Aims Significant recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) occurs in a proportion of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We analysed outcomes, including mortality [all‐cause, cardiovascular (CV), HF‐related, and sudden death], and HF‐related hospitalizations in this HF‐recovered group. The primary endpoint was a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. Methods and results LVEF was assessed at baseline and at 1 year in 1057 consecutive HF patients. Patients were classified into three groups: (i) HF‐recovered: LVEF <45% at baseline and ≥45% at 1 year (n = 233); (ii) HF with preserved EF (HFpEF): LVEF ≥45% throughout follow‐up (n = 117); and (iii) HFrEF: LVEF <45% throughout follow‐up (n = 707). Mean follow‐up was 5.6 ± 3.1 years. HF‐recovered patients differed from HFrEF and HFpEF groups in demographic and clinical characteristics. The mean LVEF increase was 21.1 ± 10 points in HF‐recovered patients. Using the HF‐recovered group as a reference, the risks for the primary composite endpoint (n = 376), with non‐CV death as competing risk, for HFpEF and HFrEF groups were: hazard ratio (HR) 2.33 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60–3.39], P < 0.001 and HR 1.99 (95% CI 1.50–2.65), P < 0.001, respectively. All‐cause (n = 429), CV (n = 245), HF‐related (n = 127), and sudden death (n = 60) were significantly lower in HF‐recovered subjects relative to HFrEF (all P < 0.01). HF‐recovered patients also experienced less recurrent HF hospitalizations (P < 0.001). Conclusion One in four treated patients with HFrEF showed recovery of systolic function. HF‐recovered patients had significantly improved mortality and morbidity relative to HFpEF and HFrEF subjects. Further research is needed to identify optimal medications and device indications for HF‐recovered patients.

LVEF trajectories vary in HF depending on a number of disease modifiers, but an inverted U-shaped pattern with lower LVEF at both ends of the distribution emerged. A declining LVEF in the preceding period was associated with higher mortality.

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) is frequent and its prevalence is increasing. We aimed to evaluate the epidemiologic features of HF patients, the 1-year follow-up outcomes and the independent predictors of those outcomes at a population level.Methods and resultsPopulation-based longitudinal study including all prevalent HF cases in Catalonia (Spain) on December 31st, 2012. Patients were divided in 3 groups: patients without a previous HF hospitalization, patients with a remote (>1 year) HF hospitalization and patients with a recent (<1 year) HF admission. We analyzed 1year all-cause and HF hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. Logistic regression was used to identify the independent predictors of each of those outcomes. A total of 88,195 patients were included. Mean age was 77 years, 55% were women. Comorbidities were frequent. Fourteen percent of patients had never been hospitalized, 71% had a remote HF hospitalization and 15% a recent hospitalization. At 1-year follow-up, all-cause and HF hospitalization were 53% and 8.8%, respectively. One-year all-cause mortality rate was 14%, and was higher in patients with a recent HF hospitalization (24%). The presence of diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation or chronic kidney disease was independently associated with all-cause and HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Hospital admissions and emergency department visits the previous year were also found to be independently associated with the three study outcomes.ConclusionsOutcomes are different depending on the HF population studied. Some comorbidity, an all-cause hospitalization or emergency department visit the previous year were associated with a worse outcome.

Through the establishment of a cardio-oncology service, it is feasible to achieve high rates of cardiac optimisation and cancer treatment continuation.

In Catalonia, a large portion of the annual healthcare budget is devoted to HF patients. Unplanned hospitalization represents the main source of healthcare-related expenditure. The knowledge of how expenditure is distributed in a non-selected HF population might allow health providers to plan the distribution of resources in patients with HF.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to analyse baseline characteristics and outcome of patients with heart failure and mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (HFmrEF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40%–49%) and the effect of 1-year change in LVEF in this group.SettingMulticentre prospective observational study of ambulatory patients with HF followed up at four university hospitals with dedicated HF units.ParticipantsFourteen per cent (n=504) of the 3580 patients included had HFmrEF.InterventionsBaseline characteristics, 1-year LVEF and outcomes were collected. All-cause death, HF hospitalisation and the composite end-point were the primary outcomes.ResultsMedian follow-up was 3.66 (1.69–6.04) years. All-cause death, HF hospitalisation and the composite end-point were 47%, 35% and 59%, respectively. Outcomes were worse in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (LVEF>50%), without differences between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (LVEF<40%) and HFmrEF (all-cause mortality 52.6% vs 45.8% and 43.8%, respectively, P=0.001). After multivariable Cox regression analyses, no differences in all-cause death and the composite end-point were seen between the three groups. HF hospitalisation and cardiovascular death were not statistically different between patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF. At 1-year follow-up, 62% of patients with HFmrEF had LVEF measured: 24% had LVEF<40%, 43% maintained LVEF 40%–49% and 33% had LVEF>50%. While change in LVEF as continuous variable was not associated with better outcomes, those patients who evolved from HFmrEF to HFpEF did have a better outcome. Those who remained in the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups had higher all-cause mortality after adjustment for age, sex and baseline LVEF (HR 1.96 (95% CI 1.08 to 3.54, P=0.027) and HR 2.01 (95% CI 1.04 to 3.86, P=0.037), respectively).ConclusionsPatients with HFmrEF have a clinical profile in-between HFpEF and HFrEF, without differences in all-cause mortality and the composite end-point between the three groups. At 1 year, patients with HFmrEF exhibited the greatest variability in LVEF and this change was associated with survival.

Aims Current guidelines recommend sacubitril/valsartan for patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but there is lack of evidence of its efficacy and safety in cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). Our aim was to analyse the potential benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with CTRCD. Methods and resultsWe performed a retrospective multicentre registry (HF-COH) in six Spanish hospitals with cardiooncology clinics including all patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan. Demographic and clinical characteristics and laboratory and echocardiographic data were collected. Median follow-up was 4.6 [1; 11] months. Sixty-seven patients were included (median age was 63 ± 14 years; 64% were female, 87% had at least one cardiovascular risk factor). Median time from anti-cancer therapy to CTRD was 41 [10; 141] months. Breast cancer (45%) and lymphoma (39%) were the most frequent neoplasm, 31% had metastatic disease, and all patients were treated with combination antitumor therapy (70% with anthracyclines). Thirtynine per cent of patients had received thoracic radiotherapy. Baseline median LVEF was 33 [27; 37], and 21% had atrial fibrillation. Eighty-five per cent were on beta-blocker therapy and 76% on mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; 90% of the patients were symptomatic NYHA functional class ≥II. Maximal sacubitril/valsartan titration dose was achieved in 8% of patients (50 mg b.i.d.: 60%; 100 mg b.i.d.: 32%). Sacubitril/valsartan was discontinued in four patients (6%). Baseline Nterminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels (1552 pg/mL [692; 3624] vs. 776 [339; 1458]), functional class (2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6), and LVEF (33% [27; 37] vs. 42 [35; 50]) improved at the end of follow-up (all P values ≤0.01). No significant statistical differences were found in creatinine (0.9 mg/dL [0.7; 1.1] vs. 0.9 [0.7; 1.1]; P = 0.055) or potassium serum levels (4.5 mg/dL [4.1; 4.8] vs. 4.5 [4.2; 4.8]; P = 0.5). Clinical, echocardiographic, and biochemical improvements were found regardless of the achieved sacubitril-valsartan dose (low or medium/high doses). Conclusions Our experience suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is well tolerated and improves echocardiographic functional and structural parameters, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, and symptomatic status in patients with CTRCD.