Non-cardiac comorbidities and mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction: a study using the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

Clinical profile and contemporary management of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: results from the CHECK-HF registry

Background

Clinical management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) centres on treating comorbidities and is likely to vary between countries. Thus, to provide insight into the current management of HFpEF, studies from multiple countries are required. We evaluated the clinical profiles and current management of patients with HFpEF in the Netherlands.

Methods

We included 2153 patients with HFpEF (defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%) from the CHECK-HF registry, which included patients from 2013 to 2016.

Results

Median age was 77 (IQR 15) years, 55% were women and the most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (51%), renal insufficiency (45%) and atrial fibrillation (AF, 38%). Patients between 65 and 80 years and those over 80 years had on average more comorbidities (up to 64% and 74%, respectively, with two or more comorbidities) than patients younger than 65 years (38% with two or more comorbidities, p-value < 0.001). Although no specific drugs are available for HFpEF, treating comorbidities is advised. Beta-blockers were most frequently prescribed (78%), followed by loop diuretics (74%), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (67%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs, 39%). Strongest predictors for loop-diuretic use were older age, higher New York Heart Association class and AF.

Conclusion

The medical HFpEF profile is determined by the underlying comorbidities, sex and age. Comorbidities are highly prevalent in HFpEF patients, especially in elderly HFpEF patients. Despite the lack of evidence, many HFpEF patients receive regular beta-blockers, RAS inhibitors and MRAs, often for the treatment of comorbidities.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01534-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Estimated plasma volume status in heart failure: clinical implications and future directions

Congestion is one of the main predictors of poor outcome in patients with heart failure (HF). Assessing and monitoring congestion is essential for optimizing HF therapy. Among the various available methods, serial measurements of estimated plasma volume (ePVS) using routine blood count and/or body weight (e.g., the Strauss, Duarte, Hakim formulas) may be useful in HF management. Further prospective study is warranted to determine whether ePVS can help optimize decongestion therapy (loop diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, SGLT2i) in various HF settings. This narrative review summarizes the recent evidence supporting the association of ePVS with clinical congestion and outcome(s) and discusses future directions for monitoring ePVS in HF.

Predictive value of H2 FPEF score in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Aims

The H₂FPEF score is a convenient risk stratification tool for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study examined the value of the H₂FPEF score for predicting all‐cause mortality and rehospitalization in HFpEF patients.

Methods and results

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with HFpEF by echocardiography at a single tertiary centre between 1 January 2015 and 30 April 2018. According to the H₂FPEF score, the subjects were divided into low (0–1 points), intermediate (2–5 points), and high (6–9 points) score groups. The primary outcomes were all‐cause mortality and rehospitalization. A total of 476 patients (mean age: 70.5 ± 8.4 years, 60.7% female) were included. Of these, 47 (9.9%), 262 (55.0%), and 167 (35.1%) were classified into the low, intermediate, and high score groups, respectively. Over a mean follow‐up of 27.5 months, 63 patients (13.2%) died, and 311 patients (65.3%) were rehospitalized. The mortality rates were 3 (6.4%), 29 (11.1%), and 31 (18.6%), and the number of patients with rehospitalization was 28 (59.6%), 159 (60.7%), and 124 (74.3%) for the low, intermediate, and high score groups, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression identified H₂FPEF score as an independent predictor of all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.23–1.73, P < 0.0001) and rehospitalization (HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.08–1.22, P < 0.0001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated the H₂FPEF score can effectively predict all‐cause mortality (AUC 0.67, 95% CI: 0.60–0.73, P < 0.0001) and rehospitalization (AUC 0.59, 95% CI: 0.54–0.65, P = 0.001) after adjusting for age and NYHA class. With a cut‐off value of 5.5, the sensitivity and specificity were 68.3% and 55.4% for all‐cause mortality and 50.5% and 66.7% for rehospitalization.

Conclusions

The H₂FPEF score can be used to predict prognosis in HFpEF patients. Higher scores are associated with higher all‐cause mortality and rehospitalization.

Common mechanistic pathways in cancer and heart failure. A scientific roadmap on behalf of the Translational Research Committee of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

The co-occurrence of cancer and heart failure (HF) represents a significant clinical drawback as each disease interferes with the treatment of the other. In addition to shared risk factors, a growing body of experimental and clinical evidence reveals numerous commonalities in the biology underlying both pathologies. Inflammation emerges as a common hallmark for both diseases as it contributes to the initiation and progression of both HF and cancer. Under stress, malignant and cardiac cells change their metabolic preferences to survive, which makes these metabolic derangements a great basis to develop intersection strategies and therapies to combat both diseases. Furthermore, genetic predisposition and clonal haematopoiesis are common drivers for both conditions and they hold great clinical relevance in the context of personalized medicine. Additionally, altered angiogenesis is a common hallmark for failing hearts and tumours and represents a promising substrate to target in both diseases. Cardiac cells and malignant cells interact with their surrounding environment called stroma. This interaction mediates the progression of the two pathologies and understanding the structure and function of each stromal component may pave the way for innovative therapeutic strategies and improved outcomes in patients. The interdisciplinary collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists is essential to establish unified guidelines. To this aim, pre-clinical models that mimic the human situation, where both pathologies coexist, are needed to understand all the aspects of the bidirectional relationship between cancer and HF. Finally, adequately powered clinical studies, including patients from all ages, and men and women, with proper adjudication of both cancer and cardiovascular endpoints, are essential to accurately study these two pathologies at the same time.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: disease burden for patients, caregivers, and the health-care system

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) will soon become the most prevalent form of HF because of an aging population and an accompanying increase in the number of risk factors for this disease. The high frequency of comorbidities typical of this population contributes to an increased risk for hospitalization and death. It is also partially responsible for the symptomatic deterioration that results in hospitalization and impaired quality of life and functional capacity in patients. The effects of HFpEF are felt by patients and their caregivers, who might experience detriment to their own health and their social and working lives. Financial burden is associated with HFpEF, stemming from hospitalization and long-term care costs, as well as absenteeism from work in the case of caregivers. Early identification of patients at risk and aggressive management are key to preventing this disease and its progression.

Gout Is Prevalent but Under-Registered Among Patients With Cardiovascular Events: A Field Study

Objectives: Gout is an independent cardiovascular (CV) risk factor with significant morbidity and mortality. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of gout, characteristics and management in a hospitalized population for CV disease, a topic that remains to be defined. Methods: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study was carried out in patients admitted for CV events in the Cardiology, Neurology, and Vascular Surgery units of a tertiary center. Patients were selected following a non-consecutive, systematic sampling. Data about CV disease and gout were obtained from face-to-face interviews and patients' records. Gout diagnosis was established using the 2015 ACR/EULAR clinical classification criteria. The registration rate of gout was assessed by auditing patients' records and hospital discharge reports of CV events from the units of interest in the previous 2 years. To predict the presence of gout, multivariate logistic regression models were built to study the possible explanatory variables. Results: Two hundred and sixty six participants were recruited, predominantly males (69.9%) and Caucasians (96.6%) with a mean age of 68 years. Gout was identified in 40 individuals; thus, the prevalence was 15.0% (95% CI 10.9-19.2%). In 35% of cases, the diagnosis was absent from patients' records. Gout was found in 1.4-2.6% of hospital discharge reports of CV events, also indicating under-registration. The disease was long-standing, but with low reported rates of flares, involved joints, and tophi. At admission, only half of the gout patients were on urate-lowering therapy, being 38.5% of them on serum urate <6 mg/dl. The only independent predictor of gout was the existence of previous hyperuricemia (median serum urate in previous 5 years ≥7 mg/dl), with an odds ratio of 2.9 (95% CI 1.2-7.1); if hyperuricemia is not included in the model, the only independent predictor was chronic kidney disease (odds ratio 3.0; 95% CI 1.4-6.6). Conclusion: Gout is highly prevalent among patients admitted for CV events, with significant lack of awareness and suboptimal management, despite being a well-established independent CV risk factor.

Six-Month Predictive Value of Diuretic Resistance Formulas in Discharged Heart Failure Patients after an Acute Decompensation

Background. The diuretic response has been shown to be a robust independent marker of cardiovascular outcomes in acute heart failure patients. The objectives of this clinical research are to analyze two different formulas (diuretic response (DR) or response to diuretic (R-to-D)) in predicting 6-month clinical outcomes. Methods: Consecutive patients discharged alive after an acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) were enrolled. All patients underwent N-terminal-pro hormone BNP (NT-proBNP) and an echocardiogram together with DR and R-to-D calculation during diuretic administration. Death by any cause, cardiac transplantation and worsening heart failure (HF) requiring readmission to hospital were considered cardiovascular events. Results: 263 patients (62% male, age 78 years) were analyzed at 6-month follow-up. During the follow-up 58 (22.05%) events were scheduled. Patients who experienced CV-event had a worse renal function (p = 0.001), a higher NT-proBNP (p = 0.001), a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.01), DR (p = 0.02) and R-to-D (p = 0.03). Spearman rho’s correlation coefficient showed a strong direct correlation between DR and R to D in all patients (r = 0.93; p < 0.001) and both in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (r = 0.94; p < 0.001) and HF preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (r = 0.91; p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, a value of R-to-D <1.69 kg/40 mg, but only <0.67 kg/40 mg for DR were significantly related to poor 6-month outcome (p = 0.04 and p = 0.05, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses demonstrated that DR and R-to-D are equivalent in predicting prognosis (area under curve (AUC): 0.39 and 0.40, respectively). Only R-to-D was inversely related to in-hospital stay (r = −0.23; p = 0.01). Conclusion: Adding diuresis to DR seemed to provide a better risk assessment in alive HF patients discharged after an acute decompensation.

Therapeutic approaches in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: past, present, and future

In contrast to the wealth of proven therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), therapeutic efforts in the past have failed to improve outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Moreover, to this day, diagnosis of HFpEF remains controversial. However, there is growing appreciation that HFpEF represents a heterogeneous syndrome with various phenotypes and comorbidities which are hardly to differentiate solely by LVEF and might benefit from individually tailored approaches. These hypotheses are supported by the recently presented PARAGON-HF trial. Although treatment with LCZ696 did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among HFpEF patients, subanalyses suggest beneficial effects in female patients and those with an LVEF between 45 and 57%. In the future, prospective randomized trials should focus on dedicated, well-defined subgroups based on various information such as clinical characteristics, biomarker levels, and imaging modalities. These could clarify the role of LCZ696 in selected individuals. Furthermore, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have just proven efficient in HFrEF patients and are currently also studied in large prospective clinical trials enrolling HFpEF patients. In addition, several novel disease-modifying drugs that pursue different strategies such as targeting cardiac inflammation and fibrosis have delivered preliminary optimistic results and are subject of further research. Moreover, innovative device therapies may enhance management of HFpEF, but need prospective adequately powered clinical trials to confirm safety and efficacy regarding clinical outcomes. This review highlights the past, present, and future therapeutic approaches in HFpEF.

Risk of bias in studies investigating novel diagnostic biomarkers for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. A systematic review

Aim

Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the non‐acute setting remains challenging. Natriuretic peptides have limited value for this purpose, and a multitude of studies investigating novel diagnostic circulating biomarkers have not resulted in their implementation. This review aims to provide an overview of studies investigating novel circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF and determine their risk of bias (ROB).

Methods and results

A systematic literature search for studies investigating novel diagnostic HFpEF circulating biomarkers in humans was performed up until 21 April 2020. Those without diagnostic performance measures reported, or performed in an acute heart failure population were excluded, leading to a total of 28 studies. For each study, four reviewers determined the ROB within the QUADAS‐2 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. At least one domain with a high ROB was present in all studies. Use of case‐control/two‐gated designs, exclusion of difficult‐to‐diagnose patients, absence of a pre‐specified cut‐off value for the index test without the performance of external validation, the use of inappropriate reference standards and unclear timing of the index test and/or reference standard were the main bias determinants. Due to the high ROB and different patient populations, no meta‐analysis was performed.

Conclusion

The majority of current diagnostic HFpEF biomarker studies have a high ROB, reducing the reproducibility and the potential for clinical care. Methodological well‐designed studies with a uniform reference diagnosis are urgently needed to determine the incremental value of circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF.

Temporal Trends in Prevalence and Prognostic Implications of Comorbidities Among Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: The ARIC Study Community Surveillance

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) have multiple coexisting comorbidities. The temporal trends in the burden of comorbidities and associated risk of mortality among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are not well established.

METHODS

HF-related hospitalizations were sampled by stratified design from 4 US areas in 2005 to 2014 by the community surveillance component of the ARIC study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). Acute decompensated HF was classified by standardized physician review and a previously validated algorithm. An ejection fraction <50% was considered HFrEF. A total of 15 comorbidities were abstracted from the medical record. Mortality outcomes were ascertained for up to 1-year postadmission by linking hospital records with death files.

RESULTS

A total of 5460 hospitalizations (24 937 weighted hospitalizations) classified as acute decompensated HF had available ejection fraction data (53% female, 68% white, 53% HFrEF, 47% HFpEF). The average number of comorbidities was higher for patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF, both for women (5.53 versus 4.94; P<0.0001) and men (5.20 versus 4.82; P<0.0001). There was a significant temporal increase in the overall burden of comorbidities, both for patients with HFpEF (women: 5.17 in 2005-2009 to 5.87 in 2010-2013; men: 4.94 in 2005-2009 and 5.45 in 2010-2013) and HFrEF (women: 4.78 in 2005-2009 to 5.14 in 2010-2013; men: 4.62 in 2005-2009 and 5.06 in 2010-2013; P-trend<0.0001 for all). Higher comorbidity burden was significantly associated with higher adjusted risk of 1-year mortality, with a stronger association noted for HFpEF (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 higher comorbidity, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14-1.25] versus HFrEF (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05-1.14]; P for interaction by HF type=0.02). The associated mortality risk per 1 higher comorbidity also increased significantly over time for patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, as well (P for interaction with time=0.002 and 0.02, respectively) Conclusions: The burden of comorbidities among hospitalized patients with acute decompensated HFpEF and HFrEF has increased over time, as has its associated mortality risk. Higher burden of comorbidities is associated with higher risk of mortality, with a stronger association noted among patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF.

NAFLD and cardiovascular diseases: a clinical review

Non-alcoholic fatty liver DISEASE (NAFLD) is the most common chronic liver disease in Western countries and affects approximately 25% of the adult population. Since NAFLD is frequently associated with further metabolic comorbidities such as obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or dyslipidemia, it is generally considered as the hepatic manifestation of the metabolic syndrome. In addition to its potential to cause liver-related morbidity and mortality, NAFLD is also associated with subclinical and clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD). Growing evidence indicates that patients with NAFLD are at substantial risk for the development of hypertension, coronary heart disease, cardiomyopathy, and cardiac arrhythmias, which clinically result in increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The natural history of NAFLD is variable and the vast majority of patients will not progress from simple steatosis to fibrosis and end stage liver disease. However, patients with progressive forms of NAFLD, including non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and/or advanced fibrosis, as well as NAFLD patients with concomitant types 2 diabetes are at highest risk for CVD. This review describes the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms linking NAFLD and CVD, discusses the role of NAFLD as a metabolic dysfunction associated cardiovascular risk factor, and focuses on common cardiovascular manifestations in NAFLD patients.

Coexisting Morbidities in Heart Failure: No Robust Interaction with the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure (HF) patients often present with multiple coexisting morbidities. In this review, we contend that coexisting morbidities are highly prevalent and clinically important regardless of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

RECENT FINDINGS

Multimorbidity is prevalent in the ambulatory subjects of the community and increases with age. Differences in the prevalence of coexisting morbidities between HF with preserved LVEF (> 50%), mid-range LVEF (40-50%), and reduced LVEF (< 40%) are either not demonstrable or whenever present are small and unrelated to morbidity and mortality. The constellation of coexisting morbidities together with the disease modifiers (age, sex, genes, other) defines the HF phenotype and outcome. There is no robust evidence supporting an interaction in HF patients between the prevalence and clinical significance of coexisting morbidities and the LVEF.

Sudden death in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and beyond: an elusive target

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents half of HF patients, who are more likely older, women, and hypertensive. Mortality rates in HFpEF are higher compared with age- and comorbidity-matched non-HF controls and lower than in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); the majority (50-70%) are cardiovascular (CV) deaths. Among CV deaths, sudden death (SD) (~ 35%) and HF-death (~ 20%) are the leading cardiac modes of death; however, proportionally, CV deaths, SD, and HF-deaths are lower in HFpEF, while non-CV deaths constitute a higher proportion of deaths in HFpEF (30-40%) than in HFrEF (~ 15%). Importantly, the underlying mechanism of SD has not been clearly elucidated and non-arrhythmic SD may be more prominent in HFpEF than in HFrEF. Furthermore, there is no specific strategy for identifying high-risk patients, probably due to wide heterogeneity in presentation and pathophysiology of HFpEF and a plethora of comorbidities in this population. Thus, the management of HFpEF remains problematic due to paucity of data on the clinical benefits of current therapies, which focus on symptom relief and reduction of HF-hospitalization by controlling fluid retention and managing risk-factors and comorbidities. Matching a specific pathophysiology or mode of death with available and novel therapies may improve outcomes in HFpEF. However, this still remains an elusive target, as we need more information on determinants of SD. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have changed the landscape of SD prevention in HFrEF; if ICDs are to be applied to HFpEF, there must be a coordinated effort to identify and select high-risk patients.

Cellular and Molecular Differences between HFpEF and HFrEF: A Step Ahead in an Improved Pathological Understanding

Heart failure (HF) is the most rapidly growing cardiovascular health burden worldwide. HF can be classified into three groups based on the percentage of the ejection fraction (EF): heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF), heart failure with mid-range-also called mildly reduced EF- (HFmrEF), and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFmrEF can progress into either HFrEF or HFpEF, but its phenotype is dominated by coronary artery disease, as in HFrEF. HFrEF and HFpEF present with differences in both the development and progression of the disease secondary to changes at the cellular and molecular level. While recent medical advances have resulted in efficient and specific treatments for HFrEF, these treatments lack efficacy for HFpEF management. These differential response rates, coupled to increasing rates of HF, highlight the significant need to understand the unique pathogenesis of HFrEF and HFpEF. In this review, we summarize the differences in pathological development of HFrEF and HFpEF, focussing on disease-specific aspects of inflammation and endothelial function, cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and death, alterations in the giant spring titin, and fibrosis. We highlight the areas of difference between the two diseases with the aim of guiding research efforts for novel therapeutics in HFrEF and HFpEF.

Anabolic Hormones Deficiencies in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Prevalence and Impact on Antioxidants Levels and Myocardial Dysfunction

Purpose: In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, catabolic mechanisms have a strong negative impact on mortality and morbidity. The relationship between anabolic hormonal deficiency and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has still been poorly investigated. On the other hand, oxidative stress is recognized as a player in the pathogenesis of HFpEF. Therefore, we performed a cohort study in HFpEF aimed to (1) define the multi-hormonal deficiency prevalence in HFpEF patients; (2) investigate the relationships between hormonal deficiencies and echocardiographic indexes; (3) explore the modulatory activity of anabolic hormones on antioxidant systems. Methods: 84 patients with diagnosis of HFpEF were enrolled in the study. Plasma levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, fasting glucose, insulin, lipid pattern, insulin-like growth factor-1, dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate (DHEA-S), total testosterone (T, only in male subjects) were evaluated. Hormonal deficiencies were defined according to T.O.S.C.A. multi-centric study, as previously published. An echocardiographic evaluation was performed. Plasma total antioxidant capacity (TAC) was measured using the system metmyoglobin -H₂O₂ and the chromogen ABTS, whose radical form is spectroscopically revealed; latency time (LAG) in the appearance of ABTS• is proportional to antioxidants in sample. Results: Multiple deficiencies were discovered. DHEA-S deficiency in 87% of patients, IGF-1 in 67% of patients, T in 42%. Patients with DHEA-S deficiency showed lower levels of TAC expressed by LAG (mean ± SEM 91.25 ± 9.34 vs. 75.22 ± 4.38 s; p < 0.05). No differences between TAC in patients with or without IGF-1 deficiency were found. A trend toward high level of TAC in patients without hormonal deficiencies compared with patients with one or multiple deficiencies was found. Regarding echocardiographic parameters, Left Atrial and Left Atrial Volume Index were significantly higher in patients with low IGF-1 values (mean ± SD 90.84 ± 3.86 vs. 72.83 ± 3.78 mL; 51.03 ± 2.33 vs. 40.56 ± 2.46 mL/m², respectively; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Our study showed high prevalence of anabolic deficiencies in HFpEF. DHEA-S seems to influence antioxidant levels; IGF-1 deficiency was associated with alteration in parameters of myocardial structure and dysfunction. These data suggest a role of anabolic hormones in the complex pathophysiological mechanisms of HFpEF and could represent the basis for longitudinal studies and investigations on possible benefits of replacement therapy.

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.