Wilson Nadruz1, Erin West1, Mário Santos1, Hicham Skali1, John D Groarke1, Daniel E Forman1, Amil M Shah2. 1. From the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA (W.N., E.W., H.S., J.D.G., A.M.S.); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil (W.N.); Department of Physiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (M.S.); and Department of Medicine, Section of Geriatric Cardiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, PA (D.E.F.). 2. From the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA (W.N., E.W., H.S., J.D.G., A.M.S.); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil (W.N.); Department of Physiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (M.S.); and Department of Medicine, Section of Geriatric Cardiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, PA (D.E.F.). ashah11@partners.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based therapies for heart failure (HF) differ significantly according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, few data are available on the phenotype and prognosis of patients with HF with midrange LVEF of 40% to 55%, and the impact of recovered systolic function on the clinical features, functional capacity, and outcomes of this population is not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 944 patients with HF who underwent clinically indicated cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The study population was categorized according to LVEF as follows: HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF<40%; n=620); HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (LVEF was consistent between 40% and 55%; n=107); HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction (LVEF, 40%-55% but previous LVEF<40%; n=170); and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF; LVEF>55%; n=47). HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction and HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had similar clinical characteristics, which were intermediate between those of HFrEF and HFpEF, and comparable values of predicted peak oxygen consumption and minute-ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, which were better than HFrEF and similar to HFpEF. After a median of 4.4 (2.9-5.7) years, there were 253 composite events (death, left ventricular assistant device implantation, or transplantation). In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had lower risk of composite events than HFrEF (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) and HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.67), and similar prognosis when compared with HFpEF. In contrast, HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction tended to show intermediate risk of outcomes in comparison with HFpEF and HFrEF, albeit not reaching statistical significance in fully adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF with midrange LVEF demonstrate a distinct clinical profile from HFpEF and HFrEF patients, with objective measures of functional capacity similar to HFpEF. Within the midrange LVEF HF population, recovered systolic function is a marker of more favorable prognosis.
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based therapies for heart failure (HF) differ significantly according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, few data are available on the phenotype and prognosis of patients with HF with midrange LVEF of 40% to 55%, and the impact of recovered systolic function on the clinical features, functional capacity, and outcomes of this population is not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 944 patients with HF who underwent clinically indicated cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The study population was categorized according to LVEF as follows: HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF<40%; n=620); HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (LVEF was consistent between 40% and 55%; n=107); HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction (LVEF, 40%-55% but previous LVEF<40%; n=170); and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF; LVEF>55%; n=47). HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction and HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had similar clinical characteristics, which were intermediate between those of HFrEF and HFpEF, and comparable values of predicted peak oxygen consumption and minute-ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, which were better than HFrEF and similar to HFpEF. After a median of 4.4 (2.9-5.7) years, there were 253 composite events (death, left ventricular assistant device implantation, or transplantation). In multivariable Cox-regression analysis, HF with recovered midrange ejection fraction had lower risk of composite events than HFrEF (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.47) and HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.67), and similar prognosis when compared with HFpEF. In contrast, HF with midrange ejection fraction and no recovered ejection fraction tended to show intermediate risk of outcomes in comparison with HFpEF and HFrEF, albeit not reaching statistical significance in fully adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with HF with midrange LVEF demonstrate a distinct clinical profile from HFpEF and HFrEF patients, with objective measures of functional capacity similar to HFpEF. Within the midrange LVEF HF population, recovered systolic function is a marker of more favorable prognosis.
Authors: Scott D Solomon; Nagesh Anavekar; Hicham Skali; John J V McMurray; Karl Swedberg; Salim Yusuf; Christopher B Granger; Eric L Michelson; Duolao Wang; Stuart Pocock; Marc A Pfeffer Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-12-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John S Gottdiener; Robyn L McClelland; Robert Marshall; Lynn Shemanski; Curt D Furberg; Dalane W Kitzman; Mary Cushman; Joseph Polak; Julius M Gardin; Bernard J Gersh; Gerard P Aurigemma; Teri A Manolio Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: James B Young; Mark E Dunlap; Marc A Pfeffer; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Alain Cohen-Solal; Rainer Dietz; Christopher B Granger; Jaromir Hradec; Jerzy Kuch; Robert S McKelvie; John J V McMurray; Eric L Michelson; Bertil Olofsson; Jan Ostergren; Peter Held; Scott D Solomon; Salim Yusuf; Karl Swedberg Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-10-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kun-Lun He; Daniel Burkhoff; Wen-Xiu Leng; Zhi-Ru Liang; Li Fan; Jie Wang; Mathew S Maurer Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Gregg C Fonarow; Wendy Gattis Stough; William T Abraham; Nancy M Albert; Mihai Gheorghiade; Barry H Greenberg; Christopher M O'Connor; Jie Lena Sun; Clyde W Yancy; James B Young Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-08-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nancy K Sweitzer; Margarita Lopatin; Clyde W Yancy; Roger M Mills; Lynne W Stevenson Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Vijeta Bhambhani; Jorge R Kizer; Joao A C Lima; Pim van der Harst; Hossein Bahrami; Matthew Nayor; Christopher R de Filippi; Danielle Enserro; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Thomas J Wang; Ron T Gansevoort; Caroline S Fox; Hanna K Gaggin; Willem J Kop; Kiang Liu; Ramachandran S Vasan; Bruce M Psaty; Douglas S Lee; Frank P Brouwers; Hans L Hillege; Traci M Bartz; Emelia J Benjamin; Cheeling Chan; Matthew Allison; Julius M Gardin; James L Januzzi; Daniel Levy; David M Herrington; Wiek H van Gilst; Alain G Bertoni; Martin G Larson; Rudolf A de Boer; John S Gottdiener; Sanjiv J Shah; Jennifer E Ho Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Frank Kramer; Javed Butler; Sanjiv J Shah; Christian Jung; Savina Nodari; Stephan Rosenkranz; Michele Senni; Luke Bamber; Stephan Cichos; Chrysanthi Dori; Toeresin Karakoyun; Gabriele Jenny Köhler; Kinjal Patel; Paolo Piraino; Thomas Viethen; Praneeth Chennuru; Ayse Paydar; Jason Sims; Richard Clark; Rob van Lummel; Alexandra Müller; Chad Gwaltney; Salko Smajlovic; Hans-Dirk Düngen; Wilfried Dinh Journal: Digit Biomark Date: 2020-06-30
Authors: Luigi Adamo; Jinsheng Yu; Cibele Rocha-Resende; Ali Javaheri; Richard D Head; Douglas L Mann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Wilson Nadruz; Erin West; Morten Sengeløv; Gabriela L Grove; Mário Santos; John D Groarke; Daniel E Forman; Brian Claggett; Hicham Skali; Anju Nohria; Amil M Shah Journal: Heart Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 5.994