Reduced Lymphatic Reserve in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND: Microvascular dysfunction plays an important role in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, no mechanistic link between systemic microvasculature and congestion, a central feature of the syndrome, has yet been investigated. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate capillary–interstitium fluid exchange in HFpEF, including lymphatic drainage and the potential osmotic forces exerted by any hypertonic tissue Na(+) excess. METHODS: Patients with HFpEF and healthy control subjects of similar age and sex distributions (n = 16 per group) underwent: 1) a skin biopsy for vascular immunohistochemistry, gene expression, and chemical (water, Na(+), and K(+)) analyses; and 2) venous occlusion plethysmography to assess peripheral microvascular filtration coefficient (measuring capillary fluid extravasation) and isovolumetric pressure (above which lymphatic drainage cannot compensate for fluid extravasation). RESULTS: Skin biopsies in patients with HFpEF showed rarefaction of small blood and lymphatic vessels (p = 0.003 and p = 0.012, respectively); residual skin lymphatics showed a larger diameter (p = 0.007) and lower expression of lymphatic differentiation and function markers (LYVE-1 [lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1]: p < 0.05; PROX-1 [prospero homeobox protein 1]: p < 0.001) compared with control subjects. In patients with HFpEF, microvascular filtration coefficient was lower (calf: 3.30 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.33 to 3.88] l × 100 ml of tissue(–1) × min(–1) × mm Hg(–1) vs. 4.66 [IQR: 3.70 to 6.15] μl × 100 ml of tissue(–1) × min(–1) × mm Hg(–1); p < 0.01; forearm: 5.16 [IQR: 3.86 to 5.43] l × 100 ml of tissue(–1) × min(–1) × mm Hg(–1) vs. 5.66 [IQR: 4.69 to 8.38] μl × 100 ml of tissue(–1) × min(–1) × mm Hg(–1); p > 0.05), in keeping with blood vascular rarefaction and the lack of any observed hypertonic skin Na(+) excess, but the lymphatic drainage was impaired (isovolumetric pressure in patients with HFpEF vs. control subjects: calf 16 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 22 ± 4 mm Hg; p < 0.005; forearm 17 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 25 ± 5 mm Hg; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral lymphatic vessels in patients with HFpEF exhibit structural and molecular alterations and cannot effectively compensate for fluid extravasation and interstitial accumulation by commensurate drainage. Reduced lymphatic reserve may represent a novel therapeutic target.