Recovery and recurrence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy

Recurrence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and its risk factors in heart failure with improved ejection fraction patients receiving guideline-directed medical therapy: A trajectory analysis based on echocardiography

BACKGROUND

Despite the better prognosis of heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), remnant cardiovascular risks, including cardiovascular death, rehospitalization, and future deterioration of left ventricular (LV) systolic function, remain in HFimpEF. However, for HFimpEF patients, especially for those receiving guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), the recurrent LV systolic dysfunction and its risk factors is still unclear.

METHODS

A total of 1098 HF patients under HF follow-up management system were initially screened. Echocardiography was re-evaluated at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. After exclusion, a total of 203 HFimpEF patients on GDMT were enrolled in our final analysis. Cox regression analysis was conducted to select risk factors.

RESULTS

During the 1-year follow-up, a total of 28 (13.8%) patients had recurrent LV systolic dysfunction. The trajectory analysis of echocardiographic parameters illustrated that persistent decline of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and worsening LV remodeling was observed in patients with recurrent LV systolic dysfunction. Multivariable Cox regression analysis identified that ischemic cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, higher left ventricular end-diastolic diameter index (LVEDDI), elevated serum potassium, and a lack of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) treatment were confirmed as independent risk factors for recurrent LV systolic dysfunction. Recurrent LV systolic dysfunction was associated with higher rehospitalization rate.

CONCLUSION

In our longitudinal cohort study, almost 14% HFimpEF receiving GDMT suffered recurrent LV systolic dysfunction. Ischemic cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, higher LVEDDI, higher serum potassium, and a lack of SGLT2i therapy were tightly associated with recurrence of LV systolic dysfunction. Relapse of LV systolic dysfunction correlated with poor prognosis.

Prognosis After Withdrawal of Cardioprotective Therapy in Patients With Improved Cancer Therapeutics-Related Cardiac Dysfunction

Background

The long-term prognosis after the discontinuation of cardioprotective therapy (CPT) in patients with cancer therapeutics-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) that has shown improvement remains unclear.

Objectives

This study aims to assess the prognosis after CPT withdrawal in patients exhibiting improved CTRCD.

Methods

In this retrospective analysis of a single-center prospective cohort study, patients with improved CTRCD, defined as an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥10 percentage points from the time of CTRCD diagnosis, were included. We analyzed their clinical outcomes, which included hospitalization for heart failure or a decrease in LVEF ≥10 percentage points within 2 years after CTRCD improvement, alongside echocardiographic changes.

Results

The cohort comprised 134 patients with improved CTRCD. The median follow-up duration after CTRCD diagnosis was 368.3 days (Q1-Q3: 160-536 days). After improvement, 90 patients continued CPT (continued group [CG]) and 44 withdrew CPT (withdrawn group [WG]). Among patients whose baseline LVEF at CTRCD diagnosis ranged from 45% to 55%, the final mean LVEF was comparable between both groups (CG: 64.9% ± 4.4% vs WG: 62.9% ± 4.2%; P = 0.059). However, for patients with a baseline LVEF <45%, the final mean LVEF was significantly lower in the WG (CG: 53.3% ± 6.4% vs WG: 48.2% ± 6.9%; P < 0.001). The occurrence of composite major clinical events was notably higher in the WG (HR: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.51-7.73; P = 0.002).

Conclusions

Patients who withdrew CPT after demonstrating improvement in CTRCD experienced worse clinical outcomes. Notably, a significant decrease in LVEF was observed after CPT withdrawal in patients with a baseline LVEF <45%.

Recovery From Left Ventricular Dysfunction

The treatment of heart failure is an evolving field of cardiology, with increasingly available therapeutics and significant disease burden. With the effective treatments available, we see a substantial patient population whose once reduced ejection fraction (EF) has normalized. Studies have assessed the natural history of these patients with improved EF and found improved mortality as compared with those patients with persistently reduced EF, with some evidence stating that each 5% increase in left ventricular EF correlates with a 4.9-fold decrease in the odds of mortality. This prognostic divergence has led to the recognition of this subset of patients as having a unique heart failure diagnosis, distinct from heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF) or heart failure with preserved EF and to the adoption of the term heart failure with recovered EF. These patients, despite having improved mortality, do retain some of the molecular and histologic changes seen in HFrEF and are still at risk for decline in left ventricular function and adverse cardiac events, particularly when medical therapy is stopped. This distinction between recovery of EF and true myocardial recovery led to recent guidelines recommending continuation of guideline-directed medical therapy indefinitely, as well as surveillance echocardiography.

Learnings from the 2024 Utah Cardiac Recovery Symposium: A Roadmap for the Field of Myocardial Recovery

The 12th annual Utah Cardiac Recovery Symposium (U-CARS) in 2024 continued its mission to advance cardiac recovery by uniting experts across various fields. The symposium featured key presentations on cutting-edge topics such as CRISPR gene editing for heart failure, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure (HF) with improved/recovered ejection fraction (HFimpEF), the role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in treating cardiac arrest, and others. Discussions explored genetic and metabolic contributions to HF, emphasized the importance of maintaining pharmacotherapy in HFimpEF to prevent relapse, and identified future research directions including refining ECPR protocols, optimizing patient selection, and leveraging genetic insights to enhance therapeutic strategies.

Understanding Arrhythmia-Induced Cardiomyopathy: Symptoms and Treatments

Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy is a complex condition that causes a decline in heart function as a result of irregular heart rhythms. This disorder highlights the link between irregular heart rhythm and heart failure, necessitating prompt identification and intervention. It often occurs due to ongoing fast heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation or tachycardia. Understanding the mechanisms, symptoms, and available treatments is essential for enhancing patient outcomes given the complicated nature of the condition. This article delves into various aspects of arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, including pathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnostic methods, epidemiology, typical arrhythmias associated with the condition, and management options. It assesses patients' future outlook and necessary follow-up, aiming to provide healthcare providers with a comprehensive understanding of how to handle this intricate condition. The article emphasizes the important effect an integrative approach can have on both patients' lives and the clinical consequences of diagnosing and treating this condition. This extensive understanding enhances the resources at the disposal of physicians, enabling targeted treatments that enhance cardiomyopathy by targeting arrhythmia regulation. More research and development are needed in the field of cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia relationship. The presentation urges the medical field to delve deeper into the complexities of illness by emphasizing the need for continuous research and a multifaceted treatment plan. By combining these understandings, our goal is to enhance patient outcomes and create opportunities for further studies on cardiovascular wellness.

Description and Prognosis of Patients with Recovered Dilated Cardiomyopathy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

With the recent advances in the treatment of heart failure (HF), it is intriguing that a very small number of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) have been observed as being fully recovered. However, knowledge of the progression and prognosis of patients with recovered DCM remains sparse. Herein, we conducted this study to investigate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with recovered DCM.

Methods

Consecutive patients with recovered DCM referred to our hospital between March 2009 and May 2021 were included. The recovered DCM patients were categorized into relapse and non-relapse groups. The primary endpoint was all-cause death, and the secondary endpoint was HF re-hospitalization during follow-up. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of relapse among recovered DCM patients. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess the prognostic significance of relapse.

Results

A comparatively large cohort of 122 recovered DCM patients from 10,029 DCM patients was analyzed. During a median follow-up duration of 53.5 months, the relapse rate among recovered DCM patients was 15.6% (19/122). Age (odds ratio, OR 1.079, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.014-1.148; p = 0.017), systolic blood pressure (SBP) at diagnosis (OR 0.948, 95% CI: 0.908-0.990; p = 0.015) and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction from diagnosis to recovery ( Δ LVEF) (OR 0.898, 95% CI: 0.825-0.978; p = 0.013) were identified as predictors of relapse. Furthermore, among 122 patients, 5 (4.1%) experienced death, and 12 (9.8%) underwent HF re-hospitalization. Four deaths occurred in the relapse group, with one in the non-relapse group. All deaths were attributed to cardiovascular events. The long-term prognosis of the relapse group was significantly worse compared to the non-relapse group by Kaplan-Meier analysis (p < 0.001 based on the log-rank test). Multivariate analyses significantly associated relapse with all-cause mortality in recovered DCM patients (hazard ratio, HR 7.738, 95% CI: 1.892-31.636; p = 0.004).

Conclusions

Recovered DCM patients are at risk of relapse. Older age, lower SBP, and smaller Δ LVEF were independently associated with relapse in recovered DCM patients. Relapse after recovery was related to an unfavorable long-term prognosis.

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.

Heart Failure With Recovered Ejection Fraction in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: Characteristics, Outcomes, and Long-term Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Duration of recovery and long-term outcomes have not been well-described in a large cohort of patients with heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) owing to nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The aim of the study was to characterize the duration of recovery and long-term outcomes of patients with HFrecEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective analysis of our institution's databases. Only patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, a chronic HF diagnosis, and a previous left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤35% who had a subsequent LVEF of ≥50% were considered to have recovery. Patients with an LVEF of ≤35% who did not recover served as the comparison group. Included were 2319 patients with an LVEF of ≤35%, of whom 465 (20% [18.4%-21.7%]) met the above criteria for recovery (HFrecEF group). Recovery in the HFrecEF group was temporary in most cases, with 50% of patients experiencing a decline in LVEF to <50% within 3.5 [interquartile range 2.4-4.9] years after the day of recovery. Age and sex adjusted death and hospitalization were lower in the HFrecEF group than the HFrEF group (HR 0.29 [interquartile range 0.20-0.41] for death and 0.44 [interquartile range 0.32-0.60] for HF hospitalization, P < .0001 for both). Longer recovery was associated with better survival, with patients spending >5 years in recovery (LVEF of ≥50%) displaying the highest survival rates (83% alive at 10 years after recovery). Survival after recurrence of LV dysfunction was longer for those whose recovery duration was >1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with nonischemic HFrecEF display a unique clinical course. Although recovery is temporary in most cases, patients with HFrecEF display lower mortality and hospitalization rates, with the more durable the recovery of LV systolic function, the longer survival can be anticipated.

Your Heart Function Has Normalized-What Next After TRED-HF?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the widespread implementation of contemporary disease-modifying heart failure therapy, the rates of normalization of ejection fraction are continuously increasing. The TRED-HF trial confirmed that heart failure remission rather than complete recovery is typical in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy who respond to therapy. The present review outlines key points related to the management and knowledge gaps of this growing patient group, focusing on patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is substantial heterogeneity among patients with normalized ejection fraction. The specific etiology is likely to affect the outcome, although a multiple-hit phenotype is frequent and may not be identified without comprehensive characterization. A monogenic or polygenic genetic susceptibility is common. Ongoing pathophysiological processes may be unraveled with advanced cardiac imaging, biomarkers, multi-omics, and machine learning technologies. There are limited studies that have investigated the withdrawal of specific heart failure therapies in these patients. Diuretics may be safely withdrawn if there is no evidence of congestion, while continued therapy with at least some disease-modifying therapy is likely to be required to reduce myocardial workload and sustain remission for the vast majority. Understanding the underlying disease mechanisms of patients with normalized ejection fraction is crucial in identifying markers of myocardial relapse and guiding individualized therapy in the future. Ongoing clinical trials should inform personalized approaches to therapy.

Practical Pharmacological Treatment of Heart Failure: Does Ejection Fraction Matter Anymore?

Heart failure (HF) is a complex clinical syndrome involving structural and/or functional abnormalities of the heart. Heart failure is often classified based on left ventricular ejection fraction, which serves as a predictor of mortality. The majority of the data supporting disease-modifying pharmacological therapies are from patients with reduced ejection fraction (less than 40%). However, with the recent results from the sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor trials, there is renewed interest in identifying potential beneficial pharmacological therapies. This review focuses on and includes pharmacological HF therapies across the spectrum of ejection fraction, providing an overview of the novel trials. We also examined the effects of the treatments on mortality, hospitalization, functional status, and biomarker levels to further investigate the interplay between ejection fraction and HF.

Prognosis after discontinuing renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor for heart failure with restored ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction

Prognostic effect of discontinuing renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system-inhibitor (RAASi) for patients with heart failure (HF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) whose left ventricular (LV) systolic function was restored during follow-up is unknown. To investigate the outcome after discontinuing RAASi in post-AMI HF patients with restored LV ejection fraction (EF). Of 13,104 consecutive patients from the nationwide, multicenter, and prospective Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health (KAMIR-NIH) registry, HF patients with baseline LVEF < 50% that was restored to ≥ 50% at 12-month follow-up were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, spontaneous MI, or rehospitalization for HF at 36-month after index procedure. Of 726 post-AMI HF patients with restored LVEF, 544 maintained RAASi (Maintain-RAASi) beyond 12-month, 108 stopped RAASi (Stop-RAASi), and 74 did not use RAASi (RAASi-Not-Used) at baseline and follow-up. Systemic hemodynamics and cardiac workloads were similar among groups at baseline and during follow-up. Stop-RAASi group showed elevated NT-proBNP than Maintain-RAASi group at 36-month. Stop-RAASi group showed significantly higher risk of primary outcome than Maintain-RAASi group (11.4% vs. 5.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR_adjust] 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-4.46, P = 0.028), mainly driven by increased risk of all-cause death. The rate of primary outcome was similar between Stop-RAASi and RAASi-Not-Used group (11.4% vs. 12.1%; HR_adjust 1.18 [0.47-2.99], P = 0.725). In post-AMI HF patients with restored LV systolic function, RAASi discontinuation was associated with significantly increased risk of all-cause death, MI, or rehospitalization for HF. Maintaining RAASi will be necessary for post-AMI HF patients, even after LVEF is restored.

Incidence, determinants, and outcomes of recovered left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with non-ischemic systolic heart failure; a hospital-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The data on incidence of recovered Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) and outcome in patients with non ischemic systolic heart failure is limited. We report the incidence, determinants and mortality in patients with recovered LVEF.

METHODS

The 369 patients with HFrEF with LVEF of less than 40% of non ischemic etiology with available follow up echocardiography study at one year were enrolled. The baseline data of clinical characteristics and treatment was recorded prospectively and were followed up annually for mean of 3.6 years (range 2 to 5 years) to record all cause death and LVEF measured echocardiographically. The recovered, partially recovered and no recovery of LVEF was defined based on increase in LVEF to 50% and more, 41% to 49% and to persistently depressed LVEF to 40% or lower respectively.

RESULTS

The LVEF recovered in 36.5%% of the cohort at 5 years. The rate of recovery of LVEF was slower in patients with no recovery of LVEF at one year compared to cohort with partially recovered LVEF (18% vs.53%) at five year. The Baseline LVEF was significantly associated with recovered LVEF, odd ratio (95% C.I.) 1.09(1.04, 1.14). The cumulative mortality at five years was significantly lower in cohort with recovered LVEF (18.1% vs. 57.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

One third of the patients had recovered LVEF and was significantly associated with baseline LVEF and lower mortality rate.

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.

Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) has been shown to improve risk stratification in patients with LV systolic dysfunction and subsequent recovery of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in the acquired heart disease population. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between LVGLS and cardiovascular events (heart failure hospitalization, sustained ventricular tachycardia/appropriate shock, heart transplant, or cardiovascular death) and deterioration in LVEF (absolute decrease in LVEF ≥10% to LVEF <50%) in adults with congenital heart disease.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of congenital heart disease patients with previous diagnosis of LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF <50%) and subsequent recovery of LVEF (absolute increase in LVEF of ≥10% to LVEF ≥50%) on subsequent echocardiogram (index echocardiogram). Based on the index echocardiogram, patients were divided into normal LVGLS (absolute LVGLS >18%) versus abnormal LVGLS (absolute LVGLS ≤18%) groups.

RESULTS

Of 193 patients with recovered LVEF, 86 (45%) had normalization of LVGLS at index echocardiogram. A higher absolute LVGLS and use of renin angiotensin aldosterone system antagonist was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and subsequent deterioration in LVEF, while hypertension was associated with higher risk of cardiovascular events and deterioration in LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that patients with congenital heart disease with recovered LVEF remained at risk for adverse outcomes, and LVGLS can be used to identify patients at risk for adverse outcomes. Medical therapy for heart failure and treatment of hypertension may reduce the risk of adverse outcome, but these findings require empirical validation, hence the need for a clinical trial.

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.

Transient versus persistent improved ejection fraction in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy

AIMS

The recent definition of heart failure with improved ejection fraction outlined the importance of the longitudinal assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, long-term progression and outcomes of this subgroup are poorly explored. We sought to assess the LVEF trajectories and their correlations with outcome in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NICM) with improved ejection fraction (impEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive NICM patients with baseline LVEF ≤40% enrolled in the Trieste Heart Muscle Disease Registry with ≥1 LVEF assessment after baseline were included. ImpEF was defined as a baseline LVEF ≤40%, and second evaluation showing both a ≥10% point increase from baseline LVEF and LVEF >40%. Transient impEF was defined by the documentation of recurrent LVEF ≤40% during follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device (D/HT/LVAD). Among 800 patients, 460 (57%) had impEF (median time to improvement 13 months). Transient impEF was observed in 189 patients (41% of the overall impEF group) and was associated with higher risk of D/HT/LVAD compared with persistent impEF at multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 2.54; 95% confidence interval 1.60-4.04). The association of declining LVEF with the risk of D/HT/LVAD was non-linear, with a steep increase up to 8% points reduction, then remaining stable.

CONCLUSIONS

In NICM, a 57% rate of impEF was observed. However, recurrent decline in LVEF was observed in ≈40% of impEF patients and it was associated with an increased risk of D/HT/LVAD.

Bradycardia in Older Patients in a Single-Center Emergency Department: Incidence, Characteristics and Outcomes

Objective

This study aimed to explore data associated with the characteristics, incidence, and outcomes of older patients with symptomatic bradycardia presenting to the emergency department (ED).

Methods

We prospectively reviewed data of all patients aged 60 years and older who visited our ED with symptomatic bradycardia during 8AM-12PM between June 4, 2018, and June 10, 2019. The outcomes were the incidence of symptomatic bradycardia and adverse events (recurrent bradycardia, rate of ED revisits, subsequent hospitalization, mortality rate, and composite outcomes) at 30 days and 180 days.

Results

A total of 3297 patients visited the ED. Of these, 205 patients had symptomatic bradycardia. The incidence of symptomatic bradycardia was 6.2% (205/3297). One hundred fourteen patients (55.7%) were female, and the mean age was 74.9 (SD, 9) years. One-third of bradycardia patients (80 patients [39.0%]) were admitted to the hospital, 32 of whom because of unstable bradycardia. Ten of these 32 (30%) patients died during hospitalization from causes unrelated to bradycardia. One-third of unstable bradycardia patients had dyspnea (10/32 patients [31.3%]) followed by chest pain and altered mental status, respectively. ED revisit was the most common adverse event after 30 days (10.8%) and 180 days (20.3%). End-stage renal disease with hemodialysis was associated with adverse outcomes at 30 days (odds ratio, 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.30–20.87).

Conclusion

The incidence of symptomatic bradycardia among older adults was 6.2% in one urban ED. End-stage renal disease with hemodialysis was associated with adverse outcomes at 30 days. Larger studies should confirm this association and investigate methods of minimizing adverse outcomes.

Prognostic Value of Global Longitudinal Strain in Patients With Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine whether global longitudinal strain (GLS) is independently associated with the natural history of patients with heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF).

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) often improves in patients with reduced EF. The clinical course of patients with HFimpEF, however, is quite variable. GLS, a sensitive indicator of LV systolic function, could help predict risk of future events in this population.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of HF patients with LVEF >40% on index echocardiogram who had LVEF <40% on initial study and improvement of ≥10%. GLS was assessed by 2-dimensional speckle-tracking software on index echocardiography. Primary outcome was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization/emergency treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 289 patients with HFimpEF, median absolute values of GLS (aGLS) and LVEF from index echocardiography were 12.7% (IQR: 10.8%-14.7%) and 52% (IQR: 46%-58%), respectively. Over 53 months following index echocardiography, the primary endpoint occurred less frequently in patients with aGLS above the median than below it (21% vs 34%; P = 0.014); HR of 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33-0.81; P = 0.004. When assessed as a continuous variable, each 1% increase in aGLS on index echocardiogram was associated with a lower likelihood of the composite endpoint; HR of 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.93; P < 0.001, an association that persisted after multivariable adjustment; HR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82-0.97; P = 0.01. Lower aGLS was associated with increased likelihood of deterioration in LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFimpEF, GLS is a strong predictor for future HF events and deterioration in cardiac function.

Prevalence and Prognosis of HFimpEF Developed From Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) is classified as a new type of heart failure, and its prevalence and prognosis are not consistent in previous studies. There is no systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the prevalence and prognosis of the HFimpEF. Method: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to May 22, 2021 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021260422). Studies were included for analysis if the prognosis of mortality or hospitalization were reported in HFimpEF or in patients with heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cardiac hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, and composite events of mortality and hospitalization were considered as secondary outcomes. Result: Nine studies consisting of 9,491 heart failure patients were eventually included. During an average follow-up of 3.8 years, the pooled prevalence of HFimpEF was 22.64%. HFimpEF had a lower risk of mortality compared with heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (adjusted HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.33-0.60). HFimpEF was also associated with a lower risk of cardiac hospitalization (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20-0.82) and the composite endpoint of mortality and hospitalization (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.44-0.73). Compared with patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HFimpEF was associated with a moderately lower risk of mortality (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.32-0.55) and hospitalization (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58-0.92). Conclusion: Around 22.64% of patients with HFrEF would be treated to become HFimpEF, who would then obtain a 56% decrease in mortality risk. Meanwhile, HFimpEF is associated with lower heart failure hospitalization. Further studies are required to explore how to promote left ventricular ejection fraction improvement and improve the prognosis of persistent HFrEF in patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021260422, identifier: CRD42021260422.

Beta-blockers are associated with reverse remodeling in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and mid-range ejection fraction

Background

Beta-blockers have been shown to induce left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aimed to determine whether beta-blockers could induce LVRR in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Methods

We analyzed the national database from clinical personal records of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) maintained by Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, between 2003 and 2014. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥40% and < 50% were included. Patients who did not have echocardiography at 2 years of follow-up were excluded. Eligible patients were divided into two groups according to the use of beta-blockers. Patient characteristics of two groups were adjusted by propensity score matching. The primary outcome was LVRR at 2 years of follow-up, defined as an improvement in LVEF ≥10%.

Results

Out of 3064 patients, propensity score matching yielded 602 pairs. The mean age was 59.3 years and 896 patients (74.4%) were male. The primary outcome was observed more frequently in beta-blocker group (24.3% vs. 17.8%; Odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.96; P = 0.006). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with heart rate ≥ 75 bpm (≥ 75 bpm; OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.66-4.11: < 75 bpm; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.72-1.48; P for interaction = 0.002) and atrial fibrillation (AF) (AF; OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.37-3.86: No AF; OR 1.23; 95% CI, 0.88-1.72; P for interaction = 0.046) were benefited by beta-blockers.

Conclusions

Beta-blockers could induce LVRR in patients with DCM and HFmrEF.

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF): A new entity with improved cardiac outcome

BACKGROUND

Aim of the study was a better characterization of heart failure (HF) with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and undulating EF (HFuEF) with regard to re-hospitalization due to congestive HF (CHF), adequate electric therapies (AETs) and mortality compared to HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), mid-range EF (HFmrEF) and preserved EF (pEF).

METHODS

Retrospective study of 342 participants with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary or secondary prevention. Type of HF was classified according to left ventricular EF with 4.7 ± 3.1 investigations for each patient.

