Noncardiovascular morbidity and mortality across left ventricular ejection fraction categories following hospitalization for heart failure

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Noncardiovascular events represent a significant proportion of the morbidity and mortality burden in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the risk of these events appears to differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) status. In this study, we sought to evaluate the risk of noncardiovascular death and recurrent noncardiovascular readmission by LVEF status following an admission for acute HF.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed a cohort of 4595 patients discharged after acute HF in a multicenter registry. We evaluated LVEF as a continuum, stratified in 4 categories (LVEF ≤ 40%, 41%-49%, 50%-59%, and ≥ 60%). Study endpoints were the risks of noncardiovascular mortality and recurrent noncardiovascular admissions during follow-up.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 2.2 [interquartile range, 0.76-4.8] years, we registered 646 noncardiovascular deaths and 4014 noncardiovascular readmissions. After multivariable adjustment including cardiovascular events as a competing event, LVEF status was associated with the risk of noncardiovascular mortality and recurrent noncardiovascular admissions. When compared with patients with LVEF ≤ 40%, those with LVEF 51%-59%, and especially those with LVEF ≥ 60%, were at higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.31; 95%CI, 1.02-1,68; P=.032; and HR, 1.47; 95%CI, 1.15-1.86; P=.002; respectively), and at higher risk of recurrent noncardiovascular admissions (IRR, 1.17; 95%CI, 1.02-1.35; P=.024; and IRR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.11-1.45; P=.001; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Following an admission for HF, LVEF status was directly associated with the risk of noncardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Patients with HFpEF were at higher risk of noncardiovascular death and total noncardiovascular readmissions, especially those with LVEF ≥ 60%.

Differences in clinical outcomes, health care resource utilization and costs in heart failure patients according to left ventricular ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on health care resource utilization (HCRU) and cost in heart failure (HF) patients is not well known. We aimed to compare outcomes, HCRUs and costs according to LVEF groups.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational study of all patients with an emergency department (ED) visit or admission to a tertiary hospital in Spain 2018 with a primary HF diagnosis. We excluded patients with newly diagnosed heart failure. One-year clinical outcomes, costs and HCRUs were compared according to LVEF (reduced [HFrEF], mildly reduced [HFmrEF], and preserved [HFpEF]).

RESULTS

Among 1287 patients with a primary diagnosis of HF in the ED, 365 (28.4%) were discharged to home (ED group), and 919 (71.4%) were hospitalized (hospital group [HG]). In total, 190 patients (14.7%) had HFrEF, 146 (11.4%) HFmrEF, and 951 (73.9%) HFpEF. The mean age was 80.1±10.7 years; 57.1% were female. The median [interquartile range] of costs per patient/y was €1889 [259-6269] in the ED group and €5008 [2747-9589] in the HG (P <.001). Hospitalization rates were higher in patients with HFrEF in the ED group. The median costs of HFrEF per patient/y were higher in patients in both groups: €4763 [2076-17 155] vs €3900 [590-8013] for HFmrEF vs €3812 [259-5486] for HFpEF in the ED group, and €6321 [3335-796] vs €6170 [3189-10484] vs €4636 [2609-8977], respectively, in the hospital group (all P <.001). This difference was driven by the more frequent admission to intensive care units, and greater use of diagnostic and therapeutic tests among HFrEF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In HF, LVEF significantly impacts costs and HCRU. Costs were higher in patients with HFrEF, especially those requiring hospitalization, than in those with HFpEF.

Prognostic utility of pulse pressure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: The RICA Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The prognostic role of pulse pressure (PP) in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is not well understood. Our aim was to evaluate it in acute and stable HF.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This work is a retrospective observational study of patients included in the RICA registry between 2008 and 2021. Blood pressure was collected on admission (decompensation) and 3 months later on an outpatient basis (stability). Patients were categorized according to whether the PP was greater or less than 50 mmHg. All-cause mortality was assessed at 1 year after admission.

RESULTS

A total of 2291 patients were included, with mean age 80.1 ± 7.7 years. 62.9% were women and 16.7% had a history of coronary heart disease. In the acute phase, there was no difference in mortality according to PP values, but in the stable phase PP < 50 mmHg was independently associated with all-cause mortality at 1-year follow-up (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.21-2.05, p = 0.001), after adjusting for age, sex, New York Heart Association functional class, previous HF, chronic kidney disease, valvular heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, score on the Barthel and Pfeiffer scales, haemoglobin and sodium levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Low stable-phase PP was associated with increased all-cause mortality in HF patients with preserved LVEF. However, PP was not useful as a prognostic marker of mortality in acute HF. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship of this variable with mortality in HF patients.

