Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2021 Feb;37(2):503-508.
doi: 10.1007/s10554-020-02032-y. Epub 2020 Sep 21.

Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of patients with preserved versus mid-range ejection fraction

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of patients with preserved versus mid-range ejection fraction

Ibrahim Marai et al. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021 Feb.

Abstract

A wide range of ejection fraction (EF) thresholds have been used to categorize patients with heart failure (HF) with "preserved" EF. Our goal was to characterize the clinical and echocardiographic differences among patients with cardiac structural/functional alterations and mid-range EF (mrEF) (EF 40-49%) compared to preserved EF (pEF) (EF ≥ 50%), irrespective of HF. Patients with an EF ≥ 40% and echocardiographic evidence of structural alterations (left atrial enlargement and/or left ventricular hypertrophy) and/or functional alterations (evidence of diastolic dysfunction) were retrospectively selected. Patients with acute coronary syndromes and ≥ moderate left sided valvular diseases were excluded. Patients were divided according to EF to pEF group (n = 578) and mrEF (n = 86). Patients with mrEF were twice as likely to be men, had higher prevalence of hyperlipidemia, diabetes and smoking, compared to patients with pEF. History of coronary artery disease (CAD) was more frequent among mrEF (50% vs. 28%, p < 0.0001, respectively), and highest among the subgroup of patients with HF (83% vs. 35%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Patients with mrEF had increased LV mass index (131 ± 35 vs. 120 ± 26 g/m2, p < 0.001), LV end diastolic diameter (55 ± 5 vs 51 ± 3, p < 0.0001), mitral E to e' ratio (16 ± 7 vs. 14 ± 5, p = 0.001), and left atrial systolic diameter (44 ± 5 mm vs. 42 ± 4 mm, p = 0.01. respectively). Patients with mrEF demonstrated worse structural and functional echocardiographic alterations and were more likely to be men and to have CAD compared to patients with pEF.

Keywords: Diastolic dysfunction; Echocardiography; Heart failure; Mid-range ejection fraction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kitzman DW, Little WC, Brubaker PH, Anderson RT, Hundley WG, Marburger CT et al (2002) Pathophysiological characterization of isolated diastolic heart failure in comparison to systolic heart failure. JAMA 288:2144–2150 - DOI
    1. Zile MR, Baicu CF, Gaasch WH (2004) Diastolic heart failure–abnormalities in active relaxation and passive stiffness of the left ventricle. N Engl J Med 350:1953–1959 - DOI
    1. Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ et al (2003) Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial. Lancet 362:777–781 - DOI
    1. Kozakova M, Fraser AG, Buralli S, Magagna A, Salvetti A, Ferrannini E et al (2005) Reduced left ventricular functional reserve in hypertensive patients with preserved function at rest. Hypertension 45:619–624 - DOI
    1. Vinch CS, Aurigemma GP, Simon HU, Hill JC, Tighe DA, Meyer TE (2005) Analysis of left ventricular systolic function using midwall mechanics in patients > 60 years of age with hypertensive heart disease and heart failure. Am J Cardiol 96:1299–1303 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources