Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct Phenotypes

Traditionally, patients with heart failure (HF) are divided according to ejection fraction (EF) threshold more or <50%. In 2016, the ESC guidelines introduced a new subgroup of HF patients including those subjects with EF ranging between 40 and 49% called heart failure with midrange EF (HFmrE...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Alberto Palazzuoli, Matteo Beltrami
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-05-01
Series:Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2021.676658/full
id doaj-fcb893e3448745658b42e486382a4950
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fcb893e3448745658b42e486382a49502021-05-21T06:22:07ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine2297-055X2021-05-01810.3389/fcvm.2021.676658676658Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct PhenotypesAlberto Palazzuoli0Matteo Beltrami1Cardiovascular Diseases Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, Le Scotte Hospital University of Siena, Siena, ItalyCardiology Unit, San Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Florence, ItalyTraditionally, patients with heart failure (HF) are divided according to ejection fraction (EF) threshold more or <50%. In 2016, the ESC guidelines introduced a new subgroup of HF patients including those subjects with EF ranging between 40 and 49% called heart failure with midrange EF (HFmrEF). This group is poorly represented in clinical trials, and it includes both patients with previous HFrEF having a good response to therapy and subjects with initial preserved EF appearance in which systolic function has been impaired. The categorization according to EF has recently been questioned because this variable is not really a representative of the myocardial contractile function and it could vary in relation to different hemodynamic conditions. Therefore, EF could significantly change over a short-term period and its measurement depends on the scan time course. Finally, although EF is widely recognized and measured worldwide, it has significant interobserver variability even in the most accredited echo laboratories. These assumptions imply that the same patient evaluated in different periods or by different physicians could be classified as HFmrEF or HFpEF. Thus, the two HF subtypes probably subtend different responses to the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Similarly, the adaptation to hemodynamic stimuli and to metabolic alterations could be different for different HF stages and periods. In this review, we analyze similarities and dissimilarities and we hypothesize that clinical and morphological characteristics of the two syndromes are not so discordant.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2021.676658/fullejection fractionheart failure with mid-range ejection fractionphenotypebiomarkerssystolic function
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Alberto Palazzuoli
Matteo Beltrami
spellingShingle Alberto Palazzuoli
Matteo Beltrami
Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct Phenotypes
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
ejection fraction
heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction
phenotype
biomarkers
systolic function
author_facet Alberto Palazzuoli
Matteo Beltrami
author_sort Alberto Palazzuoli
title Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct Phenotypes
title_short Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct Phenotypes
title_full Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct Phenotypes
title_fullStr Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct Phenotypes
title_full_unstemmed Are HFpEF and HFmrEF So Different? The Need to Understand Distinct Phenotypes
title_sort are hfpef and hfmref so different? the need to understand distinct phenotypes
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
issn 2297-055X
publishDate 2021-05-01
description Traditionally, patients with heart failure (HF) are divided according to ejection fraction (EF) threshold more or <50%. In 2016, the ESC guidelines introduced a new subgroup of HF patients including those subjects with EF ranging between 40 and 49% called heart failure with midrange EF (HFmrEF). This group is poorly represented in clinical trials, and it includes both patients with previous HFrEF having a good response to therapy and subjects with initial preserved EF appearance in which systolic function has been impaired. The categorization according to EF has recently been questioned because this variable is not really a representative of the myocardial contractile function and it could vary in relation to different hemodynamic conditions. Therefore, EF could significantly change over a short-term period and its measurement depends on the scan time course. Finally, although EF is widely recognized and measured worldwide, it has significant interobserver variability even in the most accredited echo laboratories. These assumptions imply that the same patient evaluated in different periods or by different physicians could be classified as HFmrEF or HFpEF. Thus, the two HF subtypes probably subtend different responses to the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Similarly, the adaptation to hemodynamic stimuli and to metabolic alterations could be different for different HF stages and periods. In this review, we analyze similarities and dissimilarities and we hypothesize that clinical and morphological characteristics of the two syndromes are not so discordant.
topic ejection fraction
heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction
phenotype
biomarkers
systolic function
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2021.676658/full
work_keys_str_mv AT albertopalazzuoli arehfpefandhfmrefsodifferenttheneedtounderstanddistinctphenotypes
AT matteobeltrami arehfpefandhfmrefsodifferenttheneedtounderstanddistinctphenotypes
_version_ 1721432401703337984