Epidemiology of “Heart Failure with Recovered Ejection Fraction”: What do we do After Recovery?

Myocardial Recovery and Relapse in Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction

Purpose of review

The purpose of this review is to discuss myocardial recovery in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to summarize the contemporary insights regarding heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF).

Recent findings

Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 40%) with improved prognosis can be achieved in one out of three (10-40%) patients with HFrEF treated with guideline-directed medical therapy. Clinical predictors include non-ischemic etiology of HFrEF, less abnormal blood or imaging biomarkers, and lack of specific pathogenic genetic variants. However, a subset of patients may ultimately relapse, suggesting that many patients are merely in remission rather than having fully recovered.

Summary

Patients with HFimpEF have improved prognosis but nonetheless remain at risk of relapse and long-term adverse events. Future studies will hopefully chart the natural history of HFimpEF and identify clinical predictors such as blood or novel imaging biomarkers that distinguish subgroups of patients based on differential trajectory and prognosis.

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction and the utility of defibrillator therapy: a review

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) involves those who have previously had reduced cardiac function that has subsequently improved. However, there is not a single definition of this phenomenon and recovery of cardiac function in terms of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) itself does not necessarily correlate with remission from the detrimental physiology of heart failure (HF) and its consequences. There is also the question of the utility of defibrillators in these patients, and whether they should be replaced at the time of battery depletion. To address this, several studies have shown specific predictors of ensuing LVEF recovery, including patient demographics, co‐morbidities, and medication use, as well as predictors of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) following LVEF recovery. Recent studies have also shown novel imaging parameters that may aid in predicting which patients would have a higher risk of these arrhythmias. Additional data describe a small, yet appreciable risk of VA, in addition to appropriate shocks as well. In this review, we describe predictors of LVEF recovery, carefully analyse and characterize the continued risk for VA and appropriate shocks following LVEF recovery, and explore additional novel modalities that may aid in decision‐making.

Systolic function recovery in Heart Failure: Frequency, prognostic impact and predictors

BACKGROUND

Systolic function recovery in patients with Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) is well recognized but not completely understood. We aimed to characterize HF patients with systolic function recovery, its prognostic impact and predictors.

METHODS

We analysed patients followed in a HF clinic (2006-2015) with 2 echocardiograms performed. Partial recovery: EF recovery without attaining EF ≥ 50%; total recovery: patients reached EF ≥ 50%. Median follow-up from first echocardiogram: 69 months. Multivariate logistic regression models to determine recovery predictors.

RESULTS

We analysed 304 patients with at least mild left ventricular dysfunction. During a median 34 months between echocardiogram re-evaluation 150 (49.3%) patients showed no EF recovery; 55 (18.1%) had partial recovery and 99 (32.6%) totally recovered. Mean patients age: 66; 71.1% men, high comorbidity burden; ischemic HF: 35.5%. Non-recovered patients were mostly men (80.7% vs 61.8% in partially; 61.6% in fully-recovered) with ischemic HF (46.0% vs 32.5% in partially; 21.2% in fully-recovered). Comorbidity burden, NYHA class and therapy were similar. During follow-up, 156 patients (46.7%) died. Patients with total recovery had a multivariate-adjusted 54% lower risk of dying when compared to non-recovered. Partially-recovered patients showed a non-significant adjusted 8% mortality reduction. Independent predictors of systolic function recovery were female gender(OR: 2.17, 95% CI 1.11-4.35), non-ischemic aetiology (OR: 2.78, 95% CI 1.35-5.56), and end diastolic left ventricular diameter < 60 mm (OR: 3.12, 95% CI 1.56-6.25).

CONCLUSIONS

HF-recovered patients were mainly women with non-ischemic HF and smaller left ventricles. These patients had significantly better prognosis than those with persistently reduced EF.

Heart Failure with Myocardial Recovery - The Patient Whose Heart Failure Has Improved: What Next?

In an important number of heart failure (HF) patients substantial or complete myocardial recovery occurs. In the strictest sense, myocardial recovery is a return to both normal structure and function of the heart. HF patients with myocardial recovery or recovered ejection fraction (EF; HFrecEF) are a distinct population of HF patients with different underlying etiologies, demographics, comorbidities, response to therapies and outcomes compared to HF patients with persistent reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Improvement of left ventricular EF has been systematically linked to improved quality of life, lower rehospitalization rates and mortality. However, mortality and morbidity in HFrecEF patients remain higher than in the normal population. Also, persistent abnormalities in biomarker and gene expression profiles in these patients lends weight to the hypothesis that pathological processes are ongoing. Currently, there remains a lack of data to guide the management of HFrecEF patients. This review will discuss specific characteristics, pathophysiology, clinical implications and future needs for HFrecEF.