RESULTS

Re-hospitalization due to CHF was similar in HFrecEF (7 (9.5%)), HFmrEF (2(9.0%)) and pEF (8(12.9%); p = n.s.) and significantly higher in HFrEF (62(38.0%)) and HFuEF (6(28.6%); p < .001 compared to HFrecEF and HFrEF). AETs were significantly lower in HFrecEF (13(17.6%)) compared to HFrEF (57(35.0%)), HFmrEF (7(31.8%)), pEF (18(29.0%)) and HFuEF (6(28.6%); each p < .01 compared to HFrecEF). Mortality was similar in HFrecEF (6(8.1%)) compared to HFuEF (0(0%)), pEF (4(6.5%)) and HFmrEF (2(9.0%), p = n.s.) and significantly lower compared to HFrEF (52(31.9%), p < .001). HFrEF was the strongest predictor for mortality besides age and chronic renal insufficiency according to Cox Regression (each p < .05) opposite to arterial hypertension, diabetes, type of cardiomyopathy and secondary prevention ICD indication (each p = n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

HFrecEF indicates as a new entity of HF with similar prognosis as pEF and HFmrEF with regard to re-hospitalization due to CHF and mortality and even better prognosis with regard to AETs. HFuEF showed similar rates of re-hospitalization due to CHF and AETs compared to HFrEF, but lower rates of mortality.

Prognostic significance of longitudinal strain in dilated cardiomyopathy with recovered ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

Patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NICM) may experience a normalisation in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Although this correlates with improved prognosis, it does not correspond to a normalisation in the risk of death during follow-up. Currently, there are no tools to risk stratify this population. We tested the hypothesis that absolute global longitudinal strain (aGLS) is associated with mortality in patients with NICM and recovered ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

We designed a retrospective, international, longitudinal cohort study enrolling patients with NICM with LVEF <40% improved to the normal range (>50%). We studied the relationship between aGLS measured at the time of the first recording of a normalised LVEF and all-cause mortality during follow-up. We considered aGLS >18% as normal and aGLS ≥16% as of potential prognostic value.

RESULTS

206 patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 53.5 years (IQR 44.3-62.8) and 56.6% were males. LVEF at diagnosis was 32.0% (IQR 24.0-38.8). LVEF at the time of recovery was 55.0% (IQR 51.7-60.0). aGLS at the time of LVEF recovery was 13.6%±3.9%. 166 (80%) and 141 (68%) patients had aGLS ≤18% and <16%, respectively. During a follow-up of 5.5±2.8 years, 35 patients (17%) died. aGLS at the time of first recording of a recovered LVEF correlated with mortality during follow-up (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99, p=0.048 in adjusted Cox model). No deaths were observed in patients with normal aGLS (>18%). In unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, aGLS <16% was associated with higher mortality during follow-up (31 deaths (22%) in patients with GLS <16% vs 4 deaths (6.2%) in patients with GLS ≥16%, HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 9, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NICM and normalised LVEF, an impaired aGLS at the time of LVEF recovery is frequent and associated with worse outcomes.

Beta-Blocker Use Is Associated With Prevention of Left Ventricular Remodeling in Recovered Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Background

Withdrawal of optimal medical therapy has been reported to relapse cardiac dysfunction in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) whose cardiac function had improved. However, it is unknown whether beta‐blockers can prevent deterioration of cardiac function in those patients. We examined the effect of beta‐blockers on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in recovered DCM.

Methods and Results

We analyzed the clinical personal record of DCM, a national database of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, between 2003 and 2014. Recovered DCM was defined as a previously documented LVEF <40% and a current LVEF ≥40%. Patients with recovered DCM were divided into 2 groups according to the use of beta‐blockers. A one‐to‐one propensity case‐matched analysis was used. The primary outcome was defined as a decrease in LVEF >10% at 2 years of follow‐up. Of 5370 eligible patients, 4104 received beta‐blockers. Propensity score matching yielded 1087 pairs. Mean age was 61.9 years, and 1619 (74.5%) were men. Mean LVEF was 49.3±8.2%, and median B‐type natriuretic peptide was 46.6 (interquartile range, 18.0–118.1) pg/mL. The primary outcome was observed less frequently in the beta‐blocker group than in the no‐beta‐blocker group (19.6% versus 24.0%; odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63–0.95; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that female patients (women: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36–0.81; men: OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69–1.12; P for interaction=0.040) were benefited by beta‐blockers.

Conclusions

Beta‐blocker use could prevent deterioration of left ventricular systolic function in patients with recovered DCM.

An Irreversible Worsening Cardiac Function after Withdrawing Medical Treatments in a Patient with Dilated Cardiomyopathy: A Pathological Analysis

A 44-year-old man diagnosed with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy was admitted to our hospital with acute decompensated heart failure. Seven years before this admission, the first introduction of medication resulted in left ventricular (LV) recovery, which was sustained for several years. However, the patient stopped taking his medication, resulting in worsening of the LV function. Despite the second introduction of medication, the LV function did not improve. We performed cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and an endomyocardial biopsy, which revealed the significant development of cardiac fibrosis that had not been present at the time of the initial diagnosis.

Decline in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction During Follow-Up in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of the decline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 1-year follow-up in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) managed conservatively.

BACKGROUND

No previous study has explored the association between LVEF decline during follow-up and clinical outcomes in patients with severe AS.

METHODS

Among 3,815 patients with severe AS enrolled in the multicenter CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry in Japan, 839 conservatively managed patients who underwent echocardiography at 1-year follow-up were analyzed. The primary outcome measure was a composite of AS-related deaths and hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

There were 91 patients (10.8%) with >10% declines in LVEF and 748 patients (89.2%) without declines. Left ventricular dimensions and the prevalence of valve regurgitation and atrial fibrillation or flutter significantly increased in the group with declines in LVEF. The cumulative 3-year incidence of the primary outcome measure was significantly higher in the group with declines in LVEF than in the group with no decline (39.5% vs. 26.5%; p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of decline in LVEF over no decline for the primary outcome measure remained significant (hazard ratio: 1.98; 95% confidence interval: 1.29 to 3.06). When stratified by LVEF at index echocardiography (≥70%, 60% to 69%, and <60%), the risk of decline in LVEF on the primary outcome was consistently seen in all the subgroups, without any interaction (p = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe AS with >10% declines in LVEF at 1 year after diagnosis had worse AS-related clinical outcomes than those without declines in LVEF under conservative management. (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Registry; UMIN000012140).

