Dataset Information

Noncardiac Versus Cardiac Mortality in Heart Failure With Preserved, Midrange, and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

ABSTRACT: Background A thorough analysis of noncardiac determinants of mortality in heart failure (HF) is missing. Furthermore, evidence conflicts on the outcome of patients with HF and no or mild systolic dysfunction. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of noncardiac and cardiac causes of death in a cohort of chronic HF patients, covering the whole spectrum of systolic function. Methods and Results We enrolled 2791 stable HF patients, classified into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction [EF] <40%), HR with midrange EF (HFmrEF; left ventricular EF 41-49%), or HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; left ventricular EF ?50%), and followed up for all-cause, cardiac, and noncardiac mortality (adjudicated as due to cancer, sepsis, respiratory disease, renal disease, or other causes). Over follow-up of 39 months, adjusted mortality was lower in HFpEF and HFmrEF versus HFrEF (hazard ratio: 0.75 [95% CI, 0.67-0.84], P<0.001 for HFpEF; hazard ratio: 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96], P=0.017 for HFmrEF). HFrEF had the highest rates of cardiac death, whereas noncardiac mortality was similar across left ventricular EF categories. Noncardiac causes accounted for 62% of deaths in HFpEF, 54% in HFmrEF and 35% in HFrEF; cancer was twice as frequent as a cause of death in HFpEF and HFmrEF versus HFrEF. Yearly rates of noncardiac death exceeded those of cardiac death since the beginning of follow-up in HFpEF and HFmrEF. Conclusions Noncardiac death is a major determinant of outcome in stable HF, exceeding cardiac-related mortality in HFpEF and HFmrHF. Comorbidities should be regarded as main therapeutic targets and objects of dedicated quality improvement initiatives, especially in patients with no or mild systolic dysfunction.

SUBMITTER: Vergaro G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6818034 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Noncardiac Versus Cardiac Mortality in Heart Failure With Preserved, Midrange, and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Vergaro Giuseppe G Ghionzoli Nicolò N Innocenti Lisa L Taddei Claudia C Giannoni Alberto A Valleggi Alessandro A Borrelli Chiara C Senni Michele M Passino Claudio C Emdin Michele M

Journal of the American Heart Association 20191005 20

Background A thorough analysis of noncardiac determinants of mortality in heart failure (HF) is missing. Furthermore, evidence conflicts on the outcome of patients with HF and no or mild systolic dysfunction. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of noncardiac and cardiac causes of death in a cohort of chronic HF patients, covering the whole spectrum of systolic function. Methods and Results We enrolled 2791 stable HF patients, classified into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; left vent ...[more]

PMID: 31587602

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Despite intensive treatment, hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) have a substantial risk of postdischarge mortality. Limited data are available on the possible differences in the incidence and mechanisms of death among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Objectives:To examine the incidences and mode of postdischarge mortality among patients with ADHF and to compare the risk profile among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants:This prospective cohort study of 4056 patients hospitalized for ADHF analyzed data from 3717 patients who were discharged from October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016. Data analysis was performed from April 1 to August 31, 2019. Exposures:Death among patients with ADHF after hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures:All-cause death and cause of postdischarge mortality after the index hospitalization by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) subgroup. Results:A total of 3717 patients (mean [SD] age, 77.7 [12.0] years; 2049 [55.1%] male) were included in the study. The mean (SD) LVEF at baseline was 46.4%?(16.2%). Among 3717 enrolled patients, 1383 (37.2%) were categorized as having HFrEF (LVEF, <40%), 703 (18.9%) as having HFmrEF (LVEF, 40%-49%), and 1631 (43.9%) as having HFpEF (LVEF, ?50%). The incidence and causes of death were evaluated after discharge from the index hospitalization. The median follow-up period was 470 days (interquartile range, 357-649 days), and the 1-year follow-up rate was 96%. During follow-up, all-cause death occurred in 848 patients (22.8%; HFrEF group: 298 [21.5%; 95% CI, 19.5%-23.8%]; HFmrEF group: 158 [22.5%; 95% CI, 19.5%-25.7%]; and HRpEF group: 392 [24.0%; 95% CI, 22.0%-26.2%]; P?=?.26), cardiovascular deaths occurred in 523 patients (14.1%; HFrEF group: 203 [14.7%; 95% CI, 12.9%-16.6%]; HFmrEF group: 97 [13.8%; 95% CI, 11.4%-16.5%]; and HFpEF group: 223 [13.7%; 95% CI, 12.1%-15.4%]; P?=?.71), and sudden cardiac death occurred in 98 patients (2.6%; HFrEF group: 44 [3.2%; 95% CI, 2.4%-4.2%]; HFmrEF group: 14 [2.0%; 95% CI, 1.2%-3.3%]; and HFpEF group: 40 [2.5%; 95% CI, 1.8%-3.3%]; P?=?.23). The risks of causes of death were similar among the subtypes. Conclusions and Relevance:The mode of death was similar among the heart failure subtypes. Given the nonnegligible incidence of sudden cardiac death in patients with HFpEF found in this study, further studies appear to be warranted to identify a high-risk subset in this population.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study aimed to compare the independent and incremental prognostic value of peak oxygen consumption (VO2) and minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) in heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF), midrange (HFmEF), and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:In 195 HFpEF (LVEF ?50%), 144 HFmEF (LVEF 40-49%), and 630 HFrEF (LVEF <40%) patients, we assessed the association of cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables with the composite outcome of death, left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation (256 events; median follow-up of 4.2 years), and 2-year incident HF hospitalization (244 events). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, greater association with outcomes in HFpEF than HFrEF were noted with peak VO2 (HR [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.67-0.87] versus 0.87 [0.83-0.90] for the composite outcome, Pinteraction=0.052; 0.77 [0.69-0.86] versus 0.92 [0.88-0.95], respectively for HF hospitalization, Pinteraction=0.003) and VE/VCO2 slope (1.11 [1.06-1.17] versus 1.04 [1.03-1.06], respectively for the composite outcome, Pinteraction=0.012; 1.10 [1.05-1.15] versus 1.04 [1.03-1.06], respectively for HF hospitalization, Pinteraction=0.019). In HFmEF, peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope were associated with the composite outcome (0.79 [0.70-0.90] and 1.12 [1.05-1.19], respectively), while only peak VO2 was related to HF hospitalization (0.81 [0.72-0.92]). In HFpEF and HFrEF, peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope provided incremental prognostic value beyond clinical variables based on the C-statistic, net reclassification improvement, and integrated diagnostic improvement, with models containing both measures demonstrating the greatest incremental value. CONCLUSIONS:Both peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope provided incremental value beyond clinical characteristics and LVEF for predicting outcomes in HFpEF. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables provided greater risk discrimination in HFpEF than HFrEF.

Project description:Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes. Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064-2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335-2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096-1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247-2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020-1.718, P = 0.035). Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.

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

Noncardiac Versus Cardiac Mortality in Heart Failure With Preserved, Midrange, and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Publications

Noncardiac Versus Cardiac Mortality in Heart Failure With Preserved, Midrange, and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets