Dataset Information

Impact of diastolic dysfunction on outcome in heart failure patients with mid-range or reduced ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The role of diastolic dysfunction (DD) in prognostic evaluation in heart failure (HF) patients with impaired systolic function remains unclear. We investigated the impact of echocardiography-defined DD on survival in HF patients with mid-range (HFmrEF, EF 41-49%) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, EF < 40%).

Methods and results

A total of 2018 consecutive hospitalized HF patients were retrospectively included and divided in two groups based on baseline EF: HFmrEF group (n = 951, aged 69 ± 13 years, 74.2% male) and HFrEF group (n = 1067, aged 68 ± 13 years, 76.3% male). Clinical data were collected and analysed. All patients completed ≥1 year clinical follow-up. The primary endpoint was defined as all-cause death (including heart transplantation) and cardiovascular (CV)-related death. All-cause mortality (30.8% vs. 24.9%, P = 0.003) and CV mortality (19.1% vs. 13.5%, P = 0.001) were significantly higher in the HFrEF group than the HFmrEF group during follow-up [median 24 (13-36) months]. All-cause mortality increased in proportion to DD severity (mild, moderate, and severe) in either HFmrEF (17.1%, 25.4%, and 37.0%, P < 0.001) or HFrEF (18.9%, 30.3%, and 39.2%, P < 0.001) patients. The risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.347, P = 0.015] and CV mortality (HR = 1.508, P = 0.007) was significantly higher in HFrEF patients with severe DD compared with non-severe DD after adjustment for identified clinical and echocardiographic covariates. For HFmrEF patients, severe DD was independently associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR = 1.358, P = 0.046) but not with CV mortality (HR = 1.155, P = 0.469).

Conclusions

Echocardiography-defined severe DD is independently associated with increased all-cause mortality in patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF.

SUBMITTER: Liu D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8318417 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:AimsWe hypothesized that grading of diastolic dysfunction (DDF) according to two DDF grading algorithms and strain imaging yields prognostic information on all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods and resultsWe enrolled ambulatory HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction < 45%; N = 1 065) patients who underwent echocardiography and speckle tracking assessment of global longitudinal strain (GLS). Patients were stratified according to DDF grades (Grades I-III) according to two contemporary DDF grading algorithms. Prognostic performance was assessed by C-statistics. Of the originally 1 065 enrolled patients, a total of 645 (61%) patients (age: 67 ± 11 years, male: 72%, ejection fraction: 27 ± 9%) were classified according to both DDF grading algorithms. Concordance between the algorithms was moderate (kappa = 0.48) and the reclassification rate was 33%. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years (1.9, 4.7 years), 101 (16%) died from all causes. When comparing DDF Grade I vs. Grade III, both algorithms provided prognostic information [Nagueh: (hazard ratio) HR 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI),1.32-3.31, P = 0.002; Johansen: HR 2.47, 95% CI, 1.57-3.87, P < 0.001]. However, when comparing DDF Grade II vs. Grade III, only the Johansen algorithm yielded prognostic information (Nagueh: HR 1.04, 95% CI, 0.60-1.77, P = 0.90; Johansen: HR 2.26, 95% CI, 1.35-3.77, P = 0.002). We found no difference in prognostic performance between the two algorithms (C-statistics: 0.604 vs. 0.623, P = 0.24). Assessed by C-statistics, the most powerful predictors of the endpoint from the two algorithms were E/e'-ratio (C-statistics: 0.644), tricuspid regurgitation velocity (C-statistics: 0.625) and E/A-ratio (C-statistics: 0.602). When adding GLS to a combination of these predictors, the prognostic performance increased significantly (C-statistics: 0.705 vs. C-statistics: 0.634, P = 0.028).ConclusionsEvaluation of DDF in patients with HFrEF yields prognostic information on all-cause mortality. Furthermore, adding GLS to contemporary algorithms of DDF adds novel prognostic information.

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%.