Abstract
Background
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome that presents clinicians with a diagnostic challenge. The use of natriuretic peptides to exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF has been proposed. We sought to compare HFpEF patients with N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) level above and below the proposed cut‐off.
Methods
Stable patients (n = 30) with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ≥ 50% were eligible if they had a diagnosis of HF according to the European Society of Cardiology diagnostic criteria. Characteristics of patients with NT‐proBNP below (≤125 pg/mL) and above (>125 pg/mL) the diagnostic criterion were compared.
Results
There were 19 (66%) women with median age 54 years. Half were African American (16, 53%), and most were obese. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics or medication use between groups. LV end‐diastolic volume index was greater in high NT‐proBNP patients (P = 0.03). Left atrial volume index, E/e′ ratio, and E/e′ ratio at peak exercise were not significantly different between NT‐proBNP groups. Peak oxygen consumption (VO2), VO2 at ventilatory threshold, and ventilatory efficiency measures were impaired in all patients and were not significantly different between high and low NT‐proBNP patients.
Conclusions
NT‐proBNP was below the proposed diagnostic cut‐off point of 125 pg/mL in half of this obese study cohort. Cardiac diastolic dysfunction and cardiorespiratory fitness were not significantly different between high and low NT‐proBNP patients. These data indicate that excluding the diagnosis of HFpEF based solely on NT‐proBNP levels should be discouraged.
Keywords: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, Cardiorespiratory fitness, Natriuretic peptides
Background
Due to heterogeneity, the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) syndrome presents clinicians with a diagnostic challenge. The recently updated 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines mandate an elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N‐terminal pro‐BNP (NT‐proBNP) to diagnose HF, departing from prior recommendations.1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Indeed, evidence cited in the guidelines on the diagnostic utility of NP derives from patients with predominantly systolic dysfunction.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Studies on the diagnostic utility of NP in HFpEF patients are conflicting.10, 11, 12, 13 Moreover, elevated NP levels do not predict the response to treatment among HFpEF patients and treatment response may be greatest in patients with low NP levels.14, 15
Aims
The aim of the current study was to determine whether an NT‐proBNP level below the ESC‐recommended diagnostic cut‐off of 125 pg/mL excludes a diagnosis of HFpEF.
Methods
We included stable HFpEF outpatients who were enrolled prospectively for a clinical trial (NCT02173548) as described previously.16 Patients were eligible according to 2007 ESC criteria,3 which did not mandate an elevated NP level for diagnosis, and were excluded if they had recent (within 1 month prior) hospitalization or were unable to complete cardiopulmonary exercise (CPX) testing.
Plasma NT‐proBNP levels were determined using a Elecsys proBNP II platform and a electrochemiluminescence immunoassay ‘ECLIA’ (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA). The assay reports a range of accuracy between 5 and 35 000 pg/mL. Patients were categorized as low or high NT‐proBNP levels based upon the 2016 ESC diagnostic cut‐off5 of 125 pg/mL. All patients underwent maximal CPX according to a conservative ramping treadmill protocol and achieved a peak respiratory exchange ratio > 1.0 (preferably ≥1.1).17, 18
Venous whole blood samples were drawn prior to CPX. Serum was separated, and NT‐proBNP level quantification was conducted on the same day as blood sample acquisition. Body composition was assessed via bioelectrical impedance analysis (Quantum IV Body Composition Analyzer, RJL Systems, Clinton, MI, USA) as previously described.19
Transthoracic Doppler echocardiography was performed by a cardiologist according to current recommendations.20, 21, 22
Summary statistics are reported as median and inter‐quartile range (IQR). Comparisons between patients with high and low NT‐proBNP were conducted with the Mann–Whitney U‐test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Spearman's ρ was calculated to determine whether NT‐proBNP correlated with cardiac structure or cardiorespiratory fitness. A two‐sided P‐value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted with SPSS 24.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Table 1 summarizes characteristics of included patients. All patients had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II (9, 30%) or III (21, 70%) symptoms. All patients were obese except one that was overweight [body mass index (BMI) of 27]. Median BMI was 42 (38–48) kg/m2. There were no differences in fat mass, % fat mass, or fat mass index between low and high NT‐proBNP patients (P > 0.50 for each measure). Clinical characteristics and medication use were not different between patients with a low NT‐proBNP and patients with a high NT‐proBNP (P > 0.13 for each comparison) (Table 1). Patients with low NT‐proBNP reported greater self‐assessed activity levels compared with high NT‐proBNP patients (P = 0.02). Many patients with low NT‐proBNP level reported NYHA functional class III symptoms (9, 60%), indicating marked limitation of physical activity.
Table 1.
Patient characteristics in the overall cohort and according to N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide level
| Characteristic | All patients (n = 30) | NT‐proBNP > 125 pg/mL (n = 15) | NT‐proBNP ≤ 125 pg/mL (n = 15) | P‐value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years, IQR) | 54 (48–62) | 58 (51–66) | 54 (48–57) | 0.23 |
| Female gender (n [%]) | 19 (66) | 7 (47) | 12 (80) | 0.13 |
| African American (n [%]) | 16 (53) | 8 (53) | 8 (53) | 1.0 |
| Diabetes (n [%]) | 23 (77) | 13 (87) | 10 (67) | 0.39 |
| Hypertension (n [%]) | 30 (100) | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | 1.0 |
| Hyperlipidaemia (n [%]) | 22 (73) | 10 (67) | 12 (80) | 0.68 |
| Shortness of breath (n [%]) | 30 (100) | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | 1.0 |
| Orthopnoea (n [%]) | 14 (50) | 8 (57.1) | 6 (42.9) | 0.71 |
| Paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnoea (n [%]) | 6 (20) | 3 (21.4) | 3 (21.4) | 1.0 |
| Peripheral oedema (n [%]) | 11 (37) | 8 (57.1) | 3 (21.4) | 0.12 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) | 130 (119–137) | 130 (120–140) | 125 (112–134) | 0.35 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) | 70 (62–74) | 70 (62–80) | 68 (62–72) | 0.33 |
| Heart rate (beats/min) | 75 (62–83) | 63 (58–88) | 78 (67–83) | 0.25 |
| C‐reactive protein (mg/L) | 6.1 (3.7–16.2) | 6.9 (4.1–17) | 4.6 (2.7–14.5) | 0.38 |
| Body composition | ||||
| Body mass index (kg/m2, IQR) | 42 (38–48) | 42 (40–54) | 42 (36–45) | 0.22 |
| Normal weight | 1 (7) | 1 (7) | 0 | 0.26 |
| Class 1 obesity (n [%]) | 2 (13) | 0 | 2 (13) | |
| Class 2 obesity (n [%]) | 8 (27) | 3 (20) | 5 (33) | |
| Class 3 obesity (n [%]) | 19 (63) | 11 (73) | 8 (53) | |
| Fat mass (kg) | 55 (47–61) | 54 (43–63) | 55 (49–59) | 0.92 |
| Fat mass (% total body weight) | 48 (38–52) | 40 (37–49) | 50 (37–53) | 0.50 |
| Fat mass index | 19 (16–23) | 19 (15–23) | 19 (17–23) | 0.77 |
| New York Heart Association functional class | ||||
| Class II | 9 (30) | 3 (20) | 6 (40) | 0.43 |
| Class III | 21 (70) | 12 (80) | 9 (60) | |
| Quality of life assessment (score [IQR]) | ||||
| MLHFQ | 61 (35–73) | 67 (44–74) | 60 (27–67) | 0.44 |
| DASI | 23 (16–33) | 16 (11–27) | 26 (19–40) | 0.02 |
| Heart failure therapies (n [%]) | ||||
| ACE‐I or ARB | 17 (57) | 8 (53) | 9 (60) | 0.99 |
| Beta‐blocker | 25 (83) | 13 (87) | 12 (80) | 0.99 |
| Aldosterone antagonist | 17 (57) | 8 (53) | 9 (60) | 0.99 |
| Hydralazine | 8 (27) | 6 (40) | 2 (13) | 0.22 |
| Nitrates | 2 (7) | 2 (13) | 0 | 0.48 |
| Loop diuretic | 30 (100) | 15 (100) | 15 (100) | 1.0 |
| Loop diuretic dose (mg furosemide) | 80 (40–160) | 80 (40–160) | 80 (20–160) | 0.82 |
| NT‐proBNP (pg/mL, IQR) | 127 (48–251) | 248 (174–318) | 48 (24–90) | <0.001 |
ACE‐I, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; DASI, Duke Activity Status Index; IQR, inter‐quartile range; MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; NT‐proBNP, N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide.
All patients achieved a maximal effort during CPX as measured by peak respiratory exchange ratio. Exercise time during maximal CPX was shorter in patients with high NT‐proBNP levels compared with low NT‐proBNP levels 7.2 vs. 9.5 min (P = 0.007) (Figure 1 ). Cardiorespiratory fitness was significantly impaired in all patients. Peak oxygen consumption (VO2) was 13.3 mL/kg/min (IQR, 11.7–17.2) and 16.0 mL/kg/min (IQR, 13.5–17.8) in the high and low NT‐proBNP groups, respectively (P = 0.19 for between‐group comparison). These achieved peak VO2 represented 49% and 64% of the value predicted based upon age, sex, and weight (P = 0.12 for between‐group comparison). Impairments were also observed in VO2 at ventilatory threshold, peak O2 pulse, and oxygen uptake efficiency slope for both high and low NT‐proBNP groups (Table 2).
Figure 1.
Cardiac structure and function and cardiorespiratory fitness according to N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) level for each patient is presented. The vertical dashed line separates patients with NT‐proBNP level above and below 125 pg/mL, the diagnostic cut‐point recommended by the European Society of Cardiology. E/e′ ratio, early diastolic mitral inflow velocity to mitral annular velocity ratio; LAVI, left atrial volume index; LVEDVI, left ventricular end‐diastolic volume index; OUES, oxygen uptake efficiency slope; pVO2, peak oxygen consumption.
Table 2.
Cardiac structure and function and cardiorespiratory fitness in the overall cohort and according to N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide level
| Parameter | All patients (n = 30) | NT‐proBNP > 125 pg/mL (n = 15) | NT‐proBNP ≤ 125 pg/mL (n = 15) | P‐value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doppler echocardiography | ||||
| LVEF (%) | 60 (56–63) | 60 (53–63) | 60 (57–62) | 0.78 |
| LVEDV index (mL/m2) | 46 (39–58) | 52 (45–62) | 43 (37–51) | 0.03 |
| LVESV index (mL/m2) | 18 (14–26) | 21 (16–30) | 16 (14–21) | 0.08 |
| SV index (mL/m2) | 29 (23–34) | 30 (28–34) | 24 (23–30) | 0.02 |
| LAV index (mL/m2) | 30 (23–39) | 30 (26–41) | 26 (22–37) | 0.35 |
| E/A ratio | 1.1 (0.9–1.4) | 1.2 (0.9–1.6) | 1.0 (0.9–1.2) | 0.16 |
| DT (ms) | 230 (188–270) | 230 (190–280) | 229 (151–250) | 0.31 |
| e′ (cm/s) | 7.9 (5.7–9.2) | 6.2 (5–6.6) | 7 (6.5–8.8) | 0.05 |
| E/e′ ratio | 11.4 (8.5–13.1) | 12.6 (8.3–18.4) | 11.3 (8.2–11.7) | 0.20 |
| e′ at peak exercise (cm/s) | 9.6 (8.4–12.1) | 8.6 (7.7–10.6) | 10.5 (9.6–13.3) | 0.08 |
| E/e′ ratio at peak exercise | 11.5 (8.0–14.7) | 12.4 (10.5–17.8) | 10.5 (7.0–12.6) | 0.10 |
| Change in E/e′ with exercise | 0.4 (−1.1 to 2.1) | 2.0 (−0.9 to 3.3) | −0.5 (−2.5 to 1.6) | 0.10 |
| LV s′ (cm/s) | 7.6 (6.9–8.5) | 7.5 (6.2–8.5) | 9.8 (9.4–11.3) | 0.46 |
| RV s′ (cm/s) | 13 (9.6–14.6) | 13.5 (9.8–15.5) | 12.4 (9.6–13.5) | 0.53 |
| TAPSE (cm) | 2.5 (2.0–2.7) | 2.3 (2.0–2.9) | 2.5 (2.2–2.6) | 0.76 |
| Cardiopulmonary exercise testing | ||||
| Exercise time (min) | 8.4 (6.4–10.1) | 7.2 (5.4–8.4) | 9.5 (8.3–11.0) | 0.007 |
| Peak respiratory exchange ratio | 1.10 (1.04–1.15) | 1.09 (1.04–1.15) | 1.10 (1.03–1.16) | 0.99 |
| Peak VO2 (mL/kg/min) | 13.9 (11.9–17.7) | 13.3 (11.7–17.2) | 16 (13.5–17.8) | 0.19 |
| Predicted peak VO2 (%) | 51 (43–65) | 49 (42–54) | 64 (43–71) | 0.12 |
| Peak VO2 (L/min) | 1.7 (1.4–2.1) | 1.9 (1.5–2.2) | 1.8 (1.4–2.2) | 0.78 |
| Predicted peak VO2 (%) | 79 (67–88) | 74 (63–82) | 84 (67–101) | 0.17 |
| VO2 at VT (L/min) | 1.41 (1.07–1.61) | 1.44 (0.98–1.67) | 1.38 (1.07–1.57) | 0.81 |
| Peak O2 pulse (mL/beat) | 14.4 (11.0–16.5) | 15.6 (11.5–17.7) | 13.5 (10.8–15.7) | 0.11 |
| VE/VCO2 slope | 29 (27–33) | 30 (28–34) | 28 (27–32) | 0.31 |
| OUES | 2.23 (1.90–2.64) | 2.25 (2.07–2.75) | 2.18 (1.79–2.53) | 0.20 |
| Rating of perceived exertion | 17 (15–17) | 17 (15–17) | 17 (15–18) | 0.54 |
| Borg dyspnoea score | 7 (4–9) | 7 (4–9) | 7 (3–9) | 0.51 |
DT, deceleration time; E, early diastolic mitral annular inflow velocity; e′, early diastolic mitral annular velocity; LAV, left atrial volume; LVEDV, left ventricular end‐diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end‐systolic volume; IQR, inter‐quartile range; OUES, oxygen uptake efficiency slope; RV, right ventricular; s′, peak systolic annular velocity; SV, stroke volume; TAPSE, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion VO2, oxygen consumption; VE/VCO2 slope, minute ventilation‐carbon dioxide production slope; VT, ventilatory threshold.
Left ventricular (LV) end‐diastolic and end‐systolic volume indices as well as left atrial volume index (each adjusted for body surface area) were smaller in patients with low NT‐proBNP levels (Table 2). Stroke volume index was smaller in low NT‐proBNP patients. Median ratio of early mitral inflow velocity to mitral annular early diastolic tissue velocity (E/e′) was 12.6 (IQR, 8.3–18.4) and 11.3 (8.2–11.7) in the high and low NT‐proBNP groups, respectively.
Conclusions
Abnormalities of cardiac structure, cardiac diastolic function, and cardiorespiratory fitness were present in this cohort of mostly obese patients with HFpEF regardless of NT‐proBNP level. Clinicians should avoid excluding a diagnosis of HFpEF in obese patients with a low NT‐proBNP level who otherwise meet diagnostic criteria. Future studies should assess the prevalence of ‘low NP HFpEF’ in a more diverse cohort.
The use of NP levels was first introduced as a requirement for the diagnosis of HFpEF in the 2016 ESC HF guidelines.5 The mandate to assess NP levels departed from a prior ESC consensus statement in 2007 and other recommended diagnostic approaches, which recommend optional use of NPs.3, 22 This mandate was included despite a lack of evidence to support the diagnostic precision and accuracy of NPs in patients with HFpEF. Indeed, the majority of available data on the diagnostic utility of NPs are derived from studies that were designed to identify LV systolic dysfunction,6, 7, 8, 9 mixed cohorts that included few patients with HFpEF10 or reported conflicting results.11, 12 The data presented herein further challenge the use of NPs to rule out HFpEF in overweight or obese patients with signs and symptoms of HF and objective cardiac diastolic dysfunction or elevated filling pressure.
However, while elevated NP levels have very high positive predictive value for HFpEF, low NP levels have very low negative predictive value in obese patients who otherwise meet criteria for a diagnosis of HFpEF: in the cohort presented here, 50% of patients of HFpEF diagnosed according to strict Doppler echocardiographic or haemodynamic criteria had NT‐proBNP < 125 pg/mL and showed severe impairment in exercise capacity associated with 7diastolic dysfunction.
Importantly, we enroled patients according to 2007 ESC consensus statement criteria.3 Had we applied 2016 ESC guideline criteria and mandated an elevated NT‐proBNP level to confirm diagnosis, 50% of patients in our cohort would no longer be considered to have HFpEF and an alternative diagnosis would have been pursued erroneously to explain cardiac signs and symptoms.
Obesity is associated with low NP levels due to increased adipose tissue.23 It is unclear whether our results will generalize to non‐obese cohorts. However, we did not find any differences in fat mass between the high and low NT‐proBNP groups, suggesting that body composition alone cannot explain our findings. We believe that our results retain a high degree of relevance for population of patients with HFpEF as obesity is an important and highly prevalent co‐morbidity in this group.24
These data, however, do not support elimination of NP assessment as part of routine management of HFpEF patients. Indeed, NPs remain strong markers of LV wall stress25 and prognosis.26 Our own data indicate that abnormalities in cardiac structure and cardiorespiratory fitness are likely worse in patients with high NT‐proBNP levels compared with those with low NT‐proBNP levels.
These results have important implications for the use of elevated NP level as an inclusion criterion in clinical trials.27, 28, 29 Our data support the use of a lower threshold for inclusion compared with prior trials in order to enrol patients with HFpEF and obesity. Of note, even many of the patients in the high NT‐proBNP group would have failed to meet the inclusion criteria for recent HFpEF studies,30 and thus overweight and obese patients are likely to be largely under‐represented in contemporary HFpEF study with NT‐proBNP‐driven enrolment criteria.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that our study is limited by a small sample size and by the single‐time‐point determination of NT‐proBNP. All patients had been treated for HFpEF by the time of blood sampling and therefore it is possible that untreated NT‐proBNP levels would have been higher in newly diagnosed patients, yet this is likely to occur in clinical practice in which thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the treatment of arterial hypertension. Finally, our results may not generalize to other ethnicities or to normal weight individuals. However, results similar to ours have been reported previously in various settings.11, 12, 13
In summary, excluding the diagnosis of HFpEF based solely on NT‐proBNP levels should be discouraged in overweight and obese patients.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Funding
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant (1R34HL117026) to A.B. and B.W.V.T., and an institutional Clinical and Translational Science Award to Virginia Commonwealth University (UL1TR000058 from the National Center for Research Resources; PI, Dr F. Gerard Moeller).
Buckley, L. F. , Canada, J. M. , Del Buono, M. G. , Carbone, S. , Trankle, C. R. , Billingsley, H. , Kadariya, D. , Arena, R. , Van Tassell, B. W. , and Abbate, A. (2018) Low NT‐proBNP levels in overweight and obese patients do not rule out a diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. ESC Heart Failure, 5: 372–378. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12235.
References
- 1. Burkhoff D, Maurer MS, Packer M. Heart failure with a normal ejection fraction: is it really a disorder of diastolic function? Circulation 2003; 107: 656–658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Vasan RS, Levy D. Defining diastolic heart failure: a call for standardized diagnostic criteria. Circulation 2000; 101: 2118–2121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Paulus WJ, Tschöpe C, Sanderson JE, Rusconi C, Flachskampf FA, Rademakers FE, Marino P, Smiseth OA, De KG, Leite‐Moreira AF, Borbély A, Edes I, Handoko ML, Heymans S, Pezzali N, Pieske B, Dickstein K, Fraser AG, Brutsaert DL, Failure ESG on DH , Echeverria H, Bilsker M, Myerburg R, Kessler K, Dougherty A, Naccarelli G, Gray E, Hicks C, Goldstein R, Soufer R, Wohlgelernter D, Vita N, Amuchestegui M, Sostman H, Berger H, Zaret B, Cohn J, Johnson G, Wheeldon N, Clarkson P, MacDonald T, Vasan R, Benjamin E, Levy D, Owan T, Hodge D, Herges R, Jacobsen S, Roger V, Redfield M 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: 2539–2550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Shah SJ, Katz DH, Selvaraj S, Burke MA, Yancy CW, Gheorghiade M, Bonow RO, Huang C‐C, Deo RC. Phenomapping for novel classification of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 2015; 131: 269–279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, Falk V, González‐Juanatey JR, Harjola V‐P, Jankowska EA, Jessup M, Linde C, Nihoyannopoulos P, Parissis JT, Pieske B, Riley JP, Rosano GMC, Ruilope LM, Ruschitzka F, Rutten FH, van der Meer P. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Rev Española Cardiol (English Ed) 2016; 69: 1167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Cowie MR, Struthers AD, Wood DA, Coats AJ, Thompson SG, Poole‐Wilson PA, Sutton GC. Value of natriuretic peptides in assessment of patients with possible new heart failure in primary care. Lancet (London, England) 1997; 350: 1349–1353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Yamamoto K, Burnett JC, Bermudez EA, Jougasaki M, Bailey KR, Redfield MM. Clinical criteria and biochemical markers for the detection of systolic dysfunction. J Card Fail 2000; 6: 194–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Fuat A, Murphy JJ, Hungin APS, Curry J, Mehrzad AA, Hetherington A, Johnston JI, Smellie WSA, Duffy V, Cawley P. The diagnostic accuracy and utility of a B‐type natriuretic peptide test in a community population of patients with suspected heart failure. Br J Gen Pract 2006; 56: 327–333. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Zaphiriou A, Robb S, Murray‐Thomas T, Mendez G, Fox K, McDonagh T, Hardman SMC, Dargie HJ, Cowie MR. The diagnostic accuracy of plasma BNP and NTproBNP in patients referred from primary care with suspected heart failure: results of the UK natriuretic peptide study. Eur J Heart Fail 2005; 7: 537–541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Krishnaswamy P, Lubien E, Clopton P, Koon J, Kazanegra R, Wanner E, Gardetto N, Garcia A, DeMaria A, Maisel AS. Utility of B‐natriuretic peptide levels in identifying patients with left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction. Am J Med 2001; 111: 274–279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Anjan VY, Loftus TM, Burke MA, Akhter N, Fonarow GC, Gheorghiade M, Shah SJ. Prevalence, clinical phenotype, and outcomes associated with normal B‐type natriuretic peptide levels in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol 2012; 110: 870–876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Meijers WC, Hoekstra T, Jaarsma T, Van Veldhuisen DJ, de Boer RA. Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and low levels of natriuretic peptides. Netherlands Hear J 2016; 24: 287–295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Shuai X‐X, Chen Y‐Y, Lu Y‐X, Su G‐H, Wang Y‐H, Zhao H‐L, Han J. Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: which parameters and diagnostic strategies are more valuable? Eur J Heart Fail 2011; 13: 737–745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Anand IS, Claggett B, Liu J, Shah AM, Rector TS, Shah SJ, Desai AS, O'Meara E, Fleg JL, Pfeffer MA, Pitt B, Solomon SD. Interaction between spironolactone and natriuretic peptides in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. JACC Hear Fail 2017; 5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Anand IS, Rector TS, Cleland JG, Kuskowski M, McKelvie RS, Persson H, McMurray JJ, Zile MR, Komajda M, Massie BM, Carson PE. Prognostic value of baseline plasma amino‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide and its interactions with irbesartan treatment effects in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: findings from the I‐PRESERVE trial. Circ Heart Fail 2011; 4: 569–577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Van Tassell BW, Buckley LF, Carbone S, Trankle CR, Canada JM, Dixon DL, Abouzaki NA, Oddi‐Erdle C, Biondi‐Zoccai G, Arena R, Abbate A. Interleukin‐1 blockade in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: rationale and design of the Diastolic Heart Failure Anakinra Response Trial 2 (D‐HART2). Clin Cardiol 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Francis DP, Shamim W, Davies LC, Piepoli MF, Ponikowski P, Anker SD, Coats AJ. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing for prognosis in chronic heart failure: continuous and independent prognostic value from VE/VCO(2)slope and peak VO(2). Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 154–161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Arena R, Humphrey R, Peberdy MA, Madigan M. Predicting peak oxygen consumption during a conservative ramping protocol: implications for the heart failure population. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 2003; 23: 183–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Carbone S, Canada JM, Buckley LF, Trankle CR, Dixon DL, Buzzetti R, Arena R, Van Tassell BW, Abbate A. Obesity contributes to exercise intolerance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 2487–2488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Gottdiener JS, Bednarz J, Devereux R, Gardin J, Klein A, Manning WJ, Morehead A, Kitzman D, Oh J, Quinones M, Schiller NB, Stein JH, Weissman NJ. American Society of Echocardiography recommendations for use of echocardiography in clinical trials. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2004; 17: 1086–1119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Gardin JM, Adams DH, Douglas PS, Feigenbaum H, Forst DH, Fraser AG, Grayburn PA, Katz AS, Keller AM, Kerber RH, Khandheria BK, Klein AL, Lang RM, Pierard LA, Quinones MA, Schnittger I. Recommendations for a standardized report for adult transthoracic echocardiography: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography's Nomenclature and Standards Committee and Task Force for a Standardized Echocardiography report. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002; 15: 275–290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, Drazner MH, Fonarow GC, Geraci SA, Horwich T, Januzzi JL, Johnson MR, Kasper EK, Levy WC, Masoudi FA, McBridge PE, McMurray JJ, Mitchell JE, Peterson PN, Riegel B, Sam F, Stevenson LW, Tang WW, Tsai EJ, Wilkoff BL. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure. Circulation 2013; 128: 1810–1852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Francis GS, Felker GM, Tang WHW. A test in context: critical evaluation of natriuretic peptide testing in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67: 330–337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Carbone S, Canada J, Buckley L, Trankle C, Billingsley H, Dixon D, Mauro A, Dessie S, Kadariya D, Mezzaroma E, Buzzetti R, Arena R, Van Tassell B, Toldo S, Abbate A. Dietary fat, sugar consumption and cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. JACC Basic to Transl Sci 2017. In press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Obokata M, Reddy YNV, Pislaru SV, Melenovsky V, Borlaug BA. Evidence supporting the existence of a distinct obese phenotype of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation 2017. CIRCULATIONAHA.116.026807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Van Veldhuisen DJ, Linssen GCM, Jaarsma T, Van Gilst WH, Hoes AW, Tijssen JGP, Paulus WJ, Voors AA, Hillege HL. B‐type natriuretic peptide and prognosis in heart failure patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61: 1498–1506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Pieske B, Maggioni AP, Lam CSP, Pieske‐Kraigher E, Filippatos G, Butler J, Ponikowski P, Shah SJ, Solomon SD, Scalise A‐V, Mueller K, Roessig L, Gheorghiade M. Vericiguat in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: results of the SOluble guanylate Cyclase stimulatoR in heArT failurE patientS with PRESERVED EF (SOCRATES‐PRESERVED) study. Eur Heart J 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Solomon SD, Zile M, Pieske B, Voors A, Shah A, Kraigher‐Krainer E, Shi V, Bransford T, Takeuchi M, Gong J, Lefkowitz M, Packer M, McMurray JJV. Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB on Management Of heart failUre with preserved ejectioN fracTion (PARAMOUNT) Investigators. The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a phase 2 double‐blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England) 2012; 380: 1387–1395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Claggett B, Clausell N, Desai AS, Diaz R, Fleg JL, Gordeev I, Harty B, Heitner JF, Kenwood CT, Lewis EF, O'Meara E, Probstfield JL, Shaburishvili T, Shah SJ, Solomon SD, Sweitzer NK, Yang S, McKinlay SM. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1383–1392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Kelly JP, Mentz RJ, Mebazaa A, Voors AA, Butler J, Roessig L, Fiuzat M, Zannad F, Pitt B, O'Connor CM, Lam CSP. Patient selection in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 1668–1682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]