Características e Tendências na Mortalidade em Diferentes Fenótipos de Insuficiência Cardíaca na Atenção Primária

Background:The classification of heart failure (HF) by phenotypes has a great relevance in clinical practice.Objective:The study aimed to analyze the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes between HF phenotypes in the primary care setting.Methods:This is an analysis of a cohort study including 560 individuals, aged ≥ 45 years, who were randomly selected in a primary care program. All participants underwent clinical evaluations, b-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) measurements, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography in a single day. HF with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% was classified as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), LVEF 40% to 49% as HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and LVEF ≥ 50% as HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). After 5 years, the patients were reassessed as to the occurrence of the composite outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular disease.Results:Of the 560 patients included, 51 patients had HF (9.1%), 11 of whom had HFrEF (21.6%), 10 had HFmrEF (19.6%) and 30 had HFpEF (58.8%). HFmrEF was similar to HFpEF in BNP levels (p < 0.001), left ventricular mass index (p = 0.037), and left atrial volume index (p < 0.001). The HFmrEF phenotype was similar to HFrEF regarding coronary artery disease (p = 0.009). After 5 years, patients with HFmrEF had a better prognosis when compared to patients with HFpEF and HFrEF (p < 0.001).Conclusion:The prevalence of ICFEI was similar to that observed in previous studies. ICFEI presented characteristics similar to ICFEP in this study. Our data show that ICFEi had a better prognosis compared to the other two phenotypes.     

Prevalence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in pre‐dialysis and dialysis patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Aims

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an excess of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with heart failure (HF) being particularly frequent. Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) defines left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and is associated with poor prognosis. However, CKD patients may have HF symptoms with preserved LVEF. In this subgroup of patients, two‐dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography can detect LV systolic dysfunction by analysing LV myocardial deformation. The present study evaluated the prevalence of impaired LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) in CKD patients with preserved LVEF and its prognostic consequences.

Methods and results

Overall, 200 pre‐dialysis and dialysis patients (65% men, mean age 60 ± 14 years) with CKD stage 3b–5 and preserved LVEF (≥50%) were evaluated. Left ventricular systolic dysfunction despite preserved LVEF was defined by LV GLS ≤15.2% (cut‐off value derived from two standard deviations below the mean value of individuals without structural heart disease). Impaired LV GLS (≤15.2%) despite preserved LVEF was observed in 32% of patients. During a median follow‐up of 33 months (interquartile range 17–62 months), 47% of patients underwent renal transplantation, 9% were admitted with HF, and 28% died. Patients with LV GLS ≤15.2% showed significantly worse cumulative event‐free survival rates of the combined endpoint of HF hospitalization and all‐cause mortality compared to patients with LV GLS >15.2% (log‐rank P = 0.018).

Conclusion

The prevalence of impaired LV GLS despite preserved LVEF in pre‐dialysis and dialysis patients is relatively high. Patients with preserved LVEF but impaired LV GLS have an increased risk of HF hospitalization and all‐cause mortality.

     

Effect of digoxin in patients with heart failure and mid‐range (borderline) left ventricular ejection fraction

Aims

To evaluate the effects of digoxin in patients with the newly described phenotype of heart failure (HF) and mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), attributed to mild left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Methods and results

We carried out a retrospective analysis of the Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial which had 7788 patients available for analysis with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ranging between 3% and 85%. We compared the effect of digoxin to placebo in three mutually exclusive groups of patients defined by LVEF category: <40% (HF with reduced LVEF, HFrEF, n = 5874), 40–49% (HFmrEF, n = 1195) and ≥50% (HF with preserved LVEF, HFpEF, n = 719). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation. Patients with HFmrEF resembled patients with HFrEF, more than those with HFpEF, with respect to age, sex and aetiology but were more like HFpEF patients with respect to blood pressure and the prevalence of hypertension. Event rates in patients with HFmrEF were similar to those in HFpEF and much lower than in HFrEF. Digoxin reduced the primary endpoint in patients with HFrEF, mainly due to reduced HF hospitalisation: the digoxin/placebo hazard ratio (HR) for HF hospitalisation was 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.77]. The digoxin/placebo HR for HF hospitalisation in patients with HFmrEF was 0.80 (95% CI 0.63–1.03) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.62–1.17) in those with HFpEF. The digoxin/placebo HR for the composite of HF death or HF hospitalisation was 0.74 (95% CI 0.68–0.81) in HFrEF, 0.83 (95% CI 0.66–1.05) in HFmrEF and 0.88 (95% CI 0.65–1.19) in HFpEF.

Conclusions

In this study, event rates in patients with HFmrEF were closer to those in HFpEF than HFrEF. Digoxin had most effect on HF hospitalisation in patients with HFrEF, an intermediate effect in HFmrEF, and the smallest effect in HFpEF.

     

Changes in the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Outcomes in Hospitalized Heart Failure Patients with Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Prospective Observational Study

Objective Current clinical guidelines have proposed heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40-49%, but the proportion and prognosis of patients transitioning toward HF with a reduced LVEF (LVEF <40%, HFrEF) or HF with a preserved LVEF (LVEF ≥50%, HFpEF) are not fully clear. The present study prospectively evaluated the changes in the LVEF one year after discharge and the outcomes of hospitalized patients with HFmrEF. Methods We prospectively studied 259 hospitalized patients with HFmrEF who were discharged alive at our institutions between 2015 and 2019. Among them, 202 patients with HFmrEF who underwent echocardiography at the one-year follow-up were included in this study. Patient characteristics, echocardiographic data and all-cause death were collected. Results Eighty-seven (43%) patients transitioned to HFpEF (improved group), and 35 (17%) transitioned to HFrEF (worsened group). During a median follow-up of 33 months, 27 (13%) patients died. After adjustment, patients in the worsened group had an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with those in the improved group [hazard ratio 7.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-43.48]. The baseline LVEF (per 1% decrease) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (per 1 mm decrease) were independent predictors of the worsened LVEF category (odds ratio 2.13, 95% CI 1.25-3.63 and odds ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.70, respectively). Conclusion Our study showed that a worsened LVEF one year after discharge was associated with a poor prognosis in hospitalized patients with HFmrEF.     

Remote patient management of heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: A pre-specified analysis of the TIM-HF2 trial

Aims

The benefit of non-invasive remote patient management (RPM) for patients with heart failure (HF) has been demonstrated. We evaluated the effect of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on treatment outcomes in the TIM-HF2 (Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II; NCT01878630) randomized trial.

Methods and results

TIM-HF2 was a prospective, randomized, multicentre trial investigating the effect of a structured RPM intervention versus usual care in patients who had been hospitalized for HF within 12 months before randomization. The primary endpoint was the percentage of days lost due to all-cause death or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Outcomes were assessed by LVEF in guideline-defined subgroups of ≤40% (HF with reduced EF [HFrEF]), 41–49% (HF with mildly reduced EF [HFmrEF]), and ≥50% (HF with preserved EF [HFpEF]). Out of 1538 participants, 818 (53%) had HFrEF, 224 (15%) had HFmrEF, and 496 (32%) had HFpEF. Within each LVEF subgroup, the primary endpoint was lower in the treatment group, i.e. the incidence rate ratio [IRR] remained below 1.0. Comparing intervention and control group, the percentage of days lost was 5.4% versus 7.6% for HFrEF (IRR 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–0.97), 3.3% versus 5.9% for HFmrEF (IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.48–1.50) and 4.7% versus 5.4% for HFpEF (IRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64–1.36). No interaction between LVEF and the randomized group became apparent. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were also reduced by RPM in each subgroup with hazard ratios <1.0 across the LVEF spectrum for both endpoints.

Conclusion

In the clinical set-up deployed in the TIM-HF2 trial, RPM appeared effective irrespective of the LVEF-based HF phenotype.     

Improving the Characterization of Stage A and B Heart Failure by Adding Global Longitudinal Strain

BackgroundCurrent guidelines distinguish stage B heart failure (SBHF) (asymptomatic left ventricular [LV] dysfunction) from stage A heart failure (SAHF) (asymptomatic with heart failure [HF] risk factors) on the basis of myocardial infarction, LV remodeling (hypertrophy or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or valvular disease. However, subclinical HF with preserved EF may not be identified with these criteria.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the prediction of incident HF with global longitudinal strain (GLS) in patients with SAHF and SBHF.MethodsThe authors analyzed echocardiograms (including GLS) in 447 patients (age 65 ± 11 years; 77% male) enrolled in a prospective study of HF in individuals at risk of incident HF, with normal or mildly impaired EF (≥40%). Long-term follow-up was obtained via data linkage. Analysis was performed using a competing risks model.ResultsAfter a median of 9 years of follow-up, 50 (10%) of the 447 patients had new HF admissions, and 87 (18%) died. In multivariable analysis, all imaging variables were independent predictors of HF admissions, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (HR: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.94-0.99]), LV mass index (HR: 1.01 [95% CI: 1.00-1.02]), left atrial volume index (HR: 1.02 [95% CI: 1.00-1.05]), and E/e′ (HR: 1.05 [95% CI: 1.01-1.24]), incremental to clinical variables (age and Charlson comorbidity score). However, the addition of GLS provided value incremental to both clinical and other echocardiographic parameters (P = 0.004). Impaired GLS (<18%) (HR: 4.09 [95% CI: 1.87-8.92]) was independent and incremental to all clinical and other echocardiographic variables in predicting HF, and impaired LVEF, left ventricular hypertrophy, left atrial enlargement, high E/e′, or SBHF were not predictive.ConclusionsThe inclusion of GLS as a criterion for SBHF would add independent and incremental information to standard markers of SBHF for the prediction of subsequent HF admissions.     

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Predicted Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial

BackgroundIn the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, ejection fraction (EF) data were not collected. In the subpopulation with heart failure (HF), we applied a new predictive model for EF to determine the effects of empagliflozin in HF with predicted reduced (HFrEF) vs preserved (HFpEF) EF vs no HF.Methods and ResultsWe applied a validated EF predictive model based on patient baseline characteristics and treatments to categorize patients with HF as being likely to have HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF)/HFrEF (EF <50%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%). Cox regression was used to assess the effect of empagliflozin vs placebo on cardiovascular death/HF hospitalization (HHF), cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and HHF in patients with predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no HF. Of 7001 EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients with data available for this analysis, 6314 (90%) had no history of HF. Of the 687 with history of HF, 479 (69.7%) were predicted to have HFmrEF/HFrEF and 208 (30.3%) to have HFpEF. Empagliflozin's treatment effect was consistent in predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no-HF for each outcome (HR [95% CI] for the primary outcome 0.60 [0.31–1.17], 0.79 [0.51–1.23], and 0.63 [0.50–0.78], respectively; P interaction = 0.62).ConclusionsIn EMPA-REG OUTCOME, one-third of the patients with HF had predicted HFpEF. The benefits of empagliflozin on HF and mortality outcomes were consistent in nonHF, predicted HFpEF and HFmrEF/HFrEF.     

Independent and cumulative association of clinical and morphological heart failure with long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) is a risk factor for adverse post-procedural outcome after revascularization; however, it is unclear how left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and clinical HF symptoms affect percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes. We investigated the characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with clinical HF or LVSD after PCI.MethodsThis was a Japanese multicenter registry study of adult patients receiving PCI. Among 4689 consecutive patients who underwent PCI at 15 hospitals from January 2009 to December 2012, we analyzed 2634 (56.2%) with documented left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). They were divided into four groups based on clinical HF (symptoms or HF hospitalization) and LVEF [≥35% and <35% (HF due to LVSD)]. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising all-cause death, acute coronary syndrome, HF hospitalization, performance of coronary artery bypass grafting, and stroke within 2 years after the initial PCI.ResultsOur findings revealed 354 patients (13.4%) with HF (clinical HF, n = 173, 48.9%; LVSD, n = 132, 37.3%; both, n = 49; 13.8%). The incidence of MACE was higher in patients with clinical HF or LVSD, and was largely due to higher non-cardiac death and HF hospitalization. After adjustment, clinical HF (hazard ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval; 1.49?3.14) and lower LVEF (per 10%, hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval; 0.81?0.99) were independently associated with higher MACE risk.ConclusionsClinical HF and LVSD were independently associated with adverse long-term clinical outcomes, particularly with non-cardiac death and HF readmission, in patients treated with PCI.     

Heart failure with mid‐range ejection fraction in CHARM: characteristics,outcomes and effect of candesartan across the entire ejection fraction spectrum

Aims

We tested the hypothesis that candesartan improves outcomes in heart failure (HF) with mid‐range ejection fraction [HFmrEF; ejection fraction (EF) 40–49%].

Methods and results

In 7598 patients enrolled in the CHARM Programme (HF across the spectrum of EF), we assessed characteristics, outcomes and treatment effect of candesartan according to EF. Patients with HFmrEF (n = 1322, 17%) were similar to those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; n = 4323, 57%) with respect to some characteristics, and intermediate between HFrEF and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; n = 1953, 26%) with respect to others. Over a mean follow‐up of 2.9 years, the incidence rates for the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization were 15.9, 8.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient‐years in HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF. In adjusted analyses, the rates of the primary outcome declined with increasing EF up to 50%. For treatment effect, the incidence rates for the primary outcome for candesartan vs. placebo were 14.4 vs. 17.5 per 100 patient‐years in HFrEF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75–0.91; P < 0.001], 7.4 vs. 9.7 per 100 patient‐years in HFmrEF (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.96; P = 0.02), and 8.6 vs. 9.1 per 100 patient‐years in HFpEF (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79–1.14; P = 0.57). For recurrent HF hospitalization, the incidence rate ratios were 0.68 in HFrEF (95% CI 0.58–0.80; P < 0.001), 0.48 in HFmrEF (95% CI 0.33–0.70; P < 0.001), and 0.78 in HFpEF (95% CI 0.59–1.03; P = 0.08). With EF as a continuous spline variable, candesartan significantly reduced the primary outcome until EF well over 50% and recurrent HF hospitalizations until EF well over 60%.

Conclusion

Candesartan improved outcomes in HFmrEF to a similar degree as in HFrEF. ClinicalTrials.gov : CHARM Alternative NCT00634400, CHARM Added NCT00634309, CHARM Preserved NCT00634712     

Serum uric acid and outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure through the whole spectrum of ejection fraction phenotypes: Analysis of the ESC-EORP Heart Failure Long-Term (HF LT) Registry

BackgroundRetrospective analyses of clinical trials indicate that elevated serum uric acid (sUA) predicts poor outcome in heart failure (HF). Uric acid can contribute to inflammation and microvascular dysfunction, which may differently affect different left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) phenotypes. However, role of sUA across LVEF phenotypes is unknown.ObjectivesWe investigated sUA association with outcome in a prospective cohort of HF patients stratified according to LVEF.MethodsThrough the Heart Failure Long-Term Registry of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-EORP-HF-LT), 4,438 outpatients were identified and classified into: reduced (<40% HFrEF), mid-range (40–49% HFmrEF), and preserved (≥50% HFpEF) LVEF. Endpoints were the composite of cardiovascular death/HF hospitalization, and individual components.ResultsMedian sUA was 6.72 (IQ:5.48-8.20) mg/dl in HFrEF, 6.41 (5.02-7.77) in HFmrEF, and 6.30 (5.20-7.70) in HFpEF. At a median 372-day follow-up, the composite endpoint occurred in 648 (13.1%) patients, with 176 (3.6%) deaths and 538 (10.9%) HF hospitalizations. Compared with lowest sUA quartile (Q), Q-III and Q-IV were significantly associated with the composite endpoint (adjusted HR 1.68: 95% CI 1.11–2.54; 2.46: 95% CI 1.66–3.64, respectively). By univariable analyses, HFrEF and HFmrEF patients in Q-III and Q-IV, and HFpEF patients in Q-IV, showed increased risk for the composite endpoint (P<0.05 for all); after model-adjustment, significant association of sUA with outcome persisted among HFrEF in Q-IV, and HFpEF in Q-III-IV.ConclusionsIn a large, contemporary-treated cohort of HF outpatients, sUA is an independent prognosticator of adverse outcome, which can be appreciated in HErEF and HFpEF patients.     

