Journal
JACC-HEART FAILURE
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages 747-757Publisher
ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2021.05.007
Keywords
aging; heart failure; HFpEF; physical function; rehabilitation
Categories
Funding
- National Institutes of Health [R01AG045551, R01AG18915, P30AG021332, P30AG028716, U24AG059624]
- Kermit Glenn Phillips II Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine
- Oristano Family Fund at Wake Forest School of Medicine
- Abbott
- American Regent
- Amgen
- AstraZeneca
- Bayer
- Boehringer Ingelheim
- Boston Scientific
- Cytokinetics
- Medtronic
- Merck
- Novartis
- Roche
- Sanofi
- Vifor
- CVRx
- Fibrogen
- NovoNordisk
- Corvia
- Janssen Research and Development
- Lundbeck
- Monteris
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Older patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) had significantly worse impairments at baseline compared to those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and may derive greater benefits from the intervention.
OBJECTIVES This study assessed for treatment interactions by ejection fraction (EF) subgroup (>= 45% [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); vs <45% [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)]). BACKGROUND The REHAB-HF trial showed that an early multidomain rehabilitation intervention improved physical function, frailty, quality-of-life, and depression in older patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). METHODS Three-month outcomes were: Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), 6-min walk distance (6MWD), and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Six-month end points included all-cause rehospitalization and death and a global rank of death, all-cause rehospitalization, and SPPB. Prespecified significance level for interaction was P # 0.1. RESULTS Among 349 total participants, 185 (53%) had HFpEF and 164 (47%) had HFrEF. Compared with HFrEF, HFpEF participants were more often women (61% vs 43%) and had significantly worse baseline physical function, frailty, quality of life, and depression. Although interaction P values for 3-month outcomes were not significant, effect sizes were larger for HFpEF vs HFrEF: SPPB +1.9 (95% CI: 1.1-2.6) vs thorn1.1 (95% CI: 0.3-1.9); 6MWD +40 meters (95% CI: 9 meters-72 meters) vs +27 (95% CI: -6 meters to 59 meters); KCCQ +9 (2-16) vs +6 (-2 to 14). All-cause rehospitalization rate was nominally lower with intervention in HFpEF but not HFrEF [effect size 0.83 (95% CI: 0.64-1.09) vs 0.99 (95% CI: 0.74-1.33); interaction P = 0.40]. There were significantly greater treatment benefits in HFpEF vs HFrEF for all-cause death [interaction P = 0.08; intervention rate ratio 0.63 (95% CI: 0.25-1.61) vs 2.21 (95% CI: 0.78-6.25)], and the global rank end point (interaction P = 0.098) with benefit seen in HFpEF [probability index 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50-0.68)] but not HFrEF. CONCLUSIONS Among older patients hospitalized with ADHF, compared with HFrEF those with HFpEF had significantly worse impairments at baseline and may derive greater benefit from the intervention. (C) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available