Long-term survival of patients with congestive heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: 9 years of follow-up

Background: BNP testing is now common though it is not clear if the test results are used to improve patient care. A high BNP may be an indicator that the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is low (<40%) such that the patient will benefit from life-prolonging therapy. Objective: To determine how often clinicians obtained a measure of LVEF (echocardiography, nuclear) following a high BNP value when the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was not known to be low (<40%). Methods and Results: We reviewed the medical records of 296 consecutive patients (inpatient or outpatient) with a BNP values of at least 200 pg/ml at a single medical center (tertiary hospital with 8 community clinics). A prior diagnosis of heart failure was made in 65%, while 42% had diabetes, 79% had hypertension, 59% had ischemic heart disease and 31% had chronic lung disease. The mean age was 73 ± 12 years, 75% were white, 10% black, 15% other and the mean BNP was 810 ± 814 pg/ml. The LVEF was known to be < 40% in 84 patients (28%, mean BNP value of 1094 ± 969 pg/ml). Of the remaining 212 patients without a known low LVEF, 161 (76%) had a prior LVEF >=40% ( mean BNP value of 673 ± 635 pg/ml), and 51 (24%) had no prior LVEF documented (mean BNP 775 ± 926 pg/ml). Following the high BNP, a measure of LVEF was obtained (including outside studies documented by the primary care provider) within 6 months in only 53% (113 of 212) of those with an LVEF not known to be low. Of those with a follow-up echocardiogram, the LVEF was <40% in 18/113 (16%) and >=40% in 95/113 (84%). There was no significant difference in mean initial BNP values between those with a follow-up LVEF <40% (872 ± 940pg/ml), >=40% (704 ± 737 pg/ml), or not done (661 ± 649 pg/ml, p=0.5). Conclusions: Follow-up measures of LVEF did not occur in almost 50% of patients with a high BNP where the information may have led to institution of life-prolonging therapy. Of those that did have a follow-up study a new diagnosis of depressesd LVEF was noted in 16%. Screening of existing BNP and LVEF data and may be an efficient strategy to identify patients that may benefit from life-prolonging therapy for heart failure.

Download Full-text

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Recovery in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan

Cardiology ◽

10.1159/000505148 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 145 (5) ◽

pp. 275-282 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Pablo Díez-Villanueva ◽

Lourdes Vicent ◽

Francisco de la Cuerda ◽

Alberto Esteban-Fernández ◽

Manuel Gómez-Bueno ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽

Ejection Fraction ◽

Left Ventricular ◽

Functional Class ◽

Ventricular Ejection ◽

Cardiac Resynchronization ◽

Left Ventricular Ejection ◽

Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Background: A significant number of heart failure (HF) patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) experience ventricular function recovery during follow-up. We studied the variables associated with LVEF recovery in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan (SV) in clinical practice. Methods: We analyzed data from a prospective and multicenter registry including 249 HF outpatients with reduced LVEF who started SV between October 2016 and March 2017. The patients were classified into 2 groups according to LVEF at the end of follow-up (>35%: group R, or ≤35%: group NR). Results: After a mean follow-up of 7 ± 0.1 months, 62 patients (24.8%) had LVEF >35%. They were older (71.3 ± 10.8 vs. 67.5 ± 12.1 years, p = 0.025), and suffered more often from hypertension (83.9 vs. 73.8%, p = 0.096) and higher blood pressure before and after SV (both, p < 0.01). They took more often high doses of beta-blockers (30.6 vs. 27.8%, p = 0.002), with a smaller proportion undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (14.8 vs. 29.0%, p = 0.028) and fewer implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICD; 32.8 vs. 67.9%, p < 0.001), this being the only predictive variable of NR in the multivariate analysis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13–0.47, p < 0.0001). At the end of follow-up, the mean LVEF in group R was 41.9 ± 8.1% (vs. 26.3 ± 4.7% in group NR, p < 0.001), with an improvement compared with the initial LVEF of 14.6 ± 10.8% (vs. 0.8 ± 4.5% in group NR, p < 0.0001). Functional class improved in both groups, mainly in group R (p = 0.035), with fewer visits to the emergency department (11.5 vs. 21.6%, p = 0.07). Conclusions: In patients with LVEF ≤35% treated with SV, not carrying an ICD was independently associated with LVEF recovery, which was related to greater improvement in functional class.

Download Full-text