ABSTRACT
AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the pathophysiological implications of severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) by using tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (T-TEER) as a model of right ventricular (RV) volume overload relief. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective interventional single arm trial (NCT04782908) included patients with invasively diagnosed HFpEF. The following parameters were prospectively assessed before and after T-TEER: left ventricular (LV) diastolic properties by invasive pressure-volume loop recordings; biventricular time-volume curves and function as well as septal curvature by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; strain analyses for timing of septal motion. Overall, 20 patients (median age 78, interquartile range [IQR] 72-83 years, 65% female) were included. T-TEER reduced TR by a median of 2 (of 5) grades (IQR 2-1). T-TEER increased LV stroke volume and LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (p < 0.001), without increasing LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) (p = 0.094), consequently diastolic function improved with a reduction in LVEDP/LVEDV (p = 0.001) and a rightward shift of the end-diastolic pressure-volume relationship. The increase in LVEDV correlated with a decrease in RV end-diastolic volume (p < 0.001) and LV transmural pressure increased (p = 0.028). Secondary to a decrease in early RV filling, improvements in early LV filling were observed, correlating with an alleviation of leftwards bowing of the septum (p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Diastolic LV properties in patients with HFpEF and severe TR are importantly determined by ventricular interaction in the setting of RV volume overload. T-TEER reduces RV volume overload and improves biventricular interaction and physiology.
ABSTRACT
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is frequently attributed etiologically to an underlying left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, although its pathophysiology is far more complex and can exhibit significant variations among patients. This review endeavours to systematically unravel the pathophysiological heterogeneity by illustrating diverse mechanisms leading to an impaired cardiac output reserve, a central and prevalent haemodynamic abnormality in HFpEF patients. Drawing on previously published findings from our research group, we propose a pathophysiology-guided phenotyping based on the presence of: (1) LV diastolic dysfunction, (2) LV systolic pathologies, (3) arterial stiffness, (4) atrial impairment, (5) right ventricular dysfunction, (6) tricuspid valve regurgitation, and (7) chronotopic incompetence. Tailored to each specific phenotype, we explore various potential treatment options such as antifibrotic medication, diuretics, renal denervation and more. Our conclusion underscores the pivotal role of cardiac output reserve as a key haemodynamic abnormality in HFpEF, emphasizing that by phenotyping patients according to its individual pathomechanisms, insights into personalized therapeutic approaches can be gleaned.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Although the treatment paradigm for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently shifted in favour of checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based treatment options, the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) currently approved for the treatment of HCC are expected to remain the cornerstone of HCC treatment alone or in combination with CPIs. Despite considerable research efforts, no biomarker capable of predicting the response to specific TKIs has been validated. Thus, personalized approaches to HCC may aid in determining optimal treatment lines for 2nd and 3rd lines. To identify new biomarkers, we examined differential sensitivity and investigated potential transcriptomic predictors. Methods: To this aim, the sensitivity of nine HCC cell lines to sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, and cabozantinib was evaluated by a prolonged treatment scheme to determine their respective growth rate inhibition concentrations (GR50). Subgroups discriminated by GR50 values underwent differential expression and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). Results: The nine cell lines showed broadly different sensitivities to different TKIs. GR50 values of sorafenib and regorafenib clustered closer in all cell lines, whereas treatments with lenvatinib and cabozantinib showed diversified GR50 values. GSEA showed the activation of specific pathways in sensitive vs non-sensitive cell lines. A signature consisting of 14 biomarkers (GAGE12H, GJB6, PTCHD3, PRH1-PRR4, C6orf222, HBB, C17orf99, GOLGA6A, CRYAA, CCL23, RP11-347C12.3, RP11-514O12.4, FAM180B, and TMPRSS4) discriminates the cell lines' response into three distinct treatment profiles: 1) equally sensible to sorafenib, regorafenib and cabozantinib, 2) sensible to lenvatinib, and 3) more sensible to regorafenib than sorafenib. Conclusion: We observed diverse responses to either of the four TKIs. Subgroup analysis of TKI effectiveness showed distinct transcriptomic profiles and signaling pathways associated with responsiveness. This prompts more extensive studies to explore and validate pharmacogenomic and transcriptomic strategies for a personalized treatment approach, particularly after the failure of CPI treatment.
