Clinical characteristics, predictors, and outcomes of heart failure with improved ejection fraction

Prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation in myocardial infarction with and without improved ejection fraction

AIMS

Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (impEF) often presents in contemporary acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) during AMI is an important predictor of subsequential heart failure (HF), while its impact on the trajectory of post-MI left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and prognostic implication in patients with and without impEF remains undetermined. We aimed to investigate the prognostic impacts of NOAF in AMI patients with and without impEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive AMI patients without a prior history of AF between February 2014 and March 2018 with baseline LVEF ≤ 40% and had ≥1 LVEF measurement after baseline were included. ImpEF was defined as a baseline LVEF ≤ 40% and a re-evaluation showed both LVEF > 40% and an absolute increase of LVEF ≥ 10%. Persistently reduced EF (prEF) was defined as the second measurement of LVEF either ≤40% or an absolute increase of LVEF < 10%. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) that was composed of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. Cox regression analysis and competing risk analysis were performed to assess the association of post-MI NOAF with MACE. Among 293 patients (mean age: 66.6 ± 11.3 years, 79.2% of males), 145 (49.5%) had impEF and 67 (22.9%) developed NOAF. Higher heart rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.97; P = 0.015), prior MI (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.09-0.69; P = 0.008), and STEMI (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21-0.77; P = 0.006) were independent predictors of post-MI impEF. Within up to 5 years of follow-up, there were 22 (15.2%) and 53 (35.8%) MACE in patients with impEF and prEF, respectively. NOAF was an independent predictor of MACE in patients with impEF (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.34, 95% CI: 2.49-21.59; P < 0.001) but not in those with prEF (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.39-1.55; P = 0.483) after multivariable adjustment. Similar results were obtained when accounting for the competing risk of all-cause death (subdistribution HR and 95% CIs in impEF and prEF were 6.47 [2.32-18.09] and 0.79 [0.39-1.61], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The NOAF was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes in AMI patients with impEF.

Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction: Prevalence, Predictors, and Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy

Recently, a new category of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) has emerged in the classification system. This is defined as the subgroup of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) whose left ventricular ejection fraction has recovered partially or completely, with no specific cut-off values established yet in the guidelines. In our review, we aim to provide an overview of prevalence, predictors, mechanism of remodeling, and management strategies regarding HFimpEF. These patients constitute a sizeable cohort among patients with reduced ejection fraction. Certain patient characteristics including younger age and female gender, absence of comorbid conditions, low levels of biomarkers, and non-ischemic etiology were identified as positive predictors. The heart undergoes significant maladaptive changes post failure leading to adverse remodeling influenced etiology and duration. Goal-directed medical therapy including beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have notably improved cardiac function by inducing reverse remodeling. Despite a more favorable prognosis compared to HFrEF, patients with improved ejection fraction (EF) still face clinical events and reduced quality of life, and remain at risk of adverse outcomes. Although the evidence is scarce, it is advisable to continue treatment modalities despite improvement in EF, including device therapies, to prevent relapse and clinical deterioration. It is imperative to conduct further research to understand the mechanism leading to EF amelioration and establish guidelines to identify and direct management strategies.

Incidence and predictors of heart failure with improved ejection fraction category in a HFrEF patient population

AIMS

The aim of the study was to assess the incidence and predictive factors of the development of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) category during a 1 year follow-up period in a heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patient population managed in a heart failure outpatient clinic.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study evaluated data from patients enrolled in the Hungarian Heart Failure Registry (HHFR). The incidence and predictive factors of the development of the HFimpEF category after 1 year follow-up were assessed in the group of patients who had HFrEF at baseline. We evaluated the incidence and predictors of the development of HFimpEF after a 1 year follow-up in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF in patients diagnosed within 3 months, between 3 months and 1 year, and beyond 1 year. The predictive factors of the development of HFimpEF were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Of the 833 HFrEF patients enrolled in the HHFR, the development of HFimpEF was observed in 162 patients (19.5%) during 1 year follow-up. In the whole patient population, independent predictors of the development of HFimpEF were female gender [odds ratio (OR): 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-2.96; P < 0.05], non-ischaemic aetiology (OR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.15-3.30; P < 0.05), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) <60 mm (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.18-3.51; P < 0.05). The 1 year incidence of HFimpEF decreased in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF. The incidence of HFimpEF was 27.1% in patients diagnosed within 3 months, 18.4% in patients diagnosed between 3 months and 1 year, and 12.2% in patients diagnosed beyond 1 year. Non-ischaemic aetiology (OR: 4.76; 95% CI: 1.83-12.4; P < 0.01) and QRS width (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94; P < 0.01) for patients diagnosed within 3 months, LVEDD (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; P < 0.05) and left atrial diameter ≤45 mm (OR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.45-20.4; P < 0.05) for patients diagnosed between 3 months and 1 year, and LVEDD < 67 mm (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.07-6.88; P < 0.05) for patients diagnosed beyond 1 year were found to be independent predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, in this HFrEF patient population managed in a heart failure outpatient clinic, the 1 year incidence of HFimpEF was found to be ~20%. The 1 year incidence of HFimpEF decreased in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF. The most important predictors of the development of HFimpEF were female sex, non-ischaemic aetiology, narrower QRS width, and smaller diameter of the left ventricle and left atrium.

Clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction. First Polish experience from LECRA-HF registry

PURPOSE

Heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) is a new category of HF introduced in the newest European Society of Cardiology guidelines. However, clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of HFimpEF patients remain insufficiently elucidated. We sought to characterize Polish HFimpEF patients and determine their long-term mortality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Of 1186 patients enrolled in the single-center Lesser Poland Cracovian Heart Failure (LECRA-HF) registry between 2009 and 2019 and hospitalized due to HF decompensation, 340 (28.7%) were those with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Based on follow-up echocardiography, 61 (17.9%) of them were classified as HFimpEF and the remaining as HFnon-impEF.

RESULTS

HFimpEF patients were more frequently females (P ​< ​0.001), had higher baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, P ​< ​0.001), had less often a history of diabetes (P ​= ​0.024), severe chronic kidney disease (P ​= ​0.026) or prior myocardial infarction (P ​= ​0.008) than HFnon-impEF patients. By multivariable analysis the HFimpEF diagnosis was independently predicted by baseline NYHA I/II (odds ratio [OR] 2.347, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.020-5.405), non-ischemic etiology (OR 3.096, 95%CI 1.587-6.024), lack of diabetes mellitus (OR 2.016, 95%CI 1.059-3.846) and higher baseline LVEF (OR 1.084, 95%CI 1.042-1.126, per 1%). Within the median 49 (25-77) months all-cause mortality was lower in HFimpEF than in HFnon-impEF (10.8 vs 16.4%/year, P ​= ​0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that every sixth Polish patient with HFrEF has a chance to improve LVEF during follow-up and to become a HFimpEF patient. Baseline characteristics of HFimpEF patients are different from HFnon-impEF. Simultaneously, the HFimpEF diagnosis is associated with higher long-term survival.

The value of using left ventricular pressure-strain loops to evaluate myocardial work in predicting heart failure with improved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The ultrasound left ventricular pressure-strain loop (LV PSL) was applied to evaluate myocardial work in heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) versus patients with persistent heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to investigate the value of myocardial work parameters in predicting HFimpEF.

METHODS

We collected 120 patients with HFrEF and recorded clinical characteristics and echocardiographic parameters (PSL technique) of patients. Patients were divided into HFimpEF group or persistent HFrEF group according to the outcome of follow-up. Furthermore, differential clinical and echocardiographic parameters were determined by Student's t-test. We recognized the important echocardiographic parameters to predict whether patients would recover to HFimpEF using the univariate logistic regression analysis and ROC curves. In addition, the multivariate logistic regression models were constructed and evaluated using Delong test and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

Firstly, the HFimpEF group had a higher prevalence of hypertension and higher systolic blood pressure (P-values <0.05). In terms of echocardiographic parameters, HFimpEF group also had higher LVEF, LV GLS, GCW, GWE, and GWI and lower LVEDD (P-values <0.01). In particular, LVEF, LVEDD, GLS, GWI, and GCW were robust predictors of the conversion of HFrEF patients to HFimpEF (AUC >0.70, P-values <0.05). Finally, we determined that the predictive Model 4 (LVEF, LVEDD, GLS, and GCW) had the optimal diagnostic power.

CONCLUSION

The model constructed by GCW with LVEF, LVEDD, and GLS has important predictive value for HFimpEF, which is an effective clinical decision-making tool for providing disease assessment.

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.

Factors Associated With Maintenance of an Improved Ejection Fraction: An Echocardiogram-Based Registry Study

Background Heart failure with improved ejection fraction (EF) is increasingly recognized as a sizable and distinct entity. While the features associated with improvedEF have been explored and new guidelines have emerged, factors associated with sustaining an improved EF over time have not been defined. We aimed to assess factors associated with maintenance of an improved EF in a large real-world patient cohort. Methods and Results A total of 7070 participants with heart failure with improved EF and a subsequent echocardiogram performed after at least 9 months of follow-up were included in a retrospective cohort study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. Multiple logistic regression models, adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and medications were built to identify characteristics and therapeutic interventions associated with maintaining an improved EF. Mean age (SD) was 64.9 (13.8) years, 62.7% were men, and 75.1% were White participants. White race and the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors were associated with maintaining the EF at least 9 months after EF improvement. In contrast, male sex or having atrial fibrillation/flutter, coronary artery disease, history of myocardial infarction, presence of an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator, and use of loop diuretics were associated with a decline in EF after previously documented improvement. Conclusions Continued use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors was associated with maintaining the EF beyond the initial improvement phase.

Influence of background medical therapy on efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction in the DELIVER trial

AIMS

The Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial demonstrated the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin to be beneficial in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF; those with prior left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% that had improved to >40% by enrolment). Whether this benefit differs by background medical therapy is unclear. The current study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin among patients with HFimpEF by background medical therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Treatment effects on the primary endpoint (worsening HF or cardiovascular death) were assessed by number of background HF medical therapies (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, evidence-based beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist). Among the 6263 patients randomized in DELIVER, 1151 (18%) had HFimpEF. Of those, 21% of patients were on 0-1 therapies, 44% were on two therapies, and 35% were on three therapies. During 2.3 years of median follow-up, the incidence rate of the primary outcome was 9.7, 8.8, and 8.4 per 100 person-years for patients on 0-1, 2 and 3 HF medications at baseline, respectively. Treatment effects with dapagliflozin on the primary outcome may be greater in patients with HFimpEF on 0-1 therapies at baseline (pinteraction  = 0.09), driven mostly by a significant interaction for HF hospitalization (pinteraction  = 0.023) with no evidence of effect modification for cardiovascular death (pinteraction  = 0.65). Treatment effects of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome were, however, consistent when assessed across the modified Heart Failure Collaboratory Medical Therapy Score integrating both therapeutic use and dosing (pinteraction  = 0.39). The use of dapagliflozin was not associated with changes in use or doses of background HF therapies, and among patients on three HF medications at baseline, the addition of dapagliflozin did not lead to higher adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFimpEF, the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin were largely similar by background use and dosing of HF medical therapies. The benefit of dapagliflozin in reducing HF events tended to be greater in those patients on 0-1 medications at baseline. Among patients already on three HF medical therapies, the addition of dapagliflozin was safe without requiring de-escalation of other therapies.

The E/e' ratio on echocardiography as an independent predictor of the improvement of left ventricular contraction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

Clinical feature of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) remains to be fully elucidated. The present study investigated the association of clinical and echocardiographic parameters with the subsequent improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

From outpatients with a history of hospitalized for heart failure, 128 subjects diagnosed as HFrEF (LVEF <40%) on heart failure hospitalization were enrolled and longitudinally surveyed. During follow-up periods more than 1 year, 58 and 42 patients were identified as HFimpEF (improved LVEF to ≥40% and its increase of ≥10 points) and persistent HFrEF, respectively.

RESULTS

There was no difference in age or sex between the two groups with HFimpEF and persistent HFrEF. The rate of ischemic heart disease was lower and that of tachyarrhythmia was higher in the HFimpEF group than in the persistent HFrEF group. At baseline (i.e., on heart failure hospitalization), LVEF did not differ between the two groups, but left ventricular systolic and diastolic diameters were already smaller and the ratio of early diastolic transmitral velocity to early diastolic tissue velocity (E/e') was lower in the HFimpEF group. A multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that lower baseline E/e' was a significant determinant of HFimpEF, independently of confounding factors such as ischemic heart disease, tachyarrhythmia, and baseline left ventricular dimension.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the lower ratio of E/e' in the acute phase of heart failure onset is an independent predictor of the subsequent improvement of LVEF in HFrEF patients.

Different heart failure phenotypes of valvular heart disease: the role of mitochondrial dysfunction

Valvular heart disease (VHD)-related heart failure (HF) is a special subtype of HF with an increasingly concerned heterogeneity in pathophysiology, clinical phenotypes, and outcomes. The mechanism of VHD-related HF involves not only mechanical damage to the valve itself but also valve lesions caused by myocardial ischemia. The interactions between them will lead to the occurrence and development of VHD-related HF subtypes. Due to the spatial (combination of different valvular lesions) and temporal effects (sequence of valvular lesions) of valvular damages, it can make the patient's condition more complicated and also make the physicians deal with a dilemma when deciding on a treatment plan. This indicates that there is still lack of deep understanding on the pathogenic mechanism of VHD-related HF subtypes. On the other hand, mitochondrial dysfunction (MitD) is not only associated with the development of numerous cardiac diseases such as atherosclerosis, hypertension, diabetes, and HF but also occurs in VHD. However, the role of MitD in VHD-related HF is still not fully recognized. In this comprehensive review, we aim to discuss the current findings and challenges of different valvular damages derived from HF subtypes as well as the role of MitD in VHD-related HF subtypes.

Construction of a web-based dynamic nomogram for predicting the prognosis in acute heart failure

AIMS

The early identification and appropriate management may provide clinically meaningful and substained benefits in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). This study aimed to develop an integrative nomogram with myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) for predicting the risk of all-cause mortality in AHF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective study of 147 patients with AHF who received gated MPI (59.0 [47.5, 68.0] years; 78.2% males) were enrolled and followed for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. We analysed the demographic information, laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and transthoracic echocardiogram by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression for selection of key features. A multivariate stepwise Cox analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors and construct a nomogram. The predictive values of the constructed model were compared by Kaplan-Meier curve, area under the curves (AUCs), calibration plots, continuous net reclassification improvement, integrated discrimination improvement, and decision curve analysis. The 1, 3, and 5 year cumulative rates of death were 10%, 22%, and 29%, respectively. Diastolic blood pressure [hazard ratio (HR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-0.99; P = 0.017], valvular heart disease (HR 3.05, 95% CI 1.36-6.83; P = 0.007), cardiac resynchronization therapy (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17-0.82; P = 0.014), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (per 100 pg/mL; HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03; P < 0.001), and rest scar burden (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06; P = 0.008) were independent risk factors for patients with AHF. The cross-validated AUCs (95% CI) of nomogram constructed by diastolic blood pressure, valvular heart disease, cardiac resynchronization therapy, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and rest scar burden were 0.88 (0.73-1.00), 0.83 (0.70-0.97), and 0.79 (0.62-0.95) at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Continuous net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement were also observed, and the decision curve analysis identified the greater net benefit of the nomogram across a wide range of threshold probabilities (0-100% at 1 and 3 years; 0-61% and 62-100% at 5 years) compared with dismissing the included factors or using either factor alone.

CONCLUSIONS

A predictive nomogram for the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with AHF was developed and validated in this study. The nomogram incorporated the rest scar burden by MPI is highly predictive, and may help to better stratify clinical risk and guide treatment decisions in patients with AHF.

Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction: Insight into the Variable Nature of Left Ventricular Systolic Function

The progress of contemporary cardiovascular therapy has led to improved survival in patients with myocardial disease. However, the development of heart failure (HF) represents a common clinical challenge, regardless of the underlying myocardial pathology, due to the severely impaired quality of life and increased mortality comparable with malignant neoplasms. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the main index of systolic function and a key predictor of mortality among HF patients, hence its improvement represents the main indicator of response to instituted therapy. The introduction of complex pharmacotherapy for HF, increased availability of cardiac-implantable electronic devices and advances in the management of secondary causes of HF, including arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, have led to significant increase in the proportion of patients with prominent improvement or even normalization of LVEF, paving the way for the identification of a new subgroup of HF with an improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). Accumulating data has indicated that these patients share far better long-term prognoses than patients with stable or worsening LVEF. Due to diverse HF aetiology, the prevalence of HFimpEF ranges from roughly 10 to 40%, while the search for reliable predictors and genetic associations corresponding with this clinical presentation is under way. As contemporary guidelines focus mainly on the management of HF patients with clearly defined LVEF, the present review aimed to characterize the definition, epidemiology, predictors, clinical significance and principles of therapy of patients with HFimpEF.