Sex differences in long-term outcomes following acute heart failure hospitalization: Findings from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry

Aims

Sex differences in long-term outcomes following hospitalization for heart failure (HF) across ejection fraction (EF) subtypes are not well described. In this study, we evaluated the risk of mortality and rehospitalization among males and females across the spectrum of EF over 5 years of follow-up following an index HF hospitalization event.

Methods and results

Patients hospitalized with HF between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2014 from the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry with available 5-year follow-up using Medicare Part A claims data were included. The association between sex and risk of mortality and readmission over a 5-year follow-up period for each HF subtype (HF with reduced EF [HFrEF, EF ≤40%], HF with mildly reduced EF [HFmrEF, EF 41–49%], and HF with preserved EF [HFpEF, EF >50%]) was assessed using adjusted Cox models. The effect modification by the HF subtype for the association between sex and outcomes was assessed by including multiplicative interaction terms in the models. A total of 155 670 patients (median age: 81 years, 53.4% female) were included. Over 5-year follow-up, males and females had comparably poor survival post-discharge; however, females (vs. males) had greater years of survival lost to HF compared with the median age- and sex-matched US population (HFpEF: 17.0 vs. 14.6 years; HFrEF: 17.3 vs. 15.1 years; HFmrEF: 17.7 vs. 14.6 years for age group 65-69 years). In adjusted analysis, females (vs. males) had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87–0.90, p < 0.0001), and the risk difference was most pronounced among patients with HFrEF (aHR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85–0.89; p_interaction[sex*HF subtype] = 0.04). Females (vs. males) had a higher adjusted risk of HF readmission over 5-year follow-up (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.08, p < 0.0001), with the risk difference most pronounced among patients with HFpEF (aHR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07–1.14; p_interaction[sex*HF subtype] = 0.001).

Conclusions

While females (vs. males) had lower adjusted mortality, females experienced a significantly greater loss in survival time than the median age- and sex-matched US population and had a greater risk of rehospitalization over 5 years following HF hospitalization.     

Fração de Ejeção do Ventrículo Esquerdo Aumentada,Diminuída ou Estável ao Longo do Tempo em uma Série de 626 Pacientes com Insuficiência Cardíaca que Receberam Tratamento Médico

Background:Ejection fraction (EF) has been used in phenotype analyses and to make treatment decisions regarding heart failure (HF). Thus, EF has become a fundamental part of daily clinical practice.Objective:This study aims to investigate the characteristics, predictors, and outcomes associated with EF changes in patients with different types of severe HF.Methods:A total of 626 severe HF patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III–IV were enrolled in this study. The patients were classified into three groups according to EF changes, namely, increased EF (EF-I), defined as an EF increase ≥10%, decreased EF (EF-D), defined as an EF decrease ≥10%, and stable EF (EF-S), defined as an EF change <10%. A p-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant.Results:Out of 377 severe HF patients, 23.3% presented EF-I, 59.5% presented EF-S, and 17.2% presented EF-D. The results further showed 68.2% of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the EF-I group and 64.6% of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the EF-D group. The predictors of EF-I included younger age, absence of diabetes, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The predictors of EF-D were absence of atrial fibrillation, lower uric acid level, and higher LVEF. Within a median follow-up of 40 months, 44.8% of patients suffered from all-cause death.Conclusion:In severe HF, HFrEF presented the highest percentage in the EF-I group, and HFpEF was most common in the EF-D group.     

Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain in Patients With Secondary Mitral Regurgitation

BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) systolic function may be overestimated in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) when using LV ejection fraction (EF). LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a less load-dependent measure of LV function. However, the prognostic value of LV GLS in secondary MR has not been evaluated.ObjectivesThis study sought to demonstrate the prognostic value of LV GLS over LVEF in patients with secondary MR.MethodsA total of 650 patients (mean 66 ± 11 years of age, 68% men) with significant secondary MR were included. The study population was subdivided based on the LV GLS value at which the hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was >1 using a spline curve analysis (LV GLS <7.0%, impaired LV systolic function vs. LV GLS ≥7.0%, preserved LV systolic function). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.ResultsDuring a median follow-up of 56 (interquartile range: 28 to 106 months) months, 334 (51%) patients died. Patients with a more impaired LV GLS showed significantly higher mortality rates at 1-, 2-, and 5-year follow-up (13%, 23%, and 44%, respectively) when compared with patients with more preserved LV systolic function (5%, 14%, and 31%, respectively). On multivariable analysis, LV GLS <7.0% was associated with increased mortality (HR: 1.337; 95% confidence interval: 1.038 to 1.722; p = 0.024), whereas LVEF ≤30% was not (HR: 1.055; 95% confidence interval: 0.794 to 1.403; p = 0.711).ConclusionsIn patients with secondary MR, impaired LV GLS was independently associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, whereas LVEF was not. LV GLS may therefore be useful in the risk stratification of patients with secondary MR.     

Serial Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Strain Measurements to Identify Cardiotoxicity in Breast Cancer: Comparison With Echocardiography

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the prognostic value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and 2-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) derived left ventricular (LV) strain, volumes, and ejection fraction for cancer therapy–related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) in women with early stage breast cancer.BackgroundThere are limited comparative data on the association of CMR and 2DE derived strain, volumes, and LVEF with CTRCD.MethodsA total of 125 prospectively recruited women with HER2+ early stage breast cancer receiving sequential anthracycline/trastuzumab underwent 5 serial CMR and 6 of 2DE studies before and during treatment. CMR LV volumes, left ventricular ejection fraction tagged-CMR, and feature-tracking (FT) derived global systolic longitudinal (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) and 2DE-based LV volumes, function, GLS, and GCS were measured. CTRCD was defined by the cardiac review and evaluation committee criteria.ResultsTwenty-eight percent of patients developed CTRCD by CMR and 22% by 2DE. A 15% relative reduction in 2DE-GLS increased the CTRCD odds by 133% at subsequent follow-up, compared with 47%/50% by tagged-CMR GLS/GCS and 87% by FT-GCS. CMR and 2DE-LVEF and indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESVi) were also associated with subsequent CTRCD. The prognostic threshold change in CMR-left ventricular ejection fraction and FT strain for subsequent CTRCD was similar to the known minimum-detectable difference for these measures, whereas for tagged-CMR strain it was lower than the minimum-detectable difference; for 2DE, only the prognostic threshold for GLS was greater than the minimum-detectable difference. Of all strain methods, 2DE-GLS provided the highest increase in discriminatory value over baseline clinical risk factors for subsequent CTRCD. The combination of 2DE-left ventricular ejection fraction or LVESVi and strain provided greater increase in the area under the curve for subsequent CTRCD over clinical risk factors than CMR left ventricular ejection fraction or LVESVi and strain (18% to 22% vs. 9% to 14%).ConclusionsIn women with HER2+ early stage breast cancer, changes in CMR and 2DE strain, left ventricular ejection fraction, and LVESVi were prognostic for subsequent CTRCD. When LVEF can be measured precisely by CMR, FT strain may function as an additional confirmatory prognostic measure, but with 2DE, GLS is the optimal prognostic measure. (Evaluation of Myocardial Changes During BReast Adenocarcinoma Therapy to Detect Cardiotoxicity Earlier With MRI [EMBRACE-MRI]; NCT02306538)     

Contribution of cardiac and extra‐cardiac disease burden to risk of cardiovascular outcomes varies by ejection fraction in heart failure

Aims

Patients with heart failure (HF) often have multiple co‐morbidities that contribute to the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) and non‐CV outcomes. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac and extra‐cardiac disease burden and demographic factors to CV outcomes in HF patients with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Methods and results

We utilized data from the CHARM trial, which enrolled HF patients across the ejection fraction spectrum. We decomposed the previously validated MAGGIC risk score into cardiac (LVEF, New York Heart Association class, systolic blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medication use), extra‐cardiac (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoker), and demographic (age, gender) categories, and calculated subscores for each patient representing the burden of each component. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the population attributable risk (PAR) associated with each component to the outcomes of death, CV death, HF, myocardial infarction, and stroke relative to patients with the lowest risk score. PARs for each component were depicted across the spectrum of LVEF. in 2675 chronic HF patients from North America [HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%): n = 1589, HFpEF (LVEF >40%): n = 1086] with data available for calculation of the MAGGIC score, the highest risk of death and CV death was attributed to cardiac burden. This was especially evident in HFrEF patients (PAR: 76% cardiac disease vs. 58% extra‐cardiac disease, P < 0.05). Conversely, in HFpEF patients, extra‐cardiac burden accounted for a greater proportion of risk for death than cardiac burden (PAR: 15% cardiac disease vs. 49% extra‐cardiac disease, P < 0.05). For HF hospitalization, the contribution of both cardiac and extra‐cardiac burden was comparable in HFpEF patients (PAR: 42% cardiac disease vs. 53% extra‐cardiac disease, P = NS). In addition, demographic burden was especially high in HFpEF patients, with 62% of deaths attributable to demographic characteristics.

Conclusion

In North American HF patients enrolled in the CHARM trials, the relative contribution of cardiac and extra‐cardiac disease burden to CV outcomes and death differed depending on LVEF. The high risk of events attributable to non‐cardiac disease burden may help explain why cardiac disease‐modifying medication proven to be efficacious in HFrEF patients has not proven beneficial in HFpEF.

     

Sympathetic activation and outcomes in chronic heart failure: Does the neurohormonal hypothesis apply to mid-range and preserved ejection fraction patients?

BackgroundSympathetic activity (SA) is increased in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is associated with poor outcomes. However, its clinical implications are less understood in HF with mid-range (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aimed to study SA across left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) groups and its association with clinical outcomes.Methods and ResultsSA estimated by norepinephrine (NE) levels was determined in 742 consecutive outpatients with chronic HF: 348 (47%) with HFrEF, 116 (16%) HFmrEF, and 278 (37%) HFpEF. After a mean follow-up of 15 months, 17% died. Adjusted analyses showed that patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF had lower estimated marginal means of NE levels compared to HFrEF (278 and 116 pg/mL, respectively, vs. 348 pg/mL; p-value=0.005). Adjusted Cox regression analyses showed that high norepinephrine levels independently predicted all-cause mortality (ACM) in all 3 groups. The strongest associations between high NE levels and cardiovascular mortality (CVM) were observed in HFmrEF (HR: 4.7 [1.33–16.68]), while the weakest association was in HFpEF (HR: 2.62 [1.08–6.35]).ConclusionsAdjusted analyses showed that HFpEF and HFmrEF were associated with lower SA compared to HFrEF. Nevertheless, increasing NE levels were independently associated with ACM and CVM in all three LVEF groups. The strongest association between high NE levels and CVM was present in HFmrEF patients, while the weakest was seen in HFpEF. These findings could explain why the response to neurohormonal therapies in patients with HFmrEF is similar to that of patients with HFrEF rather than with HFpEF.     

Effects of nebivolol in elderly heart failure patients with or without systolic left ventricular dysfunction: results of the SENIORS echocardiographic substudy.

AIMS: The SENIORS trial recently demonstrated that nebivolol reduces the composite risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospital admission in elderly patients with chronic heart failure and, importantly, that ejection fraction does not influence the clinical effects of nebivolol. An echocardiographic substudy was designed to evaluate the effects of nebivolol on systolic and diastolic left ventricular (LV) function in patients stratified according to the presence or absence of systolic LV dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: The substudy randomized 112 patients in 29 European centres, of whom 104 were evaluable for the study; 43 had an ejection fraction (EF) 35%. LV end-systolic volume (ESV), EF, mitral valve E/A ratio, and E-wave deceleration time were assessed at baseline and after 12 months. Echocardiograms were submitted to a core laboratory to perform quantitative analysis in blinded condition. In the group with EF35% group, no significant changes in either systolic or diastolic parameters were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure and advanced systolic LV dysfunction, nebivolol reduces ventricular size and improves EF. The absence of detectable changes with standard echocardiography in patients with predominant diastolic heart failure questions the mechanism of benefit on morbidity/mortality in such patients.     

Evaluation of eplerenone in the subgroup of EPHESUS patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction <or=30%

AIMS: Because of the prognostic importance of LV dysfunction following an AMI and the increasing use of electrical and/or mechanical interventions in patients with LV systolic dysfunction, this retrospective analysis of EPHESUS patients with LVEF 相似文献   

Biomarkers in atrial fibrillation and heart failure with non-reduced ejection fraction: Diagnostic application and new cut-off points

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with non-reduced left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) present a diagnostic overlap. In this paper, we analyze differences in biomarkers between patients with and without HF, in a cohort of patients presenting with symptomatic AF. Differences in biomarkers between patients with medium range ejection fraction HF (HFmrEF) and those with preserved ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) are also analyzed.MethodsA total of 115 patients with symptomatic persistent AF were included. Seven biomarkers were measured: NT-proBNP, high sensitivity T troponin (hsTNT), galectin-3, ST2, fibrinogen, urate and C-reactive protein.ResultsPatients with non-reduced LVEF HF had significantly higher NT-proBNP levels than those without HF. This biomarker was the only variable independently related with the presence of non-reduced LVEF HF. Troponin was the only factor independently related with the presence of HFmrEF.ConclusionsNT-proBNP showed the best diagnostic accuracy for detecting the presence of non-reduced LVEF HF. We found higher diagnostic NT-proBNP cut-off values than those previously reported. Troponin was the most accurate biomarker differentiating HFmrEF from HFpEF.     

Clinical features of isolated ventricular noncompaction in adults long-term clinical course, echocardiographic properties, and predictors of left ventricular failure

BackgroundIsolated ventricular non-compaction (IVNC) is a rare disorder characterized by prominent trabecular meshwork and deep recesses. We retrospectively assessed the clinical characteristics and natural course of IVNC in adults diagnosed at our hospital.Methods and ResultsSixty-seven adult patients (44 male, mean age 41 ± 18 years) with the diagnosis of IVNC were evaluated in this retrospective cohort. Its prevalence was found to be .14%. Forty-seven patients (70%) had class I/II functional capacity. Fifty-seven patients (85%) had electrocardiographic abnormalities, and the most common one was left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (25%). LV systolic function was depressed in 44 patients (66%), with a median ejection fraction (EF) of 35% (range: 20%–48%) at diagnosis. Multiple regression analysis revealed that age at initial presentation, the total number of affected segments, and the ratio of non-compaction/compaction (NC/C) were the independent predictors of LV systolic dysfunction. Familial occurrence of IVNC was 33%. During a mean follow-up of 30 months (range: 9–50 months), major complications including ventricular tachycardia, heart failure requiring hospitalization, and cerebrovascular events were observed in 36%, 34%, and 9% of the patients, respectively. Ten patients (15%) with IVNC died in this study. LVEF at initial presentation and functional capacity at last visit were found to be independent predictors of mortality.ConclusionThis study suggests that IVNC is a form of cardiomyopathy with higher prevalence and relatively better prognosis than previously reported. Age at initial presentation, ratio of NC/C, and number of affected segments seem to be major determinants of LV systolic dysfunction, while initial LVEF and last functional capacity predict mortality in this cohort.