Incidence of, Associations With and Prognostic Impact of Worsening Renal Function in Heart Failure With Different Ejection Fraction Categories

Pathophysiological Link and Treatment Implication of Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) results from a complex interplay of age, genetic, cardiac remodeling, and concomitant comorbidities including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Renal failure is an important comorbidity of HFpEF, as well as a major pathophysiological mechanism for those patients at risk of developing HFpEF. Heart failure (HF) and CKD are intertwined conditions sharing common disease pathways; the so-called "kidney tamponade", explained by an increase in intracapsular pressure caused by fluid retention, is only the latest model to explain renal injury in HF. Recognizing the different phenotypes of HFpEF remains a real challenge; the pathophysiological mechanisms of renal dysfunction may differ across the HF spectrum, as well as the prognostic role. A better understanding of the role of cardiorenal interactions in patients with HF in terms of symptom status, disease progression, and prognosis remains essential in HF management. Historically, patients with HF and CKD have been scarcely represented in clinical trial populations. Current concerns affect the practical approach to HF treatment, and, in this context, physicians are frequently hesitant to prescribe and titrate both new and old treatments. Therefore, the extensive application of HF drugs in diverse HF subtypes with numerous comorbidities and different renal dysfunction etiologies remains a controversial matter of discussion. Numerous recently introduced drugs, such as sodium-glucose-linked transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), constitute a new therapeutic option for patients with HF and CKD. Because of their protective vascular and hormonal actions, the use of these agents may be safely extended to patients with renal dysfunction in the long term. The present review delves into the phenotype of patients with HFpEF and CKD from a pathophysiological perspective, proposing a treatment approach that suggests a practical stepwise algorithm for the proper application of life-saving therapies in clinical practice.

Heart failure: the grim reaper of the cardio-renal-metabolic triad

AIMS

Current understanding of the prognosis for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and overlapping cardio-renal-metabolic components, specifically heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM), remains limited. While previous studies have explored the interactions between CKD, HF, and DM, they have predominantly focused on cohorts of HF or DM patients. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating the long-term outcomes and treatment patterns in a cohort of CKD patients, particularly those with coexisting HF and DM.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed data from the Swedish national CKD patient cohort, the Swedish Renal Registry, with a follow-up period extending up to 10 years. The study examined the risks of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-defined as a composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for congestive HF, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death-and the initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards and competing risk models. Among the 27 647 patients, 48% had CKD alone, 12% had CKD with HF, 27% had CKD with DM, and 13% had CKD with both HF and DM. After 5 years, mortality rates were 23% for patients with CKD, 30% for those with CKD/DM, 54% for CKD/HF, and 55% for CKD/HF/DM. The 10 year absolute risk of MACE was 28% for CKD alone, 35% for CKD/DM, 67% for CKD/HF, and 73% for CKD/HF/DM. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was approximately three times higher in patients with any HF combination, with HRs of 2.57 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.43-2.71] for CKD/HF and 3.22 (95% CI 3.05-3.39) for CKD/HF/DM, compared with CKD alone. The impact of HF on MACE prognosis was even more pronounced, with adjusted sub-hazard ratios (SHRs) of 3.33 (95% CI 3.14-3.53) for CKD/HF and 4.26 (95% CI 4.04-4.50) for CKD/HF/DM. Additionally, CKD patients diagnosed with HF were less likely to commence KRT, and the risk of death prior to KRT initiation was roughly twice as high for these groups, with SHRs of 2.05 (95% CI 1.93-2.18) for CKD + HF and 2.43 (95% CI 2.29-2.58) for CKD + HF + DM.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of CKD patients, having HF contributes substantially to increased mortality and the risk of MACE, and these patients are less likely to start KRT. These findings highlight the urgent need for targeted therapeutic strategies and management plans for CKD patients, particularly those with concurrent HF, to enhance patient prognosis.

Heart failure registries - Future directions

Heart failure (HF) is a growing, global public health issue. Despite advances in HF care, many challenges remain and HF outcomes are poor. Some of the major reasons for this are the lack of understanding and treatment for certain HF sub-types as well as the lack of implementation of treatment in areas where effective treatment exists. HF registries provide the opportunity to transform clinical research and patient care. Recently the registry-based randomized clinical trial has emerged as a pragmatic and inexpensive alternative to the gold standard in clinical trial design, the randomized controlled trial. Registries may also provide platforms for strategy trials, implementation trials, and screening. Using examples from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry and others, the present review provides insights into how registry-based research can address many of the unmet needs in HF.

Cardiometabolic risk management: insights from a European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table

Metabolic comorbidities are common in patients with cardiorenal disease; they can cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), speed progression, and adversely affect prognosis. Common comorbidities are Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity/overweight, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and chronic liver disease. The cardiovascular system, kidneys, and liver are linked to many of the same risk factors (e.g. dyslipidaemia, hypertension, tobacco use, diabetes, and central/truncal obesity), and shared metabolic and functional abnormalities lead to damage throughout these organs via overlapping pathophysiological pathways. The COVID-19 pandemic has further complicated the management of cardiometabolic diseases. Obesity, T2DM, CKD, and liver disease are associated with increased risk of poor outcomes of COVID-19 infection, and conversely, COVID-19 can lead to worsening of pre-existing ASCVD. The high rates of these comorbidities highlight the need to improve recognition and treatment of ASCVD in patients with obesity, insulin resistance or T2DM, chronic liver diseases, and CKD and equally, to improve recognition and treatment of these diseases in patients with ASCVD. Strategies to prevent and manage cardiometabolic diseases include lifestyle modification, pharmacotherapy, and surgery. There is a need for more programmes at the societal level to encourage a healthy diet and physical activity. Many pharmacotherapies offer mechanism-based approaches that can target multiple pathophysiological pathways across diseases. These include sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and combined glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. Non-surgical and surgical weight loss strategies can improve cardiometabolic disorders in individuals living with obesity. New biomarkers under investigation may help in the early identification of individuals at risk and reveal new treatment targets.

Prevalence and prognosis of genetically proven familial hypercholesterolemia in subjects with coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction

Few studies have genetically screened variants related to familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and investigated their survival impact in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). Patients with CAD and reduced EF (< 40%) were enrolled. Their genomic DNAs were sequenced for FH-related genes. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality data served as the major outcome. A total of 256 subjects were analyzed and 12 subjects (4.7%) carried FH-related genetic variants. After a median follow-up period of 44 months, 119 of the study subjects died. Cox survival analysis showed that carrying the FH genetic variant did not have a significant impact on the survival of CAD with reduced EF. However, higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), better EF and beta blocker use were protective for a lower all-cause mortality. Further larger studies are needed to evaluate the impact of carrying the FH-related genetic variant on survival of CAD with reduced EF.

Discovering Distinct Phenotypical Clusters in Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum: a Systematic Review

REVIEW PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to summarise clustering studies in heart failure (HF) and guide future clinical trial design and implementation in routine clinical practice.

FINDINGS

34 studies were identified (n = 19 in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)). There was significant heterogeneity invariables and techniques used. However, 149/165 described clusters could be assigned to one of nine phenotypes: 1) young, low comorbidity burden; 2) metabolic; 3) cardio-renal; 4) atrial fibrillation (AF); 5) elderly female AF; 6) hypertensive-comorbidity; 7) ischaemic-male; 8) valvular disease; and 9) devices. There was room for improvement on important methodological topics for all clustering studies such as external validation and transparency of the modelling process. The large overlap between the phenotypes of the clustering studies shows that clustering is a robust approach for discovering clinically distinct phenotypes. However, future studies should invest in a phenotype model that can be implemented in routine clinical practice and future clinical trial design. HF = heart failure, EF = ejection fraction, HFpEF = heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, HFrEF = heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, CKD = chronic kidney disease, AF = atrial fibrillation, IHD = ischaemic heart disease, CAD = coronary artery disease, ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, CRT = cardiac resynchronization therapy, NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide, BMI = Body Mass Index, COPD = Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

A Higher Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Is Associated with Better Survival in Subjects with Coronary Artery Disease and Heart Failure with a Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

Subjects with coronary artery disease (CAD) have myocardial ischemia and associated abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). Heart failure with mildly reduced EF (41-49%) (HFmrEF) is a new subgroup of EF for heart failure. Although prognostic factors for CAD and HF with reduced EF are well known, fewer studies have been conducted on factors related to the survival of CAD and HFmrEF. We recruited study subjects with significant CAD and HFmrEF from our cardiac catheterization data bank. Data were recorded from traceable chart records from our hospital. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were recorded until December 2019 and served as a follow-up outcome. A total of 348 subjects with CAD and HFmrEF were analyzed. The median duration of follow-up was 37 months. Seventy-eight subjects died during the follow-up period and 30 of them were due to cardiovascular causes. In univariate analyses, those who died were of older ages, and with a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (47 ± 30 versus 71 ± 30 mL/minute/1.73 m2, P < 0.001), and lower usage of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and beta blockers. In the Cox survival regression analysis, a higher eGFR (hazard ratio 0.980, P < 0.001) was protective, while older age and a higher serum total cholesterol (hazard ratio 1.006, P = 0.048) were related to all-cause mortality for CAD with HFmrEF. Furthermore, a higher eGFR was also associated with less cardiovascular mortality. In conclusion, for subjects with CAD and HFmrEF, a higher eGFR was protective and associated with a lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Prevalence and Prognostic Implications of Worsening Renal Function After Acute Myocardial Infarction

We sought to investigate the relation between worsening renal function (WRF) at 1-year follow-up and clinical outcomes at 3 years after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We analyzed data from 13,104 patients enrolled in the national AMI registry from November 2011 to December 2015. Patients with all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (re-MI), and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1-year follow-up after AMI were excluded. A total of 6,235 patients were extracted and divided into WRF and non-WRF groups. WRF was defined as a ≥25% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline to 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was 3-year major adverse cardiac events, a composite of all-cause death, re-MI, and rehospitalization for heart failure. On average, a -1.5 ml/min/1.73 m2/y rate of decrease in eGFR was exhibited, and 575 patients (9.2%) exhibited WRF at 1-year follow-up. After multiple adjustments, WRF at 1-year follow-up was independently associated with increased risks of major adverse cardiac events (adjusted hazard ratio 1.498, 95% confidence interval 1.113 to 2.016, p = 0.01), all-cause death, and re-MI at 3-year follow-up. Older age, female, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, non-ST-segment elevation AMI, anterior AMI, anemia, left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, and baseline eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 were identified as independent predictors of WRF after AMI. In conclusion, WRF at 1-year follow-up after AMI intuitively seems like a risk marker indicating multiple co-morbidities. Monitoring serum creatinine in patients at 1-year follow-up after AMI may help to identify those who are at the highest risk and guide effective long-term therapeutics.

Global Public Health Burden of Heart Failure: An Updated Review

Heart failure (HF) is a rapidly growing public health issue with an estimated prevalence of 64 million people globally. Although the incidence of HF has stabilised worldwide and seems to be declining in developed countries, the prevalence is increasing due to the ageing of the population, improved survival after MI and improved treatment and survival of patients with HF. Yet, HF remains associated with high mortality and morbidity, poor quality of life and functional capacity, and confers a substantial burden to the healthcare system. The prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity rates reported show geographical variations, depending on the different aetiologies and clinical characteristics observed among patients with HF. In this review, we provide an overview of the global epidemiology of HF with updated data on prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity worldwide.

Identifying distinct clinical clusters in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous syndrome, and the specific sub-category HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF) range (HFmrEF; 41-49% EF) is only recently recognized as a distinct entity. Cluster analysis can characterize heterogeneous patient populations and could serve as a stratification tool in clinical trials and for prognostication. The aim of this study was to identify clusters in HFmrEF and compare cluster prognosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Latent class analysis to cluster HFmrEF patients based on their characteristics was performed in the Swedish HF registry (n = 7316). Identified clusters were validated in a Dutch cross-sectional HF registry-based dataset CHECK-HF (n = 1536). In Sweden, mortality and hospitalisation across the clusters were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model, with a Fine-Gray sub-distribution for competing risks and adjustment for age and sex. Six clusters were discovered with the following prevalence and hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals (HR [95%CI]) vs. cluster 1: 1) low-comorbidity (17%, reference), 2) ischaemic-male (13%, HR 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1]), 3) atrial fibrillation (20%, HR 1.5 [95% CI 1.2-1.9]), 4) device/wide QRS (9%, HR 2.7 [95% CI 2.2-3.4]), 5) metabolic (19%, HR 3.1 [95% CI 2.5-3.7]) and 6) cardio-renal phenotype (22%, HR 2.8 [95% CI 2.2-3.6]). The cluster model was robust between both datasets.

CONCLUSION

We found robust clusters with potential clinical meaning and differences in mortality and hospitalisation. Our clustering model could be valuable as a clinical differentiation support and prognostic tool in clinical trial design.

Prognostic Impact of the Early Use of Tolvaptan in Elderly Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

The number of elderly patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is increasing, and it is often difficult to treat. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using tolvaptan early after hospitalization in elderly patients with ADHF and the prognosis one year after hospitalization. This study enrolled 185 patients with ADHF who were admitted for the first time. Tolvaptan was administered within 24 h after admission. These patients were assigned to two groups: over 80 years old (n = 109) and under 80 years old (n = 76). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the occurrence of MACCE within one year (25% vs. 20%, p = 0.59). All-cause mortality was significantly higher in the over-80 group (12% vs. 2%, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the incidence of worsening renal failure (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.46) and hypernatremia (5% vs. 9%, p = 1.0), and in the duration of hospitalization (19.2 days vs. 18.8 days, p = 0.8). Tolvaptan might be effective and safe in elderly patients with ADHF, and there was no difference in the incidence of MACCE within one year.

