Management of Patients With Recovered Systolic Function

Heart failure ejection fraction class conversions: impact of biomarkers, co‐morbidities, and pharmacotherapy

Aims

Temporal conversions among ejection fraction (EF) classes can occur across the heart failure (HF) spectrum reflecting amended structural and functional outcomes unaccounted for by current taxonomy. This retrospective study aims to investigate the differences in serum laboratory values, guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT), and co‐morbidity burden across EF conversion groups.

Methods and results

Heart failure patients at least 18‐year‐old who obtained at least two echocardiograms between January 2018 and January 2020 were identified using ICD‐10 codes. Analysis of variance, chi‐square tests, and analysis of means for proportions were used as appropriate to identify associations with class conversion groups. A total of 874 patients who underwent 1748 echocardiograms on unique visits were categorized according to initial EF as HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) (n = 531, 61%), HF with mildly reduced or midrange EF (HFmrEF) (n = 132, 15%), or HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) (n = 211, 24%). In accordance with follow‐up EF, class conversions were categorized into HF with improved EF (HFiEF) (n = 143, 16%), HF with worsened EF (HFwEF) (n = 171, 20%), or HF with stable EF (HFsEF) (n = 560, 64%). The average age was 75 ± 13 years old; 54% were male, 85% were Caucasian, 11% were African American, and 4% other. The mean time between EF assessments was 208.6 ± 170.2 days. Serum sodium levels were greater in HFwEF (139 ± 3 mmol/L) when compared with HFsEF (138 ± 4 mmol/L) (P = 0.05). Pro‐BNP levels were higher in HFiEF (12 150 ± 19 554 pg/mL) versus HFsEF (6671 ± 10 525 pg/mL) (P = 0.007). Angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) were more frequently ordered on index visit in HFiEF (P = 0.03), but no other significant differences in GDMT were identified. Despite similar Elixhauser Co‐morbidity Measure (ECM) scores, ECM categorical analysis revealed that HFwEF was more likely to have an established diagnosis of depression (P = 0.03) and a spectrum of psychiatric illnesses (P = 0.03) on preliminary visit. HFsEF was less likely to have an established diagnosis of blood loss anaemia (P = 0.04). Metastatic cancer was more likely to have been diagnosed in HFiEF and less likely in HFsEF (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Despite similar ECM scores, EF class conversion groups demonstrated salient differences in average serum sodium and pro‐BNP levels. Inpatient ARNI orders, psychiatric, hematologic, and oncologic co‐morbidity patterns were also significantly different. Findings demonstrate blood‐based biomarker patterns and targetable co‐morbid conditions which may play a role in future EF class conversion. Dedicated studies evaluating measurements related to GDMT dose‐titration, quality of life, and functionality are the next steps in this field of HF.

Left ventricular remodelling and prognosis after discharge in new-onset acute heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the left ventricular (LV) remodelling and long‐term prognosis of patients with new‐onset acute heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction who were pharmacologically managed and survived until hospital discharge. We compared patients with ischaemic and non‐ischaemic aetiology.

Methods and results

This cohort study consisted of 111 patients admitted with new‐onset acute HF in the period 2008–2016 [62% non‐ischaemic aetiology, 48% supported by inotropes, vasopressors, or short‐term mechanical circulatory devices, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at discharge 28% (interquartile range 22–34)]. LV dimensions, LVEF, and mitral valve regurgitation were used as markers for LV remodelling during up to 3 years of follow‐up. Both patients with non‐ischaemic and ischaemic HF had significant improvement in LVEF (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively) with significant higher improvement in those with non‐ischaemic HF (17% vs. 6%, P < 0.001). Patients with non‐ischaemic HF had reduction in LV end‐diastolic and end‐systolic diameters (6 and 10 mm, both P < 0.001), but this was not found in those with ischaemic HF [+3 mm (P = 0.09) and +2 mm (P = 0.07), respectively]. During a median follow‐up of 4.6 years, 98 patients (88%) did not reach the composite endpoint of LV assist device implantation, heart transplantation, or all‐cause mortality, with no difference between with ischaemic and non‐ischaemic HF [hazard ratio 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.19–2.45)].

Conclusions

Patients with new‐onset acute HF with reduced ejection fraction discharged on optimal medical treatment have a good prognosis. We observed a considerable LV remodelling with improvement in LV function and dimensions, starting already at 6 months in patients with non‐ischaemic HF but not in their ischaemic counterparts.

Association of early versus delayed normalisation of left ventricular ejection fraction with mortality in ischemic cardiomyopathy

OBJECTIVE

In patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), normalisation of LVEF is associated with improved outcomes. However, data on patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and recovered LVEF are lacking. The goal of this study was to assess the prognostic significance of normalisation of the LVEF in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

METHODS/RESULTS

We performed a non-prespecified post hoc analysis of the Surgical Treatment for Ischaemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial to determine the association between normalisation of LVEF (>50%) and mortality during follow-up. Of the 1212 patients with LVEF <35% enroled in the STICH trial, 932 underwent assessment of LVEF at 4 months and/or 2 years after enrolment. Among them, 18 patients experienced normalisation in LVEF at 4-month follow-up and 35 patients experienced recovery in LVEF at 2 years. Recovery of LVEF at 4 months and recovery of LVEF at 2 years were not correlated. Recovery of LVEF at 4 months was not associated with reduced all-cause mortality in unadjusted analysis (log-rank test p=0.54) or in Cox proportional hazards analysis (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.80; p=0.82). Ejection fraction recovery at 2 years was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality, both in unadjusted analysis (log-rank test p=0.004) and in the Cox proportional hazard model (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80; p=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, delayed normalisation of LVEF is associated with reduced mortality, whereas early recovery of LVEF is not. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Pathological changes of the myocardium in reworsening of anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy after explant of a left ventricular assist device

We herein report the long-term changes in cardiac function and pathological findings after successful explantation of a left ventricular assist device in a 42-year-old patient with anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy with reworsening heart failure. Endomyocardial biopsy samples revealed that the cardiomyocyte diameter decreased and collagen volume fraction increased just after left ventricular assist device explantation. The collagen volume fraction decreased after 6 months, despite preserved systolic function. At 5 years after left ventricular assist device explantation, the systolic function markedly decreased and cardiomyocyte diameter increased. Pathological changes of the myocardium may enable the identification of cardiac dysfunction prior to echocardiographic changes in patients with reworsening heart failure after left ventricular assist device explantation.

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction

Substantial or complete myocardial recovery occurs in many patients with heart failure (HF). HF patients with myocardial recovery or recovered left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF; HFrecEF) are a distinct population of HF patients with different underlying etiologies, comorbidities, response to therapies, and outcomes compared with HF patients with persistent reduced or preserved EF. Improvement in LVEF has been systematically linked to improved quality of life, and lower rehospitalization rates and mortality. However, the mortality and morbidity in HFrecEF patients remain higher than those in the normal population. Currently, data to guide the management of HFrecEF patients are lacking. This review discusses specific characteristics, pathophysiology, and clinical implications for HFrecEF.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Reverse remodelling and myocardial recovery in heart failure

Advances in medical and device therapies have demonstrated the capacity of the heart to reverse the failing phenotype. The development of normative changes to ventricular size and function led to the concept of reverse remodelling. Among heart failure therapies, durable mechanical circulatory support is most consistently associated with the largest degree of reverse remodelling. Accordingly, research to analyse human tissue after a period of mechanical circulatory support continues to yield a wealth of information. In this Review, we summarize the latest findings on reverse remodelling and myocardial recovery. Accumulating evidence shows that the molecular changes associated with heart failure, in particular in the transcriptome, metabalome, and extracellular matrix, persist in the reverse-remodelled myocardium despite apparent normalization of macrolevel properties. Therefore, reverse remodelling should be distinguished from true myocardial recovery, in which a failing heart regains both normal function and molecular makeup. These findings have implications for future research to develop therapies to repair fully the failing myocardium. Meanwhile, recognition by society guidelines of this new clinical phenotype, which is coming to be known as a state of heart failure remission, underscores the need to accurately define and identify reverse modelled myocardium for the establishment of appropriate therapies.

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.

Recovered heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and outcomes: a prospective study

AIMS

Significant recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) occurs in a proportion of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We analysed outcomes, including mortality [all-cause, cardiovascular (CV), HF-related, and sudden death], and HF-related hospitalizations in this HF-recovered group. The primary endpoint was a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

LVEF was assessed at baseline and at 1 year in 1057 consecutive HF patients. Patients were classified into three groups: (i) HF-recovered: LVEF <45% at baseline and ≥45% at 1 year (n = 233); (ii) HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): LVEF ≥45% throughout follow-up (n = 117); and (iii) HFrEF: LVEF <45% throughout follow-up (n = 707). Mean follow-up was 5.6 ± 3.1 years. HF-recovered patients differed from HFrEF and HFpEF groups in demographic and clinical characteristics. The mean LVEF increase was 21.1 ± 10 points in HF-recovered patients. Using the HF-recovered group as a reference, the risks for the primary composite endpoint (n = 376), with non-CV death as competing risk, for HFpEF and HFrEF groups were: hazard ratio (HR) 2.33 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-3.39], P < 0.001 and HR 1.99 (95% CI 1.50-2.65), P < 0.001, respectively. All-cause (n = 429), CV (n = 245), HF-related (n = 127), and sudden death (n = 60) were significantly lower in HF-recovered subjects relative to HFrEF (all P < 0.01). HF-recovered patients also experienced less recurrent HF hospitalizations (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

One in four treated patients with HFrEF showed recovery of systolic function. HF-recovered patients had significantly improved mortality and morbidity relative to HFpEF and HFrEF subjects. Further research is needed to identify optimal medications and device indications for HF-recovered patients.

Left ventricular assist device-induced reverse remodeling: it's not just about myocardial recovery

INTRODUCTION

The abnormal structure, function and molecular makeup of dilated cardiomyopathic hearts can be partially normalized in patients supported by a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), a process called reverse remodeling. This leads to recovery of function in many patients, though the rate of full recovery is low and in many cases is temporary, leading to the concept of heart failure remission, rather than recovery. Areas covered: We summarize data indicative of ventricular reverse remodeling, recovery and remission during LVAD support. These terms were used in searches performed in Pubmed. Duplication of topics covered in depth in prior review articles were avoided. Expert commentary: Although most patients undergoing mechanical circulatory support (MCS) show a significant degree of reverse remodeling, very few exhibit sufficiently improved function to justify device explantation, and many from whom LVADs have been explanted have relapsed back to the original heart failure phenotype. Future research has the potential to clarify the ideal combination of pharmacological, cell, gene, and mechanical therapies that would maximize recovery of function which has the potential to improve exercise tolerance of patients while on support, and to achieve a higher degree of myocardial recovery that is more likely to persist after device removal.