Long-term prognostic value of haemodynamic determinants of right ventricular pulsatile afterload in patients with advanced heart failure

Abstract Aims Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction demonstrated a strong impact on survival of patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Increased RV afterload is associated with poor prognosis in patients with HF. To examine the prognostic relevance of RV pulsatile afterload parameters, in particular pulmonary artery compliance (PAC), elastance (PAE), and pulsatile index (PAPi) in a large cohort of patients with advanced HFrEF evaluated for heart transplantation (HT). Methods and results 149 patients with HFrEF enlisted for HT were evaluated with right heart catheterization (RHT) and echocardiography and were followed until death or any censoring events including HT, left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and hospitalization for acute heart failure (HHF). Cox regression and ROC-curve analysis were used to test the prognostic value of RV pulsatile afterload determinants. During a mean observation time of 500 ± 424 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 29 (19.5%) patients. The mean age was 56.6 ± 10.1 years and 85.2% were male. The most frequent etiology of HF was ischaemic cardiomyopathy (52.3%). Mean LV ejection fraction was 25.7 ± 10.2%. Patients who met the primary endpoint were significantly older and with worse haemodynamic profile than event-free survivors. In particular, the primary endpoint occurred in patients with lower PAC (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 2.0, P = 0.01), higher mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) (33.5 ± 11.3 vs. 29.3 ± 11.0, P = 0.05), PVR (3.0 ± 1.6 vs. 2.6 ± 2.0, P = 0.09), and PEA (1.12 ± 0.5 vs. 0.98 ± 0.6, P = 0.04). A significant increased risk of adverse outcome was observed in patients with PAC <1.9 ml/mmHg (HR: 3, 95% CI: 1.3–6, P = 0.007), PEA > 0.9 mmHg/ml (HR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1–5.2, P = 0.02) and mPAP ≥25 mmHg (HR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.0–7.5, P = 0.03). The predictive value of PAC was superior compared with PVR (AUC comparison, P = 0.019) and PAPi (P = 0.03). Conversely, PAC presented similar prognostic accuracy compared with mPAP (P = 0.51) and PEA (P = 0.19). Moreover, PAC demonstrated incremental prognostic value compared with the cardiac index (P = 0.02), whereas mPAP and PAE did not. Conclusions Impaired haemodynamic RV parameters are associated with worse survival in patients with advanced HFrEF. Pulsatile RV afterload indices should be considered in the evaluation of patients enlisted for HT. PAC demonstrated an independent prognostic value in this highly selected cohort of patients awaiting HT.