4.5 Article

A comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure with preserved versus mildly reduced versus reduced ejection fraction - insights from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 335-350

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.2408

Keywords

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction; Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction; Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; Treatment; Hospitalization; Prognosis

Funding

  1. Abbott Vascular Int.
  2. Amgen Cardiovascular
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Bayer AG
  5. Boehringer Ingelheim
  6. Boston Scientific
  7. Bristol Myers Squibb
  8. Pfizer Alliance
  9. Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH
  10. Alliance Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH
  11. Eli Lilly and Company
  12. Edwards
  13. Gedeon Richter Plc.
  14. Menarini Int. Op.
  15. MSD-Merck Co.
  16. Novartis Pharma AG
  17. ResMed
  18. Servier
  19. Vifor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study provides a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction. The results show differences in hospitalization reasons, characteristics, treatment, and post-discharge risks among the three types.
Aims To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (similar to 80%) and nitrate (similar to 15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39- 46); HF hospitalization 29 (27- 32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6- 8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17). Conclusion In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk. [GRAPHICS] Acute heart failure in patients with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): admission profiles, in-hospital treatment and outcomes.

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