Key result
An in-hospital increase in heart rate-corrected systolic ejection time predicted a favorable outcome in HFrEF but an adverse outcome in HFpEF.
Why the study?
Systolic ejection time is discussed as a treatment target in HFrEF, but reference values correcting for heart rate and its prognostic utility in acute heart failure were needed.
Does in-hospital change in heart rate-corrected systolic ejection time predict outcomes in patients with acute heart failure?
Observational (n=4,970)
Does in-hospital change in heart rate-corrected systolic ejection time predict outcomes in patients with acute heart failure?
In-hospital prolongation of heart rate-corrected systolic ejection time predicts favorable outcomes in HFrEF but adverse outcomes in HFpEF, suggesting a U-shaped relationship between systolic function and risk.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In-hospital SETc monitoring should not yet guide acute HF care; leaves open differential prognostic value by HF phenotype for prospective validation.
Aims Systolic ejection time (SET) is discussed as a treatment target in patients with heart failure (HF) and a reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF). We derived reference values for SET correcting for its dependence on heart rate (SETc), and explored its prognostic utility in patients admitted with decompensated HF. Methods and results SETc was derived in 4836 participants of the population-based STAAB study (mean age 55 ± 12 years, 52% women). There, mean SETc was 328 ± 18 ms, increased with age (+4.7 ms per decade), was shorter in men than women (−14.9 ms), and correlated with arterial elastance (r = 0.30; all P < 0.001). In 134 patients hospitalized with acute HF, SETc at admission was shorter when compared with the general population and differed between patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; LVEF ≤40%; 269 ± 35 ms), HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; LVEF 41–49%; 294 ± 27 ms), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; LVEF ≥50%; 317 ± 35 ms; P < 0.001). In proportional hazard regression, an in-hospital increase in SETc was associated with an age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.18–0.79) in patients with HFrEF, but a hazard ratio of 2.39 (95% confidence interval 1.24–4.64) in patients with HFpEF. Conclusion In the general population, SETc increased with age and an elevated afterload. SETc was mildly reduced in patients hospitalized with HFpEF, but markedly reduced in patients with HFrEF. In-hospital prolongation of SETc predicted a favourable outcome in HFrEF, but an adverse outcome in HFpEF. Our results support the concept of a U-shaped relationship between cardiac systolic function and risk, providing a rationale for a more individualized treatment approach in patients with HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morbach et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Acute heart failure (n=4,970). Heart rate-corrected systolic ejection time (SETc) was evaluated on Prognostic outcome associated with an in-hospital increase in SETc (HR 0.38 (HFrEF), HR 2.39 (HFpEF), 95% CI 0.18-0.79 (HFrEF), 1.24-4.64 (HFpEF)). An in-hospital increase in heart rate-corrected systolic ejection time predicted a favorable outcome in HFrEF but an adverse outcome in HFpEF.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: