Significance of Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved, Midrange, and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Nationwide Cohort Study

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.

Enhanced clinical phenotyping by mechanistic bioprofiling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: insights from the MEDIA-DHF study (The Metabolic Road to Diastolic Heart Failure)

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome for which clear evidence of effective therapies is lacking. Understanding which factors determine this heterogeneity may be helped by better phenotyping. An unsupervised statistical approach applied to a large set of biomarkers may identify distinct HFpEF phenotypes.Methods: Relevant proteomic biomarkers were analyzed in 392 HFpEF patients included in Metabolic Road to Diastolic HF (MEDIA-DHF). We performed an unsupervised cluster analysis to define distinct phenotypes. Cluster characteristics were explored with logistic regression. The association between clusters and 1-year cardiovascular (CV) death and/or CV hospitalization was studied using Cox regression.Results: Based on 415 biomarkers, we identified 2 distinct clusters. Clinical variables associated with cluster 2 were diabetes, impaired renal function, loop diuretics and/or betablockers. In addition, 17 biomarkers were higher expressed in cluster 2 vs. 1. Patients in cluster 2 vs. those in 1 experienced higher rates of CV death/CV hospitalization (adj. HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.12-3.32, p = 0.017). Complex-network analyses linked these biomarkers to immune system activation, signal transduction cascades, cell interactions and metabolism.Conclusion: Unsupervised machine-learning algorithms applied to a wide range of biomarkers identified 2 HFpEF clusters with different CV phenotypes and outcomes. The identified pathways may provide a basis for future research.Clinical significanceMore insight is obtained in the mechanisms related to poor outcome in HFpEF patients since it was demonstrated that biomarkers associated with the high-risk cluster were related to the immune system, signal transduction cascades, cell interactions and metabolismBiomarkers (and pathways) identified in this study may help select high-risk HFpEF patients which could be helpful for the inclusion/exclusion of patients in future trials.Our findings may be the basis of investigating therapies specifically targeting these pathways and the potential use of corresponding markers potentially identifying patients with distinct mechanistic bioprofiles most likely to respond to the selected mechanistically targeted therapies.

Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the epidemiology, pathophysiology, management, and prognosis of patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2013, The American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) assigned an ejection fraction (EF) range to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, EF ≤ 40%) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, EF ≥50%). This classification created a "gray zone" of patients with EFs between 41% and 49% that ultimately came to be known as heart failure with borderline or mid-range ejection fraction. HFmrEF patients represent a group with heterogeneous clinical characteristics that at times resembles HFrEF, at others HFpEF, and at others still a unique phenotype altogether. No randomized controlled trials exist in those with HFmrEF, though HFrEF and HFpEF studies that include overlap suggest some potential benefit of beta blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors. Mortality rates among the HFmrEF population are significant, and are similar to those in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. HFmrEF is a complex disorder that remains poorly understood. Future research is needed to better elucidate the pathophysiology, management, and prognosis of this condition.

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.

Prognostic impact over time of ischaemic heart disease vs. non-ischaemic heart disease in heart failure

Aims

The aim of this study is to investigate the prognostic impact of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in heart failure (HF) and its association to age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), and HF duration, and furthermore, to evaluate if the impact of IHD has changed over time, in light of improved therapy.

Methods and results

We studied 30 946 patients with non‐valvular HF, by accessing the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, from years 2000 to 2012. The mortality in 17 778 patients with clinical IHD was compared with 13 168 patients without IHD (non‐IHD). There was a significantly worse outcome in IHD, with the crude mortality of 41.1% and the event rate per 100 person‐years [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 14.8 (14.4–15.1), compared with 28.2% and 9.7 (9.4–10.0) in non‐IHD. After multivariable adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) for mortality, IHD vs. non‐IHD, was 1.16 (1.11–1.22; P < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed significantly increased mortality in IHD, in all age subgroups, in all subgroups with EF < 50%, in both men and women, and regardless of heart failure duration more or less than 6 months. Analyses for the combination of age and EF showed the highest HR for time to death in the youngest with the lowest EF, HR (95% CI) 2.05 (1.59–2.64) for patients <60 years of age with EF < 30%. Although a numerical reduction of the HR for mortality was seen over time, the risk for mortality in IHD, compared with the non‐IHD group, was greater throughout the study period.

Conclusions

In non‐valvular heart failure, IHD was associated with significantly increased mortality, compared with non‐IHD, in groups of EF below 50%, in all age groups, and regardless of sex or HF duration. The risk increase associated with EF reduction diminished with increasing age. The mortality in IHD, compared with non‐IHD, remained significantly higher throughout the 13 year study period.

Estimating the Prevalence of Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy in a Large In-Hospital Database in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM)-a debilitating, fatal disease resulting from the deposition of transthyretin (TTR) amyloid fibrils-can be hereditary due to mutations in the TTR gene (ATTRm) or wild type (ATTRwt). The global prevalence of ATTR-CM is largely unknown, although likely underestimated, with no formal epidemiological prevalence studies in Japan. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of ATTR-CM in a large in-hospital database in Japan.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study which utilized data from all adult patients (aged ≥ 20 years) in the hospital-based Japan Medical Data Vision (MDV) database from January 2010 to September 2018 to estimate the number of currently diagnosed ATTR-CM patients and describe their demographic and clinical characteristics and diagnostic modalities. ATTR-CM patients (ATTRwt and ATTRm) were identified using a range of diagnosis codes that were applied to create broad and narrow definitions of the disease.

RESULTS

Over the 9 years of this study, there were 3255 (155.8 per million adult patients in the MDV database) to 3992 (191.1 per million) diagnoses of ATTRwt and 67 (3.2 per million) to 106 (5.1 per million) diagnoses of ATTRm in the MDV database (based on the narrow and broad definitions, respectively). There were 444 (21.2 per million) diagnoses of amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. Considering only those patients who were also diagnosed with heart failure, there were 1468 (70.3 per million) to 1798 (86.1 per million) diagnoses of ATTRwt and 50 (2.4 per million) to 61 (2.9 per million) diagnoses of ATTRm. Most ATTRwt patients (~ 90%) did not have a record of endomyocardial or abdominal wall biopsy, or of scintigram.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study provides an estimate of the number of patients diagnosed with ATTR-CM in a large in-hospital database in Japan over a period of 9 years. Improving awareness of disease prevalence may improve diagnosis and treatment.

FUNDING

Pfizer.

Highlights in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) remains a major cause of mortality, morbidity, and poor quality of life. It is an area of active research. This article is aimed to give an update on recent advances in all aspects of this syndrome. Major changes occurred in drug treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Sacubitril/valsartan is indicated as a substitute to ACEi/ARBs after PARADIGM-HF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87 for sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril for the primary endpoint and Wei, Lin and Weissfeld HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89 for recurrent events). Its initiation was then shown as safe and potentially useful in recent studies in patients hospitalized for acute HF. More recently, dapagliflozin and prevention of adverse-outcomes in DAPA-HF trial showed the beneficial effects of the sodium-glucose transporter type 2 inhibitor dapaglifozin vs. placebo, added to optimal standard therapy [HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.85;0.74; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.85 for the primary endpoint]. Trials with other SGLT 2 inhibitors and in other patients, such as those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or with recent decompensation, are ongoing. Multiple studies showed the unfavourable prognostic significance of abnormalities in serum potassium levels. Potassium lowering agents may allow initiation and titration of mineralocorticoid antagonists in a larger proportion of patients. Meta-analyses suggest better outcomes with ferric carboxymaltose in patients with iron deficiency. Drugs effective in HFrEF may be useful also in HF with mid-range ejection fraction. Better diagnosis and phenotype characterization seem warranted in HF with preserved ejection fraction. These and other burning aspects of HF research are summarized and reviewed in this article.

Incidence of, Associations With and Prognostic Impact of Worsening Renal Function in Heart Failure With Different Ejection Fraction Categories

There are no studies of long-term worsening renal function (WRF) in heart failure (HF) with different ejection fraction (EF) groups. The aim was to compare incidence of, associations with and prognostic impact of WRF in HF with preserved (HFpEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and reduced EF (HFrEF). The Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) was merged with the Stockholm Creatinine Measurement (SCREAM) registry 2006 to 2010. The associations between EF and WRF (≥25% decrease in eGFR) and the associations between WRF25-49% and WRF≥50% within year one and subsequent all-cause mortality were all assessed with multiadjusted Cox regression. Of 7,154 patients, 41.6% of HFpEF versus 34.5% and 35.4% of HFmrEF and HFrEF patients developed WRF≥25% during year one. The WRF risk was higher in HFpEF (reference) than in HFmrEF, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.890 (0.794 to 0.997) and HFrEF 0.870 (0.784 to 0.965). WRF within year one was strongly associated with subsequent long-term mortality in all EF groups, yielding adjusted HRs with WRF25-49% and WRF≥50%: HFpEF, 1.101 (0.913 to 1.328) and 2.096 (1.652 to 2.659), in HFmrEF 1.654 (1.353 to 2.022) and 2.375 (1.807 to 3.122) and in HFrEF 1.212 (1.060 to 1.386) and 1.694 (1.412 to 2.033). In conclusion, the long-term WRF risk was high in HF and highest in HFpEF. WRF was strongly associated with mortality in all EF groups, although in HFpEF only with the most severe WRF.

Ankle-brachial index and incident heart failure with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

This study investigated the relationship between ankle-brachial index (ABI) and risk for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). ABI has previously been associated with mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and overall HF but the relationship between ABI and risk of HF stratified by EF has not been well characterized. We analyzed data from 6553 participants (53% female; mean age 62 ± 10 years) enrolled in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) who were free of known clinical CVD/HF at baseline (2000-2002) and had baseline ABI measured. Participants were classified as low (≤ 0.90), borderline-low (0.91-1.00), normal (1.01-1.40), and high (> 1.40) ABI. Incident hospitalized HF was determined over a median follow-up of 14 years; we classified HF events (n = 321) as HFrEF with EF < 50% (n = 155, 54%) or HFpEF with EF ⩾ 50% (n = 133, 46%). Low ABI was associated with incident HFrEF (hazard ratio (HR): 2.02, 95% CI 1.19-3.40, p = 0.01) and had no significant association with HFpEF (HR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.30-1.48, p = 0.32). Borderline-low and high ABI were not significantly associated with HFrEF or HFpEF. Cubic spline analyses showed association with both low and high ABI for HFrEF and high ABI for HFpEF. A 1 SD lower ABI (for ABI < 1.1) was associated with incident HFrEF in multivariable analysis (HR: 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.54) but was not significant after additionally adjusting for interim myocardial infarction (HR: 1.21, 95% CI 0.99-1.48). Low ABI was associated with higher risk for incident HFrEF but not HFpEF in persons free of known CVD. Future studies of a larger size are needed for high ABI analyses.

Particularities of Older Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction

Background and objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and heart failure (HF) are increasing in prevalence with a greater impact on the health system. The aim of this study was to assess the particularities of patients with OSAS and HF, focusing on the new class of HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF, EF = 40%-49%), and comparing it with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%) and preserved EF (HFpEF, EF ≥ 50%). Materials and Methods: A total of 143 patients with OSAS and HF were evaluated in three sleep labs of "Victor Babes" Hospital and Cardiovascular Institute, Timisoara, Western Romania. We collected socio-demographic data, anthropometric sleep-related measurements, symptoms through sleep questionnaires and comorbidity-related data. We performed blood tests, cardio-respiratory polygraphy and echocardiographic measurements. Patients were divided into three groups depending on ejection fraction. Results: Patients with HFmrEF were older (p = 0.0358), with higher values of the highest systolic blood pressure (mmHg) (p = 0.0016), higher serum creatinine (p = 0.0013), a lower glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.0003), higher glycemic levels (p = 0.008) and a larger left atrial diameter (p = 0.0002). Regarding comorbidities, data were presented as percentage, HFrEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFpEF. Higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (52.9 vs. 72.7 vs. 40.2, p = 0.006), chronic kidney disease (17.6 vs. 57.6 vs. 21.5, p < 0.001), tricuspid insufficiency (76.5 vs. 84.8 vs.59.1, p = 0.018) and aortic insufficiency (35.3 vs.42.4 vs. 20.4, p = 0.038) were observed in patients with HFmrEF, whereas chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD) (52.9 vs. 24.2 vs.18.3, p = 0.009), coronary artery disease(CAD) (82.4 vs. 6.7 vs. 49.5, p = 0.026), myocardial infarction (35.3 vs. 24.2 vs. 5.4, p < 0.001) and impaired parietal heart kinetics (70.6 vs. 68.8 vs. 15.2, p < 0.001) were more prevalent in patients with HFrEF. Conclusions: Patients with OSAS and HF with mid-range EF may represent a new group with increased risk of developing life-long chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, tricuspid and aortic insufficiency. COPD, myocardial infarction, impaired parietal kinetics and CAD are most prevalent comorbidities in HFrEF patients but they are closer in prevalence to HFmrEF than HFpEF.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction and with preserved ejection fraction

The annual "heart report" published by the German Heart Foundation (Deutsche Herzstiftung) in December 2017 indicates that heart failure (ICD I50) remains the number one diagnosis of in-hospital-treated patients throughout Germany. For some time, the clinical diagnosis of heart failure has been verified by echocardiographic parameters as well as cardiac biomarkers that assist the clinician to rule in or rule out the presence of a failing heart, when used wisely. By introducing the term "heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction" (HFmrEF), the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) heart failure guidelines established a third heart failure entity, which was not necessarily seen as an improvement by the heart failure community. Nevertheless, half of all patients suffering from heart failure are now classified as having HFmrEF or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but the etiology and treatment options differ substantially. To elucidate this issue, the current review aims to highlight the key findings published to date. This should minimize the confusion that may have been generated by the new term "HFmrEF".

Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction - State of the Art

In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recognized heart failure (HF) with ejection fraction between 40 and 49% as a new HF phenotype, HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), with the main purpose of encouraging studies on this new category. In 2018, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology adhered to this classification and introduced HFmrEF in Brazil. This paper presents a narrative review of what the literature has described about HFmrEF. The prevalence of patients with HFmrEF ranged from 13 to 24% of patients with HF. Analyzing the clinical characteristics, HFmrEF shows intermediate characteristics or is either similar to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or to HF with reduced fraction (HFrEF). Regarding the prognosis, HFmrEF's all-cause mortality is similar to HFpEF's and lower than HFrEF's. Studies that analyzed cardiac mortality concluded that there was no significant difference between HFmrEF and HFrEF, both of which were lower than HFpEF. Despite the significant increase of publications on HFmrEF, there is a great scarcity of prospective studies and clinical trials that allow delineating specific therapies for this new phenotype. To better treat HFmrEF patients, it is fundamental that cardiologists and internists understand the differences and similarities of this new phenotype.

Impact of Sex on Ventricular-Vascular Stiffness and Long-Term Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: TOPCAT Trial Substudy

Background

Women have higher vascular stiffness with aging. The aim of this study was to characterize sex differences in vascular and ventricular structure and function, and to investigate the impact on the primary outcome in the TOPCAT trial (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial).

Methods and Results

Data from the Americas cohort of the TOPCAT trial were analyzed. Patients with echocardiography (n=654) were compared according to sex, and achievement of the primary end point (a composite of death from cardiovascular causes and heart failure hospitalization) assessed. Echocardiography revealed higher arterial, systolic, and diastolic ventricular elastance and worse ventricular‐vascular coupling in women. Women had better overall survival and heart failure hospitalization outcomes (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.98, P=0.034), however, determinants of achievement of the primary outcome differed between the sexes. Pulse pressure was a key determinant of outcome in women (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 1–1.09, P=0.034) whereas in men heart rate (hazard ratio 1.61, 95% CI 1.02–2.52 per 10 mm Hg increase, P=0.04) and B‐type natriuretic peptide (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 1–1.02 per 10 ng/mL increase P=0.02) were associated with poorer outcome.

Conclusions

Outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction appear to be differentially influenced by key physiological factors that vary according to sex. In women, ventricular‐vascular stiffening was the most significant determinant of outcome, whereas in men overall survival was influenced by heart rate and B‐type natriuretic peptide; this highlights key sex differences in the pathophysiology and outcomes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and warrants further exploration.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302.

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.

Rationale, Design, and Methodology of the APOLLON trial: A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with midrange and preserved ejectiON fraction

Objective:

Although almost half of chronic heart failure (HF) patients have mid-range (HFmrEF) and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF), no studies have been carried out with these patients in our country. This study aims to determine the demographic characteristics and current status of the clinical background of HFmrEF and HFpEF patients in a multicenter trial.

Methods:

A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mid-range and preserved ejectiON fraction (APOLLON) trial will be an observational, multicenter, and noninterventional study conducted in Turkey. The study population will include 1065 patients from 12 sites in Turkey. All data will be collected at one point in time and the current clinical practice will be evaluated (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03026114).

Results:

We will enroll all consecutive patients admitted to the cardiology clinics who were at least 18 years of age and had New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV HF, elevated brain natriuretic peptide levels within the last 30 days, and an left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 40%. Patients fulfilling the exclusion criteria will not be included in the study. Patients will be stratified into two categories according to LVEF: mid-range EF (HFmrEF, LVEF 40%-49%) and preserved EF (HFpEF, LVEF ≥50%). Regional quota sampling will be performed to ensure that the sample was representative of the Turkish population. Demographic, lifestyle, medical, and therapeutic data will be collected by this specific survey.

Conclusion:

The APOLLON trial will be the largest and most comprehensive study in Turkey evaluating HF patients with a LVEF ≥40% and will also be the first study to specifically analyze the recently designated HFmrEF category.

Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction in Patients Admitted for Acute Decompensation: A Report from the Japanese Multicenter Registry

BACKGROUND

Patients having heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF: 40% ≤ EF < 50%) are increasingly being considered a new subset of the population with heart failure. Despite recent advances in heart-failure treatment strategies, the prognosis of these patients has not improved substantially over time. In addition, the significance of this new phenotype in hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), another population whose prognosis has not improved, also remains poorly understood. This study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, prognosis and treatment responses of patients with HFmrEF hospitalized for ADHF.

METHODS

On the basis of consecutive inpatient data from a multicenter ADHF registry, 651 of 3572 patients (17.1%) were classified as having HFmrEF. Prognostic factors predicting composite outcomes, defined as all-cause death and heart failure readmission, as well as all-cause death alone, were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the median follow-up duration of 724 days, both composite endpoints and all-cause death alone were comparable in those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, HFmrEF and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Age, anemia, hyponatremia, elevated blood urea nitrogen, chronic kidney disease, and elevated plasma brain natriuretic peptide levels were significant predictors of composite outcomes in HFmrEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Roughly one-sixth of the patients with ADHF had HFmrEF. The long-term prognosis of patients with HFmrEF was not significantly different from that of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the population with ADHF. Risk factors for adverse outcomes in HFmrEF were also similar to those for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and HFmrEF in the hospitalized population with ADHF.

Do Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction Have Heart Failure at Follow-Up: Implications of the Framingham Criteria

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) may be misdiagnosed. We assessed prevalence and consistency of Framingham criteria signs and symptoms in acute vs subsequent stable HFpEF.

METHODS

Three hundred ninety-nine patients with acute HFpEF according to Framingham criteria were re-assessed in stable condition. Four definitions of HFpEF at follow-up: (1) Framingham criteria alone, (2) Framingham criteria and natriuretic peptides (NPs), (3) Framingham criteria, NPs, and European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines echocardiographic criteria, (4) Framingham criteria, NPs, and the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON) trial echocardiographic criteria.

RESULTS

At follow-up, HFpEF was still present in 27%, 22%, 21%, and 22%, respectively. Most prevalent in acute HFpEF were dyspnea at exertion (90%), pulmonary rales (71%), persisting at follow-up in 70% and 13%, respectively. Characteristics at acute HF with greater or lesser odds of stable HFpEF; (1) jugular venous distention (odds ratio [OR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-2.87; P = .013) and pleural effusion (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.85; P = .014) and (4), older age (1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08; P = .014) and tachycardia (>100 bpm) 0.52, 95% CI 0.27-1.00; P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute HFpEF, one-quarter met the HF definition according to Framingham criteria at ambulatory follow-up. The proportion of patients with postdischarge HFpEF was largely unaffected by additional echocardiographic or NP criteria Older age and jugular venous distention at acute presentation predicted persistent HFpEF at follow-up, whereas pleural effusion and tachycardia may yield false HFpEF diagnoses. This finding has implications for HFpEF trial design.

Comparing of Tp-Te Interval and Tp-Te/Qt Ratio in Patients with Preserved, Mid-Range and Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is classified in three class: HF with preserved EF (HFpEF); normal or LVEF ≥ 50%, HF with reduced EF (HFrEF); LEVF < 40% and newly HF mid-range EF (HFmrEF); LVEF 40-49%. On Electrocardiography (ECG) T wave, Tpeak-Tend (Tp-Te) interval reflects transmural dispersion of repolarisation (TDR) which of these indexes have been proposed as predictors of risk for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in many cardiac diseases.

AIM

Aim of this study to asses these indices of TDR among three HF class.

METHODS

Total of 192 patients were included in this study.

RESULTS

Many of indices like Tp-Te, Tp-Te/QT wasn't different between groups (P > 0.05). But mean Q-Tpeak (QTp), S-Tend (S-Te) and S-Tpeak (S-Tp) were found significantly different between groups (P < 0.05). Again S-Te was found different according to having fragmented QRS (fQRS) on ECG (P = 0.031). Comparing to mitral inflow E/A parameters showed significant differences for Tp-Te, Tp-Tec, Tp-Te/QT, Tp-Te/QTc and Tp-Tec/QTc parameters. Finally, we found correlations between S-Te and white blood cell (WBC) (r = - 0.171; P = 0.037) and S-Tp and WBC (r = - 0.170; P = 0.038) and between S-Te and fQRS (r = 0.158; P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

We didn't find differences for many of indices of TDR like Tp-Te interval between groups except QTp, S-Te, S-Tp intervals. Also, S-Te and fQRS showed significant correlation. For prediction of ventricular arrhythmia and cardiovascular death newer indexes on ECG are needed to be established in the future which will make us facilitate to distinguish high risk patients.

The Swedish Heart Failure Registry: a living, ongoing quality assurance and research in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) represents a global pandemic. Although in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) randomized controlled trials have provided effective treatments, prognosis still remains poor, with signals of undertreatment. HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF) has no evidence-based therapy, and its characterization is ongoing. Trials in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) have failed to provide any effective treatment, but there are several concerns about their design. Thus, current challenges in the HF field are: 1) optimizing the use of existing treatments in HFrEF; 2) developing and proving efficacy of new treatments, and of new use of existing treatments in HFpEF and HFmrEF. Here we describe how registry-based research can improve knowledge addressing the unmet needs in HF, and in particular we focus on the contribution of the Swedish Heart Failure Registry to this field.

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.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction: A Patient-Pooled Analysis From the Kor HF and Kor AHF Registries

Background Although current guidelines now define heart failure with midrange ejection fraction ( HF mr EF ) as HF with a left ventricular EF of 40% to 49%, there are limited data on response to guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HF mr EF . The current study aimed to evaluate the association between β-blocker, renin-angiotensin system blocker ( RASB ), or aldosterone antagonist ( AA ) treatment with clinical outcome in patients with HF mr EF . Methods and Results We performed a patient-level pooled analysis on 1144 patients with HF mr EF who were hospitalized for acute HF from the Kor HF (Korean Heart Failure) and Kor AHF (Korean Acute Heart Failure) registries. The study population was divided between use of β-blocker, RASB , or AA to evaluate the guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HF mr EF . Sensitivity analyses, including propensity score matching and inverse-probability-weighted methods, were performed. The use of β-blocker in the discharge group showed significantly lower rates of all-cause mortality compared with those who did not use a β-blocker (β-blocker versus no β-blocker, 30.7% versus 38.2%; hazard ratio, 0.758; 95% confidence interval, 0.615-0.934; P=0.009). Similarly, the RASB use in the discharge group was associated with the lower risk of mortality compared with no use of RASB ( RASB versus no RASB , 31.9% versus 38.1%; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.618-0.946; P=0.013). However, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between AA and no AA in the discharge group ( AA versus no AA , 34.2% versus 34.0%; hazard ratio, 1.063; 95% confidence interval, 0.858-1.317; P=0.578). Multiple sensitivity analyses showed similar trends. Conclusions For treatment of acute HFmrEF after hospitalization, β-blocker and RASB therapies on discharge were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01389843.

Many Cells Make Life Work-Multicellularity in Stem Cell-Based Cardiac Disease Modelling

Cardiac disease causes 33% of deaths worldwide but our knowledge of disease progression is still very limited. In vitro models utilising and combining multiple, differentiated cell types have been used to recapitulate the range of myocardial microenvironments in an effort to delineate the mechanical, humoral, and electrical interactions that modulate the cardiac contractile function in health and the pathogenesis of human disease. However, due to limitations in isolating these cell types and changes in their structure and function in vitro, the field is now focused on the development and use of stem cell-derived cell types, most notably, human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived CMs (hiPSC-CMs), in modelling the CM function in health and patient-specific diseases, allowing us to build on the findings from studies using animal and adult human CMs. It is becoming increasingly appreciated that communications between cardiomyocytes (CMs), the contractile cell of the heart, and the non-myocyte components of the heart not only regulate cardiac development and maintenance of health and adult CM functions, including the contractile state, but they also regulate remodelling in diseases, which may cause the chronic impairment of the contractile function of the myocardium, ultimately leading to heart failure. Within the myocardium, each CM is surrounded by an intricate network of cell types including endothelial cells, fibroblasts, vascular smooth muscle cells, sympathetic neurons, and resident macrophages, and the extracellular matrix (ECM), forming complex interactions, and models utilizing hiPSC-derived cell types offer a great opportunity to investigate these interactions further. In this review, we outline the historical and current state of disease modelling, focusing on the major milestones in the development of stem cell-derived cell types, and how this technology has contributed to our knowledge about the interactions between CMs and key non-myocyte components of the heart in health and disease, in particular, heart failure. Understanding where we stand in the field will be critical for stem cell-based applications, including the modelling of diseases that have complex multicellular dysfunctions.

