P6356Comparisons of clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with and without atrial fibrillation: results from a multicenter PURSUIT-HFpEF registry

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Masuda ◽  
T Kanda ◽  
M Asai ◽  
T Mano ◽  
T Yamada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Heart Failure Patients ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

Abstract Background The presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been demonstrated to be associated with poor clinical outcomes in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction. Objective This study aimed to elucidate the impact of the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the clinical characteristics, therapeutics, and outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods PURSUIT-HFpEF is a multicenter prospective observational study including patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction of >50%. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or severe valvular disease were excluded. Results Of 486 HFpEF patients (age, 80.8±9.0 years old; male, 47%) from 24 cardiovascular centers, 199 (41%) had AF on admission. Patients with AF had lower systolic blood pressures (142±27 vs. 155±35mmHg, p<0.0001) and higher heart rates (91±29 vs. 82±26bpm, p<0.0001) than those without. There was no difference in the usage of inotropes or mechanical ventilation between the 2 groups. A higher quality of life score (EQ5D, 0.72±0.27 vs. 0.63±0.30, p=0.002) was observed at discharge in patients with than without AF. In addition, AF patients tended to demonstrate lower in-hospital mortality rates (0.5% vs. 2.4%, p=0.09) and shorter hospital stays (20.3±12.1 vs. 22.6±18.4 days, p=0.09) than those without. During a mean follow up of 360±111 days, mortality (14.1% vs. 15.3) and heart failure re-hospitalization rates (13.1% vs. 13.9%) were comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusion In contrast to heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction, AF on admission was not associated with poor long-term clinical outcomes among HFpEF patients. Several in-hospital outcomes were better in patients with AF than in those without. Acknowledgement/Funding None

scholarly journals Early Rhythm Control Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure

Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Rillig ◽  
Christina Magnussen ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Ozga ◽  
Anna Suling ◽  
Axel Brandes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Heart Failure Patients ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Control Therapy

Background: Even on optimal therapy, many patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation experience cardiovascular complications. Additional treatments are needed to reduce these events, especially in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: This prespecified subanalysis of the randomized EAST - AFNET 4 trial assessed the effect of systematic, early rhythm control therapy (ERC; using antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation) compared to usual care (UC, allowing rhythm control therapy to improve symptoms) on the two primary outcomes of the trial and on selected secondary outcomes in patients with heart failure, defined as heart failure symptoms NYHA II-III or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <50%. Results: This analysis included 798 patients (300 (37.6%) female, median age 71.0 [64.0, 76.0] years, 785 with known LVEF). The majority of patients (n=442) had HFpEF (LVEF≥50%; mean LVEF 61% ± 6.3%), the others had heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (n=211; LVEF40-49%; mean LVEF 44% ± 2.9%) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=132; LVEF<40%; mean LVEF 31% ± 5.5%). Over the 5.1-year median follow-up, the composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure or for acute coronary syndrome occurred less often in patients randomized to ERC (94/396; 5.7 per 100 patient-years) compared with patients randomized to UC (130/402; 7.9 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.74 [0.56-0.97], p=0.03), not altered by heart failure status (interaction p-value=0.63). The primary safety outcome (death, stroke, or serious adverse events related to rhythm control therapy) occurred in 71/396 (17.9%) heart failure patients randomized to ERC and in 87/402 (21.6%) heart failure patients randomized to UC (hazard ratio 0.85 [0.62-1.17], p=0.33). LV ejection fraction improved in both groups (LVEF change at two years: ERC 5.3%±11.6%, UC 4.9%±11.6%, p=0.43). ERC also improved the composite outcome of death or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure. Conclusions: Rhythm control therapy conveys clinical benefit when initiated within one year of diagnosing atrial fibrillation in patients with signs or symptoms of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: Unique Identifiers: ISRCTN04708680, NCT01288352, EudraCT2010-021258-20, Study web site www.easttrial.org; URLs: www.controlled-trials.com; https://clinicaltrials.gov; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu

scholarly journals Heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction: clinical features and prognosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-301
Author(s):  
O V Bulashova ◽  
A A Nasybullina ◽  
E V Khazova ◽  
V M Gazizyanova ◽  
V N Oslopov
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Clinical Condition ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Heart Failure Patients

Aim. To analyze clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and prognosis in patients with heart failure mid-range ejection fraction. Methods. The study included 76 patients with stable heart failure IIV functional class, with a mean age of 66.110.4 years. All patients were divided into 3 subgroups based on the left ventricular ejection fraction: the first group heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (below 40%), 21.1%; the second group patients with mid-range ejection fraction (from 40 to 49%), 23.7%; the third group patients with preserved ejection fraction (50%), 55.3%. The clinical characteristics of all groups were compared. The quality of life was assessed by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), the clinical condition was determined by using the clinical condition assessment scale (Russian Shocks). The prognosis was studied according to the onset of cardiovascular events one year after enrollment in the study. The endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization for acutely decompensated heart failure, thrombotic complications. Statistical analysis was performed by using IBM SPSS Statistics 20 software. Normal distribution of the data was determined by the ShapiroWilk test, nominal indicators were compared between groups by using chi-square tests, normally distributed quantitative indicators by ANOVA. The KruskalWallis test was performed to comparing data with non-normal distribution. Results. Analysis showed that the most of clinical characteristics (etiological structure, age, gender, quality of life, results on the clinical condition assessment scale for patients with chronic heart failure and a 6-minute walk test, distribution by functional classes of heart failure) in patients with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) were similar to those in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). At the same time, they significantly differed from the characteristics of patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Echocardiographic data from patients with mid-range ejection fraction ranks in the middle compared to patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. In heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction, the incidence of adverse outcomes during the 1st year also was intermediate between heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction and patients with reduced ejection fraction: for all cardiovascular events in the absence of significant differences (17.6; 10.8 and 18.8%, respectively), myocardial infarction (5,9; 0 and 6.2%), thrombotic complications (5.9; 5.4 and 6.2%). Heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction in comparison to patients with preserved ejection fraction and reduced ejection fraction had significantly lower cardiovascular mortality (0; 2.7 and 12.5%, p 0.05) and the number of hospitalization for acutely decompensated heart failure (0; 2,7 and 6.2%). Conclusion. Clinical characteristics of heart failure patients with mid-range and heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction are similar but significantly different from those in the group of patients with preserved ejection fraction; echocardiographic data in heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction is intermediate between those in patients with reduced ejection fraction and patients with preserved ejection fraction; the prognosis for all cardiovascular events did not differ significantly in the groups depending on the left ventricular ejection fraction.

scholarly journals Rationale and design of the preserved versus reduced ejection fraction biomarker registry and precision medicine database for ambulatory patients with heart failure (PREFER-HF) study

Open Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e001704
Author(s):  
Andrew Abboud ◽  
Austin Nguonly ◽  
Asher Bean ◽  
Kemar J Brown ◽  
Roy F Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Ambulatory Patients

IntroductionPatients with heart failure (HF) are classically categorised by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Efforts to predict outcomes and response to specific therapy among LVEF-based groups may be suboptimal, in part due to the underlying heterogeneity within clinical HF phenotypes. A multidimensional characterisation of ambulatory patients with and without HF across LVEF groups is needed to better understand and manage patients with HF in a more precise manner.Methods and analysisTo date, the first cohort of 1313 out of total planned 3000 patients with and without HF has been enroled in this single-centre, longitudinal observational cohort study. Baseline and 1-year follow-up blood samples and clinical characteristics, the presence and duration of comorbidities, serial laboratory, echocardiographic data and images and therapy information will be obtained. HF diagnosis, aetiology of disease, symptom onset and clinical outcomes at 1 and 5 years will be adjudicated by a team of clinicians. Clinical outcomes of interest include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, cardiovascular hospitalisation, HF hospitalisation, right-sided HF and acute kidney injury. Results from the Preserved versus Reduced Ejection Fraction Biomarker Registry and Precision Medicine Database for Ambulatory Patients with Heart Failure (PREFER-HF) trial will examine longitudinal clinical characteristics, proteomic, metabolomic, genomic and imaging data to better understand HF phenotypes, with the ultimate goal of improving precision medicine and clinical outcomes for patients with HF.Ethics and disseminationInformation gathered in this research will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Written informed consent for PREFER-HF was obtained from all participants. All study procedures were approved by the Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Board in Boston, Massachusetts and performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Protocol Number: 2016P000339).Trial registration numberPREFER-HF ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03480633.

Abstract 17311: Ventricular Arrhythmias and Fibrosis in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Cuk ◽  
Jae H Cho ◽  
Donghee Han ◽  
Joseph E Ebinger ◽  
Eugenio Cingolani
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiac Mri ◽  
Ventricular Arrhythmias ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Ventricular Fibrosis

