Changes in the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Outcomes in Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients with Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Prospective Observational Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tsukamoto K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8188035 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8364975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe prognostic implication of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT-VTI) on admission in hospitalized heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients has not been determined. We sought to investigate whether LVOT-VTI on admission is associated with worse clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with HFpEF.Methods and resultsWe studied consecutive 214 hospitalized HFpEF patients who had accessible LVOT-VTI data on admission, from a prospective HFpEF-specific multicentre registry. The primary outcome of interest was the composite of all-cause death and readmission due to heart failure. During a median follow-up period of 688 (interquartile range 162-810) days, the primary outcome occurred in 83 patients (39%). The optimal cut-off value of LVOT-VTI for the primary outcome estimated by receiver operating characteristic analysis was 15.8 cm. Lower LVOT-VTI was significantly associated with the primary outcome compared with higher LVOT-VTI (P = 0.005). Multivariable Cox regression analyses revealed that lower LVOT-VTI was an independent determinant of the primary outcome (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.91-0.98). In multivariable linear regression, haemoglobin level was the strongest independent determinant of LVOT-VTI among clinical parameters (β coefficient = -0.61, P = 0.007). Furthermore, patients with lower LVOT-VTI and anaemia had the worst clinical outcomes among the groups (P < 0.001).ConclusionsLower admission LVOT-VTI was an independent determinant of worse clinical outcomes in hospitalized HFpEF patients, indicating that LVOT-VTI on admission might be useful for categorizing a low-flow HFpEF phenotype and risk stratification in hospitalized HFpEF patients.
| S-EPMC7083464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsWhile heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are well described, determinants and outcomes of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remain unclear. We sought to examine clinical and biochemical predictors of incident HFmrEF in the community.Methods and resultsWe pooled data from four community-based longitudinal cohorts, with ascertainment of new heart failure (HF) classified into HFmrEF [ejection fraction (EF) 41-49%], HFpEF (EF ≥50%), and HFrEF (EF ≤40%). Predictors of incident HF subtypes were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Among 28 820 participants free of HF followed for a median of 12 years, there were 200 new HFmrEF cases, compared with 811 HFpEF and 1048 HFrEF. Clinical predictors of HFmrEF included age, male sex, systolic blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and prior myocardial infarction (multivariable adjusted P ≤ 0.003 for all). Biomarkers that predicted HFmrEF included natriuretic peptides, cystatin-C, and high-sensitivity troponin (P ≤ 0.0004 for all). Natriuretic peptides were stronger predictors of HFrEF [hazard ratio (HR) 2.00 per 1 standard deviation increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.81-2.20] than of HFmrEF (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.20-1.90, P = 0.01 for difference), and did not differ in their association with incident HFmrEF and HFpEF (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.41-1.73, P = 0.68 for difference). All-cause mortality following the onset of HFmrEF was worse than that of HFpEF (50 vs. 39 events per 1000 person-years, P = 0.02), but comparable to that of HFrEF (46 events per 1000 person-years, P = 0.78).ConclusionsWe found overlap in predictors of incident HFmrEF with other HF subtypes. In contrast, mortality risk after HFmrEF was worse than HFpEF, and similar to HFrEF.
| S-EPMC5899688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsHeart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) shares similar diagnostic criteria to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Whether left atrial (LA) function differs between HFmrEF and HFpEF is unknown. We, therefore, used 2D-speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) to assess LA phasic function in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF.Methods and resultsConsecutive outpatients diagnosed with HF according to current European recommendations were prospectively enrolled. There were 110 HFpEF and 61 HFmrEF patients with sinus rhythm, and 37 controls matched by age. LA phasic function was analysed using 2D-STE. Peak-atrial longitudinal strain (PALS), peak-atrial contraction strain (PACS), and PALS-PACS were measured reflecting LA reservoir, pump, and conduit function, respectively. Among HF groups, most of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function measures, and LA volume were similar. Both HF groups had abnormal LA phasic function compared with controls. HFmrEF patients had worse LA phasic function than HFpEF patients even among patients with LA enlargement. Among patients with normal LA size, LA reservoir, and pump function remained worse in HFmrEF. Differences in LA phasic function between HF groups remained significant after adjustment for confounders. Global PALS and PACS were inversely correlated with brain natriuretic peptide, LA volume, E/A, E/e', pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and diastolic dysfunction grade in both HF groups.ConclusionLA phasic function was worse in HFmrEF patients compared with those with HFpEF regardless of LA size, and independent of potential confounders. These differences could be attributed to intrinsic LA myocardial dysfunction perhaps in relation to altered LV function.
| S-EPMC6383056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe beneficial effect of β-blocker on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is well established. However, its effect on the 1-year outcome of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remains unclear.Methods and resultsWe analysed the data of the patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 40% and 49% in China Patient-centred Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events Prospective Heart Failure Study (China PEACE 5p-HF Study), in which patients hospitalized for heart failure from 52 Chinese hospitals were recruited from 2016 to 2018. Two primary outcomes were all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization. The associations between β-blocker use at discharge and outcomes were assessed by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-weighted Cox regression analyses. To assess consistency, IPTW adjusting medications analyses, multivariable analyses and dose-effect analyses were performed. A total of 1035 HFmrEF patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 65.5 ± 12.7 years and 377 (36.4%) were female. The median (interquartile range) of LVEF was 44% (42-47%). Six hundred and sixty-one (63.8%) were treated with β-blocker. Patients using β-blocker were younger with better cardiac function, and more likely to use renin-angiotensin system inhibitor and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. During the 1-year follow-up, death occurred in 84 (12.7%) treated and 85 (22.7%) untreated patients (P < 0.0001); all-cause hospitalization occurred in 298 (45.1%) treated and 188 (50.3%) untreated patients (P = 0.04). After IPTW-weighted adjustment, β-blocker use was significantly associated with lower risk of all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR): 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.96, P = 0.03], but not with lower all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.76-1.10, P = 0.36). Consistency analyses showed consistent favourable effect of β-blocker on all-cause death, but not on all-cause hospitalization.ConclusionsAmong patients with HFmrEF, β-blocker use was associated with lower risk of all-cause death, but not with lower risk of all-cause hospitalization.
| S-EPMC8847069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Few studies have evaluated the right ventricle systolic function in different categories of heart failure despite its effect on outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS:Single-centre, cross-sectional study included 150 patients, 50 patients in each category of HF: group I, preserved; group II, mid-range; group III, reduced ejection fraction. Left ventricular systolic function was assessed by 3D echo, and right ventricular systolic function was assessed by fractional area change (FAC), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), tissue Doppler image (TDI), and global longitudinal strain (GLS). There was no significant difference among the three groups regarding sex, the prevalence of risk factors, but patients in group III were significantly older (p < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (p = 0.004) than were found in the other two groups. In group I, the prevalence of RV systolic dysfunction was 18%, 22%, 14% and 26% by TAPSE, FAC, S wave velocity, and GLS, respectively. Their prevalence was higher in group II and much higher in group III than in group I. There were significant positive correlations among TAPSE, S wave velocity, GLS, and ejection fraction in groups II and III (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:The prevalence and severity of RV systolic dysfunction were positively correlated with LV systolic dysfunction, and the degree of RV dysfunction in mid-range was closer to reduce than preserved ejection fraction. STUDY REGISTRATION AT CLINICAL TRIAL.GOV: NCT03641599.
| S-EPMC7013188 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7835603 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6668914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsAdipose tissue and inflammation may play a role in the pathophysiology of patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. We therefore investigated epicardial fat in patients with HF with preserved (HFpEF) and mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and related this to co-morbidities, plasma biomarkers and cardiac structure.Methods and resultsA total of 64 HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% and 20 controls underwent routine cardiac magnetic resonance examination. Epicardial fat volume was quantified on short-axis cine stacks covering the entire epicardium and was related to clinical correlates, biomarkers associated with inflammation and myocardial injury, and cardiac function and contractility on cardiac magnetic resonance. HF patients and controls were of comparable age, sex and body mass index. Total epicardial fat volume was significantly higher in HF patients compared to controls (107 mL/m2 vs. 77 mL/m2 , P <0.0001). HF patients with atrial fibrillation and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus had more epicardial fat than HF patients without these co-morbidities (116 vs. 100 mL/m2 , P =0.03, and 120 vs. 97 mL/m2 , P =0.001, respectively). Creatine kinase-MB, troponin T and glycated haemoglobin in patients with HF were positively correlated with epicardial fat volume (R =0.37, P =0.006; R =0.35, P =0.01; and R =0.42, P =0.002, respectively).ConclusionHeart failure patients had more epicardial fat compared to controls, despite similar body mass index. Epicardial fat volume was associated with the presence of atrial fibrillation and type 2 diabetes mellitus and with biomarkers related to myocardial injury. The clinical implications of these findings are unclear, but warrant further investigation.
| S-EPMC6607508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Left ventricular remodeling, as commonly measured by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is associated with clinical outcomes. Although change in LVEF over time should reflect response to therapy and clinical course, serial measurement of LVEF is inconsistently performed in observational settings, and the incremental prognostic value of change in LVEF has not been well characterized.The ?-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial measured LVEF by radionuclide ventriculography at baseline and at 3 and 12 months after randomization. We built a series of multivariable models with 16 clinical parameters plus change in LVEF for predicting 4 major clinical end points, including the trial's primary end point of all-cause mortality. Among 2484 patients with at least 1 follow-up LVEF, change in LVEF was the second most significant predictor (behind baseline creatinine) of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio for improvement in LVEF by ?5 U responder versus nonresponder [95% confidence intervals] for all-cause mortality=0.62 [0.52-0.73]). Other end points, including heart failure hospitalization or the composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization, yielded similar results. LVEF change ?5 U was associated with a modest increase in discrimination when added to traditional predictors and was predictive of outcomes in both the bucindolol and placebo treatment groups. LVEF change as a predictor of outcomes was affected by sex and race, with evidence that LVEF improvement is associated with less survival benefit in African Americans and women.Serial evaluation for LVEF change predicts both survival and heart failure hospitalization and provides a dynamic/real-time measure of prognosis in heart failure with reduced LVEF.URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000560.
| S-EPMC5082710 | biostudies-literature