What have we learned about heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction one year after its introduction?

Application of an echocardiographic index to characterize right ventricular-pulmonary arterial coupling in heart failure

Heart failure (HF), with its high morbidity and mortality, remains a global public health issue. Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is a sign of deterioration in the natural history of HF, and a thorough evaluation of the relationship between RV contractility and its afterload through RV-pulmonary arterial (RV-PA) coupling can aid in accurately assessing overall RV function. The ratio of RV end-systolic elastance (Ees) to pulmonary arterial elastance (Ea) invasively measured by right heart catheterization served as the gold standard for evaluating RV-PA coupling. An echocardiographic index termed tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion/pulmonary artery systolic pressure (TAPSE/PASP) has been shown to correlate well with Ees/Ea. TAPSE/PASP is recognized as a non-invasive surrogate of RV-PA coupling and has been extensively studied in patients with HF. This review briefly describes the methods of assessing RV-PA coupling, mainly discussing echocardiography, summarizes the clinical utility of TAPSE/PASP in patients with different HF types, and provides an overview of the available literature.

Prevalence, characteristics and prognostic impact of aortic valve disease in patients with heart failure and reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction: An analysis of the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

AIMS

To assess the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) with or without moderate to severe aortic valve disease (AVD) (aortic stenosis [AS], aortic regurgitation [AR], mixed AVD [MAVD]).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from the prospective ESC HFA EORP HF Long-Term Registry including both chronic and acute HF were analysed. Of 15 216 patients with HF (62.5% with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF; 14.0% with mildly reduced ejection fraction, HFmrEF; 23.5% with preserved ejection fraction, HFpEF), 706 patients (4.6%) had AR, 648 (4.3%) AS and 234 (1.5%) MAVD. The prevalence of AS, AR and MAVD was 6%, 8%, and 3% in HFpEF, 6%, 3%, and 2% in HFmrEF and 4%, 3%, and 1% in HFrEF. The strongest associations were observed for age and HFpEF with AS, and for left ventricular end-diastolic diameter with AR. AS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.67), and MAVD (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.74) but not AR (adjusted HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96-1.33) were independently associated with the 12-month composite outcome of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. The associations between AS and the composite outcome were observed regardless of ejection fraction category.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ESC HFA EORP HF Long-Term Registry, one in 10 patients with HF had AVD, with AS and MAVD being especially common in HFpEF and AR being similarly distributed across all ejection fraction categories. AS and MAVD, but not AR, were independently associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality and 12-month composite outcome, regardless of ejection fraction category.

Prevalence and Prognostic Implication of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Subtypes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) portends a poor outcome. The HF universal definition has incorporated Heart Failure with mildly reduced Ejection Fraction (HFmrEF). We sought to evaluate the relationship between AF and different HF subtypes, with emphasis on HFmrEF.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to July 2022. Studies that classified HF with EF≥50% as Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF); EF 40%-49% as HFmrEF; and EF <40% as Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) were included.

RESULTS

Fifty (50) eligible studies, with 126,720 acute HF and 109,683 chronic HF patients, were included. Ten percent (10%) and 12% of patients constituted HFmrEF subtype in patients with acute and chronic HF, respectively. The AF prevalence was 38% (95%CI [33, 44], I²=96.9%) in HFmrEF, as compared to 43% (95%CI [39, 47], I²=97.9%) in HFpEF, and 32% (95%CI [29, 35], I² =98.6%) in HFrEF in acute HF patients. Meta-regression showed HFmrEF shared age as a determinant for AF prevalence with HFrEF and HFpEF. Similar AF prevalence also was observed in chronic HF. Compared to sinus rhythm, AF was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in all HF subtypes: HFmrEF (n=6; HR 1.28, 95%CI [1.08, 1.51], I²=71%), HFpEF (n=10; HR 1.14, 95%CI [1.06, 1.23], I²=55%) and HFrEF (n=9; HR 1.11, 95%CI [1.02, 1.21], I²=78%).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of AF was intermediate for HFmrEF in between HFpEF and HFrEF, with determinants shared with either HF subtype. The co-existence of AF and HF predicts an increased all-cause mortality across all categories of HF. (PROSPERO registry: CRD42021189411).

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: Current understanding and future prospects

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a prevalent kind of heart failure in which a significant amount of the ejection fraction can be repaired, and left ventricular remodeling and dysfunction can be reversed or even restored completely. However, a considerable number of patients still present clinical signs and biochemical features of incomplete recovery from the pathophysiology of heart failure and are at risk for adverse outcomes such as re-deterioration of systolic function and recurrence of HFrEF. Furthermore, it is revealed from a microscopic perspective that even if partial or complete reverse remodeling occurs, the morphological changes of cardiomyocytes, extracellular matrix deposition, and abnormal transcription and expression of pathological genes still exist. Patients with "recovered ejection fraction" have milder clinical symptoms and better outcomes than those with continued reduction of ejection fraction. Based on the unique characteristics of this subgroup and the existence of many unknowns, the academic community defines it as a new category-heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF). Because there is a shortage of natural history data for this population as well as high-quality clinical and basic research data, it is difficult to accurately evaluate clinical risk and manage this population. This review will present the current understanding of HFrecEF from the limited literature.

Electrocardiographic Patterns of Depolarization Abnormalities Help to Identify Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between a decrease in the left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and traditional ECG signs associated with structural changes of the myocardium (pathological Q wave, ventricular arrhythmias) and relatively new and poorly understood (fragmented QRS complex (fQRS), early repolarization pattern (ERP)) and evaluate their significance for identifying patients with mildly reduced EF (mrEF). The study included 148 patients who were treated and examined at the Almazov Medical Research Center. FQRS, ERP, pathological Q wave, and premature ventricular contractions (PVC) were described in the analysis of the ECG, and the results of echocardiography and statistical data were analyzed: Fisher’s test and chi-square, correlation analysis, and ROC analysis. According to the level of EF, patients were divided into three groups: group 1—patients with low EF (lEF) (less than 40%), group 2—patients with mildly reduced EF (mrEF) (40–49%); group 3—patients with preserved EF (pEF) (more than 50%). In the first group (EF), fQRS was registered in 16 (51.6%) patients, in the mrEF in 16 (18.2%). Pathological Q wave was detected in lEF in 20 (65%), in mrEF in 10 (35%), 15 (18%), in pEF in 15 (18%). The fQRS has been found to be more important in identifying patients with mrEF. In lEF in 2 (6.5%) patients, in mrEF in 2 (6.9%), in pEF in 11 (12.5%). There was no relationship between ERP, the amount of PVC, and the presence of ventricular tachycardia with EF. FQRS is significantly more common occurred with a decrease in EF and may be a marker of a mrEF. Thus, fQRS is associated with mrEF and pay close attention in routine clinical practice to identify patients at high risk of developing systolic dysfunction.

