Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: A systemic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Patients with heart failure (HF) have a poor prognosis and are categorized by ejection fraction. We performed a meta-analysis to compare baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure with reduced (HFrEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 27 prospective studies were included. Patients with HFpEF were older and had a higher proportion of females, hypertension, diabetes, and insufficient neuroendocrine antagonist treatments, while patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF had a higher prevalence of coronary heart disease and chronic kidney disease. After more than 1-year of follow-up, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with HFmrEF 9388/25 042 (37.49%) than those with HFrEF 39 333/90 023 (43.69%) and HFpEF 24 828/52 492 (47.30%) (p < .001). Cardiovascular mortality was lowest in patients with HFpEF 1130/9904 (11.41%), highest in patients with HFrEF 3419/16 277 (21.07%) mainly coming from HF death and sudden cardiac death, and middle in patients with HFmrEF 699/5171 (13.52%) and the non-cardiovascular mortality was on the contrary. Subgroup analysis showed that in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, the all-cause mortality of HFpEF was significantly higher than both HFrEF and HFmrEF (p < .001). HF hospitalization was lowest in patients with HFmrEF 1822/5285 (34.47%), highest in patients with HFrEF 12 607/28 590 (44.10%) and middle in patients with HFpEF 8686/22 763 (38.16%) and the composite of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization was also observed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, patients with HFmrEF had the lowest incidence of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization, while the highest all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization rates were HFpEF and HFrEF patients, respectively.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in the non-diabetic heart failure patient

Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a global cause of morbidity and mortality with over 60 million estimated cases worldwide. The burden of HF care is expected to increase with an ageing population as evidenced by the fact that 80% of HF-related hospitalizations occur in those aged above 65. Given the significant morbidity and mortality associated with HFrEF, there is a need for new prognostic therapies that have an impact on morbidity and mortality. In February of 2021, the National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) released new guidance on the utility of Dapagliflozin for the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). NICE advocated that dapagliflozin is a viable treatment option in symptomatic HFrEF patients on optimal medical management. The current list price of dapagliflozin is around £36.59 per 28-tablet pack with an estimated annual cost of £476.98 equating to £6939 per quality-adjusted life year. The guidance was mainly based on evidence produced from the 2019 DAPA-HF trial. This demonstrated that in HFrEF population, the use of dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in worsening HF events, cardiovascular, and all-cause death. In this article, we summarize the evidence base for sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in the non-diabetic heart failure patient.

Different Impact of Beta-Blockers on Long-Term Mortality in Heart Failure Patients with and without Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

The administration of beta-blockers is challenging and their efficacy is unclear in heart failure (HF) patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to investigate the association of beta-blockers with mortality in such patients. This multicenter observational cohort study included hospitalized HF patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and evaluated them retrospectively. COPD was diagnosed based on medical records and/or the clinical judgment of each investigator. The study endpoints were two-year all-cause, cardiac, and non-cardiac mortality. This study included 83 patients with COPD and 1760 patients without. Two-year all-cause, cardiac, and non-cardiac mortality were observed in 315 (17%), 149 (8%), and 166 (9%) patients, respectively. Beta-blockers were associated with lower all-cause mortality regardless of COPD (COPD: hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% CI 0.16–0.98, p = 0.044; non-COPD: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46–0.83, p = 0.001). This association in HF patients with COPD persisted after multivariate analysis and inverse probability weighting and was due to lower non-cardiac mortality (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.14–1.18. p = 0.098), not cardiac mortality (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07–2.01, p = 0.248). Beta-blockers were associated with lower all-cause mortality in HF patients with COPD due to lower non-cardiac mortality. This may reflect selection biases in beta-blocker prescription.

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.

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Predicted Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial

BACKGROUND

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, ejection fraction (EF) data were not collected. In the subpopulation with heart failure (HF), we applied a new predictive model for EF to determine the effects of empagliflozin in HF with predicted reduced (HFrEF) vs preserved (HFpEF) EF vs no HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We applied a validated EF predictive model based on patient baseline characteristics and treatments to categorize patients with HF as being likely to have HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF)/HFrEF (EF <50%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%). Cox regression was used to assess the effect of empagliflozin vs placebo on cardiovascular death/HF hospitalization (HHF), cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and HHF in patients with predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no HF. Of 7001 EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients with data available for this analysis, 6314 (90%) had no history of HF. Of the 687 with history of HF, 479 (69.7%) were predicted to have HFmrEF/HFrEF and 208 (30.3%) to have HFpEF. Empagliflozin's treatment effect was consistent in predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no-HF for each outcome (HR [95% CI] for the primary outcome 0.60 [0.31-1.17], 0.79 [0.51-1.23], and 0.63 [0.50-0.78], respectively; P interaction = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, one-third of the patients with HF had predicted HFpEF. The benefits of empagliflozin on HF and mortality outcomes were consistent in nonHF, predicted HFpEF and HFmrEF/HFrEF.

Prognostic significance of cardiac I-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine imaging in patients with reduced, mid-range, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction admitted for acute decompensated heart failure: a prospective study in Osaka Prefectural Acute Heart Failure Registry (OPAR)

AIMS

Cardiac 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) imaging provides prognostic information in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). However, there is little information available on the prognostic role of cardiac 123I-MIBG imaging in patients admitted for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), especially relating to reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%], mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF; 40% ≤ LVEF < 50%) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; LVEF ≥ 50%).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 349 patients admitted for ADHF and discharged with survival. Cardiac 123I-MIBG imaging, echocardiography, and venous blood sampling were performed just before discharge. The cardiac 123I-MIBG heart-to-mediastinum ratio (late H/M) was measured on the chest anterior view images obtained at 200 min after the isotope injection. The endpoint was cardiac events defined as unplanned HF hospitalization and cardiac death. During a follow-up period of 2.1 ± 1.4 years, 128 patients had cardiac events (45/127 in HFrEF, 28/78 in HFmrEF, and 55/144 in HFpEF). On multivariable Cox analysis, late H/M was significantly associated with cardiac events in overall cohort (P = 0.0038), and in subgroup analysis of each LVEF subgroup (P = 0.0235 in HFrEF, P = 0.0119 in HFmEF and P = 0.0311 in HFpEF). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients with low late H/M (defined by median) had significantly greater risk of cardiac events in overall cohort (49% vs. 25% P < 0.0001) and in each LVEF subgroup (HFrEF: 48% vs. 23% P = 0.0061, HFmrEF: 51% vs. 21% P = 0.0068 and HFpEF: 50% vs. 26% P = 0.0026).

CONCLUSION

Cardiac sympathetic nerve dysfunction was associated with poor outcome in ADHF patients irrespective of HFrEF, HFmrEF, or HFpEF.

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.

Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct Phenotypes

Traditionally, patients with heart failure (HF) are divided according to ejection fraction (EF) threshold more or <50%. In 2016, the ESC guidelines introduced a new subgroup of HF patients including those subjects with EF ranging between 40 and 49% called heart failure with midrange EF (HFmrEF). This group is poorly represented in clinical trials, and it includes both patients with previous HFrEF having a good response to therapy and subjects with initial preserved EF appearance in which systolic function has been impaired. The categorization according to EF has recently been questioned because this variable is not really a representative of the myocardial contractile function and it could vary in relation to different hemodynamic conditions. Therefore, EF could significantly change over a short-term period and its measurement depends on the scan time course. Finally, although EF is widely recognized and measured worldwide, it has significant interobserver variability even in the most accredited echo laboratories. These assumptions imply that the same patient evaluated in different periods or by different physicians could be classified as HFmrEF or HFpEF. Thus, the two HF subtypes probably subtend different responses to the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Similarly, the adaptation to hemodynamic stimuli and to metabolic alterations could be different for different HF stages and periods. In this review, we analyze similarities and dissimilarities and we hypothesize that clinical and morphological characteristics of the two syndromes are not so discordant.

Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure: A Report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure

In this document, we propose a universal definition of heart failure (HF) as the following: HF is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. We propose revised stages of HF as follows. At-risk for HF (Stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease. Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. HF (Stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality. Advanced HF (Stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care. Finally, we propose a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The classification includes HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): HF with an LVEF of ≤40%; HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): HF with an LVEF of 41% to 49%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): HF with an LVEF of ≥50%; and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%.

Treatment of Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction: What Is the Evidence

In this review, we briefly outline our current knowledge on the epidemiology, outcomes, and pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and discuss in more depth the evidence on current treatment options for this group of patients. In most studies, the clinical background of patients with HFmrEF is intermediate between that of patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in terms of demographics and comorbid conditions. However, the current evidence, stemming from observational studies and post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials, suggests that patients with HFmrEF benefit from medications that target the neurohormonal axes, a pathophysiological behavior that resembles that of HFrEF. Use of β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sacubitril/valsartan is reasonable in patients with HFmrEF, whereas evidence is currently scarce for other therapies. In clinical practice, patients with HFmrEF are treated more like HFrEF patients, potentially because of history of systolic dysfunction that has partially recovered. Assessment of left ventricular systolic function with contemporary noninvasive modalities, e.g., echocardiographic strain imaging, is promising for the selection of patients with HFmrEF who will benefit from neurohormonal antagonists and other HFrEF-targeted therapies.

Sirt1 Activity in PBMCs as a Biomarker of Different Heart Failure Phenotypes

Heart Failure (HF) is a syndrome, which implies the existence of different phenotypes. The new categorization includes patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and reduced EF (HFrEF) but the molecular mechanisms involved in these HF phenotypes have not yet been exhaustively investigated. Sirt1 plays a crucial role in biological processes strongly related to HF. This study aimed to evaluate whether Sirt1 activity was correlated with EF and other parameters in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF. Seventy patients, HFpEF (n = 23), HFmrEF (n = 23) and HFrEF (n = 24), were enrolled at the Cardiology Unit of the University Hospital of Salerno. Sirt1 activity was measured in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) activity, Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha (TNF-α) and Brain Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) levels were quantified in plasma. HFpEF showed lower Sirt1 and ACE2 activities than both HFmrEF and HFrEF (p < 0.0001), without difference compared to No HF controls. In HFmrEF and HFrEF a very strong correlation was found between Sirt1 activity and EF (r² = 0.899 and r² = 0.909, respectively), and between ACE2 activity and Sirt1 (r² = 0.801 and r² = 0.802, respectively). HFrEF showed the highest TNF-α levels without reaching statistical significance. Significant differences in BNP were found among the groups, with the highest levels in the HFrEF. Determining Sirt1 activity in PBMCs is useful to distinguish the HF patients’ phenotypes from each other, especially HFmrEF/HFrEF from HFpEF.

Central and Obstructive Apneas in Heart Failure With Reduced, Mid-Range and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background: Although central apneas (CA) and obstructive apneas (OA) are highly prevalent in heart failure (HF), a comparison of apnea prevalence, predictors and clinical correlates in the whole HF spectrum, including HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF) has never been carried out so far.

Materials and methods: 700 HF patients were prospectively enrolled and then divided according to left ventricular EF (408 HFrEF, 117 HFmrEF, 175 HFpEF). All patients underwent a thorough evaluation including: 2D echocardiography; 24-h Holter-ECG monitoring; cardiopulmonary exercise testing; neuro-hormonal assessment and 24-h cardiorespiratory monitoring.

Results: In the whole population, prevalence of normal breathing (NB), CA and OA at daytime was 40, 51, and 9%, respectively, while at nighttime 15, 55, and 30%, respectively. When stratified according to left ventricular EF, CA prevalence decreased (daytime: 57 vs. 43 vs. 42%, p = 0.001; nighttime: 66 vs. 48 vs. 34%, p < 0.0001) from HFrEF to HFmrEF and HFpEF, while OA prevalence increased (daytime: 5 vs. 8 vs. 18%, p < 0.0001; nighttime 20 vs. 29 vs. 53%, p < 0.0001).

In HFrEF, male gender and body mass index (BMI) were independent predictors of both CA and OA at nighttime, while age, New York Heart Association functional class and diastolic dysfunction of daytime CA. In HFmrEF and HFpEF male gender and systolic pulmonary artery pressure were independent predictors of CA at daytime, while hypertension predicted nighttime OA in HFpEF patients; no predictor of nighttime CA was identified. When compared to patients with NB, those with CA had higher neuro-hormonal activation in all HF subgroups. Moreover, in the HFrEF subgroup, patients with CA were older, more comorbid and with greater hemodynamic impairment while, in the HFmrEF and HFpEF subgroups, they had higher left atrial volumes and more severe diastolic dysfunction, respectively. When compared to patients with NB, those with OA were older and more comorbid independently from background EF.

Conclusions: Across the whole spectrum of HF, CA prevalence increases and OA decreases as left ventricular systolic dysfunction progresses. Different predictors and specific clinical characteristics might help to identify patients at risk of developing CA or OA in different HF phenotypes.

Efficacy and safety of spironolactone in the heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown the efficacy for using spironolactone to treat heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the efficacy of spironolactone for heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unclear. This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of spironolactone in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched several databases including PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed spironolactone treatment in HFmrEF and HFpEF. Eleven RCTs including 4539 patients were included. Spironolactone reduced hospitalizations (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.95; P = .006), improved New York Heart Association functional classifications (NYHA-FC) (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19-0.66; P = .001), decreased the levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) (mean difference [MD], - 44.80 pg/mL; 95% CI, -73.44--16.17; P = .002), procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide (PICP) (MD, -27.04 ng/mL; 95% CI, -40.77--13.32, P < .001) in HFmrEF and HFpEF. Besides, it improved 6-minute walking distances (6-MWD) (standard weighted mean difference [SMD], 0.45 m; 95% CI, 0.27-0.64; P < .001), decreased amino-terminal peptide of procollagen type-III (PIIINP) (SMD, -0.37 μg/L; 95% CI, -0.59--0.15; P = .001) in HFpEF only. The risks of hyperkalemia (P<.001) and gynecomastia (P<.001) were increased.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF could benefit from spironolactone treatment, with reduced hospitalizations, BNP levels, improved NYHA-FC, alleviated myocardial fibrosis by decreasing serum PICP in HFmrEF and HFpEF, decreased PIIINP levels and increased 6-MWD only in HFpEF. The risks of hyperkalemia and gynecomastia were significantly increased with the spironolactone treatment.

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

Since the publication of European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure (HF) in 2016, a new class of HF has been defined, namely HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Although the name was new, there had long been awareness of the existence of a grey area between the two established classes of HF: HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction. Patients between these two classes were previously either excluded from HF studies or were included in the other groups. With the definition of this new group of patients, a door has opened for researchers to further explore their characteristics, treatment and outcomes. In this article we aim to clarify the existing literature on the clinical characteristics and pathophysiology of this newly-defined group of patients.

Heart Failure With Mid-Range (Borderline) Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Future Directions

Heart failure (HF) with borderline ejection fraction was first defined in 2013 in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines as the presence of the typical symptoms of HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41% to 49%. In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology specified HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) as LVEF of 40% to 49%. This range of LVEF is less well studied compared with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Although there are effective, guideline-directed medical therapies for patients with HFrEF, no therapies thus far show measurable benefit in HFpEF. Patients with HFmrEF have a clinical profile and prognosis that are closer to those of patients with HFpEF than those of HFrEF, with certain distinctions. Whether these patients represent a unique and dynamic HF group that may benefit from targeted therapies known to be beneficial in patients with HFrEF, such as neurohormonal blockade, requires further study. This review summarizes what is known about the clinical epidemiology, pathophysiology, and prognosis for patients with HFmrEF and how these features compare with the more well-studied HF groups. Although recommended treatments currently focus on aggressive management of comorbidities, we summarize the studies that identify a potential signal for beneficial therapies. Future studies are needed to not only better characterize the HFmrEF population but to also determine effective management strategies to reduce the high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality burden on this phenotype of patients with HF.

Global Public Health Burden of Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is a global pandemic affecting at least 26 million people worldwide and is increasing in prevalence. HF health expenditures are considerable and will increase dramatically with an ageing population. Despite the significant advances in therapies and prevention, mortality and morbidity are still high and quality of life poor. The prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity rates reported show geographic variations, depending on the different aetiologies and clinical characteristics observed among patients with HF. In this review we focus on the global epidemiology of HF, providing data about prevalence, incidence, mortality and morbidity worldwide.