Andreas P Kalogeropoulos1, Gregg C Fonarow2, Vasiliki Georgiopoulou1, Gregory Burkman3, Sarawut Siwamogsatham4, Akash Patel5, Song Li5, Lampros Papadimitriou6, Javed Butler6. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, Ronald Reagan-UCLA Medical Center, University of California, Los Angeles3Associate Editor for Health Care Quality and Guidelines, JAMA Cardiology. 3. Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia5currently with Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 5. Associate Editor for Health Care Quality and Guidelines, JAMA Cardiology. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia6currently with Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Stony Brook School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Heart failure (HF) guidelines recognize that a subset of patients with HF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) previously had reduced LVEF but experienced improvement or recovery in LVEF. However, data on these patients are limited. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics and outcomes of adult outpatients with HF and improved or recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study (inception period, January 1, 2012, to April 30, 2012) with 3-year follow-up at cardiology clinics (including HF subspecialty) in an academic institution. The dates of the analysis were May 21, 2015, to August 10, 2015. Participants were all outpatients 18 years or older who received care for a verified diagnosis of HF not attributed to specific cardiomyopathies or other special causes during the inception period. EXPOSURES: Type of HF at baseline, classified as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (defined as current LVEF ≤40%), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (defined as current and all previous LVEF reports >40%), and HF with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) (defined as current LVEF >40% but any previously documented LVEF ≤40%). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mortality, hospitalization rates, and composite end points. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 2166 participants. Their median age was 65 years, 41.4% (896 of 2166) were female, 48.7% (1055 of 2166) were white and 45.2% (1368 of 2166) black, and 63.2% (1368 of 2166) had coronary artery disease. Preserved (>40%) LVEF at inception was present in 816 of 2166 (37.7%) patients. Of these patients, 350 of 2166 (16.2%) had previously reduced (≤40%) LVEF and were classified as having HFrecEF, whereas 466 of 2166 (21.5%) had no previous reduced LVEF and were classified as having HFpEF. The remaining 1350 (62.3%) patients were classified as having HFrEF. After 3 years, age and sex-adjusted mortality was 16.3% in patients with HFrEF, 13.2% in patients with HFpEF, and 4.8% in patients with HFrecEF (P < .001 vs HFrEF or HFpEF). Compared with patients with HFpEF and patients with HFrEF, patients with HFrecEF had fewer all-cause (adjusted rate ratio [RR] vs HFpEF, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91; P = .007), cardiovascular (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71; P < .001), and HF-related (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; P = .002) hospitalizations and were less likely to experience composite end points commonly used in clinical trials (death or cardiovascular hospitalization and death or HF hospitalization). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Outpatients with HFrecEF have a different clinical course than patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, with lower mortality, less frequent hospitalizations, and fewer composite end points. These patients may need to be investigated separately in outcomes studies and clinical trials.
IMPORTANCE: Heart failure (HF) guidelines recognize that a subset of patients with HF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) previously had reduced LVEF but experienced improvement or recovery in LVEF. However, data on these patients are limited. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics and outcomes of adult outpatients with HF and improved or recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study (inception period, January 1, 2012, to April 30, 2012) with 3-year follow-up at cardiology clinics (including HF subspecialty) in an academic institution. The dates of the analysis were May 21, 2015, to August 10, 2015. Participants were all outpatients 18 years or older who received care for a verified diagnosis of HF not attributed to specific cardiomyopathies or other special causes during the inception period. EXPOSURES: Type of HF at baseline, classified as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (defined as current LVEF ≤40%), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (defined as current and all previous LVEF reports >40%), and HF with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) (defined as current LVEF >40% but any previously documented LVEF ≤40%). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mortality, hospitalization rates, and composite end points. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 2166 participants. Their median age was 65 years, 41.4% (896 of 2166) were female, 48.7% (1055 of 2166) were white and 45.2% (1368 of 2166) black, and 63.2% (1368 of 2166) had coronary artery disease. Preserved (>40%) LVEF at inception was present in 816 of 2166 (37.7%) patients. Of these patients, 350 of 2166 (16.2%) had previously reduced (≤40%) LVEF and were classified as having HFrecEF, whereas 466 of 2166 (21.5%) had no previous reduced LVEF and were classified as having HFpEF. The remaining 1350 (62.3%) patients were classified as having HFrEF. After 3 years, age and sex-adjusted mortality was 16.3% in patients with HFrEF, 13.2% in patients with HFpEF, and 4.8% in patients with HFrecEF (P < .001 vs HFrEF or HFpEF). Compared with patients with HFpEF and patients with HFrEF, patients with HFrecEF had fewer all-cause (adjusted rate ratio [RR] vs HFpEF, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91; P = .007), cardiovascular (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71; P < .001), and HF-related (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; P = .002) hospitalizations and were less likely to experience composite end points commonly used in clinical trials (death or cardiovascular hospitalization and death or HF hospitalization). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Outpatients with HFrecEF have a different clinical course than patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, with lower mortality, less frequent hospitalizations, and fewer composite end points. These patients may need to be investigated separately in outcomes studies and clinical trials.
Authors: V Katsi; G Georgiopoulos; A Laina; E Koutli; J Parissis; C Tsioufis; P Nihoyannopoulos; D Tousoulis Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Joshua M Hare; Darcy L DiFede; Angela C Rieger; Victoria Florea; Ana M Landin; Jill El-Khorazaty; Aisha Khan; Muzammil Mushtaq; Maureen H Lowery; John J Byrnes; Robert C Hendel; Mauricio G Cohen; Carlos E Alfonso; Krystalenia Valasaki; Marietsy V Pujol; Samuel Golpanian; Eduard Ghersin; Joel E Fishman; Pradip Pattany; Samirah A Gomes; Cindy Delgado; Roberto Miki; Fouad Abuzeid; Mayra Vidro-Casiano; Courtney Premer; Audrey Medina; Valeria Porras; Konstantinos E Hatzistergos; Erica Anderson; Adam Mendizabal; Raul Mitrani; Alan W Heldman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Luigi Adamo; Andrew Perry; Eric Novak; Majesh Makan; Brian R Lindman; Douglas L Mann Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 8.790
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: Raza M Alvi; Anne M Neilan; Noor Tariq; Magid Awadalla; Maryam Afshar; Dahlia Banerji; Adam Rokicki; Connor Mulligan; Virginia A Triant; Markella V Zanni; Tomas G Neilan Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 24.094