Is heart failure with mid range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) a distinct clinical entity or an overlap group?

Jessica Webb; Jane Draper; Lauren Fovargue; Ben Sieniewicz; Justin Gould; Simon Claridge; Carys Barton; Silapiya Smith; Kristin Tondel; Ronak Rajani; Stamatis Kapetanakis; Christopher A. Rinaldi; Theresa A. McDonagh; Reza Razavi; Gerald Carr-White

doi:10.1016/j.ijcha.2018.06.001

Is heart failure with mid range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) a distinct clinical entity or an overlap group?

Jessica Webb^*, Jane Draper, Lauren Fovargue, Ben Sieniewicz, Justin Gould, Simon Claridge, Carys Barton, Silapiya Smith, Kristin Tondel, Ronak Rajani, Stamatis Kapetanakis, Christopher A. Rinaldi, Theresa A. McDonagh, Reza Razavi, Gerald Carr-White

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The new category of heart failure (HF), Heart Failure with mid range Ejection Fraction (HFmrEF) has recently been proposed with recent publications reporting that HFmrEF represents a transitional phase. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with HFmrEF and to establish what proportion of patients transitioned to other types of HF, and how this affected clinical outcomes. Methods and results: Patients were diagnosed with HF according to the 2016 ESC guidelines. Clinical outcomes and variables were recorded for all consecutive in-patients referred to the heart failure service. In total, 677 patients with new HF were identified; 25.6% with HFpEF, 21% with HFmrEF and 53.5% with HFrEF. While clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of HFmrEF were intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF, HFmrEF patients had the best outcome, with higher mortality in the HFrEF population (p 0.02) and higher HF rehospitalisation rates in the HFpEF population (p < 0.01). 38.7% of the HFmrEF patients transitioned (56.4% to HFpEF and 43.6% to HFrEF) with fewest deaths in the patients that transitioned to HFpEF (p 0.04), and fewest HF readmissions in the patients that remained as HFmrEF (<0.01) Conclusion: HFmrEF patients had the best outcomes, compared to high rates of mortality seen in patients with HFrEF and high rates of HF readmissions seen in patients with HFpEF. Only 1/3 of HFmrEF patients transitioned during follow up, with the lowest mortality seen in patients transitioning to HFpEF.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-6
Number of pages	6
Journal	IJC Heart and Vasculature
Volume	21
Early online date	6 Sept 2018
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2018.06.001
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2018

Keywords

HFmrEF, Heart Failure with mid range Ejection Fraction
HFpEF, Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction
HFrEF, Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction
NTproBNP, N terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide
Transition

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ijcha.2018.06.001

Cite this

Webb, J., Draper, J., Fovargue, L., Sieniewicz, B., Gould, J., Claridge, S., Barton, C., Smith, S., Tondel, K., Rajani, R., Kapetanakis, S., Rinaldi, C. A., McDonagh, T. A., Razavi, R., & Carr-White, G. (2018). Is heart failure with mid range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) a distinct clinical entity or an overlap group? IJC Heart and Vasculature, 21, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2018.06.001

@article{ea1798e9df0b4fb9b9d235e38547d39c,

title = "Is heart failure with mid range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) a distinct clinical entity or an overlap group?",

abstract = "Background: The new category of heart failure (HF), Heart Failure with mid range Ejection Fraction (HFmrEF) has recently been proposed with recent publications reporting that HFmrEF represents a transitional phase. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with HFmrEF and to establish what proportion of patients transitioned to other types of HF, and how this affected clinical outcomes. Methods and results: Patients were diagnosed with HF according to the 2016 ESC guidelines. Clinical outcomes and variables were recorded for all consecutive in-patients referred to the heart failure service. In total, 677 patients with new HF were identified; 25.6% with HFpEF, 21% with HFmrEF and 53.5% with HFrEF. While clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of HFmrEF were intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF, HFmrEF patients had the best outcome, with higher mortality in the HFrEF population (p 0.02) and higher HF rehospitalisation rates in the HFpEF population (p < 0.01). 38.7% of the HFmrEF patients transitioned (56.4% to HFpEF and 43.6% to HFrEF) with fewest deaths in the patients that transitioned to HFpEF (p 0.04), and fewest HF readmissions in the patients that remained as HFmrEF (<0.01) Conclusion: HFmrEF patients had the best outcomes, compared to high rates of mortality seen in patients with HFrEF and high rates of HF readmissions seen in patients with HFpEF. Only 1/3 of HFmrEF patients transitioned during follow up, with the lowest mortality seen in patients transitioning to HFpEF.",

keywords = "HFmrEF, Heart Failure with mid range Ejection Fraction, HFpEF, Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction, HFrEF, Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction, NTproBNP, N terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, Transition",

author = "Jessica Webb and Jane Draper and Lauren Fovargue and Ben Sieniewicz and Justin Gould and Simon Claridge and Carys Barton and Silapiya Smith and Kristin Tondel and Ronak Rajani and Stamatis Kapetanakis and Rinaldi, {Christopher A.} and McDonagh, {Theresa A.} and Reza Razavi and Gerald Carr-White",

year = "2018",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.ijcha.2018.06.001",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

pages = "1--6",

journal = "IJC Heart and Vasculature",

issn = "2352-9067",