Geometry-adjusted iLVEF RWT and LVGLS predict mortality robustly in acute heart failure, outperforming LVEF especially in patients with concentric remodeling (HR 1.05 and 1.07).
Does geometry-adjusted LVEF or LVGLS improve prognostic performance for all-cause mortality compared to conventional LVEF in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure?
Geometry-adjusted LVEF and LVGLS provide more robust prognostic utility than conventional LVEF for predicting mortality in acute heart failure, particularly in patients with concentric remodeling.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Background Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains the cornerstone of heart failure (HF) phenotyping, yet it weakly correlates with outcomes and may overestimate systolic function, especially in elderly women with altered left ventricular geometry. We evaluated the limitations of conventional LVEF‐based phenotyping, assessed sex‐specific differences in left ventricular geometry, and tested whether geometry‐adjusted LVEF or left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) improves prognostic performance. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 3688 patients (53.0% men; median age, 70 years) hospitalized for acute HF from the STRATS‐AHF (Strain for Risk Assessment and Therapeutic Strategies in Patients With Acute Heart Failure) multicenter registry (2009–2016). Population distributions of LVEF, LVGLS, and a geometry‐adjusted index (iLVEF RWT : LVEF indexed to relative wall thickness) were compared by sex, and their prognostic value for all‐cause mortality was evaluated using Cox regression models. Results Women showed a bimodal distribution of LVEF and a steeper age‐related increase compared with men, accompanied by higher relative wall thickness. In contrast, both iLVEF RWT and LVGLS followed unimodal Gaussian distributions across sexes. During a median follow‐up of 32.6 months (interquartile range, 12.6–55.0), 1427 patients (38.7%) died. All 3 indices predicted mortality (per 10% decrease in LVEF: hazard ratio (HR) 1.16; per 10‐unit decrease in iLVEF RWT : HR 1.05; per 1% decrease in LVGLS: HR 1.07; all P <0.001). The prognostic value of LVEF was attenuated in patients with concentric remodeling ( P for interaction =0.035), whereas iLVEF RWT and LVGLS remained predictive regardless of geometry. Conclusions LVEF may overestimate systolic function in concentric remodeling, particularly in elderly women. Geometry‐adjusted iLVEF RWT and LVGLS can provide consistent physiological interpretation and robust prognostic utility.
Park et al. (Thu,) reported a other. Geometry-adjusted iLVEF RWT and LVGLS predict mortality robustly in acute heart failure, outperforming LVEF especially in patients with concentric remodeling (HR 1.05 and 1.07).