Key result
Heart failure categories based on ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFmrEF, HFrEF) showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 24 months (17, 3, and 22 deaths, respectively; P=0.189).
Why the study?
Definitions and risk stratification in heart failure based on left ventricular ejection fraction reflect an underlying spectrum of different pathologic, phenotypic, and therapeutic patterns.
Cohort (n=293)
p-value: p=0.189
In a Saudi heart failure cohort, survival outcomes did not significantly differ across ejection fraction categories, though HFpEF emerged as a significant threat linked to high rates of diabetes and obesity.
Background: Heart failure (HF) is recognized as a worldwide epidemic. Definitions and risk stratification are usually based upon measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) but such classifications reflect an underlying spectrum of different pathologic, phenotypic, and therapeutic patterns. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of HF patients in Saudi Arabia. Patients were divided into three categories based on LVEF: those with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (EF≥ 50%, HFpEF); those with mid-range EF (EF 40– 49%, HFmrEF); and those with reduced EF (EF < 40%, HFrEF). Their demographics, co-morbid conditions, echocardiographic findings, pharmacological treatments and all-cause mortality (ACS) after a follow-up period of 24 months were compared. Results: A total of 293 HF patients were identified (mean age: 63 years). In total, 65% were males, 79% were Saudi nationals, and 70% had type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Classification based on EF was established in 288 patients: HFpEF (105 patients, 36.5%), HFmrEF (49, 17.0%), and HFrEF (134, 46.5%). The 3 groups differed in sex distribution: 51% females in the HFpEF group and 78% males in the HFrEF group (P< 0.001). Body mass index (BMI) was highest in the HFpEF group and lowest in the HFrEF group (31.5 vs 26.6; P< 0.001). Although systolic blood pressure (SBP in mmHg) was highest in patients with HFpEF, left ventricular mass index (LVMI in g/cm 2 ) was highest in patients with HFrEF 121.00 (94.50, 151.50), and eccentric hypertrophy was the dominant LV geometrical characteristic (54.6%). HFrEF patients had the highest use of ACE inhibitors (60.5%), loop diuretics (79.9%), and aldosterone receptor antagonists (56.7%) (P values; 0.009, 0.007, and < 0.001, respectively). A total of 42 deaths occurred during follow-up: HFpEF (17 events), HFmrEF (3 events) and HFrEF (22 events) (Logrank test P=0.189). Conclusion: This Saudi HF population shows similarities to other populations: EF category distribution, sex distribution, therapeutic trends, and survival outcomes. However, findings related to the underlying risk factors, namely type 2 DM and obesity, have identified HFpEF as an emerging threat in this (relatively) young population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manal M. Alem (2021) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=293). Heart failure categories (HFpEF, HFmrEF, HFrEF) vs. Compared to each other was evaluated on All-cause mortality (p=0.189). Heart failure categories based on ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFmrEF, HFrEF) showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 24 months (17, 3, and 22 deaths, respectively; P=0.189).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: