Xiaojing Chen1,2, Gianluigi Savarese3, Ulf Dahlström4, Lars H Lund4,5, Michael Fu6. 1. Department of Cardiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. chenxiaojing_058@163.com. 2. Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. chenxiaojing_058@163.com. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Cardiology and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 5. Heart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HFmrEF has been recently proposed as a distinct HF phenotype. How HFmrEF differs from HFrEF and HFpEF according to age remains poorly defined. We aimed to investigate age-dependent differences in heart failure with mid-range (HFmrEF) vs. preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: 42,987 patients, 23% with HFpEF, 22% with HFmrEF and 55% with HFrEF, enrolled in the Swedish heart failure registry were studied. HFpEF prevalence strongly increased, whereas that of HFrEF strongly decreased with higher age. All cardiac comorbidities and most non-cardiac comorbidities increased with aging, regardless of the HF phenotype. Notably, HFmrEF resembled HFrEF for ischemic heart disease prevalence in all age groups, whereas regarding hypertension it was more similar to HFpEF in age ≥ 80 years, to HFrEF in age < 65 years and intermediate in age 65-80 years. All-cause mortality risk was higher in HFrEF vs. HFmrEF for all age categories, whereas HFmrEF vs. HFpEF reported similar risk in ≥ 80 years old patients and lower risk in < 65 and 65-80 years old patients. Predictors of mortality were more likely cardiac comorbidities in HFrEF but more likely non-cardiac comorbidities in HFpEF and HFmrEF with < 65 years. Differences among HF phenotypes for comorbidities were less pronounced in the other age categories. CONCLUSION: HFmrEF appeared as an intermediate phenotype between HFpEF and HFrEF, but for some characteristics such as ischemic heart disease more similar to HFrEF. With aging, HFmrEF resembled more HFpEF. Prognosis was similar in HFmrEF vs. HFpEF and better than in HFrEF.
BACKGROUND: HFmrEF has been recently proposed as a distinct HF phenotype. How HFmrEF differs from HFrEF and HFpEF according to age remains poorly defined. We aimed to investigate age-dependent differences in heart failure with mid-range (HFmrEF) vs. preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: 42,987 patients, 23% with HFpEF, 22% with HFmrEF and 55% with HFrEF, enrolled in the Swedish heart failure registry were studied. HFpEF prevalence strongly increased, whereas that of HFrEF strongly decreased with higher age. All cardiac comorbidities and most non-cardiac comorbidities increased with aging, regardless of the HF phenotype. Notably, HFmrEF resembled HFrEF for ischemic heart disease prevalence in all age groups, whereas regarding hypertension it was more similar to HFpEF in age ≥ 80 years, to HFrEF in age < 65 years and intermediate in age 65-80 years. All-cause mortality risk was higher in HFrEF vs. HFmrEF for all age categories, whereas HFmrEF vs. HFpEF reported similar risk in ≥ 80 years old patients and lower risk in < 65 and 65-80 years old patients. Predictors of mortality were more likely cardiac comorbidities in HFrEF but more likely non-cardiac comorbidities in HFpEF and HFmrEF with < 65 years. Differences among HF phenotypes for comorbidities were less pronounced in the other age categories. CONCLUSION: HFmrEF appeared as an intermediate phenotype between HFpEF and HFrEF, but for some characteristics such as ischemic heart disease more similar to HFrEF. With aging, HFmrEF resembled more HFpEF. Prognosis was similar in HFmrEF vs. HFpEF and better than in HFrEF.
Authors: Michael Ross MacDonald; Pang Ping Wee; Yan Cao; Dong Mei Yang; Sheldon Lee; Khim Leng Tong; Kui Toh Gerard Leong Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jennifer E Ho; Danielle Enserro; Frank P Brouwers; Jorge R Kizer; Sanjiv J Shah; Bruce M Psaty; Traci M Bartz; Rajalakshmi Santhanakrishnan; Douglas S Lee; Cheeling Chan; Kiang Liu; Michael J Blaha; Hans L Hillege; Pim van der Harst; Wiek H van Gilst; Willem J Kop; Ron T Gansevoort; Ramachandran S Vasan; Julius M Gardin; Daniel Levy; John S Gottdiener; Rudolf A de Boer; Martin G Larson Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Aude Angelini; Jesus Ortiz-Urbina; JoAnn Trial; Anilkumar K Reddy; Anna Malovannaya; Antrix Jain; Mark L Entman; George E Taffet; Katarzyna A Cieslik Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 5.125
Authors: Yuntao Chen; Adriaan A Voors; Tiny Jaarsma; Chim C Lang; Iziah E Sama; K Martijn Akkerhuis; Eric Boersma; Hans L Hillege; Douwe Postmus Journal: BMC Med Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 8.775