Understanding how patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) die provides insight into the natural history and pathophysiology of this complex syndrome, thereby allowing better prediction of response to therapy in designing clinical trials. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge surrounding mortality rates, modes of death, and prognostic factors in HFPEF. Despite the lack of uniform reporting, the following conclusions may be drawn from previous studies. The mortality burden of HFPEF is substantial, ranging from 10% to 30% annually, and higher in epidemiological studies than in clinical trials. Mortality rates compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) appear to be strongly influenced by the type of study, but are clearly elevated compared with age-and co-morbidity-matched controls without heart failure. The majority of deaths in HFPEF are cardiovascular deaths, comprising 51-60% of deaths in epidemiological studies and 70% in clinical trials. Among cardiovascular deaths, sudden death and heart failure death are the leading cardiac modes of death in HFPEF clinical trials. Compared with HFREF, the proportions of cardiovascular deaths, sudden death, and heart failure deaths are lower in HFPEF. Conversely, non-cardiovascular deaths constitute a higher proportion of deaths in HFPEF than in HFREF, particularly in epidemiological studies, where this difference may be related to fewer coronary heart deaths in HFPEF. Key mortality risk factors, including age, gender, body mass index, burden of co-morbidities, and coronary artery disease, offer some explanation for the differences in mortality rates observed across studies.--

Aim Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) is a cytokine highly expressed in states of inflammatory stress. We aimed to study the clinical correlates and prognostic significance of plasma GDF15 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs. reduced ejection fraction(HFrEF), compared with N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP), an indicator of haemodynamic wall stress. Methods Plasma GDF15 and NT‐proBNP were prospectively measured in 916 consecutive patients with HFrEF (EF <50%; n = 730) and HFpEF (EF ≥50%; n = 186), and measured again at 6 months in 488 patients. Patients were followed up for a composite outcome of death or first HF rehospitalization. Results Median GDF15baseline values were similarly elevated in HFpEF [2862 (1812 represent the 25th percentile and 4176 represent the 75th percentile) ng/L] and HFrEF [2517 (1555, 4030) ng/L] (P = 0.184), whereas NT‐proBNP was significantly lower in HFpEF than HFrEF (1119 ng/L vs. 2335 ng/L, P < 0.001). Independent correlates of GDF15baseline were age, systolic blood pressure, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, sodium, haemoglobin, creatinine, diuretic therapy, high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and NT‐proBNP (all P < 0.05). During a median follow‐up of 23 months, there were 379 events (307 HFrEF, 72 HFpEF). GDF15 remained a significant independent predictor for composite outcome even after adjusting for important clinical predictors including hsTnT and NT‐proBNP (adjusted hazard ratio 1.76 per 1 Ln U, 95% confidence interval 1.39–2.21; P < 0.001), regardless of HF group (Pinteraction = 0.275). GDF15baseline provided incremental prognostic value when added to clinical predictors, hsTnT and NT‐proBNP (area under receiver operating characteristic curve increased from 0.720 to 0.740, P < 0.019), with a net reclassification improvement of 0.183 (P = 0.004). Patients with ≥20% GDF156months increase had higher risk for composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.15–2.45; P = 0.007) compared with those with GDF156months within ± 20% of baseline. Conclusions The similarly elevated levels and independent prognostic utility of GDF15 in HFrEF and HFpEF suggest that beyond haemodynamic stress (NT‐proBNP), inflammatory injury (GDF15) may play an important role in both HF syndromes.

AimsCurrent heart failure (HF) guidelines highlight the importance of iron deficiency (ID) in HF. Whether HF itself or age-related comorbidities contribute to ID is uncertain, and previous data were limited to Western populations. We aimed to study the prevalence, clinical correlates, functional significance and prognosis of ID in HF patients, compared with community-based controls in a multi-ethnic Southeast Asian population. Methods and resultsIron status was assessed in 751 HF patients (age 62.0 ± 12.2 years, 75.5% men, 64.7% Chinese, 23.9% Malay, 10.2% Indian) and 601 controls (age 56.9 ± 10.4 years, 49.8% men, 70.9% Chinese, 21.5% Malay, 7.2% Indian). ID, defined as ferritin <100 μg/L or ferritin 100-300 μg/L and transferrin saturation (Tsat) <20%, was present in 39.3% of controls and 61.4% of HF [odds ratio (OR) 3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5-4.9, adjusting for clinical covariates]. Independent correlates of ID in HF were Indian ethnicity (OR 2.4 vs. Chinese, 95% CI 1.2-5.0), female gender (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.7-4.8), larger body mass index (OR 1.05/unit increase, 95% CI 1.01-1.1) and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 1.03/unit decrease, 95% CI 1.01-1.04). In a subset of 48 HF patients undergoing cardiopulmonary exercise testing, Tsat correlated with peak oxygen consumption ( = 0.53, P < 0.01), independent of baseline characteristics. The HF patients with Tsat <20% as well as anaemia showed the poorest event-free survival after adjusting for clinical covariates.