4.5 Review

Epidemiology of heart failure: the prevalence of heart failure and ventricular dysfunction in older adults over time. A systematic review

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 242-252

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.483

Keywords

Epidemiology; Heart failure; Left ventricular dysfunction; Prevalence; Trend

Funding

  1. Dutch Heart Foundation (Nederlandse Hartstichting) [2009B048]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The epidemic' of heart failure seems to be changing, but precise prevalence estimates of heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) in older adults, based on adequate echocardiographic assessment, are scarce. Systematic reviews including recent studies on the prevalence of heart failure and LVD are lacking. We aimed to assess the trends in the prevalence of LVD, and heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the older population at large. A systematic electronic search of the databases Medline and Embase was performed. Studies that reported prevalence estimates in community-dwelling people 60years old were included if echocardiography was used to establish the diagnosis. In total, 28 articles from 25 different study populations were included. The median prevalence of systolic and isolated' diastolic LVD was 5.5% (range 3.3-9.2%) and 36.0% (range 15.8-52.8%), respectively. A peak in systolic dysfunction prevalence seems to have occurred between 1995 and 2000. All type' heart failure had a median prevalence rate of 11.8% (range 4.7-13.3%), with fairly stable rates in the last decade and with HFpEF being more common than HFrEF [median prevalence 4.9% (range 3.8-7.4%) and 3.3% (range 2.4-5.8%), respectively]. Both LVD and heart failure remain common in the older population at large. The prevalence of diastolic dysfunction is on the rise and currently higher than that of systolic dysfunction. The prevalence of the latter seems to have decreased in the 21st century.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available