Mild systolic dysfunction in heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction >35%): baseline characteristics, prognosis and response to therapy in the Vasodilator in Heart Failure Trials (V-HeFT)

Abstract

Objectives: This analysis sought to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcome in heart failure with mild systolic dysfunction.

Background: Although heart failure with mild systolic dysfunction occurs commonly, this is an understudied area because clinical trials have usually excluded patients with ejection fraction >35%.

Methods: The 422 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=35% were compared with 172 with a left ventricular ejection fraction >35% in the Vasodilator in Heart Failure Trial (V-HeFT I), whereas in V-HeFT-II 554 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction </=35% were compared with 218 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction >35% for mortality and clinical care. For a left ventricular ejection fraction >35%, treatment with hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate was compared with prazosin and placebo therapy in V-HeFT I, and hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate was compared with enalapril in V-HeFT II for mortality, clinical course and change in physiologic variables: ejection fraction, plasma norepinephrine levels, ventricular tachycardia and echocardiographic variables.

Results: In both studies, patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction >35% differed principally in hypertensive history, higher functional capacity and radiographic and echocardiographic cardiac dimension from patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction </=35%, and plasma norepinephrine levels differed in V-HeFT II (p < 0.01). Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction >35% had a lower cumulative mortality than those with a left ventricular ejection fraction </=35% (p < 0.0001) and less frequent hospital admissions for heart failure (p < 0.014, V-HeFT I; p < 0.005, V-HeFT II). Although cumulative mortality and morbidity did not differ between treatment groups in V-HeFT I, enalapril decreased overall mortality versus hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate (p < 0.035) in V-HeFT II. For physiologic variables in V-HeFT II, enalapril decreased ventricular tachycardia at follow-up (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: In V-HeFT, heart failure with mild systolic dysfunction was associated with different characteristics and a more favorable prognosis than heart failure with more severe systolic dysfunction. Enalapril decreased overall mortality and sudden death compared with hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate. Prospective trials are needed to address therapy for heart failure with mild systolic dysfunction.