Heart Failure With Mid-range or Recovered Ejection Fraction: Differential Determinants of Transition

Login or register to view PDF.
Creative Commons Licence
 
Abstract

The recent definition of an intermediate clinical phenotype of heart failure (HF) based on an ejection fraction (EF) of between 40% and 49%, namely HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), has fuelled investigations into the clinical profile and prognosis of this patient group. HFmrEF shares common clinical features with other HF phenotypes, such as a high prevalence of ischaemic aetiology, as in HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), or hypertension and diabetes, as in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), and benefits from the cornerstone drugs indicated for HFrEF. Among the HF phenotypes, HFmrEF is characterised by the highest rate of transition to either recovery or worsening of the severe systolic dysfunction profile that is the target of disease-modifying therapies, with opposite prognostic implications. This article focuses on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics and therapeutic approaches for HFmrEF, and discusses the major determinants of transition to HFpEF or HFrEF.

Disclosure
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Andrea Mortara, Chief, Department of Cardiology, Policlinico di Monza, Via Amati 111, 20900 Monza (MB), Italy. E: andrea.mortara@policlinicodimonza.it
Received date
10 May 2020
Accepted date
13 July 2020
Citation
Cardiac Failure Review 2020;6:e28.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/cfr.2020.13
Open access
This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome caused by functional and structural abnormalities of the left ventricle (LV) resulting in a combination of typical signs and symptoms. Historically, HF has been classified according to LV ejection fraction (EF) as either HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; LVEF <40%) or HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; LVEF >50%).1,2 The 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on acute and chronic HF established an HF category of ‘HF with mid-range ejection fraction’ (HFmrEF), defined as EF between 40% and 49% in patients with HF, to promote research into the main characteristics of this separate group of patients.3 In recent years, increasing evidence has emerged that HFmrEF may represent a subgroup of HF patients with a peculiar clinical, biomarker and diagnostic profile. However, a considerable number of HFmrEF patients experience improvement in LVEF, even to normal values. Therefore, whether this is a unique subtype of HF patients or whether it represents a ‘transition phase’ from HFrEF to HFpEF or vice versa is still a matter of debate.

This article focuses on the epidemiology, clinical characteristics and therapeutic approaches to HFmrEF with the aim of discussing the major determinants of transition to preserved or reduced EF.

Epidemiology

Extensive data are lacking about the prevalence of HFmrEF because there have been no population-based clinical studies and most epidemiological studies have divided HF patients into two groups using an EF cut-off value of 50%. Therefore, to obtain putative epidemiological information, we rely on subanalyses of clinical registries and on investigations that report the prevalence of different EF values within the populations under investigation.

A recent analysis of the Get With The Guidelines-HF (GWTG-HF) registry, which provides data on almost 100,000 patients hospitalised acute HF from 2005 to 2013, found that HFmrEF accounted for 13% of cases.4 In the Swedish HF registry, 21% of all hospitalised HF patients had HFmrEF.5 In the US, HFmrEF has been reported to account for 13–24% of patients with HF.6 Finally, the Chinese HF registry reported a prevalence of HFmrEF of 26.6% within the HF population, with no differences in trends between urban and rural areas.7

HF phenotypes do not unusually represent transitory stages due to fluctuations in LV volumes and systolic function. Research has increasingly confirmed that, among all HF phenotypes, EF variations are most common in HFmrEF. Transition from HFmrEF towards preserved LVEF has been reported in 25–44% of patients, and towards reduced LVEF in 16–33% of patients.5,8,9

Mesquita et al. subdivided the HFmrEF population into three different categories according to LVEF transition, namely recovered HF (73%; from HFrEF to HFmrEF), impaired HF (17%; from HFpEF to HFmrEF) and unchanged (10%; showing no changes in EF during follow-up).10

These data clearly point to a need for close clinical follow-up in order to determine whether the current HFmrEF phenotype in the patients we are examining represents a stable stage of mild disease or a transitional step towards different LVEF levels.

Diagnosis of HFmrEF: Role of Multimodality Imaging

It is imperative to keep in mind that, as an endocardial measurement, LVEF quantification is disproportionately influenced by loading conditions and by chamber geometry, and has important limitations in identifying subclinical LV dysfunction.

Echocardiography remains the most common modality for both LVEF measurements and analysis of sequential variability during time. However, due to the possibility of suboptimal views and the presence of a myocardial ischaemic area or other factors that make it difficult to correctly identify the endocardium, 2D biplane echocardiography is believed to be less accurate than other techniques, including 3D echocardiography and global longitudinal strain (GLS) for measurements of both ventricular volume and EF.11–13

GLS, a direct measurement of myocardial fibre deformation, can contribute to the identification of residual LV impairment despite normal or near-normal LVEF. In HF patients with recovered LVEF, an abnormal GLS predicts the likelihood of decreasing LVEF at follow-up and is associated with a significantly worse outcome than that seen in patients with normal GLS values.14,15 Moreover, HFpEF patients with reduced GLS (less than –14%) represent a high-risk group that could slide towards clinical instability and reductions in LVEF.16

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is another tool that, through its high spatial resolution and multiple imaging modalities, can guide physicians in evaluating LV status. Recent studies have confirmed the roles of CMR in predicting LVEF deterioration through analysis of late gadolinium enhancement and in uncovering undetected cardiac pathology in HFpEF.17,18 Finally, elevated T1 and T2 relaxation times are typical of HFmrEF patients relative to healthy controls, and could be instrumental in predicting increasing fibrosis and inflammation despite normal LVEF.19

It has been suggested that a complete echocardiographic examination, including 2D and 3D echocardiography, GLS and analysis of diastolic dysfunction, should be performed to characterise HFmrEF in HF patients. In cases in which borderline data have been obtained, or results from different examinations are contradictory, ventricular function should be analysed using CMR.

Clinical Features of HFmrEF

Most clinical information on HFmrEF has been derived from comparative investigations with HFrEF and HFpEF. In fact, given the low prevalence of HFmrEF compared with that of HFrEF or HFpEF, it may not be feasible, despite being scientifically desirable, to obtain a considerable number of trials focusing on HFmrEF as a separate population.

With regard to cardiovascular risk factors, the prevalence of hypertension in HFmrEF ranges from 60% to 82%, which is higher than in HFrEF, but lower than in HFpEF.4,5,20,21 Diabetes is also common in HFmrEF, with a prevalence ranging from 28% to 48%, which is comparable to the prevalence of diabetes in HFpEF but higher than the prevalence in HFrEF.4,5,20,22–24

The Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) Program found that HFmrEF patients more closely resembled HFrEF patients in terms of age and sex.2 Conversely, Kapooer et al., in a study based on the GWTG-HF Registry, reported that HFmrEF patients were older (mean age 77 years) and a higher proportion were female (48%) compared with HFrEF patients.4 Of note, patients with HFmrEF seem to be mostly male and younger than those with HFpEF.23,24

The prevalence of non-cardiac comorbidities, in particular chronic obstructive lung disease, anaemia and renal insufficiency, in HFmrEF is intermediate compared with HFrEF and HFpEF.4,5,25,26 Data from the Swedish HF registry analysed the interaction between comorbidities and prognosis, finding that coexisting chronic kidney dysfunction and AF increased the risk of cardiovascular events to a significantly greater extent in HFmrEF than in HFrEF or HFpEF.27

Cardiac ischaemic disease appears to be common in patients with HFmrEF: in fact, an ischaemic comorbidity burden higher than in HFpEF but similar to that in HFrEF has been reported for HFmrEF almost worldwide.4,5,20,24,28,29 This relatively high amount of concordant data on the higher prevalence of ischaemic heart disease in HFmrEF than in HFpEF suggests that a significant percentage of HFmrEF patients may represent a group in the early phase after an ischaemic event, a clinical picture that is similar to that of HFpEF but enhanced by a significant ischaemic burden.

Medical Therapy

The main controversies regarding therapeutic options in HFmrEF include which therapy is best and how to decide whether to maintain, modulate or interrupt medical treatment in HFmrEF patients.

The CHARM study showed that candesartan may reduce cardiovascular (CV) and HF events in HFmrEF (7.4 versus 9.7 per 100 patient years; HR 0.76; 95% CI [0.61–0.96]; p=0.02).22 Similar findings have been reported in studies of beta-blockers. For example, Cleland et al. reported a reduction in CV death in HF patients in sinus rhythm and with LVEF between 40% and 49% treated with beta-blockers compared with placebo (HR 0.48; 95% CI [0.24–0.97]; p=0.04) and improved LV systolic function.30 The Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) study demonstrated a decrease in HF hospitalisations in patients treated with spironolactone, with the greatest benefit observed in those with LVEF ranging from 45% to 55%.31 In another recent study, spironolactone use at discharge after an acute HF episode was associated with better long-term outcomes.32 A retrospective analysis of the Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) suggested a slightly higher decrease in CV death and HF hospitalisation in HFmrEF than HFpEF patients.33

However, the most fascinating question that remains unanswered is whether specific treatments in HFmrEF patients could be associated with the transition to preserved or reduced LVEF.

Predictors of LVEF Transition

LVEF transition in HF patients is a critical turning point because it may represent a spontaneous or therapy-induced improvement in the natural history of the disease, and therefore in the prognosis, or a possible point of no return towards a decline in the condition.34 For this reason, it is mandatory that the clinical picture of every HFmrEF patient seen is carefully examined so that the evolution of the condition can be predicted as much as possible. Indeed, because HF classification is derived from an artificial arbitrary construct based on EF thresholds, patients in the HFmrEF cohort are part of a continuum of known heterogeneous pathophysiologies.

Main Determinants of Transition from Heart Failure

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Predictors of transition from HFmrEF towards either HFpEF (and recovery) or HFrEF are shown in Figure 1.

Predictors of LVEF Improvement

It is clear that the frequency and degree of LVEF improvement depend primarily on the cause of HF. For example, patients with Takotsubo cardiomyopathy often present a rapid improvement towards normal LVEF values, even in the absence of medical therapy, and have a good long-term prognosis.35,36 Patients with acute myocarditis, who survive the critical phase, frequently exhibit LVEF recovery and excellent outcomes.37,38 Peripartum cardiomyopathy, once excluded from the group of genetically determined dilated cardiomyopathies, is another type of HF that has a satisfactory rate of recovery towards normal LVEF values.39

Significant rates of LVEF improvement to values in the preserved range have been reported when considering causes of recent onset (<6 months) HF, such as tachycardia- and hyperthyroidism-induced cardiomyopathy.40

Similarly, the duration of HF is a primary factor predicting HF transition: in both HFmrEF and HFrEF, patients with long-standing HF show low rates of LVEF improvement.41

Systemic hypertension, AF, lower NYHA functional class (I–II) and younger age (<65 years) have been reported as clinical features associated with LVEF recovery to preserved values.42–44 It seems reasonable to suggest that specific treatment of comorbidities should be addressed first, whenever possible. It is also clear that in patients with HFmrEF, uncontrolled hypertension is one of the main determinants of hospitalisation for HF: therefore, extended use of angiotensin II receptor blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors from the early phase of the disease may reduce the risk of LVEF decline.

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) is a milestone treatment in HFrEF, with a significant proportion of patients showing improvements in LVEF to values comparable with the phenotype of HFmrEF following implantation of a CRT device, with only a minority, the so called ‘super-responders’, showing improvements in LVEF to values >50%.45,46

This highlights two important factors, namely the main role of LV dyssynchrony in fuelling LV deterioration and the importance of HF therapies in reversing different HF phenotypes according to individual patient’s responses and their adherence to available therapies. Some patients who exhibit left bundle branch block (LBBB) improve less on optimal medical therapy alone and often present mid-range EF.47 This association of LBBB and HFmrEF raises the question as to whether this cohort of patients may benefit significantly from expanding the indications for implantation of a CRT device to LVEF >35%, particularly in the absence of reasons other than LBBB itself as the cause of LV dysfunction.48

