Is heart failure misdiagnosed in hospitalized patients with preserved ejection fraction? From the European Society of Cardiology - Heart Failure Association EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIMS: In hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the aims of this study were (i) to assess the proportion meeting the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HFpEF criteria and (ii) to compare patients with restrictive/pseudonormal mitral inflow pattern (MIP) vs. patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included hospitalized participants of the ESC-Heart Failure Association (HFA) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) HF Long-Term Registry who had echocardiogram with ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% during index hospitalization. As no data on e', E/e' and left ventricular (LV) mass index were gathered in the registry, the 2016 ESC HFpEF definition was modified as follows: elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (≥100 pg/mL for acute HF) and/or N-terminal pro-BNP (≥300 pg/mL) and at least one of the echocardiographic criteria: (i) presence of LV hypertrophy (yes/no), (ii) left atrial volume index (LAVI) of >34 mL/m2 ), or (iii) restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. Next, all patients were divided into four groups: (i) patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP on echocardiography [i.e. with presumably elevated left atrial (LA) pressure], (ii) patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure), (iii) atrial fibrillation (AF) group, and (iv) 'grey area' (no consistent description of MIP despite no report of AF). Of 6365 hospitalized patients, 1848 (29%) had EF ≥ 50%. Natriuretic peptides were assessed in 28%, LV hypertrophy in 92%, LAVI in 13%, and MIP in 67%. The 2016 ESC HFpEF criteria could be assessed in 27% of the 1848 patients and, if assessed, were met in 52%. Of the 1848 patients, 19% had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP, 43% had MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal, 18% had AF and 20% were grey area. There were no differences in long-term all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, or all-cause hospitalizations or HF rehospitalizations between the four groups. Despite fewer non-cardiac comorbidities reported at baseline, patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure) had more non-cardiovascular (14.0 vs. 6.7 per 100 patient-years, P < 0.001) and cardiovascular non-HF (13.2 vs. 8.0 per 100 patient-years, P = 0.016) hospitalizations in long-term follow-up than patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. CONCLUSIONS: Acute HFpEF diagnosis could be assessed (based on the 2016 ESC criteria) in only a quarter of patients and confirmed in half of these. When assessed, only one in three patients had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP suggestive of elevated LA pressure. Patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (suggestive of normal LA pressure) could have been misdiagnosed with acute HFpEF or had echocardiography performed after normalization of LA pressure. They were more often hospitalized for non-HF reasons during follow-up. Symptoms suggestive of acute HFpEF may in some patients represent non-HF comorbidities

A comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure with preserved versus mildly reduced versus reduced ejection fraction - insights from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIMS: To perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17). CONCLUSION: In AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk

Hyponatraemia and changes in natraemia during hospitalization for acute heart failure and associations with in-hospital and long-term outcomes - from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIMS: To comprehensively assess hyponatraemia in acute heart failure (AHF) regarding prevalence, associations, hospital course, and post-discharge outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 8298 patients in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF with any ejection fraction, 20% presented with hyponatraemia (serum sodium <135 mmol/L). Independent predictors included lower systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haemoglobin, along with diabetes, hepatic disease, use of thiazide diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, digoxin, higher doses of loop diuretics, and non-use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. In-hospital death occurred in 3.3%. The prevalence of hyponatraemia and in-hospital mortality with different combinations were: 9% hyponatraemia both at admission and discharge (hyponatraemia Yes/Yes, in-hospital mortality 6.9%), 11% Yes/No (in-hospital mortality 4.9%), 8% No/Yes (in-hospital mortality 4.7%), and 72% No/No (in-hospital mortality 2.4%). Correction of hyponatraemia was associated with improvement in eGFR. In-hospital development of hyponatraemia was associated with greater diuretic use and worsening eGFR but also more effective decongestion. Among hospital survivors, 12-month mortality was 19% and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were for hyponatraemia Yes/Yes 1.60 (1.35-1.89), Yes/No 1.35 (1.14-1.59), and No/Yes 1.18 (0.96-1.45). For death or heart failure hospitalization they were 1.38 (1.21-1.58), 1.17 (1.02-1.33), and 1.09 (0.93-1.27), respectively. CONCLUSION: Among patients with AHF, 20% had hyponatraemia at admission, which was associated with more advanced heart failure and normalized in half of patients during hospitalization. Admission hyponatraemia (possibly dilutional), especially if it did not resolve, was associated with worse in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Hyponatraemia developing during hospitalization (possibly depletional) was associated with lower risk

Hyponatraemia and changes in natraemia during hospitalization for acute heart failure and associations with in-hospital and long-term outcomes – from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Aims To comprehensively assess hyponatraemia in acute heart failure (AHF) regarding prevalence, associations, hospital course, and post-discharge outcomes.Methods and results Of 8298 patients in the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF with any ejection fraction, 20% presented with hyponatraemia (serum sodium &lt;135 mmol/L). Independent predictors included lower systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haemoglobin, along with diabetes, hepatic disease, use of thiazide diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, digoxin, higher doses of loop diuretics, and non-use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. In-hospital death occurred in 3.3%. The prevalence of hyponatraemia and in-hospital mortality with different combinations were: 9% hyponatraemia both at admission and discharge (hyponatraemia Yes/Yes, in-hospital mortality 6.9%), 11% Yes/No (in-hospital mortality 4.9%), 8% No/Yes (in-hospital mortality 4.7%), and 72% No/No (in-hospital mortality 2.4%). Correction of hyponatraemia was associated with improvement in eGFR. In-hospital development of hyponatraemia was associated with greater diuretic use and worsening eGFR but also more effective decongestion. Among hospital survivors, 12-month mortality was 19% and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were for hyponatraemia Yes/Yes 1.60 (1.35- 1.89), Yes/No 1.35 (1.14-1.59), and No/Yes 1.18 (0.96-1.45). For death or heart failure hospitalization they were 1.38 (1.21- 1.58), 1.17 (1.02- 1.33), and 1.09 (0.93-1.27), respectively.Conclusion Among patients with AHF, 20% had hyponatraemia at admission, which was associated with more advanced heart failure and normalized in half of patients during hospitalization. Admission hyponatraemia (possibly dilutional), especially if it did not resolve, was associated with worse in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes. Hyponatraemia developing during hospitalization (possibly depletional) was associated with lower risk

On the search for the right definition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

The definition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has evolved from a clinically based “diagnosis of exclusion” to definitions focused on objective evidence of diastolic dysfunction and/or elevated left ventricular filling pressures. Despite advances in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology and the development of more sophisticated imaging modalities, the diagnosis of HFpEF remains challenging, especially in the chronic setting, given that symptoms are provoked by exertion and diagnostic evaluation is largely conducted at rest. Invasive hemodynamic study, and in particular — invasive exercise testing, is considered the reference method for HFpEF diagnosis. However, its use is limited as opposed to the high number of patients with suspected HFpEF. Thus, diagnostic criteria for HFpEF should be principally based on non-invasive measurements. As no single non-invasive variable can adequately corroborate or refute the diagnosis, different combinations of clinical, echocardiographic, and/or biochemical parameters have been introduced. Recent years have brought an abundance of HFpEF definitions. Here, we present and compare four of them: 1) the 2016 European Society of Cardiology criteria for HFpEF; 2) the 2016 echocardiographic algorithm for diagnosing diastolic dysfunction; 3) the 2018 evidence-based H2FPEF score; and 4) the most recent, 2019 Heart Failure Association HFA-PEFF algorithm. These definitions vary in their approach to diagnosis, as well as sensitivity and specificity. Further studies to validate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of HFpEF definitions are warranted. Nevertheless, it seems that the best HFpEF definition would originate from a randomized clinical trial showing a favorable effect of an intervention on prognosis in HFpEF

Is heart failure misdiagnosed in hospitalized patients with preserved ejection fraction? From the European Society of Cardiology - Heart Failure Association EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry

Aims: In hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the aims of this study were (i) to assess the proportion meeting the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HFpEF criteria and (ii) to compare patients with restrictive/pseudonormal mitral inflow pattern (MIP) vs. patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal. Methods and results: We included hospitalized participants of the ESC-Heart Failure Association (HFA) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) HF Long-Term Registry who had echocardiogram with ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% during index hospitalization. As no data on e&apos;, E/e&apos; and left ventricular (LV) mass index were gathered in the registry, the 2016 ESC HFpEF definition was modified as follows: elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (≥100 pg/mL for acute HF) and/or N-terminal pro-BNP (≥300 pg/mL) and at least one of the echocardiographic criteria: (i) presence of LV hypertrophy (yes/no), (ii) left atrial volume index (LAVI) of &apos;34 mL/m2), or (iii) restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. Next, all patients were divided into four groups: (i) patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP on echocardiography [i.e. with presumably elevated left atrial (LA) pressure], (ii) patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure), (iii) atrial fibrillation (AF) group, and (iv) ‘grey area’ (no consistent description of MIP despite no report of AF). Of 6365 hospitalized patients, 1848 (29%) had EF ≥ 50%. Natriuretic peptides were assessed in 28%, LV hypertrophy in 92%, LAVI in 13%, and MIP in 67%. The 2016 ESC HFpEF criteria could be assessed in 27% of the 1848 patients and, if assessed, were met in 52%. Of the 1848 patients, 19% had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP, 43% had MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal, 18% had AF and 20% were grey area. There were no differences in long-term all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, or all-cause hospitalizations or HF rehospitalizations between the four groups. Despite fewer non-cardiac comorbidities reported at baseline, patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure) had more non-cardiovascular (14.0 vs. 6.7 per 100 patient-years, P &apos; 0.001) and cardiovascular non-HF (13.2 vs. 8.0 per 100 patient-years, P = 0.016) hospitalizations in long-term follow-up than patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. Conclusions: Acute HFpEF diagnosis could be assessed (based on the 2016 ESC criteria) in only a quarter of patients and confirmed in half of these. When assessed, only one in three patients had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP suggestive of elevated LA pressure. Patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (suggestive of normal LA pressure) could have been misdiagnosed with acute HFpEF or had echocardiography performed after normalization of LA pressure. They were more often hospitalized for non-HF reasons during follow-up. Symptoms suggestive of acute HFpEF may in some patients represent non-HF comorbidities. © 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiolog