Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the prevalence and prognostic impact of diastolic dysfunction (DD) in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) in sinus rhythm. BACKGROUND: Data regarding the prognostic impact of DD in patients with HFmrEF is limited. METHODS: From 2016 to 2022, all patients hospitalized with HFmrEF (i.e., left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution. Patients with DD were compared to patients without (i.e., non-DD), further risk stratification was performed according to the severity of DD. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 months (interquartile range (IQR) 15-61 months), key secondary endpoint was rehospitalization for worsening HF. RESULTS: From a total of 1154 patients (median age 68 years, 68% males) hospitalized with HFmrEF, concomitant DD was present in 72% (grade I: 56%, grade II: 14%, grade III: 2%). Patients with DD were older (71 years vs. 65 years; p = 0.001) and presented with higher rates of cardiovascular comorbidities. The presence of DD was not associated with the risk of long-term all-cause mortality (adjusted HR = 0.815; 95% CI 0.612-1.085; p = 0.161) or HF-related rehospitalization (adjusted HR = 0.736; 95% CI 0.442-1.225; p = 0.238). Furthermore, the outcome did not differ in patients with more advanced stages of DD. CONCLUSION: DD is commonly prevalent in patients with HFmrEF, but not associated with long-term prognosis.

Distribution and Prognostic Impact of Different Heart Failure Etiologies in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

OBJECTIVE: The study investigates the characteristics and prognostic impact of different heart failure (HF) etiologies in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). BACKGROUND: Data regarding the characterization of patients with HFmrEF and their outcomes is scarce. METHODS: Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (i.e., left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49 % and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) were compared to patients without ischemic cardiomyopathy (non-ICM). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up). Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier, multivariable Cox proportional regression analyses and propensity score matching. RESULTS: From a total of 1,832 patients hospitalized with HFmrEF, ICM was the most common HF etiology in 68.7 %, followed by hypertensive (9.7 %) and primary non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (NICM) (8.1 %). Within the entire study cohort, the presence of ICM was not associated with the risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.864; 95 % CI 0.723 - 1.031), however after multivariable adjustment (HR = 0.792; 95 % CI 0.646 - 0.972; p = 0.026) and propensity score matching (25.7% vs. 31.4 %; log rank p = 0.050), the presence of ICM was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality at 30 months compared to patients without ICM. CONCLUSION: ICM is the most common etiology of HF in HFmrEF and may be associated with favorable outcomes. This may be related to better adherence to pharmacological treatment and improved revascularization strategies for HFmrEF patients with ICM.

Novel Relaxin Receptor RXFP1 Agonist AZD3427 in the Treatment of Heart Failure: A Phase 1a/b, First-in-Human, Randomized, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure mortality remains high despite recent progress in pharmacological treatment. AZD3427 is a selective long-acting analog of relaxin, a vasodilatory hormone with antifibrotic effects. We assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of AZD3427 in healthy volunteers and patients with heart failure on standard-of-care therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this first-in-human, phase 1a/b, randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy volunteers were randomized 6:2 to receive a single dose of AZD3427 or placebo by subcutaneous injection in 5 mixed-ethnicity cohorts (5, 10, 30, 90, or 270 mg) and 1 Japanese-descent cohort (270 mg), or by intravenous injection in 1 cohort (15 mg). After confirming safety and tolerability in healthy volunteers, 3 cohorts of patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and 3 cohorts with ejection fraction ≥41% were randomized 6:2 to receive 5 weekly doses of AZD3427 (5, 15, or 45 mg) or placebo by subcutaneous injection. In total, 56 healthy volunteers and 48 patients with heart failure were randomized. AZD3427 was well tolerated at all doses. After subcutaneous administration, AZD3427 was absorbed slowly, and exposure was approximately linear across the dose range. In patients with heart failure, AZD3427 terminal half-life was 13 to 14 days and there were numerical increases in stroke volume and estimated glomerular filtration rate. No treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies were detected. CONCLUSIONS: AZD3427 had favorable safety and pharmacokinetic profiles. Hemodynamic changes in patients with heart failure were consistent with the anticipated effects of a relaxin analog. These findings support further development of AZD3427 as a novel long-term treatment for patients with heart failure. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT04630067.

Dapagliflozin Effects on Cardiac Deformation in Heart Failure and Secondary Clinical Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors were shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess potential effects of dapagliflozin in nondiabetic patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) on cardiac function assessed by speckle tracking echocardiography (STE). METHODS: This randomized, prospective, single-center, open-label trial compared consecutive nondiabetic outpatients with HFrEF or HFmrEF receiving dapagliflozin with patients treated with optimal medical therapy (OMT) except sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors. Primary endpoint was the presence of a significant modification of left ventricular global longitudinal strain, diastolic function (as peak atrial longitudinal strain) and right ventricular function by STE from baseline to 6 months. Cardiovascular events and parameters of congestion were assessed as safety-exploratory endpoints. RESULTS: Overall, 88 patients (38% HFmrEF) were enrolled and randomized to start dapagliflozin on top of OMT (n = 44) or to continue with OMT (n = 44). All STE values improved in the dapagliflozin group after 6 months, whereas there was a nonsignificant improvement in OMT group. Moreover, when comparing the modification of STE parameters at follow-up in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF, only the main treatment effect resulted statistically significant in both groups (P < 0.0001), indicating a significant difference between dapagliflozin and OMT. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided randomized data on the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin in nondiabetic patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF in terms of myocardial performance measured by the most sensitive echocardiographic technique, ie, STE. This suggests its usefulness for left ventricular reverse remodeling and better quality of life in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF. (Effects of Dapagliflozin on cardiac deformation and clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced ejection fraction [DAPA ECHO trial]; EudraCT number: 2021-005394-66).

Heart Failure with Mid-Range or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Era of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors: Do We Now Provide Better Care for the "Middle Child of HF"? Real-World Experience from a Single Clinical Centre.

Heart failure (HF) with mid-range or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is a separate clinical entity in the HF spectrum, with a left ventricular ejection fraction ranging from 40 to 49%. While sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors have become the cornerstone therapy for the entire HF spectrum, there are a few clinical trials of HFmrEF. This prospective observational study was conducted at Dubrava University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia, from May 2021 to October 2023. We recruited 137 participants diagnosed with HFmrEF at admission. The majority were male, with a median age of 72 and overweight. A total of 110 participants were followed for 6 months and LVEF remained the same in the majority of patients (n = 62, 56.4%), improved in 32 patients (29.1%), and decreased in 3 patients (2.73%). A total of 64 participants were followed for 12 months: 39 remained the same (60.94%) and 25 improved. There were 13 deaths in (9.5%). While the empagliflozin group had a lower BMI at 6-month- and lower HbA1c at 12-month follow-up, there were no differences in death, HF hospitalizations, ER visits, or urinary tract infections in between groups. Despite recent and daily advances in the treatment of all HF phenotypes, HFmrEF still represents a challenge in everyday clinical practice.

Prognosis and Treatment Strategies for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVE: The study investigates the prognosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). BACKGROUND: Data concerning the prognostic impact of AF in patients with HFmrEF is scarce. METHODS: Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (i.e., left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Patients with AF were compared to patients without with regard to the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF-related rehospitalization at 30 months (median follow-up). Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier analyses, multivariable Cox proportional regression analyses and propensity score matching. RESULTS: 2,148 patients with HFmrEF were included with an overall prevalence of AF of 43%. The presence of AF was associated with higher risk of the primary composite endpoint all-cause mortality and HF-related rehospitalization at 30 months (HR = 2.068; 95% CI 1.802-2.375; p = 0.01), which was confirmed after propensity-score matching (HR = 1.494; 95% CI 1.216-1.835; p = 0.01). AF was an independent predictor of both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.340; 95% CI 1.066-1.685; p = 0.01) and HF-related rehospitalization (HR = 2.061; 95% CI 1.538-2.696; p = 0.01). Finally, rhythm control may be associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality compared to rate control for AF (HR = 0.342; 95% CI 0.199-0.587; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: AF affects 43% of patients with HFmrEF and represents an independent predictor of adverse long-term prognosis.

By now, limited data regarding the prognostic impact of comorbidities in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is available, contributing to the overall limited evidence regarding the treatment of patients with HFmrEF. The present study investigates the prognostic impact of the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the long-term prognosis of patients with HFmrEF using a large retrospective study of 2,148 patients hospitalized with HFmrEF from 2016 to 2022. AF was prevalent in 43% of patients with HFmrEF and independently associated with an increased risk of the composite of long-term all-cause mortality and HF-related rehospitalization. Adverse prognosis in patients with concomitant AF was confirmed using multivariable Cox regression analyses and propensity score matching. Finally, the achievement of rhythm control may be associated with a lower risk of long-term all-cause mortality. Further studies are needed to demonstrated the effect of rhythm control and catheter ablation for AF in patients with HFmrEF.

Geographical variation in patient characteristics and outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Compared to heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) are increasing in prevalence, yet little is known about the geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes among these two HF phenotypes. The aim of this study was to investigate geographic differences in HFpEF and HFmrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted an individual patient analysis of five clinical trials enrolling patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF from North America (NA), Latin America (LA), Western Europe (WE), Central/Eastern Europe and Russia (CEER), and Asia-Pacific (AP). We compared regions using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models. Among the 19 959 patients included, 4066 (23.1%) had HFmrEF and 15 353 (76.9%) HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, patients from WE were oldest, and those in CEER youngest. LA had the largest portion of females and NA most black patients. Obesity and diabetes were most prevalent in NA and hypertension and coronary heart disease most common in CEER. Self-reported health status varied strikingly and was the worst in NA and best in AP. Among patients with HFmrEF, rates of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) were: NA 12.56 per 100 patient-years (/100py), AP 11.67/100py, CEER 10.12/100py, LA 8.90/100py, and WE 8.43/100py, driven by differences in the rate of HF hospitalization. The corresponding values in HFpEF were 11.47/100py, 7.80/100py, 5.47/100py, 5.92/100py, and 7.80/100py, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes among patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These findings have implications for interpretation and generalizability of trial results, design and conduct of future trials, and optimization of care for these patients.

Effect of severity and etiology of chronic kidney disease in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: The study investigates the prognostic impact of the severity and etiology of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). BACKGROUND: Data regarding the outcomes in patients with CKD in HFmrEF is scarce. METHODS: Consecutive patients with HFmrEF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Prognosis of patients with different stages and etiologies of CKD was investigated with regard to the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality at 30 months. RESULTS: A total of 2155 consecutive patients with HFmrEF were included with an overall prevalence of CKD of 31%. Even milder stages of CKD (i.e., KDIGO stage 3a) were associated with an increased risk of 30-months all-cause mortality (HR = 1.242; 95% CI 1.147-1.346; p = 0.001). However, long-term prognosis did not differ in patients with KDIGO stage 5 compared to patients with stage 4 (HR = 0.886; 95% CI 0.616-1.275; p = 0.515). Furthermore, the highest risk of HF-related rehospitalization was observed in patients with KDIGO stages 3b and 4 (log rank p ≤ 0.015), whereas patients with KDIGO stage 5 had a lower risk of HF-related rehospitalization compared to patients with KDIGO stage 4 (HR = 0.440; 95% CI 0.228-0.849; p = 0.014). In contrast, the etiology of CKD was not associated with the risk of 30-month all-cause mortality (log rank p ≥ 0.347) and HF-related rehospitalization (log rank p ≥ 0.149). CONCLUSION: In patients with HFmrEF, even milder stages of CKD were independently associated with increased risk of 30-months all-cause mortality.

Precision Cardiology: Phenotype-targeted Therapies for HFmrEF and HFpEF.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represent over half of heart failure cases but lack proven effective therapies beyond sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and diuretics. HFmrEF and HFpEF are heterogeneous conditions requiring precision phenotyping to enable tailored therapies. This review covers concepts on precision medicine approaches for HFmrEF and HFpEF. Areas discussed include HFmrEF mechanisms, anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic treatments for obesity-related HFpEF, If inhibition for HFpEF with atrial fibrillation, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism for chronic kidney disease-HFpEF. Incorporating precision phenotyping and matched interventions in HFmrEF and HFpEF trials will further advance therapy compared to blanket approaches.

Characteristics Associated with Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias and Their Prognostic Impact in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Background: The occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias represents an established risk factor of mortality in heart failure (HF). However, data concerning their prognostic impact in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is limited. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate patient characteristics associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias and their prognostic impact in patients with HFmrEF. Methods: Consecutive patients hospitalized with HFmrEF (i.e., left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. The prognosis of patients with HFmrEF and different types of ventricular tachyarrhythmias (i.e., non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (nsVT), sustained VT (sVT), and ventricular fibrillation (VF) was investigated for the primary endpoint of long-term all-cause mortality at 30 months. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital all-cause mortality and long-term HF-related rehospitalization at 30 months. Results: From a total of 2184 patients with HFmrEF, 4.4% experienced ventricular tachyarrhythmias (i.e., 2.0% nsVT, 0.7% sVT, and 1.6% VF). The occurrence of nsVT was associated with higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, whereas the incidence of sVT/VF was associated with acute myocardial infarction and ischemic heart disease. However, nsVT (25.0%; HR = 0.760; 95% CI 0.419-1.380; p = 0.367) and sVT/VF (28.8%; HR = 0.928; 95% CI 0.556-1.549; p = 0.776) were not associated with a higher risk of long-term all-cause mortality compared to patients with HFmrEF without ventricular tachyarrhythmias (31.5%). In-hospital cardiovascular mortality was more frequently observed in patients with HFmrEF and sVT/VF compared to those with HFmrEF but without sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias (7.7% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.004). Finally, the risk of rehospitalization for worsening HF was not affected by the presence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Conclusions: The occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients hospitalized with HFmrEF was low and not associated with long-term prognosis.

Increased epicardial adipose tissue is associated with left atrial mechanical dysfunction in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) is often accompanied by atrial dysfunction. It has been suggested that specific ectopic fat depots, such as epicardial adipose tissue (EAT), may directly influence the myocardial cells and, therefore, be involved in the pathophysiology of atrial mechanical dysfunction. In this study, we aimed to investigate the association between EAT and left atrial (LA) mechanical dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 82 patients with symptomatic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction > 40% were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent CMR while in sinus rhythm. LA mechanical dysfunction was defined as the presence of LA end-systolic volume index > 52 mL/m2 and LA reservoir strain < 23%. EAT volume was indexed for body surface area. Mean age was 69 ± 10 years, 42 (51%) were women and mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 ± 6 kg/m2. Mean LVEF was 55 ± 9% and 34 (41%) patients had LA mechanical dysfunction. In patients with LA mechanical dysfunction, the EAT volume was significantly higher than in patients without LA mechanical dysfunction (90 vs 105 mL/m2, p = 0.02) while BMI was similar. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, increased EAT remained significantly associated with LA mechanical dysfunction (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03-1.66, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Increased EAT was associated with LA mechanical dysfunction in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Further research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms that underlie this association.

The impact of empagliflozin and metformin on cardiac parameters in patients with mid-range ejection fraction heart failure without diabetes.

Heart failure (HF) remains a significant problem for healthcare systems, requiring the use of intervention and multimodal management strategies. We aimed to assess the short-term effect of empagliflozin (EMPA) and metformin on cardiac function parameters, including ventricular dimension-hypertrophy, septal thickness, ejection fraction (EF), and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels in patients with HF and mildly reduced EF. A case-control study included 60 newly diagnosed patients with HF. Patients were divided into two groups: Group E received standard HF treatment (carvedilol, bumetanide, sacubitril-valsartan, spironolactone) plus EMPA 10 mg daily, and Group M received standard HF treatment plus metformin 500 mg daily. After three months of treatment, Group E had a significantly higher EF than Group M compared to initial measurements (a change of 9.2% versus 6.1%, respectively). We found similar results in the left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD), with mean reductions of 0.72 mm for Group E and 0.23 mm for Group M. Regarding cardiac indicators, the level of NT-proBNP was considerably decreased in both groups. However, the reduction was significantly greater in group E than in group M compared to the initial level (mean reduction: 719.9 vs. 973.6, respectively). When combined with quadruple anti-heart failure therapy, metformin enhanced several echocardiographic parameters, showing effects similar to those of EMPA when used in the same treatment regimen. However, the benefits of EMPA were more pronounced, particularly regarding improvements in EF and LVESD.

The Importance of Lung Ultrasound and IGFBP7 (Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein 7) Assessment in Diagnosing Patients with Heart Failure.

Background: In daily practice, there are problems with adequately diagnosing the cause of dyspnea in patients with heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fractions (HFpEF and HFmrEF). This study aimed to assess the usefulness of lung ultrasound in diagnosing HFpEF and HFmrEF and determine its correlation with IGFBP7 (insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7), NTproBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), and echocardiographic markers. Methods: The research was conducted on 143 patients hospitalized between 2018 and 2020, admitted due to dyspnea, and diagnosed with HFpEF and HFmrEF. Venous blood was collected from all participants to obtain basic biochemical parameters, NTproBNP, and IGFBP7. Moreover, all participants underwent echocardiography and transthoracic lung ultrasound. Two years after hospitalization a follow-up telephone visit was performed. Results: The number of B-lines in the LUS ≥ 16 was determined with a sensitivity of-73% and specificity of-62%, indicating exacerbation of heart failure symptoms on admission. The number of B-lines ≥ 14 on admission was determined as a cut-off point, indicating an increased risk of death during the 2-year follow-up period. The factors that significantly impacted mortality in the study patient population were age and the difference between the number of B-lines on ultrasound at admission and at hospital discharge. IGFBP7 levels had no significant effect on the duration of hospitalization, risk of rehospitalization, or mortality during follow-up. Conclusions: Lung ultrasonography provides additional diagnostic value in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF and exacerbation of heart failure symptoms. The number of B-lines ≥ 14 may indicate an increased risk of death.

Effect of anaemia and iron deficiency in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to clarify the prevalence and prognostic impact of anaemia and iron deficiency in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of anaemia and iron deficiency in HFmrEF has not yet been clarified. METHODS: Consecutive patients with HFmrEF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Patients with anaemia (i.e. haemoglobin <13 g/dL in males and < 12 g/dL in females) were compared to patients without, respectively patients with or without iron deficiency. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up), secondary endpoints comprised HF-related rehospitalisation. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred and fifty four patients with HFmrEF with a median haemoglobin level of 12.2 g/dL were included. Anaemia was present in 52% of patients with HFmrEF and associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (44% vs. 18%; HR = 3.021; 95% CI 2.552-3.576; p =.001) and HF-related rehospitalisation (18% vs. 8%; HR = 2.351; 95% CI 1.819-3.040; p =.001) at 30 months, which was confirmed after multivariable adjustment. Although iron status was infrequently assessed in anaemics with HFmrEF (27%), the presence of iron deficiency was associated with higher risk of rehospitalisation for worsening HF (25% vs. 15%; HR = 1.746; 95% CI 1.024-2.976; p =.038), but not all-cause mortality (p =.279) at 30 months. CONCLUSION: Anaemia and iron deficiency are very common in atleast half of patients with HFmrEF and independently associated with adverse long-term prognosis.

