Effect of aggressive diuresis in acute heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) had distinct haemodynamic characteristics in the setting of acute heart failure. The aim of our study is to evaluate the differential response to aggressive diuresis in HFrEF and HFpEF.Methods and results
Patients in the Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation trial with left ventricular ejection fraction measurement were included (n = 300) and classified into HFrEF [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%] (n = 193) and HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 40%) (n = 107). Effect of high-dose vs. low-dose furosemide strategy was compared separately in HFrEF and HFpEF. In HFrEF, high-dose strategy did not increase change in creatinine or cystatin C at 72 h [treatment difference: -0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.14 to 0.03 mg/dL; P = 0.23 for creatinine, and treatment difference: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.02 mg/dL; P = 0.15 for cystatin C] compared with low-dose strategy, but there were significantly more net fluid loss, weight loss, and congestion-free patients at 72 h in high-dose group. It was also associated with a significantly lower risk of composite clinical outcome of death, total hospitalizations, and unscheduled visits due to heart failure. In HFpEF, high-dose strategy significantly increased change in creatinine and cystatin C at 72 h (treatment difference: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02-0.30 mg/dL; P = 0.03 for creatinine, and treatment difference: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09-0.43 mg/dL; P = 0.003 for cystatin C), but did not significantly affect net fluid loss, weight loss, proportion of congestion-free patients at 72 h, and risk of the composite clinical outcome.Conclusions
Acute heart failure on the basis of HFrEF and HFpEF responded differently to aggressive diuresis. Future trials should be designed separately for HFrEF and HFpEF.
SUBMITTER: He X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8318499 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere is little evidence addressing the use and differential impact of respiratory support in acute heart failure (AHF) patients with preserved (HFPEF) vs reduced (HFREF) ejection fraction. Therefore, our objective was to determine the usage and clinical outcomes of critical care respiratory support in AHF across the two populations.HypothesisRespiratory support would be associated with adverse outcome in both HFPEF and HFREF.MethodsWe identified HFPEF, HFREF, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) using International Classification of Disease-Ninth Edition codes in the National Inpatient Sample between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014. We determined rates of IMV and NIV use. We identified predictors of need for IMV and NIV and the association between ventilation strategies and in-hospital mortality in HFPEF vs HFREF.Results1.3 million AHF-HFPEF and 1.7 million AHF-HFREF hospitalizations were included; 5.98% of AHF HFPEF hospitalizations included NIV and 0.57% included IMV. Among HFREF hospitalizations, fewer (4.1%) included NIV and more (0.93%) included IMV. In HFPEF hospitalization, NIV use was associated with 2.24-fold increased risk for death compared to no respiratory support in an adjusted model (HR 2.24 95% CI 2.05-2.44) and IMV use was associated with 2.85-fold increased risk for death (HR 2.85 95% CI 2.30-3.53). This increased risk of in-hospital mortality was similar among HFREF patients.ConclusionsUse of respiratory support is increasing among patients with both HFPEF and HFREF and associated with substantially increased mortality in both heart failure subtypes.
| S-EPMC7144479 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7724570 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8318513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsEvidence on the association between ambient temperature and the onset of acute heart failure (AHF) is scarce and mixed. We sought to investigate the incidence of AHF admissions based on ambient temperature change, with particular interest in detecting the difference between AHF with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods and resultsIndividualized AHF admission data from January 2015 to December 2016 were obtained from a multicentre registry (Tokyo CCU Network Database). The primary event was the daily number of admissions. A linear regression model, using the lowest ambient temperature as the explanatory variable, was selected for the best-estimate model. We also applied the cubic spline model using five knots according to the percentiles of the distribution of the lowest ambient temperature. We divided the entire population into HFpEF + HFmrEF and HFrEF for comparison. In addition, the in-hospital treatment and mortality rates were obtained according to the interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the lowest ambient temperature (IQR1 <5.5°C; IQR25.5-13.3°C; IQR3 13.3-19.7°C; and IQR4 >19.7°C). The number of admissions for HFpEF, HFmrEF and HFrEF were 2736 (36%), 1539 (20%), and 3354 (44%), respectively. The lowest ambient temperature on the admission day was inversely correlated with the admission frequency for both HFpEF + HFmrEF and HFrEF patients, with a stronger correlation in patients with HFpEF + HFmrEF (R2 = 0.25 vs. 0.05, P < 0.001). In the sensitivity analysis, the decrease in the ambient temperature was associated with the greatest incremental increases in HFpEF, followed by HFmrEF and HFrEF patients (3.5% vs. 2.8% vs. 1.5% per -1°C, P < 0.001), with marked increase in admissions of hypertensive patients (systolic blood pressure >140 mmHg vs. 140-100 mmHg vs. <100 mmHg, 3.0% vs. 2.0% vs. 0.8% per -1°C, P for interaction <0.001). A mediator analysis indicated the presence of the mediator effect of systolic blood pressure. The in-hospital mortality rate (7.5%) did not significantly change according to ambient temperature (P = 0.62).ConclusionsLower ambient temperature was associated with higher frequency of AHF admissions, and the effect was more pronounced in HFpEF and HFmrEF patients than in those with HFrEF.
| S-EPMC9715783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure (HF) can occur in patients with preserved (HFpEF, EF?50%) or reduced (HFrEF, EF<50%) ejection fraction (EF), but changes in EF after HF diagnosis are not well described.Among a community cohort of incident HF patients diagnosed from 1984 to 2009 in Olmsted County, Minnesota, we obtained all EFs assessed by echocardiography from initial HF diagnosis until death or last follow-up through March 2010. Mixed effects models fit a unique linear regression line for each person using serial EF data. Compiled results allowed estimates of the change in EF over time in HFpEF and HFrEF. Among 1233 HF patients (48.3% male, mean age 75.0 years, mean follow-up 5.1 years), 559 (45.3%) had HFpEF at diagnosis. In HFpEF, on average, EF decreased by 5.8% over 5 years (P<0.001) with greater declines in older individuals and those with coronary disease. Conversely, EF increased in HFrEF (average increase 6.9% over 5 years, P<0.001). Greater increases were noted in women, younger patients, individuals without coronary disease, and those treated with evidence-based medications. Overall, 39% of HFpEF patients had an EF<50% and 39% of HFrEF patients had an EF?50% at some point after diagnosis. Decreases in EF over time were associated with reduced survival whereas increases in EF were associated with improved survival.These data suggest that progressive contractile dysfunction may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF. Prospective longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these observations and establish the mechanism and clinical relevance of decline in EF over time in HFpEF.
| S-EPMC3661289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure patients are classified by ejection fraction (EF) into distinct groups: heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Although patients with heart failure commonly have multiple comorbidities that complicate management and may adversely affect outcomes, their role in the HFpEF and HFrEF groups is not well-characterized. This review summarizes the role of noncardiac comorbidities in patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF, emphasizing prevalence, underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and outcomes. Pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, anemia, and obesity tend to be more prevalent in HFpEF patients, but renal disease and sleep-disordered breathing burdens are similar. These comorbidities similarly increase morbidity and mortality risk in HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Common pathophysiologic mechanisms include systemic and endomyocardial inflammation with fibrosis. We also discuss implications for clinical care and future HF clinical trial design. The basis for this review was discussions between scientists, clinical trialists, and regulatory representatives at the 10th Global CardioVascular Clinical Trialists Forum.
| S-EPMC4254505 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pharmacologic clinical trials for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction have been largely unsuccessful as compared to those for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Whether differences in the genetic underpinnings of these major heart failure subtypes may provide insights into the disparate outcomes of clinical trials remains unknown. We utilize a large, uniformly phenotyped, single cohort of heart failure sub-classified into heart failure with reduced and with preserved ejection fractions based on current clinical definitions, to conduct detailed genetic analyses of the two heart failure sub-types. We find different genetic architectures and distinct genetic association profiles between heart failure with reduced and with preserved ejection fraction suggesting differences in underlying pathobiology. The modest genetic discovery for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (one locus) compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (13 loci) despite comparable sample sizes indicates that clinically defined heart failure with preserved ejection fraction likely represents the amalgamation of several, distinct pathobiological entities. Development of consensus sub-phenotyping of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is paramount to better dissect the underlying genetic signals and contributors to this highly prevalent condition.
| S-EPMC9751124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents a heterogeneous collection of conditions that are unified by the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%, evidence of impaired diastolic function and elevated natriuretic peptide levels, all within the context of typical heart failure signs and symptoms. However, while HFpEF is steadily becoming the predominant form of heart failure, disease-modifying treatment options for this population remain sparse. This review provides an overview of the diagnosis, management and prevention of HFpEF for general physicians.
| S-EPMC6334030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive BP treatment reduced acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) events. Here, we report the effect on HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) and their subsequent outcomes.MethodsIncident ADHF was defined as hospitalization or emergency department visit, confirmed, and formally adjudicated by a blinded events committee using standardized protocols. HFpEF was defined as EF ≥45%, and HFrEF was EF <45%.ResultsAmong the 133 participants with incident ADHF who had EF assessment, 69 (52%) had HFpEF and 64 (48%) had HFrEF (P value: 0.73). During average 3.3 years follow-up in those who developed incident ADHF, rates of subsequent all-cause and HF hospital readmission and mortality were high, but there were no significant differences between those who developed HFpEF versus HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm had no effect on subsequent mortality or readmissions after the initial ADHF event, irrespective of EF subtype. During follow-up among participants who developed HFpEF, although relatively modest number of events limited statistical power, age was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, and Black race independently predicted all-cause and HF hospital readmission.ConclusionsIn SPRINT, intensive BP reduction decreased both acute decompensated HFpEF and HFrEF events. After initial incident ADHF, rates of subsequent hospital admission and mortality were high and were similar for those who developed HFpEF or HFrEF. Randomization to the intensive arm did not alter the risks for subsequent all-cause, or HF events in either HFpEF or HFrEF. Among those who developed HFpEF, age and Black race were independent predictors of clinical outcomes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.
| S-EPMC8692397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLifetime risk of heart failure has been estimated to range from 20% to 46% in diverse sex and race groups. However, lifetime risk estimates for the 2 HF phenotypes, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are not known.MethodsParticipant-level data from 2 large prospective cohort studies, the CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study) and MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), were pooled, excluding individuals with prevalent HF at baseline. Remaining lifetime risk estimates for HFpEF (EF ≥45%) and HFrEF (EF <45%) were determined at different index ages with the use of a modified Kaplan-Meier method with mortality and the other HF subtype as competing risks.ResultsWe included 12 417 participants >45 years of age (22.2% blacks, 44.8% men) who were followed up for median duration of 11.6 years with 2178 overall incident HF events with 561 HFrEF events and 726 HFpEF events. At the index age of 45 years, the lifetime risk for any HF through 90 years of age was higher in men than women (27.4% versus 23.8%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFrEF was higher in men than women (10.6% versus 5.8%). In contrast, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was similar in men and women. In race-stratified analyses, lifetime risk for overall HF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (25.9% versus 22.4%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (11.2% versus 7.7%), whereas that for HFrEF was similar across the 2 groups. Among participants with antecedent myocardial infarction before HF diagnosis, the remaining lifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF were up to 2.5-fold and 4-fold higher, respectively, compared with those without antecedent myocardial infarction.ConclusionsLifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF vary by sex, race, and history of antecedent myocardial infarction. These insights into the distribution of HF risk and its subtypes could inform the development of targeted strategies to improve population-level HF prevention and control.
| S-EPMC6417883 | biostudies-literature