Effect of remote ischemic postconditioning on left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Ischemic conditioning may help patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to limit ventricular remodeling.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of remote ischemic postconditioning (RIPC) on left ventricular function during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in patients with STEMI.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pre- and post-test intervention study with a total of 60 STEMI patients. Patients were divided in two groups: with and without RIPC.

RESULTS

During the 6-month follow-up, a significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction was observed in patients who underwent PPCI, which was higher in the group with RIPC in comparison with the group without RIPC: 1.0% (-1.0 to 4.3) vs. -1.0% (-4.0 to 1.3), p = 0.033. In addition, at 6-month measurement, left ventricular end-systolic volume in patients without RIPC was higher in comparison with their counterparts: 79.3 ± 30.5 mL vs. 64.4 ± 21.4 mL, p = 0.032.

CONCLUSIONS

RIPC shows favorable effects on left ventricular function and, therefore, in the future, it could be a potential cardioprotective strategy against ischemia-reperfusion injury in STEMI patients.

Prognostic Impact and Predictors of Ejection Fraction Recovery in Patients With Alcoholic Cardiomyopathy

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been described in alcoholic cardiomyopathy (ACM) after a period of alcohol withdrawal. Nevertheless, the prognostic impact of LVEF recovery in ACM and its determinants have not been studied. We sought to define the role of LVEF improvement in the long-term outcome of ACM and to identify predictors of LVEF recovery in these patients.

METHODS

We evaluated 101 ACM patients during a median follow-up period of 82 months [interquartile range 36-134].

RESULTS

At latest follow-up, 42 patients (42%) showed substantial LVEF recovery defined as an absolute increase in LVEF ≥ 10% to a final value of ≥ 40%. Patients who recovered LVEF had better outcomes than patients who did not (heart transplant or cardiovascular death 1% vs 30%; P <.001). A QRS with <120ms (OR, 6.68; 95%CI, 2.30-19.41), beta-blocker therapy (OR, 3.01; 95%CI, 1.09-8.28), and the absence of diuretics (OR, 3.35; 95%CI, 1.08-10.42) predicted LVEF recovery in multivariate analysis. Although alcohol cessation did not predict LVEF recovery, none of the patients (n=6) who persisted with heavy alcohol consumption recovered LVEF. The rate of patients who recovered LVEF did not differ between abstainers and moderate drinkers (44% vs 45%; P=.9).

CONCLUSIONS

The LVEF recovery is associated with an excellent prognosis in ACM. Beta-blocker treatment, QRS <120ms and absence of diuretics are independent predictors of LVEF recovery. LVEF recovery is similar in moderate drinkers and abstainers.

Determinants and Prognostic Impact of Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Acute Coronary Syndrome Settings

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Contemporary data on the incidence and prognosis of heart failure (HF) and the influence of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the setting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are scant. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between LVEF and HF with long-term prognosis in a cohort of patients with ACS.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study of 6208 patients consecutively admitted for ACS to 2 different Spanish hospitals. Baseline characteristics were examined and a follow-up period was established for registration of death and HF rehospitalization as the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Among the study participants, 5064 had ACS without HF during hospitalization: 290 (5.8%) had LVEF<40%, 540 (10.6%) LVEF 40% to 49%, and 4234 (83.6%) LVEF ≥ 50%. The remaining 1144 patients developed HF in the acute phase: 395 (34.6%) had LVEF<40%, 251 (21.9%) LVEF 40% to 49%, and 498 (43.5%) LVEF ≥ 50%. Patients with LVEF 40% to 49% had a demographic and clinical profile with intermediate features between the LVEF <40% and LVEF ≥ 50% groups. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that mortality and HF readmissions were statistically different depending on LVEF in the non-HF group but not in the HF group. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50% was an independent prognostic factor in the non-HF group only.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACS, long-term prognosis is considerably worse in patients who develop HF during hospitalization than in patients without HF, irrespective of LVEF. This parameter is a strong prognostic predictor only in patients without HF.

Is heart failure with midrange ejection fraction similar to preserved ejection fraction? Against

The new European guidelines (2016) for heart failure (HF) include the concept of HF with intermediate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), i.e. an LVEF between 40 and 49%. Although few studies have been carried out, there are claims that HF with intermediate LVEF is not the same as HF with preserved LVEF. Perhaps the most consistent claim is the high percentage of associated ischemic heart disease, which could reflect LVEF recovery after adequate anti-ischemic treatment of HF with depressed LVEF, or even the progressive deterioration of LVEF following an ischemic event.