Chronic Kidney Disease as a Comorbidity in Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is one of the greatest problems in healthcare and it often coexists with declining renal function. The pathophysiology between the heart and the kidneys is bidirectional. Common mechanisms leading to the dysfunction of these organs result in a vicious cycle of cardiorenal deterioration. It is also associated with difficulties in the treatment of aggravating HF and chronic kidney disease (CKD) and, as a consequence, recurrent hospitalizations and death. As the worsening of renal function has an undeniably negative impact on the outcomes in patients with HF, searching for new treatment strategies and identification of biomarkers is necessary. This review is focused on the pathomechanisms in chronic kidney disease in patients with HF and therapeutic strategies for co-existing CKD and HF.

The Treatment of Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: Doubts and New Developments from the Last ESC Guidelines

Patients with heart failure (HF) and associated chronic kidney disease (CKD) are a population less represented in clinical trials; additionally, subjects with more severe estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction are often excluded from large studies. In this setting, most of the data come from post hoc analyses and retrospective studies. Accordingly, in patients with advanced CKD, there are no specific studies evaluating the long-term effects of the traditional drugs commonly administered in HF. Current concerns may affect the practical approach to the traditional treatment, and in this setting, physicians are often reluctant to administer and titrate some agents acting on the renin angiotensin aldosterone system and the sympathetic activity. Therefore, the extensive application in different HF subtypes with wide associated conditions and different renal dysfunction etiologies remains a subject of debate. The role of novel drugs, such as angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors and sodium glucose linked transporters 2 inhibitors seems to offer a new perspective in patients with CKD. Due to its protective vascular and hormonal actions, the use of these agents may be safely extended to patients with renal dysfunction in the long term. In this review, we discussed the largest trials reporting data on subjects with HF and associated CKD, while suggesting a practical stepwise algorithm to avoid renal and cardiac complications.

The Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements (SCREAM) project: Fostering improvements in chronic kidney disease care

SCREAM (Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements project) was initiated in 2010 in collaboration with the healthcare provider of Stockholm County healthcare to quantify potential medication errors, estimate the burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and to illustrate the value of incorporating measures of kidney function into the medical decision process. Because most patients are unaware of their CKD and diagnoses are seldom issued, SCREAM took advantage of the commonness of serum/plasma creatinine testing, which can be used to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and classify the stage of CKD severity. SCREAM is periodically updated, and at present contains healthcare information of all residents in Stockholm region during 2006-2019 (about 3 million people), enriched with a broad range of laboratory measurements for those in whom creatinine or albuminuria has been measured (about 1.8 million people). This health information was linked with national administrative and quality registries via the unique personal identification number of each Swedish citizen, conforming the richest characterization in Sweden of the population's journey through health and disease. This review discusses the context of its creation, strengths and weakness, key findings and plans for the future. We summarize our findings related to the burden of CKD in Sweden, its adverse health risks (such as risk of infections, cancer or dementia) and how underlying kidney function alters the risk-benefit ratio of common medications. Results have had clinical impact and demonstrate the importance of population-based research in the spectrum of clinical research to improve health.

Do the Current Guidelines for Heart Failure Diagnosis and Treatment Fit with Clinical Complexity?

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome defined by specific symptoms and signs due to structural and/or functional heart abnormalities, which lead to inadequate cardiac output and/or increased intraventricular filling pressure. Importantly, HF becomes progressively a multisystemic disease. However, in August 2021, the European Society of Cardiology published the new Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, according to which the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) continues to represent the pivotal parameter for HF patients’ evaluation, risk stratification and therapeutic management despite its limitations are well known. Indeed, HF has a complex pathophysiology because it first involves the heart, progressively becoming a multisystemic disease, leading to multiorgan failure and death. In these terms, HF is comparable to cancer. As for cancer, surviving, morbidity and hospitalisation are related not only to the primary neoplastic mass but mainly to the metastatic involvement. In HF, multiorgan involvement has a great impact on prognosis, and multiorgan protective therapies are equally important as conventional cardioprotective therapies. In the light of these considerations, a revision of the HF concept is needed, starting from its definition up to its therapy, to overcome the old and simplistic HF perspective.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

Heart failure with mid-range or mildly reduced ejection fraction

Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) remains the major parameter for diagnosis, phenotyping, prognosis and treatment decisions in heart failure. The 2016 ESC heart failure guidelines introduced a third EF category for an EF of 40-49%, defined as heart failure with mid-range EF (HFmrEF). This category has been largely unexplored compared with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF; defined as EF <40% in this Review) and heart failure with preserved EF (HFpEF; defined as EF ≥50%). The prevalence of HFmrEF within the overall population of patients with HF is 10-25%. HFmrEF seems to be an intermediate clinical entity between HFrEF and HFpEF in some respects, but more similar to HFrEF in others, in particular with regard to the high prevalence of ischaemic heart disease in these patients. HFmrEF is milder than HFrEF, and the risk of cardiovascular events is lower in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. By contrast, the risk of non-cardiovascular adverse events is similar or greater in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF than in those with HFrEF. Evidence from post hoc and subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials and a trial of an SGLT1-SGLT2 inhibitor suggests that drugs that are effective in patients with HFrEF might also be effective in patients with HFmrEF. Although the EF is a continuous measure with considerable variability, in this comprehensive Review we suggest that HFmrEF is a useful categorization of patients with HF and shares the most important clinical features with HFrEF, which supports the renaming of HFmrEF to HF with mildly reduced EF.

Phenomapping in patients experiencing worsening renal function during hospitalization for acute heart failure

Aims

The impact of worsening renal function (WRF) on the prognosis of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) remains controversial. We aimed to identify phenotypically distinct subgroups among individuals with both AHF and WRF using cluster analysis.

Methods and results

Overall, the data of 483 patients with both AHF and WRF enrolled in the West Tokyo Heart Failure Registry were analysed. Using cluster analysis, we identified three phenotypically distinct subgroups (phenogroups 1, 2, and 3). We assessed the impact of WRF on the prognosis of each phenogroup by comparing the incidence of composite endpoints, including all‐cause death and re‐hospitalization due to heart failure, with those of a propensity score‐matched, non‐WRF control group. Participants in phenogroup 1 (N = 122) were the youngest (69.3 ± 13.7 years), had relatively preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, 70.0 ± 27.7 mL/min/1.73 m²), and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (41.8 ± 13.7%). Conversely, participants in phenogroup 3 (N = 122) were the oldest (81.7 ± 8.5 years), had the worst eGFR (33.0 ± 20.9 mL/min/1.73 m²), and had preserved LVEF (51.7 ± 14.8%). The characteristics of the participants in phenogroup 2 (N = 239) were between those of phenogroups 1 and 3. The propensity score matching analysis showed that WRF was associated with a higher incidence of composite endpoints in phenogroup 1, whereas this association was not observed in phenogroups 2 and 3.

Conclusions

Using cluster analysis, we revealed three phenotypically distinct subgroups of patients with both AHF and WRF. WRF was associated with worse clinical outcomes in the subgroup of younger patients with reduced LVEF and preserved renal function.

Percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation improves heart failure symptoms in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients

Aims

Therapeutic options for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are sparse. Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a common feature of HFpEF and worsens heart failure symptoms and prognosis. Our study examines the outcome of patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and elevated left atrial (LAP) or left ventricular filling pressures (LVEDP), indicative of HFpEF, after undergoing percutaneous edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair (pMVR) for moderate–severe MR.

Methods and results

Two hundred eleven patients with preserved LVEF (>50%), who underwent pMVR, were dichotomized by LAP (< / ≥15 mmHg) and LVEDP (< / ≥16 mmHg). Forty‐nine per cent of patients showed elevated LAP, and LVEDP was elevated in 55%, both indicating HFpEF. Patients with elevated filling pressures featured typical clinical characteristics of HFpEF, higher N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide levels (5544.9 pg/mL in high LAP group vs. 3071.7 pg/mL in normal LAP group, P = 0.06; 5061.0 pg/mL in high LVEDP group vs. 3230.3 pg/mL in normal LVEDP group, P = 0.08), and higher prevalence of pulmonary hypertension (mean pulmonary artery pressure 36.4 mmHg in high LAP group vs. 26.3 mmHg in normal LAP group, P < 0.001; 35.2 mmHg in high LVEDP group vs. 29.7 mmHg in normal LVEDP group, P = 0.004) and atrial fibrillation (78.8% in normal LAP group vs. 61.0% in high LAP group, P = 0.04; 75.3% in high LVEDP group vs. 67.5% in normal LVEDP group, P = 0.25). Pre‐treatment MR grade and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class were similar in both normal filling pressure and HFpEF groups. pMVR in HFpEF patients achieved effective heart failure symptom relief comparable with patients with normal filling pressures: significant decrease of MR grade and NYHA class, as well as significant reduction of heart failure hospitalizations 12 months after compared with 12 months before MitraClip.

Conclusion

Percutaneous edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair for moderate–severe MR is an effective treatment option for symptom relief in HFpEF patients.