Distinguishing pathophysiological features of heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: A comparative analysis of two mouse models.

Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous condition that can be categorized according to the left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) into HF with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) EF. Although HFrEF and HFpEF share some common clinical manifestations, the mechanisms underlying each phenotype are often found to be distinct. Identifying shared and divergent pathophysiological features might expand our insights on HF pathophysiology and assist the search for therapies for each HF subtype. In this study, we evaluated and contrasted two new murine models of non-ischaemic HFrEF and cardiometabolic HFpEF in terms of myocardial structure, left ventricular function, gene expression, cardiomyocyte calcium handling, mitochondrial polarization and protein acetylation in a head-to-head fashion. We found that in conditions of similar haemodynamic stress, the HFrEF myocardium underwent a more pronounced hypertrophic and fibrotic remodelling, whereas inflammation was greater in the HFpEF myocardium. We observed opposing features on calcium release, which was diminished in the HFrEF cardiomyocyte but enhanced in the HFpEF cardiomyocyte. Mitochondria were less polarized in both HFrEF and HFpEF cardiomyocytes, reflecting similarly impaired metabolic capacity. Hyperacetylation of cardiac proteins was observed in both models, but it was more accentuated in the HFpEF heart. Despite shared features, unique triggering mechanisms (neurohormonal overactivation in HFrEF vs. inflammation in HFpEF) appear to determine the distinct phenotypes of HF. The findings of the present research stress the need for further exploration of the differential mechanisms underlying each HF subtype, because they might require specific therapeutic interventions. KEY POINTS: The mechanisms underlying heart failure with either reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction are often found to be different. Previous studies comparing pathophysiological traits between HFrEF and HFpEF have been conducted on animals of different ages and strains. The present research contrasted two age-matched mouse models of non-ischaemic HFrEF and cardiometabolic HFpEF to uncover divergent and shared features. We found that upon similar haemodynamic stress, the HFrEF heart experienced a more pronounced hypertrophic and fibrotic remodelling, whereas inflammation appeared to be greater in the HFpEF myocardium. Calcium release was diminished in the HFrEF cardiomyocyte and enhanced in the HFpEF cardiomyocyte. Mitochondria were comparably less polarized in both HFrEF and HFpEF myocytes. Hyperacetylation of proteins was common to both models, but stronger in the HFpEF heart. Casting light on common and distinguishing features might ease the quest for phenotype-specific therapies for heart failure patients.