Dataset Information

Rehospitalization burden and morbidity risk in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has been proposed as a distinct HF phenotype, but whether patients on this category fare worse, similarly, or better than those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) or preserved EF (HFpEF) in terms of rehospitalization risks over time remains unclear.

Methods and results

We prospectively included 2961 consecutive patients admitted for acute HF (AHF) in our institution. Of them, 158 patients died during the index admission, leaving the sample size to be 2803 patients. Patients were categorized according to their EF: HFrEF if EF ? 40% (n = 908, 32.4%); HFmrEF if EF = 41-49% (n = 449, 16.0%); and HFpEF if EF ? 50% (n = 1446, 51.6%). Covariate-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were used to evaluate the association between EF status and recurrent all-cause and HF-related admissions. At a median follow-up of 2.6 years (inter-quartile range: 1.0-5.3), 1663 (59.3%) patients died, and 6035 all-cause readmissions were registered in 2026 patients (72.3%), 2163 of them HF related. Rates of all-cause readmission per 100 patients-years of follow-up were 150.1, 176.9, and 163.6 in HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively (P = 0.097). After multivariable adjustment, when compared with that of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, HFmrEF status was not significantly associated with a different risk of all-cause readmissions (IRR = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.27; P = 0.926; and IRR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74-1.18; P = 0.621, respectively) or HF-related readmissions (IRR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.77-1.46; P = 0.725; and IRR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82-1.50; P = 0.511, respectively).

Conclusions

Following an admission for AHF, patients with HFmrEF had a similar rehospitalization burden and a similar risk of recurrent all-cause and HF-related admissions than had patients with HFrEF or HFpEF. Regarding morbidity risk, HFmrEF seems not to be a distinct HF phenotype.

SUBMITTER: Santas E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7261530 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rehospitalization burden and morbidity risk in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction.

Santas Enrique E de la Espriella Rafael R Palau Patricia P Miñana Gema G Amiguet Martina M Sanchis Juan J Lupón Josep J Bayes-Genís Antoni A Chorro Francisco Javier FJ Núñez Villota Julio J

ESC heart failure 20200325 3

<h4>Aims</h4>Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has been proposed as a distinct HF phenotype, but whether patients on this category fare worse, similarly, or better than those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) or preserved EF (HFpEF) in terms of rehospitalization risks over time remains unclear.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We prospectively included 2961 consecutive patients admitted for acute HF (AHF) in our institution. Of them, 158 patients died during the index admission, le ...[more]

PMID: 32212327

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: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.

Dataset Information

Rehospitalization burden and morbidity risk in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Rehospitalization burden and morbidity risk in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets