TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes of de novo and acute decompensated heart failure patients according to ejection fraction
AU - Choi, Ki Hong
AU - Lee, Ga Yeon
AU - Choi, Jin Oh
AU - Jeon, Eun Seok
AU - Lee, Hae Young
AU - Cho, Hyun Jai
AU - Lee, Sang Eun
AU - Kim, Min Seok
AU - Kim, Jae Joong
AU - Hwang, Kyung Kuk
AU - Chae, Shung Chull
AU - Baek, Sang Hong
AU - Kang, Seok Min
AU - Choi, Dong Ju
AU - Yoo, Byung Su
AU - Kim, Kye Hun
AU - Park, Hyun Young
AU - Cho, Myeong Chan
AU - Oh, Byung Hee
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding this work was supported by research of Korea centers for Disease control and Prevention [2010-e63003-00, 2011-e63002-00, 2012-e63005-00, 2013-e63003-00, 2013-e63003-01, 2013-e63003-02, and 2016-er6303-00].
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - Objective There are conflicting results among previous studies regarding the prognosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with de novo acute heart failure (AHF) or acute decompensated HF (ADHF) according to HFpEF (EF≥50%), or HFrEF (EF<40%) and to define the prognosis of patients with HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF, 40≤EF<50%). Methods Between March 2011 and February 2014, 5625 consecutive patients with AHF were recruited from 10 university hospitals. A total of 5414 (96.2%) patients with EF data were enrolled, which consisted of 2867 (53.0%) patients with de novo and 2547 (47.0%) with ADHF. Each of the enrolled group was stratified by EF. Results In de novo, all-cause death rates were not significantly different between HFpEF and HFrEF (HFpEF vs HFrEF, 206/744 (27.7%) vs 438/1631 (26.9%), HR adj 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38, p=0.14). However, among patients with ADHF, HFrEF had a significantly higher mortality rate compared with HFpEF (HFpEF vs HFrEF, 245/613 (40.0%) vs 694/1551 (44.7%), HR adj 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.47, p=0.007). Also, in ADHF, HFmrEF was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate within 1 year compared with HFrEF (HFmrEF vs HFrEF, 88/383 (23.0%) vs 430/1551 (27.7%), HR adj 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65, p=0.03), but a significantly higher mortality rate after 1 year compared with HFpEF (HFmrEF vs HFpEF, 83/295 (28.1%) vs 101/469 (21.5%), HR adj 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, p=0.02). Conclusions HFpEF may indicate a better prognosis compared with HFrEF in ADHF, but not in de novo AHF. For patients with ADHF, the prognosis associated with HFmrEF was similar to that of HFpEF within the first year following hospitalisation and similar to HFrEF 1year after hospitalisation.
AB - Objective There are conflicting results among previous studies regarding the prognosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with de novo acute heart failure (AHF) or acute decompensated HF (ADHF) according to HFpEF (EF≥50%), or HFrEF (EF<40%) and to define the prognosis of patients with HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF, 40≤EF<50%). Methods Between March 2011 and February 2014, 5625 consecutive patients with AHF were recruited from 10 university hospitals. A total of 5414 (96.2%) patients with EF data were enrolled, which consisted of 2867 (53.0%) patients with de novo and 2547 (47.0%) with ADHF. Each of the enrolled group was stratified by EF. Results In de novo, all-cause death rates were not significantly different between HFpEF and HFrEF (HFpEF vs HFrEF, 206/744 (27.7%) vs 438/1631 (26.9%), HR adj 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38, p=0.14). However, among patients with ADHF, HFrEF had a significantly higher mortality rate compared with HFpEF (HFpEF vs HFrEF, 245/613 (40.0%) vs 694/1551 (44.7%), HR adj 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.47, p=0.007). Also, in ADHF, HFmrEF was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate within 1 year compared with HFrEF (HFmrEF vs HFrEF, 88/383 (23.0%) vs 430/1551 (27.7%), HR adj 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65, p=0.03), but a significantly higher mortality rate after 1 year compared with HFpEF (HFmrEF vs HFpEF, 83/295 (28.1%) vs 101/469 (21.5%), HR adj 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, p=0.02). Conclusions HFpEF may indicate a better prognosis compared with HFrEF in ADHF, but not in de novo AHF. For patients with ADHF, the prognosis associated with HFmrEF was similar to that of HFpEF within the first year following hospitalisation and similar to HFrEF 1year after hospitalisation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042848357&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042848357&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311813
DO - 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311813
M3 - Article
C2 - 28982721
AN - SCOPUS:85042848357
VL - 104
SP - 525
EP - 532
JO - Heart
JF - Heart
SN - 1355-6037
IS - 6
ER -