Brief Reports

Comparison of Estimates of Right Atrial Pressure by Physical Examination and Echocardiography in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and Reasons for Discrepancies

Little is known about how tightly right atrial pressure (RAP) is associated with prognosis in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR). The aim of this study was to investigate the association of RAP estimated by echocardiography (RAP-echo) with cardiovascular events in patients with severe TR.

Two hundred forty outpatients (median age, 75 years; 130 women) who underwent two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography and were diagnosed with severe TR were retrospectively studied. According to RAP-echo using the diameter of the inferior vena cava and its response to a sniff, patients were classified into two groups: low or middle and high RAP-echo. Cardiovascular events were defined as cardiovascular death and admission for heart failure.

During follow-up (median, 428 days; range, 87-1,229 days), 64 patients experienced cardiovascular events. By multivariate analysis, high RAP-echo was independently associated with cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.17-5.18). Also, jugular venous distention and leg edema were not independently associated with cardiovascular events.

The significant and stronger association of RAP-echo with clinical outcome compared with estimates of RAP on physical examination suggests that recognition of high RAP-echo can be a valuable surrogate for the clinical management of severe TR patients.

Invasive hemodynamic measurement via right heart catheterization has shown divergent data in its role in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock. We hypothesized that variation in data acquisition technique and interpretation might contribute to these observations. We sought to assess differences in hemodynamic acquisition and interpretation by operator subspecialty as well as level of experience.

Individual-level responses to how physicians both collect and interpret hemodynamic data at the time of right heart catheterization was solicited via a survey distributed to international professional societies in HF and interventional cardiology. Data were stratified both by operator subspecialty (HF specialists or interventional cardiologists [IC]) and operator experience (early career [≤10 years from training] or late career [>10 years from training]) to determine variations in clinical practice. For the sensitivity analysis, we also look at differences in each subgroup. A total of 261 responses were received. There were 141 clinicians (52%) who self-identified as HF specialists, 99 (38%) identified as IC, and 20 (8%) identified as other. There were 142 early career providers (54%) and late career providers (119 [46%]). When recording hemodynamic values, there was considerable variation in practice patterns, regardless of subspecialty or level of experience for the majority of the intracardiac variables. There was no agreement or mild agreement among HF and IC as to when to record right atrial pressures or pulmonary capillary wedge pressures. HF cardiologists were more likely to routinely measure both Fick and thermodilution cardiac output compared with IC (51% vs 29%, P < .001), something mirrored in early career vs later career cardiologists.

Significant variation exists between the acquisition and interpretation of right heart catheterization measurements between HF and IC, as well as those early and late in their careers. With the growth of the heart team approach to management of patients in cardiogenic shock, standardization of both assessment and management practices is needed.

This study investigated the prognostic importance of heart failure (HF) signs and symptoms in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on HF signs and symptoms.

In patients with HFpEF, worsening of HF symptoms, as a marker of cardiac decompensation, is frequently the reason for hospitalization. In this heterogenous disease entity, the prognostic value of HF signs and symptoms with regard to cardiovascular (CV) outcomes is poorly defined.

The authors examined the association between baseline HF signs and symptoms (rest dyspnea, exertional dyspnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, orthopnea, fatigue, edema, jugular venous distension, rales, and third heart sound) as well as burden of these HF signs and symptoms (classified as ≤2 and ≥3 HF signs and symptoms) and the primary composite of total HF hospitalizations and CV death, its components, and all-cause death in 4,725 patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) with available signs and symptoms at randomization. Response to sacubitril/valsartan on the basis of the presence of signs and symptoms was evaluated. Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on signs and symptoms over time were assessed using binary repeated-measures logistic regression.

Patients with high (≥3) burden of HF signs and symptoms (n = 1,772 [38%]) were more commonly women, had slightly lower left ventricular ejection fractions, higher body mass index, and more advanced New York Heart Association functional class compared with patients with low (≤2) burden (n = 2,953 [62%]) (p < 0.001 for all). Levels of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.14). Greater burden of signs and symptoms was associated with higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and CV death (rate ratio [RR]: 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30 to 1.74) and all-cause death (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.65). Among individual signs and symptoms, orthopnea (RR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.61) and rales (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.10) were most predictive of the primary endpoint. Treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan was not significantly modified by burden of HF signs and symptoms (p for interaction = 0.08), though patients with orthopnea appeared to derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.90) than those without orthopnea (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.14; p for interaction = 0.04). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease overall burden of HF signs and symptoms over time (odds ratio: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.07) but did reduce exertional dyspnea (odds ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.93).

High burden of HF signs and symptoms, particularly the presence of orthopnea and rales, portends a higher risk for adverse CV events in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the burden of HF signs and symptoms over time but did reduce exertional dyspnea relative to valsartan. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711)