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.

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 Pharmacogenomic study of heart failure and candesartan response from the CHARM programme

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Pierre Dubé ◽  
Olympe Chazara ◽  
Audrey Lemaçon ◽  
Géraldine Asselin ◽  
Sylvie Provost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Genetic Variant ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Genome Wide Association Studies ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Genome Wide ◽  
Cardiovascular Endpoint

Aims. The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme consisted of three parallel, randomised, double-blind clinical trials comparing candesartan with placebo in patients with heart failure (HF) categorised according to left ventricular ejection fraction and tolerability to an ACE inhibitor. We conducted a pharmacogenomic study of the CHARM studies to identify genetic predictors of heart failure progression and the efficacy and safety of treatment with candesartan. Methods. We performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) with the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure in 2727 patients from CHARM-Overall and stratified by CHARM study according to preserved and reduced ejection fraction. The safety endpoints were hyperkalaemia, renal dysfunction, hypotension, and change in systolic blood pressure. We also conducted a genome-wide gene-level collapsing analysis from whole-exome sequencing data with the composite cardiovascular endpoint. Results. We found the genetic variant rs66886237 at 8p21.3 near the gene GFRA2 to be associated with the composite cardiovascular endpoint in 1029 HF patients with preserved ejection fraction from the CHARM-Preserved study [hazard ratio (HR): 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.55-2.35; P=1.7x10-9], but not in patients with reduced ejection fraction. None of the GWAS for candesartan safety or efficacy passed the significance threshold. Conclusions. We have identified a candidate genetic variant potentially predictive of the progression of heart failure in patients with preserved ejection fraction. The findings require further replication and we cannot exclude the possibility that the results may be chance findings.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: recent concepts in diagnosis, mechanisms and management

Heart ◽  
2022 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2021-319605
Author(s):  
Andreas B Gevaert ◽  
Rachna Kataria ◽  
Faiez Zannad ◽  
Andrew J Sauer ◽  
Kevin Damman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cut Points ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Comprehensive Management

It is estimated that half of all patients with heart failure (HF) have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Yet this form of HF remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Differentiating HFpEF from other causes of dyspnoea may require advanced diagnostic methods, such as exercise echocardiography, invasive haemodynamics and investigations for ‘HFpEF mimickers’. While the classification of HF has relied heavily on cut-points in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), recent evidence points towards a gradual shift in underlying mechanisms, phenotypes and response to therapies as LVEF increases. For example, among patients with HF, the proportion of hospitalisations and deaths due to cardiac causes decreases as LVEF increases. Medication classes that are efficacious in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have been less so at higher LVEF ranges, decreasing the risk of HF hospitalisation but not cardiovascular or all-cause death in HFpEF. These observations reflect the burden of non-cardiac comorbidities as LVEF increases and highlight the complex pathophysiological mechanisms, both cardiac and non-cardiac, underpinning HFpEF. Treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduces the risk of composite cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in HF hospitalisations; renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockers and angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors result in smaller reductions in HF hospitalisations among patients with HFpEF. Comprehensive management of HFpEF includes exercise as well as treatment of risk factors and comorbidities. Classification based on phenotypes may facilitate a more targeted approach to treatment than LVEF categorisation, which sets arbitrary cut-points when LVEF is a continuum. This narrative review summarises the pathophysiology, diagnosis, classification and management of patients with HFpEF.

Abstract 17284: Clinical Characteristics and Management of Patients With Heart Failure With Mid-Range Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos A Godoy Rivas ◽  
Samuel Urrutia ◽  
Eleazar Montalvan ◽  
Mario Rodriguez ◽  
Eduardo Venegas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Forest Plot ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction

Introduction: Heart Failure (HF) is categorized according to the AHA/ACC 2013 HF Guidelines based on Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF); HF with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF, EF≤40%), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF, EF ≥ 50%). There is a group of “borderline” patients with EF 41%-49%, termed Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction (HFmrEF). Given this category is not well understood, we sought to evaluate clinical characteristics and management patterns for patients with HFmrEF. Methods: A systematic review was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS (1946 – 03/2018). Search terms included HF, mid-range, borderline LVEF with several ranges (40-50 or 40-45 or 45-50). Variables characterizing clinical features and medications were extracted for each HF group and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were pooled. Results: Of 1,131 abstracts identified, 24 met inclusion criteria (total patients 480,188). Patients with HFmrEF compared to those with HFrEF were more likely to be female (OR 1.42), have hypertension [HTN] (OR 1.34) and diabetes (OR 1.11), higher SBP (OR 1.17), better NYHA-FC (FC I OR 1.73, FC II 1.33), less likely to have coronary artery disease [CAD] (OR 0.74) and more likely to be treated with ACEI, ARB, BB, Digoxin, MRA and statins (Figure 1-2). HFmrEF patients when compared to those with HFpEF were less likely to be female (OR 0.54) or have HTN (OR 0.68), and more likely to have CAD (OR 1.25), and to be treated with HF medications and statins. Conclusions: Patients with HFmrEF have higher SBP and better NYHA-FC (I and II) compared to HFrEF patients and are less likely to be female and more likely to have CAD compared to HFpEF patients. Further research is needed to help guide management in this unique but clinically important population. Figure 1A. Forest plot of adjusted ORs comparing baseline clinical characteristics of HFrEF vs HFmrEF patients Figure 1B. Forest plot of adjusted ORs comparing baseline clinical characteristics of HFmrEF vs HFpEF patients Figure 2A. Forest plot of adjusted ORs comparing medications used in HFrEF vs HFmrEF patients Figure 2B. Forest plot of adjusted ORs comparing medications used in HFmrEF vs HFpEF patients

scholarly journals Type 2 diabetes and heart failure: Characteristics and prognosis in preserved, mid-range and reduced ventricular function

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 494-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Johansson ◽  
Ulf Dahlström ◽  
Magnus Edner ◽  
Per Näsman ◽  
Lars Rydén ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction

Objective: To study the characteristics and prognostic implications of type 2 diabetes in different heart failure entities from a nationwide perspective. Methods: This observational study comprised 30,696 heart failure patients prospectively included in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) 2003–2011 from specialist care, with mortality information available until December 2014. Patients were categorized into three heart failure entities by their left ventricular ejection fraction (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: ⩾50%, heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: 40%–49% and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: <40%). All-cause mortality stratified by type 2 diabetes and heart failure entity was studied by Cox regression. Results: Among the patients, 22% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, 21% had heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction and 57% had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The proportion of type 2 diabetes was similar, ≈25% in each heart failure entity. Patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction were older, more often female and burdened with hypertension and renal impairment compared with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients among whom ischaemic heart disease was more common. Type 2 diabetes remained an independent mortality predictor across all heart failure entities after multivariable adjustment, somewhat stronger in heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction below 50% (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval; heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: 1.32 [1.22–1.43], heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: 1.51 [1.39–1.65], heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: 1.46 [1.39–1.54]; p-value for interaction, p = 0.0049). Conclusion: Type 2 diabetes is an independent mortality predictor across all heart failure entities increasing mortality risk by 30%–50%. In type 2 diabetes, the heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction entity resembles heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in clinical characteristics, risk factor pattern and prognosis.

scholarly journals Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Distinctive Subtype or a Transitional Stage?

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qing Zhou ◽  
Peixin Li ◽  
Hengli Zhao ◽  
Xingbo Xu ◽  
Shaoping Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Transitional Stage ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
European Society Of Cardiology ◽  
Different Characteristics

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) was first proposed by Lam and Solomon in 2014, and was listed as a new subtype of heart failure (HF) in 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Since then, HFmrEF has attracted an increasing amount of attention, and the number of related studies on this topic has grown rapidly. The diagnostic criteria on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are straightforward; however, LVEF is not a static parameter, and it changes dynamically during the course of HF. Thus, HFmrEF may not be an independent disease with a uniform pathophysiological process, but rather a collection of patients with different characteristics. HFmrEF is often associated with various cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the pathophysiological mechanisms of HFmrEF are particularly complex, and its clinical phenotypes are diverse. The complexity and heterogeneity of HFmrEF may be one reason for inconsistent results between clinical studies. In fact, whether HFmrEF is a distinctive subtype or a transitional stage between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is controversial. In this review, we discuss the clinical characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with HFmrEF, as well as the differences among HFmrEF, HFrEF, and HFpEF.

scholarly journals Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction based on aging and comorbidities

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Lin ◽  
Shihui Fu ◽  
Yao Yao ◽  
Yulong Li ◽  
Yali Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Complex Relationships

AbstractHeart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a leading cause of hospitalizations and mortality when diagnosed at the age of ≥ 65 years. HFpEF represents multifactorial and multisystemic syndrome and has different pathophysiology and phenotypes. Its diagnosis is difficult to be established based on left ventricular ejection fraction and may benefit from individually tailored approaches, underlying age-related changes and frequent comorbidities. Compared with the rapid development in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFpEF presents a great challenge and needs to be addressed considering the failure of HF drugs to improve its outcomes. Further extensive studies on the relationships between HFpEF, aging, and comorbidities in carefully phenotyped HFpEF subgroups may help understand the biology, diagnosis, and treatment of HFpEF. The current review summarized the diagnostic and therapeutic development of HFpEF based on the complex relationships between aging, comorbidities, and HFpEF.

scholarly journals Interleukin 6 and Development of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in the General Population

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yook Chin Chia ◽  
Lyanne M. Kieneker ◽  
Gaston van Hassel ◽  
S. Heleen Binnenmars ◽  
Ilja M. Nolte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
New Onset

Background The cause of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is poorly understood, and specific therapies are lacking. Previous studies suggested that inflammation plays a role in the development of HFpEF. Herein, we aimed to investigate in community‐dwelling individuals whether a higher plasma interleukin 6 (IL‐6) level is associated with an increased risk of developing new‐onset heart failure (HF) over time, and specifically HFpEF. Methods and Results We performed a case‐cohort study based on the PREVEND (Prevention of Renal and Vascular End‐Stage Disease) study, a prospective general population‐based cohort study. We included 961 participants, comprising 200 participants who developed HF and a random group of 761 controls. HF with reduced ejection fraction or HFpEF was defined on the basis of the left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤40% or >40%, respectively. In Cox proportional hazard regression analyses, IL‐6 levels were statistically significantly associated with the development of HF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02–1.61; P =0.03) after adjustment for key risk factors. Specifically, IL‐6 levels were significantly associated with the development of HFpEF (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.16–2.19; P =0.004), whereas the association with HF with reduced ejection fraction was nonsignificant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.75–1.47; P =0.77). In sensitivity analyses, defining HFpEF as left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%, IL‐6 levels were also significantly associated with the development of HFpEF (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.04–2.06; P =0.03) after adjustment for key risk factors. Conclusions IL‐6 is associated with new‐onset HFpEF in community‐dwelling individuals, independent of potential confounders. Our findings warrant further research to investigate whether IL‐6 might be a novel treatment target to prevent HFpEF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document