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.     

Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A protocol for meta-analysis

Background:Nearly half of patients with heart failure (HF) have preserved ejection fraction (EF) and the mortality and morbidity of patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) are high. Patients with HFpEF are often elderly and their primary chronic symptom is severe exercise intolerance that results in a reduced quality of life. Thus, improvement of exercise capacity presents another important clinical outcome in HFpEF patients. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs reported that sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HF with reduced EF. Although the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors in HFpEF patients have been examined in multiple RCTs, the results are inconsistent due partly to limited power. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SGLT-2 inhibitors in HFpEF patients.Methods:This meta-analysis will include RCTs examining the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on HF severity and health-related quality of life in HFpEF patients. Information of studies will be collected from electronic databases. The primary outcome will be HF severity (plasma B-type natriuretic peptide levels and exercise capacity assessed as 6-minute walk distance). The secondary outcome will be health-related quality of life. The safety outcomes will be all-cause death, HF hospitalization, hypotension, acute renal failure, diabetic ketoacidosis, and urinary tract infection.Discussion:This meta-analysis will evaluate the efficacy and safety of SGLT-2 inhibitors in HFpEF patients, providing evidence to the clinical use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in these patients.Systematic review registration:INPLASY2021120033     

Use of sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors in patients with and without type 2 diabetes: implications for incident and prevalent heart failure

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with an increased risk of heart failure (HF), with recent reports indicating that HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) may be more common than HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in patients with T2D. T2D and HF result in worse outcomes than either disease alone. Sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors (SGLT‐2is) have significantly improved HF outcomes in patients with T2D and may represent a new therapeutic alternative for patients with T2D at risk for or with HF. Current guidelines recommend prevention of HF through risk factor management. Once developed, treatment of HFrEF should include neurohormonal and haemodynamic modulations; however, there are no specific treatments available for HFpEF. SGLT‐2is are the first class of glucose‐lowering therapy to prevent HF in clinical trials and real‐world studies in patients with T2D (with or without established cardiovascular disease and with or without baseline HF). Mechanistic studies suggest that SGLT‐2is have beneficial effects on both systolic and diastolic function and additional systemic effects that could benefit HF outcomes. In patients with HFrEF, SGLT‐2i treatment as add‐on to standard HF therapy has had beneficial effects on HF outcomes, irrespective of T2D status. These results and those of ongoing outcomes trials with SGLT‐2is may help establish this drug class as a treatment for HF in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, as well as HF in patients without T2D.     

Patient-reported and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction

BackgroundDifferences between patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) vs HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) are not well-characterized, particularly as pertains to in-hospital decongestion and longitudinal patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between patients hospitalized with HFrEF vs HFpEF.Methods and ResultsThe Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial enrolled 7141 patients hospitalized for HF with reduced or preserved EF. We assessed the association between an EF ≤ 40% vs an EF >40% with in-hospital decongestion, risk of rehospitalization and mortality, and quality of life as measured by the EuroQOL 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D). Among 5800 patients (81%) with complete EF data, 4782 (82%) had an EF ≤40% and 1018 (18%) had an EF >40%. Both groups demonstrated similar rates of decongestion by weight change and urine volume through 24 hours, a similar risk of 30-day mortality and HF rehospitalization, and a similar 180-day mortality. Patients with HFpEF had worse EQ-5D scores at hour 24 (median 0.76, [interquartile range (IQR) 0.51–0.84] vs 0.78 [IQR 0.57–0.84]; P = .01) that persisted through discharge (0.81 [IQR 0.69–0.86] vs 0.83 [IQR 0.71–1.00]; P < .001) and the 30-day follow-up (0.78 [IQR 0.60–0.85] vs 0.83 [IQR 0.71–1.00]; P < .001). After adjustment, these differences were attenuated and not statistically significant.ConclusionsIn this large, multinational cohort of patients hospitalized for HF, patients with an EF ≤ 40% vs an EF >40% experienced similar in-hospital decongestion and postdischarge clinical outcomes. Patients with an EF >40% reported worse in-hospital and postdischarge patient-reported health status, but these measures were similar to HFrEF after accounting for other clinical factors.     

New Drugs and Devices in the Pipeline for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Versus Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a growing problem in the USA and other industrialized nations. HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) each make up approximately half of the overall HF burden. Although a variety of medical and surgical therapies exist for the treatment of patients with HFrEF, morbidity and mortality remain high, and cardiac transplantation, considered the current gold standard for patients with HFrEF and severe symptoms, is reserved for relatively few eligible patients. Patients with HFpEF have more limited therapeutic options, because no medical therapy to date has been shown to improve survival in these patients. With the rising prevalence of HF and its increasing role in health care expenditure, there is a substantial need for new drug and device therapies for HFrEF and, in particular, HFpEF. This forms the topic of the current review.     

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Pathophysiology and Emerging Therapies

Approximately half of patients with heart failure (HF) have a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Morbidity and mortality are similar to HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), yet therapies with unequivocal benefit in HFrEF have not been shown to be effective in HFpEF. Recent studies have shown that the pathophysiology of HFpEF, initially believed to be due principally to diastolic dysfunction, is more complex. Appreciation of this complexity has shed new light into how HFpEF patients might respond to traditional HF treatments, while also suggesting new applications for novel therapies and strategies. In this review, we shall briefly review the pathophysiologic mechanisms in HFpEF, currently available clinical trial data, and finally explore new investigational therapies that are being developed and tested in ongoing and forthcoming trials.     

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     

Contemporary economic burden in a real‐world heart failure population with Commercial and Medicare supplemental plans

BackgroundLimited real‐world data exist on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF), including urgent HF visits, which are assumed to be less burdensome than HF hospitalizations (hHFs)HypothesisThis study aimed to quantify the economic burden of HFrEF and HFpEF, via a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study, using IBM® linked claims/electronic health records (Commercial and Medicare Supplemental data only).MethodsAdult patients, indexed on HF diagnosis (ICD‐10‐CM: I50.x) from July 2012 through June 2018, with 6‐month minimum baseline period and varying follow‐up, were classified as HFrEF (I50.2x) or HFpEF (I50.3x) according to last‐observed EF‐specific diagnosis. HCRU/costs were assessed during follow‐up.ResultsAbout 109 721 HF patients (22% HFrEF, 31% HFpEF, 47% unclassified EF; median 18 months'' follow‐up) were identified. There were 3.2 all‐cause outpatient visits per patient‐month (HFrEF, 3.3; HFpEF, 3.6); 69% of patients required inpatient stays (HFrEF, 80%; HFpEF, 78%). Overall, 11% of patients experienced hHFs (HFrEF, 23%; HFpEF, 16%), 9% experienced urgent HF visits (HFrEF, 15%; HFpEF, 12%); 26% were hospitalized less than 30 days after first urgent HF visit versus 11% after first hHF. Mean monthly total direct healthcare cost per patient was $9290 (HFrEF, $11 053; HFpEF, $7482).ConclusionsHF‐related HCRU is substantial among contemporary real‐world HF patients in US Commercial or Medicare supplemental health plans. Patients managed in urgent HF settings were over twice as likely to be hospitalized within 30 days versus those initially hospitalized, suggesting urgent HF visits are important clinical events and quality improvement targets.     

Mortalidade por Insuficiência Cardíaca com Fração de Ejeção Intermediária

Background The prognostic importance of the classification ‘heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (EF)’ remains uncertain.Objective To analyze the clinical characteristics, comorbidities, complications, and in-hospital and late mortality of patients classified as having HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF – EF: 40%-49%), and to compare them to those of patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF – EF > 50%) and with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF – EF < 40%) on admission for decompensated HF.Methods Ambispective cohort of patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit due to decompensated HF. Clinical characteristics, comorbidities, complications, and in-hospital and late mortality were assessed. The software R was used, with a 5% significance, for the tests chi-square, analysis of variance, Cox multivariate, and Kaplan-Meier survival curve, in addition to machine-learning techniques (Elastic Net and survival tree).Results 519 individuals were included between September 2011 and June 2019 (mean age, 74.87 ± 13.56 years; 57.6% were men). The frequencies of HFpEF, HFmrEF and HFrEF were 25.4%, 27% and 47.6%, respectively. Previous infarction was more frequent in HFmrEF. The mean follow-up time was 2.94 ± 2.55 years, with no statistical difference in mortality between the groups (53.8%, 52.1%, 57.9%). In the survival curve, there was difference between neither the HFpEF and HFmrEF groups, nor the HFpEF and HFrEF groups, but between the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups. Age over 77 years, previous HF, history of readmission, dementia and need for vasopressors were associated with higher late mortality in the survival tree.Conclusion The EF was not selected as a variable associated with mortality in patients with decompensated HF.     

Cardiovascular Outcomes with SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with or without type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aimsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) in patients with known heart failure (HF) with or without type 2 diabetes (T2DM), that have studied the outcomes of cardiovascular (CV) death, hospitalization due to HF (HHF), and composite of CV death or HHF.MethodsA systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database were made up till November 20, 2020 using specific keywords. RCTs that qualified underwent a meta-analysis by applying the inverse variance-weighted averages of pooled logarithmic hazard ratio (HR) using both random- and fixed-effects model.ResultsThis meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (N = 19,741) have found a significant 26% relative risk reduction in composite of CV death or HHF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69–0.79; p < 0.001) with SGLT-2i in patients with HF. The meta-analysis of 8 RCTs (N = 16,460) also showed a significant reduction in CV death (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78–0.95; p = 0.003) and HHF (HR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.62–0.74; p < 0.001) outcomes with SGLT-2i in patients with HF. Subgroup analysis stratified on baseline ejection fraction (EF) showed a similar benefit in the composite of CV death or HHF in patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) or preserved EF (HFpEF).ConclusionsSGLT-2i significantly reduces the composite of CV death or HHF, CV death, and HHF in patients with HF. Although subgroup analysis suggested an insignificant P_heterogenity for these outcomes irrespective of the types of HF, however, reduction in both CV death and HHF were more pronounced in patients with HFrEF.     

Medical and Interventional Options to Treat Pulmonary Embolism

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of hospitalization among older adults and the prevalence is growing with the aging populations in western countries. Approximately one-half of patients with HF have preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In contrast to HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), there is no proven effective treatment for HFpEF. The pathophysiology of HFpEF is complex, and the dominant mechanisms leading to symptoms of HF often vary between afflicted patients, confounding efforts to apply “one-size fits all” types of therapeutic approaches. Current treatment strategies focus on control of volume status and comorbidities, but future research aimed at individualized therapies holds promise to improve outcomes in this increasingly prevalent form of cardiac failure.     

Sobrevida de Pacientes com Insuficiência Cardíaca Aguda e Fração de Ejeção Intermediária em um País em Desenvolvimento – Estudo de Coorte no Sul do Brasil

BackgroundHeart Failure with mid-range Ejection Fraction (HFmEF) was recently described by European and Brazilian guidelines on Heart Failure (HF). The ejection fraction (EF) is an important parameter to guide therapy and prognosis. Studies have shown conflicting results without representative data from developing countries.ObjectiveTo analyze and compare survival rate in patients with HFmEF, HF patients with reduced EF (HFrEF), and HF patients with preserved EF (HFpEF), and to evaluate the clinical characteristics of these patients.MethodsA cohort study that included adult patients with acute HF admitted through the emergency department to a tertiary hospital, reference in cardiology, in south Brazil from 2009 to 2011. The sample was divided into three groups according to EF: reduced, mid-range and preserved. A Kaplan-Meier curve was analyzed according to the EF, and a logistic regression analysis was done. Statistical significance was established as p < 0.05.ResultsA total of 380 patients were analyzed. Most patients had HFpEF (51%), followed by patients with HFrEF (32%) and HFmEF (17%). Patients with HFmEF showed intermediate characteristics related to age, blood pressure and ventricular diameters, and most patients were of ischemic etiology. Median follow-up time was 4.0 years. There was no statistical difference in overall survival or cardiovascular mortality (p=.0031) between the EF groups (reduced EF: 40.5% mortality; mid-range EF 39.7% and preserved EF 26%). Hospital mortality was 7.6%.ConclusionThere was no difference in overall survival rate between the EF groups. Patients with HFmEF showed higher mortality from cardiovascular diseases in comparison with HFpEF patients. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; 116(1):14-23)     

Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BackgroundWhereas sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk has been recognized in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), less is known about SCD risk in HF patients with preserved EF (HFpEF). We examined the incidence and predictors of SCD in HFpEF in a large population sample.Methods and ResultsMedical records of patients discharged with a primary diagnosis of HF from hospitals in Minneapolis–St Paul in 1995 and 2000 were abstracted. HFpEF was defined as EF ≥45%. SCD was defined as cardiac arrest or out-of-hospital death due to coronary heart disease (CHD) on death certificates. A total of 2,203 patients (age 70 ± 11 years, 53% male) were included. The 787 patients (36%) with HFpEF were older, more often female and more likely to have hypertension than the 1,416 (64%) with HFrEF. All-cause mortality (52% vs 58%; P = .01) and SCD (6% vs 14%; P < .0001) rates were lower in HFpEF than in HFrEF 5 years after hospital discharge. Age, sex, CHD, and length of index hospitalization were the only independent predictors of SCD in HFpEF.ConclusionsIncidence of SCD in HFpEF is lower than in HFrEF. Present markers of SCD in HFpEF are sparse and insufficient to identify the patient at risk.     

Role of Cardiac Contractility Modulation in Heart Failure With a Higher Ejection Fraction

Cardiac contractility modulation (also known as CCM) is a novel device therapy that delivers nonexcitatory electric stimulation to cardiac myocytes during the absolute refractory period, and it has been shown to improve functional status and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). CCM therapy is currently recommended for a subset of patients with advanced HFrEF who are not candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy. A growing body of evidence demonstrates the benefit of CCM therapy in patients with HFrEF and with ejection fraction at the upper end of the spectrum and in patients with HF and with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Experimental studies have also observed reversal of pathological biomolecular intracellular changes with CCM therapy in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), indicating the potential for clinically meaningful benefits of CCM therapy in these patients. In this review, we sought to discuss the basis of CCM therapy and its potential for management of patients with HF with higher ejection fractions.     

Tailored risk assessment of 90‐day acute heart failure readmission or all‐cause death to heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction

BackgroundAfter incident heart failure (HF) admission, patients are vulnerable to readmission or death in the 90‐day post‐discharge. Although risk models for readmission or death incorporate ejection fraction (EF), patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) and those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) represent distinct cohorts. To better assess risk, this study developed machine learning models and identified risk factors for the 90‐day acute HF readmission or death by HF subtype.Methods and ResultsApproximately 1965 patients with HFpEF and 1124 with HFrEF underwent an index admission. Acute HF rehospitalization or death occurred in 23% of HFpEF and 28% of HFrEF groups. Of the 101 variables considered, multistep variable selection identified 24 and 25 significant factors associated with 90‐day events in HFpEF and HFrEF, respectively. In addition to risk factors common to both groups, factors unique to HFpEF patients included cognitive dysfunction, low‐pulse pressure, β‐blocker, and diuretic use, and right ventricular dysfunction. In contrast, factors unique to HFrEF patients included a history of arrhythmia, acute HF on presentation, and echocardiographic characteristics like left atrial dilatation or elevated mitral E/A ratio. Furthermore, the model tailored to HFpEF (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.770; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.767–0.774) outperformed a model for the combined groups (AUC = 0.759; 95% CI 0.756–0.763).ConclusionThe UF 90‐day post‐discharge acute HF Re admission or Death Risk Assessment (UF90‐RADRA) models help identify HFpEF and HFrEF patients at higher risk who may require proactive outpatient management.     

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer recruited to heart failure trials

Aims

Heart failure (HF) therapy trials usually exclude cancer patients. We examined the association between cancer history and outcomes in trial participants with HF and reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Methods and results

We combined PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE, which enrolled HFrEF patients (n = 15 415) and we pooled HFpEF patients (ejection fraction ≥45%) enrolled in PARAGON-HF and CHARM-Preserved (n = 7363). The associations between cancer history, cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, non-CV and all-cause death in these trials were examined. Incident cancer diagnoses during these trials were also measured. There were 658 (4.3%) and 624 (8.5%) patients with a cancer history in the HFrEF and HFpEF trials, respectively. HFrEF patients with a cancer history had a higher risk of HF hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07–1.52, p = 0.007) and non-CV death (adjusted HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.16–2.12, p = 0.003) than those without. The risks of other outcomes were similar. There were no differences in the risk of any outcome in HFpEF patients with and without a cancer history. Adjusting for age and sex, the incidence of new cancer in the HFrEF and HFpEF trials was 1.09 (95% CI 0.83–1.36) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.81–1.32) per 100 person-years, respectively.

