Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction – A Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otto A Smiseth ◽  
Anders Opdahl ◽  
Espen Boe ◽  
Helge Skulstad
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Diastolic Heart Failure ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Filling Pressure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Objective Evidence

Heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HF-PEF), sometimes named diastolic heart failure, is a common condition most frequently seen in the elderly and is associated with arterial hypertension and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Symptoms are attributed to a stiff left ventricle with compensatory elevation of filling pressure and reduced ability to increase stroke volume by the Frank-Starling mechanism. LV interaction with stiff arteries aggravates these problems. Prognosis is almost as severe as for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), in part reflecting co-morbidities. Before the diagnosis of HF-PEF is made, non-cardiac etiologies must be excluded. Due to the non-specific nature of heart failure symptoms, it is essential to search for objective evidence of diastolic dysfunction which, in the absence of invasive data, is done by echocardiography and demonstration of signs of elevated LV filling pressure, impaired LV relaxation, or increased LV diastolic stiffness. Antihypertensive treatment can effectively prevent HF-PEF. Treatment of HF-PEF is symptomatic, with similar drugs as in HF-REF.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction – A Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otto A Smiseth ◽  
Anders Opdahl ◽  
Espen Boe ◽  
Helge Skulstad ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Diastolic Heart Failure ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Filling Pressure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Objective Evidence

Heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HF-PEF), sometimes named diastolic heart failure, is a common condition most frequently seen in the elderly and is associated with arterial hypertension and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Symptoms are attributed to a stiff left ventricle with compensatory elevation of filling pressure and reduced ability to increase stroke volume by the Frank–Starling mechanism. LV interaction with stiff arteries aggravates these problems. Prognosis is almost as severe as for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), in part reflecting co-morbidities. Before the diagnosis of HF-PEF is made, non-cardiac aetiologies must be excluded. Due to the non-specific nature of heart failure symptoms, it is essential to search for objective evidence of diastolic dysfunction which, in the absence of invasive data, is done by echocardiography and demonstration of signs of elevated LV filling pressure, impaired LV relaxation or increased LV diastolic stiffness. Antihypertensive treatment can effectively prevent HF-PEF. Treatment of HF-PEF is symptomatic, with similar drugs as in HF-REF.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan Combined with Dapagliflozin on Long-Term Cardiac Mortality in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Angiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 000331972110473
Author(s):  
Umut Karabulut ◽  
Kudret Keskin ◽  
Dilay Karabulut ◽  
Ece Yiğit ◽  
Zerrin Yiğit
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Cardiac Mortality ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Neprilysin Inhibitor

The angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor dapagliflozin have been shown to reduce rehospitalization and cardiac mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to compare the long-term cardiac and all-cause mortality of ARNI and dapagliflozin combination therapy against ARNI monotherapy in patients with HFrEF. This retrospective study involved 244 patients with HF with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–IV symptoms and ejection fraction ≤40%. The patients were divided into 2 groups: ARNI monotherapy and ARNI+dapagliflozin. Median follow-up was 2.5 (.16–3.72) years. One hundred and seventy-five (71.7%) patients were male, and the mean age was 65.9 (SD, 10.2) years. Long-term cardiac mortality rates were significantly lower in the ARNI+dapagliflozin group (7.4%) than in the ARNI monotherapy group (19.5%) ( P = .01). Dapagliflozin [Hazard Ratio (HR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] = .29 [.10–.77]; P = .014] and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [HR (95% CI) = .89 (.85–.93); P < .001] were found to be independent predictors of cardiac mortality. Our study showed a significant reduction in cardiac mortality with ARNI and dapagliflozin combination therapy compared with ARNI monotherapy.

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.

Comparison of the prognosis and outcome of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan according to age

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abumayyaleh ◽  
Ibrahim El-Battrawy ◽  
Marvin Kummer ◽  
Christina Pilsinger ◽  
Katherine Sattler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Impact

The treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients suffering from chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction increases left ventricular ejection fraction and decreases the risk of sudden cardiac death. We conducted a retrospective analysis regarding the impact of age differences on the treatment outcome of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Patients were defined as adults if ≤65 years (n = 51) and older if >65 years of age (n = 76). The incidence of ventricular arrhythmias at 1-year follow-up was comparable in both groups (30.8 vs 26.5%; p = 0.71). The mortality rate in adult patients is significantly lower as compared with older patients (2 vs 14.5%; log-rank = 0.04). Older patients may suffer remarkably more side effects than adult patients (21.1 vs 11.8%; p = 0.03).

scholarly journals Sacubitril/Valsartan Improves Autonomic Function and Cardiopulmonary Parameters in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Giallauria ◽  
Giuseppe Vitale ◽  
Mario Pacileo ◽  
Anna Di Lorenzo ◽  
Alessandro Oliviero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Autonomic Function ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Exercise Stress ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Peak Exercise ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background: Heart rate recovery (HRR) is a marker of vagal tone, which is a powerful predictor of mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease. Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) is a treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), which impressively impacts cardiovascular outcome. This study aims at evaluating the effects of S/V on HRR and its correlation with cardiopulmonary indexes in HFrEF patients. Methods: Patients with HFrEF admitted to outpatients’ services were screened out for study inclusion. S/V was administered according to guidelines. Up-titration was performed every 4 weeks when tolerated. All patients underwent laboratory measurements, Doppler-echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing (CPET) at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. Results: Study population consisted of 134 HFrEF patients (87% male, mean age 57.9 ± 9.6 years). At 12-month follow-up, significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (from 28% ± 5.8% to 31.8% ± 7.3%, p < 0.0001), peak exercise oxygen consumption (VO2peak) (from 15.3 ± 3.7 to 17.8 ± 4.2 mL/kg/min, p < 0.0001), the slope of increase in ventilation over carbon dioxide output (VE/VCO2 slope )(from 33.4 ± 6.2 to 30.3 ± 6.5, p < 0.0001), and HRR (from 11.4 ± 9.5 to 17.4 ± 15.1 bpm, p = 0.004) was observed. Changes in HRR were significantly correlated to changes in VE/VCO2slope (r = −0.330; p = 0.003). After adjusting for potential confounding factors, multivariate analysis showed that changes in HRR were significantly associated to changes in VE/VCO2slope (Beta (B) = −0.975, standard error (SE) = 0.364, standardized Beta coefficient (Bstd) = −0.304, p = 0.009). S/V showed significant reduction in exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) detection at CPET (28 EOV detected at baseline CPET vs. 9 EOV detected at 12-month follow-up, p < 0.001). HRR at baseline CPET was a significant predictor of EOV at 12-month follow-up (B = −2.065, SE = 0.354, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In HFrEF patients, S/V therapy improves autonomic function, functional capacity, and ventilation. Whether these findings might translate into beneficial effects on prognosis and outcome remains to be elucidated.

scholarly journals Real-world treatment switching to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A cohort study

Open Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e001305
Author(s):  
Sashiananthan Ganesananthan ◽  
Nisar Shah ◽  
Parin Shah ◽  
Hossam Elsayed ◽  
Julie Phillips ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Real World ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Treatment Switching

BackgroundSacubitril/valsartan is an effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on clinical trial data. However, little is known about its use or impact in real-world practice. The aim of this study was to describe our routine clinical experience of switching otherwise optimally treated patients with HFrEF to sacubitril/valsartan with respect to patient outcomes such as quality of life (QoL) and echocardiographic variables.Methods and resultsFrom June 2017 to May 2019, 80 consecutive stable patients with HFrEF on established and maximally tolerated guideline-directed HF therapies were initiated on sacubitril/valsartan with bimonthly uptitration. Clinical assessment, biochemistry, echocardiography and QoL were compared pretreatment and post-treatment switching. We were able to successfully switch 89% of patients from renin–angiotensin axis inhibitors to sacubitril/valsartan (71 of 80 patients). After 3 months of switch therapy, we observed clinically significant and incremental improvements in blood pressure (systolic blood pressure 123 vs 112 mm Hg, p<0.001; diastolic blood pressure 72 vs 68 mm Hg, p=0.004), New York Heart Association functional classification score (2.3 vs 1.9, p<0.001), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (46 vs 38, p=0.016), left ventricular ejection fraction (26% vs 33%, p<0.001) and left ventricular end systolic diameter (5.2 vs 4.9 cm, p=0.013) compared with baseline. There were no significant changes in renal function or serum potassium.ConclusionThis study provides real-world clinical practice data demonstrating incremental improvements in functional and echocardiographic outcomes in optimally treated patients with HFrEF switched to sacubitril/valsartan. The data provide evidence beyond that observed in clinical trial settings of the potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan when used as part of a multidisciplinary heart failure programme.

