Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026

Lumped-Parameter and Finite Element Modeling of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
Published on: February 13, 2021
Modeling Individual Patient Outcomes After Interatrial Shunt Treatment in Heart Failure With Reduced and Preserved
Gregg W Stone1, JoAnn Lindenfeld2, Michael R Zile3
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (G.W.S.).
Background:
Among 508 patients randomized to interatrial shunt implantation versus a placebo procedure in the RELIEVE-HF trial (Reducing Lung Congestion Symptoms Using the V-Wave Shunt in Advanced Heart Failure), 2-year clinical outcomes were improved in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n=206) and worsened in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, n=302). However, randomized trials typically include therapeutic responders and nonresponders. We sought to determine the independent predictors of outcomes and model individual patient risk after atrial shunt implantation in HFrEF and HFpEF.
Methods:
The primary outcome included all-cause death, cardiac transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation, heart failure hospitalizations, and outpatient worsening heart failure events. From 37 baseline clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic, and hemodynamic covariates, the cumulative mean function of recurrent events during follow-up was modeled by the Lin-Wei-Yang-Ying method.
Results:
Among control patients with HFrEF, independent baseline predictors of outcomes were atrial fibrillation, elevated troponin, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and greater right atrial pressure. In contrast, independent predictors of outcomes in shunt-treated patients with HFrEF were lower systolic blood pressure and elevated right ventricular end-diastolic area index, pulmonary artery pressure, and pulmonary vascular resistance. Among control patients with HFpEF, independent predictors of outcomes were diabetes, higher heart rate and left ventricular end-systolic volume, and lower right ventricular fractional area change. Conversely, independent predictors in shunt-treated patients with HFpEF were hypertension, smoking, lower 6-minute walk distance, reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate, elevated troponin, and moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation. Risk modeling estimated that 67.2% of patients with HFrEF might benefit from shunt placement compared with 21.4% of patients with HFpEF.
Conclusions:
In RELIEVE-HF, distinct baseline risk factors influenced cardiovascular outcomes before and after atrial shunt treatment in HFrEF and HFpEF. Despite markedly different group responses to atrial shunt treatment in the randomized HFrEF and HFpEF strata, given individual differences in patient risk factor profiles, most but not all patients with HFrEF may benefit, and some patients with HFpEF may also improve after shunt treatment.
Registration:
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03499236.
More Related Videos
07:13A Rat Model of Pressure Overload Induced Moderate Remodeling and Systolic Dysfunction as Opposed to Overt Systolic Heart Failure
Published on: April 30, 2020
12:45Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Heart Failure Drugs: Inhibitors of Renin-Angiotensin System
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Heart Failure III: Clinical Manifestations