Predictors and Prognostic Factors of Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction.

Background: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients who have improved ejection fraction have a better prognosis than those with persistently reduced ejection fraction. This study aimed to analyze the predictors for progression of patients with HFrEF to heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), as well as their characteristics and analyze predictors for prognosis. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1251 patients with HFrEF at baseline, who also had a second echocardiogram ≥ 3 months. After left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reassessment, patients were separated into the HFimpEF group (n = 408) and the persistent HFrEF group (n = 611). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Results: Multivariate logistic regression showed that without history of alcohol consumption (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.78), non-New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.15-0.52), without dilated cardiomyopathy (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.26-0.84), concomitant hypertension (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.02-2.29), ß -blockers use (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.54-3.43), and lower uric acid (OR: 0.999, 95% CI: 0.997-1.000) could predict LVEF improvement. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that HFimpEF patients had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events than HFrEF patients (log Rank p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression found that older age (HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.06), NYHA class III-IV (HR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.28-3.95), concomitant valvular heart disease (HR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.01-3.85), and higher creatinine (HR: 1.003, 95% CI: 1.001-1.004) were independent risk factors for the primary endpoint in HFimpEF patients. Conclusions: HFrEF patients without a history of alcohol consumption, non-NYHA class III-IV, without dilated cardiomyopathy, concomitant hypertension, ß -blockers use, and lower uric acid were more likely to have LVEF improvement. Although the prognosis of HFimpEF patients was better than that of HFrEF patients, older age, NYHA class III-IV, concomitant valvular heart disease, and higher creatinine were still risk factors for cardiovascular events in HFimpEF patients.

Epicardial adipose tissue volume and density are associated with heart failure with improved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (EF, HFimpEF) is a distinct HF subtype, characterized by left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling and myocardial functional recovery. Multiple cardiometabolic factors are implicated in this process. Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT), emerging as an endocrine and paracrine organ, contributes to the onset and progression of HF. However, the relation between EAT and the incidence of HFimpEF is still unclear. METHODS: A total of 203 hospitalized HF patients with reduced EF (HFrEF, LVEF ≤ 40%) who underwent coronary CT angiography (CCTA) during index hospitalization were consecutively enrolled between November 2011 and December 2022. Routine follow-up and repeat echocardiograms were performed. The incidence of HFimpEF was defined as (1) an absolute LVEF improvement ≥ 10% and (2) a second LVEF > 40% (at least 3 months apart). EAT volume and density were semiautomatically quantified on non-enhanced series of CCTA scans. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 8.6 (4.9 ~ 13.3) months, 104 (51.2%) patients developed HFimpEF. Compared with HFrEF patients, HFimpEF patients had lower EAT volume (115.36 [IQR 87.08 ~ 154.78] mL vs. 169.67 [IQR 137.22 ~ 218.89] mL, P < 0.001) and higher EAT density (-74.92 ± 6.84 HU vs. -78.76 ± 6.28 HU, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed lower EAT volume (OR: 0.885 [95%CI 0.822 ~ 0.947]) and higher density (OR: 1.845 [95%CI 1.023 ~ 3.437]) were both independently associated with the incidence of HFimpEF. Subgroup analysis revealed that the association between EAT properties and HFimpEF was not modified by HF etiology. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that lower EAT volume and higher EAT density are associated with development of HFimpEF. Therapies targeted at reducing EAT quantity and improving its quality might provide favorable effects on myocardial recovery in HF patients.

Clinical Perspective of Myocardial Recovery and Improvement: Definitions, Prevalence, and Relevance.

Partial or complete imaging resolution of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has gone by many names in the past few decades, including LV recovery, remission, reverse remodeling, and, most recently, improvement. This phenomenon has been described in a variety of clinical scenarios, including removal of an acute myocardial insult, unloading with durable LV assist devices, and treatment with various devices as well as pharmacotherapies, termed guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Irrespective of definition, systolic improvement is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to persistent systolic dysfunction. In the past few years, systolic improvement has been distinguished from HFrEF as a new clinical entity referred to as HF with improved EF (HFimpEF). Given the relative novelty of this condition, there is a paucity of data with regard to the clinical trajectory and management of this population. In this review, we describe the history of myocardial improvement terminology and explore notable findings that have led to the delineation of HFimpEF. Additionally, we highlight the importance of understanding LV trajectory and the potential opportunity for new GDMT management for clinicians when treating patients with HFimpEF.

Heart failure with improved versus persistently reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: A comparison of the BIOSTAT-CHF (European) study with the ASIAN-HF registry.

AIMS: We investigated the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from BIOSTAT-CHF including patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% at baseline who had LVEF re-assessed at 9 months. HFimpEF was defined as a LVEF >40% and a LVEF ≥10% increase from baseline at 9 months. We validated findings in the ASIAN-HF registry. The primary outcome was a composite of time to HF rehospitalization or all-cause mortality. In BIOSTAT-CHF, about 20% of patients developed HFimpEF, that was associated with a lower primary event rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.97, p = 0.040) and the composite endpoint (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30-0.70, p < 0.001) compared with patients who remained in persistent HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The findings were similar in the ASIAN-HF (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.89, p = 0.024, and HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17-0.48, p < 0.001). Five independently common predictors for HFimpEF in both BIOSTAT-CHF and ASIAN-HF were female sex, absence of ischaemic heart disease, higher LVEF, smaller left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic diameter at baseline. A predictive model combining only five predictors (absence of ischaemic heart disease and left bundle branch block, smaller left ventricular end-systolic and left atrial diameter, and higher platelet count) for HFimpEF in the BIOSTAT-CHF achieved an area under the curve of 0.772 and 0.688 in the ASIAN-HF (due to missing left atrial diameter and platelet count). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 20-30% of patients with HFrEF improved to HFimpEF within 1 year with better clinical outcomes. In addition, the predictive model with clinical predictors could more accurately predict HFimpEF in patients with HFrEF.

Predictors and Long-Term Clinical Impact of Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the characteristics and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a multicenter, consecutive cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, patients with an initial echocardiogram with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and at least 1 follow-up echocardiogram after 14 days and within 2 years of the initial event were considered for analyses. HFimpEF was defined as an initial left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and serial left ventricular ejection fraction >40% with an increase of ≥10% from baseline at follow-up. Independent factors predicting HFimpEF were identified, and clinical outcomes of patients with HFimpEF were compared with those without improvement. From an initial cohort of 10 719 patients with acute myocardial infarction, 191 patients with HFimpEF and 256 patients with non-HFimpEF who had initial and follow-up echocardiographic data were analyzed. The median follow-up duration was 4.5 (interquartile range, 2.9-5.0) years. The factors predicting HFimpEF were lower peak creatine kinase myocardial band, smaller left ventricular dimensions, lower ratio between early mitral inflow velocity and mitral annular early diastolic velocity ', and the use of ß blockers or renin-angiotensin system blockers at discharge. HFimpEF was associated with a significantly decreased risk of all-cause death compared with non-HFimpEF (hazard ratio, 0.377 [95% CI, 0.234-0.609]; P<0.001). In 2-year landmark analysis, these findings were consistent not only before but also after the landmark point. Similar findings were true for cardiovascular death and admission for heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFimpEF after acute myocardial infarction showed distinct clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and were associated with better long-term clinical outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT02806102.

Myocardial Recovery and Relapse in Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction.

Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to discuss myocardial recovery in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to summarize the contemporary insights regarding heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). Recent findings: Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 40%) with improved prognosis can be achieved in one out of three (10-40%) patients with HFrEF treated with guideline-directed medical therapy. Clinical predictors include non-ischemic etiology of HFrEF, less abnormal blood or imaging biomarkers, and lack of specific pathogenic genetic variants. However, a subset of patients may ultimately relapse, suggesting that many patients are merely in remission rather than having fully recovered. Summary: Patients with HFimpEF have improved prognosis but nonetheless remain at risk of relapse and long-term adverse events. Future studies will hopefully chart the natural history of HFimpEF and identify clinical predictors such as blood or novel imaging biomarkers that distinguish subgroups of patients based on differential trajectory and prognosis.

Recurrence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and its risk factors in heart failure with improved ejection fraction patients receiving guideline-directed medical therapy: A trajectory analysis based on echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Despite the better prognosis of heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), remnant cardiovascular risks, including cardiovascular death, rehospitalization, and future deterioration of left ventricular (LV) systolic function, remain in HFimpEF. However, for HFimpEF patients, especially for those receiving guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), the recurrent LV systolic dysfunction and its risk factors is still unclear. METHODS: A total of 1098 HF patients under HF follow-up management system were initially screened. Echocardiography was re-evaluated at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. After exclusion, a total of 203 HFimpEF patients on GDMT were enrolled in our final analysis. Cox regression analysis was conducted to select risk factors. RESULTS: During the 1-year follow-up, a total of 28 (13.8%) patients had recurrent LV systolic dysfunction. The trajectory analysis of echocardiographic parameters illustrated that persistent decline of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and worsening LV remodeling was observed in patients with recurrent LV systolic dysfunction. Multivariable Cox regression analysis identified that ischemic cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, higher left ventricular end-diastolic diameter index (LVEDDI), elevated serum potassium, and a lack of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) treatment were confirmed as independent risk factors for recurrent LV systolic dysfunction. Recurrent LV systolic dysfunction was associated with higher rehospitalization rate. CONCLUSION: In our longitudinal cohort study, almost 14% HFimpEF receiving GDMT suffered recurrent LV systolic dysfunction. Ischemic cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, higher LVEDDI, higher serum potassium, and a lack of SGLT2i therapy were tightly associated with recurrence of LV systolic dysfunction. Relapse of LV systolic dysfunction correlated with poor prognosis.

Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction: Prevalence, Predictors, and Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy.

Recently, a new category of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) has emerged in the classification system. This is defined as the subgroup of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) whose left ventricular ejection fraction has recovered partially or completely, with no specific cut-off values established yet in the guidelines. In our review, we aim to provide an overview of prevalence, predictors, mechanism of remodeling, and management strategies regarding HFimpEF. These patients constitute a sizeable cohort among patients with reduced ejection fraction. Certain patient characteristics including younger age and female gender, absence of comorbid conditions, low levels of biomarkers, and non-ischemic etiology were identified as positive predictors. The heart undergoes significant maladaptive changes post failure leading to adverse remodeling influenced etiology and duration. Goal-directed medical therapy including beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have notably improved cardiac function by inducing reverse remodeling. Despite a more favorable prognosis compared to HFrEF, patients with improved ejection fraction (EF) still face clinical events and reduced quality of life, and remain at risk of adverse outcomes. Although the evidence is scarce, it is advisable to continue treatment modalities despite improvement in EF, including device therapies, to prevent relapse and clinical deterioration. It is imperative to conduct further research to understand the mechanism leading to EF amelioration and establish guidelines to identify and direct management strategies.

Heart failure with improved ejection fraction: Beyond diagnosis to trajectory analysis.

Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction represents a highly treatable cause of heart failure (HF). A substantial proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF;HFrEF) demonstrate improvement in LV systolic function (termed HF with improved EF [HFimpEF]), either spontaneously or when treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Although it is a relatively new HF classification, HFimpEF has emerged in recent years as an important and distinct clinical entity. Improvement in LVEF leads to decreased rates of mortality and adverse HF-related outcomes compared to patients with sustained LV systolic dysfunction (HFrEF). While numerous clinical and imaging factors have been associated with HFimpEF, identification of which patients do and do not improve requires further investigation. In addition, patients improve at different rates, and what determines the trajectory of HFimpEF patients after improvement is incompletely characterized. A proportion of patients maintain improvement in LV systolic function, while others experience a recrudescence of systolic dysfunction, especially with GDMT discontinuation. In this review we discuss the contemporary guideline-recommended classification definition of HFimpEF, the epidemiology of improvement in LV systolic function, and the clinical course of this unique patient population. We also offer evidence-based recommendations for the clinical management of HFimpEF and provide a roadmap for future directions in understanding and improving outcomes in the care of patients with HFimpEF.

Incidence and predictors of heart failure with improved ejection fraction category in a HFrEF patient population.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to assess the incidence and predictive factors of the development of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) category during a 1 year follow-up period in a heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patient population managed in a heart failure outpatient clinic. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study evaluated data from patients enrolled in the Hungarian Heart Failure Registry (HHFR). The incidence and predictive factors of the development of the HFimpEF category after 1 year follow-up were assessed in the group of patients who had HFrEF at baseline. We evaluated the incidence and predictors of the development of HFimpEF after a 1 year follow-up in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF in patients diagnosed within 3 months, between 3 months and 1 year, and beyond 1 year. The predictive factors of the development of HFimpEF were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Of the 833 HFrEF patients enrolled in the HHFR, the development of HFimpEF was observed in 162 patients (19.5%) during 1 year follow-up. In the whole patient population, independent predictors of the development of HFimpEF were female gender [odds ratio (OR): 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-2.96; P < 0.05], non-ischaemic aetiology (OR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.15-3.30; P < 0.05), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) <60 mm (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.18-3.51; P < 0.05). The 1 year incidence of HFimpEF decreased in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF. The incidence of HFimpEF was 27.1% in patients diagnosed within 3 months, 18.4% in patients diagnosed between 3 months and 1 year, and 12.2% in patients diagnosed beyond 1 year. Non-ischaemic aetiology (OR: 4.76; 95% CI: 1.83-12.4; P < 0.01) and QRS width (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94; P < 0.01) for patients diagnosed within 3 months, LVEDD (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; P < 0.05) and left atrial diameter ≤45 mm (OR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.45-20.4; P < 0.05) for patients diagnosed between 3 months and 1 year, and LVEDD < 67 mm (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.07-6.88; P < 0.05) for patients diagnosed beyond 1 year were found to be independent predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, in this HFrEF patient population managed in a heart failure outpatient clinic, the 1 year incidence of HFimpEF was found to be ~20%. The 1 year incidence of HFimpEF decreased in relation to time since diagnosis of HFrEF. The most important predictors of the development of HFimpEF were female sex, non-ischaemic aetiology, narrower QRS width, and smaller diameter of the left ventricle and left atrium.

Predictors of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Improvement in Patients with Early-Stage Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Objectives: To identify the predictors of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and compare the mortality rate between patients with HFrEF and heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). Methods: Patients in a post-acute care program from 2018 to 2021 were enrolled. A series of echocardiograms were arranged during follow-up. Mortality, cardiovascular death and sudden cardiac death events were recorded. A total of 259 patients were enrolled and followed for at least 1 year; 158 (61%) patients fulfilled the criteria of HFimpEF, 87 (33.6%) were defined as having persistent HFrEF, and 14 (5.4%) were defined as having heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction. The patients with HFimpEF and persistent HFrEF were included for analysis. Results: The mean follow-up duration was 1090 ± 414 days, and the median time to LVEF recovery was 159 days (IQR 112-289 days). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that beta-blocker prescription was the only independent predictor of HFimpEF [odds ratio (OR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-4.08, p = 0.03]. Diagnosis of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and QRS duration ≥ 110 ms were negative predictors of HFimpEF (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.88, p = 0.02, and OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.21-0.77, p = 0.005, respectively). The patients with HfimpEF had a significantly better prognosis with lower mortality (hazard ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.08-0.50, log-rank p < 0.001) than the patients with persistent HFrEF. Conclusions: Beta-blocker prescription was an independent predictor of HFimpEF, while the diagnosis of ICM and QRS duration ≥ 110 ms were negative predictors of HFimpEF. Patients with HfimpEF had a significantly lower mortality rate compared to those with persistent HFrEF.

Left Ventricular End-Systolic Diameter May Predict Persistent Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Patients with persistent heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have a poorer prognosis than those with HF with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). However, data on the predictive value of echocardiographic parameters for persistent HFrEF are lacking. We retrospectively studied 443 patients who were diagnosed with HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%) during hospitalization and underwent echocardiography at the 1-year follow-up. We divided them into the 2 groups: HFimpEF (EF > 40%) and persistent HFrEF group at 1-year follow-up, and assessed the predictive value of echocardiographic parameters at discharge for persistent HFrEF. In total, 301/443 patients (68%) were diagnosed with persistent HFrEF and 142/443 (32%) with HFimpEF at the 1-year follow-up. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the persistent HFrEF group had a poorer prognosis than the HFimpEF group (log-rank, P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) had the highest area under the curve (AUC) (0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.75; cutoff value: 55 mm) among various echocardiographic parameters. LVESD was an independent predictor of persistent HFrEF at the 1-year follow-up (odds ratio: 1.07, 95%CI: 1.02-1.12) upon multivariable logistic regression analysis. The incidence of persistent HFrEF was higher in patients with an LVESD ≥ 55 mm than in those with an LVESD < 55 mm (81% versus 55%, Fisher's exact test, P < 0.001). In conclusion, an LVESD (≥ 55 mm) was associated with persistent HFrEF. Focusing on LVESD in daily practice may help clinicians with risk stratification for decision-making regarding management in patients with advanced HF refractory to guideline-directed medical therapy.

Long-term glycemic variability predicts compromised development of heart failure with improved ejection fraction: a cohort study.

Background: A substantial portion of heart failure (HF) patients adherent to guideline-directed medical therapies have experienced improved ejection fraction (EF), termed HFimpEF. Glycemic variability (GV) has emerged as a critical cardiometabolic factor. However, the relation between long-term GV and the incidence of HFimpEF is still unclear. Methods: A total of 591 hospitalized HF patients with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF≤ 40%) admitted from January 2013 to December 2020 were consecutively enrolled. Repeat echocardiograms were performed at baseline and after around 12 months. The incidence of HFimpEF, defined as (1) an absolute EF improvement ≥10% and (2) a second EF > 40% and its association with long-term fasting plasma glucose (FPG) variability were analyzed. Results: During a mean follow-up of 12.2 ± 0.6 months, 218 (42.0%) patients developed HFimpEF. Multivariate analysis showed FPG variability was independently associated with the incidence of HFimpEF after adjustment for baseline HbA1c, mean FPG during follow-up and other traditional risk factors (odds ratio [OR] for highest vs. lowest quartile of CV of FPG: 0.487 [95% CI 0.257~0.910]). Evaluation of GV by alternative measures yielded similar results. Subgroup analysis revealed that long-term GV was associated with HFimpEF irrespective of glycemic levels and diabetic conditions. Conclusions: This study reveals that greater FPG variability is associated with compromised development of HFimpEF. A more stable control of glycemic levels might provide favorable effects on myocardial functional recovery in HF patients even without diabetes.

Long-term impact of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor based on short-term treatment response in heart failure.

AIMS: The long-term effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) remains uncertain in patients who have experienced improvements in left ventricular (LV) systolic function or significant LV reverse remodelling following a certain period of treatment. It is also unclear how ARNI performs in patients who have not shown these improvements. This study aimed to assess the impact of prolonged ARNI use compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with and without significant treatment response after 1 year of heart failure (HF) treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present study enrolled patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who were treated with either ARNI or ACEIs/ARBs within 1 year of undergoing index echocardiography. After 1 year of treatment, patients were reclassified into the following groups: (i) patients with HF with improved ejection fraction and persistent HFrEF and (ii) patients with and without LV reverse remodelling based on the follow-up echocardiography. The effect of ARNI versus that of ACEIs/ARBs in each group was assessed from the time of categorizing into new groups using the composite event of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization. A total of 671 patients with HFrEF (age, 66.4 ± 14.1 years; males, 66.8%) were included, and 133 (19.8%) composite events of death and rehospitalization for HF were observed during the follow-up (median follow-up, 44 [interquartile range, 34-51] months). ARNI had a significantly lower event rate than ACEIs/ARBs in patients with HF with improved ejection fraction (7.0% vs. 30.4%, P = 0.020) and those with persistent HFrEF (17.6% vs. 49.7%, P < 0.001). Irrespective of whether patients exhibited LV reverse remodelling (15.8% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.001) or not (15.0% vs. 54.9%, P < 0.001), ARNIs were associated with a significantly lower event rate than ACEIs/ARBs. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of significant treatment response measured by either LVEF or LV reverse remodelling after 1 year of treatment, the extended utilization of ARNI demonstrated a more favourable prognosis than that of ACEIs/ARBs in patients with HFrEF.

Heart failure patients with improved ejection fraction: Insights from the MECKI score database.

AIMS: Improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction is a major goal of heart failure (HF) treatment. However, data on clinical characteristics, exercise performance and prognosis in HF patients who improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) are scarce. The study aimed to determine whether HFimpEF patients have a distinct clinical phenotype, biology and prognosis than HF patients with persistently reduced ejection fraction (pHFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 7948 patients enrolled in the Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score database were evaluated (median follow-up of 1490 days). We analysed clinical, laboratory, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, exercise, and survival data from HFimpEF (n = 1504) and pHFrEF (n = 6017) patients. The primary endpoint of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death, left ventricular assist device implantation, and urgent heart transplantation. HFimpEF patients had lower HF severity: left ventricular ejection fraction 44.0 [41.0-47.0] versus 29.7 [24.1-34.5]%, B-type natriuretic peptide 122 [65-296] versus 373 [152-888] pg/ml, haemoglobin 13.5 [12.2-14.6] versus 13.7 [12.5-14.7] g/dl, renal function by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation 72.0 [56.7-89.3] versus 70.4 [54.5-85.3] ml/min, peak oxygen uptake 62.2 [50.7-74.1] versus 52.6 [41.8-64.3]% predicted, minute ventilation-to-carbon dioxide output slope 30.0 [26.9-34.4] versus 32.1 [28.0-38.0] in HFimpEF and pHFrEF, respectively (p < 0.001 for all). Cardiovascular mortality rates were 26.6 and 46.9 per 1000 person-years for HFimpEF and pHFrEF, respectively (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that HFimpEF had better a long-term prognosis compared with pHFrEF patients. After adjustment for variables differentiating HFimpEF from pHFrEF, except echocardiographic parameters, the Kaplan-Meier curves showed the same prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure with improved ejection fraction represents a peculiar group of HF patients whose clinical, laboratory, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and exercise characteristics parallel the recovery of systolic function. Nonetheless, these patients remain at risk for adverse outcome.

Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction: Insight into the Variable Nature of Left Ventricular Systolic Function.

The progress of contemporary cardiovascular therapy has led to improved survival in patients with myocardial disease. However, the development of heart failure (HF) represents a common clinical challenge, regardless of the underlying myocardial pathology, due to the severely impaired quality of life and increased mortality comparable with malignant neoplasms. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the main index of systolic function and a key predictor of mortality among HF patients, hence its improvement represents the main indicator of response to instituted therapy. The introduction of complex pharmacotherapy for HF, increased availability of cardiac-implantable electronic devices and advances in the management of secondary causes of HF, including arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, have led to significant increase in the proportion of patients with prominent improvement or even normalization of LVEF, paving the way for the identification of a new subgroup of HF with an improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). Accumulating data has indicated that these patients share far better long-term prognoses than patients with stable or worsening LVEF. Due to diverse HF aetiology, the prevalence of HFimpEF ranges from roughly 10 to 40%, while the search for reliable predictors and genetic associations corresponding with this clinical presentation is under way. As contemporary guidelines focus mainly on the management of HF patients with clearly defined LVEF, the present review aimed to characterize the definition, epidemiology, predictors, clinical significance and principles of therapy of patients with HFimpEF.

Prediction of Left Ventricular Reverse Remodelling: A Mini Review on Clinical Aspects.

Improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients after the first manifestation of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has currently been observed more frequently than it was years ago. This appears to be due to the early initiation of comprehensive HF therapy. According to these observations, a new HF syndrome category, heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), was introduced. In this short review, we present definitions of reverse remodelling, myocardial remission, and myocardial recovery. We provide an overview of clinical research aimed at evaluating reverse remodelling in different populations of patients with HFrEF. Clinical and imaging characteristics and biomarkers identified as predictors of reverse remodelling and improvement of the LVEF are discussed. We also briefly address the current views on the management of patients with HFimpEF. In-depth study and knowledge of the molecular mechanisms underlying the reverse remodelling process may lead to the identification of new individualized therapeutic approaches for HFrEF.

Quality of life in patients with heart failure and improved ejection fraction: one-year changes and prognosis.

AIMS: The criteria for patients with heart failure (HF) and improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) are a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, a ≥10-point increase from baseline LVEF, and a second LVEF measurement >40%. We aimed to (i) assess patients with HF and reduced LVEF (HFrEF) at baseline and compare quality of life (QoL) changes between those that fulfilled and those that did not fulfil the HFimpEF criteria 1 year later and (ii) assess the prognostic role of QoL in patients with HFimpEF. METHODS: We reviewed data from a prospective registry of real-world outpatients with HF that were assessed for LVEF and QoL at a first visit to the HF clinic and 1 year later. QoL was evaluated with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ). The primary prognostic endpoint was the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Baseline and 1-year LVEF and MLWFQ scores were available for 1040 patients with an initial LVEF ≤40% (mean age, 65.2 ± 11.7 years; 75.9% men). The main aetiology was ischaemic heart disease (52.9%), and patients were mostly in New York heart Association Classes II (71.1%) and III (21.6%). At baseline, the mean LVEF was 28.5% ± 7.3, and the mean MLWHFQ score was 30.2 ± 19.5. After 1 year, the mean LVEF increased to 38.0% ± 12.2, and the MLWHFQ scores improved to 17.4 ± 16.0. In 361 patients that fulfilled the HFimpEF criteria (34.7%), significant improvements were observed in both LVEF (from 28.7% ± 6.6 to 50.9% ± 7.6, P < 0.001) and QoL (from 32.9 ± 20.6 to 16.9 ± 16.0, P < 0.001). Patients that did not fulfil the HFimpEF criteria also showed significant improvements in LVEF (from 28.4% ± 7.6 to 31.1% ± 7.9, P < 0.001) and QoL (from 28.7 ± 18.8 to 17.6 ± 15.9, P < 0.001). However, the QoL improvement was significantly higher in the HFimpEF group (-16.0 ± 23.8 vs. -11.1 ± 20.3, P = 0.001), despite the worse mean baseline MLWHFQ score, compared with the non-HFimpEF group (P = 0.001). The 1-year QoL was similar between groups (P = 0.50). The 1-year MLWHFQ score was independently associated with outcomes; the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was 1.02 (95% CI: 1.01-1.03, P = 0.006). In contrast, the QoL improvement (with a cut-off ≥5 points) was not independently associated with the composite outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF showed improved QoL after 1 year, regardless of whether they met the HFimpEF criteria. The similar 1-year QoL perception between groups suggested that factors other than LVEF influenced QoL perception. The 1-year QoL was superior to the QoL change from baseline for predicting prognosis in patients with HFimpEF.

Transient versus persistent improved ejection fraction in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

AIMS: The recent definition of heart failure with improved ejection fraction outlined the importance of the longitudinal assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, long-term progression and outcomes of this subgroup are poorly explored. We sought to assess the LVEF trajectories and their correlations with outcome in non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NICM) with improved ejection fraction (impEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive NICM patients with baseline LVEF ≤40% enrolled in the Trieste Heart Muscle Disease Registry with ≥1 LVEF assessment after baseline were included. ImpEF was defined as a baseline LVEF ≤40%, and second evaluation showing both a ≥10% point increase from baseline LVEF and LVEF >40%. Transient impEF was defined by the documentation of recurrent LVEF ≤40% during follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device (D/HT/LVAD). Among 800 patients, 460 (57%) had impEF (median time to improvement 13 months). Transient impEF was observed in 189 patients (41% of the overall impEF group) and was associated with higher risk of D/HT/LVAD compared with persistent impEF at multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 2.54; 95% confidence interval 1.60-4.04). The association of declining LVEF with the risk of D/HT/LVAD was non-linear, with a steep increase up to 8% points reduction, then remaining stable. CONCLUSIONS: In NICM, a 57% rate of impEF was observed. However, recurrent decline in LVEF was observed in ≈40% of impEF patients and it was associated with an increased risk of D/HT/LVAD.