Dataset Information

Predictors of new-onset heart failure: differences in preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:About one half of patients with heart failure (HF) have preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) rather than reduced ejection fraction (HFREF). The differences in risk factors predisposing to the 2 subtypes of HF are poorly understood. We sought to identify clinical predictors of new-onset HF and to explore differences in HFPEF versus HFREF. METHODS AND RESULTS:We studied new-onset HF cases between 1981 and 2008 in Framingham Heart Study participants, classified into HFPEF and HFREF (ejection fraction >45% versus ?45%). We used Cox multivariable regression to examine predictors of 8-year risk of incident HF and competing-risks analysis to identify predictors that differed between HFPEF and HFREF. Among 6340 participants (60±12 years) with 97 808 person-years of follow-up, 512 developed incident HF. Of 457 participants with left ventricular ejection fraction evaluation at the time of HF diagnosis, 196 (43%) were classified as HFPEF and 261 (56%) as HFREF. Fourteen predictors of overall HF were identified. Older age, diabetes mellitus, and a history of valvular disease predicted both types of HF (P?0.0025 for all). Higher body mass index, smoking, and atrial fibrillation predicted HFPEF only, whereas male sex, higher total cholesterol, higher heart rate, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, and left bundle-branch block predicted risk of HFREF. CONCLUSIONS:Although multiple risk factors preceded overall HF, distinct clusters of risk factors determine risk for new-onset HFPEF versus HFREF. This knowledge may enable the design of clinical trials of targeted prevention and the introduction of therapeutic strategies for prevention of HF and its 2 major subtypes.

SUBMITTER: Ho JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3705220 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictors of new-onset heart failure: differences in preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

Ho Jennifer E JE Lyass Asya A Lee Douglas S DS Vasan Ramachandran S RS Kannel William B WB Larson Martin G MG Levy Daniel D

Circulation. Heart failure 20121227 2

<h4>Background</h4>About one half of patients with heart failure (HF) have preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) rather than reduced ejection fraction (HFREF). The differences in risk factors predisposing to the 2 subtypes of HF are poorly understood. We sought to identify clinical predictors of new-onset HF and to explore differences in HFPEF versus HFREF.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We studied new-onset HF cases between 1981 and 2008 in Framingham Heart Study participants, classified into HFPEF a ...[more]

PMID: 23271790

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLifetime risk of heart failure has been estimated to range from 20% to 46% in diverse sex and race groups. However, lifetime risk estimates for the 2 HF phenotypes, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are not known.MethodsParticipant-level data from 2 large prospective cohort studies, the CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study) and MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), were pooled, excluding individuals with prevalent HF at baseline. Remaining lifetime risk estimates for HFpEF (EF ≥45%) and HFrEF (EF <45%) were determined at different index ages with the use of a modified Kaplan-Meier method with mortality and the other HF subtype as competing risks.ResultsWe included 12 417 participants >45 years of age (22.2% blacks, 44.8% men) who were followed up for median duration of 11.6 years with 2178 overall incident HF events with 561 HFrEF events and 726 HFpEF events. At the index age of 45 years, the lifetime risk for any HF through 90 years of age was higher in men than women (27.4% versus 23.8%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFrEF was higher in men than women (10.6% versus 5.8%). In contrast, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was similar in men and women. In race-stratified analyses, lifetime risk for overall HF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (25.9% versus 22.4%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (11.2% versus 7.7%), whereas that for HFrEF was similar across the 2 groups. Among participants with antecedent myocardial infarction before HF diagnosis, the remaining lifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF were up to 2.5-fold and 4-fold higher, respectively, compared with those without antecedent myocardial infarction.ConclusionsLifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF vary by sex, race, and history of antecedent myocardial infarction. These insights into the distribution of HF risk and its subtypes could inform the development of targeted strategies to improve population-level HF prevention and control.

Project description:Background The female preponderance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a distinguishing feature of this disorder, but the association of sex with degree of diastolic dysfunction and clinical outcomes among individuals with HFpEF remains unclear. Methods and Results We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational study of patients with HFpEF (PURSUIT-HFpEF [Prospective Multicenter Observational Study of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction]: UMIN000021831). Between 2016 and 2019, 871 patients were enrolled from 26 hospitals (follow-up: 399±349 days). We investigated sex-related differences in diastolic dysfunction and postdischarge clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF. The echocardiographic end point was diastolic dysfunction according to American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging criteria. The clinical end point was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure readmission. Women accounted for 55.2% (481 patients) of the overall cohort. Compared with men, women were older and had lower prevalence rates of hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Women had diastolic dysfunction more frequently than men (52.8% versus 32.0%, P<0.001). The incidence of the clinical end point did not differ between women and men (women 36.1/100 person-years versus men 30.5/100 person-years, P=0.336). Female sex was independently associated with the echocardiographic end point (adjusted odds ratio, 2.839; 95% CI, 1.884-4.278; P<0.001) and the clinical end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.538; 95% CI, 1.143-2.070; P=0.004). Conclusions Female sex was independently associated with the presence of diastolic dysfunction and worse clinical outcomes in a cohort of elderly patients with HFpEF. Our results suggest that a sex-specific approach is key to investigating the pathophysiology of HFpEF. Registration URL: https://upload.umin.ac.jp; Unique identifier: UMIN000021831.

Project description:BackgroundMicrovascular dysfunction plays an important role in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, no mechanistic link between systemic microvasculature and congestion, a central feature of the syndrome, has yet been investigated.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate capillary-interstitium fluid exchange in HFpEF, including lymphatic drainage and the potential osmotic forces exerted by any hypertonic tissue Na+ excess.MethodsPatients with HFpEF and healthy control subjects of similar age and sex distributions (n = 16 per group) underwent: 1) a skin biopsy for vascular immunohistochemistry, gene expression, and chemical (water, Na+, and K+) analyses; and 2) venous occlusion plethysmography to assess peripheral microvascular filtration coefficient (measuring capillary fluid extravasation) and isovolumetric pressure (above which lymphatic drainage cannot compensate for fluid extravasation).ResultsSkin biopsies in patients with HFpEF showed rarefaction of small blood and lymphatic vessels (p = 0.003 and p = 0.012, respectively); residual skin lymphatics showed a larger diameter (p = 0.007) and lower expression of lymphatic differentiation and function markers (LYVE-1 [lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1]: p < 0.05; PROX-1 [prospero homeobox protein 1]: p < 0.001) compared with control subjects. In patients with HFpEF, microvascular filtration coefficient was lower (calf: 3.30 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.33 to 3.88] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 4.66 [IQR: 3.70 to 6.15] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p < 0.01; forearm: 5.16 [IQR: 3.86 to 5.43] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 5.66 [IQR: 4.69 to 8.38] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p > 0.05), in keeping with blood vascular rarefaction and the lack of any observed hypertonic skin Na+ excess, but the lymphatic drainage was impaired (isovolumetric pressure in patients with HFpEF vs. control subjects: calf 16 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 22 ± 4 mm Hg; p < 0.005; forearm 17 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 25 ± 5 mm Hg; p < 0.001).ConclusionsPeripheral lymphatic vessels in patients with HFpEF exhibit structural and molecular alterations and cannot effectively compensate for fluid extravasation and interstitial accumulation by commensurate drainage. Reduced lymphatic reserve may represent a novel therapeutic target.

Dataset Information

Predictors of new-onset heart failure: differences in preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

Publications

Predictors of new-onset heart failure: differences in preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets