Dataset Information

Heart Failure With Mid-Range (Borderline) Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Future Directions.

ABSTRACT: Heart failure (HF) with borderline ejection fraction was first defined in 2013 in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines as the presence of the typical symptoms of HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41% to 49%. In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology specified HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) as LVEF of 40% to 49%. This range of LVEF is less well studied compared with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Although there are effective, guideline-directed medical therapies for patients with HFrEF, no therapies thus far show measurable benefit in HFpEF. Patients with HFmrEF have a clinical profile and prognosis that are closer to those of patients with HFpEF than those of HFrEF, with certain distinctions. Whether these patients represent a unique and dynamic HF group that may benefit from targeted therapies known to be beneficial in patients with HFrEF, such as neurohormonal blockade, requires further study. This review summarizes what is known about the clinical epidemiology, pathophysiology, and prognosis for patients with HFmrEF and how these features compare with the more well-studied HF groups. Although recommended treatments currently focus on aggressive management of comorbidities, we summarize the studies that identify a potential signal for beneficial therapies. Future studies are needed to not only better characterize the HFmrEF population but to also determine effective management strategies to reduce the high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality burden on this phenotype of patients with HF.

SUBMITTER: Hsu JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6668914 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Heart Failure With Mid-Range (Borderline) Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Future Directions.

Hsu Jeffrey J JJ Ziaeian Boback B Fonarow Gregg C GC

JACC. Heart failure 20171011 11

Heart failure (HF) with borderline ejection fraction was first defined in 2013 in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines as the presence of the typical symptoms of HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41% to 49%. In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology specified HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) as LVEF of 40% to 49%. This range of LVEF is less well studied compared with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with redu ...[more]

PMID: 29032140

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsGuidelines for management of patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction [HFmrEF; left ventricular EF (LVEF) 41-49%] do not exist. Disagreement exists whether HFmrEF should be considered a distinct group. The aim of this study is to examine characteristics of patients with HFmrEF with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; LVEF ≤ 40%) or preserved EF (HFpEF; LVEF ≥ 50%).Methods and resultsWe examined data collected in the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) Registry® for first HF patient visits between 1 May 2008 and 30 June 2016. Analysis was performed using ANOVA F-tests (or Kruskal-Wallis tests for non-normally distributed variables) for continuous parameters and χ2 tests for nominal covariates at the first diagnosed HF visit. Given the NCDR PINNACLE Registry® is a US-based registry, we opted to define HFmrEF as per the US guidelines, which define HFmrEF as LVEF 41-49% in contrast to European guidelines, which define HFmrEF as LVEF 40-49%. Among 1 103 386 patients with available data, 36.1% (N = 398 228) had HFrEF, 7.5% (N = 82 292) had HFmrEF, and 56.5% (N = 622 866) had HFpEF. Compared with patients with HFrEF or HFpEF, patients with HFmrEF had more prevalent coronary and peripheral artery disease and more history of myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass surgery (all P < 0.001). Patients with HFmrEF were also more likely to have atrial fibrillation/flutter, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease and to have a history of tobacco use (both P < 0.001). Among those with EF assessment prior to this analysis, only 4.8% (N = 1032) previously had HFrEF that improved to HFmrEF; 32.9% (N = 7072) had HFpEF previously and progressed to HFmrEF. Those patients who transitioned from HFpEF to HFmrEF had considerably more complex profiles and were less aggressively managed compared with those who remained with HFmrEF (all P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn this large descriptive analysis, patients with HFmrEF had an atherothrombotic phenotype distinct from other forms of HF. Interventions aimed at treating coronary ischaemia and addressing prevalent risk factors may play a particularly important role in the management of patients with HFmrEF.

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.

Dataset Information

Heart Failure With Mid-Range (Borderline) Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Future Directions.

Publications

Heart Failure With Mid-Range (Borderline) Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Future Directions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets