Prognostic impact of prior LVEF in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

As there is limited evidence regarding the prognostic impact of prior left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), this study investigates the prognostic impact of longitudinal changes in LVEF in patients with HFmrEF.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (i.e. LVEF 41-49% with signs and/or symptoms of HF) were included retrospectively in a monocentric registry from 2016 to 2022. Based on prior LVEF, patients were categorized into three groups: stable LVEF, improved LVEF, and deteriorated LVEF. The primary endpoint was 30-months all-cause mortality (median follow-up). Secondary endpoints included in-hospital and 12-months all-cause mortality, as well as HF-related rehospitalization at 12 and 30 months. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional regression analyses were applied for statistics.

RESULTS

Six hundred eighty-nine patients with HFmrEF were included. Compared to their prior LVEF, 24%, 12%, and 64% had stable, improved, and deteriorated LVEF, respectively. None of the three LVEF groups was associated with all-cause mortality at 12 (p ≥ 0.583) and 30 months (31% vs. 37% vs. 34%; log rank p ≥ 0.376). In addition, similar rates of 12- (p ≥ 0.533) and 30-months HF-related rehospitalization (21% vs. 23% vs. 21%; log rank p ≥ 0.749) were observed. These findings were confirmed in multivariable regression analyses in the entire study cohort.

CONCLUSION

The transition from HFrEF and HFpEF towards HFmrEF is very common. However, prior LVEF was not associated with prognosis, likely due to the persistently high dynamic nature of LVEF in the follow-up period.

Prognostic impact of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

This study sought to determine the prognostic impact of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). ADHF is a major complication in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the prognostic impact of ADHF in patients with HFmrEF has not yet been clarified.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients hospitalized with HFmrEF (i.e. left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. The prognosis of patients with ADHF was compared with those without (i.e. non-ADHF). The primary endpoint was long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital all-cause mortality and long-term HF-related re-hospitalization. Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox proportional regression, and propensity score matched analyses were performed for statistics. Long-term follow-up was set at 30 months. A total of 2184 patients with HFmrEF were included, ADHF was present in 22%. The primary endpoint was higher in ADHF compared to non-ADHF patients with HFmrEF [50% vs. 26%; hazard ratio (HR) = 2.269; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.939-2.656; P = 0.001]. Accordingly, the secondary endpoint of long-term HF-related re-hospitalization was significantly higher (27% vs. 10%; HR = 3.250; 95% CI 2.565-4.118; P = 0.001). A history of previous ADHF before the index hospitalization was associated with higher rates of long-term HF-related re-hospitalization (42% vs. 23%; HR = 2.073; 95% CI 1.420-3.027; P = 0.001), but not with long-term all-cause mortality (P = 0.264).

CONCLUSION

ADHF is a common finding in patients with HFmrEF associated with an adverse impact on long-term prognosis.

Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Therapy of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Japan

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a global health care problem, with diagnostic difficulty, limited treatment options and high morbidity and mortality rates. The prevalence of HFpEF is increasing because of the aging population and the increasing burden of cardiac and metabolic comorbidities, such as systemic hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and obesity. The knowledge base is derived primarily from the United States and Europe, and data from Asian countries, including Japan, remain limited. Given that phenotypic differences may exist between Japanese and Western patients with HFpEF, careful characterization may hold promise to deliver new therapy specific to the Japanese population. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology and diagnosis of and the potential therapies for HFpEF in Japan.

Prognostic value of early reassessment of reduced ejection fraction in acute heart failure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

An improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure (HF) is associated with a better prognosis. Identifying these subjects early after an episode of decompensation, the necessary threshold of LVEF improvement, and its predictive factors are of great interest.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and ten patients hospitalized for HF were prospectively reassessed at an early outpatient visit (mean of 38 days).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with depressed LVEF (<50%), 50.7% presented an improvement in LVEF≥5% between the acute episode and the outpatient visit. This improvement in depressed LVEF was found to be useful for identifying patients with a good prognosis (readmission due to HF+cardiovascular mortality, p=0.022) but not in patients with preserved LVEF (≥50%). Patients with improved LVEF were significantly younger and had new-onset HF, a better global longitudinal strain (GLS), and better renal function. A multivariate logistic regression model found GLS, new-onset HF, and a lower LV mass index as predictors of LVEF improvement ≥5% (AUC 0.85).

Prognostic significance of cardiorenal dysfunction within 1 year after atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with systolic dysfunction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation can improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and renal function and can even reduce mortality in patients with impaired LVEF. However, the effect of post-ablation cardiorenal dysfunction on the prognosis of patients with impaired LVEF who underwent AF ablation remains unclear. Of the 1243 consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation, the prognosis of 163 non-dialysis patients who underwent AF ablation with < 50% LVEF was evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and a need for modification of the treatment for heart failure. During the median follow-up of 4.2 years after the first AF ablation procedure, the primary outcome occurred in 30 of 163 patients (18%). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the post-LVEF (LVEF within 1 year after the procedure, and before the occurrence of primary outcome) had larger areas under the curve (0.70) than the pre-LVEF (LVEF before the procedure), and the most optimal cutoff value was LVEF ≤ 42%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with post-LVEF ≤ 42% and worsening renal function (WRF; an absolute increase in serum creatinine [SCr] ≥ 0.3 mg/dL compared with the SCr at baseline within 1 year after the procedure and before the occurrence of primary outcome) had a 3.4- to 4.3-fold and 3.4- to 3.7-fold higher risk of the primary outcome compared with those without these predictors, respectively. Patients were categorized using post-LVEF ≤ 42% and WRF as follows: group 1 (post-LVEF > 42% without WRF), group 2 (post-LVEF ≤ 42% without WRF), group 3 (post-LVEF > 42% with WRF), and group 4 (post-LVEF ≤ 42% with WRF). Group 4 had a 15.8-fold (P = 0.0001) higher risk of the primary outcome compared with group 1 after adjusting for pre-procedural factors. In patients with impaired LVEF undergoing AF ablation, post-LVEF ≤ 42% and WRF were independent predictors of poor prognosis. The combination of post-LVEF ≤ 42% and WRF is strongly associated with a poor prognosis in patients with AF undergoing ablation, who with these post-ablation cardiorenal dysfunction may have to be treated more intensively after AF ablation.

Long-term prognostic value of changes in left ventricular global longitudinal strain in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) has emerged as a more sensitive index than LV ejection fraction (LVEF) for detecting subclinical LV dysfunction. We examined whether changes in GLS values are associated with the long-term prognosis of patients with a preserved LVEF and acute decompensated heart failure (HF).

METHODS

We studied 100 consecutive patients (mean age: 71 years) who were hospitalized for HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and had a preserved LVEF (≥ 50%) in both the acute and stable phases. We performed two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography in the acute (GLS-acute) and stable (GLS-stable) phases at a median of 2 and 347 days after admission, respectively, and calculated the rate of change of the absolute value of GLS-stable with respect to that of GLS-acute. An improved GLS was defined as a rate of change in GLS ≥ 16%, and a non-improved GLS was a rate of change < 16%. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (MACE).

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up period of 1218 days, MACE occurred in 26 patients, including 8 all-cause deaths and 18 readmissions for HF. The rate of change in GLS for patients with MACE was lower than compared to those without MACE (10.6% vs 26.0%, p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analyses indicated the rate of change in GLS was an independent predictor of MACE (p < 0.001). A non-improved GLS was correlated with a high risk of MACE.

CONCLUSION

Changes in GLS values could be useful for the long-term risk stratification of patients hospitalized for HFpEF and persistently preserved LVEF.

Incidence and predictors of early and late sudden cardiac death in hospitalized Japanese patients with new-onset systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) and low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Optimal HF treatment can improve LVEF and reduce the risk of SCD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and predictors of SCD in Japanese patients with new-onset systolic HF and to investigate factors that affect LVEF improvement.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 174 consecutive hospitalized patients with new-onset HF and LVEF ≤35% (median age, 66 years; men, 71%). The primary outcome was a composite of SCD, sustained ventricular arrhythmias, and appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

RESULTS

The cumulative rates of meeting of the primary outcome at 3, 12, and 36 months after discharge were 3.9%, 8.1%, and 10.5%, respectively. Atrial fibrillation was a significant predictor of the primary outcome within 12 months after discharge (odds ratio, 5.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-21.57). Among 104 patients who completed follow-up echocardiography within 12 months after discharge, changes in LVEF were inversely associated with SCD (odds ratio/1% increase, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93). A QRS duration <130 ms and a B-type natriuretic peptide level <170 pg/mL were predictors of LVEF improvement to >35% (odds ratio, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.15-11.77; odds ratio, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.33-7.69, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed a high incidence of meeting of the primary outcome within 12 months after discharge in hospitalized patients with new-onset systolic HF. An improved LVEF may reduce the risk of late SCD.

Dynamics of Left Ventricular Myocardial Work in Patients Hospitalized for Acute Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the most commonly used measure describing pumping efficiency, but it is heavily dependent on loading conditions and therefore not well-suited to study pathophysiologic changes. The novel concept of echocardiography-derived myocardial work (MyW) overcomes this disadvantage as it is based on LV pressure-strain loops. We tracked the in-hospital changes of indices of MyW in patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF) in relation to their recompensation status and explored the prognostic utility of MyW indices METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 126 patients admitted for AHF (mean 73 ± 12 years, 37% female, 40% with a reduced LVEF [<40%]), providing pairs of echocardiograms obtained both on hospital admission and prior to discharge. The following MyW indices were derived: global constructive and wasted work (GCW, GWW), global work index (GWI), and global work efficiency. In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction with decreasing N-terminal prohormone B-natriuretic peptide levels during hospitalization, the GCW and GWI improved significantly, whereas the GWW remained unchanged. In patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, the GCW and GWI were unchanged; however, in patients with no decrease or eventual increase in N-terminal prohormone B-natriuretic peptide, we observed an increase in GWW. In all patients with AHF, higher values of GWW were associated with a higher risk of death or rehospitalization within 6 months after discharge (per 10-point increment hazard ratio 1.035, 95% confidence interval 1.005-1.065).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest differential myocardial responses to decompensation and recompensation, depending on the HF phenotype in patients presenting with AHF. The GWW predicted the 6-month prognosis in these patients, regardless of LVEF. Future studies in larger cohorts need to confirm our results and identify determinants of short-term and longer term changes in MyW.

Changes in the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Outcomes in Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients with Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Prospective Observational Study

Objective Current clinical guidelines have proposed heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40-49%, but the proportion and prognosis of patients transitioning toward HF with a reduced LVEF (LVEF <40%, HFrEF) or HF with a preserved LVEF (LVEF ≥50%, HFpEF) are not fully clear. The present study prospectively evaluated the changes in the LVEF one year after discharge and the outcomes of hospitalized patients with HFmrEF. Methods We prospectively studied 259 hospitalized patients with HFmrEF who were discharged alive at our institutions between 2015 and 2019. Among them, 202 patients with HFmrEF who underwent echocardiography at the one-year follow-up were included in this study. Patient characteristics, echocardiographic data and all-cause death were collected. Results Eighty-seven (43%) patients transitioned to HFpEF (improved group), and 35 (17%) transitioned to HFrEF (worsened group). During a median follow-up of 33 months, 27 (13%) patients died. After adjustment, patients in the worsened group had an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with those in the improved group [hazard ratio 7.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-43.48]. The baseline LVEF (per 1% decrease) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (per 1 mm decrease) were independent predictors of the worsened LVEF category (odds ratio 2.13, 95% CI 1.25-3.63 and odds ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.70, respectively). Conclusion Our study showed that a worsened LVEF one year after discharge was associated with a poor prognosis in hospitalized patients with HFmrEF.

Phenotyping Heart Failure According to the Longitudinal Ejection Fraction Change: Myocardial Strain, Predictors, and Outcomes

Background

Many patients with heart failure (HF) experience changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow‐up. We sought to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of different HF phenotypes according to longitudinal changes in EF.

Methods and Results

A total of 2104 patients with acute HF underwent echocardiography at baseline and follow‐up. Global longitudinal strain was measured at index admission. HF phenotypes were defined as persistent HF with reduced EF (persistent HFrEF, LVEF ≤40% at baseline and follow‐up), heart failure with improved ejection fraction (LVEF≤40% at baseline and improved to >40% at follow‐up), heart failure with declined ejection fraction (LVEF>40% at baseline and declined to ≤40% at follow up), and persistent HF with preserved EF (persistent HFpEF, LVEF>40% at baseline and follow‐up). Overall, 1130 patients had HFrEF at baseline; during follow‐up, 54.2% and 46.8% had persistent HFrEF and heart failure with improved ejection fraction, respectively. Among 975 patients with HFpEF at baseline, 89.5% and 10.5% had persistent HFpEF and heart failure with declined ejection fraction at follow‐up, respectively. The 5‐year all‐cause mortality rates were 43.1%, 33.1%, 24%, and 17% for heart failure with declined ejection fraction, persistent HFrEF, persistent HFpEF, and heart failure with improved ejection fraction, respectively (global log‐rank P<0.001). In multivariable analyses, each 1% increase in global longitudinal strain (greater contractility) was associated with 10% increased odds for heart failure with improved ejection fraction among patients with HFrEF at baseline and 7% reduced odds for heart failure with declined ejection fraction among patients with HFpEF at baseline.

Conclusions

LVEF changed during follow‐up. Each HF phenotype according to longitudinal LVEF changes has a distinct prognosis. Global longitudinal strain can be used to predict the HF phenotype.

REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03513653.

Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

There are few treatment options for acute decompensated heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction, but an increasing number of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. A deeper understanding of the cause, diagnosis, and prognosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction may be informative for clinical practice or clinical decision making and therapeutic investigation in the acute care setting.

Special prognostic phenomenon for patients with mid-range ejection fraction heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical 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.

METHODS

PubMed, 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.

RESULTS

Totally 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.

CONCLUSIONS

This 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.