Prognostic value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I in heart failure patients with mid-range and reduced ejection fraction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The identification of high-risk heart failure (HF) patients makes it possible to intensify their treatment. Our aim was to determine the prognostic value of a newly developed, high-sensitivity troponin I assay (Atellica®, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics) for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; LVEF < 40%) and HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF) (LVEF 40%-49%).Methods and results
A total of 520 patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF were enrolled in this study. Two-year all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, and/or left ventricular assist device implantation were defined as the primary endpoints (EP). A logistic regression analysis was used for the identification of predictors and development of multivariable models. The EP occurred in 14% of the patients, and these patients had higher NT-proBNP (1,950 vs. 518 ng/l; p < 0.001) and hs-cTnI (34 vs. 17 ng/l, p < 0.001) levels. C-statistics demonstrated that the optimal cut-off value for the hs-cTnI level was 17 ng/l (AUC 0.658, p < 0.001). Described by the AUC, the discriminatory power of the multivariable model (NYHA > II, NT-proBNP, hs-cTnI and urea) was 0.823 (p < 0.001). Including heart failure hospitalization as the component of the combined secondary endpoint leads to a diminished predictive power of increased hs-cTnI.Conclusion
hs-cTnI levels ≥ 17 ng/l represent an independent increased risk of an adverse prognosis for patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF. Determining a patient's hs-cTnI level adds prognostic value to NT-proBNP and clinical parameters.
SUBMITTER: Lokaj P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8323897 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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%.
| S-EPMC8318429 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6742978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure (HF) with mid-range or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF; HFpEF) is a heterogeneous disorder that could benefit from strategies to identify subpopulations at increased risk. We tested the hypothesis that HFmrEF and HFpEF patients with myocardial scars detected with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) are at increased risk for all-cause mortality. Symptomatic HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 40%, who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging were included. The presence of myocardial LGE lesions was visually assessed. T1 mapping was performed to calculate extracellular volume (ECV). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine associations between clinical characteristics and LGE. Cox regression analyses were used to assess the association between LGE and all-cause mortality. A total of 110 consecutive patients were included (mean age 71 ± 10 years, 49% women, median N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) 1259 pg/ml). LGE lesions were detected in 37 (34%) patients. Previous myocardial infarction and increased LV mass index were strong and independent predictors for the presence of LGE (odds ratio 6.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.07-19.31, p = 0.001 and 1.68 (1.03-2.73), p = 0.04, respectively). ECV was increased in patients with LGE lesions compared to those without (28.6 vs. 26.6%, p = 0.04). The presence of LGE lesions was associated with a fivefold increase in the incidence of all-cause mortality (hazards ratio 5.3, CI 1.5-18.1, p = 0.009), independent of age, sex, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, NT-proBNP, LGE mass and LVEF. Myocardial scarring on CMR is associated with increased mortality in HF patients with LVEF > 40% and may aid in selecting a subpopulation at increased risk.
| S-EPMC8794962 | 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:AimsWhether an exercise training intervention is associated with reduction in long-term high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) concentration (a biomarker of subclinical myocardial injury) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is unknown. The aims were to determine (i) the effect of a 12 week endurance exercise training intervention with different training intensities on hs-cTnT in stable patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%) and (ii) associations between hs-cTnT and peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak ).Methods and resultsIn this sub-study of the SMARTEX-HF trial originally including 261 patients from nine European centres, 213 eligible patients were included after withdrawals and appropriate exclusions [19% women, mean age 61.2 years (standard deviation: 11.9)], randomized to high-intensity interval training (HIIT; n = 77), moderate continuous training (MCT; n = 63), or a recommendation of regular exercise (RRE; n = 73). Hs-cTnT measurements and clinical data acquired before (BL) and after a 12 week exercise training intervention (12 weeks) and at 1 year follow-up (1 year) were analysed using multivariable mixed models. Baseline hs-cTnT was above the 99th percentile upper reference limit of 14 ng/L in 35 (48%), 35 (56%), and 49 (64%) patients in the RRE, MCT, and HIIT groups, respectively. Median hs-cTnT was 16 ng/L at BL, 14 ng/L at 12 weeks, and 14 ng/L at 1 year. Hs-cTnT was statistically significantly reduced at 12 weeks in a model adjusted for randomization group, centre and VO2peak , and after further adjustment in the final model that also included age, sex, creatinine concentrations, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, smoking, and heart failure treatment. The mean reduction from BL to 12 weeks in the final model was 1.1 ng/L (95% confidence interval: 1.0-1.2 ng/L, P < 0.001), and the reduction was maintained at 1 year with a mean reduction from BL to 1 year of 1.1 ng/L (95% confidence interval: 1.0-1.1 ng/L, P = 0.025). Randomization group was not associated with hs-cTnT at any time point (overall test: P = 0.20, MCT vs. RRE: P = 0.81, HIIT vs. RRE: P = 0.095, interaction time × randomization group: P = 0.88). Independent of time point, higher VO2peak correlated with lower hs-cTnT (mean reduction over all time points: 0.2 ng/L per increasing mL·kg-1 ·min-1 , P = 0.002), without between-group differences (P = 0.19).ConclusionsIn patients with stable HFrEF, a 12 week exercise intervention was associated with reduced hs-cTnT in all groups when adjusted for clinical variables. Higher VO2peak correlated with lower hs-cTnT, suggesting a positive long-term effect of increasing VO2peak on subclinical myocardial injury in HFrEF, independent of training programme.
| S-EPMC8120390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe 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 resultsA 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).ConclusionsEchocardiography-defined severe DD is independently associated with increased all-cause mortality in patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF.
| S-EPMC8318417 | 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:AimsThe aim of this study was to investigate whether the readmission of heart failure (HF) patients has decreased over time and how it differs among HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (HFpEF) vs. reduced EF (HFrEF) and mid-range EF (HFmrEF).Methods and resultsWe evaluated HF patients index hospitalized from January 2004 to December 2011 in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry with 1 year follow-up. Outcome measures were the first occurring all-cause, cardiovascular (CV), and HF readmissions. A total of 20 877 HF patients (11 064 HFrEF, 4215 HFmrEF, and 5562 HFpEF) were included in the study. All-cause readmission was the highest in patients with HFpEF, whereas CV and HF readmissions were the highest in HFrEF. From 2004 to 2011, HF readmission rates within 6 months (from 22.3% to 17.3%, P = 0.003) and 1 year (from 27.7% to 23.4%, P = 0.019) in HFpEF declined, and the risk for 1 year HF readmission in HFpEF was reduced by 7% after adjusting for age and sex (P = 0.022). Likewise, risk factors for HF readmission in HFpEF changed. However, no significant changes were observed in all-cause or CV readmission rates in HFpEF, and no significant changes in cause-specific readmissions were observed in HFrEF. Time to the first readmission did not change significantly from 2004 to 2011, regardless of EF subgroup (all P-values > 0.05).ConclusionsDeclining temporal trend in HF readmission rates was found in HFpEF, but all-cause readmission still remained the highest in HFpEF vs. HFrEF and HFmrEF. More efforts are needed to reduce the non-HF-related readmission in patients with HFpEF.
| S-EPMC7524131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the prognostic value of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved, mid-range or reduced ejection fraction (EF).MethodsPatients hospitalised for acute HF were enrolled in the Korean Acute Heart Failure registry, a prospective, observational, multicentre cohort study, between March 2011 and February 2014. HF types were defined as reduced EF (HFrEF, LVEF <40%), mid-range EF (HFmrEF, LVEF 40%-49%) or preserved EF (HFpEF, LVEF ≥50%).ResultsOf 5414 patients enrolled, HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF were seen in 3182 (58.8%), 875 (16.2%) and 1357 (25.1%) patients, respectively. The prevalence of AF significantly increased with increasing EF (HFrEF 28.9%, HFmrEF 39.8%, HFpEF 45.2%; p for trend <0.001). During follow-up (median, 4.03 years; IQR, 1.39-5.58 years), 2806 (51.8%) patients died. The adjusted HR of AF for all-cause death was 1.06 (0.93-1.21) in the HFrEF, 1.10 (0.87-1.39) in the HFmrEF and 1.22 (1.02-1.46) in the HFpEF groups. The HR for the composite of all-cause death or readmission was 0.97 (0.87-1.07), 1.14 (0.93-1.38) and 1.03 (0.88-1.19) in the HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF groups, respectively, and the HR for stroke was 1.53 (1.03-2.29), 1.04 (0.57-1.91) and 1.90 (1.13-3.20), respectively. Similar results were observed after propensity score matching analysis.ConclusionsAF was more common with increasing EF. AF was seen to be associated with increased mortality only in patients with HFpEF and was associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients with HFrEF or HFpEF.Trial registration numberNCT01389843.
| S-EPMC7398483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical features and outcomes of heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remain controversial. Thus, we systematically reviewed literatures of clinical research to assess and analyze characteristics and prognosis of patients with HFmrEF.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for cohort studies up to April 23, 2019. Clinical features and multivariate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of endpoints of short-term all-cause mortality (SAM), long-term all-cause mortality (LAM), long-term cardiovascular death (LCD) and long-term HF rehospitalization (LHR) among patients with HFmrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were well addressed. The primary outcome was LAM.ResultsTotally 19 studies were included in this study with 164,678 patients enrolled. The follow-up time of LAM was 3.6?±?2.5 years. HRs of LAM, SAM, LCD, LHR indicated that the risks of patients with HFmrEF were higher than HFpEF patients but lower than HFrEF patients, as for LAM, HFmrEF:HFpEF (reference) HR: 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00-1.15 (I?=?63%, P?=?0.0005); HFmrEF:HFrEF (reference) HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73-0.88 (I?=?70%, P?<?0.0001). However, HFmrEF patients had the lowest rate in LAM (30.94%), SAM (2.73%), LCD (17.45%), LHR (26.36%) compared with the other two groups.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis compared features and prognosis between patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, HFrEF by HRs. There appeared a special "separation phenomenon" showing rates of endpoints were inconsistent with their hazards in patients with HFmrEF compared with HFpEF patients.
| S-EPMC7046254 | biostudies-literature