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

Risk and Protective Factors of Poor Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

Heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) patients could still develop adverse outcomes despite EF improvement. This study evaluates the risk and protective factors of poor clinical outcomes in HFimpEF patients.

METHODS

Systematic searching was done to include studies that evaluate the risks of developing poor outcomes in HFimpEF patients. HFimpEF is defined as improvement of 5-10% EF within 6-12 months or normalization of EF > 40%. Poor clinical outcome is defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, HF rehospitalization, and requirement of LVAD/ transplant. Odds ratios of outcome are pooled with random effects model. A subgroup analysis of multivariate analysis-only studies was also conducted.

RESULTS

32 studies comprising 10,740 HFimpEF patients are included. Poor clinical outcomes followed up for approximately 3 years, are seen in 18.9% of HFimpEF patients. Twelve statistically significant factors that increase the risk of outcome are found. Among them, anemia (OR 7.69, CI 3.48-16.99, I2 0%) and baseline NT pro-BNP (OR 3.25) are the two most important predictors. Other significant risk factors are increasing age, ischemic heart disease, NYHA III/IV, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, use of diuretics, and baseline LVEDD. Alternately, protective factors of poor clinical outcome are regression of left atrial diameter (LAD) (OR 0.33, CI: 0.18-0.61, p 0.0003, I2 0%), use beta-blockers, SGLT- 2 inhibitors, and baseline LVEF level (OR 0.60, 0.78, 0.90, respectively).

CONCLUSION

HFimpEF patients are not fully recovered and patient stratification based on risk and protective factors is recommended.

Diverse Concepts in Definitions of Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Theory and Practice

Our understanding of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is evolving as new insights into the underlying pathophysiology become available. Professional organizations and clinical experts are improving definitions of DCM, allowing for more accurate treatment recommendations. This review summarized key published literature describing definitions and/or diagnostic criteria for DCM. Embase was searched from database inception to September 19, 2022 for 1) publications reporting definitions of DCM by major professional organizations and related opinion papers, and 2) clinical studies in DCM and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sixty-eight records were included in this review. Definitions of DCM provided by two major professional organizations (American Heart Association (AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC)) agreed on the clinical presentation of DCM; however, they differed in the classification of DCM within the larger context of cardiomyopathy taxonomies. Both organizations agreed that DCM could be clinically defined by the presence of left ventricular dilation and contractile dysfunction in the absence of abnormal loading conditions and severe coronary artery disease. AHA guidelines divided cardiomyopathies into two major groups (primary and secondary) based on predominant organ involvement. DCM was classified as primary cardiomyopathy with mixed (genetic and/or acquired) etiology. Conversely, ESC published a clinically oriented taxonomy in which cardiomyopathies were grouped into specific morphological and functional phenotypes; each was subclassified into familial or non-familial forms. Opinion papers further elaborated on the complex interplay between genetics and environment in the etiology of DCM. Several articles summarized the importance of the new and updated diagnostic tools, such as cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, electrocardiogram, and other biomarkers, in correctly identifying the etiology of DCM. Within clinical studies, most inclusion criteria used standard definitions proposed by leading professional associations (AHA and ESC). Clinical study investigators sometimes used a narrower definition of DCM using additional criteria for the left ventricular ejection fraction threshold value and left ventricular dilatation. Current efforts in cardiology research are focused on a more granular understanding of DCM etiology and the natural history of the disease. Definitions of DCM found in clinical studies mainly rely on published guidelines, with some studies adding idiosyncratic inclusion criteria refining the broad definitions of DCM.

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

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

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.

Prognostic Significance of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Left Atrial and Biventricular Strain Analysis during the Follow-Up of Suspected Myocarditis

To assess the variation in left atrial (LA) and biventricular strain and its prognostic value in the course of suspected myocarditis, this retrospective study included 55 patients with clinically suspected myocarditis who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) examinations at baseline and follow-up periods. Cine images were used for feature tracking analysis. Paired Student's t test, McNemar's test, and Cox proportional hazard regression were used for statistical analysis. The LA total emptying fraction was the only functional index that showed a statistically significant improvement. The initial LA peak's late negative strain rate (SRa) was the only parameter with a significant predictive power of major adverse cardiac events under univariable (hazard ratio [HR] 2.396, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.044-5.498, p = 0.039) and multivariable Cox survival analysis when adjusted by LA strain parameters (HR 5.072, 95% CI 1.478-17.404, p = 0.010), LA strain and functional parameters (HR 7.197, 95% CI 1.679-30.846, p = 0.008), and LA and biventricular strain and functional parameters (HR 10.389, 95% CI 2.250-47.977, p = 0.003). Thus, our findings indicate that CMR strain is useful for monitoring LA and ventricular function in suspected myocarditis, that LA function may recover preceding ventricular function changes, and that LA strain may serve as an incremental tool to predict adverse outcomes.

Global Longitudinal Strain is Incremental to Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction for the Prediction of Outcome in Optimally Treated Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients

Background

Speckle tracking echocardiographic global longitudinal strain (GLS) predicts outcome in patients with new onset heart failure. Still, its incremental value on top of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with nonischemic, nonvalvular dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) after optimal heart failure treatment remains unknown.

Methods and Results

Patients with DCM were included at the outpatient clinics of 2 centers in the Netherlands and Italy. The prognostic value of 2‐dimensional speckle tracking echocardiographic global longitudinal strain was evaluated when being on optimal heart failure medication for at least 6 months. Outcome was defined as the combination of sudden or cardiac death, life‐threatening arrhythmias, and heart failure hospitalization. A total of 323 patients with DCM (66% men, age 55±14 years) were included. The mean LVEF was 42%±11% and mean GLS after optimal heart failure treatment was −15%±4%. Twenty percent (64/323) of all patients reached the primary outcome after optimal heart failure treatment (median follow‐up of 6[4–9] years). New York Heart Association class ≥3, LVEF, and GLS remained associated with the outcome in the multivariable‐adjusted model (New York Heart Association class: hazard ratio [HR], 3.43; 95% CI, 1.49–7.90, P =0.004; LVEF: HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.11–4.10, P =0.024; GLS: HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.18–4.29, P =0.015), whereas left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter index, left atrial volume index, and delta GLS were not. The addition of GLS to New York Heart Association class and LVEF improved the goodness of fit (log likelihood ratio test P <0.001) and discrimination (Harrell’s C 0.703).

Conclusions

Within this bicenter study, GLS emerged as an independent and incremental predictor of adverse outcome, which exceeded LVEF in patients with optimally treated DCM. This presses the need to routinely include GLS in the echocardiographic follow‐up of DCM.