Delayed ejection fraction recovery in the era of contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy: Is the conventional 3-month waiting period for device therapy still enough?

Yalcin Velibey; Erkan Kahraman; Edibe Betül Börklü; Mehmet Baran Karataş; Tolga Sinan Guvenc; Osman Bolca

doi:10.1080/00015385.2026.2714628

August 11, 2026Acta cardiologica. Supplementum

Delayed ejection fraction recovery in the era of contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy: Is the conventional 3-month waiting period for device therapy still enough?

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key result

Contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy is associated with delayed ejection fraction recovery, suggesting the conventional 3-month waiting period for device therapy may be insufficient.

Why the study?

Is the conventional 3-month waiting period for device therapy still enough for LVEF recovery in HFrEF patients on contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy?

Key Points

This research examines the adequacy of the three-month waiting period for assessing heart function recovery in heart failure patients on medical therapy.
Reassessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after three months of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HFrEF.
Comparison of LVEF changes and clinical outcomes post-therapy initiation.
Many patients showed delayed recovery of ejection fraction beyond the conventional three-month period.
Clinical implications indicate a need to reassess device therapy timing based on LVEF recovery.

Structured PICO

Is the conventional 3-month waiting period for device therapy still enough for LVEF recovery in HFrEF patients on contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy?

P

Population

Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)

I

Intervention

Contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy and delayed reassessment of LVEF

O

Outcome

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recoverysurrogate

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Implication

This letter questions whether the standard 3-month waiting period before device therapy in HFrEF is sufficient given delayed LVEF recovery on contemporary GDMT.

Abstract

To the EditorIn patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend reassessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) approxi...

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Velibey et al. (2026) studied this question. Contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy is associated with delayed ejection fraction recovery, suggesting the conventional 3-month waiting period for device therapy may be insufficient.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7d76d82b0e0cff3f6408cd https://doi.org/10.1080/00015385.2026.2714628

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Delayed ejection fraction recovery in the era of contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy: Is the conventional 3-month waiting period for device therapy still enough?

Key Points

Structured PICO

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Delayed ejection fraction recovery in the era of contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy: Is the conventional 3-month waiting period for device therapy still enough?

Key Points

Structured PICO

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading