Key result
HF ejection fraction phenotypes show no difference in cognitive function after adjusting for clinical factors.
Why the study?
The study aimed to compare affective symptoms, cognitive dysfunction, and self-care behaviours among different heart failure phenotypes and explore how cognitive and affective factors influence self-care.
Cross-Sectional (n=250)
p-value: p=0.008
Tailored interventions for self-care in heart failure should be based on comprehensive cognitive and emotional assessment rather than ejection fraction phenotype alone.
EF phenotype does not independently predict cognitive impairment in HF; this cross-sectional finding leaves open whether phenotype-specific screening adds value beyond clinical factors.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare affective symptoms, cognitive dysfunction, and self-care behaviours among different heart failure (HF) phenotypes and to explore their interrelationships, particularly examining how cognitive and affective factors influence self-care practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cross-sectional study involved 250 older adults hospitalized for acute decompensated HF, categorized into three groups based on left ventricular ejection fraction (EF): HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF), and preserved EF (HFpEF). Affective symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), while cognitive function was evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Self-care behaviours were measured using the European Heart Failure Self-Care Behavior Scale. Among participants, 42% had HFrEF, 18.4% had HFmrEF, and 39.6% had HFpEF. Cognitive dysfunction was more pronounced in HFpEF patients (MMSE median = 28.0, IQR = 26.0-29.0) compared with those with HFrEF (median = 28.0, IQR = 27.0-29.0) or HFmrEF (median = 29.0, IQR = 27.3-29.0, P = 0.008). Higher MMSE scores were significantly associated with better self-care behaviours in HFpEF patients (Spearman's r = -0.299, P = 0.003) but not in the other groups. Significant differences were found in specific self-care behaviours, including contacting healthcare providers and adherence to a low-sodium diet. CONCLUSION: Although variations in cognitive function and self-care behaviors were observed across HF phenotypes, these differences were not statistically significant after adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. Tailored interventions should be based on a comprehensive assessment of cognitive and emotional health, rather than HF phenotype alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jędrzejczyk et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Acute decompensated heart failure (n=250). Heart failure ejection fraction phenotype vs. Comparison among HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF was evaluated on Cognitive dysfunction (MMSE score) (p=0.008). Heart failure ejection fraction phenotypes showed unadjusted variations in cognitive function (MMSE P=0.008), but differences were not significant after adjusting for clinical factors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: