scholarly journals Prevalence and Prognosis of HFimpEF Developed From Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yibo He ◽  
Yihang Ling ◽  
Wei Guo ◽  
Qiang Li ◽  
Sijia Yu ◽  
...  

Background: Heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) is classified as a new type of heart failure, and its prevalence and prognosis are not consistent in previous studies. There is no systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the prevalence and prognosis of the HFimpEF.Method: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to May 22, 2021 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021260422). Studies were included for analysis if the prognosis of mortality or hospitalization were reported in HFimpEF or in patients with heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cardiac hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, and composite events of mortality and hospitalization were considered as secondary outcomes.Result: Nine studies consisting of 9,491 heart failure patients were eventually included. During an average follow-up of 3.8 years, the pooled prevalence of HFimpEF was 22.64%. HFimpEF had a lower risk of mortality compared with heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (adjusted HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.33–0.60). HFimpEF was also associated with a lower risk of cardiac hospitalization (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20–0.82) and the composite endpoint of mortality and hospitalization (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.44–0.73). Compared with patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HFimpEF was associated with a moderately lower risk of mortality (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.32–0.55) and hospitalization (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58–0.92).Conclusion: Around 22.64% of patients with HFrEF would be treated to become HFimpEF, who would then obtain a 56% decrease in mortality risk. Meanwhile, HFimpEF is associated with lower heart failure hospitalization. Further studies are required to explore how to promote left ventricular ejection fraction improvement and improve the prognosis of persistent HFrEF in patients.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021260422, identifier: CRD42021260422.

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Masuda ◽  
T Kanda ◽  
M Asai ◽  
T Mano ◽  
T Yamada ◽  
...  

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


Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos A Godoy Rivas ◽  
Samuel Urrutia ◽  
Eleazar Montalvan ◽  
Mario Rodriguez ◽  
Eduardo Venegas ◽  
...  

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


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_G) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo De Marzo ◽  
Lucia Tricarico ◽  
Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai ◽  
Michele Correale ◽  
Natale Daniele Brunetti ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims We assessed the efficacy of add-on drugs in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD) already receiving neurohormonal inhibition (NEUi). Methods and results The literature was systematically searched for phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving ≥90% patients with left ventricular ejection fraction &lt;45%, of whom &lt;30% were acutely decompensated, and with published information about the subgroup of estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt;60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Six RCTs were included in a study-level network meta-analysis evaluating the effect of NEUi, ivabradine, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat, and omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) on a composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. In a fixed-effects model, SGLT2i (HR: 0.78, 95% CrI: 0.69–0.89), ARNI (HR: 0.79, 95% CrI: 0.69–0.90), and ivabradine (HR: 0.82, 95% CrI: 0.69–0.98) decreased the risk of the composite outcome vs. NEUi, whereas OM did not (HR: 0.98, 95% CrI: 0.89–1.10). A trend for improved outcome was also found for vericiguat (HR: 0.90, 95% CrI: 0.80–1.00). In indirect comparisons, both SLGT2i (HR: 0.80, 95% CrI: 0.68–0.94) and ARNI (HR: 0.80, 95% CrI: 0.68–0.95) reduced the risk vs. OM; furthermore, there was a trend for a greater benefit of SGLT2i vs. vericiguat (HR: 0.88, 95% CrI: 0.73–1.00) and ivabradine vs. OM (HR: 0.84, 95% CrI: 0.68–1.00). Results were comparable in a random-effects model and in sensitivity analyses. SUCRA scores were 81.8%, 80.8%, 68.9%, 44.2%, 16.6%, and 7.8% for SGLT2i, ARNI, ivabradine, vericiguat, OM, and NEUi, respectively. Conclusions Expanding pharmacotherapy beyond NEUi improves outcomes in HFrEF with CKD. 633 Figure


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 1443-1453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Hartmann ◽  
Natasha Ludmila Bosch ◽  
Luara de Aragão Miguita ◽  
Elise Tierie ◽  
Lídia Zytinski ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document