scholarly journals Combined effects of ARNI and SGLT2 inhibitors in diabetic patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyue Mee Kim ◽  
In-Chang Hwang ◽  
Wonsuk Choi ◽  
Yeonyee E. Yoon ◽  
Goo-Yeong Cho
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Group 1

AbstractAngiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) have shown benefits in diabetic patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, their combined effect has not been revealed. We retrospectively identified diabetic patients with HFrEF who were prescribed an ARNI and/or SGLT2i. The patients were divided into groups treated with both ARNI and SGLT2i (group 1), ARNI but not SGLT2i (group 2), SGLT2i but not ARNI (group 3), and neither ARNI nor SGLT2i (group 4). After propensity score-matching, the occurrence of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), cardiovascular mortality, and changes in echocardiographic parameters were analyzed. Of the 206 matched patients, 92 (44.7%) had to undergo HHF and 43 (20.9%) died of cardiovascular causes during a median 27.6 months of follow-up. Patients in group 1 exhibited a lower risk of HHF and cardiovascular mortality compared to those in the other groups. Improvements in the left ventricular ejection fraction and E/e′ were more pronounced in group 1 than in groups 2, 3 and 4. These echocardiographic improvements were more prominent after the initiation of ARNI, compare to the initiation of SGLT2i. In diabetic patients with HFrEF, combination of ARNI and SGT2i showed significant improvement in cardiac function and prognosis. ARNI-SGLT2i combination therapy may improve the clinical course of HFrEF in diabetic patients.

scholarly journals Updating The Accuracy of Administrative Claims for Identifying Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Among Patients with Heart Failure

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Sandhu ◽  
Jimmy Zheng ◽  
Paul A Heidenreich
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Administrative Claims ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction

Introduction: Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is an important factor for treatment decisions for heart failure. The EF is unavailable in administrative claims. We sought to evaluate the predictive accuracy of claims diagnoses for classifying heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) versus heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with International Classification of Disease-Tenth Revision codes. Methods: We identified HF diagnoses for VA patients between 2017-2019 and extracted the EF from clinical notes and imaging reports using a VA natural language processing algorithm. We classified sets of codes as HFrEF-related, HFpEF-related, or non-specific based on the closest EF within 180 days. We selected a random heart failure diagnosis for each patient and tested the predictive accuracy of various algorithms for identifying HFrEF using the last 1 year of heart failure diagnoses. We performed sensitivity analyses on the EF thresholds, the cohort, and the diagnoses used. Results: Between 2017-2019, we identified 358,172 patients and 1,671,084 diagnoses with an EF recording within 180 days. After dividing diagnoses into HFrEF-related, HFpEF-related, or non-specific, we found using the proportion of specific diagnoses classified as HFrEF-related had an AUC of 0.76 for predicting EF≤40% and 0.80 for predicting EF<50%. However, 23.3% of patients could not be classified due to only having non-specific codes. Predictive accuracy increased among patients with ≥4 HF diagnoses over the preceding year. Discussion: In a VA cohort, administrative claims with ICD-10 codes had moderate accuracy for identifying reduced ejection fraction. This level of specificity is likely inadequate for performance measures. Administrative claims need to better align terminology with relevant clinical definitions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document