[Pharmacological treatment of the heart failure according to the ventricular ejection fraction in primary care]

Objetivo

Aunque se dispone de mejores diagnósticos y tratamientos, la insuficiencia cardíaca (IC) es una causa importante de muerte en España. El objetivo de este estudio es describir el tratamiento y las características de la población con IC crónica, clasificada según la fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo (FEVI).

Diseño

Estudio observacional de cohortes de base poblacional en atención primaria (AP).

Emplazamiento

Cataluña, 2014-2018.

Participantes

Se incluyeron pacientes adultos con diagnóstico incidente de IC clasificada según la FEVI.

Intervención

Análisis de los datos de salud registrados en la base de datos Sistema de Información para el Desarrollo de la Investigación en AP (SIDIAP).

Variables principales

Demográficas, FEVI, comorbilidades y uso de fármacos para la IC.

Resultados

Se incluyeron 10.130 pacientes; el 18,9% con FEVI < 40 (ICFEr), el 15,9% con FEVI 40-49 (ICFEi) y el 65,2% con FEVI ≥ 50 (ICFEp), este último grupo con mayor proporción de mujeres (57,5%) y una mayor edad media (80,2 años). La población con ICFEi era similar a la de ICFEr en edad, género, comorbilidades o tratamiento. Las comorbilidades más frecuentes eran la hipertensión (78.3%), la dislipemia (54%) y la fibrilación auricular (41,5%). Los tratamientos más frecuentes fueron los β-bloqueantes, con diferencias según la FEVI (FEVIr 1.515 [79,2%], FEVIi 1.142 [70,8%] y FEVIp 3.371 [51,0%]), seguido de los diuréticos de asa (65,7%).

Conclusiones

El tratamiento farmacológico de la IC varía en función de la FEVI. El tratamiento y las características poblacionales de los pacientes con ICFEi son similares a aquellos con ICFEr.

Possible pathway for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction prevention and treatment: the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor effect on endothelial function in comorbid patients

Aim      To evaluate the effect of perindopril on the endothelial function and levels of endothelial dysfunction markers in groups of patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and mid-range (intermediate) left ventricular ejection fraction (HFmrEF).Material and methods  40 patients with HFpEF (n=20) and HFmrEF (n=20) were evaluated. At baseline, parameters of the morpho-functional state of large blood vessels and of microvessels were evaluated with photoplethysmography, and levels of E-selectin and endothelin-1 (ET-1) were measured. The patients were prescribed perindopril, and after 12 months of treatment, photoplethysmographic parameters and endothelial dysfunction markers were determined again.Results After 12 months of the perindopril treatment, improvements in the endothelial function of both large blood vessels and microvessels were noted. The phase shift increased from 10.1 to 10.9 ms in the HFpEF group (р=0.001) and from 8.35 to 9.65 ms in the HFmrEF group (р=0.002). Furthermore, the occlusion index increased from 1.45 to 1.75 in patients with HFpEF (р=0.004) and from 1.5 to 1.75 in patients with HFmrEF (р=0.010). The Е-selectin concentration decreased in both groups, from 57.25 to 42.4 ng/ml (р=0.00008) and from 40.5 to 35.7 ng/ml (р=0.010) in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF, respectively. The ET-1 concentration decreased from pg/ml (р=0.010) in patients with HFpEF whereas in patients with HFmrEF, there was no significant change in the ET-1 concentration after 12 months of the perindopril treatment.Conclusion      At 12 months, the endothelial function improved and E-selectin and ET-1 levels decreased in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy Effects in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved and Mid-Range Ejection Fraction

Background

There is hypothesis that endothelial function enhancement is strongly associated with better outcome and functional class improvement in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) patients. Perindopril is the only angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) drug with proven positive effect on the endothelium in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. In patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF, its impact is still unknown. The aim of this study was to assess perindopril’s influence on endothelial dysfunction markers in these groups of patients.

Methods

We included 60 patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. At the baseline, endothelial dysfunction biomarkers were measured by IFA and echocardiographic parameters (left atrial volume index (LAVI), ejection fraction (EF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV)) were studied. In patients with no history of previous ACEI or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) therapy, perindopril was prescribed for 12 months. If patient was treated with ARB or ACEI drug other than perindopril before the study, after 48-h withdrawal period, previous drug was replaced by perindopril.

Results

After 12-month therapy with perindopril, E-selectin decreased from 57.25 to 46.05 ng/mL and from 56.55 to 47.6 ng/mL in HFpEF and HFmrEF patients, respectively (P < 0.05). Significant reductions from 0.99 to 0.76 pg/mL (P < 0.05) and from 1.08 to 0.97 pg/mL (P < 0.05) in endothelin-1 level were shown in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Conclusion

The 12-month therapy with perindopril leads to LAVI reduction in HFmrEF patients and potential endothelial dysfunction markers decrease in HFpEF and HFmrEF patients.

Risk factors and prediction models for incident heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction

Aims

This study aims to develop the first race‐specific and sex‐specific risk prediction models for heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods and results

We created a cohort of 1.8 million individuals who had an outpatient clinic visit between 2002 and 2007 within the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System and obtained information on HFpEF, HFrEF, and several risk factors from electronic health records (EHR). Variables were selected for the risk prediction models in a ‘derivation cohort’ that consisted of individuals with baseline date in 2002, 2003, or 2004 using a forward stepwise selection based on a change in C‐index threshold. Discrimination and calibration were assessed in the remaining participants (internal ‘validation cohort’). A total of 66 831 individuals developed HFpEF, and 92 233 developed HFrEF (52 679 and 71 463 in the derivation cohort) over a median of 11.1 years of follow‐up. The HFpEF risk prediction model included age, diabetes, BMI, COPD, previous MI, antihypertensive treatment, SBP, smoking status, atrial fibrillation, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), while the HFrEF model additionally included previous CAD. For the HFpEF model, C‐indices were 0.74 (SE = 0.002) for white men, 0.76 (0.005) for black men, 0.79 (0.015) for white women, and 0.77 (0.026) for black women, compared with 0.72 (0.002), 0.72 (0.004), 0.77 (0.017), and 0.75 (0.028), respectively, for the HFrEF model. These risk prediction models were generally well calibrated in each race‐specific and sex‐specific stratum of the validation cohort.

Conclusions

Our race‐specific and sex‐specific risk prediction models, which used easily obtainable clinical variables, can be a useful tool to implement preventive strategies or subtype‐specific prevention trials in the nine million users of the VA healthcare system and the general population after external validation.

Exercise hemodynamics in heart failure patients with preserved and mid-range ejection fraction: key role of the right heart

OBJECTIVE

We sought to explore whether classification of patients with heart failure and mid-range (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) identifies differences in their exercise hemodynamic profile, and whether classification according to an index of right ventricular (RV) function improves differentiation.

BACKGROUND

Patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF have hemodynamic compromise on exertion. The classification according to LVEF implies a key role of the left ventricle. However, RV involvement in exercise limitation is increasingly recognized. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion/systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (TAPSE/PASP) ratio is an index of RV and pulmonary vascular function. Whether exercise hemodynamics differ more between HFmrEF and HFpEF than between TAPSE/PASP tertiles is unknown.

METHODS

We analyzed 166 patients with HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%) or HFmrEF (LVEF 40-49%) who underwent basic diagnostics (laboratory testing, echocardiography at rest, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPET]) and exercise with right heart catheterization. Hemodynamics were compared according to echocardiographic left ventricular or RV function.

RESULTS

Exercise hemodynamics (e.g. pulmonary arterial wedge pressure/cardiac output [CO] slope, CO increase during exercise, and maximum total pulmonary resistance) showed no difference between HFpEF and HFmrEF, but significantly differed across TAPSE/PASP tertiles and were associated with CPET results. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide concentration also differed significantly across TAPSE/PASP tertiles but not between HFpEF and HFmrEF.

CONCLUSION

In patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF, TAPSE/PASP emerged as a more appropriate stratification parameter than LVEF to predict clinically relevant impairment of exercise hemodynamics. Stratification of exercise hemodynamics in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF according to LVEF or TAPSE/PASP, showing significant distinctions only with the RV-based strategy. All data are shown as median [upper limit of interquartile range] and were calculated using the independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis test. PVR pulmonary vascular resistance; max maximum level during exercise.

Classification of Heart Failure According to Ejection Fraction: JACC Review Topic of the Week

The recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan introduces a new potential taxonomy for heart failure, with no reference to "preserved" ejection fraction but referring to "below normal" ejection fraction as those most likely to benefit. This review summarizes the evolution of nomenclature in heart failure and examines evidence showing that patients with ejection fraction in the "mid range" may benefit from neurohormonal blockade similar to those with more severely reduced (<40%) ejection fraction. Furthermore, prominent sex differences have been observed wherein the benefit of neurohormonal blockade appears to extend to a higher ejection fraction range in women compared to men. Based on emerging evidence, revised nomenclature is proposed defining heart failure with "reduced" (<40%), "mildly reduced," and "normal" (≥55% in men, ≥60% in women) ejection fraction. Such nomenclature signals consideration of potentially beneficial therapies in the largest group of patients with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Distinctive Subtype or a Transitional Stage?

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) was first proposed by Lam and Solomon in 2014, and was listed as a new subtype of heart failure (HF) in 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Since then, HFmrEF has attracted an increasing amount of attention, and the number of related studies on this topic has grown rapidly. The diagnostic criteria on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are straightforward; however, LVEF is not a static parameter, and it changes dynamically during the course of HF. Thus, HFmrEF may not be an independent disease with a uniform pathophysiological process, but rather a collection of patients with different characteristics. HFmrEF is often associated with various cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the pathophysiological mechanisms of HFmrEF are particularly complex, and its clinical phenotypes are diverse. The complexity and heterogeneity of HFmrEF may be one reason for inconsistent results between clinical studies. In fact, whether HFmrEF is a distinctive subtype or a transitional stage between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is controversial. In this review, we discuss the clinical characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with HFmrEF, as well as the differences among HFmrEF, HFrEF, and HFpEF.

Current gaps in HFpEF trials: Time to reconsider patients' selection and to target phenotypes

Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) is an increasingly prevalent clinical condition associated with cardiovascular aging, characterized by different pathophysiological mechanisms and poor outcomes. In this manuscript, we analysed the main differences in terms of updated diagnostic criteria and patients' selection in the most recent HFpEF trials. Recent algorithm purposed for HFpEF diagnosis, does not reflect common criteria adopted in clinical trials. Patients included in the larger studies experienced different characteristics in terms of clinical presentation and echocardiographic features. Current concerns complicate results interpretation and could hypothesize different stages of disease progression, rather than different cardiac phenotypes. Both the lack of diagnostic standardization and the population heterogeneity, might explain why trials investigating the effects of different therapeutic interventions failed to show improved outcomes for patients with HFpEF. Accordingly, we propose to exceed current view mainly based on the morphological adaptations evaluating patients' characterisation, their cardiovascular risk, associated diseases, and structural features consistent with disease progression. Detailed clinical, imaging and biological characterisation of this population, along with the identification of mechanisms linked with disease progression and prognosis, would allow for tailored treatments and provide important mechanistic insights into the complex HFpEF pathophysiology.

Use of angiotensin receptor blocker is associated with improved 1 year mortality in heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction

AIMS

Current evidence about the effect of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) on the outcome of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is lacking. We aim to assess the association between use of ARB and 1 year all-cause mortality after hospitalization for HFmrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed the data of patients with ejection fraction of 40-49% in China Patient-centred Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events Prospective Heart Failure Study; 4907 patients hospitalized for heart failure from 52 Chinese hospitals were enrolled from August 2016 to May 2018. Use of ARB was determined by prescriptions at discharge. Patients who died during hospitalization or were using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors at discharge were excluded. The association between the use of ARB and outcome was assessed using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. A total of 701 patients with HFmrEF were included for analysis. The mean age was 66.4 ± 12.8 years, and 267 (38.1%) were female. Of them, 244 were treated (34.8%) with ARB. During the 1 year follow-up period, patients treated with ARB had lower all-cause mortality compared with untreated patients (11.5% vs. 21.9%, P = 0.0005). Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that use of ARB was associated with significantly reduced all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.69, P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized for HFmrEF, the use of ARB was associated with lower 1 year mortality after discharge.

β-blocker and 1-year outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction

Aims

The beneficial effect of β-blocker on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is well established. However, its effect on the 1-year outcome of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remains unclear.

Methods and results

We analysed the data of the patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 40% and 49% in China Patient-centred Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events Prospective Heart Failure Study (China PEACE 5p-HF Study), in which patients hospitalized for heart failure from 52 Chinese hospitals were recruited from 2016 to 2018. Two primary outcomes were all-cause death and all-cause hospitalization. The associations between β-blocker use at discharge and outcomes were assessed by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-weighted Cox regression analyses. To assess consistency, IPTW adjusting medications analyses, multivariable analyses and dose-effect analyses were performed. A total of 1035 HFmrEF patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 65.5 ± 12.7 years and 377 (36.4%) were female. The median (interquartile range) of LVEF was 44% (42–47%). Six hundred and sixty-one (63.8%) were treated with β-blocker. Patients using β-blocker were younger with better cardiac function, and more likely to use renin–angiotensin system inhibitor and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. During the 1-year follow-up, death occurred in 84 (12.7%) treated and 85 (22.7%) untreated patients (P < 0.0001); all-cause hospitalization occurred in 298 (45.1%) treated and 188 (50.3%) untreated patients (P = 0.04). After IPTW-weighted adjustment, β-blocker use was significantly associated with lower risk of all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR): 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51–0.96, P = 0.03], but not with lower all-cause hospitalization (HR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.76–1.10, P = 0.36). Consistency analyses showed consistent favourable effect of β-blocker on all-cause death, but not on all-cause hospitalization.

Conclusions

Among patients with HFmrEF, β-blocker use was associated with lower risk of all-cause death, but not with lower risk of all-cause hospitalization.

Survival of Patients with Acute Heart Failure and Mid-range Ejection Fraction in a Developing Country - A Cohort Study in South Brazil

BACKGROUND

Heart Failure with mid-range Ejection Fraction (HFmEF) was recently described by European and Brazilian guidelines on Heart Failure (HF). The ejection fraction (EF) is an important parameter to guide therapy and prognosis. Studies have shown conflicting results without representative data from developing countries.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze and compare survival rate in patients with HFmEF, HF patients with reduced EF (HFrEF), and HF patients with preserved EF (HFpEF), and to evaluate the clinical characteristics of these patients.

METHODS

A cohort study that included adult patients with acute HF admitted through the emergency department to a tertiary hospital, reference in cardiology, in south Brazil from 2009 to 2011. The sample was divided into three groups according to EF: reduced, mid-range and preserved. A Kaplan-Meier curve was analyzed according to the EF, and a logistic regression analysis was done. Statistical significance was established as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 380 patients were analyzed. Most patients had HFpEF (51%), followed by patients with HFrEF (32%) and HFmEF (17%). Patients with HFmEF showed intermediate characteristics related to age, blood pressure and ventricular diameters, and most patients were of ischemic etiology. Median follow-up time was 4.0 years. There was no statistical difference in overall survival or cardiovascular mortality (p=.0031) between the EF groups (reduced EF: 40.5% mortality; mid-range EF 39.7% and preserved EF 26%). Hospital mortality was 7.6%.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in overall survival rate between the EF groups. Patients with HFmEF showed higher mortality from cardiovascular diseases in comparison with HFpEF patients. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; 116(1):14-23).

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of black African heart failure patients with preserved, mid‐range, and reduced ejection fraction: a post hoc analysis of the THESUS‐HF registry

Aims

Limited data are available on clinical characteristics and prognosis of heart failure (HF) in black African populations especially with respect to current classifications and HF management guidelines.

Methods and results

In this post hoc analysis, African patients admitted with acute HF and enrolled in the THESUS‐HF registry in one of 12 hospitals in 9 countries were classified as having preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HFpEF), mid‐range LVEF (HFmrEF), and reduced LVEF (HFrEF) based on echocardiography performed close to the time of admission. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, management, and 60 and 180 day outcomes were compared between the groups. Of 888 patients with LVEF available, there were 472 (53.2%) with HFrEF, 174 (19.6%) with HFmrEF, and 243 (27.3%) with HFpEF. History of atrial fibrillation was higher in patients with HFmrEF (28.5%) than in patients with HFrEF (14.5%). Patients with HFrEF had a larger mean LV systolic diameter (54.1 ± 9.67 mm) than patients with HFmrEF (42.9 ± 8.47 mm), who had a larger mean LV diameter than patients with HFpEF (32.6 ± 8.64 mm); a similar pattern with LV diastolic diameter was observed. The mean posterior diastolic wall thickness (10.2 ± 2.94 mm) was lower in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF (11.1 ± 2.59 mm) and HFpEF (11.2 ± 2.90 mm). Patients with HFpEF were less likely to use angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone inhibitors, and more likely to use beta‐blockers than those with HFrEF at either admission or discharge/Day 7. Death or readmission rates through Day 60 and 180 day death rates did not differ significantly among the groups; unadjusted hazard ratios relative to patients with HFrEF were 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84–2.08] and 1.24 (95% CI 0.82–1.89) for 60 day death or readmission and 0.92 (95% CI 0.59–1.43) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.51–1.20) for 180 day death in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, respectively.

