Key result
This review summarizes current data on the epidemiology, etiology, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of patients with chronic heart failure with moderately low ejection fraction (40-49%).
Why the study?
Data on chronic heart failure with moderately low ejection fraction (HFmrEF 40-49%) remain extremely limited and represented by single publications.
This review summarizes the limited current data on the epidemiology, etiology, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of patients with heart failure with moderately low ejection fraction (HFmrEF).
Chronic heart failure (CHF) as one of the cardiovascular complications is among the most frequent causes of death and repeated hospitalizations of patients, representing a great burden on the health care system. Currently, the assessment of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) is the cornerstone of classification of patients with CHF, the main criterion for diagnosis, phenotyping, prognosis and decision on the choice of pharmacotherapy strategy. Traditionally, patients with heart failure were divided according to a threshold value of PV greater than or <50%. In 2016, CHF was divided into three subgroups depending on LVEF: CHF with low LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF <40%), CHF with moderately low LVEF (HFmrEF 40-49%), and preserved LVEF (HFрEF≥50%). At the same time, to date, the data on HFmrEF are extremely limited and are represented by single publications in this area. Therefore, the research aimed at studying this category of patients is very promising. The aim of the review is to analyze the current data on CHF, in particular epidemiology, etiology, clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Осипова et al. (2023) conducted a review in Chronic heart failure with moderately low ejection fraction. This review summarizes current data on the epidemiology, etiology, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of patients with chronic heart failure with moderately low ejection fraction (40-49%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: