limited but considered significant because they appeared after a very short and limited exercise. During follow-up (median time of 523 days), 7 patients died and 21 were hospitalized for decompensated HF. In total, 26 patients (43%) had a primary outcome event when compared with 49% in the whole KaRen cohort.15 Echocardiographic predictors Table 2 displays demographic data in each group (those with vs. those without events) and Table 3 the mean values of echo parameters in each group as well as univariate P-values for Cox regression models. E/e′ at rest was associated with the primary endpoint and remained the only resting echo parameter significantly associated in the multivariable model (Table 4, Figures 1 and 2). TR maximal velocity was the only parameters recorded during exercise that remained significantly associated with the primary endpoint in the multivariable model (Table 4). Re-running the final model on raw data (without imputation of missing values) and adjusting on clinical (history of hypertension and ACE inhibitor use) and biological (creatinine level) parameters showed very similar estimates (Table 4). Discussion E/e′ at rest and estimated PAP by TR maximal velocity measured during standardized exercise has a predictive value in our HFpEF population. These two parameters may help to better define the prognosis of HFpEF individuals. They seem crucial for best characterizing HFpEF patients. E/e′ E/e′ was a key parameter proposed in the 2007 diagnostic algorithm,10,16 while LVEF and structural heart disease were introduced in the 2012 ESC guidelines.1 With regard to supposed E/e′ robustness for estimating left heart filling pressures, studies in elderly populations or in dilated or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients have highlighted the necessary prudency in the use of this ratio for estimating filling pressures.17 – 19 The E/e′ value for estimating filling pressure during exercise also has been challenged.20 However, studies have found a relationship between exercise E/e′ , exercise capacity, and invasive left ventricular end-diastolic pressure recorded during exercise.6 To date, E/e′ measured at rest was not shown to be the best parameter associated with HFpEF prognosis,21,22 whereas the change in E/e′ from rest to exercise was reported to be correlated with prognosis in one study.23 In this study, 197 patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus were followed for 57 months, and the incidence death or hospitalization for heart failure was 9.1%. Of note is that E/e′ can be measured during or after exercise. E/e′ . 14.5 was shown to be an independent predictor of outcome in a study involving 522 unselected patients referred for exercise echocardiography.24 Yet, this study was not focused on heart failure and HFpEF patients. Our study, which used a prospective design and was part of a large prospective registry, clearly demonstrated the prognostic value of E/e′ recorded before any exercise. Table 2 Clinical parameters and medical history according to heart failure or death occurrence during follow-up and univariate measure of association Parameters Patients without event at the end of follow-up (N 5 34) Patients hospitalized for HF or who died (N 5 26) P-value ............................................................................................................................................................................... Gender, female, n (%) 14 (41.2) 8 (30.8) 0.3099 Age, years BMI, n (%) 73.8 + 7.5 76.2 + 7.2 0.3263 0.3836 Normal Overweight Obese 7 (21.2) 5 (19.2) 12 (36.4) 14 (42.4) 7 (26.9) 14 (53.8) Prior diagnosis of HF, n (%) 13 (38.2) 10 (38.5) History of CAD, n (%) History of AF/flutter, n (%) 13 (38.2) 14 (41.2) 9 (34.6) 14 (53.8) 0.9433 0.2680 Arterial hypertension, n (%) 26 (76.5) 25 (96.1) 0.0657 Baseline medication, n (%) Statin 23 (67.6) 22 (84.6) 0.2726 27 (79.4) 17 (65.4) 0.2188 13 (38.2) 2107 [353– 24 975] 16 (61.5) 1994 [305–9352] 0.0795 0.9989 99 + 41 99 + 35 114 + 49 121 + 48 0.0792 0.0038 Beta-blocker ACE NT-pro-BNP (ng/L) Creatinine, mmol/L At baseline At 4 –8 weeks Values for continuous parameters are mean + SD or median [range]; P-values are from univariate Cox regression Wald test. 110 E. Donal et al. Table 3 Echocardiography parameters (mean + SD): description and univariate association with the risk of heart failure or death Parameters Patients without event at the end of follow-up (N 5 34) Patients hospitalized for HF or who died (N 5 26) P-value (raw data) Missing (%) 0.0169 0.0217 ,5 ,5 P-value (imputed data) ............................................................................................................................................................................... Geometry SBP RR 143 + 24 906 + 165 157 + 24 1019 + 200 IVS 11.8 + 2.4 11.7 + 2.7 0.7884 LVED diameter LVES diameter 50.2 + 6.5 35.6 + 7.3 52.7 + 5.9 37.6 + 7.0 0.1640 0.6030 64.9 + 23.6 58.5 + 9.5 72.3 + 24.1 56.2 + 9.5 0.0575 0.4822 Systolic function SV LVEF (%) s′ 7.09 + 1.46 6.50 + 1.52 0.1618 GLS Septal LS (%) 14.7 + 4.0 13.4 + 4.7 14.2 + 4.4 13.9 + 5.1 0.5193 0.2841 Lateral LS (%) 14.4 + 6.0 16.0 + 7.0 0.4386 Diastolic function LAVI (mL/m2) 45.5 + 15.7 50.7 + 19.6 0.1080 ,2 E-dt (ms) 213 + 92 202 + 70 0.5833 ,2 E/e′ e′ 11.3 + 4.7 8.5 + 2.8 13.1 + 5.3 7.4 + 2.6 0.0329 0.3727 ,5 0.57 + 0.21 85.1 + 21.3 0.50 + 0.10 83.8 + 25.7 0.1173 0.9468 6.66 0.2064 Asynchronism MIT/RR LVPEI (ms) Septo-lateral delay DTI (ms) Delay IV (ms) Right ventricle 38.8 + 53.1 45.8 + 52.8 0.8701 211.1 + 23.5 29.5 + 16.5 0.6101 13.3 0.3248 RVPEI (ms) 95.7 + 21.8 89.6 + 21.4 0.2257 13.3 0.2413 RAVI (mL/m2) TR Vmax (cm/s) 32.1 + 13.4 2.74 + 0.47 40.5 + 19.3 2.99 + 0.72 0.0249 0.0892 8.33 33.3 0.0760 0.0910 RV Sa (cm/s) 11.7 + 2.8 11.6 + 3.3 0.8045 10.0 0.7740 TAPSE (mm) RV Ea (cm/s) 19.4 + 4.5 10.6 + 4.0 20.1 + 6.7 10.6 + 3.3 0.8019 0.6363 6.66 10.0 0.7366 0.6098 LVES diameter SV 35.3 + 6.4 62.2 + 23.0 36.3 + 8.2 66.9 + 23.1 0.4894 0.2057 11.7 0.4285 s′ 7.07 + 2.06 6.70 + 2.7 0.1883 ,2 E/e′ e′ 12.6 + 6.4 10.6 + 0.3.8 18.3 + 14.0 8.4 + 3.5 0.0413 0.0867 5 0.0843 Exercise GLS 15.6 + 4.0 15.9 + 4.2 0.9380 RV Sa (cm/s) TR Vmax (cm/s) 13.6 + 3.8 3.35 + 0.47 12.6 + 4.1 3.72 + 0.53 0.2052 0.0097 13.3 13.3 0.3086 0.0637 8.33 0.5662 0.4720 SBP Work load (W) Reserve 166 + 30 178 + 29 0.1306 45.7 + 13.6 43.8 + 13.4 0.5921 LVEF 20.35 + 7.47 1.65 + 8.13 0.3028 e′ E/e′ 21.87 + 2.41 1.72 + 4.77 20.78 + 2.91 3.40 + 12.9 0.1788 0.4971 8.33 s′ 0.04 + 2.07 0.05 + 1.80 0.4603 ,2 2DS 0.82 + 2.75 1.53 + 3.16 0.3850 LS, longitudinal strain; RV, right ventricular; TR, tricuspid regurgitation; LA, left atrial; E-dt, mitral inflow E-wave deceleration time; RA, right atrial; Vol, volume; RVPEI, right ventricular pre-ejection interval; LVPEI, left ventricular pre-ejection interval; IV, interventricular; GLS, global longitudinal strain; MIT, mitral inflow duration; RR, cycle length; e′ , early diastolic pulsed tissue Doppler peak velocity; s′ , systolic pulsed tissue Doppler peak velocity. Reserve ¼ difference between the measurement made during exercise and the one performed at rest (in other words: reserve ¼ delta exercise 2 rest value). 111 Exercise echocardiography and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Table 4 Multivariable estimates for the risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure related on echocardiography parameters Model 1 (full model) P-value (imputed data) Model 2 (final model) P-value (raw data) Model 3 (full model) P-value (imputed data) 0.0196 0.0078 0.1517 0.0153 0.0128 Model 4 (final model) P-value (imputed data) Model 5 (final model) P-value (raw data) HR (95% CI)a 0.0020 0.0086 1.76 (1.15–2.68) 0.0016 0.0015 2.07 (1.32–3.25) ........................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................... Resting echo SBP, mmHg RR 0.3161 SV E/e′ 0.8708 0.0596 RAVI (mL/m2) 0.1315 TR Vmax (cm/s) Exercise echo 0.2406 E/e′ 0.6618 e′ TR Vmax (cm/s) 0.5642a 0.0056 Model 1 included all resting echo parameters and Model 2 retained only statistically significant parameters at 0.05 level; Model 3 included those selected parameters plus exercise echo parameters (as E/e′ and e′ were highly correlated, they were not entered simultaneously); Model 4 retained only statistically significant parameters at 0.05 level. a HR for 5 units increase of E/e′ and for 0.5 cm/s increase of TR Vmax; adjusted on clinical parameters (history of hypertension, creatinine level and ACE inhibitor use/Model 5) did not substantial affect estimates. Figure 2 Graphical presentation of (A) LVEF measured at rest and during standardized exercise stress echocardiography, (B) GLS measured under the same conditions, (C ) E/e′ ratio and (D) TR maximal velocity (Tric Regurg). Estimated pulmonary artery pressure using echocardiography Figure 1 Kaplan– Meier curve for (A) E/e′ ratio measured at rest and (B) TR maximal velocity recorded during the exercise. In addition to E/e′ , we showed an independent prognostic value of TR maximal velocity recorded during exercise emphasizing the value of exercise stress echocardiography in HFpEF patients. Previous reports have already demonstrated the test’s diagnostic value2,3,5 and its limits,25 whereas its prognostic value was less obvious. Estimation of PAP during exercise using echocardiography has already 112 been reported to be associated with prognosis, especially in heart valve diseases.26,27 The prevalence of pulmonary hypertension as estimated at rest by echocardiography, its impact on functional status, and its impact on prognosis have already been discussed.28 Lam et al. reported pulmonary hypertension in 83% with a median systolic PAP of 48 mmHg29 in a community study involving 244 HFpEF patients with a mean age of 76 years. The pathophysiological background of pulmonary hypertension, a reflection of left ventricular increased filling pressures, as well as its rapid and critical increase during exercise in HFpEF patients, also has been demonstrated.28 Borlaug et al. in HFpEF subjects experienced significantly greater exercise-induced increases in mean PAP than subjects with noncardiac dyspnoea despite achieving lower peak cardiac outputs.28,30 In the same study, exercise PASP, non-invasively recorded, identified HFpEF with 96% sensitivity and 95% specificity using a cut point of 45 mmHg. Exercise PASP outperformed resting PASP, natriuretic peptide levels, and echocardiographic indicators for diagnosing HFpEF in Borlaug et al. experience.30,31 Thus, high filling pressures with the propensity for rapid increments during exercise provide a key prognostic information and potentially a theoretical therapeutic target. But, despite diuretics no specific treatment can currently be recommended in spite of high expectations for sildenafil that have been frozen by the Relax trial.30,32 – 34 Limitations Several limitations have to be highlighted. Inviting elderly HFpEF patients to participate in exercise stress echocardiography remains a challenge. Exercise stress echocardiography may be of interest in difficult cases, although patients must be fit enough to undergo the test. Therefore, this testing is unlikely to be considered a key tool for assessing all HFpEF patients despite its prognostic usefulness, as revealed by our study data. The hand grip would be easier to perform, but bears its own imperfections, such as lack of standardization and insufficient reproducibility. Dobutamine stress echocardiography could be performed for researching ischaemia but probably not more as Dobutamine will start by inducing a decrease in pre and afterload. The workload used during the exercise was low but stable allowing the images acquisitions. Also, the experience shows us that when performing an exercise stress echocardiography, the heart maladjustment to changes in loading condition is most of the time observed at a low level of exercise even in valvular heart diseases.27 Conclusions Exercise echocardiography may contribute to identify HFpEF patients and especially high-risk ones. Our study suggested a prognostic value of TR recorded during an exercise. That was demonstrated independently of the value of resting E/e′ . Acknowledgements We also thank the research nurses: Marie Guinoiseau, Rennes University Hospital, Valerie Le Moal, Rennes University Hospital. The French Cardiac Society: Anissa Bouzamondo, Genevieve Mulak, and Elodie Drouet. E. Donal et al. Conflict of interest: There are no commercial products involved in this study. However, to the extent that findings in KaRen may affect the use of heart failure drugs or devices, we disclose the following: L.H.L.: research grants and/or speaker and/or consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Boston Scientific, and St Jude Medical; C.L.: principal investigator of REVERSE, a CRT study sponsored by Medtronic research grants, speaker honoraria, and consulting fees from Medtronic, speaker honoraria and consulting fees from St Jude Medical; E.D.: speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis, Bristol-Myer-Squibb; J-.C.D.: research grants, speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Medtronic and St Jude Medical. Funding We would like to thank Medtronic Europe, France, and Sweden. Our thanks also go to the French Federation (FFC), French Society of Cardiology (SFC), and Swedish Society of Cardiology for their dedicated grants that made the KaRen study feasible. References 1. McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, Auricchio A, Bohm M, Dickstein K et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2012;33: 1787 –847. 2. Holland DJ, Prasad SB, Marwick TH. Contribution of exercise echocardiography to the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Heart 2010; 96:1024 –8. 3. Yip GW, Frenneaux M, Sanderson JE. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction: new developments. Heart 2009;95:1549 – 52. 4. Tan YT, Wenzelburger F, Lee E, Heatlie G, Leyva F, Patel K et al. The pathophysiology of heart failure with normal ejection fraction: exercise echocardiography reveals complex abnormalities of both systolic and diastolic ventricular function involving torsion, untwist, and longitudinal motion. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:36–46. 5. Meluzin J, Sitar J, Kristek J, Prosecky R, Pesl M, Podrouzkova H et al. The role of exercise echocardiography in the diagnostics of heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Eur J Echocardiogr 2011;12:591 – 602. 6. Bursi F, Weston SA, Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Pakhomov S, Nkomo VT et al. Systolic and diastolic heart failure in the community. J Am Med Assoc 2006;296: 2209 –16. 7. Donal E, Thebault C, Lund LH, Kervio G, Reynaud A, Simon T et al. Heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction additive value of an exercise stress echocardiography. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2012;13:656 – 65. 8. Donal E, Lund LH, Linde C, Edner M, Lafitte S, Persson H et al. Rationale and design of the Karolinska-Rennes (KaRen) prospective study of dyssynchrony in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:198–204. 9. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American society of echocardiography and the European association of cardiovascular imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:233 – 71. 10. Nagueh SF, Appleton CP, Gillebert TC, Marino PN, Oh JK, Smiseth OA et al. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr 2009;10:165 –93. 11. Morris DA, Gailani M, Vaz Perez A, Blaschke F, Dietz R, Haverkamp W et al. Right ventricular myocardial systolic and diastolic dysfunction in heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2011;24:886 –97. 12. Galie N, Hoeper MM, Humbert M, Torbicki A, Vachiery JL, Barbera JA et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS), endorsed by the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). Eur Heart J 2009;30:2493 –537. 13. Edvardsen T, Haugaa KH. Imaging assessment of ventricular mechanics. Heart 2011; 97:1349 –56. 14. Donal E, Lund LH, Oger E, Hage C, Persson H, Reynaud A et al. Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction included in the Karolinska Rennes (KaRen) study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2014;107:112 –21. Exercise echocardiography and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction 15. Lund LH, Donal E, Oger E, Hage C, Persson H, Haugen-Lofman I et al. Association between cardiovascular vs. non-cardiovascular co-morbidities and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail 2014;16:992–1001. 16. Paulus WJ, Tschope C, Sanderson JE, Rusconi C, Flachskampf FA, Rademakers FE 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 2007;28:2539 – 50. 17. Geske JB, Sorajja P, Nishimura RA, Ommen SR. Evaluation of left ventricular filling pressures by Doppler echocardiography in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: correlation with direct left atrial pressure measurement at cardiac catheterization. Circulation 2007;116:2702 –8. 18. Mullens W, Borowski AG, Curtin RJ, Thomas JD, Tang WH. Tissue Doppler imaging in the estimation of intracardiac filling pressure in decompensated patients with advanced systolic heart failure. Circulation 2009;119:62– 70. 19. De Sutter J, De Backer J, Van de Veire N, Velghe A, De Buyzere M, Gillebert TC. Effects of age, gender, and left ventricular mass on septal mitral annulus velocity (E′ ) and the ratio of transmitral early peak velocity to E′ (E/E ′ ). Am J Cardiol 2005;95: 1020– 3. 20. Maeder MT, Thompson BR, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Kaye DM. Hemodynamic basis of exercise limitation in patients with heart failure and normal ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:855 – 63. 21. Burgess MI, Jenkins C, Sharman JE, Marwick TH. Diastolic stress echocardiography: hemodynamic validation and clinical significance of estimation of ventricular filling pressure with exercise. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1891 –900. 22. Talreja DR, Nishimura RA, Oh JK. Estimation of left ventricular filling pressure with exercise by Doppler echocardiography in patients with normal systolic function: a simultaneous echocardiographic-cardiac catheterization study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2007;20:477 –9. 23. Shim CY, Kim SA, Choi D, Yang WI, Kim JM, Moon SH et al. Clinical outcomes of exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension in subjects with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: implication of an increase in left ventricular filling pressure during exercise. Heart 2011;97:1417 –24. 113 24. Kusunose K, Motoki H, Popovic ZB, Thomas JD, Klein AL, Marwick TH. Independent association of left atrial function with exercise capacity in patients with preserved ejection fraction. Heart 2012;98:1311 –7. 25. D’Alto M, Romeo E, Argiento P, D’Andrea A, Vanderpool R, Correra A et al. Accuracy and precision of echocardiography versus right heart catheterization for the assessment of pulmonary hypertension. Int J Cardiol 2013;168:4058 –62. 26. Magne J, Lancellotti P, Pierard LA. Exercise pulmonary hypertension in asymptomatic degenerative mitral regurgitation. Circulation 2010;122:33–41. 27. Lancellotti P, Magne J, Donal E, O’Connor K, Dulgheru R, Rosca M et al. Determinants and prognostic significance of exercise pulmonary hypertension in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Circulation 2012;126:851 – 9. 28. Lewis GD, Bossone E, Naeije R, Grunig E, Saggar R, Lancellotti P et al. Pulmonary vascular hemodynamic response to exercise in cardiopulmonary diseases. Circulation 2013;128:1470 –9. 29. Lam CS, Roger VL, Rodeheffer RJ, Borlaug BA, Enders FT, Redfield MM. Pulmonary hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a community-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:1119 –26. 30. Borlaug BA, Nishimura RA, Sorajja P, Lam CS, Redfield MM. Exercise hemodynamics enhance diagnosis of early heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation Heart failure 2010;3:588–95. 31. Borlaug BA, Paulus WJ. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Eur Heart J 2011;32:670 –9. 32. Guazzi M, Vicenzi M, Arena R, Guazzi MD. Pulmonary hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a target of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition in a 1-year study. Circulation 2011;124:164 –74. 33. Redfield MM, Chen HH, Borlaug BA, Semigran MJ, Lee KL, Lewis G et al. Effect of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition on exercise capacity and clinical status in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc 2013;309:1268 – 77. 34. Zile MR, Baicu CF, Gaasch WH. Diastolic heart failure--abnormalities in active relaxation and passive stiffness of the left ventricle. N Engl J Med 2004;350: 1953 – 9.