Outcomes of spironolactone treatment in patients in Northeast China suffering from heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction

Similarities and Differences Between HFmrEF and HFpEF

The new guidelines classify heart failure (HF) into three subgroups based on the ejection fraction (EF): HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). The new guidelines regarding the declaration of HFmrEF as a unique phenotype have achieved the goal of stimulating research on the basic characteristics, pathophysiology, and treatment of HF patients with a left ventricular EF of 40-49%. Patients with HFmrEF have more often been described as an intermediate population between HFrEF and HFpEF patients; however, with regard to etiology and clinical indicators, they are more similar to the HFrEF population. Concerning clinical prognosis, they are closer to HFpEF because both populations have a good prognosis and quality of life. Meanwhile, growing evidence indicates that HFmrEF and HFpEF show heterogeneity in presentation and pathophysiology, and the emergence of this heterogeneity often plays a crucial role in the prognosis and treatment of the disease. To date, the exact mechanisms and effective treatment strategies of HFmrEF and HFpEF are still poorly understood, but some of the current evidence, from observational studies and post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials, have shown that patients with HFmrEF may benefit more from HFrEF treatment strategies, such as beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sacubitril/valsartan. This review summarizes available data from current clinical practice and mechanistic studies in terms of epidemiology, etiology, clinical indicators, mechanisms, and treatments to discuss the potential association between HFmrEF and HFpEF patients.

Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Distinctive Subtype or a Transitional Stage?

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) was first proposed by Lam and Solomon in 2014, and was listed as a new subtype of heart failure (HF) in 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Since then, HFmrEF has attracted an increasing amount of attention, and the number of related studies on this topic has grown rapidly. The diagnostic criteria on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are straightforward; however, LVEF is not a static parameter, and it changes dynamically during the course of HF. Thus, HFmrEF may not be an independent disease with a uniform pathophysiological process, but rather a collection of patients with different characteristics. HFmrEF is often associated with various cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the pathophysiological mechanisms of HFmrEF are particularly complex, and its clinical phenotypes are diverse. The complexity and heterogeneity of HFmrEF may be one reason for inconsistent results between clinical studies. In fact, whether HFmrEF is a distinctive subtype or a transitional stage between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is controversial. In this review, we discuss the clinical characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with HFmrEF, as well as the differences among HFmrEF, HFrEF, and HFpEF.

A retrospective study on the short-term effect of high-dose spironolactone (80 mg/d) on chronic congestive heart failure

To explore the short-term effect of high-dose spironolactone (80 mg/d) on chronic congestive heart failure (CHF).The general clinical data of 211 patients with CHF from February 2016 to August 2019 were collected and analyzed. Patients were divided into Low-dose group (taking 40 mg/d spironolactone) and High-dose group (taking 80 mg/d spironolactone) according to the patient's previous dose of spironolactone. The changes of B-type brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), NT-pro BNP (N terminal pro B type natriuretic peptide), echocardiography, 6-minute walking test (6MWT), and comprehensive cardiac function assessment data were collected for analysis.Compared with before treatment, the blood potassium of the two groups increased significantly (P < .05), but the blood potassium did not exceed the normal range. Compared with before treatment, BNP, NT-pro BNP, LVEDD, LVEDV and NYHA grading were significantly decreased (P < .05), LVEF and 6-MWT were significantly increased (P < .05). Compared with the Low-dose group, the high-dose group BNP (117.49 ± 50.32 vs 195.76 ± 64.62, P < .05), NT-pro BNP (312.47 ± 86.28 vs 578.47 ± 76.73, P < .05), LVEDD (45.57 ± 5.69 vs 51.96 ± 5.41, P <.05), LVEDV (141.63 ± 51.14 vs 189.85 ± 62.49, P < .05) and NYHA grading (1.29 ± 0.41 vs 1.57 ± 0.49, P < .05) were significantly reduced, but, 6-MWT (386.57 ± 69.72 vs 341.73 ± 78.62, P < .05), LVEF (41.62 ± 2.76 vs 36.02 ± 2.18, P < .05) and total effective rate (92.68% vs 81.39%, P < .05) increased significantly.Compared with 40 mg spironolactone, 80 mg spironolactone can rapidly reduce BNP and NT-pro BNP concentration, enhance exercise tolerance, improve clinical signs and cardiac function classification, and has better efficacy.

Treatment of Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction: What Is the Evidence

In this review, we briefly outline our current knowledge on the epidemiology, outcomes, and pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and discuss in more depth the evidence on current treatment options for this group of patients. In most studies, the clinical background of patients with HFmrEF is intermediate between that of patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in terms of demographics and comorbid conditions. However, the current evidence, stemming from observational studies and post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials, suggests that patients with HFmrEF benefit from medications that target the neurohormonal axes, a pathophysiological behavior that resembles that of HFrEF. Use of β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sacubitril/valsartan is reasonable in patients with HFmrEF, whereas evidence is currently scarce for other therapies. In clinical practice, patients with HFmrEF are treated more like HFrEF patients, potentially because of history of systolic dysfunction that has partially recovered. Assessment of left ventricular systolic function with contemporary noninvasive modalities, e.g., echocardiographic strain imaging, is promising for the selection of patients with HFmrEF who will benefit from neurohormonal antagonists and other HFrEF-targeted therapies.

Roles of arterial pressure volume index and arterial velocity pulse index trajectories in risk prediction in hypertensive patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background: Arterial pressure volume index (API) and arterial velocity pulse index (AVI) contribute to the development of vascular damage and cardiovascular disease. However, the relationship between common API/AVI trajectories and cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unknown.Methods: A total of 488 consecutive hypertensive patients with HFpEF who repeatedly underwent API/AVI measurements were prospectively examined. We then applied API/AVI measurements into actual clinical practice. Latent mixture modeling was performed to identify API/AVI trajectories. Hazards ratios (HRs) were measured using Cox proportional hazard models.Results: We identified four distinct API/AVI trajectory patterns: low (7.6%), moderate (43.8%), high (28.9%), and very high (19.7%). Compared with the low group, higher API trajectories were associated with increased risk of total cardiovascular events (high group, adjusted HR: 2.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.97-4.26; very high group, adjusted HR: 2.46, 95%CI: 1.18-3.79). Consistently, higher AVI trajectories were also associated with a higher risk of total cardiovascular events (high group, adjusted HR: 2.58, 95%CI: 1.23-5.47; very high group, adjusted HR: 3.12, 95%CI: 1.83-6.08), compared with the low trajectory group.Conclusion: High API/AVI trajectories are strong predictors of cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients with HFpEF. Among these patients, measuring API/AVI may improve risk stratification and provide additional information to tailor treatment strategies.

Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction - State of the Art

In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recognized heart failure (HF) with ejection fraction between 40 and 49% as a new HF phenotype, HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), with the main purpose of encouraging studies on this new category. In 2018, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology adhered to this classification and introduced HFmrEF in Brazil. This paper presents a narrative review of what the literature has described about HFmrEF. The prevalence of patients with HFmrEF ranged from 13 to 24% of patients with HF. Analyzing the clinical characteristics, HFmrEF shows intermediate characteristics or is either similar to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or to HF with reduced fraction (HFrEF). Regarding the prognosis, HFmrEF's all-cause mortality is similar to HFpEF's and lower than HFrEF's. Studies that analyzed cardiac mortality concluded that there was no significant difference between HFmrEF and HFrEF, both of which were lower than HFpEF. Despite the significant increase of publications on HFmrEF, there is a great scarcity of prospective studies and clinical trials that allow delineating specific therapies for this new phenotype. To better treat HFmrEF patients, it is fundamental that cardiologists and internists understand the differences and similarities of this new phenotype.