Key result
HFrEF is linked to ~61% higher mortality risk than HFpEF.
Why the study?
Following the introduction of a three-subtype heart failure classification based on ejection fraction, data on long-term survival trends for individual phenotypes remained scarce.
How do long-term survival and predictors of mortality differ among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF?
Population
2601 patients hospitalized for HF in a referral center
Comparison
HFrEF vs HFmrEF vs HFpEF
Design
Single-center observational cohort study
Follow-up
Median 2.43 years
Authors
Loading...
HFrEF warrants closer monitoring than HFpEF or HFmrEF; observational data leaves open whether subtype-specific therapies alter survival.
Cohort (n=2,601)
No
How do long-term survival and predictors of mortality differ among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF?
Effect estimate: 61% higher risk of death
Absolute Event Rate: 47% vs 59%
p-value: p=<0.001
Patients with HFrEF have significantly worse long-term survival compared to those with HFmrEF and HFpEF, which have similar survival rates.
Rywik et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=2,601). Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) vs. Heart failure with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was evaluated on 5-year survival (61% higher risk of death, p=<0.001). HFrEF was associated with a 61% higher risk of death compared to HFpEF (P<0.001), with 5-year survival rates of 47% vs 59%, while survival in HFmrEF and HFpEF was similar.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: