Dataset Information

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Treatment of Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction.

ABSTRACT: Background Many patients with heart failure ( HF ) with reduced ejection fraction ( HF r EF ) experience improvement or recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction ( LVEF ). Data on clinical characteristics, outcomes, and medical therapy in patients with HF with improved ejection fraction (HFiEF) are scarce. Methods and Results Of 5625 consecutive patients hospitalized for acute HF in the KorAHF (Registry [Prospective Cohort] for Heart Failure in Korea) study, 5103 patients had baseline echocardiography and 2302 patients had follow-up echocardiography at 12 months. HF phenotypes were defined as persistent HF r EF ( LVEF ?40% at baseline and at 1-year follow-up), HF i EF ( LVEF ?40% at baseline and improved up to 40% at 1-year follow-up), HF with midrange ejection fraction (LVEF between 40% and <50%), and HF with preserved ejection fraction ( LVEF ?50%). The primary outcome was 4-year all-cause mortality from the time of HF i EF diagnosis. Among 1509 HF r EF patients who had echocardiography 1 year after index hospitalization, 720 (31.3%) were diagnosed as having HF i EF . Younger age, female sex, de novo HF , hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and ?-blocker use were positive predictors and diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease were negative predictors of HF i EF . During 4-year follow-up, patients with HF i EF showed lower mortality than those with persistent HF r EF in univariate, multivariate, and propensity-score-matched analyses. ?-Blockers, but not renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, were associated with a reduced all-cause mortality risk (hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% CI , 0.40-0.87; P=0.007). Benefits for outcome seemed similar among patients receiving low- or high-dose ?-blockers (log-rank, P=0.304). Conclusions HF i EF is a distinct HF phenotype with better clinical outcomes than other phenotypes. The use of ?-blockers may be beneficial for these patients. Clinical Trial Registration URL : https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01389843.

SUBMITTER: Park CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6475046 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Treatment of Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction.

Park Chan Soon CS Park Jin Joo JJ Mebazaa Alexandre A Oh Il-Young IY Park Hyun-Ah HA Cho Hyun-Jai HJ Lee Hae-Young HY Kim Kye Hun KH Yoo Byung-Su BS Kang Seok-Min SM Baek Sang Hong SH Jeon Eun-Seok ES Kim Jae-Joong JJ Cho Myeong-Chan MC Chae Shung Chull SC Oh Byung-Hee BH Choi Dong-Ju DJ

Journal of the American Heart Association 20190301 6

Background Many patients with heart failure ( HF ) with reduced ejection fraction ( HF r EF ) experience improvement or recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction ( LVEF ). Data on clinical characteristics, outcomes, and medical therapy in patients with HF with improved ejection fraction (HFiEF) are scarce. Methods and Results Of 5625 consecutive patients hospitalized for acute HF in the KorAHF (Registry [Prospective Cohort] for Heart Failure in Korea) study, 5103 patients had baseline echoc ...[more]

PMID: 30845873

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionData on heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is still emerging, especially in Asian populations. This study aims to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of Asian HFmrEF patients with those of HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).MethodsPatients admitted nationally for HF between 2008 and 2014 were included in the study. They were categorised according to ejection fraction (EF). Patients with EF <40%, EF 40%-49% and EF ≥50% were categorised into the following groups: HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF, respectively. All patients were followed up till December 2016. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death and/or HF rehospitalisations.ResultsA total of 16,493 patients were included in the study - HFrEF, n = 7,341 (44.5%); HFmrEF, n = 2,272 (13.8%); and HFpEF n = 6,880 (41.7%). HFmrEF patients were more likely to be gender neutral, of mid-range age and have concomitant diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidaemia, peripheral vascular disease and coronary artery disease ( P < 0.001). The two-year overall mortality rates for HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF were 32.9%, 31.8% and 29.1%, respectively. HFmrEF patients had a significantly lower overall mortality rate compared to HFrEF patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.95; P < 0.001) and a significantly higher overall mortality rate (adjusted HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.17-1.33; P < 0.001) compared to HFpEF patients. This was similarly seen with cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalisations, with the exception of similar HF hospitalisations between HFmrEF and HFpEF patients.ConclusionHFmrEF patients account for a significant burden of patients with HF. HFmrEF represents a distinct HF phenotype with high atherosclerotic burden and clinical outcomes saddled in between those of HFrEF and HFpEF. Further therapeutic studies to guide management of this challenging group of patients are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients who have improved ejection fraction have a better prognosis than those with persistently reduced ejection fraction. This study aimed to analyze the predictors for progression of patients with HFrEF to heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), as well as their characteristics and analyze predictors for prognosis.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 1251 patients with HFrEF at baseline, who also had a second echocardiogram ≥ 3 months. After left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reassessment, patients were separated into the HFimpEF group (n = 408) and the persistent HFrEF group (n = 611). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.ResultsMultivariate logistic regression showed that without history of alcohol consumption (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.78), non-New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.15-0.52), without dilated cardiomyopathy (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.26-0.84), concomitant hypertension (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.02-2.29), β -blockers use (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.54-3.43), and lower uric acid (OR: 0.999, 95% CI: 0.997-1.000) could predict LVEF improvement. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that HFimpEF patients had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events than HFrEF patients (log Rank p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression found that older age (HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.06), NYHA class III-IV (HR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.28-3.95), concomitant valvular heart disease (HR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.01-3.85), and higher creatinine (HR: 1.003, 95% CI: 1.001-1.004) were independent risk factors for the primary endpoint in HFimpEF patients.ConclusionsHFrEF patients without a history of alcohol consumption, non-NYHA class III-IV, without dilated cardiomyopathy, concomitant hypertension, β -blockers use, and lower uric acid were more likely to have LVEF improvement. Although the prognosis of HFimpEF patients was better than that of HFrEF patients, older age, NYHA class III-IV, concomitant valvular heart disease, and higher creatinine were still risk factors for cardiovascular events in HFimpEF patients.

Project description:Evidence-based therapies for heart failure (HF) differ significantly according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, few data are available on the phenotype and prognosis of patients with HF with midrange LVEF of 40% to 55%, and the impact of recovered systolic function on the clinical features, functional capacity, and outcomes of this population is not known.We studied 944 patients with HF who underwent clinically indicated cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The study population was categorized according to LVEF as follows: HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF<40%; n=620); HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (LVEF was consistent between 40% and 55%; n=107); HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction (LVEF, 40%-55% but previous LVEF<40%; n=170); and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF; LVEF>55%; n=47). HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction and HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had similar clinical characteristics, which were intermediate between those of HFrEF and HFpEF, and comparable values of predicted peak oxygen consumption and minute-ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, which were better than HFrEF and similar to HFpEF. After a median of 4.4 (2.9-5.7) years, there were 253 composite events (death, left ventricular assistant device implantation, or transplantation). In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had lower risk of composite events than HFrEF (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) and HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.67), and similar prognosis when compared with HFpEF. In contrast, HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction tended to show intermediate risk of outcomes in comparison with HFpEF and HFrEF, albeit not reaching statistical significance in fully adjusted analyses.Patients with HF with midrange LVEF demonstrate a distinct clinical profile from HFpEF and HFrEF patients, with objective measures of functional capacity similar to HFpEF. Within the midrange LVEF HF population, recovered systolic function is a marker of more favorable prognosis.

Dataset Information

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Treatment of Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction.

Publications

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Treatment of Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets