Back to Journals » International Journal of General Medicine » Volume 14

Clinical, Echocardiographic, and Therapeutic Characteristics of Heart Failure in Patients with Preserved, Mid-Range, and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Future Directions

Authors Alem MM

Received 26 October 2020

Accepted for publication 21 January 2021

Published 16 February 2021 Volume 2021:14 Pages 459—467

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S288733

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser


Manal M Alem

Department of Pharmacology, College of Clinical Pharmacy, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence: Manal M Alem
Department of Pharmacology, College of Clinical Pharmacy, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, PO Box 1982, Dammam, 31441, Saudi Arabia
Email malem@iau.edu.sa

Background: Heart failure (HF) is recognized as a worldwide epidemic. Definitions and risk stratification are usually based upon measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) but such classifications reflect an underlying spectrum of different pathologic, phenotypic, and therapeutic patterns.
Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of HF patients in Saudi Arabia. Patients were divided into three categories based on LVEF: those with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (EF≥ 50%, HFpEF); those with mid-range EF (EF 40– 49%, HFmrEF); and those with reduced EF (EF < 40%, HFrEF). Their demographics, co-morbid conditions, echocardiographic findings, pharmacological treatments and all-cause mortality (ACS) after a follow-up period of 24 months were compared.
Results: A total of 293 HF patients were identified (mean age: 63 years). In total, 65% were males, 79% were Saudi nationals, and 70% had type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Classification based on EF was established in 288 patients: HFpEF (105 patients, 36.5%), HFmrEF (49, 17.0%), and HFrEF (134, 46.5%). The 3 groups differed in sex distribution: 51% females in the HFpEF group and 78% males in the HFrEF group (P< 0.001). Body mass index (BMI) was highest in the HFpEF group and lowest in the HFrEF group (31.5 vs 26.6; P< 0.001). Although systolic blood pressure (SBP in mmHg) was highest in patients with HFpEF, left ventricular mass index (LVMI in g/cm2) was highest in patients with HFrEF 121.00 (94.50, 151.50), and eccentric hypertrophy was the dominant LV geometrical characteristic (54.6%). HFrEF patients had the highest use of ACE inhibitors (60.5%), loop diuretics (79.9%), and aldosterone receptor antagonists (56.7%) (P values; 0.009, 0.007, and < 0.001, respectively). A total of 42 deaths occurred during follow-up: HFpEF (17 events), HFmrEF (3 events) and HFrEF (22 events) (Logrank test P=0.189).
Conclusion: This Saudi HF population shows similarities to other populations: EF category distribution, sex distribution, therapeutic trends, and survival outcomes. However, findings related to the underlying risk factors, namely type 2 DM and obesity, have identified HFpEF as an emerging threat in this (relatively) young population.

Keywords: HFpEF, HFmrEF, HFrEF, Saudi Arabia, left ventricular mass, left ventricular geometry, survival

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]