Preserved and reduced ejection fraction manifest as two mechanistically unique phenotypes of diastolic dysfunction

AimsDiastolic dysfunction is commonplace in both heart failure with preserved (pEF) and reduced (rEF) ejection fraction (EF). However, differences in treatment response suggest that these classifications represent two unique phenotypes of diastolic dysfunction. We aimed to evaluate if patients with pEF and rEF would exhibit different mechanics of diastolic dysfunction. Methods and ResultsPatients undergoing echocardiography with normal EF and normal diastolic function, or grade 2 or 3 diastolic dysfunction with pEF or rEF were retrospectively identified. The mechanistic properties of diastolic function were assessed using the parameterised diastolic filling (PDF) method, which quantifies diastolic mechanics using the early mitral inflow pattern of the E-wave from Doppler echocardiography. Patients with diastolic dysfunction and pEF (n=75) or rEF (n=75) did not differ in E/e, tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity, or left atrial volume index (p>0.05 for all). Compared to controls (n=75), left ventricular stiffness did not differ in either pEF or rEF (p>0.3 for all), while damping was increased in pEF (p<0.001), but reduced in rEF (p=0.005). ConclusionsWhile pEF and rEF do not differ in key conventional echocardiographic measures of diastolic dysfunction, they are two unique physiologic conditions where the diastolic dysfunction manifests fundamentally differently. These findings challenge traditional assumptions about the role of myocardial stiffness in ventricular filling and underscore the importance of damping as a key mechanistic component of diastolic dysfunction. These insights may help explain differing responses to therapy across heart failure phenotypes and prompt further research into the targetable pathophysiological features that cause these changes.