Peter Rickenbacher1,2, Beat A Kaufmann1, Micha T Maeder3, Alain Bernheim4, Kaatje Goetschalckx5, Otmar Pfister1, Matthias Pfisterer1, Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca1,6. 1. Division of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. 2. Division of Cardiology, Internal Medicine University Department, Kantonsspital Baselland, Bruderholz, Switzerland. 3. Cardiology Division, Kantonsspital St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland. 4. Cardiology Division, Triemli Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland. 5. Cardiology Division, University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium. 6. Department of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: While the conditions of heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF, LVEF < 40%) and preserved (HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 50%) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are well characterized, it is unknown whether patients with HF and mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF, LVEF 40-49%) have to be regarded as a separate clinical entity. The aim of this study was to characterize these three populations and to compare outcome and response to therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The analysis was based on the Trial of Intensified versus standard Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF) comprising a population with established HF including the whole spectrum of LVEF. Of the 622 patients, 108 (17%) were classified as having HFmrEF. This group was in general found to be 'intermediate' regarding clinical characteristics with a comparable and high burden of comorbidities and equally impaired quality of life but was more likely to have coronary artery disease as compared with the HFpEF group. During a median follow-up of 794 days, mortality was 39.7% without significant differences between groups. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided as compared with standard therapy resulted in improved survival free of HF hospitalizations in HFrEF and HFmrEF, but not in HFpEF. CONCLUSION: Although the 'intermediate' clinical profile of HFmrEF between HFrEF and HFpEF would support the conclusion that HFmrEF is a distinct clinical entity, we hypothesize that HFmrEF has to be categorized as HFrEF because of the high prevalence of coronary artery disease and the similar benefit of NT-proBNP-guided therapy in HFrEF and HFmrEF, in contrast to HFpEF.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: While the conditions of heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF, LVEF < 40%) and preserved (HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 50%) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are well characterized, it is unknown whether patients with HF and mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF, LVEF 40-49%) have to be regarded as a separate clinical entity. The aim of this study was to characterize these three populations and to compare outcome and response to therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The analysis was based on the Trial of Intensified versus standard Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF) comprising a population with established HF including the whole spectrum of LVEF. Of the 622 patients, 108 (17%) were classified as having HFmrEF. This group was in general found to be 'intermediate' regarding clinical characteristics with a comparable and high burden of comorbidities and equally impaired quality of life but was more likely to have coronary artery disease as compared with the HFpEF group. During a median follow-up of 794 days, mortality was 39.7% without significant differences between groups. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided as compared with standard therapy resulted in improved survival free of HF hospitalizations in HFrEF and HFmrEF, but not in HFpEF. CONCLUSION: Although the 'intermediate' clinical profile of HFmrEF between HFrEF and HFpEF would support the conclusion that HFmrEF is a distinct clinical entity, we hypothesize that HFmrEF has to be categorized as HFrEF because of the high prevalence of coronary artery disease and the similar benefit of NT-proBNP-guided therapy in HFrEF and HFmrEF, in contrast to HFpEF.
Authors: Gilson Soares Feitosa-Filho; José Maria Peixoto; José Elias Soares Pinheiro; Abrahão Afiune Neto; Afonso Luiz Tavares de Albuquerque; Álvaro César Cattani; Amit Nussbacher; Ana Amelia Camarano; Angela Hermínia Sichinels; Antonio Carlos Sobral Sousa; Aristóteles Comte de Alencar Filho; Claudia F Gravina; Dario Celestino Sobral Filho; Eduardo Pitthan; Elisa Franco de Assis Costa; Elizabeth da Rosa Duarte; Elizabete Viana de Freitas; Emilio Hideyuki Moriguchi; Evandro Tinoco Mesquita; Fábio Fernandes; Gilson Soares Feitosa; Humberto Pierre; Ilnei Pereira Filho; Izo Helber; Jairo Lins Borges; Jéssica Myrian de Amorim Garcia; José Antonio Gordillo de Souza; José Carlos da Costa Zanon; Josmar de Castro Alves; Kalil Lays Mohallem; Laura Mariana de Siqueira Mendonça Chaves; Lídia Ana Zytynski Moura; Márcia Cristina Amélia da Silva; Maria Alice de Vilhena Toledo; Maria Elisa Lucena Sales de Melo Assunção; Mauricio Wajngarten; Mauro José Oliveira Gonçalves; Neuza Helena Moreira Lopes; Nezilour Lobato Rodrigues; Paulo Roberto Pereira Toscano; Pedro Rousseff; Ricardo Antonio Rosado Maia; Roberto Alexandre Franken; Roberto Dischinger Miranda; Roberto Gamarski; Ronaldo Fernandes Rosa; Silvio Carlos de Moraes Santos; Siulmara Cristina Galera; Stela Maris da Silva Grespan; Teresa Cristina Rogerio da Silva; William Antonio de Magalhães Esteves Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 2.000
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