Evidence-based pharmacotherapies used in the postdischarge phase are associated with improved one-year survival in senior patients hospitalized with heart failure

AIM

Hospitalized heart failure (HF) patients have a poor prognosis postdischarge. We determined whether renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASI) and β-blockers dispensed to patients within 60 days post-HF hospital discharge are associated with improved 1-year survival.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based study was conducted in 4897 seniors, aged 65-84 years, alive at 60 days postindex HF hospitalization in Western Australia over 2003-2008. Dispensing of RASI and β-blocker dispensing was identified from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme claims database linked to hospital admission and death records.

RESULTS

At 1-year posthospital discharge, the all-cause mortality and all-cause death or HF rehospitalization rate was 13.5% (n = 663) and 24.4% (n = 1193), respectively. Postdischarge RASI and β-blocker were dispensed in 77.4% and 53.0% of patients, respectively. Their use was associated with a lower inverse probability treatment weighted (IPTW) HR for 1-year mortality of 0.70, 95% CI 0.61-0.81 and 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92, respectively (both P < 0.0001), with a survival advantage most evident in the subgroup (70.1%) of patients with ischemic HF. In the overall cohort, these therapies were also associated with reduced IPTW HRs for all-cause death or HF rehospitalization (both P < 0.005) but not for HF rehospitalization exclusively. Use of a β-blocker was associated with a reduced IPTW HR for HF rehospitalization in the ischemic HF subgroup only.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of senior patients hospitalized with HF, dispensing of a RASI or β-blocker within 60 days postdischarge is associated with a 1-year survival benefit. Early postdischarge support programs after recent HF hospitalization should include measures to optimize adherence to evidence-based medications.

Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid-range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

This study aimed to assess by a meta‐analysis the clinical characteristics, all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of patients with heart failure (HF) with mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods and results

Data from 12 eligible observational studies including 109 257 patients were pooled. HFmrEF patients were significantly different and occupied a mid‐position between HFrEF and HFpEF: mean age 73.6 ± 9.8 vs. 72.6 ± 9.8 and 77.6 ± 7.2 years, male gender 59% vs. 68.5% and 40%, ischaemic heart disease 49% vs. 52.6% and 39.4%, hypertension 67.3% vs. 61.5% and 76.5%, atrial fibrillation 45.2% vs. 39.6% and 46%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 26.4% vs. 24.9% and 30.5%, estimated glomerular filtration rate 62 ± 30 vs. 63.3 ± 23 and 59 ± 22.5, use of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors 79.6% vs. 90.1% and 68.7%, beta‐blockers 82% vs. 89% and 73.5%, and aldosterone antagonists 20.3 vs. 31.5% and 26%, P‐values < 0.05. After a mean follow‐up of 31 ± 5 months, all‐cause mortality was significantly lower in HFmrEF than in HFrEF and HFpEF (26.8% vs. 29.5% and 31%): risk ratio (RR) 0.95 [0.93–0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI)], P < 0.001, and 0.97 (0.94–0.99; 95% CI), P = 0.014, respectively. Cardiovascular mortality was lowest in HFmrEF (9.7% vs. 13% and 12.8%): RR = 0.81 (0.73–0.91), P < 0.001, and 1.10 (0.97–1.24; 95% CI), P = 0.13, respectively. HF hospitalization in HFmrEF compared to that in HFrEF and HFpEF was 23.9% vs. 27.6% and 23.3% with RR = 0.89 (0.85–0.93), P < 0.001, and RR = 1.12 (1.07–1.17), P < 0.001, respectively.

