What is Heart Failure with Mid-range Ejection Fraction? A New Subgroup of Patients with Heart Failure

Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction-What Is It, If Anything?

The patient cohort with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs) of 41%-49%, which has been defined as heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), represent a significant proportion of the heart failure (HF) population. Despite the clear cutoffs established by different society guidelines, confusion remains regarding the exact significance of midrange LVEF within the HF syndrome. Patients with LVEF 41%-49% represent a heterogeneous group of patients sharing pathophysiologic mechanisms, biomarker profiles, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics with patients with preserved and reduced LVEF. In this clinical review, we discuss the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms that culminate in the clinical syndrome of HF and contribute to the disparities observed between HFpEF, HFrEF, and HFmrEF. We highlight differences and similarities in clinical characteristics and imaging features between HFpEF and HFrEF in an effort to disentangle the heterogeneous group of patients with midrange LVEF, but ultimately we conclude that LVEF should be seen as simply one important element of a continuum throughout the HF syndrome, and that although is useful, it is an oversimplification, because HF syndrome is more of a continuum. The underlying pathophysiology, etiology, and comorbidities of patients presenting with HF is becoming ever more important as the limitations of a classification solely based on LVEF are being better recognised, and as patient-specific personalisation of care is becoming ever more important.

Risk stratification in heart failure with mild reduced ejection fraction

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction represents a heterogeneous and relatively young heart failure category accounting for nearly 20-30% of the overall heart failure population. Due to its complex phenotype, a reliable clinical picture of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction patients as well as a definite risk stratification are still relevant unsolved issues. In such a context, there is growing interest in a comprehensive functional assessment by means of a cardiopulmonary exercise test, yet considered a cornerstone in the clinical management of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Indeed, the cardiopulmonary exercise test has also been found to be particularly useful in the heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction category, several cardiopulmonary exercise test-derived parameters being associated with a poor outcome. In particular, a recent contribution by the metabolic exercise combined with cardiac and kidney indexes research group showed an independent association between the peak oxygen uptake and pure cardiovascular mortality in a large cohort of recovered heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction patients. Contextually, the same study supplied an easy approach to identify a high-risk heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction subset by using a combination of peak oxygen uptake and ventilatory efficiency cut-off values, namely 55% of the maximum predicted and 31, respectively. Thus, looking at the above-mentioned promising results and waiting for specific trials, it is reasonable to consider cardiopulmonary exercise test assessment as part of the heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction work-up in order to identify those patients with an unfavourable functional profile who probably deserve a close clinical follow-up and, probably, more aggressive therapeutic strategies.

Snapshot evaluation of acute and chronic heart failure in real-life in Turkey: A follow-up data for mortality

Objective:

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive clinical syndrome. SELFIE-TR is a registry illustrating the overall HF patient profile of Turkey. Herein, all-cause mortality (ACM) data during follow-up were provided.

Methods:

This is a prospective outcome analysis of SELFIE-TR. Patients were classified as acute HF (AHF) versus chronic HF (CHF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mid-range ejection fraction, and HF with preserved ejection fraction and were followed up for ACM.

Results:

There were 1054 patients with a mean age of 63.3±13.3 years and with a median follow-up period of 16 (7–17) months. Survival data within 1 year were available in 1022 patients. Crude ACM was 19.9% for 1 year in the whole group. ACM within 1 year was 13.7% versus 32.6% in patients with CHF and AHF, respectively (p<0.001). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, beta blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist were present in 70.6%, 88.2%, and 50.7%, respectively. In the whole cohort, survival curves were graded according to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) scores ≤1 versus 2 versus 3 as 28% versus 20.2% versus 12.2%, respectively (p<0.001). Multivariate analysis of the whole cohort yielded age (p=0.009) and AHF (p=0.028) as independent predictors of mortality in 1 year.

Conclusion:

One-year mortality is high in Turkish patients with HF compared with contemporary cohorts with AHF and CHF. Of note, GDMT score is influential on 1-year mortality being the most striking one on chronic HFrEF. On the other hand, in the whole cohort, age and AHF were the only independent predictors of death in 1 year. (Anatol J Cardiol 2020; 23: 160-8)

The predictive value of global longitudinal strain in patients with heart failure mid-range ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is defined as HF with a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41-49%. However, the change in LV function and the subsequent prognosis in these patients remain unclear. We aimed to investigate whether LV global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) could differentiate the changes in LVEF and predict the clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF.

METHODS

According to the changes in LVEF on follow-up echocardiography, 273 outpatients with HFmrEF were divided into 3 groups: HFwEF (HF with worse EF: <40%), HFsEF (HF with similar EF: 40-49%), and HFrecEF (HF with recovered EF: >50%). Further, the LV GLS at diagnosis was evaluated.

RESULTS

The average follow-up duration was 31 months. Among patients with HFmrEF, the more impaired the LV GLS at baseline, the higher probability of HFwEF development. In comparison with patients with HFwEF and HFsEF, those with HFrecEF had a lower risk of hospitalization for HF. At a cut-off value of -11%, LV GLS differentiated the subsequent risk of cardiovascular death in patients with HFmrEF. In Cox regression, patients with LV GLS >-11% had a high risk of cardiovascular death.

CONCLUSION

In patients with HFmrEF, LV GLS is associated with LVEF changes and subsequent cardiovascular death. Patients with HFrecEF had a lower risk of hospitalization for HF.

Cardiovascular Death Risk in Recovered Mid-Range Ejection Fraction Heart Failure: Insights From Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) represents a heterogeneous category where phenotype, as well as prognostic assessment, remains debated. The present study explores a specific HFmrEF subset, namely those who recovered from a reduced EF (rec-HFmrEF) and, particularly, it focuses on the possible additive prognostic role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed data from 4535 patients with HFrEF and 1176 patients with rec-HFmrEF from the Metabolic Exercise combined with Cardiac and Kidney Indexes database. The end point was cardiovascular death at 5 years. The median follow-up was 1343 days (25th-75th range 627-2403 days). Cardiovascular death occurred in 552 HFrEF and 61 rec-HFmrEF patients. The multivariate analysis confirmed an independent role of the MECKI score's variables in HFrEF (C-index = 0.744) whereas, in the rec-HFmrEF group, only age and peak oxygen uptake (pVO₂) remained associated to the end point (C-index = 0.745). A peak oxygen uptake of ≤55% of predicted and a ventilatory efficiency of ≥31 resulted as the most accurate cut-off values in the outcome prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

Present data support the cardiopulmonary exercise test and, particularly, the peak oxygen uptake, as a useful tool in the rec-HFmrEF prognostic assessment. A peak VO₂ of ≤55% predicted and ventilatory efficiency of ≥31 might help to identify a high-risk rec-HFmrEF subgroup.

Accuracy of B-type natriuretic peptide in a multiethnic Asian population with acute dyspnea

Background:

Optimal cut-offs for B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) for the diagnosis of heart failure differ based on ethnicity. There are no data for Southeast Asian patients. We aimed to define the optimal cut-off points and the strength of B-type natriuretic peptide as a predictor of heart failure in Southeast Asian multiethnic population.

Methods:

Bedside B-type natriuretic peptide (SOB panel (Biosite®)) was measured for patients (>50 years) presenting with dyspnea. Emergency physicians (blinded to B-type natriuretic peptide result) assessed the probability of acute heart failure on a scale of 0%–100%. Heart failure diagnosis was adjudicated by two cardiologists.

Results:

In all, 43% (n = 87) of the 203 dyspneic patients (54.7% males, 453% females) had a final diagnosis of acute heart failure. B-type natriuretic peptide values ranged from 3.2 to 4960 pg/mL (median, 189 pg/mL). Median B-type natriuretic peptide values of patients with the final diagnosis of “acute heart failure,” “no acute heart failure but history of heart failure,” and “no heart failure” were 600, 301, and 68 pg/mL, respectively. The optimum cut-off was 186 pg/mL. The receiver operating characteristic curve of the emergency physician’s assessment of the probability of heart failure based on clinical assessment had an area under the curve of 85% (95% confidence interval: 80%–90%). Combining receiver operating characteristic curves of physician assessment and B-type natriuretic peptide values yielded an area under the curve of 96% (95% confidence interval: 93%–98%). B-type natriuretic peptide levels less than 100 pg/mL were the strongest predictor of heart failure (odds ratio: 26.36; confidence interval: 6.85–101.41), followed by upper lobe diversion and cardiomegaly.

Conclusion:

The accuracy of bedside B-type natriuretic peptide was validated in a multiethnic Asian population. Optimum cut-off is 186 pg/mL. A B-type natriuretic peptide >100 pg/mL is the single strongest independent predictor of heart failure.

The Many Faces of Heart Failure

Heart failure is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome stemming from cardiac overload and injury that leads to considerable morbidity and mortality. This review highlights the many faces of heart failure, a major and growing public health problem, including its causes, classification, underlying pathophysiology, and variable progression. An individualized, patient-centered treatment approach that focuses on guideline-directed pharmacologic and device therapies is required for optimal management of this complex syndrome.