Dataset Information

Concentric vs. eccentric remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and response to treatment.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:Heart failure is traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), rather than by left ventricular (LV) geometry, with guideline-recommended therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Most patients with HFrEF have eccentric LV hypertrophy, but some have concentric LV hypertrophy. We aimed to compare clinical characteristics, biomarker patterns, and response to treatment of patients with HFrEF and eccentric vs. concentric LV hypertrophy. METHODS AND RESULTS:We performed a retrospective post-hoc analysis including 1015 patients with HFrEF (LVEF <40%) from the multinational observational BIOSTAT-CHF study. LV geometry was classified using two-dimensional echocardiography. Network analysis of 92 biomarkers was used to investigate pathophysiologic pathways. Concentric LV hypertrophy was present in 142 (14%) patients, who were on average older and more likely hypertensive compared to those with eccentric LV hypertrophy. Network analysis revealed that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide was an important hub in eccentric hypertrophy, whereas in concentric hypertrophy, tumour necrosis factor receptor 1, urokinase plasminogen activator surface receptor, paraoxonase and P-selectin were central hubs. Up-titration of beta-blockers was associated with a mortality benefit in HFrEF with eccentric but not concentric LV hypertrophy (P-value for interaction ?0.001). For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, the hazard ratio for mortality was higher in concentric hypertrophy, but the interaction was not significant. CONCLUSION:Patients with HFrEF with concentric hypertrophy have a clinical and biomarker phenotype that is distinctly different from those with eccentric hypertrophy. Patients with concentric hypertrophy may not experience similar benefit from up.-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers compared to patients with eccentric hypertrophy.

SUBMITTER: Nauta JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7540540 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Concentric vs. eccentric remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and response to treatment.

Nauta Jan F JF Hummel Yoran M YM Tromp Jasper J Ouwerkerk Wouter W van der Meer Peter P Jin Xuanyi X Lam Carolyn S P CSP Bax Jeroen J JJ Metra Marco M Samani Nilesh J NJ Ponikowski Piotr P Dickstein Kenneth K Anker Stefan D SD Lang Chim C CC Ng Leong L LL Zannad Faiez F Filippatos Gerasimos S GS van Veldhuisen Dirk J DJ van Melle Joost P JP Voors Adriaan A AA

European journal of heart failure 20191111 7

<h4>Aims</h4>Heart failure is traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), rather than by left ventricular (LV) geometry, with guideline-recommended therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Most patients with HFrEF have eccentric LV hypertrophy, but some have concentric LV hypertrophy. We aimed to compare clinical characteristics, biomarker patterns, and response to treatment of pat ...[more]

PMID: 31713324

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsReverse remodelling (RR) is the recovery from left ventricular (LV) dilatation and dysfunction. Many arbitrary criteria for RR have been proposed. We searched the criteria with the strongest prognostic yield for the hard endpoint of cardiovascular death.Methods and resultsWe performed a systematic literature search of diagnostic criteria for RR. We evaluated their prognostic significance in a cohort of 927 patients with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% undergoing two echocardiograms within 12 ± 2 months. These patients were followed for a median of 2.8 years (interquartile interval 1.3-4.9) after the second echocardiogram, recording 123 cardiovascular deaths. Two prognostic models were defined. Model 1 included age, LVEF, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ischaemic aetiology, cardiac resynchronization therapy, estimated glomerular filtration rate, New York Heart Association, and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) index, and Model 2 the validated Cardiac and Comorbid Conditions Heart Failure score. We identified 25 criteria for RR, the most used being LVESV reduction ≥15% (12 studies out of 42). In the whole cohort, two criteria proved particularly effective in risk reclassification over Model 1 and Model 2. These criteria were (i) LVEF increase >10 U and (ii) LVEF increase ≥1 category [severe (LVEF ≤ 30%), moderate (LVEF 31-40%), mild LV dysfunction (LVEF 41-55%), and normal LV function (LVEF ≥ 56%)]. The same two criteria yielded independent prognostic significance and improved risk reclassification even in patients with more severe systolic dysfunction, namely, those with LVEF < 40% or LVEF ≤ 35%. Furthermore, LVEF increase >10 U and LVEF increase ≥1 category displayed a greater prognostic value than LVESV reduction ≥15%, both in the whole cohort and in the subgroups with LVEF < 40% or LVEF ≤ 35%. For example, LVEF increase >10 U independently predicted cardiovascular death over Model 1 and LVESV reduction ≥15% (hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.90, P = 0.026), while LVESV reduction ≥15% did not independently predict cardiovascular death (P = 0.112).ConclusionsLeft ventricular ejection fraction increase >10 U and LVEF increase ≥1 category are stronger predictors of cardiovascular death than the most commonly used criterion for RR, namely, LVESV reduction ≥15%.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to assess short-term outcomes among emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF) by preserved (≥50%) vs. reduced (<50%) ejection fraction (EF).Methods and resultsWe conducted a retrospective, multicentre study of adult ED patients with AHF from 2017 to 2018 in an integrated healthcare system with 21 hospitals. Among patients with known EF, our primary outcome was 30 day all-cause mortality, comparing patients with heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF), adjusted for known risk factors. We ran separate multivariate regression models to compare 30 day mortality between HFpEF and HFrEF patients stratified by ED disposition (admit, observe, and discharge). Our secondary outcomes were adjusted 30 day all-cause return hospital admission and rates of non-fatal serious adverse events, including new intra-aorta balloon pump, endotracheal intubation, renal failure requiring dialysis, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. We conducted a sensitivity analysis among patients with EF ≤ 40% and compared our primary and secondary outcomes among patients with EF ≤ 40% with those with EF ≥ 50%. Among the 26 050 total ED encounters for AHF, 15 275 (58.6%) had known EF and 62.4% had HFpEF. The mean age was 76, 49.6% were women, and 60.5% were white. We found that 62.4% of patients were admitted, 18.3% were observed, and 19.3% were discharged from the ED. The 30 day all-cause mortality rate was lowest among discharged patients (3.9%), intermediate among observed patients (5.9%), and highest among admitted patients (13.9%). Overall, the adjusted 30 day mortality rate was significantly higher among HFpEF patients compared with HFrEF patients (10.2% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.0004). HFpEF patients had higher mortality regardless of ED disposition, although the difference was only significant among admitted patients. The adjusted 30 day return hospital admission rates were not significantly different between HFpEF and HFrEF patients (17.9% vs. 17.8%, P = 0.89). The adjusted 30 day non-fatal serious adverse event rates were significantly higher among HFrEF patients compared with HFpEF patients (13.7% vs. 11.1%, P < 0.0001), driven by myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization. We found that 3692 patients had EF ≤ 40%. Patients with EF ≥ 50% had significantly higher adjusted 30 day mortality rates compared with those with EF ≤ 40% (10.2% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.05).ConclusionIn a contemporary population, almost three quarters of ED patients with AHF and known EF have HFpEF. These patients have higher 30 day adjusted mortality compared with those with HFrEF. Further studies might evaluate the underlying factors associated with this difference and target interventions to improve outcomes.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of dynamic changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in an all-comer heart failure (HF) population with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%). We sought to identify independent factors related to improvement in EF and to identify risk factors for increased risk of CV events in the subgroups of improved EF (iEF) and non-improved EF (niEF), respecively.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective sub-analysis from the REDEAL HF trial, which included consecutive patients with chronic HF who were hospitalized from July 2009 to December 2017. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography data (interval ≥12 months) of 573 consecutive patients with HFrEF were analysed. iEF was defined as absolute improvement in EF ≥ 10% and follow-up EF over 40%. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, CV hospitalization, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. EF improved in 37.2% of patients with HFrEF during follow-up (median period of 17 months). iEF was independently associated with shorter HF duration (>4 vs. ≤4 years, odd ratio [OR] = 0.477, 95% CI 0.305-0.745), no coronary artery disease (CAD vs. no CAD, OR = 0.583, 95% CI 0.396-0.858), and no ICD implantation (ICD vs. no ICD, OR = 0.341, 95% CI 0.228-0.511). Compared with niEF, iEF was significantly and independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (22.1% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.019; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.674, 95% CI 0.469-0.968), lower CV mortality (8.9% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.015; HR = 0.539, 95% CI 0.317-0.916), and lower CV events risk (27.2% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; HR 0.519, 95% CI 0.381-0.708), after adjustment for age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors. Hypertension (HR = 2.452, P = 0.032) and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >1153 pg/mL, HR = 4.372, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for CV events in the iEF subgroup. ICD implantation (HR = 1.533, P = 0.011), elevated NT-proBNP (HR = 1.626, P = 0.018), increased left atrial volume index (HR = 1.461, P = 0.021), reduced lateral mitral annular plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.478, P = 0.025), and reduced tricuspid plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.491, P = 0.039) were identified as risk factors for CV events in the niEF subgroup.ConclusionsImprovement in EF is independently related to the longer survival and lower CV related mortality and hospitalization rate of HFrEF. Elevated baseline NT-proBNP is identified as the strongest prognostic factor associated with increased CV events risk in HFrEF patients both with and without improved EF, regardless of age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors.

Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.

Dataset Information

Concentric vs. eccentric remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and response to treatment.

Publications

Concentric vs. eccentric remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and response to treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets