Why the study?
Clinical features and outcomes of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction remain controversial.
Does heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) have a different prognosis compared to HFpEF and HFrEF?
Does heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) have a different prognosis compared to HFpEF and HFrEF?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Patients with HFmrEF have an intermediate mortality hazard between HFpEF and HFrEF, but exhibit the lowest absolute rates of adverse endpoints, suggesting a unique prognostic profile.
BACKGROUND: Clinical features and outcomes of heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remain controversial. Thus, we systematically reviewed literatures of clinical research to assess and analyze characteristics and prognosis of patients with HFmrEF. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for cohort studies up to April 23, 2019. Clinical features and multivariate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of endpoints of short-term all-cause mortality (SAM), long-term all-cause mortality (LAM), long-term cardiovascular death (LCD) and long-term HF rehospitalization (LHR) among patients with HFmrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were well addressed. The primary outcome was LAM. RESULTS: Totally 19 studies were included in this study with 164,678 patients enrolled. The follow-up time of LAM was 3.6 ± 2.5 years. HRs of LAM, SAM, LCD, LHR indicated that the risks of patients with HFmrEF were higher than HFpEF patients but lower than HFrEF patients, as for LAM, HFmrEF:HFpEF (reference) HR: 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00-1.15 (I = 63%, P = 0.0005); HFmrEF:HFrEF (reference) HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73-0.88 (I = 70%, P < 0.0001). However, HFmrEF patients had the lowest rate in LAM (30.94%), SAM (2.73%), LCD (17.45%), LHR (26.36%) compared with the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared features and prognosis between patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, HFrEF by HRs. There appeared a special "separation phenomenon" showing rates of endpoints were inconsistent with their hazards in patients with HFmrEF compared with HFpEF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: