ライフサイエンスコーパス: HFpEF

1 illing but with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

2 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

3 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

4 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

5 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

6 e patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

7 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

8 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

9 ilure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

10 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

11 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

12 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

13 ts with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

14 data (53% female, 68% white, 53% HFrEF, 47% HFpEF).

15 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

16 HFrEF, there are no effective treatments for HFpEF.

17 l fibrosis, a pathophysiological hallmark of HFpEF.

18 healthy controls as a key marker for future HFpEF.

19 targeting LA myopathy to improve outcomes in HFpEF.

20 Obesity is proinflammatory and common in HFpEF.

21 rhythmia across the spectrum of AF burden in HFpEF.

22 rences in EC coupling distinguish HFrEF from HFpEF.

23 port the use of praliciguat in patients with HFpEF.

24 ort the comorbidity-inflammation paradigm in HFpEF.

25 ery little is known about calcium cycling in HFpEF.

26 increased risk of any HF, and in particular, HFpEF.

27 on of cardiac vagal tone in the rat model of HFpEF.

28 tion, which may attenuate the development of HFpEF.

29 ypic characterization and risk prediction in HFpEF.

30 understanding of mechanisms and treatment of HFpEF.

31 ndrial dysfunction in the pathophysiology of HFpEF.

32 ncreasingly being diagnosed in patients with HFpEF.

33 at combination in HFrEF and of vericiguat in HFpEF.

34 sue metabolic demand, becomes compromised in HFpEF.

35 tolic dysfunction and is used to model human HFpEF.

36 presentations and findings, in patients with HFpEF.

37 multiple comorbidities are key mechanisms in HFpEF.

38 tion in obese ZSF1 rats and in patients with HFpEF.

39 on and the resulting exercise intolerance in HFpEF.

40 reduces the quality of life in patients with HFpEF.

41 w approaches for prevention and treatment of HFpEF.

42 ited evidence supports their use in HFmEF or HFpEF.

43 ongoing trials with mitochondrial agents in HFpEF.

44 malities but has not been evaluated to treat HFpEF.

45 rdium of our rodent model and in humans with HFpEF.

46 the right atrial appendages of patients with HFpEF.

47 minantly as a result of hospitalizations for HFpEF.

48 Myocardial O(2) extraction was increased in HFpEF.

49 diet (8% NaCl) from 7 weeks of age to induce HFpEF.

50 tions of applying various criteria to define HFpEF.

51 ilure Society of America (HFSA) criteria for HFpEF.

52 riptomic associations with PH development in HFpEF.

53 -proBNP may not be definitive, especially in HFpEF.

54 o EW (mechanical efficiency) was impaired in HFpEF.

55 aracteristics, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF.

56 al mechanism of cardiomyocyte dysfunction in HFpEF.

57 ed left ventricle (LV) diastolic function in HFpEF.

58 issue perfusion and LV diastolic function in HFpEF.

59 itional state from a normal healthy heart to HFpEF.

60 with abnormal cardiac structure/function in HFpEF.

61 trategy for enhancing risk stratification in HFpEF.

62 assessment during exercise in patients with HFpEF.

63 rapies that work in HFrEF are ineffective in HFpEF.

64 cise heart rate responsiveness are intact in HFpEF.

65 Hg identified the lowest risk patients with HFpEF.

66 T1 mapping and outcome in participants with HFpEF.

67 s abnormal PVR was not predictive of either (HFpEF: 0.9 [0.4-2.0, p = 0.85], HFrEF: 0.7 [0.3-1.4, p =

68 ent, and mitochondrial area was decreased in HFpEF; 1.00+/-0.09 versus 0.71+/-0.08; P=0.016.

69 wever, this increased risk was only seen for HFpEF (2.18 [1.15-4.13]) and not heart failure with redu

70 Abnormal PAC predicted HFrEF (HFpEF: 2.0 [1.0-4.0, p = 0.05], HFrEF: 2.8 [1.4-5.5, p =

71 y pressure was predictive of incident HFpEF (HFpEF: 2.4 [1.4-4.0, p = 0.001]) but not HFrEF (1.4 [0.8

72 (monomer+dimer) expression was increased in HFpEF (3.99+/-2.44) and in HFrEF (5.19+/-1.70) relative

73 48.1%; HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) 51.9%] who underwent noncardiac surgery, 41.1% ha

74 men) and 20 carefully screened patients with HFpEF (8 men, 12 women) underwent cardiopulmonary exerci

75 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a major public health problem that is rising in

76 of 243 patients had hemodynamic evidence of HFpEF (abnormal rest or exercise filling pressures), of

77 e is currently no consensus on how to define HFpEF according to various society and clinical trial cr

78 in inflammation form a conserved network in HFpEF across 2 independent cohorts and may mediate the a

79 HFpEF affects approximately 50% of patients with HF, mos

80 tly, there are no effective therapies for PH-HFpEF, although a number of candidate drugs are being ev

81 NP and RVSP were independently predictive in HFpEF among clinical, imaging, and biomarker parameters.

82 Thirteen carefully screened patients with HFpEF and 13 senior controls underwent exercise testing

83 Exercise intolerance is the hallmark of HFpEF and appears to be caused by both cardiac and perip

84 que obesity-inflammation phenotypes exist in HFpEF and are associated with differences in comorbidity

85 develop more severe symptoms than those with HFpEF and are associated with more significant exercise

86 whether coupling of MBF to EW is impaired in HFpEF and associated with compensatory increases or path

87 hese abnormal fibroblast populations in both HFpEF and cancer contribute to progression of disease.

88 m involved in exertional increases in HR, in HFpEF and control subjects.

89 Mechanical efficiency was similar in HFpEF and controls.

90 As the understanding of comorbid HFpEF and DM improves, it is hoped clinicians will be be

91 IIb trial of ~735 patients, >=45 years with HFpEF and ejection fraction >=45% who will be randomized

92 Patients with HFpEF and healthy control subjects of similar age and se

93 Major differences between HFpEF and HFrEF are the underlying causes, associated co

94 spitalized patients with acute decompensated HFpEF and HFrEF has increased over time, as has its asso

95 We used rat models of HFpEF and HFrEF to reveal distinct differences in intrac

96 ed significantly over time for patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, as well (P for interaction with time=0.

97 nd the composite outcome is apparent in both HFpEF and HFrEF.

98 mechanisms and clinical phenotypes of PH in HFpEF and HFrEF.

99 lticenter trial of 789 patients with chronic HFpEF and left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or high

100 Patients with HFpEF and NAFLD also appeared to have more advanced fibr

101 nvened a working group made up of experts in HFpEF and novel research methodologies to discuss resear

102 expression was also upregulated in mice with HFpEF and PH.

103 Osteopontin (OPN) is a biomarker of HFpEF and predictive of disease outcome.

104 Among patients with HFpEF and recent decompensation, 24-week treatment with

105 al increases in heart rate, in patients with HFpEF and senior controls.

106 ause might contribute to the pathogenesis of HFpEF and we highlight potential underlying mechanisms o

107 entified that were more severe in HFrEF than HFpEF and were independently associated with adverse out

108 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

109 ts with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are

110 points were incident HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF) and incident HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF).

111 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and is associated with impaired aerobic capacity.

112 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and is linked to impaired aerobic capacity.

113 ogical domains are predictive of outcomes in HFpEF, and a multimarker approach coupled with machine-l

114 n the pathogenesis of HF with reduced EF and HFpEF, and discuss the medical management strategies ava

115 association of GlycA with incident total HF, HFpEF, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

116 luding animal models that recapitulate human HFpEF, and human studies that both address a fundamental

117 henotype of Col4a3(-/-) mice, relate this to HFpEF, and investigate possible causative roles for OPN

118 unction to improve symptoms in patients with HFpEF, and ongoing trials with mitochondrial agents in H

119 tion [HFrEF] vs preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]), and being on guideline-directed medical treatme

120 ubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in HFpEF appear to be amplified when initiated in the high-

121 art failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at high risk of mortality, hospitalizations,

122 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are of interest due to the obesity epidemic.

123 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are older women, and risk factors include hyperte

124 (FN) (81% Singapore and all NZ FN cases were HFpEF) as classified by a guideline-endorsed NT-proBNP r

125 F), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as to identify molecular differences bet

126 ) were obtained at aortic valve replacement (HFpEF(AVR), n=5; and HFrEF(AVR), n=4), coronary artery b

127 Mean HDL-P size was greater in HFrEF than HFpEF, both of which were greater than in no HF (all 2-w

128 sful in identifying effective treatments for HFpEF but evidence supports the use of diuretics, minera

129 Abnormally high PASP predicted incident HFpEF but not HFrEF.

130 re meant to stimulate scientific advances in HFpEF by providing a road map for future collaborative i

131 AVR), n=4), coronary artery bypass grafting (HFpEF(CABG), n=5; and HFrEF(CABG), n=5), or left ventric

132 In stark contrast, HFpEF cardiomyocytes showed saturated EC coupling (incre

133 entified in PROMIS-HFpEF was also present in HFpEF cases (but not controls) in the validation cohort.

134 our findings in an independent cohort of 117 HFpEF cases and 30 comorbidity controls without heart fa

135 tion cohort, inflammation was upregulated in HFpEF cases versus controls, and the most prominent infl

136 majority (88.9%) of patients remained in the HFpEF category during follow-up; 9.5% evolved toward HF

137 promote development of a unique phenotype of HFpEF characterized by heightened ventricular interactio

138 Rather in some patients with HFpEF, chronotropic incompetence might reflect premature

139 Patients (n=301) from 3 HFpEF clinical trials were studied.

140 ved in cardiac structure compared with other HFpEF clinical trials, despite similar E/e' ratio, pulmo

141 ed comorbidity burden as the sum of 8 common HFpEF comorbidities.

142 rdiac beta-receptor sensitivity was lower in HFpEF compared to controls (0.156+/-0.133 versus 0.254+/

143 NAFLD has a two-fold higher prevalence in HFpEF compared to the general population and is independ

144 ilure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) constitutes half of all HF but lacks effective th

145 for beta-blocker users in advanced CKD with HFpEF (death: 0.88 [0.77-1.02], cardiovascular mortality

146 We applied societal and clinical trial HFpEF definitions and compared clinical profiles, exerci

147 the limitations and heterogeneity of current HFpEF definitions and may help to refine HFpEF subgroupi

148 It has been shown that patients with HFpEF develop B-lines upon submaximal exercise stress ec

149 tudies have documented that patients with PH-HFpEF develop more severe symptoms than those with HFpEF

150 er therapeutic lowering of GlycA can prevent HFpEF development.

151 Contrary to our hypothesis, patients with HFpEF displayed impaired cardiac beta-receptor sensitivi

152 In HFpEF during submaximal dobutamine stress, there is myoc

153 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), echocardiographic studies suggest that global lo

154 the setting of reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction.

155 eripheral lymphatic vessels in patients with HFpEF exhibit structural and molecular alterations and c

156 HFpEF exhibits distinctive broad transcriptomic signatur

157 erized by defective EC coupling at baseline, HFpEF exhibits enhanced coupling fidelity, further aggra

158 ained >=50% in the majority of patients with HFpEF for <=11 years.

159 The 8-microRNA discovery panel distinguished HFpEF from HF with reduced ejection fraction with AUC 0.

160 Principal component analysis separated HFpEF from HFrEF and donor controls with minimal overlap

161 In 228 patients with HFpEF from the multicenter PROMIS-HFpEF study (Prevalenc

162 esemble HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) from those with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)

163 last HF hospitalization among patients with HFpEF (>=45%).

164 ared with patients with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF had a lower 1-year mortality with little variation

165 rest, compared with controls, patients with HFpEF had higher LV EW, MVO(2), and MBF.

166 In contrast, elderly patients with HFpEF had more comorbidities and died more often from no

167 found that patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF had unique variations in circulating proteins that

168 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has grown to become the dominant form of heart fa

169 ontrast, similar treatments in patients with HFpEF have not proven beneficial.

170 nimal models of early stage remodelling (pre-HFpEF) have examined the effects that the convergence of

171 ality, with a stronger association noted for HFpEF (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 higher comorbidity, 1.19

172 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (H

173 ied in myocardial samples from patients with HFpEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and

174 ulmonary pressure was predictive of incident HFpEF (HFpEF: 2.4 [1.4-4.0, p = 0.001]) but not HFrEF (1

175 Recent hospitalization for HFpEF identifies patients at high risk for near-term cli

176 rous systemic and cardiovascular features of HFpEF in humans.

177 g to the pulmonary vascular complications in HFpEF in terms of clinical definitions, epidemiology and

178 p accurate and feasible diagnostic tools for HFpEF, including animal models that recapitulate human H

179 ate capillary-interstitium fluid exchange in HFpEF, including lymphatic drainage and the potential os

180 ssively decline with increasing AF burden in HFpEF, increasing risk for new onset AF and progressive

181 HFpEF is a heterogenous syndrome.

182 There was uniform recognition that HFpEF is a highly integrated, multiorgan, systemic disor

183 Methods and Results VITALITY-HFpEF is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-cente

184 The diagnosis of HFpEF is challenging and ultimately relates to the conce

185 While PH-HFpEF is defined by a high mean pulmonary artery pressur

186 The clinical syndrome of HFpEF is heterogeneous and must be distinguished from he

187 ever, the mechanism behind PH development in HFpEF is poorly understood.

188 ladenoson for the treatment of patients with HFpEF is pursued.

189 logical heterogeneity in the presentation of HFpEF is substantial, and ongoing studies are underway t

190 from pressure-overload hypertrophy (POH) to HFpEF is the activation and proliferation of an abnormal

191 raising exercise heart rate are impaired in HFpEF is unknown.

192 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common syndrome with high morbidity and mort

193 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex syndrome with an increasingly recogn

194 failure with preserved ejection fraction (PH-HFpEF) is a growing public health problem that is increa

195 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, acco

196 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common, yet there is currently no consensus on

197 ts with LVH and elevated biomarkers (stage-B HFpEF) is greater than in age- and sex-matched controls

198 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is now the most common form of HF, affecting over

199 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is often characterized by nitric oxide deficiency

200 d ejection fraction (respectively, HFrEF and HFpEF) is the leading cause of death in developed countr

201 endent predictor of outcome in patients with HFpEF; its use may help refining the routine risk strati

202 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) justify the search for novel therapeutic agents.

203 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) lacks effective treatments.

204 nary microvascular dysfunction is present in HFpEF, limits O(2) supply relative to demand, and is ass

205 by income level (p(interaction) for HFrEF vs HFpEF <0.0001).

206 F (LVEF <40%), HFmrEF (LVEF 40% to 50%), and HFpEF (LVEF >50%).

207 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) may constitute a distinct HFpEF phenotype.

208 In total, 206 consecutive participants with HFpEF (mean age, 71 years +/- 8 [standard deviation]; 69

209 In patients with HFpEF, microvascular filtration coefficient was lower (c

210 beta-Adrenergic stimulation of HFpEF myocytes with isoprenaline (isoproterenol) failed

211 Patients with HFrEF (n = 782), HFpEF (n = 1,004), and no HF (n = 4,742) were identified

212 d abnormal abundances in cardiac biopsies of HFpEF (n = 17) compared with donor control subjects (n =

213 Consecutive patients with HFpEF (n = 285) and control subjects (n = 146) underwent

214 Subjects with HFpEF (n=30) underwent resting and exercise hemodynamic

215 from patients meeting consensus criteria for HFpEF (n=41) contrasted with right ventricular septal ti

216 ng advanced CKD participants with preserved (HFpEF; N=2009) and midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF; N

217 Within HFpEF, non-negative matrix factorization and weighted ge

218 ion (EF) status (reduced [HFrEF], preserved [HFpEF], not classifiable) and HF severity.

219 s were not observed in similar patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.

220 F each model replicates, focusing on whether HFpEF or HFrEF is induced, to allow better investigation

221 opment of therapies targeted specifically at HFpEF or HFrEF.

222 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (

223 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

224 mes that were unique to patients with HFrEF, HFpEF, or HFmrEF.

225 both address a fundamental understanding of HFpEF pathobiology, and new diagnostic approaches and to

226 rehensive, deep phenotyping of a multicenter HFpEF patient cohort with standardized protocols and a r

227 Consecutive ambulatory HFpEF patients admitted to a multidisciplinary HF Unit w

228 of the features recognized in older, female HFpEF patients and thus, may serve to examine the effect

229 ressure and a normal ejection fraction, some HFpEF patients develop PH in the presence of pulmonary v

230 idated the model in an independent cohort of HFpEF patients enrolled in the PHFS (Penn Heart Failure

231 and 30-day readmission for HFrEF compared to HFpEF patients were 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI),

232 In a post hoc analysis, HFpEF patients with LV hypertrophy (n=10) had significan

233 or evaluation of underlying liver disease in HFpEF patients.

234 hophysiologic mechanism for many but not all HFpEF patients.

235 n fraction (HFpEF) may constitute a distinct HFpEF phenotype.

236 ypothesized that unique obesity-inflammation HFpEF phenotypes exist and are associated with differenc

237 ose with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)-remain difficult to treat, resulting in persisten

238 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear.

239 likely have HF with reduced EF, rather than HFpEF, secondary to acute ischemic injury resulting in m

240 Associations of clusters with HFpEF severity and fibrosis biomarkers (PIIINP [procolla

241 ated with differences in comorbidity burden, HFpEF severity, and fibrosis.

242 Skin biopsies in patients with HFpEF showed rarefaction of small blood and lymphatic ve

243 Application of clinical trial definitions of HFpEF similarly resulted in distinct patient classificat

244 HFpEF-specific downregulated genes engaged endoplasmic r

245 did not find effect modification by HFrEF or HFpEF status.

246 UNGD, with similar findings by HFrEF versus HFpEF status.

247 and contextualize these findings with other HFpEF studies.

248 ients with HFpEF from the multicenter PROMIS-HFpEF study (Prevalence of Microvascular Dysfunction in

249 ent HFpEF definitions and may help to refine HFpEF subgrouping to test therapeutic interventions.

250 Seven of 13 HFpEF subjects had beta-receptor sensitivity similar to

251 diac structure and function in patients with HFpEF suggest significant heterogeneity.

252 ce may prevent the full manifestation of the HFpEF syndrome in these high-risk individuals.

253 14 bpm; P<0.001) were lower in patients with HFpEF than senior controls.

254 -15 beats per minute; P<0.001) were lower in HFpEF than senior controls.

255 vered LVEF are more similar to patients with HFpEF than to patients with HFrEF.

256 ultiple cellular and molecular mechanisms in HFpEF that could be a target for the development of HFpE

257 ups, MBF increased in relation to EW, but in HFpEF, the slope of the relationship was significantly s

258 Among patients with HFpEF, the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator pralicig

259 hat could be a target for the development of HFpEF therapy in cardiovascular medicine.

260 are no treatments specifically directed for HFpEF, there is a need for better understanding of the u

261 In both HFrEF and HFpEF, there is evidence that elevated inflammatory biom

262 notypically verified rat models of HFrEF and HFpEF to compare excitation-contraction (EC) coupling an

263 ed to more accurately define the syndrome of HFpEF to inform diagnosis, patient selection for clinica

264 In both HFrEF and HFpEF, total HDL-P and small HDL-P were inversely associ

265 n-negative matrix factorization identified 3 HFpEF transcriptomic subgroups with distinctive pathways

266 Background The VITALITY-HFpEF trial (Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Ora

267 ricular ejection fraction >=45% from 3 large HFpEF trials (TOPCAT [Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for

268 Echocardiographic differences among HFpEF trials despite similar clinical event rates highli

269 Although both AF and HFpEF-two closely related disease epidemics of the 21st

270 ilure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) typically develop dyspnea and pulmonary congestio

271 (NCT03405987), consecutive participants with HFpEF underwent cardiovascular MRI between July 2012 and

272 eart Association class I to II patients with HFpEF underwent standard echocardiography, lung ultrasou

273 mass index differences largely accounted for HFpEF upregulated genes, whereas neither this nor broade

274 g and exercise hemodynamics in subjects with HFpEF using high-fidelity micromanometer catheters and e

275 tatic handgrip between groups (patients with HFpEF versus controls: 90+/-13 versus 93+/-10 bpm; P=0.4

276 arly half the significantly altered genes in HFpEF versus donor controls (1882 up, 2593 down) changed

277 f comorbidities was higher for patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF, both for women (5.53 versus 4.94; P<

278 ronger association noted among patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF.

279 e pronounced in HFrEF (0.54+/-0.06); P=0.002 HFpEF versus HFrEF.

280 ute to physical limitations in patients with HFpEF via central and peripheral mechanisms.

281 red (isovolumetric pressure in patients with HFpEF vs. control subjects: calf 16 +/- 4 mm Hg vs. 22 +

282 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CAPACITY HFpEF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled

283 mmation protein cluster identified in PROMIS-HFpEF was also present in HFpEF cases (but not controls)

284 gical mechanisms and treatment strategies in HFpEF was discussed as an example of a strategy to advan

285 otensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in HFpEF), we assessed the risk of clinical events and resp

286 Patients with HFpEF were categorized into stages of AF progression: 18

287 with controls, uniquely upregulated genes in HFpEF were enriched in mitochondrial adenosine triphosph

288 ared with the elderly, younger patients with HFpEF were less likely to be white, were more frequently

289 Younger patients (age <=55 years) with HFpEF were more often obese, nonwhite men, whereas older

290 e, nonwhite men, whereas older patients with HFpEF were more often white women with a higher prevalen

291 Patients with HFpEF were more often women (59%), African American (68%

292 (sympathetically mediated) in patients with HFpEF were not different from those in healthy senior co

293 Adults with HFpEF were prospectively enrolled.

294 HFrEF, there are no effective treatments for HFpEF, which accounts for ~50% of heart failure.

295 is remains poor in both cases, especially in HFpEF, which is rising in incidence and lacks effective

296 -P and total HDL-P were lesser in HFrEF than HFpEF, which were both lesser than no HF (all 2-way p <=

297 In the 7 out of 13 patients with HFpEF with age-appropriate beta-receptor sensitivity, pe

298 h New York Heart Association class II or III HFpEF with elevated natriuretic peptide levels were enro

299 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with limited data.

300 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), with wide variation in diagnostic criteria acros

301 den of comorbidities, both for patients with HFpEF (women: 5.17 in 2005-2009 to 5.87 in 2010-2013; me