Conclusions

Classification by LVEF according to European Society of Cardiology guidelines revealed some differences in clinical presentation but similar mortality and rehospitalization rates across all EF groups in Africans admitted for HF.

Left atrial function and maximal exercise capacity in heart failure with preserved and mid-range ejection fraction

Aims

Exercise intolerance is the leading manifestation of heart failure with preserved or mid‐range ejection fraction (HFpEF or HFmrEF), and left atrial (LA) function might contribute to modulating left ventricular filling and pulmonary venous pressures. We aim to assess the association between LA function and maximal exercise capacity in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.

Methods and results

Sixty‐five patients, prospectively enrolled in the German HFpEF Registry, were analysed. Inclusion criteria were New York Heart Association functional class ≥ II, left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%, structural heart disease or diastolic dysfunction, and elevated levels of N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP). LA function was evaluated through speckle‐tracking echocardiography by central reading in the Charité Academic Echocardiography core lab. All patients underwent maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test and were classified according to a peak VO₂ cut‐off of prognostic value (14 mL/kg/min). NT‐pro‐BNP was measured. Twenty‐nine patients (45%) reached a peak VO₂ < 14 mL/kg/min (mean value 12.4 ± 1.5) and 36 patients (55%) peak VO₂ ≥ 14 mL/kg/min (mean value 19.4 ± 3.9). There was no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction (60 ± 9 vs. 59 ± 8%), left ventricular mass (109 ± 23 vs. 112 ± 32 g/m²), LA volume index (45 ± 17 vs. 47 ± 22 mL/m²), or E/e´ (13.1 ± 4.7 vs. 13.0 ± 6.0) between these groups. In contrast, all LA strain measures were impaired in patients with lower peak VO₂ (reservoir strain 14 ± 5 vs. 21 ± 9%, P = 0.002; conduit strain 9 ± 2 vs. 13 ± 4%, P = 0.001; contractile strain 7 ± 4 vs. 11 ± 6%, P = 0.02; reported lower limits of normality for LA reservoir, conduit and contractile strains: 26.1%, 12.0%, and 7.7%). In linear regression analysis, lower values of LA reservoir strain were associated with impaired peak VO₂ after adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, heart rhythm (sinus/AFib), and log‐NTproBNP [β 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02–0.30, P = 0.02], with an odds ratio 1.22 (95% CI 1.05–1.42, P = 0.01) for peak VO₂ < 14 mL/kg/min for LA reservoir strain decrease after adjustment for these five covariates. Adding left ventricular ejection fraction, it did not influence the results. On the other hand, the addition of LA strain to the adjustment parameters alone described above provided a significant increase of the predictive value for lower peak VO₂ values (R² 0.50 vs. 0.45, P = 0.02). With receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, we identified LA reservoir strain < 22% to have 93% sensitivity and 49% specificity in predicting peak VO₂ < 14 mL/kg/min. Using this cut‐off, LA reservoir strain < 22% was associated with peak VO₂ < 14 mL/kg/min in logistic regression analysis after comprehensive adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, heart rhythm, and log‐NTproBNP [odds ratio 95% CI 10.4 (1.4–74), P = 0.02].

Conclusions

In this HFpEF and HFmrEF cohort, a reduction in LA reservoir strain was a sensible marker of decreased peak exercise capacity. Therefore, LA reservoir strain might be of clinical value in predicting exercise capacity in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.

Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction-What Is It, If Anything?

The patient cohort with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs) of 41%-49%, which has been defined as heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), represent a significant proportion of the heart failure (HF) population. Despite the clear cutoffs established by different society guidelines, confusion remains regarding the exact significance of midrange LVEF within the HF syndrome. Patients with LVEF 41%-49% represent a heterogeneous group of patients sharing pathophysiologic mechanisms, biomarker profiles, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics with patients with preserved and reduced LVEF. In this clinical review, we discuss the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms that culminate in the clinical syndrome of HF and contribute to the disparities observed between HFpEF, HFrEF, and HFmrEF. We highlight differences and similarities in clinical characteristics and imaging features between HFpEF and HFrEF in an effort to disentangle the heterogeneous group of patients with midrange LVEF, but ultimately we conclude that LVEF should be seen as simply one important element of a continuum throughout the HF syndrome, and that although is useful, it is an oversimplification, because HF syndrome is more of a continuum. The underlying pathophysiology, etiology, and comorbidities of patients presenting with HF is becoming ever more important as the limitations of a classification solely based on LVEF are being better recognised, and as patient-specific personalisation of care is becoming ever more important.

[Positive Effects of Perindopril on Microvascular Vessels in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure]

Aim      To evaluate the effect of 12-month perindopril treatment on structure and function of microvasculature (MV) in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and intermediate (HFiEF) left ventricular ejection fraction.Material and methods  30 patients with HFpEF and HFiEF were evaluated. Perindopril at a maximum tolerated dose was administered to all patients for 12 months. Changes in MV structure and function were assessed with photoplethysmography and capillaroscopy prior to the treatment onset and at 12 months, i.e., after completion of the perindopril treatment.Results The 12-month perindopril treatment was associated with improvement of the endothelial function evident as increases in the occlusion index (OI) and the phase shift (PS). OI increased from 1.45 [1.3; 1.6] to 1.8 [1.6; 2.2] (p=0.00004). PS increased from 7.1 ms [4.8; 10.2] to 9.2 ms [6.7; 13.2] (p=0.0003). Stiffness of muscular large blood vessels was decreased. Arterial stiffness index (aSI) decreased from 8.8 [6.6; 11.0] to 7.45 [6.5; 9.4] m /s (р=0.01). The perindopril treatment was associated with increased density of the capillary network at rest (р=0.008) and in tests with venous occlusion (р=0.003) and reactive hyperemia (р=0.0003).Conclusion      The study showed an improvement of endothelial function associated with the 12-month perindopril therapy in patients with HFpEF and HFiEF.

