Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction has a better long-term prognosis than heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in old patients in a 5-year follow-up retrospective study.

BACKGROUND

The issue of whether prognosis is similar between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains unresolved. Because of the problem of inconsistency in the diagnostic criteria and because there is currently no lifesaving therapy available for HFpEF, it seems to be the right time to study the outcome of a clearly defined HFpEF compared with HFrEF in contemporary heart failure (HF) therapy. This study investigates 5-year-mortality and its prognostic factors in old patients with HFpEF compared with those with HFrEF.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study. Patients hospitalized at Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Ostra for HF were consecutively included between May 2007 and April 2008. Diagnosis were reviewed and re-evaluated for each patient. The outcome measure was all-cause mortality and collected from May 2007 and 2013.

RESULTS

Mean age of the study population (n=289) was 79±7years. One third of the HF cohort had HFpEF. When adjusted for age HFrEF patients had a 42% higher 5-year mortality than HFpEF. By logistic regression analysis age, female sex, pulmonary disease, renal dysfunction, loop diuretics and aldosterone receptor antagonist were negatively associated with prognosis in HFpEF, whereas angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs) and Statins were positive prognostic factors. In HFrEF age, atrial fibrillation, NT-proBNP and loop diuretics were negative predictive factors, while treated hypertension, percutaneous coronary intervention, ACEi/ARBs and beta-blockers were positive factors for survival.

CONCLUSION

HFpEF proved to have a better long-term prognosis than HFrEF and a distinct prognostic risk profile.