Heterogeneous Outcomes of Heart Failure with Better Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with improved ejection fraction: Beyond diagnosis to trajectory analysis

Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction represents a highly treatable cause of heart failure (HF). A substantial proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF;HFrEF) demonstrate improvement in LV systolic function (termed HF with improved EF [HFimpEF]), either spontaneously or when treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Although it is a relatively new HF classification, HFimpEF has emerged in recent years as an important and distinct clinical entity. Improvement in LVEF leads to decreased rates of mortality and adverse HF-related outcomes compared to patients with sustained LV systolic dysfunction (HFrEF). While numerous clinical and imaging factors have been associated with HFimpEF, identification of which patients do and do not improve requires further investigation. In addition, patients improve at different rates, and what determines the trajectory of HFimpEF patients after improvement is incompletely characterized. A proportion of patients maintain improvement in LV systolic function, while others experience a recrudescence of systolic dysfunction, especially with GDMT discontinuation. In this review we discuss the contemporary guideline-recommended classification definition of HFimpEF, the epidemiology of improvement in LV systolic function, and the clinical course of this unique patient population. We also offer evidence-based recommendations for the clinical management of HFimpEF and provide a roadmap for future directions in understanding and improving outcomes in the care of patients with HFimpEF.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Focusing on the Impact on the Quality of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

There exists a paucity of research data reported by analyses performed on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that encompass quality of life (QOL) and the aftermath for patients suffering from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been done to evaluate the drug sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with a clear focus on the effect it bestows on measures of physical exercise tolerance and quality of life. A thorough systematic search was done in databases including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and PubMed from 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2023. The search only included published RCTs on adult patients aged 18 and above, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Data analysis was performed by using the software RevMan 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). The included studies' bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. The quality of evidence for the primary outcome was done using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs yielded 458 studies, of which eight randomized clinical trials were included and analyzed. The meta-analysis of the included trials shows that the I2 value is 61% (i.e., I2 > 50%), demonstrating a substantial heterogeneity within the studies. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) expressed in percentage was reported in the five studies, and thereby, a subgroup analysis that yielded a confidence interval (CI) of 95% had the standard mean difference of 0.02 (-0.02, 0.07). The trials had disparity between the reporting of effect on peak oxygen consumption (VO2), measured through cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) methods, six-minute walking test (6MWT), overall physical activity, and exercise capacity. Sacubitril/valsartan did not exponentially improve peak VO2 or 6MWT in these trials; however, the patient-reported data suggested that the quality of life was modestly influenced by the drug. A subgroup analysis was performed using the pooled effect value by the random effects model. The findings showed that the sacubitril/valsartan group significantly was better than the control group in improving HFrEF-associated health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that evaluated the drug sacubitril/valsartan in treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and focused on its tangible effect on the measures of physical exercise tolerance and quality of life. It depicts that the statistical scrutiny due to the lack of significant data and parity across studies did not impart significant improvement of either LVEF, peak VO2, or 6MWT with the use of sacubitril/valsartan; however, the reported exercise tolerance, including daytime physical activity, had a modest impact with the said drug. The pooled values demonstrated that the sacubitril/valsartan group significantly outperformed the control group in improving HFrEF HRQoL.

Circulating Angiokines Are Associated With Reverse Remodeling and Outcomes in Chronic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether circulating modifiers of endothelial function are associated with cardiac structure and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

We measured 25 proteins related to endothelial function in 99 patients from the GUIDE-IT study. Protein levels were evaluated for association with echocardiographic parameters and the incidence of all-cause death and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF).

RESULTS

Higher concentrations of angiopoietin 2 (ANGPT2), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) were significantly associated with worse function and larger ventricular volumes. Over time, decreases in ANGPT2 and, to a lesser extent, VEGFR1 and HGF, were associated with improvements in cardiac size and function. Individuals with higher concentrations of ANGPT2, VEGFR1 or HGF had increased risks for a composite of death and HHF in the following year (HR 2.76 (95% CI 1.73-4.40) per 2-fold change in ANGPT2; HR 1.76 (95% CI 1.11-2.79) for VEGFR1; and HR 4.04 (95% CI 2.19-7.44) for HGF).

CONCLUSIONS

Proteins related to endothelial function associate with cardiac size, cardiac function and clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF. These results support the concept that endothelial function may be an important contributor to the progression to and the recovery from HFrEF.

Clinical Relevance of the LVEDD and LVESD Trajectories in HF Patients With LVEF < 35%

Background

Certain variables reportedly are associated with a change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, literature describing the association between the recovery potential of LVEF and parameters of ventricular remodeling in echocardiography remains sparse.

Methods

We recruited 2,148 HF patients with LVEF < 35%. All patients underwent at least two echocardiographic images. The study aimed to compare LVEF alterations and their association with patient characteristics and echocardiographic findings.

Results

Patients with “recovery” of LVEF (follow-up LVEF ≥ 50%) were less likely to have prior myocardial infarction (MI), had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (Af), were less likely to have diabetes and hypertension, and had a smaller left atrium (LA) diameter, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), both in crude and in adjusted models (adjustment for age and sex). LVEDD cutoff values of 59.5 mm in men and 52.5 mm in women and LVESD cutoff values of 48.5 mm in men and 46.5 mm in women showed a year-to-year increase in the rate of recovery (follow-up LVEF ≥ 50%)/improvement (follow-up LVEF ≥ 35%), p-value < 0.05 in Kaplan–Meier estimates of the cumulative hazard curves.

Conclusions

Our study shows that LVEDD and LVESD increments in echocardiography can be predictors of changes in LVEF in in HF patients with LVEF < 35%. They may be used to identify patients who require more aggressive therapeutic interventions.

Cardiac reverse remodelling and health status in patients with chronic heart failure

AIMS

This study aims to assess long-term changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) together with echocardiographic markers of cardiac remodelling and their association with prognosis and patient-reported quality of life (QoL).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of serial echocardiograms performed between January 2009 and December 2019 in 1089 patients (median age 63 years, 71.0% men) enrolled in the Mazankowski Heart Function Clinic Registry who had at least two echocardiograms separated by ≥12 months. We classified the patients into four subgroups by their baseline and LVEF trajectories: persistent heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (persistent HFrEF, n = 364), recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF, n = 325), transient recovery in ejection fraction (HFtrecEF, n = 117), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, n = 283); 4490 echocardiograms were included in the present analysis, with 4.1 ± 1.8 echocardiograms available per patient during follow-up. Reductions in echocardiographic markers of cardiac remodelling, including LVIDd [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75-2.86], LVIDs (aOR: 2.44, 95% CI 2.00-2.94), left ventricular mass index (aOR: 1.15, 95% CI 1.09-1.22), E/e' ratio (aOR: 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.30), left atrial volume index (aOR: 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.16), along with an increase in the maximum recommended daily dose of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (aOR: 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07) and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists (aOR: 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) at 2 years, strongly predicted the HFrecEF classification, which was further sustained at 5 years of follow-up. However, changes in these parameters were mostly absent in patients experiencing only a transient recovery in LVEF (HFtrecEF), closely resembling patients with persistent HFrEF. In the multivariable analysis, HFrecEF patients had lower risk of all-cause mortality alone [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.93], and composite all-cause (aHR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.49-0.73), cardiovascular (aHR: 0.47, 95% CI 0.36-0.61), and heart failure (aHR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.70) related hospitalizations with mortality than patients with persistent HFrEF. QoL assessed through the shortened Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 at the end of follow-up was greater in patients with HFrecEF by 5.2, 12.4, and 9.4 points than persistent HFrEF, HFtrecEF, and HFpEF, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFrecEF experienced progressive normalization in echocardiographic markers of cardiac remodelling characterized by reductions in left ventricular dimensions and mass in tandem with reductions in left atrial volume and E/e' ratio, which is associated with better prognosis and QoL.