Key result
HFrEF linked to ~76% higher odds of acute MI vs HFpEF after lumbar fusion.
Why the study?
The comparative perioperative cardiovascular risk between HFpEF and HFrEF patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion was unclear.
Does HFrEF increase the risk of postoperative cardiovascular complications compared to HFpEF in patients undergoing elective lumbar interbody fusion?
Cohort (n=46,431)
Yes
Does HFrEF increase the risk of postoperative cardiovascular complications compared to HFpEF in patients undergoing elective lumbar interbody fusion?
Patients with HFrEF are at significantly higher risk for postoperative acute MI and atrial arrhythmias compared to those with HFpEF following lumbar spinal fusion, underscoring the need for phenotype-specific preoperative risk stratification.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
HFrEF patients showed higher perioperative MI risk than HFpEF after lumbar fusion; leaves open whether ejection fraction phenotype should guide preoperative risk stratification.
Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Objective To compare perioperative cardiovascular outcomes between patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF). Methods The TriNetX Research Network was used to identify patients undergoing elective TLIF or PLIF between 2011 and 2025. Cohorts were defined by heart failure phenotype and propensity score–matched (PSM) 1:1 for baseline demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes included postoperative atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL), myocardial infarction (MI), and secondary complications within 90 days. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Significance was defined as p < 0.05. Results Of 46,431 patients, 1,253 (2.7%) had HFrEF, 1,920 (4.1%) had HFpEF, and 43,258 (93.2%) had no heart failure. After PSM, both phenotypes carried elevated risk relative to non-HF controls across measured complications, including acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, AF/AFL, acute kidney injury, venous thromboembolism, and 90-day emergency department visits (all p<0.05). In the direct phenotype comparison (1,217 matched pairs), acute MI occurred more frequently in HFrEF than HFpEF patients (14.4% vs. 8.7%, p<0.001). HFrEF was associated with greater odds of acute MI (OR 1.760 [95% CI: 1.363, 2.273], p<0.001) and AF/AFL (OR 1.278 [95% CI: 1.079, 1.513], p=0.005) compared with HFpEF. Conclusion Among patients with heart failure undergoing TLIF or PLIF, those with HFrEF are at increased risk of postoperative AF/AFL and MI compared with HFpEF patients. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing heart failure phenotype during preoperative risk stratification and may support enhanced perioperative precautions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thiru et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart failure undergoing transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF) (n=46,431). Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) vs. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was evaluated on Acute myocardial infarction within 90 days (OR 1.760, 95% CI 1.363-2.273, p=<0.001). Among patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion, HFrEF was associated with a greater risk of acute MI compared to HFpEF.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: