Epidemiology and one-year outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved, mid-range and reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

The importance of integrated left atrial evaluation: From hypertension to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AIM

Functional analysis and measurement of left atrium are an integral part of cardiac evaluation, and they represent a key element during non-invasive analysis of diastolic function in patients with hypertension (HT) and/or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, diastolic dysfunction remains quite elusive regarding classification, and atrial size and function are two key factors for left ventricular (LV) filling evaluation. Chronic left atrial (LA) remodelling is the final step of chronic intra-cavitary pressure overload, and it accompanies increased neurohormonal, proarrhythmic and prothrombotic activities. In this systematic review, we aim to purpose a multi-modality approach for LA geometry and function analysis, which integrates diastolic flow with LA characteristics and remodelling through application of both traditional and new diagnostic tools.

METHODS

The most important studies published in the literature on LA size, function and diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF, HT and/or atrial fibrillation (AF) are considered and discussed.

RESULTS

In HFpEF and HT, pulsed and tissue Doppler assessments are useful tools to estimate LV filling pressure, atrio-ventricular coupling and LV relaxation but they need to be enriched with LA evaluation in terms of morphology and function. An integrated evaluation should be also applied to patients with a high arrhythmic risk, in whom eccentric LA remodelling and higher LA stiffness are associated with a greater AF risk.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of LA size, volume, function and structure are mandatory in the management of patients with HT, HFpEF and AF. A multi-modality approach could provide additional information, identifying subjects with more severe LA remodelling. Left atrium assessment deserves an accurate study inside the cardiac imaging approach and optimised measurement with established cut-offs need to be better recognised through multicenter studies.

Skeletal muscle alterations in HFrEF vs. HFpEF

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe exercise intolerance and early fatigue are hallmarks of heart failure patients either with a reduced (HFrEF) or a still preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction. This review, therefore, will provide a contemporary summary of the alterations currently known to occur in the skeletal muscles of both HFrEF and HFpEF, and provide some further directions that will be required if we want to improve our current understanding of this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

Skeletal muscle alterations are well documented for over 20 years in HFrEF, and during the recent years also data are presented that in HFpEF muscular alterations are present. Alterations are ranging from a shift in fiber type and capillarization to an induction of atrophy and modulation of mitochondrial energy supply. In general, the molecular alterations are more severe in the skeletal muscle of HFrEF when compared to HFpEF. The alterations occurring in the skeletal muscle at the molecular level may contribute to exercise intolerance in HFrEF and HFpEF. Nevertheless, the knowledge of changes in the skeletal muscle of HFpEF is still sparsely available and more studies in this HF cohort are clearly warranted.

Clinical profile of patients with heart failure can predict rehospitalization and quality of life

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to identify clinical, humoral and echocardiographic variables predicting rehospitalization and poor quality of life (QOL) in patients with reduced or mid-range ejection fraction heart failure.

METHODS

From 2009 to 2012, 310 patients were admitted having signs and symptoms of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. All the patients were followed by phone, calling the patients or the referring general practitioner. The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) was used as the instrument to evaluate QOL: MLHFQ less than 24 is a good QOL, 24-45 is moderate QOL and more than 45 is poor QOL. The primary event was poor QOL and/or rehospitalization at 4 years.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients died at median time of 21 months; 4-year survival was 72 ± 3%. Rehospitalization due to heart failure was recorded in 60 cases. Among 231 survivors, MLHFQ score was good in 99 (42%), moderate in 50 (21%) and poor in 88 (37%). Four-year freedom from death, poor QOL or rehospitalization was 51 ± 3%. Multivariable analysis identified the following risk factors: heart rate at discharge at least 70 bpm, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, hypercholesterolemia, chronic pulmonary disease, N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide at discharge, severe tricuspid regurgitation and mitral regurgitation more than moderate.

CONCLUSION

Clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic profile is crucial to predict long-term QOL of patients admitted for heart failure.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction in patients admitted to internal medicine departments: Findings from the RICA Registry

AIM

To improve the knowledge on characteristics, treatment and prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) and mid-range ejection fraction discharged after an acute HF episode.

METHODS

We prospectively included and followed 2753 patients admitted with HF to Internal Medicine units. Patients were classified according to ejection fraction (EF) into three strata: reduced, EF <40% (HFrEF); mid-range EF 40-49% (HFmrEF); and preserved EF ≥50% (HFpEF). Clinical, echocardiographic, laboratory data and treatment at discharge were recorded and the groups were compared. A multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the association of EF with outcomes in these three groups.

RESULTS

A total of 10.2% of patients had HFmrEF. They were more likely to be men and to have a history of chronic kidney disease and higher levels of NT-proBNP than those with HFpEF. Compared to patients with HFrEF, these patients had less frequently ischaemic aetiology and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a higher proportion of atrial fibrillation and hypertension. In HFmrEF, the use of beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists and antiplatelet drugs was lower than in HFrEF, but the use of calcium channel blockers and anticoagulants was higher. There were no differences between groups in 30-day and 1-year readmission rates. However, patients with HFrEF had significantly higher 1-year mortality (28%) than patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF (20% and 22%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical characteristics and treatment among patients with HF differ depending on EF strata. Prognosis of patients with HFmrEF is closer to that of HFpEF, being medium term survival better than in HFrEF.

Heart Failure with Mid-range Ejection Fraction: Lessons from CHARM

The newly defined category of heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF; EF 40-49 %) is beginning to be characterised but little is known about the potential for treating it. Trials and observational studies suggest that standard therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; EF <40 %) may also offer some benefit to patients with EF ≥40 %; however, any difference between its effects on HFmrEF and true HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have until now not been explored. This study summarises randomised trial data from the CHARM programme that suggest that candesartan may improve outcomes in HFmrEF.

Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction and How to Treat It

The introduction of heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) as a distinct phenotype has achieved its aim of stimulating research into the underlying characteristics, pathophysiology and treatment of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of 40-49 %. Comparison of clinical characteristics, comorbidities, outcomes and prognosis among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, HFmrEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction allowed consideration of HFmrEF as an intermediate phenotype, which often resembles HF with reduced ejection fraction more than HF with preserved ejection fraction. The latest findings suggest that patients with HFmrEF seem to benefit from therapies that have been shown to improve outcomes in HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Treatment of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a growing epidemiologic problem affecting more than half of the patients with heart failure (HF). HFpEF has a significant morbidity and mortality and so far no treatment has been clearly demonstrated to improve the outcomes in HFpEF, in contrast to the efficacy of treatment in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).The failure of proven beneficial drugs in HFrEF to influence the outcome of patients with HFpEF could be related to the heterogeneity of the disease, its various phenotypes and multifactorial pathophysiology, incompletely elucidated yet. The diagnosis of HFpEF could be demanding or even inaccurate. Moreover, the therapeutic strategies were influenced by different cut-offs used to define preserved ejection fraction (EF). From this perspective, the current guidelines have classified HFpEF by an EF ≥ 50%, together with a distinct entity, heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), defined by an EF ranging from 41-49%.New therapies have been developed to interfere with the mediator pathways of HFpEF at the cellular and molecular level, including mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors. A number of antidiabetic drugs, such as sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are promising options, being under research in large clinical trials. Until the results of ongoing trials shed light on these therapies, guidelines recommend empirical treatment for established HFpEF, and emphasize the crucial role of addressing cardiovascular comorbidities leading to HFpEF, in particular arterial hypertension.

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.

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)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyse baseline characteristics and outcome of patients with heart failure and mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (HFmrEF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40%-49%) and the effect of 1-year change in LVEF in this group.

SETTING

Multicentre prospective observational study of ambulatory patients with HF followed up at four university hospitals with dedicated HF units.

PARTICIPANTS

Fourteen per cent (n=504) of the 3580 patients included had HFmrEF.

INTERVENTIONS

Baseline characteristics, 1-year LVEF and outcomes were collected. All-cause death, HF hospitalisation and the composite end-point were the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 3.66 (1.69-6.04) years. All-cause death, HF hospitalisation and the composite end-point were 47%, 35% and 59%, respectively. Outcomes were worse in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (LVEF>50%), without differences between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (LVEF<40%) and HFmrEF (all-cause mortality 52.6% vs 45.8% and 43.8%, respectively, P=0.001). After multivariable Cox regression analyses, no differences in all-cause death and the composite end-point were seen between the three groups. HF hospitalisation and cardiovascular death were not statistically different between patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF. At 1-year follow-up, 62% of patients with HFmrEF had LVEF measured: 24% had LVEF<40%, 43% maintained LVEF 40%-49% and 33% had LVEF>50%. While change in LVEF as continuous variable was not associated with better outcomes, those patients who evolved from HFmrEF to HFpEF did have a better outcome. Those who remained in the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups had higher all-cause mortality after adjustment for age, sex and baseline LVEF (HR 1.96 (95% CI 1.08 to 3.54, P=0.027) and HR 2.01 (95% CI 1.04 to 3.86, P=0.037), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFmrEF have a clinical profile in-between HFpEF and HFrEF, without differences in all-cause mortality and the composite end-point between the three groups. At 1 year, patients with HFmrEF exhibited the greatest variability in LVEF and this change was associated with survival.

Increased risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) carry a high risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) but it is not known if the risk of HF and AF is increased in FH. The present study investigated the incidence of hospitalization for HF and AF in a genetically verified FH cohort, age 25 years and older, compared to the general population.

METHODS

Incidence rates of hospitalization for HF and AF were estimated from national registry data. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated.

RESULTS

4273 genotyped FH patients (51.7% women) with a total observation period of 18,300 patient years were studied. Overall, the expected number of FH patients with HF was 27.7 and the observed number of cases was 54 (SIR (95% CI) 2.0 (1.5-2.6)). The highest excess risk was observed in the age group 25-49 years, where SIRs were 3.8 (1.2-11.8) and 4.2 (2.0-8.8) in women and men, respectively. The total expected number of FH patients with AF was 39.4 while the observed number of cases was 77 (SIR 2.0 (1.6-2.4)). Among FH patients with an incident event of HF, nearly 90% had a previous diagnosis of CAD, and nearly 40% had suffered from a myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate a doubling of the risk of hospitalization for HF or AF in patients with FH. This is could have an important prognostic impact for patients and economic impact for the society.

Drug treatment effects on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Clinical drug trials in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction have failed to demonstrate improvements in mortality.

Methods

We systematically searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCT) assessing pharmacological treatments in patients with heart failure with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction≥40% from January 1996 to May 2016. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, exercise capacity (6-min walk distance, exercise duration, VO₂ max), quality of life and biomarkers (B-type natriuretic peptide, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled relative risks (RR) for the binary outcomes, and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% CI.

Results

We included data from 25 RCTs comprising data for 18101 patients. All-cause mortality was reduced with beta-blocker therapy compared with placebo (RR: 0.78, 95%CI 0.65 to 0.94, p=0.008). There was no effect seen with ACE inhibitors, aldosterone receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and other drug classes, compared with placebo. Similar results were observed for cardiovascular mortality. No single drug class reduced heart failure hospitalisation compared with placebo.

Conclusion

The efficacy of treatments in patients with heart failure and an LV ejection fraction≥40% differ depending on the type of therapy, with beta-blockers demonstrating reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further trials are warranted to confirm treatment effects of beta-blockers in this patient group.