Heart Failure With Recovered Ejection Fraction in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: Characteristics, Outcomes, and Long-term Follow-up

Management of Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction: Current Evidence and Controversies

Heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) is defined by improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) among patients who previously had reduced LVEF. HFimpEF is associated with improved prognosis, albeit with persistent risk of relapse and adverse events in some patients. Current guidelines thus recommend sustained and indefinite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for all patients with HFimpEF. Emerging clinical experience suggests that heart failure arising from acute etiologies that fully resolve along with complete LVEF recovery may have a favorable prognosis with lower risk of relapse. Indeed, cohort and case series studies have demonstrated the feasibility of safe de-escalation of GDMT in select patients with specific etiologies, with multiple small trials ongoing. Future studies should investigate whether advanced imaging or blood biomarkers could aid in risk stratifying patients with recovered LVEF, whether partial de-escalation of GDMT could be safe and feasible, and whether implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy can be safely discontinued.

Left ventricular reverse remodeling: A predictor of survival in chagasic cardiomyopathy patients with a reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Chagas disease is a major health issue in Latin America and is now spreading globally because of migration. Chronic Chagasic cardiomyopathy (CCC) leads to heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR), defined as an improved LVEF, is associated with improved outcomes in patients with other HFrEF etiologies. Therefore, we evaluated the relationship between LVRR and survival in CCC patients with an LVEF<40%.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study included patients diagnosed with CCC and LVEF<40% between January 2006 and September 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: positive RR (PRR; LVEF≥40% or an absolute LVEF increase of ≥ 10%) and negative RR (NRR). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for baseline differences, and Cox proportional hazards models were applied to determine independent predictors of mortality and heart transplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 1,043 patients were evaluated; 221 (21.2%) were classified as having PRR, and 822 (78.8%) were classified as having NRR. PRR status was associated with a 55% lower risk of all-cause mortality and heart transplantation over 15 years (p = 0.002). Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that predictors of total mortality and heart transplantation included NRR status, a worse NYHA class, lower serum sodium levels, larger LV dimensions, and moderate-to-severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR). The PRR predictors were smaller LV dimensions, less mitral regurgitation, and the absence of triple therapy at baseline. NRR patients were more likely to be on triple therapy at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

PRR improves survival in CCC patients with HFrEF. Identifying patients with potential for LVRR, alongside early therapeutic interventions, may reduce mortality in this population. Future research should focus on therapies that promote LVRR in patients with CCC.

Cardiac sympathetic activity in patients suffering from heart failure with improved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The characteristics of cardiac sympathetic nerve activity among patients suffering from heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (EF) (HFimpEF) remain unclear.

METHODS

Patients admitted for HF with an EF ≤ 40% who underwent echocardiography and 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy before and 6 months after discharge were followed for 5.2 (2.8-6.1) years. At 6 months, patients with an EF ≤ 40% were classified into the HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) group. Meanwhile, patients with an EF of >40% were classified under the HFimpEF group.

RESULTS

Among the 188 patients analyzed, 78 (41.5%) and 110 (58.5%) were categorized into the HFimpEF and HFrEF groups, respectively. The HFimpEF group had a better heart-to-mediastinal (H/M) ratio at baseline than did the HFrEF group (1.76 [1.59-1.85] vs 1.64 [1.48-1.81], respectively; P = .011). The predictive factors of HFimpEF included ischemic heart disease (odds ratio [OR]: .45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .21-.94, P = .034), H/M ratio (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.04, P = .032), and EF (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08-1.21, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The HFimpEF group had a higher H/M ratio than did the HFrEF group, suggesting lower cardiac sympathetic hyperactivity. The H/M ratio was identified as an independent predictor of HFimpEF.

Incidence, progression, and outcomes of heart failure with improved ejection fraction: The added value of longitudinally assessed ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The revised universal definition of heart failure (HF) established a standardized definition for HF with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) and emphasized the importance of longitudinally assessing left ventricular EF (LVEF). We aim to investigate the incidence, disease progression, and clinical outcomes of HFimpEF in a longitudinal cohort of hospitalized HF patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively included HF patients with baseline LVEF ≤40 % and satisfactory echocardiographic follow-ups. HFimpEF was defined as a ≥ 10-point increase in LVEF to >40 %. Transient HFimpEF was defined as a recurrent LVEF ≤40 % after achieving HFimpEF. Clinical outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and HF rehospitalization.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 47.9 months, 517 of 923 patients met HFimpEF criteria; 65.0 % HFimpEF cases occurred within 12 months. HFimpEF patients had lower risks of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.16, P < 0.001), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.19, P < 0.001), and HF rehospitalization (HR = 0.39, P < 0.001). However, 160 HFimpEF patients experienced LVEF worsening during follow-up; their risks for adverse events were higher (HR = 1.89 for all-cause death, HR = 2.13 for cardiovascular death, HR = 2.13 for HF rehospitalization, P < 0.05 for all) compared to persistent HFimpEF patients, and their capability of LVEF re-improvement was diminished. An inverted U-shaped LVEF profile for HFimpEF-characterized by a slow, modest increase followed by a decline-portended a higher mortality risk.

CONCLUSIONS

HFimpEF was observed in 56.0 % of HF patients. Longitudinally assessing LVEF helps identify HFimpEF patients and facilitates disease progression monitoring and risk stratification.

Insights and Opportunities from Multimarker Evaluation of Heart Failure: Lessons from BIOSTAT-HF

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure is a complex and heterogenous disease state that affects millions worldwide. Over recent decades, advancements in medical therapy and device implementation have significantly transformed the landscape of heart failure outcomes, while improvements in imaging modalities and greater accessibility to genome sequencing have led to increasing recognition of distinct heart failure endotypes. There is rising evidence to suggest all patients do not benefit equally from intensification of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT). Efforts to personalize medical therapy to maximize benefits while minimizing side effects remains an ongoing challenge. We review key manuscripts from The BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF), a multicenter observational study conducted across Europe, which prospectively enrolled patients with acute or worsening heart failure.

FINDINGS

BIOSTAT-CHF was designed to characterize biological pathways associated with varied patient responses to GDMT for heart failure. Utilizing a diverse cohort of European patients, the authors were able to develop risk models to predict mortality and heart failure hospitalization from clinically available data plus standard and novel biomarkers. They also utilized modeling to refine characterization of heart failure subtypes and personalization of GDMT titration. In this review we highlight key insights from the BIOSTAT-CHF cohort and how they relate to: (1) prognosis and monitoring treatment response in heart failure, (2) personalization of heart failure treatment, and (3) elucidation of biological pathways and future directions for research. These insights summarize how BIOSTAT-CHF has contributed to a deeper understanding of heart failure, focusing on using biomarkers personalizing treatment approaches, with a goal of ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Risk and Protective Factors of Poor Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

Heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) patients could still develop adverse outcomes despite EF improvement. This study evaluates the risk and protective factors of poor clinical outcomes in HFimpEF patients.

METHODS

Systematic searching was done to include studies that evaluate the risks of developing poor outcomes in HFimpEF patients. HFimpEF is defined as improvement of 5-10% EF within 6-12 months or normalization of EF > 40%. Poor clinical outcome is defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, HF rehospitalization, and requirement of LVAD/ transplant. Odds ratios of outcome are pooled with random effects model. A subgroup analysis of multivariate analysis-only studies was also conducted.

RESULTS

32 studies comprising 10,740 HFimpEF patients are included. Poor clinical outcomes followed up for approximately 3 years, are seen in 18.9% of HFimpEF patients. Twelve statistically significant factors that increase the risk of outcome are found. Among them, anemia (OR 7.69, CI 3.48-16.99, I2 0%) and baseline NT pro-BNP (OR 3.25) are the two most important predictors. Other significant risk factors are increasing age, ischemic heart disease, NYHA III/IV, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, use of diuretics, and baseline LVEDD. Alternately, protective factors of poor clinical outcome are regression of left atrial diameter (LAD) (OR 0.33, CI: 0.18-0.61, p 0.0003, I2 0%), use beta-blockers, SGLT- 2 inhibitors, and baseline LVEF level (OR 0.60, 0.78, 0.90, respectively).

CONCLUSION

HFimpEF patients are not fully recovered and patient stratification based on risk and protective factors is recommended.

In-hospital course of patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction in the DELIVER trial

AIMS

Patients with heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) may face residual risks of clinical events that are comparable to those experienced by patients with HF whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has consistently been above 40%. However, little is known about the clinical course of patients with HFimpEF during hospitalization for HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

DELIVER randomized patients with HF and LVEF >40% to dapagliflozin or placebo, including HFimpEF (LVEF previously ≤40%). We evaluated all HF hospitalizations adjudicated by the clinical endpoints committee with available data for determination of in-hospital course. Complicated hospitalization was defined as any hospitalization requiring intensive care unit stay, intravenous vasopressors/inotropes/vasodilators, invasive or non-invasive ventilation, mechanical fluid removal, ultrafiltration, or mechanical circulatory support. LVEF changes were extracted using a validated GPT-3.5, a large language model, via a secure private endpoint. Of the 6263 patients enrolled in DELIVER, 1151 (18%) had HFimpEF. During a median follow-up of 2.3 years, there were 224 total HF hospitalizations in 144 patients with HFimpEF and 985 in 603 patients with LVEF consistently >40%. Patients with HFimpEF experienced higher rates of complicated HF hospitalization as compared with patients with LVEF consistently >40% (39% vs. 27%; p < 0.001). Among those who experienced a first HF hospitalization, there was no significant difference in length of stay or in-hospital mortality between patients with HFimpEF versus LVEF consistently >40%. In a subset of participants who had at least one LVEF measurement available during HF hospitalization, 66% of those with HFimpEF and 29% of patients with LVEF consistently >40% experienced a reduction in their LVEF to ≤40% from the time of enrolment (p < 0.001). In the entire DELIVER cohort, dapagliflozin reduced total uncomplicated and complicated HF hospitalizations, irrespective of HFimpEF status (pinteraction ≥0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized for HF in DELIVER, those with HFimpEF experienced a more adverse in-hospital clinical course, necessitating higher resource utilization beyond standard diuretic therapy compared with patients with HF and LVEF consistently >40%, but had similar in-hospital mortality. Treatment benefits of dapagliflozin were not modified by hospitalization type.

Myocardial Recovery and Relapse in Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction

Purpose of review

The purpose of this review is to discuss myocardial recovery in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to summarize the contemporary insights regarding heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF).

Recent findings

Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 40%) with improved prognosis can be achieved in one out of three (10-40%) patients with HFrEF treated with guideline-directed medical therapy. Clinical predictors include non-ischemic etiology of HFrEF, less abnormal blood or imaging biomarkers, and lack of specific pathogenic genetic variants. However, a subset of patients may ultimately relapse, suggesting that many patients are merely in remission rather than having fully recovered.

Summary

Patients with HFimpEF have improved prognosis but nonetheless remain at risk of relapse and long-term adverse events. Future studies will hopefully chart the natural history of HFimpEF and identify clinical predictors such as blood or novel imaging biomarkers that distinguish subgroups of patients based on differential trajectory and prognosis.

Heart failure with improved ejection fraction: Beyond diagnosis to trajectory analysis

Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction represents a highly treatable cause of heart failure (HF). A substantial proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF;HFrEF) demonstrate improvement in LV systolic function (termed HF with improved EF [HFimpEF]), either spontaneously or when treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Although it is a relatively new HF classification, HFimpEF has emerged in recent years as an important and distinct clinical entity. Improvement in LVEF leads to decreased rates of mortality and adverse HF-related outcomes compared to patients with sustained LV systolic dysfunction (HFrEF). While numerous clinical and imaging factors have been associated with HFimpEF, identification of which patients do and do not improve requires further investigation. In addition, patients improve at different rates, and what determines the trajectory of HFimpEF patients after improvement is incompletely characterized. A proportion of patients maintain improvement in LV systolic function, while others experience a recrudescence of systolic dysfunction, especially with GDMT discontinuation. In this review we discuss the contemporary guideline-recommended classification definition of HFimpEF, the epidemiology of improvement in LV systolic function, and the clinical course of this unique patient population. We also offer evidence-based recommendations for the clinical management of HFimpEF and provide a roadmap for future directions in understanding and improving outcomes in the care of patients with HFimpEF.