Heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction: outcomes and predictors of prognosis.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, a stratification of the heart failure (HF) phenotypes, which classifies HF into 3 subtypes based on ejection fraction, has been introduced. Before that, clinical trials and registries have been mainly devoted to HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). As a result, data on long­term survival trends for individual HF phenotypes are scarce. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to evaluate survival according to the HF phenotype and to identify predictors of mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients hospitalized for HF in our referral center between January 2014 and May 2019 were included in the analysis. HF phenotyping was based on EF: reduced (HFrEF with EF <40%), mildly reduced (HFmrEF with EF = 40%-49%), and preserved (HFpEF with EF ≥50%). RESULTS: Of 2601 patients included in the study, 1608 individuals (62%) presented with HFrEF, 331 patients with HFmrEF (13%), and 662 patients with HFpEF (25%). The median follow­up was 2.43 years (interquartile range, 1.56-3.49). The risk of death was 61% higher in HFrEF than in HFpEF (P <0.001), while in HFmrEF and HFpEF it was similar. Survival rates at 1 and 5 years in HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF were 81%, 84%, 84%, and 47%, 61%, and 59%, respectively. The HF phenotypes differed in most of the parameters that affect prognosis. Only the use of inotropes, which was linked to an increased risk of death, and the use of angiotensin­converting enzyme inhibitors, which reduced this risk, were independent of the HF phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Survival in HFrEF is worse as compared with HFmrEF and HFpEF, where it is similar. The HF phenotypes differ in most of the parameters that affect survival.

Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction.

INTRODUCTION: There is still little information regarding a detailed description and predictors of different subtypes of heart failure (HF) in the Polish population. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize the differences between hospitalized patients with HF divided into HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; EF ≥50%), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; EF 40%-49%), and reduced EF (HFrEF; EF <40%), and to identify factors related to each HF subtype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from the hospital database whose hospitalization was coded as HF­related between 2014 and 2019 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2601 patients were included, of whom 62% had HFrEF, 13% had HFmrEF, and 25% had HFpEF. The patients with HFpEF, as compared with those with HFrEF and HFmrEF, were older (70.5 vs 61.6 vs 66.5 years, P <0.001), less often male (44% vs 68.3% vs 81.3%, P <0.001), and less likely to have an ischemic etiology of HF (19.3% vs 49.8% vs 34.4%, P <0.001) but they were more likely to have hypertension (87.3% vs 78.2% vs 78.2%, P <0.001), atrial fibrillation (64.5% vs 55.6% vs 59.5%, P <0.001), cancer (32.2% vs 19.6% vs 28.7%; P <0.001), and anemia (25.5% vs 15.9% vs 20.5%, P <0.001). Of 3 multivariable models, the one predicting HFpEF was the strongest (P <0.001, area under the curve, 0.79), and included age, sex, aortic stenosis, hypertension, anemia, cancer, thyroid abnormality, atrial fibrillation, longer history of HF, ischemic etiology, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, and liver failure. CONCLUSIONS: HFrEF and HFpEF differed significantly in terms of baseline characteristics, while HFmrEF was in the middle of the HF spectrum, tending to be a mixture of HFpEF and HFrEF characteristics.

Long term outcome of heart failure patients disqualified from heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with advanced heart failure is unfavourable. However, little is known about the survival of patients referred for heart transplantation but finally disqualified from transplantation due to contraindications. This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of patients' disqualified from heart transplantation. METHODS: It was a retrospective study based on medical records of patients disqualified from heart transplantation. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one patients were included and 94 deaths were recorded during long-term follow-up (range 0.02-10.1 years). The survival rate at 5 years was 25%. The mean age of the studied population was 57.7 years and the majority of patients were males, 87.4%. The ischaemic aetiology (66.2%) was the most dominant aetiology of heart failure. In the Cox regression model, supervision by the specialist cardiology centre (HR 0.61;p = 0.04) and pharmacotherapy with beta-blockers (HR = 0.47;p = 0.02) positively influenced the prognosis. On the contrary, well-known heart failure risk factors like a renal failure (HR 1.59;p = 0.049), pulmonary hypertension (HR 1.55;p = 0.046), liver failure (HR 2.65;p = 0.02) were negative predictors of outcome. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients with other than pulmonary hypertension causes of disqualification from heart transplantation had a better survival rate, p = 0.047. CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis of patients disqualified from heart transplantation is unfavourable. However, some of the patients experience relatively long survival. Therefore, careful clinical assessment and identification of factors influencing prognosis may improve adequate patients' qualifications for heart transplantation.