Cargando…

Characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

AIMS: This study aimed to assess by a meta‐analysis the clinical characteristics, all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of patients with heart failure (HF) with mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ej...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lauritsen, Josephine, Gustafsson, Finn, Abdulla, Jawdat
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6073025/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29660263
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12283
_version_ 1783344100765859840
author Lauritsen, Josephine
Gustafsson, Finn
Abdulla, Jawdat
author_facet Lauritsen, Josephine
Gustafsson, Finn
Abdulla, Jawdat
author_sort Lauritsen, Josephine
collection PubMed
description AIMS: This study aimed to assess by a meta‐analysis the clinical characteristics, all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of patients with heart failure (HF) with mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 12 eligible observational studies including 109 257 patients were pooled. HFmrEF patients were significantly different and occupied a mid‐position between HFrEF and HFpEF: mean age 73.6 ± 9.8 vs. 72.6 ± 9.8 and 77.6 ± 7.2 years, male gender 59% vs. 68.5% and 40%, ischaemic heart disease 49% vs. 52.6% and 39.4%, hypertension 67.3% vs. 61.5% and 76.5%, atrial fibrillation 45.2% vs. 39.6% and 46%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 26.4% vs. 24.9% and 30.5%, estimated glomerular filtration rate 62 ± 30 vs. 63.3 ± 23 and 59 ± 22.5, use of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors 79.6% vs. 90.1% and 68.7%, beta‐blockers 82% vs. 89% and 73.5%, and aldosterone antagonists 20.3 vs. 31.5% and 26%, P‐values < 0.05. After a mean follow‐up of 31 ± 5 months, all‐cause mortality was significantly lower in HFmrEF than in HFrEF and HFpEF (26.8% vs. 29.5% and 31%): risk ratio (RR) 0.95 [0.93–0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI)], P < 0.001, and 0.97 (0.94–0.99; 95% CI), P = 0.014, respectively. Cardiovascular mortality was lowest in HFmrEF (9.7% vs. 13% and 12.8%): RR = 0.81 (0.73–0.91), P < 0.001, and 1.10 (0.97–1.24; 95% CI), P = 0.13, respectively. HF hospitalization in HFmrEF compared to that in HFrEF and HFpEF was 23.9% vs. 27.6% and 23.3% with RR = 0.89 (0.85–0.93), P < 0.001, and RR = 1.12 (1.07–1.17), P < 0.001, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support that HFmrEF is a distinct category characterized by a mid‐position between HFrEF and HFpEF and with the lowest all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6073025
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60730252018-08-07 Characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis Lauritsen, Josephine Gustafsson, Finn Abdulla, Jawdat ESC Heart Fail Original Research Articles AIMS: This study aimed to assess by a meta‐analysis the clinical characteristics, all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of patients with heart failure (HF) with mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 12 eligible observational studies including 109 257 patients were pooled. HFmrEF patients were significantly different and occupied a mid‐position between HFrEF and HFpEF: mean age 73.6 ± 9.8 vs. 72.6 ± 9.8 and 77.6 ± 7.2 years, male gender 59% vs. 68.5% and 40%, ischaemic heart disease 49% vs. 52.6% and 39.4%, hypertension 67.3% vs. 61.5% and 76.5%, atrial fibrillation 45.2% vs. 39.6% and 46%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 26.4% vs. 24.9% and 30.5%, estimated glomerular filtration rate 62 ± 30 vs. 63.3 ± 23 and 59 ± 22.5, use of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors 79.6% vs. 90.1% and 68.7%, beta‐blockers 82% vs. 89% and 73.5%, and aldosterone antagonists 20.3 vs. 31.5% and 26%, P‐values < 0.05. After a mean follow‐up of 31 ± 5 months, all‐cause mortality was significantly lower in HFmrEF than in HFrEF and HFpEF (26.8% vs. 29.5% and 31%): risk ratio (RR) 0.95 [0.93–0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI)], P < 0.001, and 0.97 (0.94–0.99; 95% CI), P = 0.014, respectively. Cardiovascular mortality was lowest in HFmrEF (9.7% vs. 13% and 12.8%): RR = 0.81 (0.73–0.91), P < 0.001, and 1.10 (0.97–1.24; 95% CI), P = 0.13, respectively. HF hospitalization in HFmrEF compared to that in HFrEF and HFpEF was 23.9% vs. 27.6% and 23.3% with RR = 0.89 (0.85–0.93), P < 0.001, and RR = 1.12 (1.07–1.17), P < 0.001, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support that HFmrEF is a distinct category characterized by a mid‐position between HFrEF and HFpEF and with the lowest all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6073025/ /pubmed/29660263 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12283 Text en © 2018 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Lauritsen, Josephine
Gustafsson, Finn
Abdulla, Jawdat
Characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6073025/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29660263
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12283
work_keys_str_mv AT lauritsenjosephine characteristicsandlongtermprognosisofpatientswithheartfailureandmidrangeejectionfractioncomparedwithreducedandpreservedejectionfractionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gustafssonfinn characteristicsandlongtermprognosisofpatientswithheartfailureandmidrangeejectionfractioncomparedwithreducedandpreservedejectionfractionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT abdullajawdat characteristicsandlongtermprognosisofpatientswithheartfailureandmidrangeejectionfractioncomparedwithreducedandpreservedejectionfractionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis