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.

Heart Rate as a Marker of Relapse During Withdrawal of Therapy in Recovered Dilated Cardiomyopathy

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between heart rate and relapse among patients in the TRED-HF (Therapy withdrawal in REcovered Dilated cardiomyopathy trial).

BACKGROUND

Understanding markers and mechanisms of relapse among patients with recovered dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) may enable personalized management.

METHODS

The relationship between serial heart rate measurements and relapse was examined among patients in the TRED-HF trial, a randomized trial which examined the safety and feasibility of withdrawing heart failure therapy from 51 patients with recovered DCM over 6 months. In total, 25 patients were randomized to therapy withdrawal and 26 to continue therapy, of whom 25 subsequently began therapy withdrawal in a single arm crossover phase.

RESULTS

The mean ± SD heart rate for those who had therapy withdrawn and did not relapse was 64.6 ± 10.7 beats/min at baseline and 74.7 ± 10.4 beats/min at follow-up, compared to 68.3 ± 11.3 beats/min at baseline and 86.1 ± 11.8 beats/min at follow-up for those who relapsed. After adjusting for differences in heart rate at baseline, patients who had therapy withdrawn and relapsed had a 10.4 beats/min (95% CI: 4.0-16.8) greater rise in heart rate than patients who had therapy withdrawn and did not relapse (P = 0.002). After data were adjusted for age, log N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart rate (per 10 beats/min; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.10-2.57; P = 0.01) and change in heart rate from baseline (per 10 beats/min; HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.12-2.57; p = 0.01) were associated with relapse. The results remained qualitatively the same after adjusting for beta-blocker dose.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with DCM and improved LVEF, the rise in heart rate after treatment is withdrawn treatment identifies patients who are more likely to relapse. Whether the increase in heart rate is a marker or a mediator of relapse requires investigation. (Therapy withdrawal in REcovered Dilated cardiomyopathy trial [TRED]; NCT02859311).

Left ventricular ejection fraction as therapeutic target: is it the ideal marker?

Heart failure (HF) consists the fastest growing clinical cardiac disease. HF patients are categorized on the basis of underlying left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) into HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), reduced LVEF (HFrEF), and mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF). While LVEF is the most commonly used surrogate marker of left ventricular (LV) systolic function, the implementation of two-dimensional echocardiography in estimating this parameter imposes certain caveats on current HF classification. Most importantly, LVEF could fluctuate in repeated measurements or even recover after treatment, thus blunting the borders between proposed categories of HF and enabling upward classification of patients. Under this prism, we sought to summarize possible procedures to improve systolic function in patients with HFrEF either naturally or by the means of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment and devices. Therefore, we reviewed established pharmacotherapy, including beta-blockers, inhibitors of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis, statins, and digoxin as well as novel treatments like sacubitril-valsartan, ranolazine, and ivabradine. In addition, we assessed evidence in favor of cardiac resynchronization therapy and exercise training programs. Finally, innovative therapeutic strategies, including stem cells, xanthine oxidase inhibitors, antibiotic regimens, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, were also taken into consideration. We concluded that LVEF is subject to changes in HF after intervention and besides the aforementioned HFrEF, HFpEF, and HFmrEF categories, a new entity of HF patients with recovered LVEF should be acknowledged. An improved global and refined LV function assessment by sophisticated imaging modalities and circulating biomarkers is expected to render HF classification more accurate and indicate patients with viable-yet dysfunctional-myocardium and favorable characteristics as the ideal candidates for LVEF recovery by individualized HF therapy.