Pathophysiological and Prognostic Importance of an ExtraCardiac Comorbidity Burden in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Comparison of cardiac and extracardiac domain scores among the 3 patient groups (control subjects, patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF], with and without extracardiac burden [ECB]). ∗P < 0.05 vs control subjects. †P < 0.05 vs HFpEF without extracardiac burden.

• 

  Figure 2. Comparison of Log N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro BNP; n = 529) and hemoglobin levels among the 3 patient groups (control subjects, patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF], with and without extracardiac burden). ECB, extracardiac burden. ∗P < 0.05 vs controls. †P < 0.05 vs patients with HFpEF without extracardiac burden.

• 

  Figure 3. Comparison of peak oxygen consumption (VO2), exercise workload relative to peak VO2, minute ventilation (VE) vs. carbon dioxide volume (VCO2) slope, and arterial-venous oxygen content difference (AVO2) difference among the 3 patient groups (control subjects, patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF], with and without extracardiac burden). ECB, extracardiac burden.; VCO2,; ∗P < 0.05 vs control subjects. †P < 0.05 vs HFpEF without extracardiac burden.

• 

  Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier curves for incidence of composite events (all-cause mortality or heart failure events) among 3 patient groups (control subjects, and patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF], with and without an extracardiac burden). ∗P < 0.05 vs control subjects. †P < 0.05 vs patients with HFpEF without an extracardiac burden.