Dataset Information

Gender disparities in heart failure with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction: Results from APOLLON study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to examine gender-based differences in epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and management of consecutive patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods

The APOLLON trial (A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mid-range and preserved ejection fractiON) is a multicenter, cross-sectional, and observational study. Consecutive patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF who were admitted to the cardiology clinics were included (NCT03026114). Herein, we performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the APOLLON trial.

Results

The study population included 1065 (mean age of 67.1+-10.6 years, 54% women) patients from 11 sites in Turkey. Compared with men, women were older (68 years vs. 67 years, p<0.001), had higher body mass index (29 kg/m2 vs. 27 kg/m2, p<0.001), and had higher heart rate (80 bpm vs. 77.5 bpm, p<0.001). Women were more likely to have HFpEF (82% vs. 70.9%, p<0.001), and they differ from men having a higher prevalence of hypertension (78.7% vs. 73.2%, p=0.035) and atrial fibrillation (40.7% vs. 29.9%, p<0.001) but lower prevalence of coronary artery disease (29.5% vs. 54.9%, p<0.001). Women had higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (691 pg/mL vs. 541 pg/mL, p=0.004), lower hemoglobin (12.7 g/dL vs. 13.8 g/dL, p<0.001), and serum ferritin (51 ng/mL vs. 64 ng/mL, p=0.001) levels, and they had worse diastolic function (E/e'=10 vs. 9, p<0.001). The main cause of heart failure (HF) in women was atrial fibrillation, while it was ischemic heart disease in men.

Conclusion

Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, and etiological factors are significantly different in female and male patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. This study offers a broad perspective for increased awareness about this patient profile in Turkey.

SUBMITTER: Ozlek B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6528519 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Although central apneas (CA) and obstructive apneas (OA) are highly prevalent in heart failure (HF), a comparison of apnea prevalence, predictors and clinical correlates in the whole HF spectrum, including HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF) has never been carried out so far. Materials and methods: 700 HF patients were prospectively enrolled and then divided according to left ventricular EF (408 HFrEF, 117 HFmrEF, 175 HFpEF). All patients underwent a thorough evaluation including: 2D echocardiography; 24-h Holter-ECG monitoring; cardiopulmonary exercise testing; neuro-hormonal assessment and 24-h cardiorespiratory monitoring. Results: In the whole population, prevalence of normal breathing (NB), CA and OA at daytime was 40, 51, and 9%, respectively, while at nighttime 15, 55, and 30%, respectively. When stratified according to left ventricular EF, CA prevalence decreased (daytime: 57 vs. 43 vs. 42%, p = 0.001; nighttime: 66 vs. 48 vs. 34%, p < 0.0001) from HFrEF to HFmrEF and HFpEF, while OA prevalence increased (daytime: 5 vs. 8 vs. 18%, p < 0.0001; nighttime 20 vs. 29 vs. 53%, p < 0.0001). In HFrEF, male gender and body mass index (BMI) were independent predictors of both CA and OA at nighttime, while age, New York Heart Association functional class and diastolic dysfunction of daytime CA. In HFmrEF and HFpEF male gender and systolic pulmonary artery pressure were independent predictors of CA at daytime, while hypertension predicted nighttime OA in HFpEF patients; no predictor of nighttime CA was identified. When compared to patients with NB, those with CA had higher neuro-hormonal activation in all HF subgroups. Moreover, in the HFrEF subgroup, patients with CA were older, more comorbid and with greater hemodynamic impairment while, in the HFmrEF and HFpEF subgroups, they had higher left atrial volumes and more severe diastolic dysfunction, respectively. When compared to patients with NB, those with OA were older and more comorbid independently from background EF. Conclusions: Across the whole spectrum of HF, CA prevalence increases and OA decreases as left ventricular systolic dysfunction progresses. Different predictors and specific clinical characteristics might help to identify patients at risk of developing CA or OA in different HF phenotypes.

Project description:AimsExercise intolerance is the leading manifestation of heart failure with preserved or mid-range ejection fraction (HFpEF or HFmrEF), and left atrial (LA) function might contribute to modulating left ventricular filling and pulmonary venous pressures. We aim to assess the association between LA function and maximal exercise capacity in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.Methods and resultsSixty-five patients, prospectively enrolled in the German HFpEF Registry, were analysed. Inclusion criteria were New York Heart Association functional class ? II, left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%, structural heart disease or diastolic dysfunction, and elevated levels of N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). LA function was evaluated through speckle-tracking echocardiography by central reading in the Charité Academic Echocardiography core lab. All patients underwent maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test and were classified according to a peak VO2 cut-off of prognostic value (14 mL/kg/min). NT-pro-BNP was measured. Twenty-nine patients (45%) reached a peak VO2 < 14 mL/kg/min (mean value 12.4 ± 1.5) and 36 patients (55%) peak VO2 ? 14 mL/kg/min (mean value 19.4 ± 3.9). There was no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction (60 ± 9 vs. 59 ± 8%), left ventricular mass (109 ± 23 vs. 112 ± 32 g/m2 ), LA volume index (45 ± 17 vs. 47 ± 22 mL/m2 ), or E/e´ (13.1 ± 4.7 vs. 13.0 ± 6.0) between these groups. In contrast, all LA strain measures were impaired in patients with lower peak VO2 (reservoir strain 14 ± 5 vs. 21 ± 9%, P = 0.002; conduit strain 9 ± 2 vs. 13 ± 4%, P = 0.001; contractile strain 7 ± 4 vs. 11 ± 6%, P = 0.02; reported lower limits of normality for LA reservoir, conduit and contractile strains: 26.1%, 12.0%, and 7.7%). In linear regression analysis, lower values of LA reservoir strain were associated with impaired peak VO2 after adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, heart rhythm (sinus/AFib), and log-NTproBNP [? 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02-0.30, P = 0.02], with an odds ratio 1.22 (95% CI 1.05-1.42, P = 0.01) for peak VO2 < 14 mL/kg/min for LA reservoir strain decrease after adjustment for these five covariates. Adding left ventricular ejection fraction, it did not influence the results. On the other hand, the addition of LA strain to the adjustment parameters alone described above provided a significant increase of the predictive value for lower peak VO2 values (R2 0.50 vs. 0.45, P = 0.02). With receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, we identified LA reservoir strain < 22% to have 93% sensitivity and 49% specificity in predicting peak VO2 < 14 mL/kg/min. Using this cut-off, LA reservoir strain < 22% was associated with peak VO2 < 14 mL/kg/min in logistic regression analysis after comprehensive adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, heart rhythm, and log-NTproBNP [odds ratio 95% CI 10.4 (1.4-74), P = 0.02].ConclusionsIn this HFpEF and HFmrEF cohort, a reduction in LA reservoir strain was a sensible marker of decreased peak exercise capacity. Therefore, LA reservoir strain might be of clinical value in predicting exercise capacity in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.