Search

Aims: We aimed to determine the association between serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentrations and new-onset heart failure (HF) in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Methods and Results: We performed a case-control study nested in the Diabetes Care System Cohort, a prospective cohort of persons with T2D in primary care. We included 724 participants, of whom 141 developed HF during 5 years of follow-up and 583 were age- and sex-matched controls. IL-6 was measured at baseline and categorized into four groups: Group 1 was composed of participants with IL-6 below the detection limit of 1.5 pg/mL, and the remainder were divided into tertiles. We performed logistic regression analyses with categorized IL-6 or continuous IL-6 as the determinant and new-onset HF as the outcome adjusted for follow-up time, age, sex, glycated haemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, albumin/creatinine ratio, and cardiovascular disease at baseline. Effect modification by sex was tested. Participants were 70.7 ± 9.0 years, and 38% were women. In comparison with Group 1, all tertiles were associated with an increased risk of HF with odds ratios of 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-2.9], 2.8 (95% CI: 2.0-3.7), and 2.1 (95% CI: 1.3-3.0), respectively, for Tertiles 1-3. Continuous IL-6 was associated with the development of HF with an odds ratio of 1.2 (95% CI: 1.0-1.5). No effect modification by sex was observed., Conclusions: Higher IL-6 levels are associated with the development of HF in persons with T2D. Further research should determine whether IL-6-lowering interventions could prevent the development of HF., (© 2024 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Despite maximal treatment, heart failure (HF) remains a major clinical challenge. Besides neurohormonal overactivation, myocardial energy homoeostasis is also impaired in HF. Trimetazidine has the potential to restore myocardial energy status by inhibiting fatty acid oxidation, concomitantly enhancing glucose oxidation. Trimetazidine is an interesting adjunct treatment, for it is safe, easy to use and comes at a low cost., Objective: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate all available clinical evidence on trimetazidine in HF. We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant studies., Methods: Out of 213 records, we included 28 studies in the meta-analysis (containing 2552 unique patients), which almost exclusively randomised patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The studies were relatively small (median study size: N=58) and of short duration (mean follow-up: 6 months), with the majority (68%) being open label., Results: Trimetazidine in HFrEF was found to significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.53) and HF hospitalisations (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.60). In addition, trimetazidine improved (New York Heart Association) functional class (mean difference: -0.44 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.39), 6 min walk distance (mean difference: +109 m (95% CI 105 to 114 m) and quality of life (standardised mean difference: +0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.71). A similar pattern of effects was observed for both ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy., Conclusions: Current evidence supports the potential role of trimetazidine in HFrEF, but this is based on multiple smaller trials of varying quality in study design. We recommend a large pragmatic randomised clinical trial to establish the definitive role of trimetazidine in the management of HFrEF., Competing Interests: Competing interests: FdM received research funding from Janssen and BIAL. MLH received an investigator-initiated research grant of Vifor Pharma, an educational grant of Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, and speaker/consultancy fees of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Novartis, Sankyo, Dayichi, Quin, Vifor Pharma; all not related to this study. All other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to report., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: The HFA-PEFF score was developed to optimize diagnosis and to aid in early recognition of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients who present with HF-like symptoms. Recognizing early-HFpEF phenogroups is essential to better understand progression towards overt HFpEF and pave the way for early intervention and treatment. Whether the HFA-PEFF domain scores can identify 'early-HFpEF' phenogroups remains unknown. The aims of this pilot study are to (i) identify distinct phenogroups by cluster analysis of HFA-PEFF domain scores in subjects that present with HF-like symptoms and (ii) study whether these phenogroups may be associated with distinct blood proteome profiles., Methods and Results: Subjects referred to the Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands, location Utrecht, with non-acute possibly cardiac-related symptoms (such as dyspnoea or fatigue) were prospectively enrolled in the HELPFul cohort (N = 507) and were included in the current analysis. Inclusion criteria for this study were (i) age ≥ 45 years and (ii) a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50%, in the absence of a history of HF, coronary artery disease, congenital heart disease, or any previous cardiac interventions. Multinominal-based clustering with latent class model using the HFA-PEFF domain scores (functional, structural, and biomarker scores) as input was used to detect distinct phenotypic clusters. For each bootstrapping run, the 92 Olink proteins were analysed for their association with the identified phenogroups. Four distinct phenogroups were identified in the current analysis (validated by bootstrapping 1000×): (i) no left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (no LVDD, N = 102); (ii) LVDD with functional left ventricular (LV) abnormalities (N = 204); (iii) LVDD with functional and structural LV abnormalities (N = 204); and (iv) LVDD with functional and structural LV abnormalities and elevated BNP (N = 107). The HFA-PEFF total score risk categories significantly differed between the phenogroups (P < 0.001), with an increase of the HFA-PEFF score from Phenogroup 1 to 4 (low/intermediate/high HFA-PEFF risk score: Phenogroup 1: 88%/12%/0%; Phenogroup 2: 9%/91%/0%; Phenogroup 3: 0%/92%/8%; Phenogroup 4: 5%/83%/12%). Thirty-two out of the 92 Olink protein biomarkers significantly differed among the phenogroups. The top eight biomarkers-N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, growth differentiation factor-15, matrix metalloproteinase-2, osteoprotegerin, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-4, chitinase-3-like protein 1, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 2, and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7-are mainly involved in inflammation and extracellular matrix remodelling, which are currently proposed key processes in HFpEF pathophysiology., Conclusions: This study identified distinct phenogroups by using the HFA-PEFF domain scores in ambulant subjects referred for HF-like symptoms. The newly identified phenogroups accompanied by their circulating biomarkers profile might aid in a better understanding of the pathophysiological processes involved during the early stages of the HFpEF syndrome., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: An overview of the diagnostic performance of natriuretic peptides (NPs) for the detection of diastolic dysfunction (DD) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in a non-acute setting, is currently lacking., Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase.com (May 13, 2019). Studies were included when they (1) reported diagnostic performance measures, (2) are for the detection of DD or HFpEF in a non-acute setting, (3) are compared with a control group without DD or HFpEF or with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, (4) are in a cross-sectional design. Two investigators independently assessed risk of bias of the included studies according to the QUADAS-2 checklist. Results were meta-analysed when three or more studies reported a similar diagnostic measure., Results: From 11,728 titles/abstracts, we included 51 studies. The meta-analysis indicated a reasonable diagnostic performance for both NPs for the detection of DD and HFpEF based on AUC values of approximately 0.80 (0.73-0.87; I 2  = 86%). For both NPs, sensitivity was lower than specificity for the detection of DD and HFpEF: approximately 65% (51-85%; I 2  = 95%) versus 80% (70-90%; I 2  = 97%), respectively. Both NPs have adequate ability to rule out DD: negative predictive value of approximately 85% (78-93%; I 2  = 95%). The ability of both NPs to prove DD is lower: positive predictive value of approximately 60% (30-90%; I 2  = 99%)., Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of NPs for the detection of DD and HFpEF is reasonable. However, they may be used to rule out DD or HFpEF, and not for the diagnosis of DD or HFpEF.

Aim: Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the non-acute setting remains challenging. Natriuretic peptides have limited value for this purpose, and a multitude of studies investigating novel diagnostic circulating biomarkers have not resulted in their implementation. This review aims to provide an overview of studies investigating novel circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF and determine their risk of bias (ROB)., Methods and Results: A systematic literature search for studies investigating novel diagnostic HFpEF circulating biomarkers in humans was performed up until 21 April 2020. Those without diagnostic performance measures reported, or performed in an acute heart failure population were excluded, leading to a total of 28 studies. For each study, four reviewers determined the ROB within the QUADAS-2 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. At least one domain with a high ROB was present in all studies. Use of case-control/two-gated designs, exclusion of difficult-to-diagnose patients, absence of a pre-specified cut-off value for the index test without the performance of external validation, the use of inappropriate reference standards and unclear timing of the index test and/or reference standard were the main bias determinants. Due to the high ROB and different patient populations, no meta-analysis was performed., Conclusion: The majority of current diagnostic HFpEF biomarker studies have a high ROB, reducing the reproducibility and the potential for clinical care. Methodological well-designed studies with a uniform reference diagnosis are urgently needed to determine the incremental value of circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF., (© 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)