Heterogeneous Outcomes of Heart Failure with Better Ejection Fraction

We evaluated the heterogeneity of outcomes among heart failure patients with ventricular recovery. The BEST trial studied patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. Serial LVEF assessment was performed at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months. Heart failure with better ejection fraction (HFbEF) was defined as an LVEF > 40% at any point. Of the patients who survived to 1 year, 399 (21.3%) had HFbEF. Among subjects with HFbEF, 173 (43.4%) had "extended" recovery, 161 (40.4%) had "late" recovery, and 65 (16.3%) patients had "transient" recovery. Subjects with HFbEF had an improved event-free survival from death or first HF hospitalization compared to subjects without recovery (HR 0.50, 95% CI, 0.39-0.64, p < 0.001). Compared to "transient" recovery, "late" and "extended" recovery were associated with an improved event-free survival from all-cause death and HF hospitalization (HR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.34-0.90, p = 0.016). Our study shows patients with HFbEF to be a heterogeneous population with differing prognoses.

Heart Failure with Recovered Ejection Fraction: Report of a Case in Jos, Nigeria

Some patients in heart failure (HF) are able to withstand treatment, recover ejection fraction (EF) enough to require little or no further treatment. They belong to the distinct entity now called HF with recovered EF where patients start as HF with reduced EF and with treatment end up as HF with mid-range EF or even HF with preserved EF. This case report is on one such patient who presented in HF with features of dilated cardiomyopathy. With treatment, he promptly came out of HF, and myocardium remodeled toward recovery of function, which also reflected on electrocardiographic voltages. He remained out of failure despite deescalation of anti-failure regimen. Characterizing this group well will permit a paradigm shift in the management of HF; with the understanding that the myocardium can recover function or go into remission depending on underlying pathology.

[Treatment of chronic heart failure: is deprescribing possible?]

Deprescribing is a scheduled withdrawal, dose reduction, or replacement of a medicine with a safer one. Several groups of medicinal products (MPs) are used simultaneously in the treatment of chronic heart failure. This increases the risk of adverse drug reactions, particularly in elderly and senile patients. A systematic search for literature allowed evaluating possibilities of deprescribing for the following pharmaceutic groups: 1) MPs influencing the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system; 2) beta-blockers; 3) digoxin; and 4) diuretics. Three systematic reviews and several studies were analyzed to determine the most feasible and potentially optimal regimens of deprescribing in CHF. It was established that in CHF, deprescribing has a very limited potential for use due to the documented, obvious effect of some MP groups on prediction and severity of clinical symptoms in CHF patients.

Left Ventricular Layer-Specific Myocardial Strains in Children with Recovered Primary Dilated Cardiomyopathy: What Lies Beneath the Iceberg?

We aimed to detect residual cardiac dysfunction-if any-in children with recovered primary dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) by using the left ventricular (LV) layer-specific myocardial strains. Fifty children with recovered primary DCM both clinically and echocardiographically were included as the patient group. Fifty healthy children of matched age and sex served as the control group. Echocardiographic evaluation was performed for all included children in the form of conventional echocardiography, tissue Doppler imaging (TDI), two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE), and LV layer-specific myocardial strain. Both LV systolic and diastolic functions measured by conventional echocardiography were similar in children with recovered DCM and the control group. There was a significant reduction in LV systolic and diastolic functions measured by TDI in the patient group. Moreover, there was a significant reduction of LV global longitudinal systolic strain (GLSS) by 2D-STE in children with recovered DCM. Interestingly, there was a significant reduction of LV layer-specific myocardial strain from endocardium to epicardium in children with recovered DCM compared to the healthy control. There was a significant positive correlation between different layer-specific myocardial strains and LV GLSS, LV ejection fraction, and LV peak systolic velocity. Left ventricular layer-specific myocardial strain can be a promising tool for early identifications of LV dysfunction in children with DCM. Subtle cardiac dysfunction is present in patients with recovered DCM, so long-term follow-up is recommended in these patients.

Contemporary approach to treating heart failure

Over the past several decades, important advances have been made in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF). Whereas in the past, the main goal of drug therapy was to relieve congestion, there is now compelling evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showing that several classes of drugs, most of which work predominantly by blocking or modulating neurohormonal activity, can substantially reduce morbidity and mortality as well as improve quality of life in patients with HF. Most of these trials, however, separated patients according to whether their ejection fraction (EF) was reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) and for the most part, favorable effects on clinical outcomes were demonstrated only in patients with HFrEF. In addition to the paucity of effective agents for managing patients with HFpEF, it has become apparent that underutilization of available therapies has greatly limited the overall impact of medical therapy on outcomes. This review provides an overview of current medical management of HF across the spectrum of EF, including the underutilization of treatment modalities. The focus is to provide clinicians the rationale for the use of specific agents and to present a practical approach for patient management. The strategies discussed are based on results of RCTs, guideline recommendations and the authors' own experience in managing patients with HF over the years.

Withdrawal of pharmacological treatment for heart failure in patients with recovered dilated cardiomyopathy (TRED-HF): an open-label, pilot, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy whose symptoms and cardiac function have recovered often ask whether their medications can be stopped. The safety of withdrawing treatment in this situation is unknown.

METHODS

We did an open-label, pilot, randomised trial to examine the effect of phased withdrawal of heart failure medications in patients with previous dilated cardiomyopathy who were now asymptomatic, whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) had improved from less than 40% to 50% or greater, whose left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) had normalised, and who had an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) concentration less than 250 ng/L. Patients were recruited from a network of hospitals in the UK, assessed at one centre (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK), and randomly assigned (1:1) to phased withdrawal or continuation of treatment. After 6 months, patients in the continued treatment group had treatment withdrawn by the same method. The primary endpoint was a relapse of dilated cardiomyopathy within 6 months, defined by a reduction in LVEF of more than 10% and to less than 50%, an increase in LVEDV by more than 10% and to higher than the normal range, a two-fold rise in NT-pro-BNP concentration and to more than 400 ng/L, or clinical evidence of heart failure, at which point treatments were re-established. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02859311.

FINDINGS

Between April 21, 2016, and Aug 22, 2017, 51 patients were enrolled. 25 were randomly assigned to the treatment withdrawal group and 26 to continue treatment. Over the first 6 months, 11 (44%) patients randomly assigned to treatment withdrawal met the primary endpoint of relapse compared with none of those assigned to continue treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimate of event rate 45·7% [95% CI 28·5-67·2]; p=0·0001). After 6 months, 25 (96%) of 26 patients assigned initially to continue treatment attempted its withdrawal. During the following 6 months, nine patients met the primary endpoint of relapse (Kaplan-Meier estimate of event rate 36·0% [95% CI 20·6-57·8]). No deaths were reported in either group and three serious adverse events were reported in the treatment withdrawal group: hospital admissions for non-cardiac chest pain, sepsis, and an elective procedure.

INTERPRETATION

Many patients deemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy will relapse following treatment withdrawal. Until robust predictors of relapse are defined, treatment should continue indefinitely.

FUNDING

British Heart Foundation, Alexander Jansons Foundation, Royal Brompton Hospital and Imperial College London, Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, and Rosetrees Trust.

Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction: Is it Possible to Escape One's Past?

Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, investigators have repeatedly identified a subgroup whose left ventricular ejection fraction and structural remodeling can improve to normal or nearly normal levels with or without medical therapy. This subgroup of patients with "heart failure with improved ejection fraction" has distinct clinical characteristics and a more favorable prognosis compared with patients who continue to have reduced ejection fraction. However, many of these patients also manifest clinical and biochemical signs of incomplete resolution of heart failure pathophysiology and remain at some risk of adverse outcomes, thus indicating that they may not have completely recovered. Although rigorous evidence on managing these patients is sparse, there are several reasons to recommend continuation of heart failure therapies, including device therapies, to prevent clinical deterioration. Notable exceptions to this recommendation may include patients who recover from peripartum cardiomyopathy, fulminant myocarditis, or stress cardiomyopathy, whose excellent long-term prognoses may imply true myocardial recovery. More research on these patients is needed to better understand the mechanisms that lead to improvement in ejection fraction and to guide their clinical management.

Dilated cardiomyopathy with re-worsening left ventricular ejection fraction

Re-worsening left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is observed in some patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) despite initial improvements in LVEF. We analyzed cardiac outcomes and clinical variables associated with this re-worsening LVEF. A total of 180 newly diagnosed DCM patients who received only pharmacotherapy were enrolled. Echocardiography was performed after 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after initiation of pharmacotherapy. Patients were divided into three groups: (1) Improved: (n = 113, 63%), defined as those > 10% increase in LVEF after 12 months and no decrease (> 10%) between 12 and 36 months; (2) Re-worse: (n = 12, 7%), those with > 10% increase in LVEF after 12 months but with decrease (> 10%) between 12 and 36 months; and (3) Not-improved: (n = 55: 30%), those with no increase in LVEF (> 10%) after 12 months. Patients with re-worse group were older (P = 0.04) and had higher brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels after 12 months (P = 0.002) than those in the Improved group. Major cardiac events (sudden death, implantation of a ventricular assist device, and death due to heart failure,) were observed in 13 (7%) patients after 36 months of pharmacotherapy. Multivariate analysis revealed that the Re-worse group had a higher risk for cardiac events (hazard ratio 11.7, 95% confidence interval 1.9-90.7, P = 0.01) than the Improved group, but had a similar risk compared with the Not-improved group. Re-worsening LVEF was associated with poor cardiac outcomes in newly diagnosed DCM patients. Age and persistently high-BNP levels after improvement in LVEF were significantly associated with re-worsening LVEF.

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.

Abnormal Global Longitudinal Strain Predicts Future Deterioration of Left Ventricular Function in Heart Failure Patients With a Recovered Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Patients with recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remain at risk for future deterioration of LVEF. However, there are no tools to risk stratify these patients. We hypothesized that global longitudinal strain (GLS) could predict sustained recovery within this population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively identified 96 patients with a reduced LVEF <50% (screening echocardiogram), whose LVEF had increased by at least 10% and normalized (>50%) on evidence-based medical therapies (baseline echocardiogram). We examined absolute GLS on the baseline echocardiogram in relation to changes in LVEF on a follow-up echocardiogram. Patients with recovered LVEF had a wide range of GLS. The GLS on the baseline study correlated with the LVEF at the time of follow-up (r=0.33; P<0.001). The likelihood of having an LVEF >50% on follow-up increased by 24% for each point increase in absolute GLS on the baseline study (odds ratio, 1.24; P=0.001). An abnormal GLS (≤16%) at baseline had a sensitivity of 88%, a specificity of 46%, and an accuracy of 0.67 (P<0.001) as a predictor of a decrease in LVEF >5% during follow-up. A normal GLS (>16%) on the baseline study had a sensitivity of 47%, a specificity of 83%, and an accuracy of 0.65 (P=0.002) for predicting a stable LVEF (-5% to 5%) on follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a recovered LVEF, an abnormal GLS predicts the likelihood of having a decreased LVEF during follow-up, whereas a normal GLS predicts the likelihood of stable LVEF during recovery.

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.

Left ventricular reverse remodeling in dilated cardiomyopathy- maintained subclinical myocardial systolic and diastolic dysfunction

In idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), myocardial deformational parameters and their relationships remain incompletely characterized. We measured those parameters in patients with DCM, during left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR). Prospective study of 50 DCM patients (in sinus rhythm), with left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) <40%. LVRR was defined as an increase of ten units of EF and decrease of diastolic left ventricular diameter (LVDD) in the absence of resynchronization therapy. Performed morphological analysis, myocardial performance quantification (LV and RV Tei indexes) and LV averaged peak systolic longitudinal strain (SSR long) and circumferential strain (SSR circ). At baseline, mean EF was 25.4 ± 9.8%, LVDD was 62.4 ± 7.4 mm, LVDD/BSA of 34.2 ± 4.5 mm/m² and 34% had MR grade >II/IV. LVRR occurred in 34% of patients within 17.6 ± 15.6 months and was associated with a reduced rate of death or heart failure hospitalization (5.9% vs. 33.3; p = 0.03). Patients with LVRR had a final EF of 48.9 ± 7.9% (Δ LV EF of 22.4%) and there was a significant decrease (p < 0.05) in: LVDD/BSA, LV systolic diameter/BSA, LV diastolic volume, LV systolic volume, LV mass; an increase (p < 0.05) in sphericity index. However, measures of diastolic function (LA volume/BSA, e'velocity and' E/e'ratio), final LV and RV Tei indexes were not significantly different from baseline. Additionally, final SSR circ and SSR long values were not different from basal. Patients who recovered EF >50% (n = 10), SSR circ and SSR long were inferior to normal. Improvement in EF occurred in one-third of DCM pts and was associated with a decrease of major cardiac events. There was an improvement of diastolic and systolic volumes and in sphericity index, confirming truly LV reverse reshaping. However, myocardial performance indexes, SSR long and SSR circ in reverse-remodeled DCM were still abnormal, suggesting a maintained myocardial systolic and diastolic dysfunction.

Heart Failure and Midrange Ejection Fraction: Implications of Recovered Ejection Fraction for Exercise Tolerance and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based therapies for heart failure (HF) differ significantly according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, few data are available on the phenotype and prognosis of patients with HF with midrange LVEF of 40% to 55%, and the impact of recovered systolic function on the clinical features, functional capacity, and outcomes of this population is not known.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 944 patients with HF who underwent clinically indicated cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The study population was categorized according to LVEF as follows: HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF<40%; n=620); HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (LVEF was consistent between 40% and 55%; n=107); HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction (LVEF, 40%-55% but previous LVEF<40%; n=170); and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF; LVEF>55%; n=47). HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction and HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had similar clinical characteristics, which were intermediate between those of HFrEF and HFpEF, and comparable values of predicted peak oxygen consumption and minute-ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, which were better than HFrEF and similar to HFpEF. After a median of 4.4 (2.9-5.7) years, there were 253 composite events (death, left ventricular assistant device implantation, or transplantation). In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had lower risk of composite events than HFrEF (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) and HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.67), and similar prognosis when compared with HFpEF. In contrast, HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction tended to show intermediate risk of outcomes in comparison with HFpEF and HFrEF, albeit not reaching statistical significance in fully adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HF with midrange LVEF demonstrate a distinct clinical profile from HFpEF and HFrEF patients, with objective measures of functional capacity similar to HFpEF. Within the midrange LVEF HF population, recovered systolic function is a marker of more favorable prognosis.

Heart Failure with Recovered Ejection Fraction in a Cohort of Elderly Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with heart failure (HF) who recover left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), termed here as ‘Rec-HF', have a distinct clinical profile and prognosis compared with patients with HF and reduced LVEF (HF-REF) or HF and preserved LVEF (HF-PEF). Methods: We evaluated and classified patients from the Spanish Heart Failure Registry into three categories based on enrollment/follow-up echocardiograms: HF-PEF (LVEF ≥50%), HF-REF (LVEF persistently <50%) and Rec-HF (LVEF on enrollment <50% but normalized during follow-up). Results: A total of 1,202 patients were included, 1,094 with HF-PEF, 81 with HF-REF and 27 with Rec-HF. The three groups included patients of advanced age (mean age 75 years) with comorbidities. Rec-HF patients were younger, with a better functional status, lower prevalence of diabetes mellitus, dementia and cerebrovascular disease, and higher prevalence of COPD. The etiology of HF was more frequently ischemic and alcoholic and less frequently hypertensive. After a median follow-up of 367 days, the unadjusted hazard ratios for death in the Rec-HF versus HF-PEF and HF-REF groups were 0.11 (95% CI 0.02-080; p = 0.029) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.04-2.5; p = 0.274). Results were statistically nonsignificant in multivariate-adjusted models. Conclusion: Rec-HF is also present in elderly patients with HF but it is necessary to further investigate the natural history and optimal pharmacologic management of this ‘new HF syndrome'.

Management of Patients With Recovered Systolic Function

Advancements in the treatment of heart failure (HF) with systolic dysfunction have given rise to a new population of patients with improved ejection fraction (EF). The management of this distinct population is not well described due to a lack of consensus on the definition of myocardial recovery, a scarcity of data on the natural history of these patients, and the absence of focused clinical trials. Moreover, an improvement in EF may have different prognostic and management implications depending on the underlying etiology of cardiomyopathy. This can be challenging for the clinician who is approached by a patient inquiring about a reduction of medical therapy after apparent EF recovery. This review explores management strategies for HF patients with recovered EF in a disease-specific format.

Frequency of recovery and relapse in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy on guideline-directed medical therapy

Several key clinical questions, such as which patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DC) will recover, how many will relapse, when will they relapse, and predictors of relapse, have sparse data. The present study examines the frequency and predictors of recovery and relapse in patients with DC. One hundred eighty-eight patients of a nonischemic DC cohort having baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% were divided into 3 groups: improved group with sustained recovery of LVEF to >40% with a net increase in LVEF of ≥ 10% from baseline, not-improved group without change or decrease in LVEF compared with that in baseline including patients with an increase in LVEF <10%, and relapsed group with decrease in LVEF ≥ 10% after initial improvement. Follow-up duration was 50 ± 31 months. One hundred ten patients (59%) did not improve. Of the 78 patients (41%) who improved, 50 (64%) had sustained improvement. Remaining 28 (36%) of the 78 improved patients relapsed on further follow-up of 36 ± 25 months. Baseline LVEF was similar in the 3 groups. Mean LVEF increased from 29 ± 8% to 50 ± 7% (p <0.001) in the improved group, changed from 27 ± 9% to 25 ± 9% (p = 0.95) in the not-improved group, and, after increasing from 30 ± 7% to 52 ± 6%, it decreased to 34 ± 9% (p <0.001) in the relapsed group. Multivariate analysis showed that the only variable associated with recovery of LVEF was shorter QRS duration (odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.67, p = 0.003). Recurrence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction was associated with long QRS duration (odds ratio 3.52, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 9.76, p = 0.01). In conclusion, with currently recommended medical therapy, 1/4 of patients with nonischemic DC have sustained improvement, and >1/3 of those who improve relapse. QRS duration predicted both recovery and relapse. The survival rate of patients in the improved group was significantly better than that in the other 2 groups (p = 0.03, log-rank).