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 Diuretics may be safely withdrawn if there is no evidence of congestion, while continued therapy with at least some disease-modifying therapy is likely to be required to reduce myocardial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.

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.

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.