Introduction: Sudden death due to ventricular arrhythmias (VA) is one of the main causes of mortality in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Ventricular fibrosis in HFpEF has been suspected as a substrate of VA, but the degree of fibrosis has not been well characterized. Hypothesis: HFpEF patients with increased degree of fibrosis will manifest more VA. Methods: Cedars-Sinai medical records were probed using Deep 6 artificial intelligence data extraction software to identify patients with HFpEF who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI of identified patients were reviewed to measure extra-cellular volume (ECV) and degree of fibrosis. Ambulatory ECG monitoring (Ziopatch) of those patients were also reviewed to study the prevalence of arrhythmias. Results: A total of 12 HFpEF patients who underwent cardiac MRI were identified. Patients were elderly (mean age 70.3 ± 7.1), predominantly female (83%), and overweight (mean BMI 32 ± 9). Comorbidities included hypertension (83%), dyslipidemia (75%), and coronary artery disease (67%). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction by echocardiogram was 63 ± 8.7%. QTc as measured on ECG was not significantly prolonged (432 ± 15 ms). ECV was normal in those patients for whom it was available (24.2 ± 3.1, n = 9) with 3/12 patients (25%) demonstrating ventricular fibrosis by MRI (average burden of 9.6 ± 5.9%). Ziopatch was obtained in 8/12 patients (including all 3 patients with fibrosis) and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) was identified in 5/8 (62.5%). One patient with NSVT and without fibrosis on MRI also had a sustained VA recorded. In those patients who had Ziopatch monitoring, there was no association between presence of fibrosis and NSVT (X2 = 0.035, p = 0.85). Conclusions: Ventricular fibrosis was present in 25% of HFpEF patients in this study and NSVT was observed in 62.5% of those patients with HFpEF who had Ziopatch monitoring. The presence of fibrosis by Cardiac MRI was not associated with NSVT in this study; however, the size of the cohort precludes broadly generalizable conclusions about this association. Further investigation is required to better understand the relationship between ventricular fibrosis by MRI and VA in patients with HFpEF.

scholarly journals Prognostic value of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and different left ventricular ejection fraction: results of the multicenter RIF-CHF register

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 4200
Author(s):  
I. V. Zhirov ◽  
N. V. Safronova ◽  
Yu. F. Osmolovskaya ◽  
S. N. Тereschenko
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Increased Risk

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are the most common cardiovascular conditions in clinical practice and frequently coexist. The number of patients with HF and AF is increasing every year.Aim. To analyze the effect of clinical course and management of HF and AF on the outcomes.Material and methods. The data of 1,003 patients from the first Russian register of patients with HF and AF (RIF-CHF) were analyzed. The endpoints included hospitalization due to decompensated HF, cardiovascular mortality, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding. Predictors of unfavorable outcomes were analyzed separately for patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (AF+HFpEF), mid-range ejection fraction (AF+HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (AF+HFrEF).Results. Among all patients with HF, 39% had HFpEF, 15% — HFmrEF, and 46% — HFrEF. A total of 57,2% of patients were rehospitalized due to decompensated HF within one year. Hospitalization risk was the highest for HFmrEF patients (66%, p=0,017). Reduced ejection fraction was associated with the increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (15,5% vs 5,4% in other groups, p<0,001) but not ischemic stroke (2,4% vs 3%, p=0,776). Patients with HFpEF had lower risk to achieve the composite endpoint (stroke+MI+cardiovascular death) as compared to patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF (12,7% vs 22% and 25,5%, p<0,001). Regression logistic analysis revealed that factors such as demographic characteristics, disease severity, and selected therapy had different effects on the risk of unfavorable outcomes depending on ejection fraction group.Conclusion. Each group of patients with different ejection fractions is characterized by its own pattern of factors associated with unfavorable outcomes. The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with mid-range ejection fraction demonstrate that these patients need to be studied as a separate cohort.

Abstract 13104: The Concomitant Inflammation Affect the Ratio of N-terminal Pro B-type Natriuretic Peptide to B-type Natriuretic Peptide in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsutomu Kawai ◽  
Takahisa Yamada ◽  
Tetsuya Watanabe ◽  
Shunsuke Tamaki ◽  
Shungo Hikoso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Natriuretic Peptide ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Inflammatory Status ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Backgrounds: Although B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP ) are interrelated parameters in assessment heart failure severity and prognosis, the ratio of NT-proBNP to BNP (NT-proBNP/BNP) are affected by various clinical factors, such as renal function. However, little is known about the influence of inflammation on NT-proBNP/BNP in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and Results: Patients data were extracted from PURSUIT-HFpEF registry, which is a multicenter prospective observational study including patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction of >50%. Of 871 patients, data of BNP and NT-proBNP was available in 654 patients. The median baseline concentration of BNP was 474 pg/ml (299-720), NT-proBNP was 3310 pg/ml (1740-6840), and NT-proBNP/BNP was 7.6 (5.0-11.8). In multivariable linear regression analyses, older age [odds ratio (OR); 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI); 1.02-1.09, p=0.001], higher creatinine [OR; 2.63, 95% CI; 1.66-4.16, p<0.001], and higher C-reactive protein (CRP) [OR; 1.17, 95% CI; 1.06-1.28, p<0.001] were significantly associated with a higher NT-proBNP/BNP (>median value of 7.6). However, other factors expected to affect NT-proBNP/BNP, such as atrial fibrillation and body mass index, were not associated with a higher NT-proBNP/BNP in this study. Patients in the highest CRP quartile had significantly higher NT-proBNP/BNP than those with other quartiles. Conclusion: In HFpEF patients, concomitant inflammation was associated with high NT-proBNP/BNP, which indicated that we need a careful interpretation on these two natriuretic peptides of patients with HFpEF and inflammatory status, such as infection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document