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

Cardiology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 145 (5) ◽  
pp. 275-282 ◽  
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.

Abstract P232: Screening Past B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) Values to Identify Candidates for Treatment of Systolic Dysfunction

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Parisa Gholami ◽  
Shoutzu Lin ◽  
Paul Heidenreich
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

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.

Evaluation of the diastolic functions of the heart in patients with heart failure after Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-115
Author(s):  
Naushi Mujeeb ◽  
S K Saiful Haque Zahed ◽  
Sujata Gurung
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Cardiac Resynchronization ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Pulsed Wave Doppler ◽  
Diastolic Functions

Improvement in systolic functions after CRThas been well-established, but the effect on Left Ventricular (LV) diastolic functions is variable and not well established. The aim of this study is to analyze the improvement in diastolic functions of the heart after CRT. Total 67 cases of Heart Failure (HF) eligible for CRT (mean age, 62.5 ± 11.73 years; 54 males and 13 females) with Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) ≤35% or New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II, III / Ambulatory IV (IVA) were included in the study. LVEF, pulsed-wave Doppler (PWD) derived transmitral filling indices (E and A wave velocities, E/A ratio), and peak early diastolic longitudinal myocardial velocity (E´) wave by tissue doppler were measured pre and post CRT and were compared. Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) increased &#62;5% (responders) in 42 of 67 patients (62.6%) which was also associated with a reduction in pulsed-wave Doppler (PWD) derived indices that is E velocity, E/A ratio and E/E’ ratio while in non-responders (LVEF&#60;5%) the E velocity, E/A ratio, E’ did not show significant change but E/E’ reduced significantly after CRT. Left Ventricular Diastolic functions improved significantly after CRT in responders but not in non responders.

P6329123-Iodine Metaiodobenzylguanitidine imaging: a useful prognostic marker of cardiovascular death in heart failure patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L I Birtolo ◽  
P Scarparo ◽  
N Salvi ◽  
V Frantellizzi ◽  
S Cimino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Arrhythmias ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Abstract Background According to guidelines, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is recommended in prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure (HF) patients (pts). Guidelines have several limitations because ICD indication is based mainly on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Recently, 123-iodine metaiodobenzylguanidine imaging (123-I MIBG) seems to identify, independently from LVEF, pts at high risk of SCD: heart/mediastinum (H/M) ratio<1.6 and summed score (SS)>26. Purpose The aim is to assess the role of 123-I MIBG to predict malignant ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in HF pts Methods We enrolled 208 pts, admitted to our hospital with diagnosis of HF and LVEF≤35%, NYHA class II and III, who underwent 123-I MIBG imaging. H/M ratio of 1.6 was used as a cut-off to identify high risk (G1) versus low risk pts (G2). All pts underwent ICD implantation. Follow-up was performed at 24 months. Results 138 patients were included in G1 and 70 patients in G2. All baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups (table 1). At 24 months follow-up VA events were recorded greater in G1 compared to G2 (21% vs 10%, p=0.04). Table 1 G1 G2 P value H/M ≤1.6 (N=138) H/M >1.6 (N=70) Age (years) 65±12 63±14 0.28 Male, N (%) 108 (78) 64 (91) 0.02 Diabetes mellitus type II, N (%) 54 (39) 14 (20) 0.01 Dyslipidemia, N (%) 58 (42) 30 (42) 0.64 LVEF (%) 30±5 31±4 0.14 Ischaemic CM, N (%) 85 (62) 30 (42) 0.012 Malignant VA, N (%) 30 (21) 7 (10) 0.04 SS 38±9 16±7 0.0001 H/M: heart mediastinum ratio; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; CM: cardiomyopathy; VA: ventricular arrhythmias; SS: summed score. Conclusion Our results seem to confirm that 123-I MIBG uptake is associated with the occurrence of life-threatening VA in HF pts independently from LVEF. The use of 123-I MIBG could be a useful tool in the future to increase the specificity of the pts selection for ICD therapy.

Heart failure: preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan De Sutter ◽  
Piotr Lipiec ◽  
Christine Henri
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Diastolic Dysfunction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Exercise Induced

Nearly half of all patients with heart failure present with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFPEF). HFPEF is a pathophysiologically and clinically heterogeneous disease with an overall similar outcome to heart failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction. It is predominantly seen in elderly patients and comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, a sedentary lifestyle, and myocardial ischaemia play important roles in its development. In this chapter the conventional echocardiographic hallmarks of HFPEF including a preserved ejection fraction, left ventricular hypertrophy, left atrial dilatation, diastolic dysfunction, and pulmonary hypertension are presented. For the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, it is important to keep in mind that no single echocardiographic parameter is sufficiently accurate and reproducible to be used in isolation to make a diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction. The value of newer techniques including three-dimensional echocardiography and longitudinal strain assessment for the diagnosis and follow-up of HFPEF patients are promising but require further evaluation. As exercise-induced dyspnoea may be the first manifestation of HFPEF, the role of exercise echo (or diastolic stress testing) with evaluation of exercise-induced changes in left ventricular filling pressure and pulmonary artery systolic pressure is also presented. This chapter ends with a discussion on the echocardiographic parameters that can be used for risk stratification and follow-up of HFPEF patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document