Conclusions

The results of this study support that HFmrEF is a distinct category characterized by a mid‐position between HFrEF and HFpEF and with the lowest all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Heart Failure with Recovered EF and Heart Failure with Mid-Range EF: Current Recommendations and Controversies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores key features and potential management controversies in two emerging populations in heart failure: heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HF-recovered EF) and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

RECENT FINDINGS

While HF-recovered EF patients have better outcomes than heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), they continue to have symptoms, persistent biomarker elevations, and abnormal outcomes suggesting a continued disease process. HFmrEF patients appear to have features of HFrEF and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but have a high prevalence of ischemic heart disease and may represent a transitory phase between the HFrEF and HFpEF. Management strategies have insufficient data to warrant standardization at this time. HF-recovered EF and HFmrEF represent new populations with unmet needs and expose the pitfalls of an EF basis for heart failure classification.

Utilizing NT-proBNP for Eligibility and Enrichment in Trials in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the association between N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and cardiovascular (CV) versus non-CV events and between NT-proBNP and potential treatment effects in heart failure (HF) with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF, respectively) and clinically relevant subgroups.

BACKGROUND

Optimizing patient eligibility criteria in HF trials requires biomarkers that enrich for CV but not for non-CV events and select patients most likely to respond to the tested intervention.

METHODS

In the Swedish HF registry population stratified by EF category, we used Kaplan-Meier curves to estimate unadjusted CV and non-CV risks (mortality or hospitalization); Poisson regressions to calculate crude event rates of CV and non-CV events according to NT-proBNP levels; and Cox regressions to calculate the adjusted hazard ratios for HF therapies according to NT-proBNP ≤ or > median.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 15,849 patients (23% HFpEF, 21% HFmrEF, 56% HFrEF), median NT-proBNP was 2,037, 2,192, and 3,141 pg/ml, respectively. With increasing NT-proBNP, CV event rates increased more steeply than non-CV rates (range 20 to 160 and 30 to 100 per 100 patient-years in HFpEF; 20 to 130 and 20 to 100 in HFmrEF; and 20 to 110 and 20 to 50 in HFrEF, respectively). The CV-to-non-CV ratio increased with increasing NT-proBNP in HFpEF and HFrEF, but only in the lower range in HFmrEF. The association between treatments (e.g., angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, and beta-blockers) and outcomes was consistent in NT-proBNP ≤ and > median.

CONCLUSIONS

In HF trial design in different EF categories, NT-proBNP may be a useful tool for eligibility and enrichment for CV events, but its role in predicting a potential treatment response remains unclear.

Impact of Cardiac Progenitor Cells on Heart Failure and Survival in Single Ventricle Congenital Heart Disease

RATIONALE

Intracoronary administration of cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs) in patients with single ventricles resulted in a short-term improvement in cardiac function.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that CDC infusion is associated with improved cardiac function and reduced mortality in patients with heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated the effectiveness of CDCs using an integrated cohort study in 101 patients with single ventricles, including 41 patients who received CDC infusion and 60 controls treated with staged palliation alone. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (EF) or reduced EF was stratified by the cardiac function after surgical reconstruction. The main outcome measure was to evaluate the magnitude of improvement in cardiac function and all-cause mortality at 2 years. Animal studies were conducted to clarify the underlying mechanisms of heart failure with preserved EF and heart failure with reduced EF phenotypes. At 2 years, CDC infusion increased ventricular function (stage 2: +8.4±10.0% versus +1.6±6.4%, P=0.03; stage 3: +7.9±7.5% versus -1.1±5.5%, P<0.001) compared with controls. In all available follow-up data, survival did not differ between the 2 groups (log-rank P=0.225), whereas overall patients treated by CDCs had lower incidences of late failure (P=0.022), adverse events (P=0.013), and catheter intervention (P=0.005) compared with controls. CDC infusion was associated with a lower risk of adverse events (hazard ratio, 0.411; 95% CI, 0.179-0.942; P=0.036). Notably, CDC infusion reduced mortality (P=0.038) and late complications (P<0.05) in patients with heart failure with reduced EF but not with heart failure with preserved EF. CDC-treated rats significantly reversed myocardial fibrosis with differential collagen deposition and inflammatory responses between the heart failure phenotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

CDC administration in patients with single ventricles showed favorable effects on ventricular function and was associated with reduced late complications except for all-cause mortality after staged procedures. Patients with heart failure with reduced EF but not heart failure with preserved EF treated by CDCs resulted in significant improvement in clinical outcome.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01273857 and NCT01829750.

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.

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.