+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Thromboembolisms in atrial fibrillation and heart failure patients with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) compared to those with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)



Thromboembolisms in atrial fibrillation and heart failure patients with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) compared to those with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)



Heart and Vessels 33(4): 403-412



Heart failure (HF) is classified into three clinical subtypes: HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF: EF ≥ 50%), HF with a mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF: 40 ≤ EF < 49%), and HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF: EF < 40%). These types often coexist with atrial fibrillation (AF). We investigated the rate of strokes/systemic embolisms (SSEs) in AF patients with HFpEF (AF-HFpEF) compared to that in those with HFrEF (AF-HFrEF: HFmrEF and HFrEF), and examined the independent predictors. We prospectively enrolled 1350 patients admitted to our hospital for worsening HF. We identified 301 patients with either AF-HFpEF (n = 129, 43%) or AF-HFrEF (n = 172, 57%). Compared to the patients with AF-HFrEF, those with AF-HFpEF were older and more likely to be female. Oral anticoagulant use was 63 vs. 66%, respectively. During a mean follow-up period of 26 months, 21 (7%) and 66 (22%) patients had SSEs and all-cause death, respectively. The crude annual rates of SSEs (3.9 vs. 2.7%, P = 0.47) were similar between the groups. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, an age ≥ 75 years (hazard ratio 2.14, 95% confidence interval 1.32-3.58, P < 0.01) and the plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level ≥ 341 pg/ml (hazard ratio 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.07-2.39, P < 0.05) were associated with SSEs. The EF was not an independent predictor of SSEs (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.04, P = 0.51). There were no significant differences in the rates of SSEs between AF-HFpEF and AF-HFrEF. Patients with HF and concomitant AF should be treated with anticoagulants irrespective of EF.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 060402321

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 29067492

DOI: 10.1007/s00380-017-1073-5


Related references

Atrial fibrillation is more troublesome in heart failure patients with preserved compared to those with reduced ejection fraction. International Journal of Cardiology 266: 155-156, 2018

Extraction of Ejection Fraction from Echocardiography Notes for Constructing a Cohort of Patients having Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF). Journal of Medical Systems 42(11): 209, 2018

Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid-range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Esc Heart Failure 5(4): 685-694, 2018

Effect of a 6-month pedometer-based walking intervention on functional capacity in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) and with preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction: study protocol for two multicenter randomized controlled trials. Journal of Translational Medicine 15(1): 153, 2018

Risk factors for rehospitalization in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction compared with reduced ejection fraction. Heart and Vessels 30(5): 595-603, 2016

How B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) and Body Weight Changes Vary in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Compared With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Secondary Results of the HABIT (HF Assessment With BNP in the Home) Trial. Journal of Cardiac Failure 22(4): 283-293, 2017

Physical Activity, Quality of Life, and Biomarkers in Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (from the NEAT-HFpEF Trial). American Journal of Cardiology 2019, 2019

Comparison of β-blocker effectiveness in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction versus those with reduced ejection fraction. Journal of Cardiac Failure 19(2): 73-79, 2013

Associations between atrial fibrillation and early outcomes of patients with heart failure and reduced or preserved ejection fraction. American Heart Journal 167(3): 369-375.E2, 2014

Different implication of elevated B-type natriuretic peptide level in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and in those with reduced ejection fraction. Echocardiography 32(4): 623-629, 2015

Tolvaptan Improves the Long-Term Prognosis in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction as Well as in Those With Reduced Ejection Fraction. International Heart Journal 57(5): 600-606, 2017

Effects of exercise on left ventricular systolic and diastolic properties in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction versus heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. Circulation. Heart Failure 6(3): 508-516, 2013

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. International Journal of Cardiology 232: 86-92, 2017

Comparison of the reliability of E/E' to estimate pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction versus those with reduced ejection fraction. International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 31(8): 1497-1502, 2016

Comparison of characteristics and outcomes of patients with heart failure preserved ejection fraction versus reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in an urban cohort. American Journal of Cardiology 113(4): 691-696, 2014