Prognostic value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I in heart failure patients with mid-range and reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: The identification of high-risk heart failure (HF) patients makes it possible to intensify their treatment. Our aim was to determine the prognostic value of a newly developed, high-sensitivity troponin I assay (Atellica®, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics) for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; LVEF < 40%) and HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF) (LVEF 40%-49%). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 520 patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF were enrolled in this study. Two-year all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, and/or left ventricular assist device implantation were defined as the primary endpoints (EP). A logistic regression analysis was used for the identification of predictors and development of multivariable models. The EP occurred in 14% of the patients, and these patients had higher NT-proBNP (1,950 vs. 518 ng/l; p < 0.001) and hs-cTnI (34 vs. 17 ng/l, p < 0.001) levels. C-statistics demonstrated that the optimal cut-off value for the hs-cTnI level was 17 ng/l (AUC 0.658, p < 0.001). Described by the AUC, the discriminatory power of the multivariable model (NYHA > II, NT-proBNP, hs-cTnI and urea) was 0.823 (p < 0.001). Including heart failure hospitalization as the component of the combined secondary endpoint leads to a diminished predictive power of increased hs-cTnI. CONCLUSION: hs-cTnI levels ≥ 17 ng/l represent an independent increased risk of an adverse prognosis for patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF. Determining a patient's hs-cTnI level adds prognostic value to NT-proBNP and clinical parameters.

Differences in risk profiles and long-term outcomes in acute heart failure patients with preserved and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the Czech Republic: The AHEAD registry sub-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The latest European heart failure guidelines define patients as those with reduced (HFrEF), mid-range, and preserved (HFpEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; <40%, 40%-49%, and ≥50%, respectively). We investigated the causes of rehospitalizations/deaths in our institution's heart failure patients and focused on differences in the clinical presentation, risk profile, and long-term outcomes between the HFrEF and HFpEF groups in a real-life scenario. METHODS AND RESULTS: We followed 1274 patients discharged from heart failure hospitalization in 2 centres. The mean patient age was 75.9 years, and men and women were represented equally. During the minimal follow-up of 2 years, 57% of patients were hospitalised for any cause, 24.9% for decompensated heart failure, and 43.3% for any cardiovascular cause. A total of 36.1% of patients died, either with prior (11.8%) or without prior (24.3%) heart failure rehospitalization. Heart failure was also the most frequent cause of cardiovascular hospitalization, followed by gastrointestinal problems, infections, and tumours for noncardiovascular hospitalizations. Patients with HFrEF had different baseline characteristics and risk profiles, experienced more hospitalizations for acute heart failure (28.6% vs 20.2%, P=0.012), and had higher cardiovascular mortality (82.4% vs 63.5%, P<0.001) when compared with HFpEF patients. Overall mortality and rehospitalization rates were similar. CONCLUSION: Within 2 years, half of the patients died and/or were hospitalised for acute decompensation of heart failure, and only one-third of the patients survived without any hospitalization. HFrEF and HFpEF patients were confirmed to be different entities with diverse characteristics, risk profiles, and cardiovascular event rates.