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on the effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers after an episode of acute heart failure: From the KCHF Registry

Objective

This observational study aimed to examine the prognostic association of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in different left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) categories.

Methods

In 3717 patients enrolled in the KCHF Registry, a multicentre registry including consecutive patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF), we assessed patient characteristics and association between ACE-I/ARB and clinical outcomes according to LVEF. In the three LVEF categories (reduced LVEF [HFrEF], mid-range LVEF [HFmrEF] and preserved LVEF [HFpEF]), we compared the patients with ACE-I/ARB as discharge medication and those without, and assessed their 1-year clinical outcomes. We defined the primary outcome measure as a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization.

Results

The 1-year cumulative incidences of the primary outcome measure were 36.3% in HFrEF, 30.1% in HFmrEF and 33.8% in HFpEF (log-rank P = 0.07). The adjusted risks of the ACE-I/ARB group relative to the no ACE-I/ARB group for the primary outcome measure were significantly lower in HFrEF and HFmrEF (HR 0.66 [95%CI 0.54–0.79], P<0.001, and HR 0.61 [0.45–0.82], P = 0.001, respectively), but not in HFpEF (HR 0.95 [0.80–1.14], P = 0.61). There was a significant interaction between the LVEF category and the ACE-I/ARB use on the primary outcome measure (P_interaction = 0.01).

Conclusions

ACE-I/ARB for patients who were hospitalized for acute HF was associated with significantly lower risk for a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization in HFrEF and HFmrEF, but not in HFpEF. ACE-I/ARB might be a potential treatment option in HFmrEF as in HFrEF.

Circulating microRNA in Heart Failure - Practical Guidebook to Clinical Application

Heart failure (HF) remains a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Currently, B-type natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide are diagnostic biomarkers used in HF. Although very sensitive, they are not specific enough and do not allow the prediction or early diagnosis of HF. Many ongoing studies focus on determining the underlying cause and understanding the mechanisms of HF on the cellular level. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are non-coding RNAs which control the majority of cellular processes and therefore are considered to have a potential clinical application in HF. In this review, we aim to provide synthesized information about miRNAs associated with ejection fraction, HF etiology, diagnosis, and prognosis, as well as outline therapeutic application of miRNAs in HF. Further, we discuss methodological challenges associated with the analysis of miRNAs and provide recommendations for defining a study population, collecting blood samples, and selecting detection methods to study miRNAs in a reliable and reproducible way. This review is intended to be an accessible tool for clinicians interested in the field of miRNAs and HF.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: pro and cons of the new classification of Heart Failure by European Society of Cardiology guidelines

Currently, the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the cornerstone of the classification of patients with heart failure (HF). The mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF) category was identified in an attempt to uncover specific characteristics of these patients. So far, the analysis of trials, registries, and observational studies have demonstrated that patients with mid-range LVEF belong to a patient cohort with generally intermediate clinical profile as compared with other groups but with a remarkable variety of intrinsic phenotypes. This is due to the limitations of LVEF as the sole criterion to categorize patients with HF and characterize their prognosis, above all when it is >40%. To better define the HFmrEF phenotype, it is reasonable to consider other parameters, such as LVEF changes over time, HF aetiology, co-morbidities, and other imaging parameters. A multiparametric evaluation may contextualize a patient with HFmrEF in a more defined phenotype with a specific prognosis.

Rehospitalization burden and morbidity risk in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction

Aims

Heart failure with mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has been proposed as a distinct HF phenotype, but whether patients on this category fare worse, similarly, or better than those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) or preserved EF (HFpEF) in terms of rehospitalization risks over time remains unclear.

Methods and results

We prospectively included 2961 consecutive patients admitted for acute HF (AHF) in our institution. Of them, 158 patients died during the index admission, leaving the sample size to be 2803 patients. Patients were categorized according to their EF: HFrEF if EF ≤ 40% (n = 908, 32.4%); HFmrEF if EF = 41–49% (n = 449, 16.0%); and HFpEF if EF ≥ 50% (n = 1446, 51.6%). Covariate‐adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were used to evaluate the association between EF status and recurrent all‐cause and HF‐related admissions. At a median follow‐up of 2.6 years (inter‐quartile range: 1.0–5.3), 1663 (59.3%) patients died, and 6035 all‐cause readmissions were registered in 2026 patients (72.3%), 2163 of them HF related. Rates of all‐cause readmission per 100 patients‐years of follow‐up were 150.1, 176.9, and 163.6 in HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively (P = 0.097). After multivariable adjustment, when compared with that of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, HFmrEF status was not significantly associated with a different risk of all‐cause readmissions (IRR = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.27; P = 0.926; and IRR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74–1.18; P = 0.621, respectively) or HF‐related readmissions (IRR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.77–1.46; P = 0.725; and IRR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82–1.50; P = 0.511, respectively).

Conclusions

Following an admission for AHF, patients with HFmrEF had a similar rehospitalization burden and a similar risk of recurrent all‐cause and HF‐related admissions than had patients with HFrEF or HFpEF. Regarding morbidity risk, HFmrEF seems not to be a distinct HF phenotype.

[Characteristics and one-year outcomes in elderly patients hospitalised with heart failure and preserved, mid-range and reduced ejection fraction]

INTRODUCTION

The latest European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure (HF) guidelines define three types of HF according to the ejection fraction (EF): HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) when EF<40%, HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), when EF 40-49%, and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) when EF≥50%. The objective of this study was to analyse the characteristics and results of elderly patients hospitalised with HF according to the new classification using EF.

METHODS

A prospective study was carried out with 531 HF patients aged ≥75 years classified according to EF, and admitted in the geriatric wards of 6 hospitals in Spain. An analysis was performed on the demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as well as the morbidity and mortality at one year of follow-up.

RESULTS

As regards EF, 17.1% had HFrEF, 10% had HFmrEF, and 72.9% had HFpEF. Patients with HFmrEF were more similar to those with HFrEF in terms of a younger age, predominance of men, and previous admission due to HF. This was also the case with the use of drugs for neurohormonal blockade. Patients with HFrEF (compared to those with HFmrEF and HFpEF), had higher mortality (35.2%, 24.5%, and 25.6%, respectively), more readmissions for HF (17.6%, 15.1%, and 14.5%, respectively), and more events (61.5%, 45.3%, and 52.5%, respectively), although there were no significant differences. There were also no differences observed in the survival analysis between the EF groups and the time-dependent outcome variables.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients hospitalised with HF, those classified as HFmrEF did not show any clear differences with respect to those with HFrEF or HFpEF. There were no differences in terms of morbidity and mortality.

Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) and Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF): The Diagnostic Value of Circulating MicroRNAs

Circulating microRNAs offer attractive potential as epigenetic disease biomarkers by virtue of their biological stability and ready accessibility in liquid biopsies. Numerous clinical cohort studies have revealed unique microRNA profiles in different disease settings, suggesting utility as markers with diagnostic and prognostic applications. Given the complex network of microRNA functions in modulating gene expression and post-transcriptional modifications, the circulating microRNA landscape in disease may reflect pathophysiological status, providing valuable information for delineating distinct subtypes and/or stages of complex diseases. Heart failure (HF) is an increasingly significant global health challenge, imposing major economic liability and health care burden due to high hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality rates. Although HF is defined as a syndrome characterized by symptoms and findings on physical examination, it may be further differentiated based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and categorized as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The presenting clinical syndromes in HFpEF and HFrEF are similar but mortality differs, being somewhat lower in HFpEF than in HFrEF. However, while HFrEF is responsive to an array of therapies, none has been shown to improve survival in HFpEF. Herein, we review recent HF cohort studies focusing on the distinct microRNA profiles associated with HF subtypes to reveal new insights to underlying mechanisms and explore the possibility of exploiting these differences for diagnostic/prognostic applications.

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.

Outcome of patients with heart failure after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AIMS

Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) may have concomitant heart failure (HF) that determines prognosis despite successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We compared outcomes of TAVI patients with low stroke volume index (SVI) ≤35 ml/m2 body surface area in different HF classes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients treated by transfemoral TAVI at our center (n = 1822) were classified as 1) 'HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF)' (HFpEF, EF ≥50%), 2) 'HF with mid-range EF' (HFmrEF, EF 40-49%), or 3) 'HF with reduced EF' (HFrEF, EF <40%). Patients with SVI >35 ml/m2 served as controls. The prevalence of cardiovascular disease and symptoms increased stepwise from controls (n = 968) to patients with HFpEF (n = 591), HFmrEF (n = 97), and HFrEF (n = 166). Mortality tended to be highest in HFrEF patients 30 days post-procedure, and it became significant after one year: 10.2% (controls), 13.5% (HFpEF), 13.4% (HFmrEF), and 23.5% (HFrEF). However, symptomatic improvement in survivors of all groups was achieved in the majority of patients without differences among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AS and HF benefit from TAVI with respect to symptom alleviation. TAVI in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF led to an identical, favorable post-procedural prognosis that was significantly better than that of patients with HFrEF, which remains a high-risk population.

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.

Assessment of right ventricular systolic function in heart failure with preserved, reduced and mid-range ejection fraction

Background

Few studies have evaluated the right ventricle systolic function in different categories of heart failure despite its effect on outcomes.

Methods and results

Single-centre, cross-sectional study included 150 patients, 50 patients in each category of HF: group I, preserved; group II, mid-range; group III, reduced ejection fraction. Left ventricular systolic function was assessed by 3D echo, and right ventricular systolic function was assessed by fractional area change (FAC), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), tissue Doppler image (TDI), and global longitudinal strain (GLS). There was no significant difference among the three groups regarding sex, the prevalence of risk factors, but patients in group III were significantly older (p < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (p = 0.004) than were found in the other two groups. In group I, the prevalence of RV systolic dysfunction was 18%, 22%, 14% and 26% by TAPSE, FAC, S wave velocity, and GLS, respectively. Their prevalence was higher in group II and much higher in group III than in group I. There were significant positive correlations among TAPSE, S wave velocity, GLS, and ejection fraction in groups II and III (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The prevalence and severity of RV systolic dysfunction were positively correlated with LV systolic dysfunction, and the degree of RV dysfunction in mid-range was closer to reduce than preserved ejection fraction.

Study registration at clinical trial.gov

NCT03641599.

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 prevalence in the general population: SOBOTA-HF study rationale and design

Aims

Epidemiological heart failure (HF) data in the era of natriuretic peptides and echocardiography are scarce. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the HF prevalence in the general population. We will also investigate natriuretic peptide cut‐off for diagnosis of HF. Finally, we will be able to identify left ventricular function phenotypes and study relations between cardiac function, clinical presentation, and health‐related quality of life.

Methods and results

Screening Of adult urBan pOpulation To diAgnose Heart Failure (SOBOTA‐HF) is a cross‐sectional prevalence study in a representative sample of Murska Sobota residents aged 55 years or more. Individuals will be invited to attend screening visit with point‐of‐care N‐terminal pro‐b‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) testing. All subjects with NT‐proBNP ≥ 125 pg/mL will be invited for a diagnostic visit that will include history and physical examination, electrocardiogram, echocardiography, blood and urine sampling, ankle brachial index, pulmonary function tests, body composition measurement, physical performance tests, and questionnaires. To validate the screening procedure, a control group (NT‐proBNP < 125 pg/mL) will undergo the same diagnostic evaluation. An external centre will validate echocardiography results, and the HF diagnosis will be adjudicated within an international HF expert panel. Overall and age‐specific HF prevalence will be calculated in individuals ≥ 55 years and extrapolated to the whole population.

Conclusions

The SOBOTA‐HF study will test the latest HF guideline diagnostic criteria in the general population sample. Next to HF prevalence, it will provide insight into left ventricular function and general patient phenotype; we will also extend current understanding of natriuretic peptides for HF screening.

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.

Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF have different clinical characteristics in Turkey: A multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

To determine and compare the demographic characteristics, clinical profile and management of patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a Turkish cohort.

METHODS

The APOLLON trial (A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mid-range and preserved ejection fractiON) is an observational and multicenter study conducted in Turkey. Consecutive patients admitted to the cardiology clinics who were at least 18 years of age and had HFmrEF or HFpEF were included (NCT03026114).

RESULTS

The study population included 1065 (mean age of 67.1 ± 10.6 years, 54% women) patients from 12 sites in Turkey. Among participants, 246 (23.1%) had HFmrEF and 819 (76.9%) had HFpEF. Compared to patients with HFpEF, those with HFmrEF were more likely to be male (57.7 vs 42.2%; p < 0.001), had higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels (853 vs 528 pg/ml, p < 0.001), were more likely to have ECG abnormalities (72.4 vs 53.5%, p < 0.001) and hospitalization history for heart failure (28 vs 18.6%; p = 0.002). HFmrEF patients were more likely to use β-blockers (69.9 vs 55.2%, p < 0.001), aldosterone receptor antagonists (24 vs 14.7%, p = 0.001), statins (37 vs 23%, p < .001), and loop diuretics (39.8 vs 30.5%, p = 0.006) compared to patients with HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of APOLLON study support that the basic characteristics and etiology of HFmrEF are significantly different from HFpEF. This registry also showed that the patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF were younger but undertreated in Turkey compared to patients in western countries.

Cardiac contractility modulation improves long-term survival and hospitalizations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) improves symptoms and exercise tolerance and reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalizations over 6-month follow-up in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV symptoms, QRS < 130 ms and 25% ≤ left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 45% (FIX-HF-5C study). The current prospective registry study (CCM-REG) aimed to assess the longer-term impact of CCM on hospitalizations and mortality in real-world experience in this same population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 140 patients with 25% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45% receiving CCM therapy (CCM-REG_25-45 ) for clinical indications were included. Cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and NYHA class were assessed over 2 years. Mortality was tracked through 3 years and compared with predictions by the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM). A separate analysis was performed on patients with 35% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45% (CCM-REG_35-45 ) and 25% ≤ LVEF < 35% (CCM-REG_25-34 ). Hospitalizations decreased by 75% (from 1.2/patient-year the year before, to 0.35/patient-year during the 2 years following CCM, P < 0.0001) in CCM-REG_25-45 and by a similar amount in CCM-REG_35-45 (P < 0.0001) and CCM-REG_25-34 . MLHFQ and NYHA class improved in all three cohorts_, with progressive improvements over time (P < 0.002). Three-year survival in CCM-REG_25-45 (82.8%) and CCM-REG_24-34 (79.4%) were similar to those predicted by SHFM (76.7%, P = 0.16; 78.0%, P = 0.81, respectively) and was better than predicted in CCM-REG_35-45 (88.0% vs. 74.7%, P = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

In real-world experience, CCM produces results similar to those of previous studies in subjects with 25% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45% and QRS < 130 ms; cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations are reduced and MLHFQ and NYHA class are improved. Overall mortality was comparable to that predicted by the SHFM but was lower than predicted in patients with 35% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45%.

Comparative Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With a Mid-Range Ejection Fraction After Acute Decompensation

To determine short-term outcomes after an episode of acute heart failure in patients with mid-range ejection fraction (40%-49%; HFmrEF) compared with patients with reduced (<40%) and preserved (>49%) ejection fractions (HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively) and according to their final destination after emergency department (ED) care. This is an exploratory, secondary analysis of the Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in the Emergency departments Registry, which includes consecutive acute heart failure patients diagnosed in 41 Spanish EDs. Patients with echocardiography data were included and divided into HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes were in-hospital all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay >10 days, and 30-day postdischarge ED revisit due to AHF and combined end point (ED revisit and/or death). We included 6,856 patients (age 79 [10]; 52.1% women): 21.6% had HFrEF, 14.3% HFmrEF, and 64.1% HFpEF. The main destinations for the 982 HFmrEF patients after ED management were internal medicine (293, 29.8%), cardiology (194, 19.9%) and not hospitalized (241, 24.5%), whereas the remaining 254 patients were admitted to other departments, including geriatric wards, short-stay units and intensive care units. Outcomes for HFmrEF did not differ compared with either HFrEF or HFpEF. Compared with HFmrEF admitted to cardiology, internal medicine admission or direct ED discharge increased the 30-day postdischarge ED revisit (hazard ratio [HR] 1.713, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.042 to 2.816; and HR 1.683, 95% CI 1.046 to 2.708, respectively) and the 30-day postdischarge combined end point (HR 1.732, 95% CI 1.070 to 2.803; and HR 1.727, 95% CI 1.083 to 2.756, respectively). In conclusion, patients in the newly created HFmrEF category suffering from an acute decompensation have similar short-term outcomes as those in the classical HFrEF and HFpEF categories; nonetheless, HFmrEF patients handled in cardiology wards during decompensation obtain better outcomes, and reasons for these differences have to be unmasked and corrected.

Characteristics and outcome for heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare precipitants, presenting symptoms and outcomes of patients with heart failure and mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in an Australian cohort.

METHODS

We divided 5236 patients in the Management of Cardiac Failure program in Northern Sydney Australia, into HFmrEF (n = 780, 14.9%), HFpEF (n = 1956, 37.4%) and HFrEF (n = 2500, 47.8%), using a cutoff left ventricular ejection fraction of 40-49, at least 50 and less than 40%, respectively.

RESULTS

For most characteristics, the HFmrEF patients were intermediate. Hypertension among the HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF groups was present in 50.6, 61.7 and 68.9%, respectively; age more than 85 years was present in 35.1, 37.6 and 42.2%; atrial fibrillation in 35.3, 44.2 and 49.9%; and elevated serum creatinine (>100 μmol/l) in 59.2, 55.6 and 51.0%. For ischemic heart disease and ischemia as a precipitant of admission, HFmrEF patients were similar to the HFrEF group, and more common than in HFpEF. Mortality rates were not significantly different between the three groups. Readmission rates were highest for HFpEF (40.2%), followed by HFmrEF (42.4%) and HFrEF (45.4%), largely due to differences in nonheart failure readmission.

CONCLUSION

Clinically, HFmrEF represents an intermediate phenotype, with the exception of resembling HFrEF with a higher incidence of ischemic heart disease.