Key result
Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death compared to reduced ejection fraction (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.98; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) have overlapping clinical features compared with HFrEF and HFpEF, warranting a meta-analysis of long-term outcomes across these groups.
Does HFmrEF have a different long-term mortality risk compared to HFrEF and HFpEF?
Meta-Analysis (n=126,239)
Does HFmrEF have a different long-term mortality risk compared to HFrEF and HFpEF?
Relative Risk: 0.92 (95% CI 0.85–0.98)
p-value: p=< 0.001
Patients with HFmrEF have a better long-term prognosis regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to HFrEF, but a similar prognosis compared to HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports EF-based prognostic stratification in HF; confirms modestly lower all-cause mortality in HFmrEF versus HFrEF across aggregated data.
Raja et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) (n=126,239). Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) vs. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was evaluated on all-cause death (compared to HFrEF) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.98, p=< 0.001). Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death compared to reduced ejection fraction (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.98; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: