Dataset Information

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction after left-sided valve surgery: prevalent and relevant.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To investigate the epidemiological and prognostic relationship between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and left-sided valve surgery using all-cause mortality as a primary endpoint.

Methods and results

We studied a total of 973 patients, of whom 673 had undergone left-sided valve surgery (time from surgery to enrolment 50 ± 30 months after valve surgery) and 300 patients with HFpEF without prior surgery served as control group. Among patients after surgery, 67.4% fulfilled all criteria of HFpEF according to current guideline recommendations, 20.6% had no heart failure (HF), and 12.0% had HF with mid-range or reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFrEF). During 83 ± 39 months of follow-up, a total of 335 (34.4%) patients died. Compared to surgical patients with no subsequent HF, patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF/HFrEF after surgery showed significantly higher all-cause mortality rates [hazard ratio (HR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.57, P = 0.001; and HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.16-2.98, P = 0.010, respectively]. This increased mortality rate was similar to the control HFpEF group without surgery (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.38-3.02, P < 0.001). Results remained consistent after adjustment for clinical and imaging risk factors and when using the established HFA-PEFF risk score for HFpEF diagnosis. Notably, only 12.5% of HFpEF patients after surgery were diagnosed with HF despite regular follow-up visits by board-certified cardiologists. In contrast, 92.1% of HFmrEF/HFrEF patients after surgery were diagnosed correctly.

Conclusions

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction following left-sided valve surgery is highly prevalent, associated with unfavourable outcomes, but rarely recognized.

SUBMITTER: Kammerlander AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293454 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine clinical and prognostic differences between preserved and deteriorated systolic function (defined as left ventricular (LV) ejection fractions > or = 50% and < 50%, respectively) in patients with heart failure satisfying modified Framingham criteria.Patients and methodsRecords were studied of 1252 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) (mean (SD) age 69.4 (11.7) years; 485 women, 767 men) who had been admitted to a cardiology service for CHF in the period 1991-2002 and whose LV systolic function had been echocardiographically evaluated within two weeks of admission. Data were collected on the main clinical findings, supplementary examinations, treatment, and duration of hospitalisation. Whether the patient was alive in the spring of 2003 was evaluated by searching the general archives of the hospital and by telephone survey.ResultsLV systolic function was preserved in 39.8% of patients. Age, female to male sex ratio, and prevalence of atrial fibrillation, valve disease, and other non-ischaemic, non-dilated cardiopathies were all significantly greater in the group with preserved systolic function. New York Heart Association functional class IV, third heart sound, jugular vein congestion, cardiomegaly, radiological signs of lung oedema, pathological Q waves, left bundle branch block, sinus rhythm, ischaemic cardiopathy, and dilated cardiomyopathy were all significantly more prevalent in the group with deteriorated systolic function, as was treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and most other antihypertensive drugs on discharge from hospital. There was no significant difference in survival between the groups with preserved and deteriorated systolic function (either survival regardless of age at admission or in subgroups aged < 75 and > or = 75 years at admission). In the whole group, survival rates after one, three, and five years were 84.0%, 66.7%, and 50.9%, respectively.ConclusionIn view of the poor prognosis of patients with CHF with preserved LV systolic function, who are currently treated empirically, it is to be hoped that relevant controlled clinical trials under way will afford information allowing optimisation of their treatment.

Project description:AIMS:Neuregulin1-? (NRG1-?) is released from microvascular endothelial cells in response to inflammation with compensatory cardioprotective effects. Circulating NRG1-? is elevated in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not studied in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:Circulating NRG1-? was quantified in 86 stable patients with HFpEF (EF ?45% and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide >300 ng/L), in 86 patients with HFrEF prior to and after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and/or heart transplantation (HTx) and in 21 healthy controls. Association between NRG1-? and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality/HF hospitalization in HFpEF and all-cause mortality/HTx/LVAD implantation in HFrEF with and without ischaemia assessed as macrovascular coronary artery disease was assessed. In HFpEF, median (25th-75th percentile) NRG1-? was 6.5 (2.1-11.3) ng/mL; in HFrEF, 3.6 (2.1-7.6) ng/mL (P = 0.035); after LVAD, 1.7 (0.9-3.6) ng/mL; after HTx 2.1 (1.4-3.6) ng/mL (overall P < 0.001); and in controls, 29.0 (23.1-34.3) ng/mL (P = 0.001). In HFrEF, higher NRG1-? was associated with worse outcomes (hazard ratio per log increase 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.03, P = 0.029), regardless of ischaemia. In HFpEF, the association of NRG1-? with outcomes was modified by ischaemia (log-rank P = 0.020; Pinteraction = 0.553) such that only in ischaemic patients, higher NRG1-? was related to worse outcomes. In contrast, in patients without ischaemia, higher NRG1-? trended towards better outcomes (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.48-1.05, P = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS:Neuregulin1-? was reduced in HFpEF and further reduced in HFrEF. The opposing relationships of NRG1-? with outcomes in non-ischaemic HFpEF compared with HFrEF and ischaemic HFpEF may indicate compensatory increases of cardioprotective NRG1-? from microvascular endothelial dysfunction in the former (non-ischaemic HFpEF), but this compensatory mechanism is overwhelmed by the presence of ischaemia in the latter (HFrEF and ischaemic HFpEF).