Key result
Both HFpEF and HFrEF are linked to ~31% to ~53% lower skeletal muscle mitochondrial activity.
Why the study?
Mechanisms of skeletal muscle weakness including protein degradation via the ubiquitin-proteasome-system, apoptosis, and mitochondrial energy alterations are incompletely studied in HFpEF, and a direct comparison with HFrEF is missing.
Does heart failure (HFpEF and HFrEF) alter skeletal muscle proteolysis, apoptosis, and energy metabolism compared to healthy controls?
Cross-Sectional (n=52)
Investigators blinded to conditions for echocardiography
No
Does heart failure (HFpEF and HFrEF) alter skeletal muscle proteolysis, apoptosis, and energy metabolism compared to healthy controls?
Skeletal muscle alterations, including increased proteolysis and impaired mitochondrial energy metabolism, are present in both HFpEF and HFrEF and may contribute to exercise intolerance.
Muscle alterations may contribute to exercise intolerance in HF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Skeletal muscle (SM) alterations contribute to exercise intolerance in heart failure patients with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced (HFrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Protein degradation via the ubiquitin-proteasome-system (UPS), nuclear apoptosis, and reduced mitochondrial energy supply is associated with SM weakness in HFrEF. These mechanisms are incompletely studied in HFpEF, and a direct comparison between these groups is missing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%, septal E/e' > 15 or >8 and NT-proBNP > 220 pg/mL, n = 20), HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 35%, n = 20) and sedentary control subjects (Con, n = 12) were studied. Inflammatory markers were measured in serum, and markers of the UPS, nuclear apoptosis, and energy metabolism were determined in percutaneous SM biopsies. Both HFpEF and HFrEF showed increased proteolysis (MuRF-1 protein expression, ubiquitination, and proteasome activity) with proteasome activity significantly related to interleukin-6. Proteolysis was more pronounced in patients with lower exercise capacity as indicated by peak oxygen uptake in per cent predicted below the median. Markers of apoptosis did not differ between groups. Mitochondrial energy supply was reduced in HFpEF and HFrEF (complex-I activity: -31% and -53%; malate dehydrogenase activity: -20% and -29%; both P < 0.05 vs. Con). In contrast, short-term energy supply via creatine kinase was increased in HFpEF but decreased in HFrEF (47% and -45%; P < 0.05 vs. Con). CONCLUSIONS: Similarly to HFrEF, skeletal muscle in HFpEF is characterized by increased proteolysis linked to systemic inflammation and reduced exercise capacity. Energy metabolism is disturbed in both groups; however, its regulation seems to be severity-dependent.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adams et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure (HFpEF and HFrEF) (n=52). Heart failure (HFpEF and HFrEF) vs. Sedentary control subjects was evaluated on Mitochondrial complex-I activity (-31% in HFpEF and -53% in HFrEF, p=<0.05). Skeletal muscle in both HFpEF and HFrEF patients exhibited increased proteolysis and reduced mitochondrial energy supply compared to sedentary controls.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: