Systemic inflammation and coronary microvascular endothelial dysfunction are essential pathophysiological factors in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) that support the use of statins. The pleiotropic properties of statins, such as anti-inflammatory, antihypertrophic, antifibrotic, and antioxidant effects, are generally accepted and may be beneficial in HF, especially in HFpEF. Numerous observational clinical trials have consistently shown a beneficial prognostic effect of statins in patients with HFpEF, while the results of two larger trials in patients with HFrEF have been controversial. Such differences may be related to a more pronounced impact of the pleiotropic properties of statins on the pathophysiology of HFpEF and pro-inflammatory comorbidities (arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, chronic kidney disease) that are more common in HFpEF. This review discusses the potential mechanisms of statin action that may be beneficial for patients with HFpEF, as well as clinical trials that have evaluated the statin effects on left ventricular diastolic function and clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF.

Relevant aspects of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, And treatment of heart failure with preserved LV EFThis review analyzes results of studies of the recent decade that focus on epidemiology, mechanisms of development, diagnostic methods, and treatments of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). As expected, the prevalence of HFpEF continues to increase due to the growing contribution of comorbidities to the structure of causes for chronic heart failure (CHF), such as arterial hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy, obesity, chronic kidney disease, as well as due to ageing of the population and decreased contributions of ischemic heart disease and myocardial infarction. Concomitant diseases are a source of low-intensity microvascular inflammation, which is currently assigned a role of a trigger mechanism eventually provoking energy deficiency, disorders of cardiomyocyte relaxation, and diffuse myocardial fibrosis. Both these processes lead to increased heart muscle rigidity and abnormally high left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP). High LVFP is associated with the development of pulmonary venous congestion and impairment of alveolar blood oxygenation, which form the clinical picture of HFpEF. Detecting high LVEF with tissue Doppler echocardiography by the E / e’ value became the instrumental basis for the HFpEF diagnostics. Recognition of inflammation and fibrosis as the key pathogenetic factors marked the main vector of modern therapy for HFpEF (anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic). The best implementation of this vector became possible with the advent of drugs from the class of angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and aldosterone antagonists. However, the efficacy of such treatments is evident only with the LV EF <60-65% while at higher values, the efficacy substantially decreases. This limitation may result from the heterogenous nature of the disease and requires more advanced methods for verification of HFpEF clinical phenotypes. Among such methods, transcriptomic, metabolomic, and proteomic approaches are considered. With the use of capabilities of the “machine learning” and the artificial intelligence, these approaches can become a new frontier in research to represent an important step towards personalized medicine for patients with HFpEF.

(1) Background: The structural and functional features of the natural history of asymptomatic hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) are not clearly defined. (2) Objective: To determine structural and functional changes in asymptomatic hypertensive LVH, as well as the incidence and predictors of the transition to different phenotypes of heart failure (HF) after a long-term follow-up. (3) Methods: Based on the assessment of chart reviews, we retrospectively selected 350 asymptomatic patients with hypertensive concentric LVH and LV ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50%. After a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 223 patients had a re-assessment. The final diagnosis (HF with reduced EF [HFrEF], or HF with preserved EF [HFpEF]) was established according to current recommendations. (4) Results: After a follow-up, only 13% of patients remained asymptomatic, 72% developed HFpEF, and 15% developed HFrEF. The transition to HFpEF was associated with an increase in LV diastolic dysfunction grade in 62% of patients. Multivariable analysis identified age, duration of hypertension, interval changes in LV mass, and a lack of statin treatment as independent predictors of HFpEF. Among 34 patients who developed HFrEF, 16 patients (7% of the whole group) had no interval myocardial infarction, corresponding to an internal mechanism of systolic dysfunction. All these 16 patients had mild systolic dysfunction (LVEF > 40%). Baseline LVEF and LV end-diastolic dimension, and interval atrial fibrillation were identified as predictors of internal HFrEF. (5) Conclusions: The majority of patients with asymptomatic LVH developed HFpEF after long-term follow-up, which was associated with the deterioration of LV diastolic dysfunction and a lack of statin treatment. In contrast, the transition to HFrEF was infrequent and characterized by mild LV systolic dysfunction.

The article discusses the problem of improving the effectiveness of treatment of heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). The relative "failure" of early studies with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors was largely due to the lack of understanding that patients with HFpEF represent a heterogeneous group with various etiological factors and pathogenetic mechanisms of the disease. Therefore, the so-called personalized approach should be used in the treatment of these patients. This approach is based on the identification of clearly defined disease phenotypes, each characterized by a set of demographic, pathogenetic, and clinical characteristics. Based on the literature and own experience, the authors consider four main phenotypes of HFpEF: 1) phenotype with brain natriuretic peptide “deficiency” syndrome associated with moderate/severe left ventricular hypertrophy; 2) cardiometabolic phenotype; 3) phenotype with mixed pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular failure; and 4) cardiac amyloidosis phenotype. In the treatment of patients with phenotype 1, it seems preferable to use the valsartan + sacubitril (possibly in combination with spironolactone) combination treatment; with phenotype 2, the empagliflozin treatment is the best; with phenotype 3, the phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor sildenafil; and with phenotype 4, transthyretin stabilizers. Certain features of different phenotypes overlap and may change as the disease progresses. Nevertheless, the isolation of these phenotypes is advisable to prioritize the choice of drug therapy. Thus, the diuretic treatment (preferably torasemide) should be considered in the presence of congestion, regardless of the HFpEF phenotype; the valsartan + sacubitril and spironolactone treatment is appropriate not only in the shortage of brain natriuretic peptide but also in the presence of concentric left ventricular hypertrophy (except for the amyloidosis phenotype); and the treatment with empagliflozin and statins may be considered in all situations where pro-inflammatory mechanisms are involved.

(1) Background: Chronic inflammation and fibrosis are key players in cardiac remodeling associated with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Monocytes and T-helpers (Th) are involved in both pro-inflammatory and fibrotic processes, while regulatory T-cells (Treg) could be considered to suppress chronic inflammation in the hypertrophied myocardium. We aimed to estimate the relationship between the frequencies of circulating CD4⁺ T-cell and monocyte subpopulations and the variables of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in patients with LVH depending on the presence of HFpEF. (2) Methods: We enrolled 57 patients with asymptomatic hypertensive LVH (n = 21), or LVH associated with HFpEF (n = 36). A clinical assessment and echocardiographs were analyzed. CD4⁺ Treg, activated Th (Th-act), and monocyte (classical, intermediate, and non-classical) subpopulations were evaluated via direct immunofluorescence and flow cytometry. (3) Results: Patients with HFpEF had a lower Treg/Th-act ratio (p = 0.001). Though asymptomatic patients and patients with HFpEF were comparable in terms of both the total monocyte number and monocyte subsets, there were moderate correlations between intermediate monocyte count and conventional and novel echocardiographic variables of LV diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. (4) Conclusions: In patients with LVH, the clinical deterioration (transition to HFpEF) and progression of LV diastolic dysfunction are probably associated with T-cell disbalance and an increase in intermediate monocyte counts.