[Prognostic impact of heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction in patients with mild symptoms].

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Previous studies have found a similarly impaired prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) as in patients with systolic heart failure (HFrEF). This study examines the prognosis of HFpEF patients with only mild symptoms and compares two different methods of diagnosing HFpEF.

METHODS: Of 670 consecutive patients presenting in our outpatient clinic (57.6 ± 16 years, 50.1 % male), 165 revealed a typical clinical presentation with heart failure NYHA class II-III. The following echocardiographic parameters were assessed: ejection fraction (EF), left atrial size (LA), early and late antegrade mitral flow (E and A), early mitral annular movement (E'). Criteria for HFrEF were typical symptoms (NYHA II-III) and an EF < 50 %, HFpEF was diagnosed in patients with typical presentation, NYHA ≥ 2 and EF ≥ 50 % using 2 different definitions: similarly to the criteria of the I-Preserve study or as recommended by the german association of cardiology (DGK) that imply prove of diastolic dysfunction. Patients were followed-up for up to 2.5 years (mean 1.7±0.7) and the following events were registered: death, hospitalisation (myocardial infarction/coronary intervention/cardiac decompensation), cardiac transplantation (HTX).

RESULTS: The majority (93.3 %) of the 165 heart failure patients had mild symptoms NYHA II. Of the 165 patients with typical symptoms, systolic heart failure could be found in 51 (30.9 %) and HFpEF according to I-Preserve criteria in 114 (69.1 %) patients. 56 (33.9 %) patients fulfilled the DGK criteria for HFpEF. Patients with HFpEF were significantly older, more often obese, female and hypertensive. The event rate was higher in patients with systolic heart failure (32 events, 62.7 %) than in patients with HFpEF (I-PRESERVE criteria: 28 events, 24.6 %; DGK criteria: 16 events, 28.6 %; both p < 0,001, log-rank), whereby this difference was mainly caused by increased hospitalisations (43.1 vs. 14.9 and 21,4 %, p < 0.001 and p < 0.016). Significantly more patients with HFrEF reached the combined end point death/HTX (p = 0.019 [I-Preserve] and p = 0.022 [DGK]). Both HFpEF groups showed no significant difference in any of the event types.

CONCLUSION: Patients with HFpEF and mild symptoms have a more benign prognosis than those with systolic heart failure. Whether additional echocardiographic measurements are valuable for the diagnosis of HFpEF has to be proved in larger studies.