It has been suggested that patients with a history of HFrEF and a subsequent improvement in LVEF, which reclassifies them as HFmrEF, should be treated by maintaining all HFrEF therapies at the maximum tolerated dose.49 In particular, an important step towards clinical and prognostic improvement has come from the introduction of new therapeutic options, namely an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Many studies have shown improvement in the main echocardiographic parameters in patients with HFrEF after the introduction of ARNI.50,51 The benefits in terms of prognosis, rehospitalisation and quality of life offered by ARNI suggest that therapy initiated at the maximum tolerated dose, during the HFrEF stage, has to be continued at the same dosage, and should be down-titrated only if acute kidney failure or severe hypotension occur.52,53 In the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON-HF) trial, ARNI failed to reduce the primary composite endpoint of total hospitalisations for HF and CV death in patients with HF and LVEF ≥45%.54 However, when data from Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF; eligibility criterion LVEF ≤40%; n=8,399) and PARAGON-HF (eligibility criterion LVEF ≥45%; n=4,796) were combined in a prespecified pooled analysis, the therapeutic effects of sacubitril/valsartan (ARNI) compared with a renin–angiotensin system inhibitor alone varied according to LVEF, but treatment benefits, particularly for heart failure hospitalisations, appeared to extend to patients with HFmrEF.55

The attention to HF care in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) has increased markedly after results were published from three randomised clinical trials evaluating the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors.56–58 Three different SGLT2 inhibitors have been demonstrated to prevent the development of HF and prolong life in patients with T2D. More recently, data have been presented for patients with HFrEF and with and without T2D. In that study, patients who received the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin had a lower risk of worsening HF or death from CV causes and better symptom scores than those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.59 Although at the present time we lack specific studies in the HFmrEF population, SGLT2 inhibitors represent a promising class of drugs for the treatment of HF in the future.60

Predictors of LVEF Deterioration

Among 174 HF patients with EF ≥45% who were on beta-blockers and were followed for 4–10.8 years, older age (mean [±SD] 56 ± 12 years), lower heart rate (59 ± 9 BPM), the presence of complete LBBB and a larger LV end-diastolic diameter (60 ± 7 mm) were reported as independent predictors of LVEF deterioration.61

LVEF deterioration and the absence of a transition towards recovered HF have been associated with an ischaemic aetiology of HF and with comorbid diabetes.43,62 These results, together with the reported connection between both a non-ischaemic origin of HF and the absence of diabetes and LVEF improvement, strongly suggest the importance of early, aggressive treatment of diabetes and ischaemic heart disease in order to defuse their detrimental effects on the benefit of optimised HF therapy.63

Recent studies have proved that genetic factors can help physicians predict the evolution of LVEF and HF. In fact, dilated cardiomyopathies with lamin mutations, certain polymorphisms in beta-1-adrenoceptors and angiotensin-converting enzyme receptors are all associated with progressive LV dysfunction in chronic HF patients.64 Moreover, physicians need to be aware that HFmrEF resulting from deterioration of LVEF previously >50% is associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalisation, as reported recently.65

In summary, certain clinical characteristics may help predict LVEF transition. However, none of these factors has a predictive value high enough to suffice as a prognostic tool on its own. Furthermore, classification efforts are hampered by a lack of homogeneity in study populations for the characteristics mentioned above. Therefore, as research continues into the mechanisms underlying LVEF variation, we believe that a tailored approach to individual patients that encompasses HF aetiology, duration, comorbidities, response and adherence to therapies is the optimal way to manage these patients (Figure 2).

Data From the Italian Network on Congestive Heart Failure Registry

Of the 7,559 congestive heart failure (CHF) patients enrolled between 2009 and 2016 in the Italian Network on Congestive Heart Failure (IN-CHF) registry,66 data were analysed for 1,414 who had a second echocardiographic examination during a phase of clinical stability at a median time of 6 months since recruitment. Patients were classified according to baseline EF as either HFpEF (n=220), HFmrEF (n=335) or HFrEF (n=859). Clinical characteristics, therapy, transition to a different HF phenotype and long-term mortality are reported in Table 1. HFmrEF patients were more similar to HFrEF than HFpEF patients and, during follow-up, showed greater variability than patients in the other two groups. At the second echocardiographic examination, only 60% of patients with HFmrEF at the time of enrolment stayed in the same group (compared with 71% of HFrEF and 82% of HFpEF patients). When patients were reclassified according to EF at the follow-up echocardiogram, mortality after a mean (±SD) follow-up of 36 ± 28 months was 3.7%, 8.1% and 6.4% for patients in the HFmrEF, HFrEF and HFpEF groups, respectively (p=0.01).67

When considering EF changes over time in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF, variables associated with reclassification to HFmrEF or full EF recovery at follow-up differed between baseline phenotypes.67 Multivariable logistic regression revealed that a lower likelihood of recovery was associated with ischaemic aetiology in both the HFmrEF (OR 0.66; 95% CI [0.19–0.68]) and HFrEF (OR 0.46; 95% CI [0.33–0.64]) groups, as well as with NYHA Class III–IV in the HFrEF group (OR 0.57; 95% CI [0.38–0.68]). Conversely, in the HFmrEF group, a history of HF <6 months (OR 2.44; 95% CI [1.76–3.39]) and AF (OR 2.66; 95% CI [1.37–5.17]) independently predicted phenotype transition or full recovery.67

These data suggest that clinical studies on HFmrEF should consider its peculiar temporal trend to possible transition into either HFrEF or HFpEF, with associated changes in mortality.

Prognosis

There is considerable published data concerning prognosis in HFmrEF. However, the information available regarding outcomes and prognosis does not apply to acute HF episodes. Moreover, whether HFmrEF patients obtain the same benefit from the disease-modifying drugs in the HFrEF armamentarium remains unclear.

Large registries report 1-year mortality of 7.6% for HFmrEF, which is intermediate between the 1-year mortalities reported for HFpEF (6.3%) and HFrEF (8.8%), and a 5-year mortality of 75% among HFmrEF patients aged ≥65 years.4,68 No difference in mortality between the three HF phenotypes was demonstrated in the Trial of Intensified (BNP-guided) versus standard (symptom-guided) Medical therapy in Elderly patients with Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF) cohort after a median follow-up of 794 days.28 In the meta-analysis of Altaie et al., only a few outcomes differed between HF phenotypes: patients with HFmrEF had a lower rate of all-cause death than those with HFrEF, whereas patients in the HFpEF group had a higher rate of cardiac mortality than those in the HFmrEF group.69 With regard to sudden cardiac death, Pascual-Figaz et al. revealed a higher risk for HFmrEF than HFpEF patients (HR 2.73; 95% CI [1.07–6.98]; p=0.036).70 Conversely, non-cardiac mortality was higher among patients with HFrEF than HFmrEF.70 In the CHARM program, HFmrEF patients had a lower HRs for cardiac and all-cause mortality than HFrEF patients.22

Multimodality Imaging Evaluation for Correct Diagnosis

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Clearly, LVEF transitions have a crucial role in terms of prognosis: lower mortality, hospitalisation for HF and better functional capacity characterise HFmrEF patients moving towards HFpEF compared with those with HFrEF and HFmrEF who did not transition.71–73 A sharp decline in the composite outcome of death, LV assist device implantation or heart transplantation has been reported even in patients transitioning from HFrEF to HFmrEF compared with HFrEF or HFmrEF without LVEF recovery during follow-up.71

Conversely, decreases in LVEF are correlated with a worse outcome: HFmrEF transitioning to HFrEF is associated with higher mortality, rates of heart transplantation and hospitalisation for acute HF than HFmrEF with no decrease in LVEF.4,74

Nonetheless, HF patients with recovered LVEF should not be considered as ‘healed’, and a complete clinical examination is mandatory. In particular, abnormal concentrations of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), uric acid and troponin I, which denote persistent neurohormonal activation, increased oxidative stress and cardiomyocyte injury, have been associated with a persistent risk of hospitalisation for HF and clinical instability, despite LVEF recovery.41,75

Clinical Characteristics, Therapy, Transition

Open in new tab
Open ppt

These findings suggest that, despite improvements or recovery in LVEF, a continuous comprehensive evaluation through biomarkers and using modern imaging tools is needed in order to carefully plan the timing of clinical follow-up and the eventual long-term continuation of medical therapies.

Conclusion

Since its classification as a separate entity, it has become increasingly clear that HFmrEF mostly represents a transition phenotype, either to full recovery or to a downhill course of worsening systolic function. Differences in the prevalence of risk factors and underlying aetiology may generate different triggers of transition to either preserved or reduced EF, and thus different outcomes.

A multiparametric approach to accurately profile HFmrEF is needed to predict disease evolution; moreover, we stress the importance of considering complete multimodal imaging evaluation (i.e., 3D, GLS and eventually CMR) to carefully evaluate LVEF beyond the physiological and inherent technical limitations of 2D echocardiography. Evidence-based therapies, particularly for patients with EF <45%, and aggressive treatment of comorbidities are crucial for favourable transitions. Trials of future treatments need to take into account the highly dynamic nature of this peculiar phenotype.

References
  1. McMurray JJV, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, et al. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1787–47.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation 2013;128:e240–327.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2129–200.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Kapoor JR, Kapoor R, Ju C, et al. Precipitating clinical factors, heart failure characterization, and outcomes in patients hospitalized with heart failure with reduced, borderline, and preserved ejection fraction. JACC Heart Fail 2016;4:464–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Lofman I, Szummer K, Dahlstrom U, et al. Associations with and prognostic impact of chronic kidney disease in heart failure with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:1606–14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Hsu JJ, Ziaeian B, Fonarow GC. Heart failure with mid-range (borderline) ejection fraction: clinical implications and future directions. JACC Heart Fail 2017;5:763–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Lyu S, Yu L, Tan H, et al. Clinical characteristics and prognosis of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: insights from a multi-centre registry study in China. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2019;19:209.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Farré N, Lupon J, Roig E, et al. Clinical characteristics, one-year change in ejection fraction and long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: a multicentre prospective observational study in Catalonia (Spain). BMJ Open 2017;7:e018719.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Rastogi A, Novak E, Platts AE, Mann DL. Epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical outcomes for heart failure patients with a mid-range ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:1597–605.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Mesquita ET, Barbetta LMDS, Correia ETO. Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction – state of the art. Arq Bras Cardiol 2019;112:784–90 [in Portuguese].
    Crossref
  11. Thavendiranathan P, Grant AD, Negishi T, et al. Reproducibility of echocardiographic techniques for sequential assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and volumes: application to patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy. Am J Coll Cardiol 2013;61:77–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Rodríguez-Zanella H, Muraru D, Secco E, et al. Added value of 3- versus 2-dimensional echocardiography left ventricular ejection fraction to predict arrhythmic risk in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2019;12:1917–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Marwick TH, Shah SJ, Thomas JD. Myocardial strain in the assessment of patients with heart failure: a review. JAMA Cardiol 2019;4:287–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Potter E, Marwick TH. Assessment of left ventricular function by echocardiography: the case for routinely adding global longitudinal strain to ejection fraction. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2018;11:260–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Adamo L, Perry A, Novak E, et al. Abnormal global longitudinal strain predicts future deterioration of left ventricular function in heart failure patients with a recovered left ventricular ejection fraction. Circ Heart Fail 2017;10:e003788.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Bshiebish HAH, Al-Musawi AH, Khudeir SA. Role of global longitudinal strain in assessment of left ventricular systolic function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Saudi Heart Assoc 2019;31:100–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Masci PG, Schuurman R, Andrea B, et al. Myocardial fibrosis as a key determinant of left ventricular remodeling in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: a contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2013;6:790–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Kanagala P, Cheng ASH, Singh A, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic utility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction - implications for clinical trials. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2018;20:4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Doeblin P, Hashemi D, Tanacli R, et al. CMR tissue characterization in patients with HFmrEF. J Clin Med 2019;8:1877.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Chioncel O, Lainscak M, Seferovic PM, et al. Epidemiology and one-year outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved, mid-range and reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:1574–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Lam CSP, Solomon SD. The middle child in heart failure: heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (40–50%). Eur J Heart Fail 2014;16:1049–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Lund LH, Claggett B, Liu J, et al. Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction in CHARM: characteristics, outcomes and effect of candesartan across the entire ejection fraction spectrum. Eur J Heart Fail 2018;20:1230–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. He KL, Burkhoff D, Leng WX, et al. Comparison of ventricular structure and function in Chinese patients with heart failure and ejection fractions >55% versus 40% to 55% versus <40%. Am J Cardiol 2009;103:845–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Gottdiener JS, McClelland RL, Marshall R, et al. Outcome of congestive heart failure in elderly persons: influence of left ventricular systolic function. The Cardiovascular Health Study. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:631–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Streng KW, Nauta JF, Hillege HL, et al. Non cardiac comorbidities in heart failure with reduced, mid-range and preserved ejection fraction. Int J Cardiol 2018;271:132–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Wang N, Hales S, Barin E, Tofler G. Characteristics and outcome for heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2018;19:297–303.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Savarese G, Settergren C, Schrage B, et al. Comorbidities and cause-specific outcomes in heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: a blueprint for clinical trial design. Int J Cardiol 2020; 313:76–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Rickenbacher P, Kaufmann BA, Maeder MT, et al. Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: a distinct clinical entity? Insights from the trial of intensified versus standard medical therapy in elderly patients with congestive heart failure (TIME-CHF). Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:1586–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Ibrahim NE, Song Y, Cannon CP, et al. Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: characterization of patients from the PINNACLE registry®. ESC Heart Fail 2019;6:784–92.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Cleland JGF, Bunting KV, Flather MD, et al. Beta-blockers for heart failure with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: an individual patient-level analysis of double-blind randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2018;39:26–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Solomon SD, Claggett B, Lewis EF, et al. Influence of ejection fraction on outcomes and efficacy of spironolactone in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur Heart J 2016;37:455–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Ezan N, Matsushima S, Tomomi I, et al. Spironolactone use is associated with improve outcomes in heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction. ESC Heart Fail 2020;7:339–47.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Abdul-Rahim AH, Shen L, Rush CJ, et al. Effect of digoxin in patients with heart failure and mid-range (borderline) left ventricular ejection fraction Eur J Heart Fail 2018;20:1139–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Tayal U, Prasad SK. Myocardial remodelling and recovery in dilated cardiomyopathy. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis 2017;6:2048004017734476.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Margonato D, Abete R, Di Giovine G, et al. Takotsubo cardiomyopathy associated with Kounis syndrome: a clinical case of the ‘ATAK complex’. J Cardiol Cases 2019;20:52–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Sharkey SW, Windenburg DC, Lesser JR, et al. Natural history and expansive clinical profile of stress (Tako-Tsubo) cardiomyopathy. Am J Coll Cardiol 2010;55:333–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Levenson JE, Kaul DR, Saint S, et al. Clinical problem-solving. A shocking development. N Engl J Med 2013;369:2253–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Caforio AL, Pankuweit S, Arbustini E, et al. Current state of knowledge on aetiology, diagnosis, management, and therapy of myocarditis: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2636–48, 2648a–d.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Hilfiker-Kleiner D, Haghikia A, Nonhoff J, Bauersachs J. Peripartum cardiomyopathy: current management and future perspectives. Eur Heart J 2015;36:1090–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Givertz MM, Mann DL. Epidemiology and natural history of recovery of left ventricular function in recent onset dilated cardiomyopathies. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2013;10:321–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Basuray A, French B, Ky B, et al. Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: clinical description, biomarkers, and outcomes. Circulation 2014;129:2380–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Cioffi G, Stefenelli C, Tarantini L, Opasich C. Chronic left ventricular failure in the community: prevalence, prognosis, and predictors of the complete clinical recovery with return of cardiac size and function to normal in patients undergoing optimal therapy. J Card Fail 2004;10:250–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Lupón J, Díez-López C, de Antonio M, et al. Recovered heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and outcomes: a prospective study. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:1615–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Merlo M, Pyxaras SA, Pinamonti B, et al. Prevalence and prognostic significance of left ventricular reverse remodeling in dilated cardiomyopathy receiving tailored medical treatment. Am J Coll Cardiol 2011;57:1468–76.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Ruwald MH, Solomon SD, Foster E, et al. Left ventricular ejection fraction normalization in cardiac resynchronization therapy and risk of ventricular arrhythmias and clinical outcomes: results from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. Circulation 2014; 130:2278–86.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. António N, Teixeira R, Coelho L, et al. Identification of ‘super-responders’ to cardiac resynchronization therapy: the importance of symptom duration and left ventricular geometry. Europace 2009; 11:343–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Sze E, Samad Z, Dunning A, et al. Impaired recovery of left ventricular function in patients with cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block. Am J Coll Cardiol 2018;71:306–17.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Tawfik Ghanem M, Allam LE, Samir Ahmed R. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and moderately reduced ejection fraction: could it trigger a super-response? Indian Heart J 2019;71:229–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Halliday BP, Wassall R, Lota AS, et al. Withdrawal of pharmacological treatment for heart failure in patients with recovered dilated cardiomyopathy (TRED-HF): an open-label, pilot, randomized trial. Lancet 2019;393:61–73.
    PubMed
  50. Martens P, Beliën H, Dupont M, et al. The reverse remodeling response to sacubitril/valsartan therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Cardiovasc Ther 2018;36:e12435.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Mazzetti S, Scifo C, Abete R, et al. Short-term echocardiographic evaluation by global longitudinal strain in patients with heart failure treated with sacubitril/valsartan. ESC Heart Fail 2020;7:964–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Pharithi RB, Ferre-Vallverdu M, Maisel AS, et al. Sacubitril–valsartan in a routine community population: attention to volume status critical to achieving target dose. ESC Heart Fail 2020;7:158–66.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Bozkurt B, Ezekowitz J. Substance and substrate: LVEF and sex subgroup analyses of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials. Circulation 2020;141:362–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Anand IS, et al. Angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2019; 381:1609–20
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Solomon SD, Vaduganathan M, Claggett BL, et al. Sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of ejection fraction in heart failure. Circulation 2019;141:352–61
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Zinman B, Lachin JM, Inzucchi SE. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1094 [Comment].
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2017;377:644–57.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, et al. Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;380:347–57.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1995–2008.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Lan NSR, Fegan PG, Yeap BB, Dwivedi G. The effects of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on left ventricular function: current evidence and future directions. ESC Heart Fail 2019;6:927–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. de Groote P, Fertin M, Duva Pentiah A, et al. Long-term functional and clinical follow-up of patients with heart failure with recovered left ventricular ejection fraction after β-blocker therapy. Circ Heart Fail 2014;7:434–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Park J-S, Kim J-W, Seo K-W, et al. Recurrence of left ventricular dysfunction in patients with restored idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Clin Cardiol 2014;37:222–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Rigolli M, Cicoira M, Bergamini C, et al. Progression of left ventricular dysfunction and remodelling under optimal medical therapy in CHF patients: role of individual genetic background. Cardiol Res Pract 2011;2011:798658.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Jansweijer JA, Nieuwhof K, Russo F, et al. Truncating titin mutations are associated with a mild and treatable form of dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:512–21.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Brann A, Janvanishstaporn S, Greenberg B. Association of prior left ventricular ejection fraction with clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with midrange ejection fraction. JAMA Cardiol 2020; epub ahead of press.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Opasich C, Rapezzi C, Lucci D, et al. Precipitating factors and decision-making processes of short-term worsening heart failure despite ‘optimal’ treatment (from the IN-CHF Registry). Am J Cardiol 2001;88:382–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. De Maria R, Macera F, Gorini M, et al. Heart failure with mid-range (HFmrEF) or recovered (HFrecEF) ejection fraction: differential determinants of transition. Eur Heart J 2019;40(Suppl 1):P320 [Abstract].
    Crossref
  68. Shah KS, Xu H, Matsouaka RA, et al. Heart failure with preserved, borderline, and reduced ejection fraction: 5-year outcomes. Am J Coll Cardiol 2017;70:2476–86.
    Crossref | PubMed
  69. Altaie S, Khalife K. The prognosis of mid-range ejection fraction heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ESC Heart Fail 2018;5:1008–16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  70. Pascual-Figal DA, Ferrero-Gregori A, Gomez-Otero I, et al. Mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction: Clinical profile and cause of death in ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure. Int J Cardiol 2017;240:265–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  71. Nadruz W Jr, West E, Santos M, et al. Heart failure and midrange ejection fraction: implications of recovered ejection fraction for exercise tolerance and outcomes. Circ Heart Fail 2016;9:e002826.
    Crossref | PubMed
  72. The Consensus Trial Study Group. Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure. Results of the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS). N Engl J Med 1987;316:1429–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  73. Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-preserved trial. Lancet 2003;362:777–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  74. McMurray JJV, Ostergren J, Swedberg K, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-added trial. Lancet 2003;362:767–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  75. Merken J, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Weerts J, et al. Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction. Am J Coll Cardiol 2018;72:1557–8.
    Crossref | PubMed