Key result
HFpEF shows no difference in 12-month death or transplant vs. HFrEF following acute heart failure.
Why the study?
Clinical characteristics and outcomes in acute heart failure vary by phenotype, prompting assessment of phenotype-specific features, treatment patterns, and outcomes in a nationwide Korean cohort.
Cohort (n=6,777)
Yes
Hazard Ratio: 1.101 (95% CI 0.939–1.291)
Absolute Event Rate: 16.8% vs 13.4%
In a Korean cohort of acute heart failure, post-discharge risk of death or heart transplantation was modestly higher in HFpEF compared to HFrEF, while overall 12-month risk from admission did not significantly differ across the EF spectrum.
Should not yet change EF-based acute HF intensity; leaves open whether post-discharge HFpEF excess risk is causal.
Background and Objectives: Clinical characteristics and outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) vary by phenotype. We assessed phenotype-specific features, treatment patterns, and outcomes in a nationwide Korean cohort. Methods: The Korean Heart Failure III registry prospectively enrolled 7,351 AHF admissions at 47 hospitals. Among 6,777 patients with available left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), phenotypes were defined as heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF, ≤40%), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF, 41-49%), or preserved EF (HFpEF, ≥50%). The primary endpoint was a 12-month composite of all-cause death or heart transplantation, evaluated from index admission and, among hospital survivors, from discharge. We used inverse probability weighting (multinomial generalized boosted models with stabilized, trimmed weights) and weighted Cox proportional-hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Phenotype distribution was 58.9% HFrEF, 13.6% HFmrEF, and 27.5% HFpEF. Crude 12-month composite rates from index admission were 13.4% (HFrEF), 12.7% (HFmrEF), and 16.8% (HFpEF). After weighting, from index admission, HFmrEF (HR, 0.892; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.731-1.088) and HFpEF (HR, 1.101; 95% CI, 0.939-1.291) did not differ from HFrEF; from discharge, HFpEF had modestly higher risk (HR, 1.207; 95% CI, 1.008-1.445) whereas HFmrEF did not (HR, 1.039; 95% CI, 0.844-1.279). Hyponatremia and chronic kidney disease were consistent adverse markers, while angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker use at discharge was protective. Conclusions: Across the EF spectrum, phenotypes showed distinct profiles and risk. Post-discharge risk was modestly higher in HFpEF, supporting phenotype-tailored care and systematic discharge optimization in Korean patients with AHF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04329234.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Acute heart failure (n=6,777). Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was evaluated on 12-month composite of all-cause death or heart transplantation (HR 1.101, 95% CI 0.939-1.291). In acute heart failure, 12-month risk of death or heart transplant from index admission did not differ for HFpEF versus HFrEF (HR 1.101; 95% CI 0.939-1.291), though post-discharge risk was higher.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: