Stroke Volume/physiology

IJCS

Editorial

The Ejection Fraction Returns to Hyde Park Session's Speakers' Corner

Wolney de Andrade Martins et al. Antonio José Lagoeiro Jorge

The ejection fraction returns to Hyde Park Session’s Speakers’ Corner

About two decades ago, the Heart Failure Society of America created the Hyde Park Session at its annual meeting. The analogy with the free and innovative proposals that took place in the historic London park were transposed to that scientific event. One of the first proposals made there was the extinction of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as if it was an absolutist tyrant determining the life of his/her subjects. The proposition took no breath. The overwhelming majority of heart failure (HF) trials used LVEF as an inclusion criterion. The cutoff points varied. Magical numbers had little pathophysiological or clinical foundation. LVEF was measured by noninvasive methods, especially echocardiography, with high intra-and inter-examiner variability, dependent on preload and afterload changes.

Later, in 2001, a clinical entity was recognized, where acute pulmonary edema of cardiogenic cause occurred despite LVEF at levels above 50%. The following years saw incredulous initial acceptance until the epidemiological and clinical characterization of what we today call “heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).” From rare, it became frequent, especially in primary care. Considered benign, the prognosis became almost as reserved as heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). There were different proposals for diagnosis, prognostic scores, but such evolution in the knowledge of HFpEF resulted in a frustrating succession of negative therapeutic trials.

[…]

Ler artigo completo

IJCS

Original Article

Decompensated Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction: Epidemiology and In-Hospital Mortality Risk Factors

Gabriela Paiva Cavalcanti et al. Camila Sarteschi Glory Eithne Sarinho Gomes Carolina de Araújo Medeiros … José Henrique Martins Pimentel André Rabelo Lafayette Maria Celita Almeida Paulo Sérgio Rodrigues Oliveira Silvia Marinho Martins

Abstract

Background:

Recently, a new HF entity, with LVEF between 40-49%, was presented to comprehend and seek better therapy for HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF) and borderline, in the means that HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF) already has well-defined therapy in the literature.

Objective:

To compare the clinical-therapeutic profile of patients with HF with mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF) with HFpEF and HFrEF and to verify predictors of hospital mortality.

Method:

Historical cohort of patients admitted with decompensated HF at a supplementary hospital in Recife/PE between April/2007 – August/2017, stratified by LVEF (< 40%/40 – 49/≥ 50%), based on the guideline of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2016. The groups were compared and Logistic Regression was used to identify predictors of independent risk for in-hospital death.

Results:

A sample of 493 patients, most with HFrEF (43%), HFpEF (30%) and HFmrEF (26%). Average age of 73 (± 14) years, 59% men. Hospital mortality 14%, readmission within 30 days 19%. In therapeutics, it presented statistical significance among the 3 groups, spironolactone, in HFrEF patients. Hospital death and readmission within 30 days did not make difference. In the HFmrEF group, factors independently associated with death were: valve disease (OR: 4.17, CI: 1.01-9.13), altered urea at admission (OR: 6.18, CI: 1.78-11.45) and beta-blocker hospitalization (OR: 0.29, CI: 0.08-0.97). In HFrEF, predictors were: prior renal disease (OR: 2.84, CI: 1.19-6.79), beta-blocker at admission (OR: 0.29, CI: 0.12-0.72) and ACEI/ ARB (OR: 0.21, CI: 0.09-0.49). In HFpEF, only valve disease (OR: 4.61, CI: 1.33-15.96) and kidney disease (OR: 5.18, CI: 1.68-11.98) were relevant.

Conclusion:

In general, HFmrEF presented intermediate characteristics between HFrEF and HFpEF. Independent predictors of mortality may support risk stratification and management of this group.