Amr E Abbas1,2, Rami Khoury Abdulla1, Anshul Aggrawal1, Jason Crile1, Steven J Lester3, Judy Boura2. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI, USA. 2. Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Auburn Hills, MI, USA. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Dividing patients with heart failure (HF) based solely on ejection fraction (EF) may over simplify the hemodynamic states of these patients. We describe a novel echo-derived hemodynamic HF model based on flow (stroke volume index [SVI]) and left atrial pressure (E:E') correlates. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients admitted with HF with both reduced (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF). Patients were subdivided into four hemodynamic groups based on echocardiographic SVI (< or ≥35 mL/m2 ) and E/E' (≥ or <15). Group A: normal flow and normal filling pressure, Group B: normal flow but high filling pressure, Group C: low flow and low filling pressure, and Group D: low flow and high filling pressure. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were enrolled, 123 patients had HFrEF and 53 patients had HFpEF. Baseline characteristics were not statistically significant in both groups. In HFrEF, most patients were in group D compared to a heterogeneous distribution in HFpEF (P<.0001). In HFrEF, there was a trend toward an increase in B-type natriuretic peptide levels with a decrease in SVI and increase in E/E' (P=.05) but not in HFpEF. There was no difference in death, major adverse cardiac events, but a higher readmissions rate in the HFpEF group at 30 days and 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic subgroups differ between HFrEF and HFpEF. There is no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events between both groups with increased readmissions in HPpEF patients. Larger studies may help assess the impact of echo-derived hemodynamic state on clinical outcome.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Dividing patients with heart failure (HF) based solely on ejection fraction (EF) may over simplify the hemodynamic states of these patients. We describe a novel echo-derived hemodynamic HF model based on flow (stroke volume index [SVI]) and left atrial pressure (E:E') correlates. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients admitted with HF with both reduced (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF). Patients were subdivided into four hemodynamic groups based on echocardiographic SVI (< or ≥35 mL/m2 ) and E/E' (≥ or <15). Group A: normal flow and normal filling pressure, Group B: normal flow but high filling pressure, Group C: low flow and low filling pressure, and Group D: low flow and high filling pressure. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were enrolled, 123 patients had HFrEF and 53 patients had HFpEF. Baseline characteristics were not statistically significant in both groups. In HFrEF, most patients were in group D compared to a heterogeneous distribution in HFpEF (P<.0001). In HFrEF, there was a trend toward an increase in B-type natriuretic peptide levels with a decrease in SVI and increase in E/E' (P=.05) but not in HFpEF. There was no difference in death, major adverse cardiac events, but a higher readmissions rate in the HFpEF group at 30 days and 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic subgroups differ between HFrEF and HFpEF. There is no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events between both groups with increased readmissions in HPpEF patients. Larger studies may help assess the impact of echo-derived hemodynamic state on clinical outcome.