Conclusions

Although participants in HFrEF trials with a cancer history had higher risks of HF hospitalization and non-CV death than those without, the risks of CV and all-cause death were similar. Outcomes in HFpEF patients with and without a cancer history were similar. Incident cancer diagnoses were similar in HFrEF and HFpEF trials.     

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.     

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.     

Clinical Characteristics,Comorbidities and Prognosis in Patients With Heart Failure With Mid-Range Ejection Fraction

BackgroundPatients with left ventricular ejection fractions between 40% and 49% either discovered de novo, having declined from ≥50%, or improved from <40% have been described as heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Though clinical signs and symptoms are similar to other phenotypes, possible prognostic differences and therapeutic responses reinforce the need for further understanding of patients’ characteristics especially in a rural community based population. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical characteristics, comorbidities and prognosis of a rural patient population with HFmrEF.Materials and MethodsWe queried the electronic medical record from a community based university practice for all patients with a HF diagnosis. We included only those patients with >3 months follow-up and interpretable Doppler echocardiograms. We recorded demographic, Doppler-echo, and outcome variables (up to 2,083 days).ResultsThere were 633 HF patients: 42.4% with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, EF ≥50%), 36.4% with HFmrEF, and 21.0% with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, EF <40%). HFmrEF patients were older, had greater coronary disease prevalence, lower systolic blood pressure, elevated brain natriuretic peptide, lower hemoglobin, and higher creatinine than HFpEF. All-cause mortality was intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF but was not significantly different. Landmark analysis revealed a trend toward greater second readmission in HFmrEF as compared to HFpEF (hazard ratio: 1.43 [0.96-2.14],P = 0.0767).ConclusionsRural patients with HFmrEF without an ambulatory HF clinic represent a higher percentage of HF patients than previously reported with greater coronary disease prevalence with comparable readmission rates and nonsignificantly different all-cause mortality.     

Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of hospitalized elderly patients for heart failure with reduced,mid-range and preserved ejection fraction

Introduction: Elderly patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) have high mortality rates and requires specific evidence based theraphy, however there are few studies which have focused on patients older than 80 years hospitalized with HF. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the overall clinical characteristics, management, and in-hospital outcomes of elderly patients hospitalized with HF.Methods: Journey-HF study was conducted in 37 different centers in Turkey and recruited 1606 patients who were hospitalized with HF between September 2015 and September 2016. In this study, clinical profile of patients ≥ 80 years old and 65-79 years old hospitalized with HF were described and compared based on EF-related classification: HFrEF (HF with reduced ejection fraction), HFmrEF (HF with mid-range ejection fraction) and HFpEF (HF with preserved ejection fraction).Results: A total of 1034 elder patients (71.6% 65–79 years old and 28.4% ≥80 years old) were recruited. Of the 65–79 years old patients 67.4% had HFrEF, 16.2% had HFmrEF and 16.3% had HFpEF. Among patients ≥80 years old 61.6% had HFrEF, 15.6% had HmrEF and 22.8% had HFpEF.When compared with patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF, patients ≥80 years old with HFpEF were more likely to be older, have atrial fibrilation (AF), and less likely to have diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary artery disease (CAD) or to be recieving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or beta blocker theraphy. When compared to patients 65–79 years old with HFpEF, patients ≥80 years with HFpEF had a higher rate of AF and less likely DM. Acute coronary syndrome was the most common precipitant factor for hospitalization in both age groups with HFrEF group. Arrhythmia was a major precipitant factor for hospitalization of patients ≥80 years old with HFpEF. Non-compliance with theraphy was a major problem of patients ≥80 years old with HFrEF.Conclusion: Elderly patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF each had characterized unique patient profiles and the guideline recommended medications were less likely to be used in these patient populations. In hospital mortality rate is worrisome and reflects a need for more specific tretment strategy.