Cardiovascular magnetic resonance phenotyping of heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction. (26th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Brown, Louise A E; Wahab, Ali; Ikongo, Eunice; Saunderson, Chirstopher E D; Jex, Nicholas; Thirunavukarasu, Sharmaine; Chowdhary, Amrit; Das, Arka; Craven, Thomas P; Levelt, Eylem; Dall'Armellina, Erica; Knott, Kristopher D; Greenwood, John P; Moon, James C; Xue, Hui; Kellman, Peter; Plein, Sven; Swoboda, Peter P
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 24:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: 38
• Page End: 45
• Publication Date: 2022-10-26
• Subjects: heart failure -- mildly reduced -- ejection fraction -- cardiovascular magnetic resonance -- HFmrEF; Cardiovascular system -- Imaging -- Periodicals; Heart -- Imaging -- Periodicals; 616.10754
• DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jeac204
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2047-2404

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: The 2016 European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Guidelines defined a new category: heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) of 40–49%. This new category was highlighted as having limited evidence and research was advocated into underlying characteristics, pathophysiology, and diagnosis. We used multi-parametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to define the cardiac phenotype of presumed non-ischaemic HFmrEF. Methods and results: Patients ( N = 300, 62.7 ± 13 years, 63% males) with a clinical diagnosis of heart failure with no angina symptoms, history of myocardial infarction, or coronary intervention were prospectively recruited. Patients underwent clinical assessment and CMR including T1 mapping, extracellular volume (ECV) mapping, late gadolinium enhancement, and measurement of myocardial blood flow at rest and maximal hyperaemia. Of 273 patients in the final analysis, 93 (34%) patients were categorized as HFmrEF, 46 (17%) as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and 134 (49%) as heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Nineteen (20%) patients with HFmrEF had evidence of occult ischaemic heart disease. Diffuse fibrosis and hyperaemic myocardial blood flow were similar in HFmrEF and HFpEF, but HFmrEF showed significantly lower native T1 (1311 ± 32 vs. 1340 ± 45 ms, P < 0.001), ECV (24.6 ± 3.2 vs. 26.3 ± 3.1%, P < 0.001), and higher myocardial perfusion reserve (2.75 ± 0.84 vs. 2.28 ± 0.84, P < 0.001) compared with HFrEF. Conclusion: Patients with HFmrEF share most phenotypic characteristics with HFpEF, including the degree of microvascular impairment and fibrosis, but have a high prevalence of occult ischaemic heart disease similar to HFrEF. Further work is needed to confirm how the phenotype of HFmrEF responds to medical therapy. Graphical Abstract: