Anupam Basuray1, Benjamin French2, Bonnie Ky2, Esther Vorovich2, Caroline Olt2, Nancy K Sweitzer2, Thomas P Cappola2, James C Fang2. 1. From the University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, OH (A.B., J.C.F.); Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH (A.B.); Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (B.F., B.K.) and Penn Cardiovascular Institute (B.F., B.K., E.V., C.O., T.P.C.), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson (N.K.S.); and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (J.C.F.). anupambasuray@gmail.com. 2. From the University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, OH (A.B., J.C.F.); Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH (A.B.); Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (B.F., B.K.) and Penn Cardiovascular Institute (B.F., B.K., E.V., C.O., T.P.C.), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson (N.K.S.); and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (J.C.F.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that patients with heart failure (HF) who recover left ventricular function (HF-Recovered) have a distinct clinical phenotype, biology, and prognosis compared with patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) and those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Penn Heart Failure Study (PHFS) is a prospective cohort of 1821 chronic HF patients recruited from tertiary HF clinics. Participants were divided into 3 categories based on echocardiograms: HF-REF if EF was <50%, HF-PEF if EF was consistently ≥50%, and HF-Recovered if EF on enrollment in PHFS was ≥50% but prior EF was <50%. A significant portion of HF-Recovered patients had an abnormal biomarker profile at baseline, including 44% with detectable troponin I, although in comparison, median levels of brain natriuretic factor, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase receptor-1, troponin I, and creatinine were greater in HF-REF and HF-PEF patients. In unadjusted Cox models over a maximum follow-up of 8.9 years, the hazard ratio for death, transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement in HF-REF patients was 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.8; P<0.001) and in HF-PEF patients was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.5; P=0.013) compared with HF-Recovered patients. The unadjusted hazard ratio for cardiac hospitalization in HF-REF patients was 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.7; P<0.001) and in HF-PEF patients was 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-2.0; P=0.15) compared with HF-Recovered patients. Results were similar in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: HF-Recovered is associated with a better biomarker profile and event-free survival than HF-REF and HF-PEF. However, these patients still have abnormalities in biomarkers and experience a significant number of HF hospitalizations, suggesting persistent HF risk.
BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that patients with heart failure (HF) who recover left ventricular function (HF-Recovered) have a distinct clinical phenotype, biology, and prognosis compared with patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) and those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Penn Heart Failure Study (PHFS) is a prospective cohort of 1821 chronic HF patients recruited from tertiary HF clinics. Participants were divided into 3 categories based on echocardiograms: HF-REF if EF was <50%, HF-PEF if EF was consistently ≥50%, and HF-Recovered if EF on enrollment in PHFS was ≥50% but prior EF was <50%. A significant portion of HF-Recovered patients had an abnormal biomarker profile at baseline, including 44% with detectable troponin I, although in comparison, median levels of brain natriuretic factor, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase receptor-1, troponin I, and creatinine were greater in HF-REF and HF-PEF patients. In unadjusted Cox models over a maximum follow-up of 8.9 years, the hazard ratio for death, transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement in HF-REF patients was 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.8; P<0.001) and in HF-PEF patients was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.5; P=0.013) compared with HF-Recovered patients. The unadjusted hazard ratio for cardiac hospitalization in HF-REF patients was 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.7; P<0.001) and in HF-PEF patients was 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-2.0; P=0.15) compared with HF-Recovered patients. Results were similar in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: HF-Recovered is associated with a better biomarker profile and event-free survival than HF-REF and HF-PEF. However, these patients still have abnormalities in biomarkers and experience a significant number of HF hospitalizations, suggesting persistent HF risk.
Authors: Martin G St John Sutton; Ted Plappert; William T Abraham; Andrew L Smith; David B DeLurgio; Angel R Leon; Evan Loh; Dusan Z Kocovic; Westby G Fisher; Myrvin Ellestad; John Messenger; Kristin Kruger; Kathryn E Hilpisch; Michael R S Hill Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-03-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M A Konstam; M F Rousseau; M W Kronenberg; J E Udelson; J Melin; D Stewart; N Dolan; T R Edens; S Ahn; D Kinan Journal: Circulation Date: 1992-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J J Bax; D Poldermans; A Elhendy; J H Cornel; E Boersma; R Rambaldi; J R Roelandt; P M Fioretti Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: M Packer; W S Colucci; J D Sackner-Bernstein; C S Liang; D A Goldscher; I Freeman; M L Kukin; V Kinhal; J E Udelson; M Klapholz; S S Gottlieb; D Pearle; R J Cody; J J Gregory; N E Kantrowitz; T H LeJemtel; S T Young; M A Lukas; N H Shusterman Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-12-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John P Boehmer; Randall C Starling; Leslie T Cooper; Guillermo Torre-Amione; Ilan Wittstein; G William Dec; David W Markham; Mark J Zucker; John Gorcsan; Charles McTiernan; Kevin Kip; Dennis M McNamara Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Kevin Luk; Abeer Bakhsh; Nadia Giannetti; Eleanor Elstein; Mark Lathrop; George Thanassoulis; James C Engert Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Selcuk Adabag; Kristen K Patton; Alfred E Buxton; Thomas S Rector; Kristine E Ensrud; Kairav Vakil; Wayne C Levy; Jeanne E Poole Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Benjamin French; Le Wang; Bonnie Ky; Jeffrey Brandimarto; Anupam Basuray; James C Fang; Nancy K Sweitzer; Thomas P Cappola Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 5.712