Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 13, 2025

Author Spotlight: A Pharmacodissection Approach to Uncover Mechanisms in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Populations
Published on: July 21, 2023
Microvascular dysfunction across organs in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the PROSE-HFpEF
Jerremy Weerts1, Blanche L M Schroen2, Arantxa Barandiarán Aizpurua2
1Department of Cardiology, CARIM Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. jerremy.weerts@mumc.nl.
Background:
Systemic microvascular dysfunction is proposed as a key pathophysiological process in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study compared microvasculature across vascular beds in HFpEF patients and controls.
Methods:
This prospective, case-control study included subjects ≥ 60years. HFpEF patients were diagnosed in an expert centre. Controls without HF were selected from the Maastricht Study, a population cohort enriched with diabetes mellitus. Microvascular assessments included central retinal venular/arteriolar calibres (CRVE/CRAE), flicker-light-induced retinal dilation, skin microvascular flowmotion and heat-induced hyperemia, and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). Group differences were evaluated with confounder-adjustments (age, sex, blood pressure, body mass index, diabetes, haemoglobin, smoking). Interactions with sex and diabetes mellitus were tested, and stratified analyses were performed when significant interactions were present.
Results:
Microvascular assessments were performed in 138 HFpEF patients and 2140 controls. Microvascular differences were present between groups in all vascular beds. However, confounder-adjusted analyses attenuated differences. Confounder-adjusted analyses indicated that HFpEF patients versus controls still had retinal differences: narrower CRVE (- 8.1 μm, p = 0.008) and narrower CRAE trend (- 3.5 μm, p = 0.073), but similar flicker-light-induced retinal venular/arteriolar dilation (- 0.23%, p = 0.392; - 0.18%, p = 0.593, respectively). Confounder-adjusted analyses showed similar skin flowmotion measures (i.e. endothelial power - 0.09log(PU2), p = 0.181), and heat-induced hyperemia (0.02log(%), p = 0.605) between groups. UACR remained higher in HFpEF after confounder adjustments (0.56log(g/mol), p = < 0.001). Interaction analyses revealed that female patients had narrower CRVE versus controls (pint=0.023; females - 13.8 μm, p < 0.001; males 1.2 μm, p = 0.812). Patients had lower skin endothelial flowmotion power only when diabetes was co-occurring (pint=0.048; - 0.36 log(PU2 ), p = 0.014). UACR was higher in male and female patients versus controls, but was more pronounced in males (pint=0.002).
Conclusions:
HFpEF patients showed microvascular differences versus controls across all vascular beds studied. However, confounder-adjusted differences remained significant in eyes and kidneys. The findings across multiple organs support that MVD is likely a more systemic process than only local MVD in HFpEF, and possible sex-specific underlying pathophysiology.
Registration:
URL: https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl ; Unique identifier: NL7655.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology
Heart Failure I: Introduction
Heart Failure III: Clinical Manifestations
Heart Failure Drugs: Diuretics
Heart Failure V: Medical Management

