1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction: Prior Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Prognosis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with preserved systolic function hospitalized for heart failure: a report from the OPTIMIZE-HF Registry.

            We sought to evaluate the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with preserved and reduced systolic function heart failure (HF). Heart failure with preserved systolic function (PSF) is common but not well understood. This analysis of the OPTIMIZE-HF (Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure) registry compared 20,118 patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and 21,149 patients with PSF (left ventricular ejection fraction [EF] > or =40%). Sixty- to 90-day follow-up was obtained in a pre-specified 10% sample of patients. Analyses of patients with PSF defined as EF >50% were also performed for comparison. Patients with PSF (EF > or =40%) were more likely to be older, female, and Caucasian and to have a nonischemic etiology. Although length of hospital stay was the same in both groups, risk of in-hospital mortality was lower in patients with PSF (EF > or =40%) (2.9% vs. 3.9%; p or =40%) had a similar mortality risk (9.5% vs. 9.8%; p = 0.459) and rehospitalization rates (29.2% vs. 29.9%; p = 0.591) compared with patients with LVSD. Findings were comparable with those with PSF defined as EF >50%. In a risk- and propensity-adjusted model, there were no significant relationships between discharge use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker or beta-blocker and 60- to 90-day mortality and rehospitalization rates in patients with PSF. Data from the OPTIMIZE-HF registry reveal a high prevalence of HF with PSF, and these patients have a similar post-discharge mortality risk and equally high rates of rehospitalization as patients with HF and LVSD. Despite the burden to patients and health care systems, data are lacking on effective management strategies for patients with HF and PSF. (Organized Program To Initiate Lifesaving Treatment In Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure [OPTIMIZE-HF]); http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00344513?order=1; NCT00344513).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Characterization of heart failure patients with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction-a report from the CHART-2 Study.

              The new category of heart failure (HF), HF with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HFmrEF), has recently been proposed. However, the clinical features of HFmrEF, with reference to HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF) and HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF) in the same HF cohort, remain to be fully examined.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Cardiovasc Med
                Front Cardiovasc Med
                Front. Cardiovasc. Med.
                Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2297-055X
                02 August 2021
                2021
                : 8
                : 697221
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Heart Failure and Structural Cardiology Ward, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University , Dalian, China
                [2] 2Kent and Medway Medical School , Canterbury, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Yasuhiro Ikeda, Yamaguchi Prefectural Grand Medical Center, Japan

                Reviewed by: Makoto Takei, Keio University, Japan; Masashi Kanemoto, Saiseikai Yamaguchi General Hospital, Japan; Kenichi Hongo, Jikei University School of Medicine, Japan

                *Correspondence: Ying Liu yingliu.med@ 123456gmail.com

                This article was submitted to Heart Failure and Transplantation, a section of the journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

                Article
                10.3389/fcvm.2021.697221
                8364975
                34409076
                36163f9d-4bed-4e2f-8ff2-695aed867312
                Copyright © 2021 Zhang, Sun, Zhang, Chen, Zhang, He, Song, Tse and Liu.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 26 April 2021
                : 29 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 36, Pages: 9, Words: 5651
                Categories
                Cardiovascular Medicine
                Original Research

                heart failure,mid-range ejection fraction,prior,left ventricular ejection fraction,prognosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article