47 A review of patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF): co-morbidities and outcomes

D. O. Callaghan, P. Wheen, P. Murray, C. Minelli, C. Daly
{"title":"47 A review of patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF): co-morbidities and outcomes","authors":"D. O. Callaghan, P. Wheen, P. Murray, C. Minelli, C. Daly","doi":"10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-ICS.47","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The ESC now recognises HF patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40%-49% as having a distinct phenotype, referred to as Heart Failure with mid-range Ejection Fraction (HFmrEF). This classification was implemented to promote research in this group of heart failure (HF) patients. Aims We aimed to compare the co-morbidities of HFmrEF patients with those of Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) and Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) patients, and aimed to compare hospitalisations for acute decompensation HF, and mortality between these groups. Methods All new referrals to a HF clinic in three neighbouring hospitals were included between January 1st 2017, and December 31st 2017. Data was collected on co-morbidities associated with each HF classification. Mean follow up was 17.5 months (± 7.6) and we recorded hospitalisations for ADHF and mortality data. Results 286 new patients were referred to one of our 3 HF clinics; following optimisation, the patients were divided as: HFpEF 67 (23.4%), HFmrEF 58 (20.3%), HFrEF 94 (32.9%). 69 patients did not have a repeat echocardiogram. Table 1 presents the co-morbidities. Categorical data was analysed with Chi-square testing and continuous data analysed with unpaired t testing. Significance in HFrEF and HFpEF is in comparison with HFmrEF. Figure 1 is a Kaplan Meier curve demonstrating the events across the follow-up period. Conclusion Co-morbidities were similar in HFmrEF as compared with HFpEF and HFrEF, aside from previous CABG surgery (fewer in HFmrEF as compared with HFpEF and HFrEF) and HTN (there were more in HFpEF). Mortality was similar across the 3 groups over our follow up period of 17.5 months, and there was no difference in mean hospitalisations for ADHF between the groups. In our catchment area, our HFmrEF have a similar phenotype to our HFpEF and HFrEF cohorts.","PeriodicalId":214963,"journal":{"name":"General poster session","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"General poster session","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-ICS.47","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The ESC now recognises HF patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40%-49% as having a distinct phenotype, referred to as Heart Failure with mid-range Ejection Fraction (HFmrEF). This classification was implemented to promote research in this group of heart failure (HF) patients. Aims We aimed to compare the co-morbidities of HFmrEF patients with those of Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) and Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) patients, and aimed to compare hospitalisations for acute decompensation HF, and mortality between these groups. Methods All new referrals to a HF clinic in three neighbouring hospitals were included between January 1st 2017, and December 31st 2017. Data was collected on co-morbidities associated with each HF classification. Mean follow up was 17.5 months (± 7.6) and we recorded hospitalisations for ADHF and mortality data. Results 286 new patients were referred to one of our 3 HF clinics; following optimisation, the patients were divided as: HFpEF 67 (23.4%), HFmrEF 58 (20.3%), HFrEF 94 (32.9%). 69 patients did not have a repeat echocardiogram. Table 1 presents the co-morbidities. Categorical data was analysed with Chi-square testing and continuous data analysed with unpaired t testing. Significance in HFrEF and HFpEF is in comparison with HFmrEF. Figure 1 is a Kaplan Meier curve demonstrating the events across the follow-up period. Conclusion Co-morbidities were similar in HFmrEF as compared with HFpEF and HFrEF, aside from previous CABG surgery (fewer in HFmrEF as compared with HFpEF and HFrEF) and HTN (there were more in HFpEF). Mortality was similar across the 3 groups over our follow up period of 17.5 months, and there was no difference in mean hospitalisations for ADHF between the groups. In our catchment area, our HFmrEF have a similar phenotype to our HFpEF and HFrEF cohorts.
中程射血分数(HFmrEF)心力衰竭患者的合并症和预后
ESC现在承认左心室射血分数(LVEF)为40%-49%的HF患者具有独特的表型,称为中程射血分数心力衰竭(HFmrEF)。采用这种分类是为了促进对这组心力衰竭(HF)患者的研究。我们的目的是比较HFmrEF患者与保留射血分数(HFpEF)和降低射血分数(HFrEF)心力衰竭患者的合并症,并比较两组间急性失代偿性心衰的住院情况和死亡率。方法收集2017年1月1日至2017年12月31日期间邻近三家医院HF门诊的所有新转诊病例。收集了与每种HF分类相关的合并症的数据。平均随访17.5个月(±7.6),记录ADHF住院情况和死亡率数据。结果我院3家心衰门诊共收治286例新患者;优化后患者分为:HFpEF 67 (23.4%), HFmrEF 58 (20.3%), HFrEF 94(32.9%)。69例患者未复查超声心动图。表1列出了合并症。分类资料采用卡方检验,连续资料采用非配对t检验。HFrEF和HFpEF的意义在于与HFmrEF比较。图1是Kaplan Meier曲线,展示了整个随访期间的事件。结论HFmrEF的合并症与HFpEF和HFrEF相似,除了既往CABG手术(HFmrEF较HFpEF和HFrEF少)和HTN (HFpEF较多)。在我们17.5个月的随访期间,三组的死亡率相似,两组之间ADHF的平均住院率没有差异。在我们的集水区,我们的HFmrEF与我们的HFpEF和HFrEF队列具有相似的表型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信