Clinical characteristics, one-year change in ejection fraction and long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: a multicentre prospective observational study in Catalonia (Spain)

Prognostic implications of left ventricular ejection fraction trajectory changes in heart failure

Aims

The latest guidelines recommended to assess the trajectory of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure (HF). However, there is limited data on the trajectory of LVEF in real-world settings. In this study, we investigated the frequency and prognostic implications of changes in LVEF trajectory.

Methods

Patients were divided into intensified LVEF, static LVEF, and worsening LVEF groups based on the transitions of HF types from baseline to follow-up. The intensified and worsening LVEF groups were further subdivided into mild (≤10% absolute changes of LVEF) and significant (>10% absolute changes of LVEF) increase or decrease groups according to the magnitude of change. The incidences and associations of changes in LVEF with patient outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Among the 2,429 patients in the study cohort, 38.3% of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 37.6% of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) showed an improvement in their LVEF. In contrast, a decline in LVEF was observed in 19.3% of HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and 34.9% of those with HFmrEF. Cox regression analysis showed that the intensified LVEF group was associated with a lower risk of composite endpoints, while the worsening LVEF group yielded opposite findings. Subgroup analysis revealed that compared to those with mild changes in LVEF, baseline HFrEF patients with significant increase showed a lower risk of composite outcome, while baseline HFpEF patients were the opposite.

Conclusions

The trajectories of LVEF changes are strongly correlated with outcomes in patients with HF who had prior history of HF admission. The most significant prognostic implications observed in patients with significant LVEF changes. Trajectory LVEF and type of HF changes are useful tools recommended for prognostication.

Unfavourable outcomes in patients with heart failure with higher preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

AIMS

Newly introduced drugs for heart failure (HF) have been reported to improve the prognosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the lower range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We hypothesized that a higher LVEF is related to an unfavourable prognosis in patients with HFpEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We tested this hypothesis by analysing the data from a prospective multicentre cohort study in 255 patients admitted to the hospital due to decompensated HF (LVEF > 40% at discharge). The primary endpoint of this study was a composite outcome of all-cause death and readmission due to HF, and the secondary endpoint was readmission due to HF. LVEF and the mitral E/e' ratio were measured using echocardiography. In multicovariate parametric survival time analysis, LVEF [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.046 per 1% increase, P = 0.001], concurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) (HR = 3.203, P < 0.001), and E/e' (HR = 1.083 per 1.0 increase, P < 0.001) were significantly correlated with the primary endpoint. In addition to these covariates, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use was significantly correlated with the secondary endpoint (HR = 0.451, P = 0.008). Diagnostic performance plot analysis demonstrated that the discrimination threshold value for LVEF that could identify patients prone to reaching the primary endpoint was ≥57.2%. The prevalence of AF or E/e' ratio did not differ significantly between patients with LVEF ≥ 58% and with 40% < LVEF < 58%.

CONCLUSION

A higher LVEF is independently related to poor prognosis in patients with HFpEF, in addition to concurrent AF and an elevated E/e' ratio. ACEI/ARB use, in contrast, was associated with improved prognosis, especially with regard to readmission due to HF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm.

UNIQUE IDENTIFIER

UMIN000017725.

Management, clinical outcomes, and its predictors among heart failure patients admitted to tertiary care hospitals in Ethiopia: prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a global pandemic, as it affects approximately 64.34 million people worldwide with a $346.17 billion global economic burden. The prevalence of heart failure has increased from 43.4 to 46.5% in the last 10 years in lower and middle-income countries. Most of the studies conducted in Ethiopia were retrospective cross-sectional, with limited study participants, and conducted in a single setting that commonly addresses the prevalence and pattern of heart failure rather than clinical outcome, associated factors, and specific management in different areas. Hence, this study aimed to assess management, clinical outcomes and their predictors among heart failure patients admitted to tertiary care hospitals in Ethiopia.

METHODS

A prospective observational study design was conducted on heart failure patients admitted at two tertiary care hospitals in Ethiopia from September 2020 to May 2021. Using semi-structured questionnaires relevant data were collected from patients' medical records and face-to-face interviewing. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23.0. A multivariate Cox regression model was performed to identify independent predictors of 90-day all-cause mortality. Variables with P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Out of 283 patients enrolled in this study, 52.3% were male and the mean (± SD) age was 52.4 ± 17.9 years. The most common medications prescribed during hospitalization and discharge were diuretics (98.9% vs 95.6%), angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (48.8% vs 67.3%), and beta-blockers (46.6% vs 64.7%), respectively. In the present study, the 90-day all-cause mortality was 10.2%. Hypertension (HR = 3.7, 95% CI 1.2-11.6), cardiogenic shock (HR = 8.7, 95% CI 3.2-20.8), alcohol drinking (HR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.8), absence of angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (HR = 0.02, 95% CI 0.0-0.2), and reduced ejection fraction (HR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-3.8) were predictors of 90-day all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

High 90-day all-cause mortality was observed among heart failure patients in the present study. In the current study, the majority of heart failure patients were treated with diuretics. Alcohol drinking, hypertension, cardiogenic shock, reduced ejection fraction, and absence of angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers drugs were predictors of poor treatment outcomes for whom restriction of alcohol consumption, early management of hypertension, reduced ejection fraction, cardiogenic shock, and providing angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers drugs for all heart failure patients would be recommended to improve these poor treatment outcomes.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance phenotyping of heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

The 2016 European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Guidelines defined a new category: heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) of 40-49%. This new category was highlighted as having limited evidence and research was advocated into underlying characteristics, pathophysiology, and diagnosis. We used multi-parametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to define the cardiac phenotype of presumed non-ischaemic HFmrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (N = 300, 62.7 ± 13 years, 63% males) with a clinical diagnosis of heart failure with no angina symptoms, history of myocardial infarction, or coronary intervention were prospectively recruited. Patients underwent clinical assessment and CMR including T1 mapping, extracellular volume (ECV) mapping, late gadolinium enhancement, and measurement of myocardial blood flow at rest and maximal hyperaemia. Of 273 patients in the final analysis, 93 (34%) patients were categorized as HFmrEF, 46 (17%) as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and 134 (49%) as heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Nineteen (20%) patients with HFmrEF had evidence of occult ischaemic heart disease. Diffuse fibrosis and hyperaemic myocardial blood flow were similar in HFmrEF and HFpEF, but HFmrEF showed significantly lower native T1 (1311 ± 32 vs. 1340 ± 45 ms, P < 0.001), ECV (24.6 ± 3.2 vs. 26.3 ± 3.1%, P < 0.001), and higher myocardial perfusion reserve (2.75 ± 0.84 vs. 2.28 ± 0.84, P < 0.001) compared with HFrEF.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HFmrEF share most phenotypic characteristics with HFpEF, including the degree of microvascular impairment and fibrosis, but have a high prevalence of occult ischaemic heart disease similar to HFrEF. Further work is needed to confirm how the phenotype of HFmrEF responds to medical therapy.

Sex Differences in Heart Failure Mortality with Preserved, Mildly Reduced and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Large-Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Studies show that women have better survival rates than men despite higher hospitalizations. However, little is known about differences in mortality and predictors of death in women and men with HF with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

From February 2017 to September 2020, mortality and predictors of death were analyzed in women and men with HF. Baseline data included clinical characteristics and echocardiographic findings.

RESULTS

A total of 11,282 patients, 63.9 ± 14.4 years, including 6256 (55.4%) males, were studied. Females were older, had a higher baseline mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and lower left ventricular diastolic diameter. During follow-ups, 1375 (22%) men and 925 (18.4%) women died. Cumulative incidence of death was higher in men with HFrEF but similar for HFmrEF and HFpEF. Cox regression for death showed renal dysfunction, stroke, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, age, LVEF, valve disease, MI, and hypertensive CMP as independent death predictors for all HF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Women had a better prognosis than men in HFrEF and similar mortality for HFmrEF and HFpEF, but sex was not an independent predictor of death for all HF subtypes.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with heart failure with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction in Spain

AIMS

To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Spain.  METHODS: Adults with ≥ 1 HF diagnosis and ≥ 1 year of continuous enrolment before the corresponding index date (1/January/2016) were identified through the BIG-PAC database. Rate per 100 person-years of all-cause and HF-related HCRU during the year after the index date were estimated using bootstrapping with replacement.

RESULTS

Twenty-one thousand two hundred ninety-seven patients were included, of whom 48.5% had HFrEF, 38.6% HFpEF and 4.2% HFmrEF, with the rest being of unknown EF. Mean age was 78.8 ± 11.8 years, 53.0% were men and 83.0% were in NYHA functional class II/III. At index, 67.3% of patients were taking renin angiotensin system inhibitors, 61.2% beta blockers, 23.4% aldosterone antagonists and 5.2% SGLT2 inhibitors. Rates of HF-related outpatient visits and hospitalization were 968.8 and 51.6 per 100 person-years, respectively. Overall, 31.23% of patients were hospitalized, mainly because of HF (87.88% of total hospitalizations); HF hospitalization length 21.06 ± 17.49 days (median 16; 25th, 75th percentile 9-27). HF hospitalizations were the main cost component: inpatient 73.64%, pharmacy 9.67%, outpatient 9.43%, and indirect cost 7.25%. Rates of all-cause and HF-related HCRU and healthcare cost were substantial across all HF subgroups, being higher among HFrEF compared to HFmrEF and HFpEF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

HCRU and cost associated with HF are high in Spain, HF hospitalizations being the main determinant. Medication cost represented only a small proportion of total costs, suggesting that an optimization of HF therapy may reduce HF burden.

Prevalence, Characteristics, Management and Outcomes of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved, Mildly Reduced, and Reduced Ejection Fraction in Spain

Objective: To estimate the prevalence, incidence, and describe the characteristics and management of patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Spain. Methods: Adults with ≥1 inpatient or outpatient HF diagnosis between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2019 were identified through the BIG-PAC database. Annual incidence and prevalence by EF phenotype were estimated. Characteristics by EF phenotype were described in the 2016 and 2019 HF prevalent cohorts and outcomes in the 2016 HF prevalent cohort. Results: Overall, HF incidence and prevalence were 0.32/100 person-years and 2.34%, respectively, but increased every year. In 2019, 49.3% had HFrEF, 38.1% had HFpEF, and 4.3% had HFmrEF (in 8.3%, EF was not available). Compared with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF were largely female, older, and had more atrial fibrillation but less atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Among patients with HFrEF, 76.3% were taking renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, 69.5% beta-blockers, 36.8% aldosterone antagonists, 12.5% sacubitril/valsartan and 6.7% SGLT2 inhibitors. Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF took fewer HF drugs compared to HFrEF. Overall, the event rates of HF hospitalization were 231.6/1000 person-years, which is more common in HFrEF patients. No clinically relevant differences were found in patients with HFpEF, regardless EF (50- < 60% vs. ≥60%). Conclusions: >2% of patients have HF, of which around 50% have HFrEF and 40% have HFpEF. The prevalence of HF is increasing over time. Clinical characteristics by EF phenotype are consistent with previous studies. The risk of outcomes, particularly HF hospitalization, remains high, likely related to insufficient HF treatment.

Long-term mortality in heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) have overlapping clinical features, compared with patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aim to perform a meta-analysis of studies reporting long-term outcomes in HFmrEF compared with HFrEF and HFpEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 18 eligible large-scale studies including 126 239 patients were pooled. Patients with HFmrEF had a lower risk of all-cause death than those with HFrEF [risk ratio (RR) = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.85-0.98; P < 0.001]. This significant difference was seen in the follow-up at 1, 2, and 3 years. Patients with HFmrEF had significantly lower risk of cardiovascular (CV) deaths than HFrEF (RR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.65-0.92; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that studies recruiting >50% of males had higher risk of deaths with HFrEF (RR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.04-1.26; P = 0.006). When compared with HFpEF, patients with HFmrEF had comparable risk of all-cause death (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.96-1.09; P = 0.53). Similarly, there were no differences in the 1, 2, and 3 year deaths; CV and non-CV deaths were insignificant between HFmrEF and HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study support that HFmrEF has better prognosis than HFrEF but similar prognosis when compared with HFpEF. Gender disparity between studies seems to influence the results between HFmrEF and HFrEF. Transition in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which could not be addressed in the study, may play a decisive role in determining outcomes. PROSPERO review registration number CRD42021277107.

[Pharmacological treatment of the heart failure according to the ventricular ejection fraction in primary care]

Objetivo

Aunque se dispone de mejores diagnósticos y tratamientos, la insuficiencia cardíaca (IC) es una causa importante de muerte en España. El objetivo de este estudio es describir el tratamiento y las características de la población con IC crónica, clasificada según la fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo (FEVI).

Diseño

Estudio observacional de cohortes de base poblacional en atención primaria (AP).

Emplazamiento

Cataluña, 2014-2018.

Participantes

Se incluyeron pacientes adultos con diagnóstico incidente de IC clasificada según la FEVI.

Intervención

Análisis de los datos de salud registrados en la base de datos Sistema de Información para el Desarrollo de la Investigación en AP (SIDIAP).

Variables principales

Demográficas, FEVI, comorbilidades y uso de fármacos para la IC.

Resultados

Se incluyeron 10.130 pacientes; el 18,9% con FEVI < 40 (ICFEr), el 15,9% con FEVI 40-49 (ICFEi) y el 65,2% con FEVI ≥ 50 (ICFEp), este último grupo con mayor proporción de mujeres (57,5%) y una mayor edad media (80,2 años). La población con ICFEi era similar a la de ICFEr en edad, género, comorbilidades o tratamiento. Las comorbilidades más frecuentes eran la hipertensión (78.3%), la dislipemia (54%) y la fibrilación auricular (41,5%). Los tratamientos más frecuentes fueron los β-bloqueantes, con diferencias según la FEVI (FEVIr 1.515 [79,2%], FEVIi 1.142 [70,8%] y FEVIp 3.371 [51,0%]), seguido de los diuréticos de asa (65,7%).

Conclusiones

El tratamiento farmacológico de la IC varía en función de la FEVI. El tratamiento y las características poblacionales de los pacientes con ICFEi son similares a aquellos con ICFEr.

Risk factors of short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term cardiac events in patients hospitalized for HFmrEF

AIMS

Clinical data on the prognostic determinants over varying periods within the same cohort of heart failure with mid-range or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remain scarce. This study aimed to identify the short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risk factors of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients hospitalized for HFmrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study included 1691 consecutive HFmrEF patients admitted to our hospital between January 2015 and August 2020. Baseline data including clinical characteristics, laboratory and cardiac imaging examinations were obtained. Patients completed at least 1 year clinical follow-up after discharge by telephone interview, clinical visit, or community visit. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of CV death or rehospitalization for heart failure (CV events) at 3, 12, and 33 months after the diagnosis of HFmrEF. Mean age of the whole cohort was 69 (61-77) years and 64.8% were male. The median clinical follow-up was 33 (20-50) months. CV events were 17.5%, 28.2%, and 57.8% at 3, 12, and 33 months after discharge, respectively. Independent risk factors for CV events were uric acid >382 μmol/L, creatinine >100 μmol/L, N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) > 3368 pg/mL and haemoglobin <120 g/L for men and <110 g/L for women at 3 and 12 months. Pulmonary artery systolic pressure >35 mmHg and the ratio of early transmitral flow velocity to early mitral annular velocity >18 served as independent risk factors for CV events at 12 months. At 33 months, uric acid > 382 μmol/L, NT-proBNP >3368 pg/mL, and pulmonary artery systolic pressure >35 mmHg were the independent risk factors of CV events.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher uric acid, creatinine, NT-proBNP, and lower haemoglobin levels at baseline are valuable serum biomarkers for risk stratification of short-term and long-term CV outcomes of HFmrEF patients. Future studies are needed to verify if intensive heart failure therapy for identified high-risk HFmrEF patients based on these four serum biomarkers could improve their short-term and long-term CV outcomes or not.

Five-year mortality of heart failure with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction in a 4880 Chinese cohort

Aims

Available evidence is incomplete and inconsistent in the outcomes of heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). There are also limited data on the proportions and long‐term prognosis among the three HF phenotypes in China. We aimed to characterize the 5 year prognosis in three HF phenotypes according to EF in a cohort of hospitalized HF patients undergoing coronary angiography in southern China.

Methods and results

Hospitalized patients with HF were enrolled from the Cardiorenal ImprovemeNt registry (CIN; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04407936) between January 2007 and December 2014. HF phenotypes were defined as HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%), HFmrEF (EF 41–49%), and HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%). Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to examine differences in 5 year outcomes in HF patients with different phenotypes. A total of 4880 HF patients [mean age: 61.8 ± 10.3, male: 3156 (64.7%)] were included: 2768 (57%) had HFpEF, 1015 (21%) had HFmrEF, and 1097 (22%) had HFrEF. Patients with HFrEF were older than those with HFpEF (62.5 ± 10.6 vs. 61.3 ± 10.1, P < 0.001) and more likely to be male (78.0% vs. 55.9%, P < 0.001). With 5 year follow‐up through the end of December 2019, 1624 (27.6%) patients died. Controlling confounding variables, declined EF category was independently associated with increased 5 year mortality {HFrEF 25.2% vs. HFpEF 13.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.85 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45 to 2.35]; HFmrEF 18.1% vs. HFpEF 13.4%, aHR: 1.40 [95% CI: 1.08 to 1.81]; HFrEF 25.2% vs. HFmrEF 18.1%, aHR: 1.32 [95% CI: 1.02 to 1.71]}.

Conclusions

In this Chinese cohort, patients with HFrEF account for less than a fourth of HF patients. One‐sixth individuals with HF died in 5 years. HFrEF was associated with a nearly two‐fold increased risk of 5 year mortality than HFpEF. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of improving treatment on outcomes in all three HF phenotypes.

A comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure with preserved versus mildly reduced versus reduced ejection fraction - insights from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

AIMS

To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17).

CONCLUSION

In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.

Beta-blockers are associated with reverse remodeling in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and mid-range ejection fraction

Background

Beta-blockers have been shown to induce left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aimed to determine whether beta-blockers could induce LVRR in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Methods

We analyzed the national database from clinical personal records of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) maintained by Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, between 2003 and 2014. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥40% and < 50% were included. Patients who did not have echocardiography at 2 years of follow-up were excluded. Eligible patients were divided into two groups according to the use of beta-blockers. Patient characteristics of two groups were adjusted by propensity score matching. The primary outcome was LVRR at 2 years of follow-up, defined as an improvement in LVEF ≥10%.

Results

Out of 3064 patients, propensity score matching yielded 602 pairs. The mean age was 59.3 years and 896 patients (74.4%) were male. The primary outcome was observed more frequently in beta-blocker group (24.3% vs. 17.8%; Odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.96; P = 0.006). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with heart rate ≥ 75 bpm (≥ 75 bpm; OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.66-4.11: < 75 bpm; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.72-1.48; P for interaction = 0.002) and atrial fibrillation (AF) (AF; OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.37-3.86: No AF; OR 1.23; 95% CI, 0.88-1.72; P for interaction = 0.046) were benefited by beta-blockers.

Conclusions

Beta-blockers could induce LVRR in patients with DCM and HFmrEF.

Similarities and Differences Between HFmrEF and HFpEF

The new guidelines classify heart failure (HF) into three subgroups based on the ejection fraction (EF): HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). The new guidelines regarding the declaration of HFmrEF as a unique phenotype have achieved the goal of stimulating research on the basic characteristics, pathophysiology, and treatment of HF patients with a left ventricular EF of 40-49%. Patients with HFmrEF have more often been described as an intermediate population between HFrEF and HFpEF patients; however, with regard to etiology and clinical indicators, they are more similar to the HFrEF population. Concerning clinical prognosis, they are closer to HFpEF because both populations have a good prognosis and quality of life. Meanwhile, growing evidence indicates that HFmrEF and HFpEF show heterogeneity in presentation and pathophysiology, and the emergence of this heterogeneity often plays a crucial role in the prognosis and treatment of the disease. To date, the exact mechanisms and effective treatment strategies of HFmrEF and HFpEF are still poorly understood, but some of the current evidence, from observational studies and post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials, have shown that patients with HFmrEF may benefit more from HFrEF treatment strategies, such as beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sacubitril/valsartan. This review summarizes available data from current clinical practice and mechanistic studies in terms of epidemiology, etiology, clinical indicators, mechanisms, and treatments to discuss the potential association between HFmrEF and HFpEF patients.

Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: Every Coin Has Two Sides

This review summarizes current knowledge regarding clinical epidemiology, pathophysiology, and prognosis for patients with HFmrEF in comparison to HFrEF and HFpEF. Although recommended treatments currently focus on aggressive management of comorbidities, we summarize potentially beneficial therapies that can delay the process of heart failure by blocking the pathophysiology mechanism. More studies are needed to further characterize HFmrEF and identify effective management strategies that can reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of patients with HFmrEF.

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.

A Mouse Model Suggests That Heart Failure and Its Common Comorbidity Sleep Fragmentation Have No Synergistic Impacts on the Gut Microbiome

Heart failure (HF) is a common condition associated with a high rate of hospitalizations and adverse outcomes. HF is characterized by impairments of either the cardiac ventricular filling, ejection of blood capacity or both. Sleep fragmentation (SF) involves a series of short sleep interruptions that lead to fatigue and contribute to cognitive impairments and dementia. Both conditions are known to be associated with increased inflammation and dysbiosis of the gut microbiota. In the present study, mice were distributed into four groups, and subjected for four weeks to either HF, SF, both HF and SF, or left unperturbed as controls. We used 16S metabarcoding to assess fecal microbiome composition before and after the experiments. Evidence for distinct alterations in several bacterial groups and an overall decrease in alpha diversity emerged in HF and SF treatment groups. Combined HF and SF conditions, however, showed no synergism, and observed changes were not always additive, suggesting preliminarily that some of the individual effects of either HF or SF cancel each other out when applied concomitantly.

Heart Failure With Mid-range or Recovered Ejection Fraction: Differential Determinants of Transition

The recent definition of an intermediate clinical phenotype of heart failure (HF) based on an ejection fraction (EF) of between 40% and 49%, namely HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), has fuelled investigations into the clinical profile and prognosis of this patient group. HFmrEF shares common clinical features with other HF phenotypes, such as a high prevalence of ischaemic aetiology, as in HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), or hypertension and diabetes, as in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), and benefits from the cornerstone drugs indicated for HFrEF. Among the HF phenotypes, HFmrEF is characterised by the highest rate of transition to either recovery or worsening of the severe systolic dysfunction profile that is the target of disease-modifying therapies, with opposite prognostic implications. This article focuses on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics and therapeutic approaches for HFmrEF, and discusses the major determinants of transition to HFpEF or HFrEF.

Echocardiographic parameters associated with recovery in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to determine the clinical and echocardiographic parameters of patients with recovered heart failure (HFrecEF).

METHODOLOGY

Sixty-seven patients (cases) were identified as heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF), defined as improvement in EF ≥ 10%. Sixty-nine patients (controls) were randomly selected by convenience sampling with no or <10% improvement in EF (HFrEF non-recovered).

RESULTS

The mean interval between baseline and follow-up echocardiography was 10.5 months in cases and 11.2 months in the control group. HFrecEF showed a 22.7% improvement in mean ejection fraction, and HFrEF non-recovered group also showed a minor increment of 5.5%. HFrecEF patients were significantly younger (49.51 vs 57.54 years, P .001) with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (86.6% vs 52.2%). Patients with HFrecEF had significantly less left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (LVEDV: 162.51 mL vs 208.54 mL, P < .001; LVESV: 119.81 mL vs 157.13 mL, P < .001) and index left atrial volume (37.66 mL vs 47.09 mL, P < .001) than patients with non-recovered EF. The right ventricle (RV) and inferior vena cava were significantly dilated with higher mean tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) among patients with HFrecEF than HFrEF non-recovered.

CONCLUSION

Based on univariate analysis, younger age, non-ischemic etiology, LVEDV, LVESV, deceleration time, better TAPSE, dilated right ventricle, dilated IVC, and smaller left atrial volumes were found significant, but on multivariate logistic regression model only left ventricle end-diastolic volume, left atrial volume, and TAPSE were linked to the recovery of ejection fraction.

Echocardiographic and Clinical Correlates of Ejection Fraction Among 2000 Patients with Heart Failure in Western Saudi Arabia

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) affects about 320,000 Saudi individuals and is associated with a considerable negative impact on the patients’ quality of life. In literature, there is a lack of data about the echocardiographic abnormalities of HF patients in Saudi Arabia.

Aim of Work

To describe the echocardiographic findings of HF patients in Western Saudi Arabia.

Methodology

This was a retrospective record review study conducted on 2000 patients with chronic HF in Saudi Arabia. Demographic, clinical and echocardiographic data were collected and compared among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ie, EF≤40%; HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), ie, EF=41–49%; and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), ie, EF≥50%.

Results

Among the 2000 patients studied, females constituted 46.3% of the sample. About 52% of females had HFpEF, whilst 70% of males had HFrEF (p<0.0001). Diastolic dysfunction occurred in 98% of HFpEF versus 78% of HFrEF (p<0.0001). Patients with HFrEF had higher left-ventricular diastolic (LVd) volume (1536 versus 826), higher left-ventricular systolic (LVs) volume (1660 vs 772), higher left atrial volume (1344 vs 875), higher aortic root dimension (1144 vs 929) and lower fractional shortening (FS) (267 vs 1213) than patients with HFpEF (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

HFpEF was more common among females and was associated with higher rates of diastolic dysfunction and higher FS. HFrEF was prevalent among males and associated with higher LVd, LVs, left atrium volume and aortic root dimensions.

Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form is a morbi-mortality predictor in outpatients with heart failure and mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nutritional status is an important prognostic factor in patients with heart failure (HF). In a pilot study we previously observed that the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form tool (MNA-SF) was the best approach for the screening of nutritional status in HF outpatients over other screening tools. The current study aimed to determine whether the MNA-SF has prognostic value in outpatients with HF and whether the impact of malnutrition differs depending on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

Prospective study performed in outpatients attending a HF clinic at a university hospital. All subjects completed the MNA-SF at study entry. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary end-points were the number of recurrent HF-related hospitalizations and the composite end-point of all-cause death or HF-related hospitalizations. Patients with malnutrition and at risk of malnutrition were merged and considered as having abnormal nutritional status for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

From October 2016 to November 2017, 555 patients were included (age 69 ± 11.5 years, 71% male, LVEF 44.6 ± 13.2). Abnormal nutritional status was identified in 103 (18.6%) subjects. HF patients with preserved LVEF had a higher proportion of abnormal nutritional status (23%) than patients with HF and mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF) (16.4%) or those with HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF) (15.9%.). During a mean follow-up of 23.8 ± 6.6 months, 99 patients died (17.8%), 74 were hospitalized due to HF (13.3%) and the composite end-point was observed in 181 (32.6%). In the univariate analysis, abnormal nutritional status was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (p = 0.02) and the composite end-point (p = 0.02) in the total cohort. However, in the multivariate analysis including age, sex, NYHA functional class, BMI, ischemic aetiology, diabetes, hypertension and HF duration, abnormal nutritional status remained significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR 3.32 [95%CI 1.47-7.52], p = 0.004), and the composite end-point (HR 2.53 [95%CI 1.30-4.94], p = 0.006) only in HFmrEF patients. Patients with abnormal nutritional status suffered double the crude number of recurrent HF-related hospitalizations (16.4 vs. 8.4 per 100 patients-years, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of MNA-SF as a routine screening tool allowed the detection of abnormal nutritional status in almost one out of five ambulatory HF patients. Nutritional status assessed by the MNA-SF was an independent predictor of all-cause death and the composite end-point of all-cause death or HF-related hospitalization in outpatients with HFmrEF. Furthermore, abnormal nutritional status was significantly related to recurrent hospitalizations across the HF spectrum.

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.

Noncardiac Versus Cardiac Mortality in Heart Failure With Preserved, Midrange, and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

A thorough analysis of noncardiac determinants of mortality in heart failure (HF) is missing. Furthermore, evidence conflicts on the outcome of patients with HF and no or mild systolic dysfunction. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of noncardiac and cardiac causes of death in a cohort of chronic HF patients, covering the whole spectrum of systolic function.

Methods and Results

We enrolled 2791 stable HF patients, classified into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction [EF] <40%), HR with midrange EF (HFmrEF; left ventricular EF 41–49%), or HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; left ventricular EF ≥50%), and followed up for all‐cause, cardiac, and noncardiac mortality (adjudicated as due to cancer, sepsis, respiratory disease, renal disease, or other causes). Over follow‐up of 39 months, adjusted mortality was lower in HFpEF and HFmrEF versus HFrEF (hazard ratio: 0.75 [95% CI, 0.67–0.84], P<0.001 for HFpEF; hazard ratio: 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63–0.96], P=0.017 for HFmrEF). HFrEF had the highest rates of cardiac death, whereas noncardiac mortality was similar across left ventricular EF categories. Noncardiac causes accounted for 62% of deaths in HFpEF, 54% in HFmrEF and 35% in HFrEF; cancer was twice as frequent as a cause of death in HFpEF and HFmrEF versus HFrEF. Yearly rates of noncardiac death exceeded those of cardiac death since the beginning of follow‐up in HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Conclusions

Noncardiac death is a major determinant of outcome in stable HF, exceeding cardiac‐related mortality in HFpEF and HFmrHF. Comorbidities should be regarded as main therapeutic targets and objects of dedicated quality improvement initiatives, especially in patients with no or mild systolic dysfunction.

Survival of patients with chronic heart failure in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To provide reliable survival estimates for people with chronic heart failure and explain variation in survival by key factors including age at diagnosis, left ventricular ejection fraction, decade of diagnosis, and study setting.

Methods and results

We searched in relevant databases from inception to August 2018 for non‐interventional studies reporting survival rates for patients with chronic or stable heart failure in any ambulatory setting. Across the 60 included studies, there was survival data for 1.5 million people with heart failure. In our random effects meta‐analyses the pooled survival rates at 1 month, 1, 2, 5 and 10 years were 95.7% (95% confidence interval 94.3–96.9), 86.5% (85.4–87.6), 72.6% (67.0–76.6), 56.7% (54.0–59.4) and 34.9% (24.0–46.8), respectively. The 5‐year survival rates improved between 1970–1979 and 2000–2009 across healthcare settings, from 29.1% (25.5–32.7) to 59.7% (54.7–64.6). Increasing age at diagnosis was significantly associated with a reduced survival time. Mortality was lowest in studies conducted in secondary care, where there were higher reported prescribing rates of key heart failure medications. There was significant heterogeneity among the included studies in terms of heart failure diagnostic criteria, participant co‐morbidities, and treatment rates.

Conclusion

These results can inform health policy and individual patient advanced care planning. Mortality associated with chronic heart failure remains high despite steady improvements in survival. There remains significant scope to improve prognosis through greater implementation of evidence‐based treatments. Further research exploring the barriers and facilitators to treatment is recommended.

Serial Changes in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Outcomes in Outpatients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Limited data exist on the course of left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) among outpatients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and its impact on outcomes. We evaluated 322 consecutive outpatients with confirmed HF, LVEF >40%, no previous LVEF ≤40%, and no specific cardiomyopathies or primary right-sided or valvular heart disease. Median age was 73 years (interquartile range: 63 to 82); 57.1% were women, 50.3% White, and 45.0% Black; median LVEF was 55% (50% to 60%); and 45.6% had coronary artery disease. After a median of 37 months (32 to 38) and 4.5 follow-up echocardiograms (4 to 6) per patient, 11.4% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.2% to 17.7%) developed LVEF <40%. The average drop in LVEF among these patients was 19.4 units (95%CI 15.0 to 23.8) to an average LVEF of 30.3% (95%CI 27.4% to 33.2%). Baseline systolic blood pressure >130 mm Hg was associated with more LVEF decline. During follow-up, 50 patients died (3-year mortality 15.3%) and 67 additional patients were hospitalized for HF (3-year death plus HF hospitalization 35.6%). Development of LVEF <40% was subsequently followed by 5-fold higher mortality in time-updated models (adjusted HR 4.91; 95%CI 2.00 to 12.0; p = 0.001) and 3.5-fold higher rates of death or HF hospitalization (adjusted HR 3.70; 95%CI 1.67 to 8.19; p = 0.001). Interval coronary events were infrequent (10%) among patients with deteriorated LVEF. The impact of LVEF changes on outcomes was similar in White and Black patients. In conclusion, a proportion of patients with HFpEF will develop reduced LVEF over time. These patients have worse prognosis subsequently.

Predictors of cardiac function in acute heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction: AURORA study

AIM

The factors correlated with prognosis in heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is unclear, especially for acute heart failure (AHF) with HFmrEF. Thus, we investigated the factors correlated with the improvement in the ejection fraction (EF) over 1 year in AHF patients with HFmrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In Acute Heart Failure Registry in the Osaka Rosai Hospital, we examined 159 consecutive HFmrEF patients out of 1051 HF patients who were admitted to our hospital for AHF from January 2015 to December 2017. We divided them into improved EF (IM) group whose EF improved (≧10%) and non-IM group who had no improvement. We compared the baseline characteristics, echocardiographic data, medications, examinations for ischaemia, invasive treatments, and clinical outcomes between IM group and non-IM group. IM group consisted of 21 patients (20%). IM group had a significantly more de novo heart failure, higher serum albumin (Alb), lower EF, smaller left ventricular dimension during diastole, more frequent coronary angiogram during hospitalization, and coronary intervention. Multivariate analysis revealed that Alb, left ventricular dimension during diastole, and coronary angiogram performed during hospitalization were independently associated with the improvement in the EF. In addition, IM group had less rehospitalizations over 1 year and a greater reduction in the B-type natriuretic peptide level during the follow-up than non-IM group.

CONCLUSIONS

In AHF patients with HFmrEF, we should evaluate for any ischaemic heart disease during hospitalization, especially in patients with non-enlarged left ventricular and non-reduced serum Alb. AHF patients with HFmrEF who showed improvement in the EF tended to have better prognosis than those without improvement.

Clinical Characteristics and Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction

According to recent guidelines, a new category of patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HFmrEF) (LVEF = 40%-49%) has been defined. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with HFmrEF. This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study in which we examined the clinical characteristics and outcomes of 494 consecutive patients with acute decompensated heart failure who were admitted to our institution between January 2014 and December 2016. Of this population, 282 (57.1%), 75 (15.2%), and 137 (48.6%) patients had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HFmrEF, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), respectively. Ischemic heart disease was the primary etiology in HFmrEF and HFrEF. At the time of discharge, β-blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were more frequently prescribed in HFmrEF than in HFpEF. The composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality and HF readmission was significantly lower in HFmrEF than in HFrEF. Further studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of the management of coronary artery disease and cardioprotective medications for HFmrEF.

Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF have different clinical characteristics in Turkey: A multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

To determine and compare the demographic characteristics, clinical profile and management of patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a Turkish cohort.

METHODS

The APOLLON trial (A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mid-range and preserved ejection fractiON) is an observational and multicenter study conducted in Turkey. Consecutive patients admitted to the cardiology clinics who were at least 18 years of age and had HFmrEF or HFpEF were included (NCT03026114).

RESULTS

The study population included 1065 (mean age of 67.1 ± 10.6 years, 54% women) patients from 12 sites in Turkey. Among participants, 246 (23.1%) had HFmrEF and 819 (76.9%) had HFpEF. Compared to patients with HFpEF, those with HFmrEF were more likely to be male (57.7 vs 42.2%; p < 0.001), had higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels (853 vs 528 pg/ml, p < 0.001), were more likely to have ECG abnormalities (72.4 vs 53.5%, p < 0.001) and hospitalization history for heart failure (28 vs 18.6%; p = 0.002). HFmrEF patients were more likely to use β-blockers (69.9 vs 55.2%, p < 0.001), aldosterone receptor antagonists (24 vs 14.7%, p = 0.001), statins (37 vs 23%, p < .001), and loop diuretics (39.8 vs 30.5%, p = 0.006) compared to patients with HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of APOLLON study support that the basic characteristics and etiology of HFmrEF are significantly different from HFpEF. This registry also showed that the patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF were younger but undertreated in Turkey compared to patients in western countries.

The prognosis of mid-range ejection fraction heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Mid-range ejection fraction is a new entity of heart failure (HF) with undetermined prognosis till now. In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the mortality and hospitalization rates in mid-range ejection fraction HF (HFmrEF) and compare them with those of reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction HF (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted our search in March 2018 in the following databases for relevant articles: PubMed, CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, NYAM, SIEGLE, GHL, VHL, and POPLINE. Our primary endpoint was assessing all-cause mortality and all-cause hospital re-admission rates in HFmrEF in comparison with HFrEF and HFpEF. Secondary endpoints were the possible causes of death and hospital re-admission. Twenty-five articles were included in our meta-analysis with a total of 606 762 adult cardiac patients. Our meta-analysis showed that HFmrEF had a lower rate of all-cause death than had HFrEF [relative risk (RR), 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.94]. HFpEF showed a higher rate of cardiac mortality than did HFmrEF (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16). Also, HFrEF had a higher rate of non-cardiac mortality than had HFmrEF (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.41).

CONCLUSIONS

We detected a significant difference between HFrEF and HFmrEF regarding all-cause death, and non-cardiac death, while HFpEF differed significantly from HFmrEF regarding cardiac death.

Is heart failure with mid range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) a distinct clinical entity or an overlap group?

Background

The new category of heart failure (HF), Heart Failure with mid range Ejection Fraction (HFmrEF) has recently been proposed with recent publications reporting that HFmrEF represents a transitional phase. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with HFmrEF and to establish what proportion of patients transitioned to other types of HF, and how this affected clinical outcomes.

Methods and results

Patients were diagnosed with HF according to the 2016 ESC guidelines. Clinical outcomes and variables were recorded for all consecutive in-patients referred to the heart failure service. In total, 677 patients with new HF were identified; 25.6% with HFpEF, 21% with HFmrEF and 53.5% with HFrEF. While clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of HFmrEF were intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF, HFmrEF patients had the best outcome, with higher mortality in the HFrEF population (p 0.02) and higher HF rehospitalisation rates in the HFpEF population (p < 0.01).38.7% of the HFmrEF patients transitioned (56.4% to HFpEF and 43.6% to HFrEF) with fewest deaths in the patients that transitioned to HFpEF (p 0.04), and fewest HF readmissions in the patients that remained as HFmrEF (<0.01).

Conclusion

HFmrEF patients had the best outcomes, compared to high rates of mortality seen in patients with HFrEF and high rates of HF readmissions seen in patients with HFpEF. Only 1/3 of HFmrEF patients transitioned during follow up, with the lowest mortality seen in patients transitioning to HFpEF.