Prognostic impact of prior LVEF in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: As there is limited evidence regarding the prognostic impact of prior left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), this study investigates the prognostic impact of longitudinal changes in LVEF in patients with HFmrEF. METHODS: Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (i.e. LVEF 41-49% with signs and/or symptoms of HF) were included retrospectively in a monocentric registry from 2016 to 2022. Based on prior LVEF, patients were categorized into three groups: stable LVEF, improved LVEF, and deteriorated LVEF. The primary endpoint was 30-months all-cause mortality (median follow-up). Secondary endpoints included in-hospital and 12-months all-cause mortality, as well as HF-related rehospitalization at 12 and 30 months. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional regression analyses were applied for statistics. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-nine patients with HFmrEF were included. Compared to their prior LVEF, 24%, 12%, and 64% had stable, improved, and deteriorated LVEF, respectively. None of the three LVEF groups was associated with all-cause mortality at 12 (p ≥ 0.583) and 30 months (31% vs. 37% vs. 34%; log rank p ≥ 0.376). In addition, similar rates of 12- (p ≥ 0.533) and 30-months HF-related rehospitalization (21% vs. 23% vs. 21%; log rank p ≥ 0.749) were observed. These findings were confirmed in multivariable regression analyses in the entire study cohort. CONCLUSION: The transition from HFrEF and HFpEF towards HFmrEF is very common. However, prior LVEF was not associated with prognosis, likely due to the persistently high dynamic nature of LVEF in the follow-up period.

Effect of Heart Failure Pharmacotherapies in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to comprehensively investigate the effect of heart failure (HF) pharmacotherapies in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). BACKGROUND: In the absence of randomized controlled trials, guideline recommendations concerning HF-related therapies in patients with HFmrEF are limited. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized with HFmrEF were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. The prognostic value of treatment with beta-blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, receptor blockers or receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ACEi/ARB/ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) was investigated for all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up) and HF-related rehospitalization. RESULTS: 2,109 patients with HFmrEF were included. Treatment with BB (27.0% vs. 35%; HR = 0.737; 95% CI 0.617-0.881; p = 0.001), ACEi/ARB/ARNI (25.9% vs. 37.6%; HR = 0.612; 95% CI 0.517-0.725; p = 0.001) and SGLT2i (11.9% vs. 29.5%; HR = 0.441; 95% CI 0.236-0.824; p = 0.010) was associated with lower risk of 30-months all-cause mortality, which was still demonstrated after multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching. In contrast, MRA treatment was not associated with long-term prognosis. The risk of HF-related rehospitalization was not affected by HF pharmacotherapies. Finally, the lowest risk of long-term all-cause mortality was observed in patients with combined use of BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and SGLT2i (HR = 0.456; 95% CI 0.227-0.916; p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and SGLT2i were independently associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HFmrEF, specifically when applied as combined "HF triple therapy". Randomized studies are needed to investigate the effect of HF-related pharmacotherapies in patients with HFmrEF.

Although heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) affects one out of four patients with heart failure (HF), limited evidence regarding HF pharmacotherapies for the treatment of patients with HFmrEF is available. The present study investigates the treatment with beta-blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, receptor blockers or receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ACEi/ARB/ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on long-term outcomes using a large registry-based dataset of 2,109 patients hospitalized with HFmrEF. Treatment with BB, ACEi/ARB/ARNI and SGLT2i was independently associated with a lower risk of long-term all-cause mortality, even after multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching, specifically when applied in combination. In contrast, MRA treatment was not associated with outcomes in the present study. The present study supports the evidence that patients with HFmrEF may benefit from HF pharmacotherapies similar than patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Risk of malignant ventricular arrhythmias in patients with mildly to moderately reduced ejection fraction after permanent pacemaker implantation.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with mildly to moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who require permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation do not have a concurrent indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. However, the risk of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) in this population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the risk of VT/VF after PPM implantation in patients with mildly to moderately reduced LVEF. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of 243 patients with LVEF between 35% and 49% who underwent PPM placement and did not meet indications for an ICD. The primary end point was occurrence of sustained VT/VF. Competing risks regression was performed to calculate subhazard ratios for the primary end point. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 27 months; 73% of patients were male, average age was 79 ± 10 years, average LVEF was 42% ± 4%, and 70% were New York Heart Association class II or above. Most PPMs were implanted for sick sinus syndrome (34%) or atrioventricular block (50%). Of 243 total patients, 11 (4.5%) met the primary end point of VT/VF. Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) was associated with significantly higher rates of VT/VF, with a subhazard ratio of 5.4 (95% CI, 1.5-20.1; P = .01). Of patients with multivessel CAD, 8 of 82 (9.8%) patients met the primary end point for an annualized risk of 4.3% per year. CONCLUSION: Patients with mildly to moderately reduced LVEF and multivessel CAD undergoing PPM implantation are at increased risk for the development of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Patients in this population may benefit from additional risk stratification for VT/VF and consideration for upfront ICD implantation.

Prognostic value of mitral valve regurgitation in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although mitral valve regurgitation (MR) is a common valvular heart disease in patients with heart failure (HF), there is a paucity of data on the characterization and outcomes of patients with HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and concomitant MR. METHODS: From 2016 to 2022, consecutive patients hospitalized with HFmrEF (i.e., left ventricular ejection fraction from 41% to 49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution. Patients with MR were compared with patients without MR. Further risk stratification was performed according to MR severity and etiology (i.e., primary vs. secondary MR). The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up), and the key secondary end point was hospitalization for worsening HF. RESULTS: Of 2181 patients hospitalized with HFmrEF, 59% presented with mild, 10% with moderate, and 2% with severe MR. MR was associated with increased all-cause mortality at 30 months (HR = 1.756; 95% CI 1.458-2.114; p = 0.001), with higher risk in more advanced stages. Furthermore, MR patients had higher risk of HF-related re-hospitalization at 30 months (HR = 1.560; 95% CI 1.172-2.076; p = 0.002). Even after multivariable adjustment, mild, moderate, and severe MR were still associated with all-cause mortality. Finally, the risk of all-cause mortality was lower in patients with secondary MR compared with patients with primary MR (HR = 0.592; 95% CI 0.366-0.956; p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: MR is common in HFmrEF and independently associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization.

The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared to Valsartan in Patients with Heart Failure and Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fractions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan improves heart failure (HF) outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have shown inconsistent results. We conducted this meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan within this specific patient population. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE database and ClinicalTrials.gov and identified four RCTs that could be included in our analysis, with 3375 patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 3362 in the valsartan group. Results: Our study shows that, in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to valsartan in some of the key HF outcomes, such as the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ CSS), with a small but significant mean difference of 1.13 (95% confidence interval or CI of 0.15 to 2.11, p-value 0.024), an improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (odds ratio or OR of 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58, p-value 0.002), and the composite outcome of hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular death, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99, p-value 0.04). However, there was no additional benefit with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan for the outcomes of cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality. In terms of side effects, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a higher risk of hypotension when compared to valsartan (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.19, p-value < 0.0001), but did not show an increased risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. Conclusions: In individuals with HFmrEF or HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan can result in improvements in the HF outcomes of the KCCQ CSS, the NYHA class, and the composite outcome of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death when compared to valsartan. While there was a higher risk of hypotension with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan, there was no corresponding increase in the risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function.

Obesity Paradox in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Objective: The study investigates the prognostic impact of body mass index (BMI) in patients hospitalized with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). Background: Limited data regarding the prognostic impact of BMI in patients with HFmrEF is available. Methods: Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (ie, left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Risk stratification was performed according to WHO-defined BMI groups. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up). Kaplan-Meier, uni- and multivariable Cox proportional regression analyses were applied for statistics. Results: 1832 consecutive patients with HFmrEF were included with a median BMI of 26.7 kg/m2 (IQR 24.0-30.8 kg/m2). Patients with lowest BMI (ie, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) were associated with highest risk of all-cause mortality at 30 months compared to patients with higher BMI values (40.0% vs 29.0% vs 21.4% vs 20.9%; log rank p = 0.001; HR = 0.721; 95% CI 0.656-0.793; p = 0.001). Even after multivariable adjustment, higher BMI values were associated with improved survival at 30 months (HR = 0.963; 95% CI 0.943-0.985; p = 0.001). In contrast, the risk of HF- related rehospitalization at 30 months was not affected by BMI (log rank p = 0.064). Conclusion: In patients hospitalized with HFmrEF, lower BMI was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality at 30 months, suggesting an obesity paradox in HFmrEF.