Hospitalized heart failure patients in Poland exhibit distinct clinical profiles based on ejection fraction, with HFpEF patients being older, more often female, and having a higher burden of non-cardiovascular comorbidities compared to HFrEF patients.
INTRODUCTION: There is still little information regarding a detailed description and predictors of different subtypes of heart failure (HF) in the Polish population. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize the differences between hospitalized patients with HF divided into HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; EF ≥50%), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; EF 40%-49%), and reduced EF (HFrEF; EF <40%), and to identify factors related to each HF subtype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from the hospital database whose hospitalization was coded as HF‑related between 2014 and 2019 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2601 patients were included, of whom 62% had HFrEF, 13% had HFmrEF, and 25% had HFpEF. The patients with HFpEF, as compared with those with HFrEF and HFmrEF, were older (70.5 vs 61.6 vs 66.5 years, P <0.001), less often male (44% vs 68.3% vs 81.3%, P <0.001), and less likely to have an ischemic etiology of HF (19.3% vs 49.8% vs 34.4%, P <0.001) but they were more likely to have hypertension (87.3% vs 78.2% vs 78.2%, P <0.001), atrial fibrillation (64.5% vs 55.6% vs 59.5%, P <0.001), cancer (32.2% vs 19.6% vs 28.7%; P <0.001), and anemia (25.5% vs 15.9% vs 20.5%, P <0.001). Of 3 multivariable models, the one predicting HFpEF was the strongest (P <0.001, area under the curve, 0.79), and included age, sex, aortic stenosis, hypertension, anemia, cancer, thyroid abnormality, atrial fibrillation, longer history of HF, ischemic etiology, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, and liver failure. CONCLUSIONS: HFrEF and HFpEF differed significantly in terms of baseline characteristics, while HFmrEF was in the middle of the HF spectrum, tending to be a mixture of HFpEF and HFrEF characteristics.
Rywik et al. (Mon,) studied this question.